Talk:North Korea/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Kim Jong-un status

Kim Jong-un in page listed Party and State Affairs Commission Chairman. But Jong-un status is unknown, mystery: [1] [2]. I suggest page say "maybe Kim Jong-un" or "unknown" because mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary. Either he is fine, and this "mystery" will blow over, or he is dead, and a new chairman will be announced. Unless you have absolute proof of where any particular person is and what their health is at all times, there is a similar "mystery" with any such position. --Khajidha (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Point is we do not know now, and significant reports on possibilities. Very different from some leader without newscast from past hour. Taking your argument, we should state a Schrödinger's cat is alive until proof otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While we may have uncertainty about the man, there is no uncertainty about the office. The office is held by Kim Jong-un until he is confirmed dead. So, while we may have a section of the article discussing his health and rumors of death, any listing of the titles he holds (like in the infobox) should be left alone. Note that I am not saying whether we should or should not have a section on these rumors, just that they do not affect the presentation of offices held--Khajidha (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t know is he dead or not. Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am gonna discuss on the Page of Kim Jong-un Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Name is "North Korea" instead of their actual name democratic peoples republic of Korea

North Korea" is a wrong and insulting term, since it refers to the northern half of the Korean peninsula in a geographical sense, not the state named DPRK. The DPRK and its people normally see the term "North Korea" as insulting one which means the denial of the DPRK as a state. It's like calling the United States Mid North America. Let us call the nation by its name. Dunkin' Capitalism (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Too bad for them we are not speaking Korean. We are speaking English. And, in English, there is no such insult in the name. Or should I be insulted by the fact that I live in North Carolina? We use the English common names of countries. For this country that is "North Korea". End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s Called North Korea in short, Such as South Korea Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying South Korea is not called Korea?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

He may or may not be, but I am. I've never encountered such a usage. --Khajidha (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s called Korea also but we know it as South Korea
Okay 
A mistake. Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

*Typos*  Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

The history of Korea before the 1945 should be rendered at minimum identical for the ROK and DPRK articles. The inclusion of the history of Korea only under the ROK article at present could be interpreted as a bias in favour of one as being more legitimate than the other. 8.9.85.28 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. The history section describes the history of North Korea. It is not the history of the whole of Korea. We do not need to mimic the article about South Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add Hanja to all Sino-Korean words

Please add Hanja to all Sino-Korean words included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.149.45 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Government

Add "Constitutional Monarchy" as the de facto government. Here are sources. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/From-Republic-to-Monarchy,-Pyongyang-%E2%80%99will-be-governed-only-by-Kim%E2%80%99-28758.html https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1296394/democratic-peoples-monarchy-korea-north-korea-changes-ruling-principles https://worldpopulationreview.com/governments/north-korea/ Manabimasu (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources you cited are dumbfounded since they only refer to the DPRKs 10 principles and isn't part of the constitution. So don't call it "constitutional monarchy if it isn't even in the fucking constitution redditor. Also the statement doesn't say anything about hereditary monarchy since they only state that their thankful, NOT that they are blindly following them!Dunkin' Capitalism (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Would North Korea really be a socialist republic? It is much more centered around one man than China is, Kim Jong-Un is at a near-godlike status, he has complete control over North Korea. I would consider it a socialist republic under a totalitarian dictatorship, akin to Stalinist Soviet Union or Maoist China. AustinC2002 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

False balance regarding NK government claims on human rights

I noticed that my edit to remove the sentence "the North Korean government denies these allegations" with regard to the UN report on human rights from the lead was reverted. I appreciate Cloud200's attempt at compromise by asking references for both claims. However, I still think that the wording needs to change, if we are going to include the sentence. Describing the position of the UN and human rights organization as "allegation" the government denies gives undue weight to the claims of a despotic government with nothing but propaganda to back up what they are saying. The North Korean government's position, if it is mentioned at all, should be framed in this light. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to reflect the NK government's position as being propaganda, and added references. Please feel free to discuss. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't need citations in the introduction — and certainly not three per statement — and neither of these statements are contested. We should have an impartial tone (see WP:NPOV), and heavy-handed editorialising about the North Korean government's response being "propaganda" is not appropriate. It is also not necessary. Readers should be able to make up their own minds. As I see it, the sentence only indicates what the North Korean government's response is. This is informative. The government has not admitted fault, or defended such actions, but has denied them. This is entirely appropriate to include. This, after all, is supposed to be an article about North Korea. (As to your statement that there is "nothing but propaganda to back up what they are saying", this is actually not true. One of the star witnesses at the UN Inquiry Shin Dong-hyuk has admitted that he was lying. Singer Hyon Song-wol who was widely reported to have been executed by Kim Jong Un turned up alive and well. And so on. However, I say this as an aside.)--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I added the citation needed template because these were quite decisive statements yet were completely unsourced and this just didn't look serious. They are extensively sourced in the further part of the article so it shouldn't be any problem to re-use these references in the lead. Cloud200 (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding statements from North Korean government, I wouldn't take for granted even a single word of a government that prevents its own citizens from freely leaving the country or allows any foreign monitors, because this single aspect effectively cancels any ability to independently verify these statements. Even if Shin Dong-hyuk was hiding the fact that he denounced his family (as this was the main aspect of his lies as I read) let's not lose the focus on what is the key message of all the people from escaped from such regimes: they were not free to leave the country in the first place and the regime applied lethal measures to prevent them from doing so. You can't give equal weight to statements from such countries. Cloud200 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is informative to mention that the NK government denies its abuses. However, using the word "allegations" conveys that the claims of human rights abuses are unsubstantiated, and undermines the facts of the matter. There may be some examples of confusion over specific cases, especially given how tightly the NK government controls information and access to foreign journalists, but no serious humanitarian organization, NGO, or news organization denies that human rights abuses are rampant. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's drop both "allegations" and "propaganda" as misleading/unspecific. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Cloud200 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the changes, but I would like to add that I think any discussion of North Korea should be as factual as possible. Vague opinions, guesses, and statements of belief are not particularly useful. By his own admission, Shin has lied multiple times. The writer Simon Winchester commented that the "authority" of the UN Commission of Inquiry report was "somewhat challenged" by this revelation. And in fact there are many North Koreans who travel and live in other countries and return home.[3][4] And the northern border is often described as porous.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the North Korean workers rented as a low-paid half-slave work force to Russia and some Eastern European countries[5] as their families in North Korea as held as a guarantee they will not escape. I'm sure you would agree this is not the best example for "freedom of movement. And the border being described as "porous" does not imply people have freedom of movement, quite the opposite, they are just prevented from moving with less than 100% efficiency. Cloud200 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

But North Koreans, for example, travel to Russia, China or Malaysia. And the UN has banned foreign states from issuing work permits to North Koreans. Охранник Леса (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

My point is — and I apologise for being rude — that airy generalisations based on zero research are not helpful. I am sick of editors who have little or no knowledge of North Korea breezing in to NK-related articles and justifying changes with such generalisations. Merely because there is a grain of truth in those generalisations is no justification. No one would accept edits to America-related articles being justified by statements such as "I don't trust Trump". So it shouldn't be acceptable here. Competence is required. If an editor was furiously editing the article on Switzerland, but revealed on the Talk page that he didn't know that Switzerland had mountains, most people would say he shouldn't be editing the article without doing some research. And they would be bemused that someone would do such a thing. But such a thing happens routinely at NK-related pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Reread WP:CIV. I don't comment on things, which I don't know about. I above have given the facts, which shown, that North Koreans are restricted in their freedom of movement not only by the North Korean government, but also by the UN, which issues reports on human rights violations in North Korea. And restrictions on freedom of movement for North Koreans does not mean a ban on freedom of movement. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not make any changes (which are discussed in the section) to the article. I'm against, that information from North Korean government, the UN, HRW and AI naming propaganda, false balance or equal weight to the claims of despotic regimes. Охранник Леса (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence ("The North Korean government denies these allegations.") is consensual and neutral. The term "allegations" doesn't mean, that charges of human rights violations by the UN, HRW or AI are substantiated or unsubstantiated. First sentence of the paragraph informs, that the UN conducted an "inquiry" and "concluded", that can be called not neutral, because charges were unsubstantiated. For example, not all the facts were reliable and it can't be checked. And the UN is still involved in the Korean war against North Korea. Охранник Леса (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The UN's position is rather bizarre. Yes, it conducted a devastating war against the DPRK which hasn't been formally concluded. At the same time, the UN is tasked with keeping the peace at the DMZ and keeping both sides apart. Branches of the UN such as the WHO operate within North Korea. And, of course, the DPRK is a member of the UN...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I know it. And my message about the UN showed, that it is not a neutral source. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Охранник Леса All editors in this discussion agreed with the change of "allegations" ---> "abuses." Your arguments thus far are not persuasive and restoring "allegations" is contrary to consensus. Your personal opinion on the veracity of UN, HRW, and AI in relation to the DPRK government's claims are immaterial. Reliable sources are clear that North Korean human rights abuses are a matter of fact. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

1) Not all editors in this discussion agreed with your not consensual edits. 2) And your personal opinion on the veracity of DPRK government's in relation to the UN, HRW, and AI claims are immaterial. 3) Consensual version of the article is the term "allegations", not an "abuses". Consensus implies, that a solution has been reached in the course of a discussion, that has not ended. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion above. There is clear consensus to change the text from "allegations" to "abuses" and leave out the terms "allegations" and "propaganda" which are more value-laden. WP:3RR applies. You are free to make your case for your point of view, but other editors will need to be persuaded based on reliable sources, not your personal opinion. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer15, UN is an authority for this. DPRK's statements are WP:MANDY. See also HRW, BBC, Amnesty, academics, more academics and so on.

It's a dictatorship, what's hard to understand here? Guy (help!) 22:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is actually a great point, I didn't know that! Cloud200 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"NK (Korea)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NK (Korea). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#NK (Korea) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on changing the type of government from "unitary one-party republic" to "unitary one-party socialist republic"?

What the title says. Swiftestcat (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Swiftestcat: do you have a source that says that without WP:SYNTH? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Should "The Lies and Truth of Kim Jon Un" by The People on Youtube be mentioned here ?

The video on YouTube has amassed a lot of attention.

Probably not

This *is* as much of a second-hand or third hand source as it gets, really. Find the sources the video cites (if any) and then maybe. Youtube videos as a source in general are dubious.Seven404 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

article name correction (DPR Korea)

The title article should be corrected to DPRK, instead of North Korea. This is a major error! Baldersmash (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Baldersmash: First take a look at the previous discussions on the article name, referred to above. If you still think it is a good idea to change the article name, you should start a new discussion, but with better arguments than "This is a major error!" --Madglad (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The name of this country is DPRK. My intention was to point out this fact, not provide arguments. Baldersmash (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Baldersmash, Well, it has been discussed, let me see... 6 times now.

It's failed 6 times.

You'll need an argument to continue. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look at the following website: https://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html . Hope this clears it up! Baldersmash (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So the UN uses DPRK, so what? Wikipedia is not subject to control by the UN. Our policy at Wikipedia is to use the common name. In this case, that is North Korea. --Khajidha (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I referenced the UN because it's a significant international organization. I would like to remind you that the Korean War hasn't formally ended, meaning American sources are not WP:NPOV. Baldersmash (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no "significant international organizations" when it comes to English language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I referenced the UN website since it was written in English. Baldersmash (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So? Written in English does not equal "having control over general English usage". The UN has absolutely no power over usage by anyone other than its own bureaucracy. We have our own rules here. English language usage is overwhelmingly in favor of "North Korea". End of story.--Khajidha (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My intention was to provide a reference which indicates the correct way to refer to the country in English. Wikipedia is based on references to neutral sources. Baldersmash (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And the vast, vast, VAST majority of neutral sources use North Korea. And, again, the UN has no power to define "the correct way to refer to the country in English".--Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to reference a neutral source more distinguished than the UN. Baldersmash (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that UN usage is only relevant to the UN, what it says doesn't matter. The UN is not a regulator of usage. Nor is it a reporter of usage outside of itself. Here's the point. The usage at the UN isn't worth a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys in this discussion. WP:COMMONNAME

is the controlling guideline. And that guideline leads us to use North Korea. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The conventional manner to establish the properties you describe is to reference neutral sources. Baldersmash (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And there are plenty of those already in the article. --Khajidha (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any particular neutral article which would be preferable to the UN one I already provided. Baldersmash (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Any of them is preferable because they show usage in the general corpus of the English language. The UN's usage is designed for use specifically by the UN itself and its subsidiaries. --Khajidha (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. It is commonly titled "North Korea" in the English language, by English-speaking sources, in en.wikipedia.org. That is pretty much the end of the matter. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion immediately above. Baldersmash (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My eyes function just fine, thank you, your guidance is unnecessary. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

With respect, the UN link you have provided has a number of names that we do not use on Wikipedia, as they are technical and not common names. The Gambia is not located at "The Republic of The Gambia." Iran is not located at "The Islamic Republic of Iran." Laos is not located at "Lao People's Democratic Republic." Moldova is not located at "Republic of Moldova." Russia is not located at "Russian Federation" (that's a great example, too, since it is about as major a country you can get at the UN, being a permanent Security Council member). Syria is not located at "Syrian Arab Republic." East Timor is not located at "Timor-Leste." United Kingdom (another permanent Security Council seat holder) is not located at "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Tanzania is not located at "United Republic of Tanzania." United States is not located at "United States of America." Venezuela is not located at "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela." Vietnam is not located at "Viet Nam." I have probably missed some others. The point is, that UN list is not how we name countries on Wikipedia. Rather, WP:COMMONNAME is applied. How distinguished and/or neutral the UN is is not the issue. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Monarcho-Communism?

Is North Korea a monarchy? The Kim dynasty has ruled from the beginning. At the very least, a hereditary dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonSocMan (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

How about semi-quasi-monarcho-pseudo-communism?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume this thread is in jest, but just in case it ain't... IIRC, North Korea dropped the official 'communist' label in the early 70s...so they're not even communist in name only, like (arguably, and fiercely disputed by its government) China. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Government description

I think that the Government description from the infobox falls short. I suggest to change it to: “Unitary Juche one-party socialist republic”.

Here’s a source: http://www.korea-dpr.com/political.html --ZAPgon3 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Gooduserdude from my talk page: "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic in china country infobox, why should north korea not use juche and socialist in its?" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

First, whatever they decide at China (there is an on-going discussion at Talk:China#Government form) has direct relevance to that article only. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't watch the arguments made there, but a decision has to be made separately here. Second, combining epithets from various sources into a single claim like that is WP:SYNTH, and that's not allowed. We should follow what reliable sources say when they make this exact claim: what is the form of government of North Korea? E.g. Britannica says "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house". When judging sources, we should be careful about this. Marxism–Leninism or Juche are not forms of government. They are ideologies, i.e. contents, not forms, of policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Using Britannica is an easy solution to this. If we include everything that every source has said about the government we would have an extremely long string of words. And editors would argue about most of the words.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism or Juche are not forms of government. They are ideologies, i.e. contents, not forms, of policy. - In the case of Marxism-Leninism, I am not sure that that's entirely correct...it has been my understanding that Marxism-Leninism, in addition to its ideological meanings, also described the form of government (i.e., constitutional rather than political) that the USSR was the prototype example of, and that is currently the form of government of Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and China. Thus, while China, according to many of its critics (both communists and non-communists), has veered away from Marxist-Leninist ideologies, their constitutional form of government is still Marxist-Leninist. (But I could be mistaken. Definitions can change, too). Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Business Bay

Bruh whats north korea, why is it pictures of Business Bay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.178.199 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Add event

I think we should add the Panmunjom Declaration, it was very important event for both Koreas Nguyễn Phúc Vy (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Nguyễn Phúc Vy which part of the article would you prefer to add that? Vikram Vincent 18:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent, I prefer to add that in formation Nguyễn Phúc Vy (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent, I added that in formation to be more enough. Phạm Văn Rạng (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolute Monarchy

I suggest that we change the form of government of North Korea from its current name to Absolute Monarchy, adding North Korea to the list of Absolute Monarchies in Absolute Monarchy's page. 190.219.180.69 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No, North Korea is not an absolute monarchy because it has no monarch and no serious source will make that claim. A regime can be de facto hereditary and vested with absolute power without being an absolute monarchy. It's quite simply a hereditary dictatorship. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the word Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy has lost all its meaning... If an absolute monarchy is not an hereditary dictatorship (which, by the way, is not mentioned in the form of government of the original page), then what is an absolute monarchy? De facto is what matters, there isn't even a Dictatorship form of government in the Formes of Government's page. This is unfair. By the way, are you North Korean? 190.219.180.69 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-operational factories

Private trade is dominated by women because most men are required to be present at their workplace, even though many state-owned enterprises are non-operational.
— North Korea#Economy

Most state-owned industrial enterprises ceased operation [after the USSR and China withdrew support].

[...]

[authorities] put pressure on men to ensure that they attend their places of work even though most of these factories are non-functioning.
— https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/304_96327.html

Either we should accurately reflect the source's claim or omit it entirely. Besides, this is a strong claim for numbers that are now more than twenty years old. Although Lankov seems pretty level-headed, I would prefer to replace or supplement this source with something primarily concerned with industrial production. Wacketeer (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This claim seems exaggerated and out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

article name correction (DPR Korea)

The title article should be corrected to DPRK, instead of North Korea. This is a major error! Baldersmash (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Baldersmash: First take a look at the previous discussions on the article name, referred to above. If you still think it is a good idea to change the article name, you should start a new discussion, but with better arguments than "This is a major error!" --Madglad (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The name of this country is DPRK. My intention was to point out this fact, not provide arguments. Baldersmash (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Baldersmash, Well, it has been discussed, let me see... 6 times now.

It's failed 6 times.

You'll need an argument to continue. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look at the following website: https://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html . Hope this clears it up! Baldersmash (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So the UN uses DPRK, so what? Wikipedia is not subject to control by the UN. Our policy at Wikipedia is to use the common name. In this case, that is North Korea. --Khajidha (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I referenced the UN because it's a significant international organization. I would like to remind you that the Korean War hasn't formally ended, meaning American sources are not WP:NPOV. Baldersmash (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no "significant international organizations" when it comes to English language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I referenced the UN website since it was written in English. Baldersmash (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So? Written in English does not equal "having control over general English usage". The UN has absolutely no power over usage by anyone other than its own bureaucracy. We have our own rules here. English language usage is overwhelmingly in favor of "North Korea". End of story.--Khajidha (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My intention was to provide a reference which indicates the correct way to refer to the country in English. Wikipedia is based on references to neutral sources. Baldersmash (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And the vast, vast, VAST majority of neutral sources use North Korea. And, again, the UN has no power to define "the correct way to refer to the country in English".--Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to reference a neutral source more distinguished than the UN. Baldersmash (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that UN usage is only relevant to the UN, what it says doesn't matter. The UN is not a regulator of usage. Nor is it a reporter of usage outside of itself. Here's the point. The usage at the UN isn't worth a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys in this discussion. WP:COMMONNAME

is the controlling guideline. And that guideline leads us to use North Korea. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The conventional manner to establish the properties you describe is to reference neutral sources. Baldersmash (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And there are plenty of those already in the article. --Khajidha (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any particular neutral article which would be preferable to the UN one I already provided. Baldersmash (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Any of them is preferable because they show usage in the general corpus of the English language. The UN's usage is designed for use specifically by the UN itself and its subsidiaries. --Khajidha (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. It is commonly titled "North Korea" in the English language, by English-speaking sources, in en.wikipedia.org. That is pretty much the end of the matter. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion immediately above. Baldersmash (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My eyes function just fine, thank you, your guidance is unnecessary. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

With respect, the UN link you have provided has a number of names that we do not use on Wikipedia, as they are technical and not common names. The Gambia is not located at "The Republic of The Gambia." Iran is not located at "The Islamic Republic of Iran." Laos is not located at "Lao People's Democratic Republic." Moldova is not located at "Republic of Moldova." Russia is not located at "Russian Federation" (that's a great example, too, since it is about as major a country you can get at the UN, being a permanent Security Council member). Syria is not located at "Syrian Arab Republic." East Timor is not located at "Timor-Leste." United Kingdom (another permanent Security Council seat holder) is not located at "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Tanzania is not located at "United Republic of Tanzania." United States is not located at "United States of America." Venezuela is not located at "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela." Vietnam is not located at "Viet Nam." I have probably missed some others. The point is, that UN list is not how we name countries on Wikipedia. Rather, WP:COMMONNAME is applied. How distinguished and/or neutral the UN is is not the issue. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Gambia is referred to as "The Gambia" in an English translation of its constitution; Iran is referred to as "Iran" in in an english version of its consitution; Laos writes in their constitution, "building Laos a country of peace"; Moldovan presidents swear to "the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Moldova"; I assume it is similar for other countries. Why would you suggest we behave differently toward the DPRK? Baldersmash (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What those countries do isn't relevant because that's not the criterion we use. We don't ask "what does country x call itself in English?" We ask "what does the English speaking world call country x?" If those happen to match, that is fine. But if they do not, then the usage of the country itself doesn't matter. --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aegukka.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Not Communist?

This claim (mostly by implication) is very, very thin. There seems no question that it once was a communist state. What has changed? The economy remains state-directed, industry and finance are state-owned, the country enforces state atheism, and a "Worker's Party" still controls the state. Even its iconography remains distinctively communist. There is no need to indulge North Korea's own propaganda claims that Juche is somehow unconnected to Marxism.

All we have are deleted references to communism in the constitution, and one scholar whose thesis is vigourously contested. North Korea remains broadly referred to as a communist country in major news media. The Worker's Party of Korea remains affiliated with the main communist international group, and attends its meetings.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and we've only got one scholar claiming it's not a duck... it's a duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielthursday (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, except that North Korea's propaganda says that Juche is a development of Marxism-Leninism. See [6].--Jack Upland (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Which specific content are we talking about? Juche is the most accurate term, and the connection with Marxism-Leninism is discussed both in this and related articles. MarioGom (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The country should be described as communist in the introduction and where appropriate throughout. The description of political ideology should be contextualised by opposing views and the widespread reference to NK as communist by reliable sources (and by NK's own propaganda, as @Jack Upland points out, and which continues to be referenced to this day. NK should also be included on the list of current communist states. One further point: Marxism-Lenininsm is not the only form of communism; even if there is an incompatibility between M-L and Juche, we should still be referring to NK as communist, per RS. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

a lie and a biased opinion

This part: "were among the most productive and successful in the world around 1980" Is just a lie. The reference indicated "North Korea: A Country Study" simply does not say that at all.

Also, the part: "Satellite image of the Korean Peninsula at night, contrasting use of night-time lighting in North and South Korea. A similar contrast is found when comparing night-time maps of Belgium and Germany" Is misleading, to say the least. "Similar contrast" is higly subjective. I cannot see a belgium/germany contrast so remarkable as the north/south korea constrast. Either way, it is an unnecessary statement. Kaotisch (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaotisch: The source says "Up until the late 1980s, North Korea claimed to have the highest per hectare rice output in the world; although that claim cannot be proved, experts did not question the North's general agricultural success, and published CIA figures put North Korea's per capita grain output among the highest in the world in around 1980." As we can see, the source is quite skeptical of contemporary figures even when they had been vetted by the CIA. Therefor, we should not cherry pick the 1980 claim. I think we should rephrase the content along the lines that the source says on the previous page: "North Korea had reasonably successful socialist agricultural systems until the collapse of the economy in the mid-1990s".

As for the satellite image, I agree here as well. The reasons why the North is dark and the South isn't are different from why Germany is dark and Belgium isn't. To leave those reasons out is misleading and to include them would be pointlessly trivial.

I'll change the bits soon if there isn't discussion to the contrary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the satellite image is overused, but I agree the Germany example isn't appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Both issues resolved now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Notes Sections

Has anyone else noticed that this page has a duplicate "Notes" section? Both sections are used for explanatory footnotes and each houses separate notes (it's not just a copy-and-paste thing). Does this serve any purpose? I propose that the two Notes sections should be combined into a single section with a single format. Tyrone Madera (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to boldly combine the Notes sections. Tyrone Madera (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Include 1-2 sentences about climate change?

I think the article ought to include at least 1-2 sentences about how climate change is affecting North Korea already now and where North Korea stands with regards to greenhouse gas emissions and the Paris agreement. We could also wikilink to this article (although it still has some gaps): Climate change in North Korea.EMsmile (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Please, if you can, be bold if you have the sources to do so. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in that article. 1-2 sentences (presumably under "Climate") would be OK. But bear in mind this article is rather oversized, so if anyone wants more information they can go to that article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. See alsos are cheap. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Anthem of DPRK - KCTV (Audio).ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Anthem of DPRK - KCTV (Audio).ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the cited source the rate of pay to North Korean defectors for information is an hourly rate, this is not stated in the text. Vetedit1982 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• North Korea anthem Vocal.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Hello, as I was scrolling around the article [Capital Cities] , I found out that the DPRK still claims Seoul as it's de jure, capital. Would it be possible to include this and change the country box?

North Korea also claimed in its 1948 Constitution that Seoul was its de jure capital, and that Pyongyang is a temporary capital.

Thanks. 77.71.168.121 (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 14:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While the 1948 Constitution did this, Pyongyang replaced Seoul in the 1972 Constitution, and that's how it's been ever since. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation Bundling

Am I the only one who thinks that the sentence in the lead stating: "It holds elections, though they have been described by independent observers as sham elections, as North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship,[3][4][5][21][22][23][24][25]" should bundle its citations? This is kind of out of hand, especially for only the third introductory paragraph. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That has long been a problematic sentence. The citations were intended in part to support the fact that NK was "Stalinist" (see the quotations given), but the term "Stalinist" is no longer in the sentence! I'd be happy for the sentence to go.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland, it seems that CentreLeftRight beat us to it. I'd consider the problem addressed now. Would you? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's a problematic sentence, but I have no wish to trigger an edit war.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera and Jack Upland: discussing things is the alternative to an edit war. I'd say the sentence is okay but could be better. It's trying to say too many things at once that are not directly related. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point. The sentence should be dissected into its separate parts in order to sound more coherent. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest it be written like so: "According to article 1 of the constitution, North Korea is an 'independent socialist state'. It holds elections, but they have been described by independent observers as sham elections. North Korea has been described as a totalitarian dictatorship, with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim dynasty." CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're discussing elections in the introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably because they claim to call them and the very name they give themselves is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so it's worth mentioning in the introduction that they do not hold real elections? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems pretty childish to me.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for dropping it out of the intro, because criticism usually goes in the body text. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I only care about grammar and sentence structure. The only problem I have with the current sentences is that they're a mouthful. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as that's concerned, it looks good to me. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would rewrite it like that except drop down the last two sentences into the body, if not all 3 sentences. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand the reference to elections. This seems like something someone sometime thought was a key point. It isn't. Is there any country which doesn't have elections?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Negotiations for reunification 1945-48

The article has a couple of references to negotiations for "reunification" (1945-48). I have removed the link to Korean reunification because that article says the process began in 2000, among other things. The division into two occupation zones was viewed as temporary. The negotiations were about creating a trusteeship or some other government to follow on from the occupation. The USSR didn't co-operate with the UN-sanctioned elections. I don't think it's right to portray the negotiations about reunification. But I can't at the moment think of a better term.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

First Line

The first line of the article should include its name in Korean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.48.174 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The names in Korean are included in the note ref instead of in parentheses to avoid clutter per MOS:LANG. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious Bias, Sketchy Sources?

This page reads like a 1950's US propaganda reel; it quotes as fact statements by US government funded and CIA-associated groups like Freedom House (huge conflict of interest, they are funded by an enemy government who have a clear motivation to want DPRK besmirched and destroyed.) There are literally 50 or more examples of opinion being rendered as fact here, and this is all the more dubious when you consider that it is being presented on some very thin and often heavily biased sources. This entire article needs to be cleaned up, and cleaned of US-centric and anti-communist and anti-Asian bias. I don't wanna do it because of possible ideological bias on MY part, but it needs to be done, and anything quoted from a conflicting party should be reviewed and hopefully removed. 2600:6C40:6100:C500:6147:7AA8:4A6A:B09A (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If you give examples of problems with bias and sourcing, we can look at them.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Range of deaths from the famine of the 1990s

To further clarify the reasoning behind this revert, the study cited argues that previous ranges were miscalculated, and offered a new range of 240,000–420,000.

Page 134: "Only three studies have provided a conventional demographic perspective (Robinson et al. 1999; Goodkind and West 2001; Goodkind, West, and Johnson 2011). ... Goodkind, West, and Johnson (2011) have since substantially revised downward their estimates of famine-related mortality to a total excess number of deaths between 500,000 and 600,000. Both the 2001 and 2011 estimates call into question the often-heard claims that the famine in north Korea was responsible for the loss of 3 million lives (among others, see Becker 2006: 211; Eberstadt 2007: 131–132)."

Page 153: "Based on these figures, we can revise the demographic impact of the famine in the 1990s to include between 240,000 and 420,000 total excess deaths, accounting for 1–2 percent of the country’s population. These revised estimates are well below the previous and widely accepted range of estimates of 600,000 to one million (Goodkind and West 2001) and well below the claims by Jasper Becker and others of 3 million victims of the famine in North Korea."

CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following this up.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Map

Why such a crappy map? Surely there's a better one that can be used. Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There are many maps in this article, it is unclear which one you are referring to. CMD (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

I want to add an audio example of the national anthem. Justin L. 1230 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please upload the audio file first and then reopen the request with a link to the audio file so that it can be added if it is appropriate. Terasail^[✉️] 15:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet split in introduction

From the intro:

Despite the war's failure, the post-war North Korea prospered as its first leader, Kim Il-sung, exploited the Sino-Soviet split to procure benefits from Moscow and Beijing, and in the 1960s boasted higher living standards than in the South.

The comment about exploiting the split is not in the body of the article and has no citation. My understanding is that North Korea sided with China originally.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That sentence is also not expanded on and contradicted in the article body. I can remedy this tomorrow; I already have citations prepared that verify your exact claim. Yue🌙 07:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The following sentence is not explained in the body of this article, nor in the body of History of North Korea:

Kim ramped up tensions throughout the 1960s and 1970s in a bid to try and replicate the success of Communists in Vietnam. However, these efforts were unsuccessful.

I have thus removed it from the lead, per MOS:LEAD (i.e. no context in the article body). Yue🌙 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

System of government

We should be careful with making claims of the country being a ‘totalitarian dictatorship’ which shows bias. A better way of phrasing it is a ‘unitary jucheist dominant party socialist republic’ because while you may have opinions on politics it is better to keep Wikipedia unbiased. Marxistnatalie (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Although things like "totalitarian dictatorship" are shallow political analysis and your alternative here is more robust, I'm sure there are enough RS to justify continued use of "totalitarian dictatorship." In my view the second edit you attempted -- removing "hereditary dictatorship" is more valuable. Hereditary dictatorship is not its form of government, and that label leads to confusion. Far better to use a description like yours with the phrase "whose political leadership is dominated by the Kim family." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What would be "biased" is couching a totalitarian dictatorship in nicey touchy-feelgood terms. A spade is a spade. ValarianB (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not what the other editor is arguing ("nicey touchy-feelgood terms") and we should avoid that kind of hyperbole or strawman, and be constructive with newcomers. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't use words incorrectly please, there was no strawman here. The OP wishes to couch it in "unitary jucheist dominant party socialist republic" terms, which is quite touchy-feelgood. ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. This field is not for whatever you can come up with to describe a country. It is for the form of government as explicitly reported by reliable sources. Something along the likes of Britannica: "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house". No source says "Unitary Jucheist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship", making it blatant WP:SYNTH. The solution is to revert back to a verifiable phrasing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Britannica phrasing is good. We should use it for the infobox. The "hereditary"/domination by the Kim family aspects and repressive aspects are dealt with elsewhere in the article. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, as discussed before.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Finnusertop and @Jack Upland, I revised the info box to add Chondoism after State Atheism in the Religion category, and I went ahead and changed to the Britannica description of form of government as you suggested JArthur1984 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vif12vf what are the grounds behind your unexplained reversion? Why don't you join us on the talk page instead, where we have discussed the infobox JArthur1984 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are we adding this one religion over others? Moxy- 23:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

My addition wasn't intended to suggest that only Chondoism and State Atheism are worth including, is there a specific religious practice you also thought was worth adding?

My reasoning is that I believe Chondosim is currently the most practiced religion in the country, although I don't have the citation for "most practiced" at hand. At a minimum, it was the second-most practiced religion as of 2007 as per an article we already cite in the article body, shortly behind Korean shamanism. It is also a uniquely Korean (particularly North Korea) syncretic faith, well worth making more information available about.

Perhaps we add both Korean Shamanism and Chondoism, as other religious practice is miniscule? JArthur1984 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, your RV only refers to the inclusion of Chondoism. Are you objecting to including the form of government that we sourced from Encyclopedia Britannica as well, or did that just get caught up because you undid my whole edit? JArthur1984 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

it's in 3rd place according to the sources in the article..... but should not be in at all as it implies there is religious freedom for this one denomination..... as for government type .....The WP:Sea of blue does not help in anyway. Should simply say what most academic sources say...don't rely on other tertiary sources .... academic sources simply say "socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" then explain more in a conventional place....for us that would be the government section. That said government type here will change over and over again year after year. Moxy- 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm following some but not all of your points.

On the religious observance question:

Factually, it is the *second most* practiced religion per the 2007 article. This article talks about how the variation in estimates, but includes an estimate showing Chondoism as having the most practitioners.

I don't think being listed in the infobox suggests religious freedom necessarily, so I don't understand that impression. But the fact is that Chondoism is specially favored and approved of by North Korean government. The Religion in North Korea article discusses this. So even if someone makes the same interpretation you do, it would still be OK because they would be correct. Does that address your issue?

On form of government:

I made (and am advocating for) the edit that took away the WP:sea of blue issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Still misleading the fact that the vast majority have no religious adherence and we're listing a religion out of the blue is not neutral or proper representation....list the five that are relevant or make a sea also link below as seen at Canada so people will understand the context. Moxy- 00:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with either of those suggestions. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Per multiple past consensuses. (closed by non-admin page mover) ––FormalDude (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

---

The country would likely to be called Democratic People's Republic of Korea and not North Korea. 2600:1700:6180:6290:5010:9EB9:D3A7:DB33 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

System of government - Again

Juche is a term unique to North Korea, and has zero value in describing a system of government in the context of comparing and contrasting it with other systems. If you're tossing it in there because it's part of their constitution, it's also not really correct unless you want to toss seongun in there somewhere as well. Also, while it certainly has been hereditary in practice thus far, it isn't explicitly so. This was pointed out above. If one must adhere to the structural fiction that North Korea is a 'republic', which I can only imagine would be *some* sort of POV or OR problem if changed, then one must acknowledge that there is nothing restricting power from being passed on to someone outside the Kim family.24.182.239.226 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree and I've returned it to what Britannica says. This is a verifiable, non-WP:SYNTH wording. And the fact that Britannica is a WP:TERTIARY source is useful. As per the policy "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other", which is exactly the case here. We're both encyclopedias trying to give a one-line answer to the question: "What is the form of government of North Korea?", which is not what academic sources typically seek to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

North Korea is not a republic, let's not be absurd here. Restored previous wording, minus Juche. ValarianB (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like us to use the Britannica wording as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

ValarianB, of course North Korea is a republic. Not only do reliable sources say that is, but it's also nothing that is mutually exclusive with it (i.e. a monarchy of any sort). A republic is not necessarily a well-functioning democracy. Likewise, the form of government does not necessarily reflect the content of politics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping up this issue, @Finnusertop, and for your focused comments. As you say, "the form of government does not necessarily reflect the content of politics," and I might add: nor does the form of government necessarily reflect a value judgment. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It is still called a republic with the existing wording, however it is also made clear that it is a totalitarian dictatorship in reality, which is highly reflective of sources. It is the prototypical example of a totalitarian state in the world. It is dissimilar to China where the party apparatus has significant power independent of Xi. in NK, only the Kim family holds any power. This has been stable long enough that I believe an WP:RFC will be needed to change it (though I don't mind removing Juche). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree the idea that it has been stable, as this was an area of disagreement last month and some time before that too. Maybe it could still benefit from an RfC though. On the substance of the issue, your observation regarding "only the Kim family holds any power" is not correct. The correct point to be made is that the Kim family has dominated North Korean political power. But this does not make the form of government "hereditary." JArthur1984 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm repeating what reliable sources say, and they absolutely call it hereditary [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Your contention that it is not hereditary appears to be original research. If you're going to make the outlandish claim that it is not hereditary, please back that up. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an outlandish claim or original research. Review some of our own Wikipedia articles on governance in North Korea, for example here. I'm focusing on questions dealing with form of government, i.e., its structures. I'm focused on that because I'm in the context of what should the infobox say after form of government. You're focusing on concentrations of power, which is a fine point but it's different than what I'm discussing. If the form of government is "hereditary" some source needs to be able to explain what are the rules of its heredity? Primogentiure? Postregeniture? Partition? Obviously it's none of those forms. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See Political Dynamics of Hereditary Succession in North Korea if you are interested in a detailed, academic treatment. I am also dealing with the form of government, i.e., its structures. That would be a hereditary dictatorship. This is discussed heavily in academic literature and we will not be ignoring that because the North Korean government disputes its accuracy. We of course indicate what they claim the structure is, but that is only one piece of the picture. I do not understand your desire to tell only the North Korean government's (verifiably false) perspective. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning that it is a nuclear weaopons state in the intro?

@Yue: Hi again! As you know, Kim officially declared the DPRK a nuclear weapons state in a speech on the 9th of this month. I think that this could be added as it is a fact now and it won't make the intro too wordy but I'm not sure where - probably after this line? - "Despite initial attempts to engage with the West in the early 1990s, by the 21st century, Kim Il-sung's successors, his son Kim Jong-il and later his grandson Kim Jong-un, made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons, creating a series of crises ongoing to the present day." What do you think? Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No objection, personally. Yue🌙 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add cybercrimes by North Korea

North Korea was linked by FBI to Bangladesh Bank heist and many other cracking campaigns. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/the-incredible-rise-of-north-koreas-hacking-army is another. Sony Pictures "hack" is mentioned in the page but I think there can be a section on cracking by the country. Any objections? Any suggestions on where to add them? (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC))

We have an article Illicit activities of North Korea. I think the bulk of that kind of material should go there.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jack Upland. Thanks for pointing it out as I didn't know existence of such a page. Maybe we can still have a section on illicit activities on the current page, just a short summary. I will try to add in the other page if I find something missing. Thanks. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC))

I would also say that we should concentrate on things that are known about NK, not things that are merely alleged.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course (although most of them are highly likely though not factologically proven. Yet.). Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

When did relationships with China improve?

Under "Foreign Relations", the page states "In recent years, relationships with China have improved." When? סשסGrimmchild 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It says relations improved in 2019, but the actual problem is the sentence before it, as "in the last few years" is vague and the accuracy could change with time. Yue🌙 09:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I was going to add a {{when}} tag, but I can't edit protected pages סשס Grimmchild 13:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done — I added the {{timeframe?}} tag. Yue🌙 04:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Moxy- 05:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Small map

I noticed the map showing NK's controlled and claimed land has the green areas be very small. Can it be cropped somehow? RteeeeKed💬📖 23:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What about an inset, such as File:Georgia (orthographic projection with inset).svg? CMD (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

{{subst:trim|1=

North Korea Founded August 15 1

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Korean War Peace Treaty

Wasnt a Treaty signed in 2018 50.72.185.22 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The Panmunjom Declaration was signed, but it contained a promise to co-operate for peace; it wasn't actually a peace treaty. North and South continue to face off across the DMZ.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a summing up of the situation as of 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Country Study

We cite two different documents: a Country Profile dated 2007 and a Country Study dated 2009. I believe they are the same thing. The link for the Country Profile no longer works, however. Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

oh dear. If you can, give the citation No. and I'll archive it in a jiffy. Thanks for pointing this out. - MountainKemono (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

They are both cited multiple times.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The Country Profiles and Country studies were part of the same series of publications, but they are different. The profile can be found here. The country study is here, although it claims to be from 2008. CMD (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• North Korea Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Koreas artical

Korea has two countrys North Korea AND South Korea But his no Friends North Korea,South Korea No friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.1.170 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

Abdulrahamnfahin598 (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Do not Go to North Korea you will go to jail

 Note: Thank you for the certainly well-meaning advice. This is the talk page of the article on North Korea. Talk pages are used for discussion about the article, they are not a forum for general discussion of the subject. If you would like to learn more about talk pages, you can read about them at WP:TP. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

I wish to request a edit access for the information is not correctly cited. Brakton (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Heart ^(talk) 20:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Anthem Lyrics

The English translation of the National Anthem lyrics appear to be vandalized. MetroMoment (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The lyrics of Aegukka are not in this article, and the Aegukka article itself seems fine to me. Yue🌙 03:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Might refer to File:National Anthem of North Korea Instrumental.mp3? CMD (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It was the English translation subtitles on File:National Anthem of North Korea Instrumental.mp3. (this was probably the wrong talk page to post on, apologies) It's since been fixed. MetroMoment (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)