Talk:Juche

Original research in the section "Comparisons to religion"?
The section "Comparisons to religion" (formerly known as "Religious features of Juche") appears to be premised on an original argument synthesised from various sources. Whoever added this section split it into three subsections: "Presence of a sacred leader", "Rituals", and "Familism". The original wording of the introductory paragraph for this section was as follows (appropriate revision linked here):

The sentence that explains the nomenclature of the three subsections (i.e. the long second sentence in the paragraph) cites page 192 of the Historical Dictionary of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by James Hoare. However, Hoare does not mention any of these three elements. The full text of the page is as follows:

In fact, everything in the second sentence cannot be verified by the source given; Hoare does not mention anything about the influence of East Asian religions on Juche, nor studies which view it as a "national and indigenous religious movement" (emphasis mine). The only sentence that even references comparisons of Juche to religion is the last one: "To many outsiders, juche [sic] seems more like a religious movement than a political philosophy, and it has been examined in this sense in a number of academic studies." Although this could be used to verify a reworded version of the first sentence, this is not necessary because it is a topic sentence and I gave specific examples from the Jung source ("Jucheism as an Apotheosis of the Family: The Case of the Arirang Festival" by Hyang Jin Jung) in my later edits.

Thus, the second sentence is in fact unsourced, along with the third and fourth sentences. The citations for the fifth and last sentence are also deceptively placed; they only speak to North Korea being an atheist state, but nothing to the second part of the sentence, i.e. "...but some argue (weasel words) that it maintains a cult of personality identical to a religion." For these reasons, I have reworded the first and second sentences and removed the latter three. However, I did not remove the part about the features being "the presence of a sacred leader, rituals, and familism" because it is the premise of the entire section. Instead, I have added a tag to it.

The way this section is worded, however, makes me suspect that it is an original argument made by an editor's interpretation of multiple sources. Each subsection is a collection of various facts and arguments supporting an overarching thesis, specifically that the namesake of the subsection is an element of Juche. None of the authors cited actually groups these three elements in particular when making their comparisons of Juche to religion. I think this section would benefit from a modified explanation of its premise. For example, rather than definitively saying these three elements make Juche a religion (an assertion which none of the authors cited make), the introductory paragraph should say that scholars often point to these three elements when comparing Juche to religion(s).

As I continue to make edits to this article, this will hopefully serve to explain some of my edits to the "Comparisons to religion" section in particular. Yue 🌙 05:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it's headed in the right direction.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The content of this article
It dawned on me recently that some of the section headings in this article are misleading. Notably, you will never see official works on Juche (nor scholars) describe Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, "Socialism of Our Style", "Great Leader theory", and Songun as concepts within Juche. Rather, they are concepts that scholars of Korean studies connect to Juche. Thus, a more accurate heading for this section would be "Related concepts".

But if the "Concepts" section does not actually touch on any of the concepts of Juche, are they explained elsewhere in the article? The answer is not really; basic principles like an emphasis on "self-reliance" and "man as the center of everything" are mentioned in passing to compliment a greater point. Most of the article features scholarly arguments, criticisms, and interpretations pertaining to Juche (or it is not even about Juche but North Korean politics in general; this is particularly egregious in the "Analysis and reception" section). By contrast, the Korean article (주체사상) has a massive section (사상 이론) which gives a comprehensive summary of the philosophical tenets of Juche. It is really easy to lead readers to a certain conclusion if one includes critiques that Juche is not an ideology and/or simply nonsense used to justify the WPK's rule, but omits any information on what Juche actually claims.

I hope other editors will help me remedy this issue by adding more content explaining what Juche is, or at least, what its proponents claim it to be. In my opinion, "Ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea" would be a more appropriate title for the current version of this article, as it barely touches on Juche beyond using it to posit other points. Yue 🌙 07:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment. It might be hard to fix for editors without Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

How should Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism be treated
Should it be its own article, should we rename this article into Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism or should the article remain as it is? Asking this because the article lead has no mention of the ideology, despite it being central to Juche messaging under Kim Jong-un, if I understand correctly? @Yue thoughts (hope didn't ping you too many times haha)? Since you happen to be the one editing this article a lot The Account 2 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC) EDIT: I've seen your proposal to change this article to the Ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea above. Editing Chinese articles, it dawned to me that we can follow the Chinese example; that is articles for the WPK ideology, articles for the Juche and Songun concepts, and an article for Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism (similar to how we have the Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and various subbranches of SWCC like Deng Xiaoping Theory). What do you think? The Account 2 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Creating a new article for Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism all depends on coverage. I would make the article myself if I had the time to find, read, and paraphrase sources covering Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism. In my opinion, the sections under "Related concepts" should be moved to an article titled "Ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea". The reason why they're in this article is because the previous editors of this article, rather unsurprisingly, cited Western scholars since they're the ones writing or translating publications into English.
 * Most Western scholars on Korean history and political science that I've come across often argue that Juche is not really an ideology and just a amalgamation of various random ideas of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. Of course Korean sources (particularly from the DPRK / North Korea) would disagree, and official publications by the DPRK go in-depth as to what Juche is, and reading them would make it clear that Juche is making specific philosophical assertions and isn't just an umbrella term for whatever Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il thought. Even if you machine translate the Korean Wikipedia article, the contrast in content should be obvious. Yue 🌙 03:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I created an article about WPK Ideology and also Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism (apparently there is indeed some degree of independent coverage). I also included in the Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism page that this ideology now encapsulates the Juche and Songun ideologies. I hope I didn't mess them up! If they're not done well, tell me so I can try to fix them (or at the worst case scenario, merge them again). The Account 2 (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Well that ended up well. The Account 2 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At least you were bold and gave it a shot. I should have been more clear that, although I strongly believe that the "Related concepts" section should be split into a new article titled Ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea, I or someone else has to bring in new (or reevaluate existing) sources and significantly revise the subsections so that the content and wording is closer to that of Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. When I have the time in the coming days, I will give this a shot in my sandbox.
 * In the meantime, I invite other editors to share their thoughts, as this should not be a decision made by two editors. However, I think that feedback would be more informed once a working draft is in process or mostly complete. Yue 🌙 18:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Intro
Hi again! Will it be acceptable to change the first sentence from the intro "[...] is the state ideology of North Korea." to "[...] is the state ideology of North Korea and the official ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea." or something similar, you get the idea. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a great suggestion. I always thought it was weird that the WPK was not mentioned in the lead. Next time you can just be bold and make the edit yourself. If I have a disagreement with your edit, I will voice it then, so do not worry about preemptively starting a discussion for your ideas. Yue 🌙 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Great Leader" unsupported by source, posted by blocked user
I'm reading the section on "Great Leader", it came from this edit. I'm checking the sources and none (so far) say "Great Leader". If other editors disagree with my changes, can they please ping me with a source that states "Great Leader". Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Juche is not synonymous with the ideology of the WPK or DPRK
But some of the earlier works cited prominently in this article, like those of Charles Armstrong, treat them as such. The works of Brian R. Myers and those citing Myers, which have been referenced heavily in this article, make the distinction between Juche and the ideology of the WPK / DPRK. They are giving their own opinions on what they believe the ideology of the DPRK is in actuality. They are not claiming that Juche itself is fascism, because, as anyone who reads Juche literature would tell you, it is not fascistic. If an author critiques police brutality and authoritarian tendencies in the United States as akin to a fascist state, then we wouldn't be citing that critique as the basis for calling liberal democracy a fascist ideology. Yue 🌙 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)