Talk:North Korea

Dental cabinet

This seems like a nonstandard term to me, possibly borrowed from Russian. I can't edit but it would be nice to replace this with "dental office".

Fixed: changed it to "dental clinic". Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013

Please delete the following:

After Korea was divided by the UN, the two Korean powers both tried to control the whole peninsula under their respective governments. This led to escalating border conflicts on the 38th parallel and attempts to negotiate elections for the whole of Korea.[47] These attempts ended when the military of North Korea invaded the South on 25 June 1950, leading to a full-scale civil war. With endorsement from the United Nations, countries allied with the United States intervened on behalf of South Korea.

This senseless information could result in killing many people. Also nobody with brain in head could trust this information is not only one influencing people with ignorance about facts.

95.82.165.78 (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That content is referenced to what looks like a pretty reliable source. Do you want to have a look at it and tell us what you think? Also, do you have a source that tells a different story? HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Government

There's been a series of edits changing the description of government in the header box, so I'm opening the discussion here. My take is that among other things, it should primarily be described as a Juche state, consistent with the "Government and politics" section. This is the main ideology put forward by the state. Abstractematics (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to the Infobox. These matters are often problematic. Yes, Juche makes some sense here, but we won't use every word the government uses to describe itself and the country, such as Democratic, will we? I have a strong personal dislike for simplistic entries in Infoboxes. I prefer to encourage readers to look at the more detailed content in the article itself and draw their own conclusions. Others believe that every field in an Infobox that can be filled must be filled. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw a couple of edits changing the description to "socialist republic", which I don't think is adequate. Socialism doesn't get as emphasized by the state as Juche does, which the article's summary describes as the official ideology, and one that has replaced Marxism-Leninism. Since a Marxist-Leninist state is described as such in the box, I think it's appropriate that the same should apply for North Korea with its replacement ideology. Abstractematics (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Juche, self-reliance, is not really that distinctive. It is described by the regime as a development of Marxism-Leninism, and the regime continues to use Marxist-Leninist concepts (imperialism, socialism, central planning etc).--Jack Upland (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Chosin Reservoir

Does the Battle of Chosin Reservoir qualify as part of the "Korean War?" The fighting appears to have been between Western allies and China. Twillisjr (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs; the Western allies and China were both belligerents in the war and this battle was conducted as part of the larger war. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it belongs, just because the NKs didn't fight in every battle doesn't mean the battle wasn't part of the war. Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead needs to be shortened

The lead for this article is currently six long paragraphs, a lot of it filled with information that doesn't belong in a lead and are details that should be elaborated in the body. From my analysis it doesn't follow WP:LEAD, as it elaborates a little too much and it should ideally have only four paragraphs. A lot of people use the limit for lead length as being able to fit into the whole computer screen. I know there are parts of it we can remove for the sake of being more reader-friendly and less cluttered with detail, but my attempt to fix this was reverted. Cadiomals (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to talk. I tried removing and clipping a few sentences here and there, and merged some paragraphs while trying to keep the important points in. Perhaps more could be done? ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 03:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Words such as "totalitarian", "Stalinist", "authoritarian" and "dictatorship" should not be used in the infobox

It seems like everyone here wants to show the readers how bad North Korea is, by not improving the article and it's section on human rights abuses, but adding politically charged labels instead.... This discussion, on the very same subject, has taken place on the Soviet Union, East Germany, Ba'athist Iraq and the China talk pages, and I think it's time for it being taken here too. --TIAYN (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should contribute in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. North Korea may have an inconsiderate or controversial government, but it must remain neutral. These inputs could perhaps be noted throughout the article, though, under a controversy or reception section. TBrandley (T • C • B) 08:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe such information should probably be added in the ideology or the government section, but that's entirely you're choice ... It should contain a precise definition of what totalitarianism is before being used (since its not a word with one meaning, other than really bad,) ... As long as the word totalitarian is defined when used I'm happy. :) --TIAYN (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why some users think that "neutrality" somehow means "apathy". North Korea is a totalitarian and oppressive gov't. This plain fact belongs in the article. If you want to link "totalitarian" to totalitarianism, then by all means do so. Of course the means in which N Korea oppresses and subjugates its people should be described in the article (and not in a "controversy" section), but including a definition for the word "totalitarian" whenever it's used? What is that? ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 11:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many, extremely different definitions of what totalitarianism means... Other than that, the only thing totalitarianism means is bad. --TIAYN (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Care to enlighten us on these extreme differences? Seems to me there's a pretty basic criteria for what "totalitarianism" means. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Somebody insisting that Totalitarianism needs to be added, should read that article first. The term is described as Western anti-communist propaganda term that has been widely criticized. So no, it's not a neutral term. Human rights abuses in NK are detailed in this article even without the term Totalitarian. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a poor and jaded assessment of that article. It states the times that "totalitarianism" has been used; it's history of use. It does not state that it's a made up word invented by anti-communists as you so imply. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)