Talk:North Korea

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)

As a new contributor who cannot edit on this protected page, I would like to have the recent amendment to the "Worker's Party" principles involving the leadership of the nation and the "Worker's Party" becoming a hereditary position under the bloodline of the Kim family.

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)

The lead seems pretty tight to me now. Although all that detail in the first para on its borders seems a bit much, looking around, I see that this level of detail is par for the course in this type of article. True, it is longer than average at nearly 600 words. France, the UK, South Korea all come in at around 400 words. Only the US and Russia get in the range of 600. However, it could be argued that the DPRK is, due to its conflicted history and current situation, more complex than average, and so may require more ink to summarize. EMP (talk 15:00, 14 August 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)

Naapple, you are currently edit warring which is a blockable offense here at WP. As someone who is only active on WP for a mere year and whose edits are two thirds not on articles (~55% on talk pages)[1], you may not know that and therefore I for now refrain from reporting you. However you may want to consider listen to users with more experience[2][3]. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think totalitarian should be included, since while it's a tightly controlled country, it's not the only one. I would be more inclined to have more varying and specific description in the infobox if it was a historical article, instead of an article for a currently active state. Single-party states often have nondemocratic governments, so I think that suffices for the justified negative connotation. I'm mixed about including "hereditary dictatorship", since it's a de jure republic, and Kim Jong-il originally did not necessarily want family succession for the leadership. Abstractematics (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it described in reliable sources? Our opinions of the words don't really matter, sources do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources vary greatly - see here for examples - socialist, communist, not communist, Stalinist, totalitarian, nationalist, xenophobic, fascist, corporatist, monarchist, theocratic, military dictatorship, the list goes on. Way too many to include. What's certain is that it has a single national front dominated by the Worker's Party of Korea, and its self-asserted ideology is Juche. That's why those are included by default. Abstractematics (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Neo-Stalinism mentions that North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are at times mentioned as Neo-Stalinist in Western sources. This is not something that should make it to their infoboxes, but should probably be covered in sections or sub-articles concerning their political ideology. In North Korea's case, we have an article on the Juche ideology which attempts to cover its similarities with/or origins in: Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Corporatism, Nationalism, Monarchism, and Theocracy. It even includes a source which traces its ideological origins to guerrilla warfare. Perhaps we should attempt to better develop that article instead of edit-warring here? Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2013

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1296394/democratic-peoples-monarchy-korea-north-korea-changes-ruling-principles

As shown here, North Korea is now a Democratic Peoples' Monarchy. We should change the page to reflect that

They have not changed their name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The government system has still changed, which means an edit to the main infobox should happen? [Soffredo] 09:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems like it's a revision to the Worker's Party principles, not the state constitution. It doesn't look like it's a significant change to be noted. Are there other sources that confirm this? Abstractematics (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

North Korea is a communist state and this source does not prove any indication of anything otherwise. TBrandley (T • C • B) 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a communist state (which is widely disputed, discussed), it's a Juche state (which is not disputed, and is the most neutral).... A communist state does not establish a monarchy, China, Cuba and Vietnam are communist states. --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Communist state" is a bit of a silly term to begin with, since communism is an economic system, and authoritarianism is a political description for a certain type of government. In a theoretical "communist state", there is a utopia based on equal provisions without capital, however China is one of the most capitalistic societies currently on earth, moreso than many Western nations. In Australia I get free healthcare; in China, nothing is free. This is why I don't like it when people use the terms "Stalinist state", "communist state" or "capitalist state", because they are all loaded words popularised by the media which don't really make any sense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In pure Marxist theory, capitalism will be replaced by Socialism (Marxism) (just as Feudalism was replaced by capitalism), and when that is finished, socialism will be replaced by pure communism (see primary stage of socialism)... The idea that you can just establish a socialist economy is a purely Stalinist thought..... Thirdly, China is no way more capitalist friendly than the west.. The party has party committees in all private companies, all of China's largest companies are publicly owned, and the party machinery has the power to elect the CEOs of all private enterprises. It should also be noted they have an extremely regulated market and financial system, they have special economic zones which are less regulated, but with the exception of those China is tighly controlled economically... The myth that China is as market-friendly as the West is, well, wrong,... It's a reason why they always accuse the West of "market fundamentalism" ... For social safety, economic ownership, and the blah blah blah you either have to be a Soviet-inspired communist or a liberal socialist (social democracy for instance) of some sort (supporting capitalism, but trying to alleviate it's negatives), Marxism, in essence, is an analyzes of capitalism and social forces throughout history, and how interest groups exploit other with less power. Marxism doesn't view class through how much money an individual earns, but what position an individual holds in society (eg, if the guy is a principal (petty bourgeoise) or an ordinary teacher (proletariat)).... China is Marxist, Leninist and communist, but they are not Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists. --TIAYN (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I was referring more to how the media refers to governments and ruling regimes being "communist", despite it being an economic system. I'm not delving too deep into the more specialist aspects of Marxism-Leninism, it was a general comment on how people can often become confused with these terms. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You do make a valid point, but the term communist state does refer to a country like a dictatorship. North Korea must be similar, but it is much worse in terms of public opinion, as a Juche system. List of current communist states is inclusive of North Korea, where it states media refers to it as "communist". Either way, the government system has certainly not changed. I'll be very impressed if you can prove it has been, and I would happy be for the people's well-being. TBrandley (T • C • B) 04:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the point here is whether or not it's communist (and many sources reject that). The user above isn't saying we should change it. The point is that the given article isn't really giving reason to note a change in government, and I have yet to see the news verified in other sources. Abstractematics (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are some very clear changes; the military-first policy (which ment the country was ruled by Kim family through the military, that is, the National Defense Commission), that the Politburo and the party in general lost power after Kim Il-Sung's death and was super-ceded by the military (according to analysts, the opposite has happened now), the lack of Central Committee meetings (probably so as to not let other members of the elite to create power bases of their own), and the total lack of top-down communications by official means of communications in the party (which all Communist Party's have, and use), .... However, what defines a communist state is the overwhelming presents and power of the party, while the Workers' Party of Korea has presence, it does not have control.... The Kim family has control, but as an independent political entity which can think for itself, its dead (similar to the Ba'ath Party in Syria).... While I don't want to sound communist, but if they had been communist, the country had been a much better place, think of North Korea as either China, Laos or Vietnam.. Even Cuba is allowing the market (and it's not because Fidel has lost faith in communism), it's because it work's for the himself, the party (which is the ruling elite since it controls everything) and the people. In North Korea it the leader, the family, the military, the party and so the people, and the state/party ideology is more interested in keeping the sole leader in place than any other institutions... Institutions which may threaten family rule are weakened (for instance, the WPK was weakened when Kim Il-Sung died, and when Kim Jong-Il died the military, then the leading institution, was weakened in the favor of the party)... However, make no mistake, these institutions lose and win favor based, but never become real power institutions, since they work as nomenklatura networks and again not as an independent institution which is allowed to think for itself. .. Of course, when I mean think of themselves, I don't mean democracy of any kind, but even the Soviet party, and the present parties in China, Laos and Vietnam, are low ranking members allowed to criticize policy (they are not, however, allowed to call for a change in party leadership - which is the cornerstone of democratic centralism, when a decision is decided it stays until the next opportunity to change it).... In North Korea, you have a broken democratic centralism, considering that local bodies don't function as they should be, through it's lack, through the official means of communications, with the centre.. However, in contrast, the centre probably has a lot of contact with the bases.

What I'm saying is this, the organs and institutions which exists under a Soviet-communist state still exists (but which exists in nearly all one-party states), however, how these institutions interact with each others and so on have changed dramatically (these institutions are not behaving communists according to the definition, rather they are behaving dead)... The most important difference is this however, the power of the Workers' Party of Korea which currently has no independent power... This is what characterises a communist state, a party in which can act as an opposition to the leaders (this happened in the USSR in 1964 to Khrushchev, in post-1985 to Gorbachev, which has been a persistent problem for the ruling party elite in Vietnam since Le Duan took power , to Deng in the 1980s represented by Chen Yun, which occurred in North Korea in the 1950s, and which occurred throughout the Eastern Bloc in the 1980s, with the exception of Romania)... You could compare it to Stalinism, but the difference is, in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, everything was decided by the party (or more normally, by a party institution), this is not the case in North Korea, where important decisions are increasingly been made by either the Kim family in close doors, or through the National Defense Commission (through the military) or through the Politburo (but this shouldn't happen in a communist state, in a communist state all decisions are made by one or more party institutions; that's the hallmark complete, utter party rule without room for any opposition to the party)..... There is a case to be made that North Korea has more to do with Assad Syria, where the party exists but not as an indepenent creature from the Assad family, then the former communist states of Eastern Europe or the present ones. --TIAYN (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

At last, however, there is one markedly difference between the NK and the communist states (if you decide to don agree with others), the Kim family is an independent institution. Decisions are made within the Kim family, and which has practical consequences for the country as a whole... No other communist regime has had one family which controls everything (Romania under the Ceaușescus would probably have evolved into something similar, but it didn't since the regime collapsed their in 1989)... --TIAYN (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Usual illiteracy

... arising from amateur editors in Wikipedia.

"A small section of the Tumen River also lies along the border between the Russian Federation, following the river's thalweg."

Between the Russian Federation and *what*, exactly?

Ok, genius. By all means fix something that you think is wrong (that is what wikipedia is all about), after all, you did bother to read the article. But then to fix something it'd have to actually be broken, so allow me to alleviate your confusion with this funny sounding "thalweg" thing:

https://www.google.com/search?q=thalweg

That should clarify things. Congrats! You're a tad bit more knowledgeable than you were! You've got a way to go though!

Oh, and FYI, one definition of "illiteracy" as defined by merriam-webster is: the state of not having knowledge about a particular subject. Perhaps you should reflect on that.

∴ Naapple TALK|CON 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"most militarised", or not?

It depends completely upon which definition is used. The Wikipedia article referenced itself includes a number of different measures / definitions. By several of them the USA and China are more "militarised" than North Korea. Even so, these days, a simple count of the number of humans involved is increasingly irrelevant. It is the weaponry controlled by the military which correlates better with military strength.

"North Korea is the world's most militarized country, with a total of 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel."

This uses one definition, presumably to convey a particular impression intended by the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.89 (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro Section

I would like to see a line near the beginning of the article like this "The current government of North Korea is possibly the most diabolical, oppressive, and brutal regime in human history [or "that has continued from the 20th into the 21st century"]. It has been ruled by three generations of the same family, the Kims, for six decades." Anyone agree that a statement like this would be appropriate and could fit in somewhere in the intro section?csAge (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We tend to stay neutral. If we'd been writing back in the '30s, Nazi Germany would have been described as having "occasional, spontaneous, anti-semitic demonstrations." Rklawton (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, csAge, it would be absolutely inappropriate to add that line in, or a similar line. Wikipedia aims to be a neutral encyclopedia, and should not parrot CNN and the likes. You've essentially just listed a bunch of meaningless loaded words. Ever heard of the phrase "show, don't tell"? Instead of saying that something is X, how about explaining why? Using language such as "because of its high level of military funding in this sector (reference) and that sector (reference), it has been described as a heavily militarized state" is much more helpful and useful for the reader; otherwise, we'll just be stooping down to the level of propagandists swinging buzzwords around (What the hell is the word "diabolical" supposed to mean, anyway? Is it a subjective or an objective term? Why are we using subjective terms in an educational encyclopedia? Your proposed sentence is worse than anything that the KCNA has ever churned out, quite ironic isn't it?). --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)