Talk:North Korea/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 19

Why this page blocked?

How ironic this article is protected from outside interference...just like North Korea. It reads like manifesto written by useful idiots in the West. Maybe there should be more about the likes of Camp 22 that is North Korean reality not crap like this:

Education in North Korea is universal and free of charge (it is one of the most literate countries in the world, with an average literacy rate of 99%).[14] The country has a national medical service and health insurance system which are offered for free.[14] Housing and food rations traditionally have been heavily subsidized.[14] The means of production are owned by the state through state-run enterprises and collectivized farms.[14]

Wow happy place huh? This article is about neutral as the neutral zone. 86.160.110.149 (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You can see why it is protected in the logs. It attracts disruption by people who have an axe to grind. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you dispute about that extract and why? Do you have any citations to support you?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the last 2 sentences of the lead, I couldn't tell if I was reading about North Korea or Sweden. I've added a bit to the lead. Once you're autoconfirmed you may edit the page. Naapple (Talk) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That probably shows you should study some geography.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from using your e-penis to engage in discussion on wikipedia. Naapple (Talk) 18:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Practice what you preach.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay?

"North Korea has also developed a wide range of unconventional techniques and equipment, such as GPS jammers,[147] stealth paint,[148] midget submarines and human torpedoes,[149] a vast array of chemical and biological weapons,[150] and anti-personnel lasers.[151]"

I know its refernced but I dont believe a lot of it, GPS jammers and stealth paint ok, they have been around for years, but anti-personnel lasers and human torpedoes? (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Anti-personal lasers is easy, as in the sense that in its current form is nothing more than a laser that shines at eye level. Any laser pointer can actually do that. The real difficulties are power-mobility and use in combat. Laser needs power to cover a sufficient area to be useful and it needs to be compact to be able to move fast, because lasers are easy for missiles to home on. Then there is actual use, most modern armies already wear eye wear to protect against flash bangs and flying debris. So an abti-personal lasers system is of rather limited as it is.

Human torpedoes, used since WW2, first by the Japanese, then later experimented with by the British, (British pilots would 'bail out' before the torpedo hit. Nothing really new. And it didn't work then, and unlikely to work now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.204.114 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korean anti-personnel lasers are certainly not laser pointers, but military blinding laser weapons (ZM-87's). Soldiers do not wear eye-protection which defends against blinding lasers, or the light emitted by concussion grenades. Blinding lasers are illegal to use in warfare, but would certainly be useful in specific situations. Torpedo propulsion systems are much more reliable now, as are compact computerized inertial navigation systems, making the threat of a human torpedo much greater against merchant craft in limited maneuvering conditions. Did you just make all these criticisms up? You clearly have no experience with infantry weapons systems or undersea warfare.50.147.26.108 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


¿wdnfwdfeu — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3tr0 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Early 21st century section biased

A majority of this section deals with North Korea's foreign relations with the United States. And does not address their history. While this information is limited due to their dictatorship, this section does need clean up. It needs to be informational for the rest of the world and not a section that should be called U.S.-North Korean relations. 70.94.46.99 (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, however, sources detailing life inside the DPRK during the early 2000s is hard to come by these days. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Climate

The climate is described as a continental climate, which is defined as being due a "lack of significant bodies of water nearby". Is the Pacific Ocean not significant?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, are you challenging the Library of Congress article cited? If so, while wikipedia is (IMO) a decent place to get educated, the talk page on North Korea is hardly the place for a discussion on what exactly a continental climate is and why NK is classified as such by people more educated in the matter than you or I. Naapple (Talk) 03:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I reckon Jack has asked a good question, which shouldn't be dismissed so rudely. I am moderately well educated on climate matters and don't know the answer. The contradiction between the definition of "lack of significant bodies of water nearby" and the proximity of nearby ocean make for an interesting puzzle. Without even challenging what's in the article, I'd be interested in further explanation myself. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess "significant" in this case refers to the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea. However, those two seas are considered part of the Pacific Ocean, so it is an interesting dilemma. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Middle ages

Middle ages.

This should be shown as "Middle Ages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.233.141 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Naapple (Talk) 03:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Health Care in Lead

The idea that the quality of healthcare is "controversial" is laughable. No one is saying that North Korea has decent health care, not even North Korea from the sources I've seen. NK does claim their healthcare is free, which doesn't jive with outside sources we have, and has been noted in the lead.

As to the quote from the WHO official says something along the lines of NK being a "model for developing nations". It's hardly a endorsement of quality, and more importantly, as stated in the source for the citation given, it is clearly explained that the endorsement was to cater to North Korea, so that WHO could continue to access this impoverished nation and help these malnourished and broken people.

Again, there is no debate from anyone about the quality of healthcare in North Korea. From the several sources listed in the lead, it's made abundantly clear that these "hospitals" lack basic equipment, electricity, running water, and medicine. Doctors sell their drugs as soon as they get them. There's a first hand account of someone having their foot amputated without anesthetic. The only real debate on the quality of healthcare in North Korea is whether it's the worst in the world, or if there's some African nation that's got them beat.

Naapple (Talk) 00:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No electricity? I've never seen a NK hospital, but I've seen a NK metro station, trolley bus, funpark, and bowling alley, all these had electricity. Why would hospitals not have electricity?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a misreading of Wikipedia policy to give all points of view equal weight--i.e., to generate an artifical "controversy" by reference to North Korean official claims. The lead should just summarize the consensus of the best mainstream scholarship.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. Take it up with the guy who wrote the article I cited. Just to speculate, I bet Pyongyang, where the elite live and tourists visit, is great. They have mockup cities too for their propaganda. Maybe you can explain why we should take your personal conjecture over the cited article? Naapple (Talk) 03:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The intro includes this sentence:

Many hospitals lack basic medicine, equipment, running water, and electricity due to economic problems and minimal budget allocation; at approximately 1 dollar per person per year, lower than that of most African countries.

However, the citation does not back up this statement. The citation is a BBC report in which WHO officials who have visisted North Korean hospitals disagree with an Amnesty report which is based on defectors, some of who left NK a decade ago. I think WHO is a more reputable source. Amnesty International is not a recognised health organisation.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation exactly backs up this statement, practically word for word. What exactly is wrong with BBC or Amnesty International? Also, this "discrepancy" of NK hospital quality was already explained above. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the articles cited. It's all there if you read it. Naapple (Talk) 03:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WHO and AI disagree and both question each other's credibility. If only the elite live in Pyongyang, it must be a pretty big elite.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Who said only the elite live in Pyongyang? Also, if you use a colon you can indent properly in the talk page. You should generally indent under the comment you're replying to. See Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation for more info. Naapple (Talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good article

Hi there, I just wanted to say that this is a very fair and good article. I support the DPRK (to a certain degree), and I think you have very aptly balanced the very real human rights violations with the history and positive things for people living in North Korea, rather than painting it as a simple hellhole. Keep it up wikipedia 92.22.142.115 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Military - Weapons Manufacturing section

Weapons manufacturing section says that North Korea produced n number of AK-47 rifles. Doing a quick Google Image search (in accordance with WP:GOOGLE) for "north korean guns" came up with a number of pictures of AK-style rifles, but the magazine curve suggests to me that, rather than the 7.62×39mm AK-47, the military uses the 5.45×39mm AK-74 round. A number of pictures supporting my point and what I found:

Of course, the article says North Korea produced AK-47s, not that it necessarily uses what it produces, but one of the search results referred to the Type 88 as an "ultra rare North Korean-produced Type 88-1. Obviously, as these sources are mainly forum posts, they are not reliable, but I think "AK-47" should at least be generalized to "AK" or even "Kalashnikov-style" rifles until a reliable source can be found, if one exists.

Imadeausername! (talk·contribs) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, change it to Kalashnikov.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

==

I thought the numbers of domestically produced armaments looked suspiciously high, so I had a look at the source referenced. It seems pretty heavily biased, claiming amongst other things, that NK MiG 21s would be able to successfully take on F-14 and F-15 aircraft with machine guns only. The rationale given is that because Korea is quite a narrow country, the planes would all be fighting at close range and thus the MiGs would win because American Air-Air Missiles would get confused. It also claims NK artillery would be able to reliably sink carrier battle groups by firing certain numbers of missiles at them.

All in all, it's kind of a childish analysis, and it's not even clear what position the author of the report holds.

I'm not entirely sure what the wikipedia policy on biased sources is so I'm just posting this as a notification, but look for yourselves!

OneCatch (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea. I can't find anything on the "Director Center for Korean Affairs" or Han Ho Suk that doesn't lead directly to, or analyze the article. No main stream news sources are using it, except one (sorta) which showed that it doesn't jive with data from Global Firepower.
The article is a joke, it reads like propaganda and hold views clearly outside the mainstream such as comparison of tanks and other hardware.
I find it hard to believe NK is producing their own AK derivatives, given the Chinese have so many for cheap.
In time I'll rewrite the section. Naapple (Talk) 16:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The North Koreans as part of their juche theory do produce a lot of their own goods, no doubt contributing to their economic problems. As is well known, they have reverse-engineered a lot of Soviet rocketry. Many countries were given the blueprints for Kalashnikovs, and it is unbelievable that NK wasn't too. They probably could buy Soviet or Chinese weapons more cheaply than producing them themselves, but that doesn't prove they have.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not dismissing the figures given altogether. They could be partially or completely correct. But either way a better source is desirable given that these figures are being displayed on a few pages, and the only current source reads like top trumps. - OneCatch (different computer) 195.137.176.2 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

The following sentence is found in the article:

"It created the idea of a proxy war, where the two superpowers would fight in another country, forcing the people in that country to suffer most of the destruction and death involved in a war between such large nations."

This should be deleted for the following reasons:

1) It is completely inaccurate, there were many proxy wars before the Korean War. The Korean War did not "create the idea" 2) The editorial tone of the remarks about proxy wars are not relevant, accurate, or appropriate,

Marcel Samek (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you cite an example? Historically, empires didn't fight through proxy; they just attacked in their own name. The proxy war on the Korean Peninsula is something later repeated in instances like Vietnam. As I understand it, they're a product of nuclear weapons which didn't exist too much before the start of the Korean War. If 2 nuclear armed super powers fight directly with each other, it would escalate to nuclear war; hence the existence of proxy wars. Naapple (Talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The relevance of the proxy war concept is debatable. The USSR had a minor role, and the DPRK would have won if not for a massive intervention by the USA and its allies. With regard to earlier history, see List of proxy wars.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: as the discussion above indicates there is no consensus for the requested edit at this time. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Currently the article has the following:

According to a ranking published by Open Doors, an organization that supports persecuted Christians, North Korea is currently the country with the most severe persecution of Christians in the world.[265] Open Doors estimates that 50,000–70,000 Christians are detained in North Korean prison camps.[266] Human rights groups such as Amnesty International also have expressed concerns about religious persecution in North Korea.[267]

Can someone possibly tell the readership whether any influence seeks to change that situation?

How does Samaritan's Purse, an organization coordinated by Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, manage to operate in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Rammer (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Christian churches which conform to state policies operate in North Korea, with government approval. If you go there you can go to church. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's is even a religious (non-Christian) party in the People's Assemby.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Tone

A lot of this article refers to "claims" when citing official DPRK sources. Great, I think that's perfect, but how come only the DPRK is considered by wikipedia to be a biased and propogandistic source? I'd like editors to be conscious of this when they're editing other pages; every "official" claim is at least suspect enough to warrant a note that it is a "claim". 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

I completely agree. There's a special set of "North Korea rules". Everyone else gets the same Wikipedia policies, including the hallowed NPOV, including the Nazis just by the by. But not the DPRK. But then again it does have a hereditary monarchy, prisons, and malnutrition, so maybe it deserves the netizen nuking that it gets.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2013

In the "Division of Korea(1945)" sub-section under "History", the concluding sentence of the first paragraph does not have a period. 71.31.187.52 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality of this article worsening over time

...to the point that it now reads like a Conservapedia article. It needs to be completely rewritten, IMO. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. It'll be interesting to see a positive spin to one of (if not the) most oppressive and starving nations on the face of the earth. Naapple (Talk) 19:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
...see what I mean ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I say something factually incorrect? Is there something factually incorrect on this page? Naapple (Talk) 21:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No but you just showed how biased you were.... This article is blatant anti-North Korean, and from you're statement here, it seems that you believe that they don't deserve to be written about neutrally... Even if its the most repressive, and backward looking dictatorship, it does deserve to be written about neutrally. --TIAYN (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Define neutral. By all means, I only wish to represent the facts. The facts are that it's a "repressive and backward looking dictatorship". Seriously, if something's wrong with this article; if there's some missing facts then by all means fix and cite it. I won't stop you. If you think neutral means sounds good then you're dead wrong. Neutrality is expressing all the facts without weight or bias to any one viewpoint. So please, lay some facts on me. Naapple (Talk) 06:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no other article on Wikipedia that underlines so sharply the negative aspects of a country. The problem is not the presence of facts, the problem is how they have been formulated. Seriously,

Many hospitals lack basic medicine, equipment, running water, and electricity due to economic problems and minimal budget allocation; at approximately 1 dollar per person per year, lower than that of most African countries

This is valid for basically 2/3 of all countries in the world, yet it is accented so heavily on only in this article, and it's even in the intro. Why ? Bias. The whole article is written in this manner. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's particularly relevant not because it's at the top end of this apparent 2/3rds, but because it is at the very bottom. It is one of, if not the most starving country in the world. It's below African countries; not on par with them. Even so, I think any country that has hospitals as bad as North Korea should absolutely have it mentioned. It is a prominent feature of the country, and thus deserves the weight it's given. Naapple (Talk) 17:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be very knowledgeable, any other opinions ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually thats wrong... We barely have any information on North Korea.. Most information on North Korea is hypothesis, guessing, its similar to Sovietology (just much much worse)... Nearly everything on the DPRK is a guesswork... While we are all (hopefully) very anti-North Korea, you're antiness is leading to poor judgement. --TIAYN (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The World Food Program which is working in the DPRK does not say people are starving. The problem is that reputable sources, including officials, journalists, and academics, who have actually visited the country, are drowned out by crazily hyperbolic anti-DPRK propaganda. And people justify this by saying the DPRK is totally evil and anyone who queries this crazy propaganda is at best a fool who has somehow been brainwashed by the DPRK government. Let's stick to the facts, and use the same rules for the DPRK as for everyone else.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is probably among the most frequently edited articles in Wikipedia and many editors means many different writing styles. I agree that at some parts a little cleanup is necessary. The quoted sentence on health care is valid in the relevant paragraph and similarly appears in other country articles, but information about health care or e. g. political parties does not have to appear in the intro. Still some people confuse balance with writing as much positive as negative and want to provide for each well-sourced negative information the official obviously untrue government position. Fact is that the human rights situation in North Korea by all neutral accounts provided by human rights organisations is much worse than in other countries and that has to be explained in this article. I do not know any country with less freedom and less transparency and it is not acceptable to whitewash this, just because it does not fit into your world view or you cannot believe it. The “crazily hyperbolic anti-DPRK propaganda” and “special North Korea rules” are only an imagination; even the few exaggerated news in some newspapers are mostly closer to the reality than the official propaganda of “everything is perfect in the DPRK”. Before editing this article I would suggest people to first read the reliable sources, e. g. from human rights organisations. -- Gamnamu (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But none of us (or at least me....) are planning to use official DPRK sources.. That would be foolish, and would breach neutrality on the grounds that they are sources controlled by the DPRK government and party machinery .... I'm sick of tired that everyone who states that this article is biased, just a "little" biased, either gets accused of being pro-DPRK, a DPRK-puppet or being accused of wanting to use official DPRK sources... We all know there is a middle-ground here. --TIAYN (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there were some DPRK sources before I cleaned them out. Naapple (Talk) 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for saying what I was trying to. Neutrality isn't balancing positive with negative; it's presenting facts in a neutral way. There just happens to be a lot of negative on N Korea. Naapple (Talk) 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not even the DPRK government says everything is perfect! The attitude is that negativity and accuracy are the same thing. It's embarrassing to any intelligent life form.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's true that almost any country has at least a few grave issues, but I don't see anyone else insisting on expanding Congo's rape record or the prevalence of herpes simplex in the States. Neutrality is exactly the ability to balance available information. Anyone could compile all the hard negative facts on object X and create a factbook based only on that.
As for sources, human rights groups are not exactly reliable themselves, so even if their info is cited, it should be formulated with a HRGs claim.... I would suggest using the 2009 North Korea country study (be aware that the file is very large). It's incredibly detailed and would provide the bulk of information needed on most topics about the country. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with North Korea is that there are not that many good things to say about them, the country has slowly economically and socially deteriorated since the late-1970s, while it has evolved into a self-proclaimed socialist monarchy... --TIAYN (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Even so, this does not necessitate the Korean war section to be illustrated by civilians killed by KPA forces while South Korea, having massacred hundreds of thousands more than the North, is instead illustrated by a shiny time-lapse. It does not necessitate to mention political prison camps in the completely irrelevant Geography section. It does not necessitate for half the Government section to be occupied by one Myers' personal analyses while telling almost nothing about the structure of the government and its institutions. This is what I'm talking about - it's just an ugly example of how certain users understand "neutrality". - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You have excellent points... --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I see a lot of complaining, but neither TIAYN or Tourbillon has bothered it to edit the page. I can see why political prisons (and the whole google earth thing for that matter) don't belong in geography. Move it. I doubt you'll see any resistance. Also, more background on the logistics of the government would be good too. I don't think anyone is trying to prevent the article from having more information, it's just not too long ago there were serious attempts to whitewash it. It didn't help that thepiratebay.org got hacked [[1]] some while ago with a fake message that they'd moved to N Korea. Every Anonymous wannabe jackass who didn't bother to see if the message was real came up here and whitewashed the page. That was undone, but the page is hardly perfect. Edit away. Naapple (Talk) 22:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I intend to. It's just good to gather some opinions and suggestions before doing so. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.[1]

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)

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)

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)[2], 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[3][4]. --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)

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?). --benlisquareT•C•E 08:12, 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)

Ok. World's largest infantry? Check. Most active military personnel as percentage of population? Check. Most reserve forces as percentage of population? Check.
Perhaps you're confusing the word "militarized" with "most powerful". That's certainly not what the article is stating, but had you bothered to dig a little further and read about juche and the military-first policies, maybe you'd understand exactly why it is the world's most militarized country by virtually every standard out there. But please, if you can find something out there contradicting this plain and well documented fact, enlighten us. I'm curious to see this definition of "militarized" that you so strongly feel doesn't match North Korea. Given that you misspelled militarized in your edit subject, I suspect it isn't an accurate one.
∴ Naapple TALK|CON 10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I make no comment on this strange discussion except to say that "militarised" is correct spelling in at least the UK and Australia, and the OP's IP address geolocates to the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. You guys spell programing with 2 m's usually too lol, although either is technically correct here. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

In the information bar on the right hand side, there seems to be a mistake. Even though the DPRK is ranked at 157th on the Human Development Index, it still says it is ranked as "high" on this page. In fact, it does not even have a ranking according to this source: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PRK.html 98.109.198.83 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: The "high" indication is provided by the infobox country template. If you look at our article, List of countries by Human Development Index, you will see that 0.733 is in the high range for this year, but North Korea is not rated this year. I think the template may be using the number incorrectly and I will raise the issue at Template Talk:Infobox country. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:01, 20 November 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)
He was trying to say that the artile says 'between' but only lists one place. For something to be 'between' it must be between Place x and Place y. Also, is it really necessary to insult people over something like this? 110.20.120.209 (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed blurb about Taiwan's nuclear waste

I removed [5] this sentence:

In 2000, Taiwan began exporting nuclear waste to North Korea for disposal.

This bit was sourced to a book published in 2000 which stated Taiwan and North Korea had signed a contract for this in 1997. http://books.google.com/books?id=A1RkmPuA3ygC&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false.
However, this seems to have fallen through as per http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2013/03/04/371938/Nuclear-waste.htm and
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/03/02/2003556051
I don't really care either way if someone prefers to readding the information with the clarification that the deal fell through. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2013

Add the North Korean anthem, Aegukka on homepage under map http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjV2EErPHdg Amoo Laban (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

are you requesting that a link to this youtube clip be added? Jonathanfu (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Based on a discussion I'm seeing at Talk:Aegukka, an audio file of this anthem was previously deleted from Commons due to copyright violations. If copyright concerns exist, we can't place an external link either (see WP:ELNEVER). --ElHef (Meep?) 04:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Leader’s Uncle Executed as a Traitor

Sang-Hun, Choe (3 December 2013). "North Korea Says Leader's Uncle Was Executed as a Traitor". New York Times.

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Friday that Jang Song-thaek, the uncle and presumed mentor of its leader, Kim Jong-un, was executed for plotting a military coup.

The announcement was a highly unusual admission of instability from the reclusive, nuclear-armed country, which normally cloaks any signs of disloyalty to the Kim dynasty that has ruled since the country’s founding. It was the first time in recent decades that the North revealed what it purported was an attempt to overthrow its leadership, analysts said, and the first publicly announced execution of a member of the ruling family.

Calling him a “traitor” and “worse than a dog,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Mr. Jang, 67, was executed on Thursday, immediately after he was convicted of treason in a special military court.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Planning for North Korea's collapse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10570560/US-and-China-discuss-North-Korea-contingency-plan.html

Notable for this article? Hcobb (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, countries make contingency plans about other countries all the time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of hereditary

Although the Kim family has comprised the rulers of North Korea, the government is not a hereditary government. The United States had two Adams as presidents, two Bushes, doesn't make it a hereditary monarchy. While the Kim family has occupied the position of power, if anything, it would fall under family dictatorship (not that I suggest this be put in, I suggest it just be removed). Much like the Julian-Claudian period in Rome's history, the dictator has come from one family, but it is not automatic in any line of succession, and does not resemble any hereditary/monarchical forms of government. Again, I just suggest this be removed since it is basically wrong. And it most certainly is not an absolute monarchy. One-Party States may have strongmen, but they are never approaching the power and control of the reign of an absolute monarch.74.89.79.208 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the "Ten Principles for the Establishment of the One-Ideology System" were recently revised to state that North Korea would be ruled by Kim bloodline forever.. --TIAYN (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. The word "hereditary" links to "Family dictatorship". I think the word 'Family' or "Familial' is better suited, because even if most recently they have amended the "Ten Principles", there still does not exist any formal code for line of succession. This may seem like a very minor and subtle point, but I do feel as if "Hereditary" connotes a far more formal process to be in place, where as 'Family' better suits the conditions of DPRK. Again, I'm thinking of the early Caesars, or the Samosas of Nicaragua. The second point was that North Korea could not be describe as an absolute monarchy (definitely not monarchy if there is no crown, but perhaps a form of absolute rule), at least not yet, it is too early to be certain. Recent events can be interpreted as a consolidation of power and/or an admission of disunity not seen before in DPRK. There have been many familiar dictatorships, and many hereditary monarchies, but they were not absolute monarchies. Absolute monarchs are a very narrow group in history. Again, this is not to say that DPRK will one day evolve into a full-blown hereditary system or absolutist system, but at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few months or years, the army or Party sacks/coups Kim Jung-Un for another. It really comes down if you see recent events as ones from a position of strength or weakness. Again, either way, I just feel it is too early to definitively place this title on the North Korean system. Just my two cents in hopes of accuracy and neutrality.24.238.86.117 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
If I may cite another historical example, this is from the Family Dictatorship page when speaking on Rome: "The office of the Roman Emperor, although it began as a family dictatorship as defined above - that is, no general law determined succession, but solely the amassed power of the members of the family in question - became increasingly monarchical over time, especially once it was transferred between dynasties. By the time of Constantine, the system had been effectively recognized as a hereditary monarchy, and the Empire's successor/continuing state, the Byzantine Empire, was explicitly monarchical (as evidenced by its motto, King of Kings Ruling Over Rulers)."24.238.86.117 (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, the change to the "Ten Principles" is after the fact. It does not have relevance to past successions.24.238.86.117 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a definitive source for the change to the "Ten Principles"?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the following about the Kim family from the intro:
...which in 2013 were constitutionally enshrined as the country's hereditary rulers.[2]
The text of the constitution cited in this paragraph does not mention hereditary succession. Nor does the UPI article cited give definitive support to this claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Food Output

I have removed this from the intro - "North Korean food output is one of the lowest worldwide" - and reworded the passage because there wasn't any supporting citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pre-emptive nuclear strike threats of 2013

Do we need this section? Do we need a blow-by-blow account? Surely it could be summarised in a sentence, particularly as nothing has come of this?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The article really needs an account of the nuclear bomb and missile tests, but this is strangely absent.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Political Prisons

The article states:

"According to Amnesty International, based on satellite images and testimonies, around 200,000 prisoners (about 0.85% of the population) are held in six large political prison camps"

The UN report ( http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx ) lists 5 political prison camps and estimates the number of prisoners to be 120.000.

As I have only glanced over it right now: Has one prison been closed? Was the previous information wrong? Or are there less prisoners? (Released? Dead?) --RicardAnufriev (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

They are only estimates.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling errors

In the first paragraph, the nation's capitol is misspelled. Correct spelling is "capitol," not "capital."Akieken (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Akieken, 19 April 2014

It's not. A capital is a city, while a capitol is a building. SiBr4 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

WEPON NEXT TIME FAMYLY KIMU JONNIRU^^

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Security/law enforcement section

There are a few sourced lines on surveillance, law enforcement and state security scattered throughout the article. I believe it would be best to unite all those into a "Domestic security" or "Law enforcement" section, but I'm not sure where it would be best to put it. I have a bit more information to add on the subject (real-time texting surveillance, functions of State security, etc.) so it can be a very informative subsection that would be fully relevant to the article. I think it should go under Government, but any suggestions are welcome. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Internal security"? That's what they call it. Under Government would be appropriate. I gather you will remove the "Crime and law enforcement" section. But then what about "Political prison camps"....???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "Crime and law enforcement" is too short and I don't think it merits a separate section so placing it in Government would be best. As for the political prison camps, the best way to proceed IMO is to move the straight facts (names of camps, locations, total control zones) into Internal security, and concentrate the information on abuses and inmate estimates in the human rights section. I also think this one should be separate from Society, it has enough weight to be that way. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't agree that you removed some parts on human rights and political prison camps. This is important information. Political prison camps are a kind of parallel society for almost 1 % of people and I think this fits well under "Society". Whole families including children are brought there without any trial, so it is not about "Law enforcement". - Gamnamu (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I only removed the estimates on total casualties of the government's policies throughout the years because I don't see how they're relevant to human rights abuses that continue to happen. As much as it is political, North Korea has an existing legal system which treats dissent as a security issue therefore it does belong in Law enforcement and internal security (which also discusses criminal issues). The abuses inside this system are underlined in the human rights section.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Transport and telecommunications sections

These are poorly written, poorly sourced and largely outdated. Furthermore, much of the information there is irrelevant for the main article and contributes little to the overall understanding of the country so I propose removing these sections entirely. I wrote a completely updated Economy section which includes the most valuable information on Transport under Infrastructure and the communications network is going to be added to Science and technology. I'll also add the Media subsection to Culture. Any objections or recommendations ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a bit too extreme. People are interested in these topics in their own right.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That's what subpages are for. We should have a WP:SUMMARY and not sections which provide exhaustive information, like Transport and Telecommunications in their current state do. Furthermore, the article is already grossly oversized at almost 200kb. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
On that last point we could really cut down the history section pre 1945.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, though right now Economy and Transport are more in need of an update, a lot of the information there is outdated or factually inaccurate. I think it could make a nice GA once rewritten. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The rewritten sections are complete. They include all the valuable information from both Transport and Telecommunications and have academic-level sources...There's no loss of factuality, the information is just more tightly packed and some of the less significant things (outdated fleet figures, mobile subscribers per year) are removed. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Korean & Hanja

As already included on the South Korea Wiki Article, I think having the Offical North Korean Name in Hanja would be beneficial to this article "朝鮮民主主義人民共和國"

But North Korea does not use Hanja, so who would use this?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I personally believe it's useful information to have on the article. If we followed through on your train of thought, why not get rid of all the Hanja on South Korean, furthermore Korean articles in general articles then? North Koreans learn more Hanja than South Koreans in school, plus it not only Koreans that read this article, other people may find this sort of information interesting like myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.3.60 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Because, again, South Korea does use Hanja. ROK government spells out in Hanja its country, ministries, etc. Abstractematics (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I don't think South Korea uses North Korea's official name.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Title of "North Korea"

The title of "North Korea" should be " Democratic People's Republic of Korea " [3] Heil Stalin (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

single-party state

why should north korea be listed as a de facto single state and not de jure? lets not include original reasearch in the article, also can we incude north korea being a de jure single party state in the infobox, the workers party of korea is mentioned in the same way as china in their constitution and china is regarded and written on wikipedia as single-party state, north korea has two other parties but workers party is the sole ruling, china has 8 other parties too Dannis243 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Because, if you bothered to read the discussion above, we try to avoid the de jure/de facto clutter. Furthermore a socialist state does not exclude a single-party political structure. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment I belive this RFC relates to this sentence: "The Workers' Party of Korea, led by a member of the ruling family,[21] holds de facto power in the state and leads the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland of which all political officers are required to be a member". Avoidind de facto/de jure can easily be achieved e.g. by saying "The Workers' Party of Korea, led by a member of the ruling family,[21] holds a dominant position in the state and leads the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland of which all political officers are required to be a member". Even simpler is to say it "holds power" in the state. --Dailycare (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this discussion is about the infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

not olny! lets just remove the "jure/de facto clutter" without any incorrect replacement like "dominant position", holds power will do just fine!
but that is not the olny thing i meant with this rfc, why does Tourbillon opposes "single-party state" as a description? Dannis243 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion above. I'm the one who opposes it...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Copypasted from my talk page --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

you said it does not meet wp:v but if you read the article there are sources which support north korea as a single party totalitarian state Dannis243 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

See Tourbillon's comment here: "There is no consensus among the community of North Korea researchers as for what the government is. ... Juche in itself is a very authoritarian concept so any of the dictatorial characteristics of the North Korean government would be obvious once you get to read about it." Furthermore, "totalitarian" falls under WP:LABEL. Please stop infobox-warring and accept consensus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
althought i supported the inclusion of "totalitarian" i did not add it to the infobox athother user did, what i did is to add "single-party state" to the infobox which Tourbillon proposed on the talkpage, so can you please partialy revert your edit by removing totalitarian but including "singe-party state" Dannis243 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. Tourbillon added "Finally, it is de facto a single-party state because the Chongu Party and the SDP are legally required to support the KWP and be in a coalition with it. But that does get too complicated so I think "Juche state" would be better." Many other editors in the discussion seem to agree, so the consensus is against your proposal. You will have to convince all other interested editors that the change you propose is warranted before the change can be made. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Yoo, Audrey (14 August 2013). "The democratic people's monarchy of North Korea". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference UPI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ http://www.korea-dpr.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Korea/Archive_14&oldid=1089600699"