Jump to content

Talk:North Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bletch (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 10 August 2006 (→Reunification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

WikiProject iconCountries Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archive 1 created August 9, 2006 by crazyeddie

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no concensus for move. Also North Korea, although not its self-identifying name, follows the naming conventions for countries. Joelito (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea → Democratic People's Republic of Korea … Rationale: Proper name of the country, North Korea is informal. --HamedogTalk|@ 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
See also Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. --Kusunose 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments
As Per Astrokey44's comment, I suggest moving every country page to their proper name/full name.--HamedogTalk|@ 05:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Gotta be consistent. But I don't look forward to the scores of edit wars that will ensue. (Am I too much of a pessimist ?) -- PFHLai 07:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that there is precidence for a case like this, in East Germany/German Democratic Republic. The article is under the name German Democratic Republic, despite the common english name of East Germany.12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon is right about the German Democratic Republic article, however, the country is still referred to as "East Germany" throughout its own and in many other articles (including Germany). Common names like North Korea and East Germany flow a lot easier mid-sentence than they would if they were replaced by their full official names at every occurence. Lee Stanley 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that "East Germany", in current use, doesn't always refer to "German Democratic Republic", but the eastern parts of Germany (including "West Berlin", so I heard....) The ambiguity necessitated that change. This doesn't apply to North Korea, at least not yet. -- PFHLai 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about in Germany itself but in today's world if a person that didnt live through the Cold War talks about East Germany they are probably talking about the Eastern portion of the country. And since Berlin is in the middle of that both the Western and Eastern sides of it would be in East Germany. I think refering to it as GDR is a really good thing hopefully though a redirect was created for East Germany to the GDR or a disambigutation page. Other then that per Wikipedia policy the more common names should be used when they can be and here it can be.

This is from WP:Naming Conventions: To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion Option 1 Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English ? ?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity ? ?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity ? ?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of equal scores, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above).

My understand is that the table would look like this, if option 1 was Democratic People's Republic of Korea and 2 North Korea:

Criterion Option 1 Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English 0 1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Providing self-identifying name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", then we have a further support for a change to Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

故金日成

I know how silly it is, but, according to North Korean law, Kim Il Sung (deceased) is forever the President of Korea. It sure is cultish, bizarre and freaky, but I don't think we should disregard his official status no matter how absurd it may be. He should be listed on the information box as the president. --Ce garcon 19:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jog on. 86.7.153.81 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the North Korean government see him as the president of NK forever then he should be in the infobox.--Scott3 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


about the 'official' dprk website

I'm pretty sure it's bogus. Why? A simple whois turned up the following:

domain: korea-dpr.com status: lock owner: Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les email: vientian@hotmail.com address: Valencia, 555, 3, 3 city: Barcelona state: Barcelona postal-code: 08026 country: ES admin-c: vientian@hotmail.com#0 tech-c: salva@digival.es#80 billing-c: salva@digival.es#0 reseller-1: Visite: www.digival.es reseller-2: Dominios com, net, org, biz. info. y .es reseller-3: 1a Empresa Espanola del sector certificado AENOR reseller-4: Rapido y economico. Visitenos nserver: a.ns.joker.com 194.176.0.2 nserver: b.ns.joker.com 194.245.101.19 nserver: c.ns.joker.com 194.245.50.1 registrar: JORE-1 created: 2000-08-08 03:51:24 UTC core modified: 2004-07-08 09:47:36 UTC JORE-1 expires: 2006-08-08 03:51:24 UTC source: joker.com

db-updated: 2005-04-06 02:15:18 UTC

A spanish guy and joker.com ... doesn't seem very dprk-ish...

This is infact the Official Webpage of the DPRK, and yes, it is made by a Spanish person known as Alejandro Cao de Benos, who is appointed by the DPRK Government as Special Delegate of the DPRK government. The DNS host provider does not help to convince people that it is an official webpage, but other evidence will prove that it is. The evidence is clear, do a google for "korea-dpr.com" and see the BBC links. Click on "webpages that link to korea-dpr.com". About Cao de Benos, see among other this link from NKZONE http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/04/honolulu_pyongy.html where multiple news organizations (Like Yonhap) are referring to his webpage and news of the signing of the "Friendship City" between Honolulu and Pyongyang, See also the Slate article http://slate.msn.com/id/2076686/ about DearLeader.com - Kim Jong-il's fanboy home page. This should settle the status of www.korea-dpr.com and I am adding it back on the page if its missing. Let this stand for future reference. --Bjornar 13:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For those who are curious, www.korea-dpr.com has now changed its DNS servers. --Bjornar 09:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the webpage were official it would be based inside the DPRK and run by North Korean citizens. However, korea-dpr.com is run by mere fans and supporters of the North Korean government and is simply a fanpage. Generously-speaking, one might refer to it as the official North Korean fansite. 220.126.38.85 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

small point

Within the article it says:

>and in practice almost no-one is refused entry by North Korea

However in referenced article "Fancy a round, Dear leader?" (Independent), it says:

>The local proverb "seeing is believing" goes some way to explaining why the
>DPRK bothers granting any of its meagre 1,500 tourist visas issued annually
>to Western travellers

I can't see how they don't refuse entry when they only allow 1500 tourist visas.

I have changed it, but find the whole section on culture to be lacking. --32.97.110.142 18:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The small number is due to the lack of people who want to enter North Korea, not because North Korea refuses entry. The many web sites I've seen by people who visited North Korea convinces me that this paragraph about no one being refused entry into North Korea is true. I am putting the information you deleted back into the article. -- KittySaturn 07:47, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
"But 1,500 Western tourists still visit every year, together with thousands more from Asia, and according to Mr Willoughby the country's isolation is the very reason they go." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3113352.stm - might help answer this --86.8.33.224 04:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Recent edit is more balanced

The edit performed by me today is a more fair distribution of facts from each opposing side, which roughly breaks down to this:

1) The official western viewpoint: The DPRK is a hellish regime like 1984 where half the people are always starving and the other half is inside a consentration camp. Millions of reports are inside the media, often lacking real evidence since many of the news are fabricated from a few set of sources, but widely circulated and repeated again and again in the western media.

There are many reports; most of them are factual based on refugees' testimonies. What would you suggest as evidence? The DPRK never allowed access for independent human rights observers. And no one would ever expect the DPRK government to admit any human rights violation or any other failure. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

2) The official policy of the DPR Korea government: The DPRK is a socialist country recovering from the "arduous march" and almost totally independant now of foreign aid, with the economy back on track, and an independant nuclear power plant producing more power to the people and with an emerging tourist industry and with more exports and trade with countries like the United States.

This viewpoint is only shared by a handful of people outside the DPRK. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

I should think that my editing will not last long, as human rights advocates surely will litter the page again with 100's of links to Amnesty or MSNBC, however since Wikipedia must always have a balanced perspective, as anyone can see from the history, my edit is precisely balanced between these two lines, even mentioning the preposterous idea of a "gas chamber" although the remnants of Auswitch can be seen on any satelite image, the so-called massive consentration camps that are supposed to exist cannot be seen on satelite even though they claim that millions of people live there. Everyone knows that the US has the technology to zoom in and read the clock of your hand or the license plate of a car, so with 10 million people supossedly in concentration camps, why are there no pictures?

--Bjornar 3 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Shouting at human rights activists does not make you appear credible. Amnesty International e. g. is neutral and independent and I believe them more than any official DPRK statement. You publish only the government point of view. To deny everything you dislike (as the DPRK news agency does) is not considered NPOV. By the way, satellite pictures of the concentration camps could be found at this link [1]. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean presenting each side as if they are equally accurate when they are not. J. Parker Stone 5 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
I know, but who is to say what is accurate and what is not accurate? It all depends on your point of view (POV) doesn't it? So if you want to employ a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), of course you cannot even choose sides. So who decides what the balance will be between two opposing, mutually cancelling views? The only alternative would be to include them both, and to remove all kind of speculation for which there is no evidence, and all kinds of lousy arguments like "some people say.." or cite unverified sources. As for the article about the DPRK I am amazed on how common it is to brandmark the DPRK in defiance of the Wikipedia's guidelines on NPOV. --Bjornar 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
And I suppose the fact that they call themselves the DPRK when they've nothing even resembling democracy is NPOV?--68.95.228.67 03:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For human rights violations and concentration camps in the DPRK there is much evidence. In fact there is no reason to doubt it (simple official denial is no evidence). Do you really think in the DPRK no one dares to criticize the "dear leader", because everyone likes him? Or isn't it much more likely everyone fears torture in case of disobidience? If you perceive a "common brand mark" did you ever think you could be wrong instead of all the others? - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)
Additionally, there are sattelite pictures of concentration camps available and, more recently, even video along with a huge amount of refugees with consistent stories describing such camps. --The Way 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bad Paragraph/Sources

"Large numbers of North Koreans illegally entered the People's Republic of China in search of food"

Large numbers? how many? find an estimation and a source.

"and there were also stories of cannibalism."

There were stories? Where? Unless a source is put here it should be deleted.

I'm not the one who inserted this, but I did provide a link on the cannibalism entry that points to evidence of it in modern North Korea. There are accounts by refugees as told in Discovery's "Children of the Secret State" and elsewhere. Smoove K 09:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the alligation is accurate. Having read many defectors stories on various sites (including BBC) a lot of them do refer to cannibalism. Most recently I read about a woman defector who used to work at the cemetary and reported that people used to sneak in at night to find meat by digging up graves. Also another story speaks of a woman who had to eat her 7 month year old baby, also on the BBC source. The article is sceptical whether these people are telling the truth but it claims that the number of defectors who report similar events is simply growing. Another article I read is here http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200403/200403020016.html about another defector's story who is reporting cannibalism. It is highly possible and I find little reason for defectors to say such horrible tales. [Nick K, 15/07/06 17:01 GMT]

Atheist Police State

I know that this may be a touchy subject, and that my suggestion may be taken in a negative light, but in many ways North Korea fits the description of an Atheist Police State. I know that chances of getting the words mentioned in the description of North Korea are minor, but because of allegations of targeted assassinations, laws against proselytizing, extreme nationalism, and an environment in which the military also acts as a Police force, I think it would be rather fitting.

I should note, in order to keep this from being misconstrued as an attempt to associate Atheism with a totalitarian regime, that I am an Atheist myself and that my concerns are with the many worldly and (supposedly) objective observations of North Korea's political structure, military police structure, and hard line anti-religious doctrine, as well as the doctrine of loyalty to the state and leader above all else. --Lucavix 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the plain and simple term "Police State" be used instead? It defines all of the criteria you described, yet keeps the article closer to a NPOV. Admittedly you cannot lable North Korea a police state with the information we have, but we can draw comparisions and allow the reader to make up their own mind.

I will give you two reasons to abandon this line of thinking.
1) There is no law prohibiting proselytizing! Show me the law if you can!
2) The term "Police state" can be adopted by any nation with Police. Actually the DPRK has less police than most European countries. --Bjornar 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, North Korea is a police state. A "police state" doesn't mean that it has too many cops, it is used for a country that is, quote,
1. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
2. A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government. (Both were from Answers.com)
North Korea is a country with a brutal and arbitrary government that maintains obedience, not through police, but a system of "tattle-tales" who double as a sort of secret police. The army is also strongly present. So therefore DPR of K is a police state.
--Thorri 12:35, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
North Korea is, by all means, a police state. In fact, one could argue that its a totalitarian one. It also is a state based on a personality cult surrounding Kim Jong-Il and his now-deceased father. The fact that it is also communist implies that its atheist, thus calling it an "atheist police state" would be redundant and tend to focus negative attention, and therefore POV, on the term 'atheism' (And yes, I realize this reply is a little late.) --The Way 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Communist Totalitarian Police State :) --86.8.33.224 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist state"

The term "Communist state" is inaccurate.

1) Technically, the term "communist state" is an oxymoron. 2) There is no communist party in North Korea 3) There are not just one party in North Korea. There are several 4) North Korea erased the last mentioning of Marxism-Leninism in the 90's. 5) Their official ideology is Juche, NOT marxism.

North Koreans describe their country as "Socialists" so I propose to change "Communist State" into "Socialist State". If people oppose this, it's because they feel that "Socialist" is too benign for North Korea, but then they are also neglecting the truth, which is that the DPRK defines itself as Socialist. To kill any argument against it, I will remind everyone that the first "S" in the former USSR was "Socialist", even though the USSR is totally distinct from the DPRK. --Bjornar 16:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.....let's see.....Red Star....Allied(Or previously allied) with USSR and China....Stalinism. Sounds Communist to me. Dudtz 9/6/05 6:06 PM EST

Their not Stalinist in practice, only have Stalinist qualities. -Comrade Shane-

A Communist society is one without qualitative class distinctions and no State. Any sentient creature who doesn't buy into NK propaganda knows this is not the case in NK. A socialist society is one in which the (former) proletariet owns the means of production and has control over its labor power. Again, nothing even remotely like this exists in NK. Sure, the "DPRK defines itself as Socialist." It also defines itself as a "Democratic People's Republic". Such a title would make Orwell cry, but I guess I'm just "neglecting the truth". -Nobody123

North Korea is not a Communist state?! Boy, this "political 'correctness'" is getting out of hands... --Thorri 12:46, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thorri, explain how saying that North Korea is not in fact a Communist state an act of "political 'correctness'"? Historically correct? Yes. Politically correct? Perhaps in Finland. -Nobody123

Maybe "politically correct" wasn't the best expression. But take a look at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Schools_of_communism
According to that the Juche policy DPRK uses does make DPRK a Communist state. --Thorri 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't prove anything Thorri. All it proves is that whomever authored the wikipedia page classifies Juche as a "school of communism". That ignores the fact that Juche is inherently anti-Marxist in its isolationism. The most extreme examples of the Cult of Personality can be found in NK. Marx in a letter to Wilhelm Blos wrote :"Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules." NK doesn't look like a communist state. It looks like a totalitarian hell on Earth animated by a rotten religious cult adhering to a crazy belief system call Juche. -Nobody123

Yes, but traditionally it has been regarded as a Communist state and I'm not gonna change that since the rest of the world classifies it as Communist. Though (now) I believe Juche is it's own weird system...I hope the government in DPRK falls soon and people finally realize Communism was a mistake and that there are better systems.
Though I must say, in a way it is Communism because Stalin changed Communism fundamentally as well (for the worse), the original idea by Marx/Lenin was much more noble, not the hideous...thing we know now.
Sadly, Capitalism can go wrong, too, like it has in America (no proper health care, or social security, greedyness, etc.). But I'm not going to start preaching about that! --Thorri 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the sooner the regime falls, the better. For us and more importantly for the people of NK. I think to call America a capitalist state is an inaccurate use of the word. There is no "free market" in relation to what Smith, et al spoke of in the US. It's a State-Capitalist economy. When the richest capitalists take a risk and loose their shirts, they run to and get a bail out from the government. So much for "market discipline". I certainly agree that our health care system if fucked up because the rich have so much control over the political process and want it dismantled and privatized. But they haven't enough control to kill social security as they tried to earlier this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobody123 (talk • contribs) .

The only way the DPRK is not a Communist state is if you say it believes in juche, its official national ideology since the 1970s. As for Nobody's comment about the regime falling being better for the DPRK people, this is a very superficial look at a problem. Do you not think of the consequences, or is overthrowing a regime the limit of your thinking (much like Iraq)? The unification of the Germanys were incredibly hard on West Germany as will the reunification of Korea on the South Koreans. Whereas the Koreans are limited to paltry amounts of grain per day at present, anarchy will mean they won't even get that. The refugee problem will be horrific, not to talk about sanitation, aid, etc. Anarchy is also very likely to result in war on the Korean peninsula. Even the DPRK's missiles and nukes will not be under control. But I guess this doesn't really concern you? Jsw663 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an expert on the Marxist dialectic, but IIRC, Communism is a stateless utopia which is the desired end result of Marxism. States which we in the West call "Communist" think of themselves as socialist states, which (according to Marxism) is an intermediate stage on the way to true communism. But another way of looking at it is that Communists are those who desire the communistic end result, while Socialists are content to get a socialist state. North Korea is currently socialist (or at least claims to be), but aspires to communism (or, again, claims to). So both terms apply. Or at least that way I see it.
In short, I'm equally agreeable calling NK Socialist or Communist. Not worth fighting over. But if anybody really wants to make a fuss about it, how about putting it up for a straw poll or something? crazyeddie 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Korea's Military?

This article has nothing to say about Korea's military strength. Or their nuclear capabilities (none yet evidently). And the same for chemical and biological weapons. Is it a lack of valuble info? or are we just sidestepping the issue?

Lack of valuable info - how many people actually know how many nukes a given country has, for example.. and we're talking about a country that refuses to even release financial information, you'll never get anything out that you would bet your house on being correct. --Streaky 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dprk

if their official name is democratic peoples republic of korea, why is the official page for the dprk redirected to "north korea". that doesnt seem very professional of wikipedia to do that. it should be reversed. the title should read dprk and then (north korea) should be in brackets.

isn't this a valid point? does anyone object? Appleby 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
actually, i see that germany, russia, mexico, etc are all under the common names, not official gov't names. but these examples refer to a historic/geographic entity and the current polity together. korea/south korea is a bit different, since south korea refers to the modern polity only so there's more of a reason to use the official name, kinda like the separate entries for historic china/prc, where the latter is under the official name.Appleby 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that you have a valid point. I think the redirect is on the wrong direction and the redirect should go from North Korea to DPRK and not the other way around. A simple way to surely resolve this would be to use the names of countries as published on the the UN website (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html) as this represents the correct official name for the country. A redirect can them be made from common parlance to the correct name. Anything else is surely not NPOV as who can argue against what a country wants to be officially known as. --Duchovny1 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't use official titles, it uses English names, and for an excellent reason: it's written in English. North Korea is the correct name for the country, whether you're speaking Canadian English like me, or Wikipedia's more prevalent American English or British English. Roughly speaking, the point of Wikipedia is to catalogue facts *as they exist*, not *as they are officially proclaimed*. WilyD 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider North Korea more like a geographical name. The DPRK claims the whole Korea even though it cannot administer the South. The Republic of Korea also claims the whole Korea even though it cannot administer the North. However, as North Korea and the DPRK are practically used like synonyms for now, I do not oppose staying North Korea as the main article name, though I, as a Chinese speaker, do consider using "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" more formal.--Jusjih 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Appleby on this point - official titles should be used, regardless of the language. For example, we don't see the page of the USA being redirected to 'the States'. Can't we appeal to Wiki? This issue should become even more important if Wiki decides to establish itself as a legitimate competitor to the official (print) encyclopedias (instead of just another internet source). Jsw663 11:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't it be 'Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk' by that measure? or better yet - 조선민주주의인민공화국朝鮮民主主義人民共和國 - the issue is, that noth korea is common usage, plus, i'd personaly refuse to call it democratic when it blatantly isn't.. when a north korean tells me otherwise i'll change my POV.. North Korea fits with NPOV, and the CIA factbook and basically every news organisation uses the term 'North Korea' not some cooked-up term that makes it look like NK actually holds elections. --Streaky 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you don't know much about North Korea or Korean for that matter - you repeated the name of the country twice there, one in Korean script, the other in Hanja (Sino-Korean) script. In another of your edits you even called Kim Jong-il Mr. Jong-il as if his surname was Jong-il, instead of Kim. The country is NOT calling itself democratic or a democracy as you understand it; it is calling itself a PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY, ie a communist state - those two terms are entirely different. Naming the country has nothing to do with POV... the CIA + other US news organisations are not the official ones of the world, nor do they present unbiased viewpoints or represent the world's opinion. Even CNN is hardly neutral. Wake up and see the world outside of the USA. Jsw663 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship, political police

The article doesn't inform about the censorship and political police. Xx236 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do some research and add information to the article. Make sure to provide reliable sources! Sukiari 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This area DEFINITELY needs some representation. The complete lack of any outside media information available to the average North Korean citizen is what, to me, is most representative of the way their countrky wors. I've found several websites that illustrate this fact, but they're mighty POV. Perhaps I'll link them here first and see if they're usable.JD79 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the big problems for this country, along with a handful of other nations with massive human rights violations (the Sudan, Liberia). Given the nature of the regime, most sources come off as obviously being opposed to it... Its like writing about Hitler. --The Way 06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "multi-party constitutional democracy"?

That's what the official website of the DPRK (maintained by a third-party organization, though) says:

"13. Is North Korea a dictatorship?

No, the DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party."

http://www.korea-dpr.com/faq.htm

Bayerischermann 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The viewpoint of a site claiming that 'the Leaders are the sun of the nation and mankind' is being considered at all here? Joffeloff 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of cource there just lying. They may say that there a "multi-party constitutional democracy" but do they fit the defintion? No.

ow wow. --Streaky 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictatorship?

Please add.

Im not sure if in modern terms we still talk about "dictatorships", over the past years it has becomed an insultive term to describe a goverment that oposed another country. One thing to be noted is that perhaps this is the first hereditary communist goverment in history.
Totally agree with you; North Korea is only a communist single-party state, and not a dictatorship. Wikipedia itself states that a dictator is "an absolutist or autocratic ruler that governs outside the constitutionally normal rule of law through a continuous state of exception", and as far as I know Kim Jong-Il is neither offending North Korea's socialist constitution nor laws with his government. And nevertheless: is North Korea on a state of exception? obviously not. --Nkcs 02:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are completely different complaints, whether or not "we still talk about dictatorships" (this is absurd, I don't know anyone who doesn't know what that word means or who refuses to use it), and whether or not North Korea is a dictatorship. If it's not technically considered one, it's only because the great leader hands down what the law will be, and the legislature rubber stamps it. "Hereditary communist goverment?" --70.142.40.34 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea's government is based on a personality-cult surrounding Kim Jong-Il (and his father before him), who is portrayed in godlike terms to the people which certainly allows it to classify as a dictatorship, to say the least. --The Way 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dictatorship by definition in contemporary meaning.. basically it means they aren't accountable to anyone.. and if you're insulted by the term that's because you run one and have been found wanting - welcome to wikipedia Mr Jong-Il

Pictures

All three photographs on this page are of Pyongyang. These should be balanced with pictures of the rest of the state, as in China's entry, which has historical and rural, not just modern and urban, views. Such pictures can come from documentaries, from human rights organizations, or from historical documents. Someone more knowledgeable than I on this subject could help a lot. Calbaer 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it's hard to come by allowed media from outside of the city. --TJive 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; few pictures are taken, but those pictures are widely distributed; the only issue is licensing. See, for example, this site. I'm not sure how to go about asking, but, unless someone adds them, I'll try to find out how in the coming days. Calbaer 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked, and although he was willing to put them on Wikipedia, he hasn't agreed to the CC licence or the GFDL. I'll add a link. Calbaer 21:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Check / Overview

I added a POV check banner at the top of this page because the overall mood seems to be from an American or "western" point of view violating wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Is it really even possible to be NPOV on an article like this? Not a lot of information comes out of North Korea. 71.19.6.20 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we still have to try don't we?

I recently made a slight change to the government section which I feel falls under NPOV. I changed North Korea is one of the last Communist States to North Korea [...] few communist states. I believe that assuming there will be no new communist states in the coming years is perhaps a more Western thought, and that history will be the judge of whether or not any new countries decide to become communist. Who knows... in a thousand years, the human race as a whole may be communist... probably not, but it could happen.

I also added a [citation needed] to the first paragraph... see my notes in the page source for more information on my reasoning. - Âme Errante 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the needed reference links. Someone might also want to change "is often described as" to "has been described as", but I don't think that's necessary. --70.142.40.34 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fawning?

Is there a reason that every fact with a negative connotation is immediately rebutted with obvious propaganda? Re: Famine - "The North Korean government has worked hard to resolve many of the supply problems and the future looks bright according to their website."

"...according to their website"?! I'm appalled. There is a POV, but it's obviously in favor of North Korea.

Actual event?

North Korea is an actual event?.. That tag should be in the section that the person who put it thinks is an actual event, but a country an actual event? literally... yes... but then you have to put the tag in every country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauta (talk • contribs)

The tag was included by SushiGeek (talk · contribs) due to the current US-NK missile controversy, please see this edit. Cheers. --Nkcs 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in 10 years where everone starts forgetting about it where there is no more testing(And maybe no N.Korea either!) it could moved history.--Scott3 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

current events

It is great that wikipedia can be updated to the lastest news story, but I don't think that from a long term perpective the launching of 6 missiles is such a big deal. North Korea has had a weapons program for some time and this is just one of many steps in that dirrection. I think that all to often we forget that we are tring to write an article that will last a long time, not one that will have to be updated every few weeks to remain accurate. Jon513 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven missiles. The significance of this test is not in the testing itself, but in the breaking of its own moratorium on long range missile testing. I strongly disagree that this is no "big deal". --208.41.98.142 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no constants in international politics. Please remember that. For God's sake, the paper encyclopedias couldn't scramble quickly enough to keep pace with events in our tumultuous twentieth century! We have here a capacity, and we're making use of it. That's all. --VKokielov 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk"

What does "Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk" is just the translation of the Demorcartic Republic of Korea or is it somthing elese?--Scott3 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see Names of Korea for full details on Joseon, a name of ancient korean kingdom & last dynasty (that's south korean romanization; north korea romanizes the same word as Chosŏn). minjujuui means democracy; inmin means people; konghwaguk means republic. Appleby 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be somthing in the article about that then--Scott3 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Perhaps I'm naïve, but why is North Korea's offical name Democratic People's Republic of Korea? As far as I've read, it is neither democratic nor is it about the people—it's a communist dictatorship, the opposite of its chosen nomenclature. Is this just some more inexplicable weirdness from the insane Great Leader or his even more insane offspring, Dear Leader? Avalyn 12:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic would help understanding the naming. --Kusunose 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the countries in the world, isnt it funny that all those that are called democratic in their name isn't? so the name implies Democratic (because they are not) Peoples (because they are the creatures that dont want to live there) Republic (Because that is something they are not) and Korea.. well because that is where they are. Hope that explains things :o) --Sneaking Viper 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about foreign relations, I think. If your country was called "Totalarian One-Party Dictatorship of {Insert name here}, people wouldn't think very highly of it. As it stands, Kim Jong-IL is doing his very best to convince both outsiders and North Koreans that the country is actually a Utopia.--Planetary 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call Oyo321 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda
Well, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. I don't see a difference here. ;) --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar discussion to this is also being talked about on the six-party talks discussion board. Just thought I'd highlight it. Jsw663 11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Max Clifford school of PR - lie-lie-lie-lie-lie :) --Streaky 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the US government never lies, ever. Jsw663 06:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this has nothing to do with the article, please go find another forum for general discussion. But first, I'd like to point out that while the US government has not always been completely truthful, I don't think it has ever found it necessary to lie - twice - simply by naming itself! crazyeddie 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Which is North Korea's take on Mexico? El Chompiras 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context? "Yes, Mexico.. It's a country.. over there.." --Streaky 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request:

Ryugyong Tower link to the external links: http://ryugyonghotel.com/

You can be brave and add the link yourself, you know, although I think that hotel link would work much better in the Pyongyang article. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box formatting

Something's wrong with the flag and coat of arms label, at the top of the box on the right. Can someone fix it? HSL 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Shouldnt the name of this article be Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that is the official name) insted of north korea? Revengeofthynerd 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but see the discussion regarding altering the name of the DPRK on wiki. The result was no consensus hence it was never changed Jsw663 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best reason to keep it as it is, you're looking up the country after "North Korea", not "Democratic Repu...", so the shortened name is the commonly used one and probably what you'd find in a hard cover encyclopedia as well (with the offical name in brackets after it ;-) ). --Grendelshitsuren 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But note that even Chris Hill (the US govt official on East Asian + Pacific affairs) refers to the country in official press conferences as the DPRK, not North Korea. Jsw663 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Will the user from Takoma Park, MD, USA (IP 71.252.52.8) stop vandalizing the page? Jsw663 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I've done my best to archive any inactive discussions from above, as the page was getting intolerably long. I tried to leave behind any discussions where there were comments from July or August of 2006, since those might still be active. If I accidentally moved any active discussions, it might be better to restart the discussion further on down than to dredge up the original back out of the archives - I saw a lot of sections with comments from 2005 or even 2004 followed up by comments from 2006. Might be a good idea to come back and do some more archiving in a month or so. crazyeddie 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 missile test

The article currently states that a 7th (or possibly 6th, since the 6th in the series is currently disputed) missile was fired on July 6th. I've not been able to find reference to this, and the Wikipedia article on the whole incident seems to only contain rumors that a 7th launch was being readied, not that on was fired off. Could it be that somebody just jumped the gun in reporting that 7th launch here? Or is my researching ability being imparied by the fact that is about 3AM local time? At least it is already marked with a "citiation needed" notice...

At any rate, I'd like to link to the main article on the missile test, and reduce the amount of language this article dedicates to it. I won't attempt that now, because of the aforementioned local time. If anybody gets a chance to do something about this before I get a round to it, be bold. crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be citied in the Government section?

Any suggestions as to what statements in particular need to be sourced in the Government section? Might make tracking down citations easier... crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Military section definitally needs to be sourced better - CIA factbook maybe? crazyeddie 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to make this sentence more NPOV?

I would suggest changing:

North Korea has the sovereign right to test its missiles and pursue its weapons program.

to

North Korea claims that it has the sovereign right to test its missiles and pursue its weapons program.

or something similar. Suggestions? Objections? Alternatives? crazyeddie 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, with the addition of what rationale used by DPRK to claim that it has such a sovereign right (e.g. a UN resolution, its own inalienable rights, something Juche-related...?) Leaving "has the right" seems to be slanted in favour of the regime, "claims it has the right" makes it sound a bit dubious... "claims it has the right" with verifiable backup info seems just right to me. Nach0king 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, except I'm not sure what NK's actual rationale is, or where to find that out. (Where's Bjornar when you need him/her?) Could somebody figure that out, or suggest an interim solution until somebody figures it out? crazyeddie 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification

The section currently consists of:

Since Korea was split into two parts as a result of United States actions in 1945, both regimes have held a desire to reunify the Peninsula on its own terms.

First off, I'm fairly sure that more was involved than just the actions of the United States, so this would appear to be pretty POV. Secondly, this is pretty stubby, even for a summary. Any suggestions on how to improve this? crazyeddie 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to be bold and removed this section; I was going to beef it up but decided that if South Korea doesn't have an explicit section on reunification, then this article doesn't need one either. --Bletch 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Korea&oldid=68726308"