The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
To clarify: I don't think this should be changed — see previous discussions. And, yes, you can edit if you wait long enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
What I should have said is: please don't change without consensus. We have had a lot of arguments about this, and the ensuing edits have produced a very long and complicated description of the government type. What we have at the moment is based on the Encyclopedia Britannica. We shouldn't change it unless we get a consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the section in media that speak about a Flash Drives for freedom, the American based organisation Human_Rights_Foundation project of smuggling in flash drives. I don't believe this is appropriate for a page on North Korea's media. It seems rather biases to have large sections on a country's media devoted to how much western media they do or do not receive. I mean, would it be appropriate if I edited the United States of America page to note about how US citizens don't tend to watch much films from the DPRK? Egaoblai (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The "Media" section is a mishmash of various things. Film has been added in, though I think there was a separate "Film" section in the past. This includes the sentence, "Western films like The Interview, Titanic, and Charlie's Angels are just a few films that have been smuggled across the borders of North Korea, allowing for access to the North Korean citizens". There is also a paragraph and a half about the international media coverage of North Korea, which is different again. I think all this information is worthwhile having somewhere, but this is the wrong place.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
A lot of this article treats DPRK (let's start with the name why not) as this weird alien culture that can only be understood by it's relationship to the USA. It's weird and unobjective.Egaoblai (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
North Korea has a socialist political system. A socialist political system is by definition a one-party system. A socialist political system is also by definition a republic... YOu can have a socialist political system even if you're not "socialist". But North Korea is socialist; its a "Juche socialist state" and the party is governed by the socialist ideology of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism.. Whatever socialism means to North Korea, its obviously very different
Again, North Korea has a socialist form of government. The party, the legislature, the government are all replicated from the Soviet Union, THey may have different names but the functions are the same... However, does the system work? Of course not, the Central Committee did not convene for a meeting in the period 1994-2011, a party congress did not convene in the period 1980-2016(?)... alas, Kim Jong IL was the only member of the Politburo Standing Committee in the period 1995-2010... Its obviously this is a broken system, and its meant to be broken because that ensure Kim family rule.
However, North Korea has a socialist system. It was introduced by the Soviets, and the system is still the same. The system may not be working, but formally that system is very much intact
alas, this is not an ideology discussion.. it is very possible (but would be very weird) to have a socialist system in a non-socialist country.
@Trust Is All You Need: I agree that North Korea has a socialist political system. I don't agree that North Korea's form of government could be characterized as a "socialist republic". It's quite simple: please point me to a reliable source that explicitly supports the assertion that "the form of government of North Korea is a socialist republic". There are established typologies of forms of governments that reliable sources follow. We should report what they say and not infer conclusions by original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I don't think it will be hard for me to find sources that say "Socialist republic" (Romania officially called itself just that)... Or are you arguing against the fact that all socialist systems have to be republics? Family rule, hereditary rights el cetra—thats what the Marxist–Leninist movement originally were opposed too... of course, then came Romania and North Korea... I could turn this question around; can you find sources that states the contrary? Or even better, can you inform me of one case in which a socialist form of government was not established as a socialist republic? As for the actual term socialist republic, it means the same thing as "socialist state".. Marxist–Leninists were interested in studying the state as a class dictatorship, and not what form that class dictatorship decided to take.. So socialist state does mean socialist republic, but the Marxist–Leninist use "socialist state" because state encompasses more than monarchy, republic - which is just the form which the class dictatorship decides to show themselves inn
... To be quite honest, in practice North Korea is a monarchy so I won't really argue over it! :P As I said over, North Korea has formally a socialist political system — in reality they have a monarchy. In a socialist political system the party would lead, but in North Korea the "Great Leader" (and only Kims can become great leaders) do. As long as the socialist system thing is linked somehow I'm finnne :)
And someone now is going to chime in and say North Korea isn't socialist. We've had this argument so many times. Can we discuss something more constructive?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the People's Republic of Korea the predecessor state to the DPRK?
So basically, North Korea is actually the successor to the People's Republic of Korea? I think since the U.S. occupation forces in the South banned the PRK in December 1945, the Soviet occupational authorities co-opted the PRK and its committees into the structure to what is now the DPRK. Any mention should be added. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)