Talk:North Korea/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

NPOV headline; neutrality of article VERY disputed

In places such as the infobox, the North Korean government is described as a military/hereditary dictatorship. As much as critics may believe it is, it is officially a Juche-style Socialist government, as it itself proclaims. We must only cite what is official for the North Korean government, not what is believed. It'd be better to remove the "de facto" government type (military-hereditary de facto dictatorship) and simply leave it as a Juche government, and that type only.

The section in the opening paragraph about critics describing it as a dictatorship, however, is perfectly neutral and would not necessarily break the bias boundaries/rules. However, please change the infobox description of the government type ASAP so that the neutrality isn't bleak and there's no risk of bias in the otherwise informative, well-balanced article. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the policy basis for the statement that we must "only cite what is official for the North Korean government, not what is believed" by reliable secondary sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The "equal validity" policy. While it may be believed across the board that the North Korean government is a dictatorship (even by reliable sources), the North Korean government establishes itself as a Juche-style Socialist government, and nothing else. That can be more directly presented to somebody who knows nothing about the North Korean government, instead of a military dictatorship under a hereditary dictatorship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what the policy stands by. I got this from the Wikipedia:NPOV section, by the way, for reference. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. What the government states is one point of view. If there is another widely held POV then it needs to be added as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is not neutral indeed. And that is by far not the only neutrality issue with it...but I do support changing the infobox description, a "military hereditary dictatorship" is one of the numerous stances on what the government is - and if that is considered valid, so should be "absolute monarchy" or "Fascist state". I'd propose "Juche single-party state" or something in those lines. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tourbillon. It should either be every single viewpoint on the government system (absolute monarchy [which I personally believe it more visibly follows; however, this is no place for opinion, so I leave it there], fascist state, dictatorship, etc.) or just what it goes by: the Juche single-party state, which is its official status. As well, the changing of some biased language in the article, particularly in the "Human rights" section, would be great to establish the article as a more reliable source of information. For example, the line: "The North Korean population is strictly managed by the state and all aspects of daily life are subordinated to party and state planning" is VERY biased (among other lines in the paragraph itself). Do keep in mind that we do not know much about North Korea because it is a very secluded nation. Therefore, no real consensus on its human rights status is very reliable, as most of it is either propaganda or has no real proof behind it. The lines, while their main arguments are kept intact, should be changed to fit a more neutral spectrum: for example, the line I just mentioned could be changed to, "Several governments/organizations/political figures (whatever it may be) claim that North Korean government is oppressive, strictly managing the state and subjecting all aspects of daily life to party and state planning." HandIsNotNookls (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

North Korea is not secluded. Saying North Korea is secluded is an improper use of language. Ellidaey Island is secluded. The Deer Stones of Mongolia are secluded. north Korea is not Secluded. It is closely surrounded by the most populous regions of the world and itself has a large population as well. North Korea is oppressive and secretive. Calling North Korea secluded is a lie. Hilltrot (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a range of views. But the DPRK is not a "single-party state". Other parties include the Korean Social Democratic Party and the Cheondoist Chongu Party. I have never seen a sustained argument that it is a dictatorship, i.e., that Kim Jong Un is not a figurehead or a front-man for a collective leadership. Nor do I think there is a consensus about the relative dominance of the Workers Party versus the Korean People's Army, so it is problematic to call it a "military" dictatorship. The argument that it is a "hereditary" monarchy is also misleading. While there is some degree of inheritance in the position of "leader", this is not enshrined officially, there is no official line of succession (it is not primogeniture) and there is no official position of absolute ruler. The DPRK government's account of itself is widely disputed, but all the other views are highly speculative. It's futile to try to sum this up in an infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Where do I start first. Saying what the government calls itself is in fact important. However, the actual government type in North Korea is more important. North Korea is a military hereditary dictatorship. Just like the early Caesars in Rome, there is no set hereditary line. However, you are claiming the sky isn't blue if you actually believe the dictatorship is not hereditary. The fact that North Korea is a military hereditary dictatorship is not speculative. There are mountains of evidence to show that the military is in charge in North Korea and that the power is concentrated in one person. Claiming Juche Socialism is just silly newspeak (see 1984). Juche socialism could describe the Khmer Rouge just as easily. Are you'all going to rush over to the Khmer Rough site and correct their government site because the Khmer Rouge couldn't possibly have been a totalitarian one?

It is a fact that the North Korea has an oppressive government not a claim. The U.N. has detailed the oppression of the North Korean government. Writing otherwise is pushing the absurd POV of the tin-foil-hat brigade.Hilltrot (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)GrammarHilltrot (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the community of North Korea researchers as for what the government is. It is certainly not universally accepted as a military dictatorship, simply because it is the Party that controls all the administrative management organs, and not the military (and that's not just my opinion). Also, is it hereditary ? Yes, it is. Is that important enough to be stated up there ? No, it isn't. The only thing that needs to be in the infobox is the framework in which the government operates. How it operates inside it is something completely different and if anyone is interested in that, there's a "Government and politics section".

If the government defines itself as a Juche state, that's what we should have there. If a community of authors don't think it is one - we summarise their views down there in the article. If you don't think it is one - nobody cares.

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. 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. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What "North Korean researchers" are you talking about?

The supreme leader is groomed by his father. The supreme leader is constantly filmed as the leader of the military.

Here's a picture history for you. http://news.ca.msn.com/kim-jong-un-life-in-pictures-6#image=1

Here's an article about how Kim Jong Un erased his annoying aunt. Look at all the people including "the Party" swearing fealty to him. http://abcnews.go.com/International/kim-jong-uns-aunt-now-missing-photo/story?id=21245199.

Kim Jong Un inherited rule from his father, who inherited it from his father, who inherited it from Stalin. Kim Il-sung cemented his power with a military trained by the Soviets. Everyone swears allegiance to Kim Jong Un including "the Party." No one is allowed to do anything to oppose him that country. This covers all the bases for a military hereditary dictatorship.

"Also, is it hereditary ? Yes, it is. Is that important enough to be stated up there ? No, it isn't." This just doesn't make any logical sense. Obviously, if heredity is a big part of the behavior of the government, it should be included in the description of that government.

There is a very old argument that has been around since Caesar Augustus that if there exists some governmental group of people, then it can't be a dictatorship. It has been used by nearly every dictator since. It is a false argument. This argument you make the "the Party" exists therefore Kim Jong Un can't possibly be a dictator is equally false.

I have a major problem with Juche because it is a made up word. It doesn't describe anything new or radical, it's simply a term made up to confuse people and make the government seem like something it isn't. But as I said before I am ok with listing the type of governement that Kim Jong Eun says it is.Hilltrot (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hereditary leadership is part of North Korea's ideology just as elections are part of liberal democracies. But we don't go on describing parliamentary governments as "electoral parliamentary democracies", no ? Furthermore, other leaders have personally appointed successors too, so the "hereditary" bit is both too vague (hereditary by blood line, appointment or something else ?) and redundant (according to their ideology, only a "Great leader" can run the country so it's always Kim family - can't be otherwise).

Whether you think Juche exists or it doesn't is irrelevant. It does exist and has been thoroughly described in a number of sources, including the 2009 Library of Congress country study - by far the most reliable source on the subject, you can read about it there (bottom of page). Other researchers who have written about it are Bruce Cumings, Charles K. Armstrong and quite a few others. The fact here is that the dictatorship itself is supported by a clearly defined framework. The leader cannot wield his power and pass down orders without this largely rubber-stamp administration. Nobody denies North Korea is a dictatorship, the idea here is to simply explain how it is managed, and a "Juche state" or a "Juche Socialist state" (if you want to include the economic aspect too) seems the most appropriate solution. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen a reputable source put forward a sustained argument with evidence that Kim Jong Un was a dictator. Can anyone give an example? (By the way, there's no evidence his aunt has disappeared.)--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

He does chair all the top institutions (NDC, KWP Central Committee, KWP Central Military Committee and so on). If there's no further opposition, I'll change the government type to "Juche Socialist republic". - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)S

A comment on the use of the word "Juche." It is not an English Language word, nor is its meaning understood by any but the most specialized of English speakers. Inasmuch as this is the English Language version of Wikipedia, I think the article should stick to English. Until "Juche" becomes more readily understood, and is accepted in English dictionaries (e.g. shogunate, Nazi, fascist, etc.) its use serves more to obfuscate rather than to inform. Tresmegistus (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. We should consider the discussion we've had before about this. The idea is that de facto descriptions should be avoided. The infobox description is for what system of government it is. It's not for measuring the degree of how oppressive it is. Now single-party state is an accurate description. The other two legal parties are not allowed to act as "opposition". There's a single front and it's controlled by one party. Therefore, it fits the description of single-party state as stated in the article. (Multi-party systems typically have 3-5 parliamentary parties at national level, with dozens or hundreds more registered.) Juche is appended because that's the ideology of the single-party state. Just like with "Marxist-Leninist single-party states". Now if North Korean ideology has officially updated to something else, we should have that instead. Abstractematics (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it seems the problem is less about being POV and more about trying to summarize everything in the Politics section in the infobox, when it has a narrower purpose than that.Abstractematics (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Referring to the "single-party state" article is circular, as it has been expressly written to define the DPRK as a "single party state". We should use plain English, not convoluted definitions. De jure, the DPRK is not a single party state. The Constitution states that the Workers Party has a leading role, but also that elections are free, which is somewhat contradictory. I don't see anything barring opposition parties from operating, however. If the official description is to be used, it would be better to copy official wording.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? HandIsNotNookls (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem with removing a de facto description is that it will be reinserted later on. Perhaps we should say "various interpretations"...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Juche socialist state (various interpretations)" with a link to the Politics section ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We have academic sources that say that North Korea is not a socialist state. So no, that phrase is not consensus. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over inclusion of deceased leaders

The inclusion of the two deceased eternal leaders, both of whom are listed in the government section of the infobox, in List of current heads of state and government, is currently being discussed in its respective talk page. Please feel free to provide your own input. WikiWinters (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014 - HDI should not be High

The HDI should not be listed as High. The 0.733 figure is from this document -

https://web.archive.org/web/20111005100501/http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/workingpaper/wp_09_02.pdf

I'd argue that as this is not the official report, no data should be listed.

Here's the full official report - http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/269/hdr_2009_en_complete.pdf

See table H, Page 172. Top Medium ranked country is Armenia with 0.798. The score of 0.733 would put it in the Medium category. Also, year is listed as 2008, but is 2007.82.39.86.83 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Title for this article

I believe that the title of this article needs to be 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea' because to people from the DPRK, it is disrespectful and rude to say 'North Korea' if you go to the DPRK and say 'North Korea' at all, people won't even know what you are talking about, and if they do, they will find it highly offensive. If a country wants to call themselves something that other countries don't agree with, they should still be called that title out of basic respect for their decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.242.49 (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy here, and in English, all over the world, the common name of this country is North Korea. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've been to the DPRK and the official guide used the words "north Korea" (my capitalisation). Both the Republic of Korea and the DPRK claim the whole country, but both are aware they only control the south and the north respectively. Essentially, I would say there is one country and two government. I have a map of the DPRK, purchased in the DPRK, which shows the whole of Korea. However, a Wikipedia article on the "DPRK" cannot describe it as covering the whole country. Mostly, Wikipedia's articles about "North Korea" are about "North Korea" as geographically defined, not about the DPRK according to the DPRK's claimed borders (except in the Korean War perhaps).--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Most encyclopedia articles use the term "North Korea." I agree with Jack Upland. Both the DPRK and the ROK claim jurisdiction over the entire country but each controls only part. You could compare it to Germany. The German Federal Republic claimed jurisdiction over all of Germany and used the terms East and West Germany. But they abandoned their claims c. 1970, and began referring to the two countries as the GDR and FRG, which became the terms used in encyclopedic sources. TFD (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Rfc:Is north korea a single party state and should it be described as such?

Is north korea a single party state and should it be described as such? Dannis243 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

China, vietnam, cuba and laos are all desribed as single party states both in the lede and in the infobox, so why should north korea be any diffrent, for example china has in its preable of its constitution that the communist party of china is the leading party in the state, it has also 8 other political parties which co exist in a popular front system, and north korea does exactly the same ie mentioned in its preable of its constituion as the leading party and having other parties co-existing with it but the workers party of korea is the sole ruling Dannis243 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Just because one article does something one way does not mean other articles should. I think that info-boxes should be for simple information, such as population, official languages, capital. More complex information should be explained in the text. A single party state with three legally recognized parties seems too complex a concept for the info-box. TFD (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a single-party state, full stop. In all the other single-party states such as China and others, there are always other parties which really have no importance at all and only do what the official party says. That is only an obvious propaganda trick, means nothing nor changes the nature of the single-party state. Zozs (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Juche socialist state" does not exclude a single-party structure. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the term "single-party state" should be only used literally. The other articles should be amended. Moreover, there is a vast diversity of descriptions of the DPRK. Some contend it is military-dominated and that the Workers Party is a figleaf. Some say it is a hereditary monarchy. Some say it is Confucian. Some say it is fascist. I would say it is Stalinist, but Stalin was accused of being "anti-party". However, as previously discussed, the infobox is not a debating forum. Tourbillon has proposed a reasonable resolution. It should be supported.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling North Korea "socialist", however, is controversial. Zozs (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tourbillon, Jack Upland, and Zozs: China's political system is the People's democratic dictatorship, Laos' is people's democratic republic, Vietnam's calls itself a socialist republic, Cuba is a socialist state and North Korea officially designated itself as a people's democratic republic (hence its name, DPR of K), but stopped referring to itself as such in the 1960s-70s when they started calling themselves a Juche-style republic. Its system is self-designate as Juche. Its a Juche republic. Calling it a Juche socialist republic doesn't make sense, you wouldn't call the USSR a Marxist-Leninist socialist republic would you?. Juche republic makes, however, sense. --TIAYN (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a republic... a republic is where /the people/ elect public offices; and the concept of a republic is much more than that, fake elections don't qualify for a republic. Not only that, but the leader structure is monarchical. "People's democratic dictatorship" is just a propaganda concept which has nothing to do with the organization of the state. Neither Vietnam nor Cuba are socialist, although they call themselves that. Here on Wikipedia we don't go by what any entity, individual, or group says of themselves (primary sources); we go by reliable sources. Zozs (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: You don't have the right to define what is, and what is not a republic... How is the "People's Democratic Dictatorship" a propaganda concept? Its an ideological concept yes, but that doesn't make it propaganda. If what you're saying is that all the ideological material in which the PRC produces is propaganda, then logically speaking everything the West says about democracy is propaganda too. Cuba and Vietnam are socialists, topic finished. You seem to have the nack to believe that you have the right to define what is, and what is not socialist all by yourself... --TIAYN (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should then study either what a republic is, how the political system in North Korea works, or both of these, and you will notice that there are serious differences. Please read the article on republicanism. Obviously, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" says it's democratic, but that doesn't mean it's democratic; neither does the "republic" mean it's a republic. Funny you accuse me of trying to define what is what when all you're doing is stating your own opinion and referring to primary sources, whereas I am bringing logic to the table and saying that independent reliable sources are needed to define things. "People's democratic dictatorship" is a term used by the Chinese authorities to refer to the political system in their own country; it is not used by others to define them (although reliable sources DO state that that is a piece of their ideology, and this changes nothing).

Cuba and Vietnam are socialists? Let's not talk any more about that because it's not the topic, but please do not present that as an universal view. Apparently calling these "socialist republics" is okay because both of them define themselves as "socialist republics", but North Korea defines itself as "Juche", "socialist" and "republic" and it's not. There seems to be no continuity of logic even within your own thinking. But regardless, North Korea should not be called "socialist" because there is no consensus for that within reliable sources; to the extent that one important reliable source about the country is focused on explaining how it is far-right instead of any shade of left. Zozs (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this underlines (1) why we should stick to the de jure definition, (2) why unfortunately that's probably not possible.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Climate

The Climate section directs to a "main article" which is the Climate section of the Geography page. It directed back to the section here as the "main article", but I got rid of that. However, the section here is still bigger and better. I think the other one should probably be the main one.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

On the extra bytes added

This is the last expanded subsection, rewriting the rest will consist mostly of trimming so the article will get lighter from now on. I generally try to preserve the information but sometimes it is outdated or unreliable and some things might disappear. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we should delete all the history prior to the division?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No, but it should be reduced to a minimum. South Korea's pre- and post-division structure is quite nice and it's applicable here. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The South Korea article minimises history. I don't think that's appropriate. Certainly for North Korea the division and the war are important. So is the Japanese occuption. I just don't see the point of having different histories for the North and South going back to ancient times.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The division and the war are equally valuable for both countries; however, North Korea's system is deeply rooted in pre-division political traditions. The same cannot be said of South Korea's more or less generic liberal democracy. The question is not if the format is applicable - it is - but which aspects should be emphasised. I think the post-war construction and the pre-war social and political factors are more useful for understanding the country. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that's an accurate view of South Korea, either.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Although?

On a similar topic to above, this sentence appears in the intro:

Although the DPRK officially describes itself as a socialist state and elections are held, it is widely considered a dictatorship that has been described as totalitarian and Stalinist with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim family.

I've tried to change it, but it keeps being reverted. Though I agree that socialism as a concept implies democracy, this is just my opinion. Many people are happy to call Stalin's USSR a dictatorship, and totalitarian, and Stalinist(!), and socialist. I think it is a violation of NPOV and potentially confusing to use the word "although" in this context. To clarify this, I have tried asserting "democratic", but this is removed. However both the DPRK's title and its constitution do say that it is democratic.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Form of government

@Jack Upland, Zozs, Dailycare, and Tourbillon: Juche is not a form of government, its an ideology. The form of government is the socialist system (I think; I know they stopped calling themselves a people's democratic republic in the 1960s/70s)... While I don't consider North Korea socialist in anyway, the system itself is clearly established by Stalinist practices. One can claim, with 100 percent accuracy, that the system works entirely different from other socialist state systems (eg no sessions of the Central Committee since 1994, no Politburo session since 1994 till 2011/2, a "Great leader" and so on), but that doesn't make the system less socialist per se. At last, Juche is an ideology, and I've never heard anyone refer to North Korea as having a Juche form of government (nor have I ever heard the North Koreans say that)... However, it may be referred to as a "Socialist state of Juche" (as its mentioned in the DPRK constitution) or a "Socialist state under the Monolithic Ideological System" (the MIS is what enables one-man rule in North Korea, and then highlights the differences between NK and the rest of socialist political systems in history).. Of course, the socialist political system is not the same as socialism in the ideological sense - in practice you can clearly have a political system which is socialist and clearly not be a socialist, there is no law in nature forbidding it.

I'm against referring to the DPRK as a single-party system, first the mention of "socialist state" implies such a situation, and secondly, the party in North Korea doesn't act like its ruled by a collective (it acts as its ruled by a Great leader). Its not like in the Soviet Union (or in China) were the revolution bestowed legitimacy on the party, and the party bestowed legitimiacy to its leaders through appointments, in North Korea its the other way around; Kim Il-sung (the Great leader) bestowed legitimacy to the revolution by leading the revolution itself (they claim the revolution would have failed without him), and in the aftermath of the revolution Kim Il-sung established a party (again, the Great leader bestows legitimacy on the party). The party can't bestow legitimacy on the Great leader; the only thing the party can do is too acknowledge the superiority/legitimacy of the great leader by giving him offices. The whole system is based upon the Great leader. Therefore, including the term single-party state would not at all help to explain how North Korea actually function. But the mention of "Socialist state of Juche" (as mentioned in the preface of the DPRK constitution" or "Socialist state under the Monolithic Ideological System" (the MIS, as mentioned, explaining the position of the great leader). --TIAYN (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence above; it has always seemed strange to declare the form of government as "Juche". It would be like referring to the Icelandic form of government as "the body of principles which form the basis of the actions of the Icelandic government". Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this info-boxing is continuing, maybe we should just say "various interpretations". In any case there is no point prolonging this debate and the accompanying edit war. It is completely unproductive. We either need consensus on a form of words, or some editors just need to accept a couple of words they don't agree with.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The description of government type is now heading back to what it was earlier this year - an ever-growing list of labels, many of which are disputed. Therefore I am attempting my solution, outlined above.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To explain, my solution was just to have the "Government Type" as "various interpretations" with a link to the "Political Ideology" section. This is an attempt to deal with the fact there is no consensus, as the past few months of discussion clearly show. It is not an attempt to pretend there is a consensus. It is wrong to say that this solution has been "constantly reverted". That is a misreading of the page history. It has only just been put there. I undid a revision only once. The fundamental problem with settling on a phrase like "single-party state" is that there is nothing to stop an editor, in good faith, adding further description. This is what happened, which is why I returned to this issue. The choice, as far as I can see, is not between my solution and somebody else's phrase, but between my solution and an ever-growing shopping list of descriptions, which is what the infobox looked like at the beginning of the year. If that is what people want, I won't fight it. But don't say it's a consensus: it's just a mess. So go ahead! Everyone add in their favourite label!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Axis of Evil?

I believe the relations between the DPRK and the USA are important, and the DPRK government certainly thinks that. There are about 30 thousand US troops in South Korea etc. However, George W Bush's famous statement about the Axis of Evil has just been removed from the page. The importance of this statement can be seen in Felix Abt's recent book, A Capitalist in North Korea (pp 55, 109, 119).--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bush's Axis of Evil comment said a lot more about Bush than it did about North Korea. Those who thought he was a fool just laughed louder. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The description is mentioned in North Korea–United States relations, where it can be given due weight. That seems like a better fit to me. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit seems utterly misguided. Anyone who wants to minimise the importance of the USA knows nothing about North Korea. Whether you believe Bush is a fool is irrelevant. He was the leader. His comment was certainly not empty rhetoric when it came to Iraq. Nor would anyone in North Korea see it as a joke, with US troops massed on the border, and continual discussion of airstrikes on North Korea in the US and elsewhere. The effect is that North Korea's behaviour is taken completely out of context. (In fact, the article didn't even mention the US Forces Korea until now.)

The same editor removed an interesting photo of Clinton with an North Korean general. This was replaced by a boring picture of Putin. We now have two pictures of Russian leaders on the page. Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The US forces on the border are relevant. Bush's silly comment isn't. Connecting Iraq and N Korea made no sense when it was said and it makes no sense now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

North Korean rhetoric is often described as silly, but that's no reason for deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what we're discussing. (And I tend to disagree anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Communicating the significance of the US in DPRK foreign policy is good, but I can see a valid case that the removed section over-stated the US's role. The particular phrase "axis of evil", as its article suggests, has far more to do with US policy and media than it does with North Korea. I guess I would not object to restoring the removed content with the phrase removed (similarly with "Outpost of Tyranny")

I agree that the Clinton photo was more appropriate. It's a more interesting photo, and the section was about the early 21th century, so the idea that a 'newer' image is better doesn't make any sense. The section makes no mention of Putin, and honestly, reverting it a second time without explanation seems crass, as well. It's also worth noting that the Putin photo was not actually taken in North Korea, it was taken in Moscow, which counts against it, in my opinion. Is there a photo of the 2009 Clinton trip, which is specifically mentioned, and seems more topical anyway? I didn't find one in commons, but maybe a State Department one could be uploaded. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a real POV violation. The fact that George W Bush mentioned North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil" is highly relevant. It was not a mere "silly comment" by Bush. It was a State of the Union address, which would have been worked on by speech-writers, advisers etc and approved by many high-ranking people. It was indicative of a US policy of the time that undermined South Korea's "Sunshine Policy". For better or for worse, US policies (however much they may be illogical or narcissistic) do impact on the rest of the world, particularly in countries where the US has a large number of troops. It is perverse to talk about North Korea in isolation from the US. North Korea would not exist without the US. Did North Koreans think the "Axis of Evil" comment was irrelevant or simply silly? No, they thought that they were next in line to be attacked. By contrast Clinton's mission was a minor incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest restoring the removed content if there's no objections discussed here in the next couple days. 2606:6000:6787:CF00:488C:2EA2:81EC:4EB3 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the case for inclusion is much stronger if it can be shown that the statement had an actual impact on North Korea in some way. At that point it is legitimately about North Korea and isn't just repeating something that GWB happened to say one day. @Jack Upland: you mentioned that you have a source that makes such a connection. Could you add it? BTW, Bush didn't actually say "outpost of tyranny" in his speech; that was C. Rice, years later. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think my complaints are being misinterpreted and magnified here. I'm not saying the US's policy is irrelevant to North Korea. I'm saying that the phrase "Axis of Evil" is more confusing than it is informative. As you say, it was a product of speech-writers and advisers, and has more to do with casting the US's position in a certain light to a US audience, rather than a straightforward factual analysis. If the phrase is included, it needs to be much, much better explained than it was. The phrase has so much baggage and so much politicized rhetoric behind it, that my concern is that to explain all that would overstate the significance of the phrase itself at the expense of actual policy and action. If the phrase doesn't end up being restored, it should be added to the 'see also' section, so that it can be properly contextualized. It is discussed in North Korea–United States relations, and has an article of its own (which is in need of attention), but since this is an article about North Korea as an entire country, the phrase seems needlessly confusing and specific here.

As for the photo, the Clinton incident was minor, but it was still an actual incident. The picture of Putin has no context and provides no particularly novel information. The idea that a diplomat would be in another country doesn't seem terribly noteworthy. Putin's relationship with North Korea should be expanded, but a relatively bland photo is not the way to do that. If we were starved for photos, that would be something else, but the Clinton one seems like a better choice on those grounds. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the photo. It is relevant with regard to Clinton's position and South Korea's Sunshine Policy. And it is quite interesting.

I have added information about George W Bush's policy change, with citations. All of these citations mention the Axis of Evil, but I have left this phrase out as the consensus is against it. I don't agree that this was a mere "silly comment" or something that Bush "happened to say one day". It was the State of the Union address in 2002. I agree it was rather misleading, but that is what he said, and it was widely reported and discussed. But the consensus is against it.

More importantly, I think we need to acknowledge the context of North Korea's actions. To say that threats made by the US are a joke, and that threats made by North Korea are an international crisis, is biased and idiotic, and a violation of the NPOV policy. I understand that this reflects how many people view North Korea, but the simple fact is that they are wrong. It is deeply perverse to justify this on the basis that this is article is about North Korea, not the USA. It completely unbalances the article, distorts historical reality, and misleads readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bush's comments were "widely reported and discussed" precisely because they were silly. A lot of the world's media made a lot of money by highlighting Bush's silly comments over the years. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is only my 2nd visit to this page, but I feel I have to object. It makes no sense whatsoever to me for anyone to be arguing for the exclusion of this statement. The "Axis of Evil" speech was endlessly discussed in the media worldwide, not just in the US. It was guaranteed to come up every time US policy was mentioned. Admittedly, "the case for inclusion is much stronger if it can be shown that the statement had an actual impact on North Korea in some way" (Orange Sofa, above), but the case doesn't need to be any stronger. The US is NK's great adversary, and the US pointedly raised the stakes with that declaration. The US, their no.1 enemy, not Bush. And the effect on NK/SK relations is also undeniable. I think it would be a huge mistake to omit this important aspect of 21stC diplomacy. In any case, since every media outlet in pretty much every continent has been banging on about "Axis of Evil" for years, NPOV overrides opinions of editors here, imho. zzz (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't hurt to be specific about how I think US policy towards NK has manifested. Who knows what goes on behind the Demilitarised Zone? I think it can be argued that China has been less willing to openly back everything they (NK) do, on account of the extra scrutiny - combined with China's growing capitalist zeal - which in turn can be thought to have had a chilling effect on the extravagance of Korean aggression (and ability to openly count on China's financial and diplomatic support), as well as on China's increasing introspective paranoia (which is more debatable and in any case not as relevant here). Which would all mean, if I'm right, that US policies can be effective in the medium to long term regardless/in spite of the short to medium term. And regardless of the thinking behind them, in this or any other particular case.zzz (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting how people mix up two things here. Yes, US/North Korea relations are very important, and have been since the 1950s. But the Axis of Evil comment did not add anything significant to those relations. It largely added to the global image of Dubya as a fool. Yes, there was a lot of coverage, but that was because people (and the media the world over) were laughing at Bush, in a black humour kind of way. It wasn't NK I was scared of then. It was Bush. HiLo48 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to ignore short-term (8-year) democratic leaders, even Bush, to a large extent, since the military and intelligence community are much more long-term. While it's true that everything Bush did made him look more idiotic, to some extent I think most people fall somewhere in between these two (or several) perspectives, on balance. The 'axis of evil' could be seen as a symbol of more long-term US strategy and resolve. zzz (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As there is no consensus, I think we should stop arguing about this. From my point of view, the issue was about more than just the phrase "Axis of Evil".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Guys, it's okay to leave Monica Lewinsky's former lover on North Korea's page if some folks consider it vital.
Arguably the page looked better without his smirking features present, but if that's what you insist on...
Thank you for leaving Bush II's 'Axis of Evil' statement where it belongs - on the North Korea-United States Relations page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that just illustrates that this issue, despite protestations to the contrary, was really about people's views of the USA, not the DPRK.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Constitution

The North Korean Constitution is being cited selectively. If the Constitution is an authority on North Korean politics, then all its pronouncements (including about democracy, socialism, and human rights) should be treated the same. It is not acceptable to cherry-pick the phrases which support a particular point of view and ignore the rest. For example, saying that "communism" has been dropped from the Constitution, and ignoring the fact that it continues to proclaim the DPRK socialist. In fact, since most people dismiss the Constitution as empty propaganda, there seems very little reason for them to cite it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I agree, but sources cherry-pick to prove their point continuously. But to the point, according to you we can't call the DPRK socialist since we know they don't protect human right's. North Korea is considered a Juche/socialist state because they call themselves a Juche/socialist state (a view which is accepted by others to as to more easily understand why things are so screwed up their) , but we don't listen to them when they talk about economic developments or anything else really (with the exception of threats towards South Korea and Japan, and anything related to bombmaking and the army)... Its not like liberal democratic press actually treat dictatorship equally with democratic states. --TIAYN (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you can cite the Constitution for the official North Korea position, but you can't use it to back up a contrary position. For example, the claim on a recent edit that "republic" wasn't used in the Constitution. Only in the official name of the country!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And in regard to dropping the term "communism", look at Article 12 of the Constitution: "The State shall adhere to the class line and strengthen the dictatorship of the people’s democracy so as to firmly defend the people’s power and socialist system against all subversive acts of hostile elements at home and abroad." There is clear reference to the Communist theories of "class line", dictatorship of the proletariat, and people's democracy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the article to better reflect this.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"Juche, an ideology of self-reliance, replaced Marxism–Leninism as the official ideology when the country adopted a new constitution in 1972.[27][28]"

This isn't quite correct. The 1972 constitution, as originally written, referred to Juche as a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism," or something to that effect. So Juche was, at least initially, viewed as a variant of Marxism-Leninism; it was only later that it was no longer referred to as such. (Source: "The Constitutions of the Communist World," edited by William B. Simons, which has the full text of the 1972 constitution, before it was amended) Josh (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

True, and the DPRK regime still acknowledges a Marxism-Leninism as the source of Juche. As previously discussed, it is outside commentators that emphasise the distinction between Juche and Marxism-Leninism or Communism, not the regime itself. I've changed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"Juche, an ideology of self-reliance, replaced Marxism–Leninism as the official ideology when the country adopted a new constitution in 1972.[27][28]"

This isn't quite correct. The 1972 constitution, as originally written, referred to Juche as a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism," or something to that effect. So Juche was, at least initially, viewed as a variant of Marxism-Leninism; it was only later that it was no longer referred to as such. (Source: "The Constitutions of the Communist World," edited by William B. Simons, which has the full text of the 1972 constitution, before it was amended) Josh (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

True, and the DPRK regime still acknowledges a Marxism-Leninism as the source of Juche. As previously discussed, it is outside commentators that emphasise the distinction between Juche and Marxism-Leninism or Communism, not the regime itself. I've changed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Images

360° Virtual Tour of North Korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanjabarnes (talk • contribs) 07:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Interview in Media

maybe we can say few words about The Interview (2014 film) and few more about general image of korea in western films (james bond or something). I think that poster of this film looks good in "media". --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting topic, but I don't think it belongs in a general article about the country.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Economy section + others

The article seems to have been grossly inflated with information that is entirely unnecessary here. It needs to be cut down (drastically), not expanded. Please check out WP:SUMMARY before doing similar reverts. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The infamous picture of the Korean peninsula at night was taken during a power outage in North Korea. Without that context the photo is misleading, often interpreted as the result of total lack of economic development in North Korea. This is another photo showing how North Korea looks like when not suffering a power outage (source: A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America, Vishaan Chakrabarti):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NyGRODi8GoA/UyLsEz5vYbI/AAAAAAAACgc/siSmVsEzJO0/s1600/BiZO5aGIAAAKJvh.jpg 24.238.89.22 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this. It is misleading on many levels. According to some descriptions it is a composite photo in any case.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Constitution

The North Korean Constitution is being cited selectively. If the Constitution is an authority on North Korean politics, then all its pronouncements (including about democracy, socialism, and human rights) should be treated the same. It is not acceptable to cherry-pick the phrases which support a particular point of view and ignore the rest. For example, saying that "communism" has been dropped from the Constitution, and ignoring the fact that it continues to proclaim the DPRK socialist. In fact, since most people dismiss the Constitution as empty propaganda, there seems very little reason for them to cite it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I agree, but sources cherry-pick to prove their point continuously. But to the point, according to you we can't call the DPRK socialist since we know they don't protect human right's. North Korea is considered a Juche/socialist state because they call themselves a Juche/socialist state (a view which is accepted by others to as to more easily understand why things are so screwed up their) , but we don't listen to them when they talk about economic developments or anything else really (with the exception of threats towards South Korea and Japan, and anything related to bombmaking and the army)... Its not like liberal democratic press actually treat dictatorship equally with democratic states. --TIAYN (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you can cite the Constitution for the official North Korea position, but you can't use it to back up a contrary position. For example, the claim on a recent edit that "republic" wasn't used in the Constitution. Only in the official name of the country!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And in regard to dropping the term "communism", look at Article 12 of the Constitution: "The State shall adhere to the class line and strengthen the dictatorship of the people’s democracy so as to firmly defend the people’s power and socialist system against all subversive acts of hostile elements at home and abroad." There is clear reference to the Communist theories of "class line", dictatorship of the proletariat, and people's democracy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the article to better reflect this.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Constitutions should never be treated as an independent source. Many countries update their constitutions as though writing down an polititical goal (or cover story) will make it fact. A number of constitutions insist that the country is democratic, typically due to an amendment made after the generalissimo's fourth reëlection. The 1969 Libyan constitution declared that the goal of all Libyans is "total Arab unity". Serbia's constitution insists that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Zimbabwe's constitution says that unhappy country is founded on human rights, equality, good governance &c. bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Amend map to show claimed territory?

If I understand correctly the DPRK claims the entire Korean Peninsula as their territory. Shouldn't the map in the infobox reflect this, for example by showing the claimed but not controlled territory in a much lighter shade of green? Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, and I have a map showing the DPRK covering the whole of Korea. But in the infobox that would be confusing. After all, the article is called North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Source 309 does not mention an internet café in Pyongyang.

See above. Therefore the last sentence on Science&Technology should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.4.86.141 (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

North Korea: Accounts from camp survivors and escaped guards

A new United Nations report has found that crimes against humanity are occurring in North Korea and calls for an international tribunal to investigate and hold perpetrators to account.

The report, by a UN Commission of Inquiry appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2013, recommends that the UN Security Council refer the situation in North Korea to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights carry out investigations. The three person commission, which was chaired by Australian jurist Michael Kirby, will formally present its findings to the Human Rights Council on or around March 17, 2014. The council will then consider a resolution to act on the commission's recommendations.

film on YouTube

However, one of the star witnesses, Shin Dong-hyuk, has been exposed as a liar.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere on the Wikipedia page does it say he's a liar. It just says he recanted certain parts of his story. Mt xing (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Which 1s? Danotto94 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See the article: Shin Dong-hyuk--Jack Upland (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Soviet Rule

Soviet rule to 1950? This is getting extreme.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is getting really extreme and ludicrous, in the same fashion as most of Plumber's ideas. --Sundostund (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Jack - just be bold and revert / remove what you consider as extreme - I don't see that Plumber gained consensus for his claims about Soviet rule over North Korea until 1950. --Sundostund (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the headings. I don't have that much problem with the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I mind that it's unreferenced, as are some other things in the section Soviet occupation and division of Korea (1945–50). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I should have said that the text was less of a problem than the heading of the section, which said "Soviet Rule". The reference comes from the Lankov article about Shtykov. However, this article says: "For all practical purposes for the period 1945-1948 he was the Soviet governor of the North." I think Lankov is being contrarian here and overplaying his hand. He also says, "Shtykov was the actual architect of the North Korean state as it emerged in 1945-50" - which is somewhat different. It would be better to say Shtykov had a great influence on the development of the DPRK. Other sources hardly mention him. In any case, there is no source which says he was the effective governor till 1950, so I have removed this. (By the way, we had a debate about this on the Talk:Kim Il-sung page.)--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting large

The article has become quite large with quite a lot of images. It should be reduced in size, especially the history section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

History is very important to North Korea, but the pre-division material does seem redundant. Images of North Korea are quite rare, so they are probably worth preserving. I don't really see the need of the map which has been added to several pages. Also, the image of Korea at night is misleading and seems overused. There is also a photo on the Korean War page.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The History section is more or less fine, but several others are too detailed:

• Personality cult goes into far too many unnecessary details. Some of the facts are worth noting, but it's too big as it is;
• Korean reunification could be trimmed and merged with Foreign Relations (Reunification is the most active aspect of North Korea's foreign relations anyway)
• Health could be slightly reduced and merged with Education into a "Welfare" section or something similar;
• Formal ranking of citizens' loyalty could be summarised in two paragraphs (or even one) and merged into Human rights. The Human rights section itself is inflated. A better structure would be to include a summary of allegations and statistics, opinions of Amnesty International, defectors and other organisations, and the view of the North Korean government. I also find it that Human rights is heavily slanted towards abuses in the country's prison system while information on travel regimes, drug legislation, LGBT rights and welfare for the disabled are completely absent.
• Science and technology became a bit too large in the process of creation, so that could be reduced as well. Thoughts ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think health needs its own section. One of the problems here is the related topical articles are quite substandard, which reinforces the tendency of editors to add content here.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The main article on Health is actually not that bad. If I'll be making any of the reductions mentioned above, I'll be transferring the info to the main pages and improve them in the process as well. Just thinking that with this amount of reliable sources and a much more neutral tone the article could go for Good status - it's just a bit too long as it is now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a year ago I summarised the pre-Japanese occupation history to:

Korea has a long history going back to ancient times. It has been governed by many different kingdoms, with different borders, including multiple kingdoms existing at the same time. For centuries it struggled under Chinese domination. At the end of the nineteenth century, it decisively asserted its independence, creating the Korean Empire. Its resistance to foreign influence led to it being dubbed the "Hermit Kingdom".

That has since been reverted. I don't see why the two Koreas have to have different histories pre-division. The Health article is OK, but I think a smaller Health section here would be better than a Welfare section, which could be confusing. I think all your other suggestions are good - but a lot of work!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not that much - the sources are there, so the effort will be mostly in citing and editing. Hopefully a good article can come out of this ! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I also think the page is too large (both in terms of text and file size). I completely agree about the history section; pre-division history should be kept at minimum (in here as well as in South Korea). I think we should rethink many of the images as some of them seem to fit the context rather poorly. @Tourbillon: can you consider moving the music files to the article Music of North Korea? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, though I thought they could be a good illustration to the section. Which images would you propose changing ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

korea uess 9.00 pm time 69.124.55.218 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: as it says in the infobox:-
Time zone - Korea Standard Time (UTC+9) - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2015

Add onto the existing 21st century column "On Aug. 4th two landmines were set off, injuring two South Korean border guards. The mines were set off by North Korea, sparking controversy and subsequent re-iteration of the loudspeakers present on the DMZ spewing South Korean propaganda and the like into North Korean territory. This led to a missile being sent in South Korea and dozens being sent back as retaliation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html 96.35.10.178 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: These events are not sufficiently notable in themselves to be included on this article. They would fit much better on a article about North/South Korean relations, and indeed, is already on North Korea–South Korea relations#2015 Cannolis (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925042059/http://www.pcgn.org.uk/North%20Korea-%20Land%20of%20the%20Morning%20Calm-%202003.pdf to http://www.pcgn.org.uk/North%20Korea-%20Land%20of%20the%20Morning%20Calm-%202003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111220172541/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izIlSjdJ6OnbxnvsA8REol_H-PpA?docId=e4eb9efdbd884d2fbff01ada250d87de to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izIlSjdJ6OnbxnvsA8REol_H-PpA?docId=e4eb9efdbd884d2fbff01ada250d87de
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130315221457/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihNf_P_yjcx87RS5q6V7XIM9xduA?docId=CNG.9853b860fe89106d015080a384fbfdf4.491 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihNf_P_yjcx87RS5q6V7XIM9xduA?docId=CNG.9853b860fe89106d015080a384fbfdf4.491
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829094118/http://www.songunpoliticsstudygroup.org/Oct102008/W-801010.HTM to http://www.songunpoliticsstudygroup.org/Oct102008/W-801010.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. (by Painius  19:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 September 2015

A protected redirect, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#Redirect [[North Korea]]

• to this:

#Redirect [[North Korea]]

{{Redr|from move|from full name|mentioned in hatnote|printworthy}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template Redr is an alias for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. As long as {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} will suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.) Thank you in advance! Painius  19:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Martin! Joys! Painius  10:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of size with a US state in the lead

Newyork1501 is seeking to add a statement that North Korea is about the same size as the US state of Pennsylvania to the first paragraph of the article. It has been added twice, and I have now removed it a second time. We need more opinions on whether the fact should be included in the opening paragraph of the article. My opinion is that such a comparison is unnecessary trivia and is biased towards an assumption that the reader knows how big Pennsylvania is. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed Most Americans couldn't find Pennsylvania on a map with both hands, not to mention folks from other English speaking countries. Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed Article gives the area.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Article should use the official name

The government and citizens of this country refer to themselves as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They really don't like the name "North Korea" because they don't like to think about the territory of Korea divided into 2 separate parts. The war casts a large scar on every person's attitude to the current situation. They don't like the terms "North/South Korea" because it reminds them of that difficult time in their history. I'm not going to change the title of the page and the redirects, but using the name "North Korea" as the name of the page about that country seems like a jerk move.

We don't intentionally call any other country in the world a name they don't like. Some people might think their human rights record is bad and they should be "punished" for this by every means available. Is that how we think we can force regime change? By being jerks and giving the DPRK government all the ammunition it needs to keep their people focused on the overseas enemy? We can't continue to load our diplomacy with "before we even will talk to you, we require you to...." demands. Let's show some goodwill and use the official name of the country.70.140.103.111 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "we" are in your comment. To my knowledge, Wikipedia isn't trying to force regime change. And in any event, Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with feelings when it titles an article. Dyrnych (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Further, we are not a forum. The policy here is to use common names so we won't be changing the name.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a valid topic for discussion, but it has already been discussed six times - see above.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ed Nygma asks: "I belong to you, but I'm used far more often by others than by you. What am I?" Our common names policy prefers what people commonly call a topic over the "official" name of the topic. It is also disingenuous to blame the victim, saying the bad actions of the DPRK government are our fault because of what we call them, just as our current leadership blames the US for terrorism. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

Can You Pls. Add Religion :D I watched in Nat Geo Don't tell my mother that North Korea's religion is Roman Catholicism and Irreligion if you don't want to believe here is the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFCjg0Xine0 49.149.9.236 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it is not clear what you want added, and YouTube is not a reliable source. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

good afternoon he is a good man doing good things for himself and country for this is not terrorism finding truth but I ask not to put him down or destroy his hard work take into take consideration of your own hard work.

2602:30A:2EA7:DEE0:5D00:75C1:95A3:7014 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: Huh? If you want to make a change to the article you need to be specific about the changes that you want to make. --Majora (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

Please insert following citation to replace citation needed request toward the end of the fourth paragraph in the introductory section (second last sentence). This article contains estimates that confirm the numbers of casualties to be in the hundreds of thousands in a 15 year period.

Daniel Goodkind, Loraine West, Peter Johnson (28 March 2011). "A Reassessment of Mortality in North Korea, 1993-2008". U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111030 Hcawoody (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The citation needed template has been removed and there are already an abundance of reference citations in the lead (the "introductory section"), most of which should be removed to the lower content sections and out of the lead. Thank you for your help, and perhaps a place for your source can be found in another section of the article?  Be prosperous! Paine  22:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DPRK

The name of the country is Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This is what should be used as title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.87.222.113 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed above at Talk:North Korea#Article should use the official name. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070706035307/http://koreanhistoryproject.org/Jta/Kr/KrGEO0.htm to http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Jta/Kr/KrGEO0.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061201160439/http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/08/nkorea9040.htm to http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/08/nkorea9040.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140611044404/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/002/2009/zh/d0fc91b5-68b8-4fc8-89d1-fd59a95c7513/asa240022009en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/002/2009/zh/d0fc91b5-68b8-4fc8-89d1-fd59a95c7513/asa240022009en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314232341/http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/north-korea/report-2011 to http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/north-korea/report-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104094518/http://nkdb.org/bbs/data/publication/2009_NKDB_whitepaper_english.pdf to http://nkdb.org/bbs/data/publication/2009_NKDB_whitepaper_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426032452/http://nkdb.org/bbs1/data/publication/Survey_Report_on_Political_Prisoners_Camp_in_North_Korea_.pdf to http://nkdb.org/bbs1/data/publication/Survey_Report_on_Political_Prisoners_Camp_in_North_Korea_.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309142353/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2011/en/2671e54f-1cd1-46c1-96f1-6a463efa6f65/asa240012011en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2011/en/2671e54f-1cd1-46c1-96f1-6a463efa6f65/asa240012011en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

History etc

I don't see why we need a long pre-division history here with three maps and several photos. I raised this issue previously but didn't get a satisfactory answer. Also, this article has multiple maps of (North) Korea. Why? We have many good photos of North Korea, but we are not using them here. Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There were 11 maps or similar images. I have removed some of them that were not directly related to North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120309142353/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2011/en/2671e54f-1cd1-46c1-96f1-6a463efa6f65/asa240012011en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2011/en/2671e54f-1cd1-46c1-96f1-6a463efa6f65/asa240012011en.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100701090358/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk:80/45314,news-comment,news-politics,inside-north-korea-rare-insight-into-a-very-foreign-country to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45314,news-comment,news-politics,inside-north-korea-rare-insight-into-a-very-foreign-country

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Surveillance cameras

The "Law enforcement" section includes the following:

Mass surveillance is carried out through a system which includes 100,000 CCTV cameras, many of which are installed at the border with China.

The source for this is The Telegraph which refers to a story by Chosun Ilbo. As The Telegraph itself has noted, Chosun Ilbo has produced many unreliable, propagandistic stories about North Korea.[1] In any case, the story is speculation apparently based on trade statistics. Moreover, as our article on the China–North Korea border shows, security there is not very tight. I don't think this is solid enough to be included here.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove it, because it is a major source. Mentioning that the source is the Chosun Ilbo would be sufficient. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What the Telegraph says is: "Citing Chinese export statistics on its trade with North Korea, the paper quoted analysts as saying that many of the cameras are being positioned at key points along the long border the two nations share in order to detect and capture would-be defectors from the North." If it is true that North Korea has imported CCTV cameras, this isn't particularly notable. A lot of countries have CCTV cameras. It doesn't sound like anybody has actually seen the cameras on the border. This is "analysis", i.e., speculation. The claim raises some obvious questions. What happens in a power blackout? What's to stop a defector crossing the border at a different point? And what's the point of filming someone leaving? How would that stop them? Look at this report [2] about the situation at Dandong (clearly a "key point" on the border). It doesn't look like any cameras have been installed there. Simply because a claim is made in a major newspaper doesn't justify its inclusion here.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

But our assumption here is our own speculation/original research. The source still does have weight, but it can be marked as a claim and not a fact anyway. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland. First, this should be sourced to multiple sources—preferably scholarly sources—per WP:DUE. The Telegraph article is written in a speculative tone. Also, cameras on the borders is not the same thing as mass surveillance, which implies spying on citizens. We would need iron-clad sources that use that very description, in my opinion.- MrX 13:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this source is cited at the Mass surveillance in North Korea page, which I think is appropriate. Here, it's creating a factoid. In addition, our text doesn't even reflect what the report says. Even if you accept it as factual, the story is essentially nebulous. Some years ago 100,000 cameras were imported. Are they still operational? We don't know that they were ever operational. Some years ago (c. January 2013) many were being installed at the border. Was this installation completed? We don't know. What does "many" mean? Does it mean "most" (i.e., more than 50,000) or does it simply mean "a lot"? It's very hard to establish what the source is actually saying.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I reviewed the source again and it really only speculates the cameras were used for mass surveillance in the title and subtitle. The text itself only mentions them being used on the border. But it could remain with the clarification that a number of cameras were installed in the border, it's still information about the security of the country itself. The number of countries with tightly-monitored borders is surprisingly low, so it can remain there I think. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it. Our article on the China–North Korea border indicates the border is not tightly monitored. Unless we have sources which say the cameras are in place, which should have this here, but it is appropriate to mention the cameras in the Mass surveillance in North Korea article, and this is mentioned there.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

North korea territory size is controversial

Some source say it's 120,540 sq km(from cia map) but many other say it is 122,762 sq km(from world alias)

Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.33.215 (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My atlas says 122,310.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

B. Fairbairn seems to be on a long term vendetta to remove this photo from the page. I don't understand why.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been added back in. Let's see how long it lasts.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130128184102/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/north-korea-songbun-caste-system_n_2380799.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/north-korea-songbun-caste-system_n_2380799.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140412081837/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/north-korea_n_4108265.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/north-korea_n_4108265.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140727023534/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141007062045/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/north-korea-twitter-propa_n_682920.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/north-korea-twitter-propa_n_682920.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150105141503/http://www.univie.ac.at/koreanologie/index.php?id=north-korean-cities to http://www.univie.ac.at/koreanologie/index.php?id=north-korean-cities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting source

This article could be a good source to cite for art and culture: "The good things in North Korea". NKNews. 2016-06-06. --Christian140 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've used the information about the Bible in Religion in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

"Korea" in "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is Chosun/Joseon. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that though North Koreans use the name "Joseon", it is not the official name.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

|government_type = Juche one-party

XXUjichanXx (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that we're on the topic, let's consider using actual forms of government. "Juche" or even "totalitarian" might refer to the content of the country's politics, but neither is a form of government. Oh look, here's even a reference, Encyclopedia Britannica: "Form of government[:] unitary single-party republic with one legislative house (Supreme People's Assembly [687])". Looking at Featured country articles (Canada, Chad, Japan, Germany), this is more or less the formula they use. My suggestion for this article: "Unitary one-party republic" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that is potentially misleading as there are at least two other parties: the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party. I think it would be better to say "one-party dominated". People have said in the past that these parties are basically fake. But people say the same about the Workers' Party. People have also said that "one party" does not literally mean "one party". But I don't think the ordinary reader realises this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is only supposed to be a summary. By reading the relevant sections on politics the reader will find out what exactly "one-party" means in the context of North Korea (or the linked article on one-party state, which also addresses the issue of states that are not literally one-party). In any case, I'd rather use a label from a reliable source than invent one. A footnote can be added if necessary. And before it's brought up, I don't think the word de facto is useful here because North Korea is also a de jure one-party state (the Constitution grants that "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea." (Article 11.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution also says the DPRK is democratic. I think the previous debate demonstrated that there are many interpretations of the DPRK: one-party state, military dictatorship, absolute monarchy, fascist tyranny, socialist bulwark etc. I think we need to settle on a form of words that won't lead to an endless edit war. I agree "Juche" should go. It doesn't convey anything to the ordinary reader, and it has been widely (mis)interpreted by scholars.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: if we can only agree what it should not say, it never ends because people keep adding all sorts of labels. It currently reads "Unitary Juche socialist one-party de facto absolute monarchy under totalitarian dictatorship". Which of these terms do you object to? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't say "de facto absolute monarchy".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Topher385 (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Government in Infobox

There seems to be another edit war starting about this. We debated this in 2014. Can we come to some consensus about a form of words?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can the people conducting the edit war please argue their case here so we can try to reach consensus?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

typo

it says that the population is just over 2.5 million then later says the military is 9,456,000 people- 9 million. one of these figures are incorrect! i'm sure that north korea has 25 million people. the pyongyang page even says that it has 3 million residents!

2.5 million refers to Pyongyang's population, but it does seem slightly odd to put this in the opening sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

OK- however this should be changed.

I've taken the population figure out of the lead, as it seems misplaced.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)