Talk:North Korea/Archive 12

Map
While orthographic is preferable, its "zoom height" is too high; it's very hard to see details of the border. Can it be tweaked? —Cyber cobra (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems all of those maps have a very high "zoom height" as you call it. Who makes these maps? 83.108.198.236 (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

People of DPRK are starving...
...still this article says its 75 on the HDI index? Better than Turkey! Thats got to be bias. Its more like 175. 83.108.198.236 (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the HDI given is from 1998. The latest HDI figures are from 2008, but they exclude North Korea. Hence the discrepancy. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so democratic
Whatever happened to that list of countries with the word "democratic" in their names which are decidedly un-democratic? I ran across a George Orwell quote today, about the use of the word "democratic".


 * The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

Far be it from me to assert that the North Koreans are using the word in a consciously dishonest way - my own opinions are worthless in this context. But if anyone recalls hearing a quotable source, maybe we can use it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the divisions of the KPA
The Military section of this article states that the KPA is divided into four branches ("The army has four branches: Ground Force, Naval Force, Air Force, and the State Security Department"), but the article "Korean People's Army" states that there are five branches ("The KPA has five branches: the (i) Army Ground Force, (ii) the Navy, (iii) the Air Force, (iv) the Artillery Guidance Bureau, and (v) the Special Operation Force"). Furthermore, I don't see any relevant citations concerning this discrepancy. I'd recommend correcting this, but I'll leave that up to an actual editor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.94.66 (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess its due to the age of sources. The Artillery Guidance Bureau is a relatively new branch, and it may not be mentioned in older sources on the KPA. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GINI COEFFICIENT
The gini coefficient cited for north korea is unverified. If you follow the link given, it leads to the Global Peace Index which cites the gini as from the UN. On their website, the UN clearly states that they have no knowledge of the Korea (People's Republic of) gini coefficient. So the GPI reference is incorrect. Therefore it is incorrect to state North Korea as having a low coefficient. I will add an unverified link to the gini, or I request it be removed/be made n/a. I will do so in the next day, unless you reason otherwise. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtss (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added (=). The concerns are reasonable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

official?

 * - The Official Webpage of The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Could somebody with more knowledge please do some background-check on this recently added ext. link? My initial impression says there's something fishy about it... doesn't look "official" to me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's real. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take your word for it then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it's all good. One of the first things that comes up in Google search, and i looked in every nook and cranny and used my best judgement. And after all, it's just an ex link. It's mostly just a tourist info site but it does have some interesting stuff on it. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding videos about North Korea
A few days ago I added link to outstanding video about North Korea: The link dissapeared. Today I restored the link and added another link: Quinacrine (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Inside North Korea (47 min. video)
 * Children of the Secret State (45 min. video)


 * No. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." All you're adding is linkspam. Why are your links any more worthy of inclusion? From looking at those two links, it looks like there's an issue of copyright. Both sort of fall under WP:YOUTUBE, which says that "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations." One is on Google Video, and the info there makes no direct claim about licensing it. The other is on a blog which says that there are ads involved, which violates WP:ELNO #4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Anyone else care to weigh in? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what you are talking about! THESE VIDEOS ARE ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING!!! If you have never lived in North Korea, you cannot understand what is going on there unless you see those videos. Please stop deleting my links.Quinacrine (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have rules here on what is and is not allowed. And now you've broken our rule on three reverts. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it is you who has no idea what they are talking about. It is pointless using caps to highlight your message. Both of the videos look like copyright infringements. That alone is enough justification to not include them. Both sites fit into point 2 of WP:ELNO - "Any site that misleads the reader by use of ... unverifiable research ...", becaus there is no information at either site about who, why, how and when these videos were made and where the originals are found. Green Giant (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * THIS IS A BOLD FACED LIE! All the info is provided at the end of the videos, in the credits. I have the impression that our quarrel is not about facts, but about communist sympathizers censoring Wikipedia to hide the truth about incredibly brutal nature of the North Korean regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or because we have rules about neutrality here. There are a great many articles on Wikipedia that talk about the North Korean regime, but they do so within Wiki guidelines. Human rights in North Korea, for example. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quinacrine, accusing other editors of having bad intentions is weak at best, and certainly not assuming good faith. Wikipedia isn't a repository for political viewpoints, positive or negative, on an article such as this. Feel free to add them to the DMOZ category, which seems like a perfect place to put them. tedder (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The makers of the videos do not express political views. They merely present facts which are conspicuously missing in the article about North Korea. The article implies that North Korea is just another country. In fact, North Korea is a nightmare. There is no other country on the face of the Earth that resembles North Korea! Please, see the videos. If you do, your jaw will drop. Quinacrine (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why a link to "businessNK" on YouTube cannot be made, a site that shows videos on foreign investment and business activities in North Korea one cannot find anywhere else and that wants to contribute to a better understanding of North Korea, (legitimate) business opportunities and its business environment. Plenty of websites made a link to it, but Wikipedia seems to ignore or to refuse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innoqua (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...because wikipedia is not "a website" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, some links are admitted and some are not "because wikipedia is not a website"... I'm trying to understand the wikipedia logic. Innoqua (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about "logic" but about an inability to keep up with all the pages added all the time. It would take a lot more people and eyes to sit here, staring at a screen 24/7. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have watched the videos and asked some friends who are business people to watch them, too, and give me their views on them. They replied they could not have imagined that doing business in NKorea was possible until they visited "businessNK" on YouTube. Obviously, Wikipedia is not very helpful for business people interested in learning about business opportunities in North Korea and in the way business is done there. Sure, Wiki has a lot to say about "dictatorship", "totalitarianism" and so on, which may be appealing to a number of readers but not exactly to people who run businesses and (have to) look for new business opportunities and need to know more about business-relevant aspects.--Innoqua (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Spontaneous Population
So, history in North Korea starts in 1945. Really? I assume people lived in the middle of the Manchurian peninsula before that time. Even if nothing historically significant happened there, you'd think it would be worth mentioning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.131.59 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, history in the United States starts in 1776. Really? I assume people lived in the middle of the U.S. before that time. Even if nothing historically significant happened there, you'd think it would be worth mentioning... :P  FFLaguna (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We link to History of Korea. Is that not sufficient? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. FFLaguna (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy?
It seems to me that the dictatorship of NK is quite hereditary, revolving around members of the Kim Dynasty; thus, might North Korea be an absolute monarchy pretending to be a republic? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Making a claim like that in the article might be original research. Anyway, NK has had only one transition from father to son; it seems a bit too early to decide that the system is set up to maintain these kind of transitions.Eunsung (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch out
http://img.4chan.org/b/res/177704472.html

Suggest lock. -Paulkimpaul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.177.85 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy
Not a pressing request, such that I won't use edit protected, but the lead sentence of the economy section (currently, in pertinent part, "North Korea has an industrialised, autarkic...") should be edited to reflect the economy's being near-autarkic (as the second paragraph of Autarky rightly observes, "A false example of a supposed current autarky is North Korea...which has extensive trade with [many countries]"); in the alternative, Autarky should be edited in order that it mirrors this article&mdash;I'll leave that to someone more qualified to address the issue. 76.199.155.106 (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"First armed conflict of the Cold War"
The Wikipedia articles on "proxy wars" and the "Greek Civil War" indicate that the Greek Civil War was in fact the first armed conflict of the Cold War, not the Korean War as this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.199.154 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "first direct conflict between the superpowers of the Cold War"? There were certainly Soviet MiG pilots in the Korean War, and most definitely US troops. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget about China. The U.S. backed Chinese forces fought Russian backed Chinese Communists during and after WWII through 1949. Rklawton (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Leadership Clarification
I made some minor changes to the leadership statements. Officially Kim Il Sung is the President and leader of the state even though he is dead. John Chamberlain (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

System of government
"Single party socialist state"? Given the actual realities of the situation, surely "hereditary absolute monarchy" would be more correct? -- Chronulator (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Says who? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say no for the time being. However, if leadership is passed on to Kim's son or one of his other relatives, or he officially names one of them his successor, then I would think it appropriate to call it a de facto monarchy, since I'm sure they would still claim otherwise.  However, since there no original research on wiki, someone else would still have to make that claim beside ourselves before we could. --Leodmacleod (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to call the DPRK a monarchy. All citizens live equally under the Dear Leader and the Juche system of self reliance. Don't listen to western propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not a monarchy; it's a militaristic, single-party, communist authoritarian regime... it's also, essentially, one of maybe two totalitarian governments (the other being Turkmenistan) in existence today.


 * I think the heart of the question is: what constitutes a reliable source when it comes to the nature of a government?  Rklawton (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They are "totalitaristic" and "hereditary" including elements of "socialism". But for sure they are not a republic. Therefore the description in the article is wrong with "socialist republic". The german article descibes the form of government as "socialist-statist totalitarism". 84.173.253.251 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read socialist republic. It's sort of a term of art in that they indeed aren't republics in any meaningful sense. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A republic is merely any country which does not have a monarch as its Head of State. Republicanism and Democracy are not mutually inclusive, and a country does not cease being a republic simply because it is undemocratic.  At the moment, I believe the phrase "crowned republic" best applies to the DPRK, as it is a nominal republic which has a de facto hereditary Head of State. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources, people, sources - what constitutes a reliable source as far as describing the nature of a government? You know, something academic as well as neutral and unbiased? Rklawton (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish the actual form by definition an the wording that is used by the government itself. The definition of a republic is quite clear and North Korea does not qualify for being one. It has already been determined that the form of government is monarch and hereditary. The quality of the english wikipedia would improve if it wouldn't name things which "they indeed aren't". Source: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic], first paragraph, definition. 194.55.1.242 (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's just stop beating a dead horse. Without reliable sources, we're not changing the article to include speculation and personal feelings. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Snowcleanerobject, 8 April 2010
editsemiprotected

please take out the profanity in this page

Snowcleanerobject (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done and thanks. If I missed any, let me know the same way you did before. :) Avic enna sis @ 04:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reason for the outbreak of the Korean War
A specific request for a verbiage change and a second point on whether the sentence should be included at all.

The second sentence of this subsection of the article states,
 * The conflict arose from the division on Korea by the US and the attempts of the two Korean powers to re-unify Korea under their respective governments.

I would posit this is not in accordance with the the first sentence of the History section which states that, "...Korea was divided at the 38th parallel in accordance with a United Nations arrangement...." Therefore, I would propose the verbiage be changed to the following:
 * The conflict arose from the division on Korea by the UN and the attempts of the two Korean powers to re-unify Korea under their respective governments.

My reasoning as to whether the above specified sentence (and the one following) should be included at all is, if Stalin's acquiesce had to be gained by Kim Il-sung (see last sentence of 'Division of Korean' and second paragraph of History_of_North_Korea) before large-scale hostilities could commence, then that presupposes that Kim Il-sung had seen that re-unification of the peninsula was to be carried forward by military means. Therefore, the division of the peninsula into two distinct (and mutually hostile) political regimes, while laying the setting for the conflict, wasn't the precipitant of the conflict, but rather Kim's desire for re-unification by any and all means. In other words, if Stalin hadn't agreed to Kim's request for large-scale military action against the Southern regime, (theoretically) there'd be no war. Consequently, the sentence's attempted summation of the war's causes is inaccurate, imprecise, overly-simplistic and at odds with other sources on Wikipedia and elsewhere and should be excised. If, on the other hand, the reasons given in the sentence and the following one is correct, then numerous other articles (e.g., History_of_North_Korea, Korean_War to name a couple) should be edited to align with the reasons given in these two sentences. -- Dasnyderx (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. Seems to make sense. Anyone have a problem with this? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The North Koreans would have a problem with this. It is their view that they were attacked by the U.S (we might want to mention this if we haven't already done so).  But I don't have a problem with the North Koreans having a problem with this.  Rklawton (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The North Koreans can't see this, so it's fine per my account. 68.235.157.103 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinuiju Special Administrative Region
Since the article Sinuiju Special Administrative Region states that the Special Administrative Region project has been discontinued, should it also be removed from the list of special administrative regions in this article? U-238 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary qualifiers?
I was consulting this article today in light of the DPRK's recent appearance in the news, and I was surprised by some qualifiers that appear to me to be unnecessary and perhaps even misleading. Here are two that I spotted:

1. The satellite photo of the Korean peninsula. The caption says that the disparity in nighttime illumination is cited "by some" as an indication of differing levels of development. The "by some" seems to me to suggest that there is an alternate point of view on this, although no cites to an alternate view are given and it seems beyond dispute that the ROK's level of development is much higher than the DPRK's.

2. The introduction says that "many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship." Again, this seems to imply that media organizations inside North Korea would take a different view and that their view would be appropriate for citation in an encyclopedia. It seems to me, again, to be beyond dispute that the DPRK is in fact a totalitarian dictatorship, and that it would not be appropriate to cite North Korean media reports to the contrary, particularly insofar as the media are state-controlled.

To put this in terms of Wikipedia policies (I am a new user, so I am not sure I have all this right): WP:V says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It seems to me that in the absence of reliable sources suggesting that these two points are in dispute, the qualifications ("by some" and "many media organizaitons outside North Korea report") should be removed. Tfolkman (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re 2, per WP:NPOV we have to acknowledge the North Korean point of view. How truthful North Korea's official news agency is is questionable, but since they're the only media in the country, there isn't really an alternative; and obviously, they uphold the socialist republic fascade. --Cyber cobra (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay--I'm sure this has been hashed out by folks who have been involved for a long time, though I'm not sure I agree in such an obvious case. But regardless, under WP:NOR, should there not, then, at least be a citation to the DPRK newspaper that makes the claim? That way, readers could at last see where it is coming from. Or, since the article say that the DPRK is "officially" a socialist republic, perhaps the citation could be to the country's constitution or another "official" source. Thanks, in any case, for responding to me.Tfolkman (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, cited their constitution. --Cyber cobra (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Re 1, Even North Korea has admitted in the last few years that South Korea is more developed than they are. With both sides in agreement, I see no challenge to removing the qualifier.  Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as no one has chimed in with a different view, I will make the change (I'm not sure how long it is appropriate to wait to see if there are dissenters, so apologies if this is too speedy!) Tfolkman (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the date North Korea withdrew from the Armistice be May 26, 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.214.11 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A little soon to come to that conclusion.. or until an actual source states it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think they've withdrawn from the armistice several times, so I'm not sure which date we should consider "official". Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Currency Devaluation
Shouldn't the country's recent currency devaluation be mentioned in the economy section? Sounds like it was fairly drastic (see here). TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the pictures chosen for the article
all the pictures in the article all seem to be quite complimentary and don't fit the actual facts mentioned in writing, for example it is reported in the article that the healthcare system is essentially in shambles, but the included picture of medical facility contrasts sharply with this(now it's like showing a ferrari showroom from a western nation as an example of typical means of transportation). it would be more factual in style to include at least one picture from one of the plentiful abandoned construction projects of the capital for example, instead of the beautiful foggy scenery photo.

the text itself as well is quite complimentary in style(by avoiding mentioning social issues, practical state slavery and so on), but not so as the pictures accompanying it.

-kasiyks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.86.114 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. Please upload photos of the aforementioned conditions. Rklawton (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are able to provide free images that you have access to yourself, or photographs that you have taken, then be WP:BOLD and include them in the article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Modern Threat of a New Korean War
Hello! Does anyone have an opinion on the threat of the Korean War resuming, and if that should be put in the article? I've heard that the two countries are still technically at war, with only a temporarily binding ceasefire having been declared. It seems recent events may be provoking more active military action on both sides (See ROKS Cheonan sinking).--Gniniv (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the tension between the two countries should be mentioned by all means, but speculating on a war breaking out seems to be crystal balling to me and isn't appropriate for the article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Over the decades, NK has repeatedly attacked SK, threatened war, declared prior peace agreements null, etc. SK responds by remaining vigilant. In short, current violence and threats of violence from NK are nothing new.  Typically, NK does this sort of thing in order to justify to its citizens their poor living conditions.  In short, there's nothing unusual to get unusually excited about.  Rklawton (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole situation with NK is similar to the way the nations work in 1984, ie a constant state of war keeps the peopel hyped, with propoganda and the secret police working to prevent revolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.197.147 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nicht ein Forum. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette
It seems that North Korea is being blamed for something it didn't do, and the following spells it out. Could this please be included? --

Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette by Wayne Madsen http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19433

...the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette, the Cheonan, was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea.

One of the main purposes for increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula was to apply pressure on Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to reverse course on moving the U.S. Marine Corps base off Okinawa. Hatoyama has admitted that the tensions over the sinking of the Cheonan played a large part in his decision to allow the U.S. Marines to remain on Okinawa....

The Salvor, a civilian Navy salvage ship, which participated in mine laying activities for the Thai Marines in the Gulf of Thailand in 2006, was present near the time of the blast with a complement of 12 deep sea divers.

Beijing, satisfied with North Korea's Kim Jong Il's claim of innocence after a hurried train trip from Pyongyang to Beijing, suspects the U.S. Navy's role in the Cheonan's sinking, with particular suspicion on the role of the Salvor. The suspicions are as follows:

1. The Salvor engaged in a seabed mine-installation operation, in other words, attaching horizontally fired anti-submarine mines on the sea floor in the channel. 2. The Salvor was doing routine inspection and maintenance on seabed mines, and put them into an electronic active mode (hair trigger release) as part of the inspection program. 3. A SEALS diver attached a magnetic mine to the Cheonan, as part of a covert program aimed at influencing public opinion in South Korea, Japan and China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon992244 (talk • contribs)
 * Ya know, I just don't think stuff coming from an "alternative media website" is going to count as all that reliable. The headline isn't supported by the article.  According to the article, the suspicions are coming from "WMR's intelligence sources in Asia" - no Beijing.  Lastly, the above is a cut and paste copyright violation and should be removed immediately.  Rklawton (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Drinking water
Currently the article reads: "Almost 100% of the population has access to water and sanitation, but it is not completely potable." I wonder if there are any data to support this statement, or to further qualify what is meant by "not completely potable". Does anyone have examples of waterborne disease outbreaks in North Korea, or any data on the percentage of the population served by treated water? I can't-unsurprisingly-find anything particularly useful on the internet to back up the statement either way. 2008 census data (reported on here apparently indicates that 85% of the population in North Korea is served by drinking water. This recent report from Amnesty International states that "Oxfam halted its aid operation on clean water in and around the capital Pyongyang because of the difficulties assessing the impact of its aid programme in North Korea". We might suppose that if aid agencies are providing water around the capital, then the drinking water infrastructure is in a very poor state. It also states that health facilities are frequently without running water.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 158.169.131.14, 27 July 2010
the text says "North Korea continues to have strong ties with its socialist southeast Asian allies in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia." Cambodia is not a socialist country

158.169.131.14 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Communist state
This article should be updated to remove all references to NK as a communist state, outside of historical discussion. The constitution was amended in 2009 to change the political basis from Marxism-Leninism to songun (military first). It is, even by its own description, a military state rather than a communist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.216.123 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is, for all intents and purposes, still a communist state, whatever they call it in their constitution. To call it a military state because of the Songun policy is just plain wrong.--Atlan (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Militarism and communism are not mutually exclusive; the North Korean 'constitution' itself is little more than a propaganda tool that has little bearing on how the country itself is actually ruled. North Korea is very much a totalitarian, militaristic communist country with an extremely powerful and extensive personality cult around the leader.  All these regime-type adjectives are applicable to the North Korean state.  The Way (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is some logic not to call it "Communist" for several reasons. First of all, a centrally planned economy, authoritarian rule and a single-party system don't make a country Communist. A Communist state is one that defines itself as pursuing Communism through a certain set of organisational ideas or that claims to have achieved it; North Korea is neither of those. Furthermore Juche and Songun could be viewed as Socialist ideologies, but they're not in any case Communist. And finally, not all property in North Korea is public; there are some private enterprises; their society is not in any case classless, and, as I mentioned, their guiding ideologies rather emphasize nationalism and self-reliance than proletarian struggle, internationalism or such. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tourbillon. If they're no longer pursuing the communist ideal, they're no longer communist.  Totalitarian socialist, perhaps.  --Leodmacleod (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They could easily be qualified as a "Socialist state" under some form, but "Communist state" is definitely not an appropriate definition. Yet we need to wait for other opinions, there could be some debate for this.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article should refere the to the country as a former socialist/communist state and presently a dictatorship or a monarch system like government. You can say many things, but these guys were communists, but not any longer. --TIAYN (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be comfortable with dictatorship, but I'd wait until Kim Jung-Il passes leadership to a relative before declaring it a real monarchy. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My proposal is "Socialist state". The DPRK has many features of one - strong state control over the economy and an "Iron rice bowl"-type of social policy, as a examples. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article calls it a "Juche" state - that's another made up word self-applied by North Korea. I suspect there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe it as a "communist dictatorship". Rklawton (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This entire 'debate' about whether the DPRK is 'communist' 'socialist' 'Jucheist' or 'Monarchist' smacks of an arm chair debate amongst overly subjective & somewhat ideologically defensive leftist theoreticians,and actualy has no place influencing the presentation of fact in an article on a country in Wikipedia.Rather the countries self description should prevail,and separate wiki articles on the political terms used would suffice to cover any 'theoretical controversies'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adawablk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's pretty much North Korea's position. We, on the other hand, tend to go with reliable sources.  Rklawton (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add to this debate, I remember reading in the excellebnt "North Korea: Through the Looking Glass", that Karl Marx's works are banned in the country. I doubt you can be described as communist in this case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * North Korea doesn't act like a communist state in several key ways, though it's difficult to overlook the similarities. For example, the means of production are state owned.  The state is military-first.  Leadership is dictatorial.  That much just screams "communist".  However, their depiction of Americans as hook-nosed monsters is nearly identical to last century's antisemitic propaganda.  This gives North Korea a more national-socialist-fascist (Nazi) aura than anything else. In direct contrast to communism and not counting re-unification goals with the south, state policy isn't expansionist (they have no desire for anyone else to follow their "Dear Leader"). They'd much rather be left alone.  North Korea is highly xenophobic (reminiscent of pre-war Japan) and touts the moral superiority of their pure Korean blood (at least internally).  These positions are diametrically opposed to communism. Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. I believe that all of the terms you have touched on (communism, militarism, Stalinism, and nationalism) could be applied to North Korea, and have played a part in shaping the ruling regime's government. I've also heard it described as a Rogue state due to its utter self reliance policy (internally called "Juche"). Time will only tell if it can remain in uneasy equilibrium, or if recent events (See ROKS Cheonan sinking) will cause it to crumble due to external and internal belligerent pressure....--Gniniv (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be clarified in a general discussion what is meant by describing a state as communist, nationalist, republic, kingdom, or whatever. Is this designation intended to reflect the respective goverment's wording, the de-facto style of government, or what? If we say that we describe the de-facto government style, then (if it becomes clear that Kim Jong-Un will be the next head of state) then it may well be appropriate to call North Korea a de-facto absolute hereditary monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.185.126.78 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Chairman or President of the SPA Presidium?
There seems to be conflicting statements on the title of the presiding officer of the SPA Presidium. The title in the infobox appears as President of the Presidium, where as in the list of heads of state of North Korea, it is Chairman. The Constitution itself has conflicting titles, firstly naming the presiding officer as "President", then going on to say "The SPA shall elect its chairman and vice chairmen. The chairman shall preside over the sessions." Which title should be used?-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Small grammar omission needs correction...
From the lede:

'It is reported as having one of the world's worst human rights records.[23] After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a famine which killed an estimated 2-3 million.'

2-3 million what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.184.139 (talk • contribs) 15:08, August 8, 2010
 * ✅. Seemed obvious to me that it meant 'people', but I added it anyway. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it was obvious but we shouldn't be asking the reader to make assumptions - especially in the lede. --78.100.235.101 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move to 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'?
Hey there. I'm sure that it would be more fitting to refer to North Korea as DPRK in the opening sentence of the article, as I have done in my recent edit, but I would also see it necessary to move the article to Democratic People's Republic of Korea, even if the rest of the article referred to NK. All other states' respective articles, that I know of, should surely refer to the full title of the country at the article's beginning, and possibly under /wiki/Official_Name? Just a thought · AarnKrry · Words speak louder than actions · 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be moved. See WP:COMMONNAME and observe the naming of other countries' articles. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - This country is known as North Korea in the English language. It must not be moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The translation of the official name in English (DPRK) can be in the article, but the common name (in English) must be used according to WP:Common-- Gniniv (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am coming at this from a slightly different angle, the need for consistency across Wikipedia for naming conventions on nation-state articles. I have kicked off a discussion about it at the project page and would welcome views. If we use official UN-en names, it's not "North Korea". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Sports Section of North Korea
Recently an addition has been made to the wikipedia article "Sports in North Korea" under the section of "Domestic Football". The addition reads as followed:

In September 2010, the first official friendly match between a domestic football team and a foreign club took place in the Kim Il-Sung Stadium. In these two matches Singapore-based "German All Stars" (GAS) played two matches against the 2nd and 3rd team of Pyongyang. The matches ended 1-0 respectively 4-2 for the Korean side. GAS Midfielder Matthias Bertl became the first German footballer to ever score a goal in the DPRK and also the first ever to score two goals. Further first-time records were set by Rene Schieber with the first ever shot on goal by a German footballer and Hendrik Bohne being the first footballer to nutmeg a DPRK player during an official match. As part of the team Simone Magnani become the first ever Italian to play a friendly in the DPRK. The Team was led by Florian Schmidt as the Captain for the opening match and consisted further of Steffen Schacher, Ingo Hartmann, Joerg Buenzel, Dr. Hermann Bergmann, Denis Mecklenburg, Philipp von Pein, Helge Muenkel and Thomas Berner in addition to previous mentioned players.

This addition is referring to the first official friendly match between a foreign team and a domestic football team and was conceived by the North Korean site as a very important gesture of friendship - especially in times of rising sanctions that mainly effect the people of the DPRK rather than the government.

We therefore would like to request to add this section to the sports section of the article "North Korea" to show that there is in fact interaction with outside countries besides the Olympics, World Cup (Qualifiers) and other official tournaments which shall have a signaling effect to all readers.

Thank you very much for your consideration

HBohne (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Pyongyang but a temporary capital??
According to the Temporary capital article...
 * [The] DPRK considers Pyongyang its temporary capital, as the de jure capital designated in its constitution is Seoul.

Is this view correct? If so, is it worth mentioning it in this article?

Well, North Korea's 1972 constitution says... (according to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea_(1972) )
 * CHAPTER VII. EMBLEM, FLAG, ANTHEM AND CAPITAL
 * Article 166. The capital of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is Pyongyang.

but the constitution has been revised in 1992 and 1998... K PUFFERFİSH Ṫ • Ċ 09:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The Constitution on WIkisource looks like the current issue.  The info about the revisions is background.  Why don't you go to Temporary capital and delete?  (WP:BB)--S. Rich (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone could add the famous light picture taken form sapce of North Korea and south korea,
the article would look much better. I have the image, but do not know anything about formatting it. The article is defintiely improving since IK last saw it, by the way, well done.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that already in the economy section ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's just on the right in North Korea. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't catch it. Cheers.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Error regarding "relations"
Why show a photo from 2002, i.e. almost a decade ago, when Putin met the dictator Kim? And, as for recent years and given the situation today, it's wrong to say that North Korea has any close relations to Russia - besides, of course, being geographical neighbours. Before the fully justified editing the presented information in the beginning of the section seemed quite biased and gave wrong information about the relations between N.K. and other countries, in this case N.K. and Russia. For example - why not a picture of Kim meeting his South Korean or Chinese counterparts? Note: Any further act to change this is going to be seen as vandalism, and an attempt to falsify the actual political situation. But feel free to update the information in line with the actual and current situation in the relationship-question, and with the above said in mind. One may also note that the actual relationships with the former Eastern block is mentioned in the next sentence; one way to go with the photo-issue could be to insert a picture of a N.K-leader meeting a Chinese or Soviet leader in the old days, when the relationship actually was a strong one - today N.K. is quite isolated; even the sole undisputable international 'partner' today, China, is sometimes of different opinion than the regime in N.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten to mark something as vandalism; that's disruptive editing and can get you blocked. One of the reasons we use that image is because we don't have images of the other scenarios you've given. And that's not an excuse to go uploading images of them - at least, not unless you can find one that fulfills licensing issues. We take what we can get here, and that's all we've got. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

North Korean literature
Maybe some information on North Korean Literature should be inserted? Or at least there should be short section with a link to the wikipage "North Korean Literature"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Juche - A one word change
This isn't a big deal, but the article is locked, so I can't do anything about it. There is a sentence in the opening paragraph that reads: "The country's government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, developed by the country's former President, Kim Il-Sung." The main article on Juche however, in the section "criticism" states "...Juche is nothing but a sham developed to establish Kim Il-sung as a political thinker alongside Mao Zedong." with reasons for this given afterwords.

I think it would be a good idea to perhaps say "The country's government claims to follow the Juche ideology..." or maybe "The country's government purportedly follows the Juche ideology..."

Small change, but I can't do it, and in the name of accuracy, I think it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.225.227 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. Kim Il Sung came up with juche and made the country follow it, and you want to write that the country claims to follow it? It doesn't matter what the juche article says in its criticism section; the country's policy is juche. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GDP per capita
They are 154th on the list and not 188th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.114.139 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

HDI
HDI of DPRK is 0.760--125.27.51.246 (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to Edit
Can someone please edit the line "Due to the government's secretive nature and its reluctance to allow in foreigners, North Korea is today considered the world's most isolated country and has thus been given the moniker "The Hermit Kingdom" by some." Please change "foreigners" to "immigrants". Thanks. 75.118.250.122 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * . This is talking about letting any foreigners within the country's borders, not people who want to move there. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

EDITS
Hi,

I have made a few edits to the DPRK page.

1) Under 21st century, I was surprised to see no mention of President Obama in the article. I've added a line that outlines his general policy approach towards the DPRK, known as strategic patience. 2) Under tourism,  I've added information from the pre-existing CNN page that approx. 2500 Americans have been to North Korea since 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mks12 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Should this article really redirect from "Best Korea"?
This seems inappropriate to me. If we're going to retain this redirect, we should probably clarify the saying's origins at some point in the article. Pixel Eater (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just deleted that redirect. Totally inappropriate. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be salted? I can guarantee you it will be created again. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Uirauna (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys are the least fun ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.188.173 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * > Hurr, because being a meme-spouting 'tard is fun, amirite? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

North Korea is Best Korea, you have no proof otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoxicated Spy (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Makirika, 16 November 2010
edit semi-protected

Please change this paragraph in the 'Culture and Arts' subheading;

In February 2008, The New York Philharmonic Orchestra became the first US musical group ever to perform in North Korea, albeit for a handpicked "invited audience." The concert was broadcast on national television.

to;

In February 2008, The New York Philharmonic Orchestra became the first US orchestra to perform in North Korea, albeit for a handpicked "invited audience." The concert was broadcast on national television. The American Christian band Casting Crowns were previously invited to perform at the annual Spring Friendship Arts Festival in April 2007, held in Pyongyang.

because;

The New York Philharmonic Orchestra were not the first American musical group to perform in North Korea. The band Casting Crowns performed there in April 2007. Source: http://www.cmspin.com/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=4222&z=26

Makirika (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

North Korea fires artillery shells on South Korean island.
On November 23, 2010, North Korea fired artillery shells on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. Two South Korean marines were killed and 15 soldiers and civilians were wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron.hoffman16 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

LaRouxEMP added material covering this to the article. Cybercobra removed the material saying that it "does not merit a top-level section." I, intending only to be a reader and not an editor, and having already read the New York Times article on it, came to wikipedia to see the more digested version as one expects in an encyclopedia. I was surprized to find that there was nothing. Seeing that the material had been there and was removed, I restored it. User:AndyTheGrump has subsequently removed it again. This is very important material and this article is where the user of wikipedia would expect to find this material. While wikipedia is not a news source, it often does include information about recent and ongoing events. And well it should. I would say to Cybercobra and AndyTheGrump, that if the material needs fixing, fix it, but please do not remove the very sort of material that the user would be looking for in the article. Sterrettc (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a brief summary, and a link to the newly created article shelling of Yeonpyeong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm satisfied. Sterrettc (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the addition was unsourced didn't help. Had a source been cited, I would have been happy to simply move the material like eventually ended up happening. --Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cpeznola, 23 November 2010
There is a reference to North Korea sharing it's Northern border with Russia. This should be with China.

Christopher (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the article, North Korea borders both China and Russia: I'll double-check this though. Where in the article is the statement you are requesting a change? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete my last request. Current text is accurate.


 * Christopher (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Violence
Someone please update this article with Tuesday's madness, with good sources. 220.244.163.200 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article is one sided
This whole article is one sided pro DPRK. There is nothing mentioned about the poverty of people living there.

This article looks like a DPRK guided propaganda tour of North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.36.77 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * your precise concerns being what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the country in general, it's entire history, geography etc etc. I think almost every section within the article has a corresponding main article which describes each subject in detail. So, essentially this article should be a collection of the leads from those detailed articles. The Economy section contains HDI and GDP per capita data and there is a whole section on their food production problems. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article is ridiculously pro-North Korea. The New York Times just published a recent article showing how miserable and what an enormous failure this country is. It is clearly a FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.14 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IP editor's sentiments carry a strong United States POV. Judging by your use of 4chan vocabulary, I doubt that you are actually a Professor of Economics or something similar; you will have to provide reliable sources to back up your claims, to avoid unwanted original research. Assuming that the IP editor has never been to North Korea before, simply stating an opinion based on what you might have heard does not mean that it is absolutely verifiable. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can identify things you think are not properly supported or are inappropriate, please remove them by all means. If you think you have some supported and appropriate information to add to the article, please add it.  It's difficult to improve the article without identifying specific problems, if you can help to do that hopefully a more balanced article will result.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Arguing whether a country is failing is not WP:NPOV. Arguing whether a country is successful is also not WP:NPOV. An encyclopedic article should stick to the hard facts when it comes to geography, politics, demographics, and not have to incorporate external opinions from here and there. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper editorial. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't properly identify his issues with the article. Maybe he was basing his opinion on a misunderstanding of what makes a good Wikipedia article, but without specifics we can't be sure.  Also, please don't bite the newbies.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO the article is well sourced and balanced.--Ssavilam (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the economic section - there is no mention made of rampant starvation, the fact that most of the country exists without electricity, or that most N. Korean industry either sits idle or makes products no one wants. Cell phone use is cited as an example of N. Korea's wonderful growth and modernization - how about comparing cell phone ownership/usage rates with S. Korea and China? Why is there no mention whatsoever at the inability of the N. Korean government to provide even the most basic needs of its citizens, and procluding individual efforts for meeting those needs, so that there is the starvation mentioned before as well as repeated attempts by many to leave the country, in spite of grave repercussions to those who make the attempt and their families. The tone of the economy section makes N. Korea sound like a really wonderful place, but the data used to make this assumption comes soley from a biased data from within N. Korea and has no counter-balance (FAO uses almost entirely self-reported data). Compare with tone on economy section for US or Brazil - problems are mentioned repeatedly. There is no such counterbalance in the N. Korea article. If this is what passes for Wikipedia's standards, Wikipedia will not continue as a useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.231.42 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of the most one-sided articles on Wikipedia that I have ever read. It is obviously written by/for the DPRK. 173.165.120.65 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that no matter how many re-writes we have of various sections, there will be editors who argue the article is pro or anti nK. But POV is more of a problem when the intro uses terms like "most", "crumbling", "elaborate", and "worst". However true or untrue these descriptions may be, they are still MOS:OPED. --S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How about elaborating on the government's claimed "tax free" system? When a government claims to spend around a quarter of GDP [admittedly low by USA standards], saying that the government collects no taxes seems dubious unless some angel investor keeps volunteering billions per year. The money has to come from somewhere, and a tax by any other name would cut as deep. 4.78.249.3 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With a state-owned command economy, a tax-free system is entirely possible. To put it in simple terms, You work for the state, so rather than paying you, and then taxing you afterwards, they pay you less in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

History: 21st century -- history or just US policy?
On the opposite end of spectrum of opinion, every paragraph in the History: 21st Century section mentions a US president and US reactions to north korea. While some degree of centrism on north korea's relations with other nations is understandable, making the entire paragraph about USA policy is not fair to other nations who must also interact with North Korea. It would of course even covering many nation's reactions to the country, not be a fair representaiton of North Korea's history, but at least it would be a fair description of reactions to the country that is being excluded in its own history sections. --71.191.173.80 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. Maybe someone with more info can add something. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

spelling error
its written filed, it should be 'fired" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.2.144 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The REAL NAME of North Korea's leader is Kim Jeong-il, not Kim jong-il — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Paul Sartre (talk • contribs)

Can people NOT lie about the contents of their sources?
I just edited 'Religion' section, which contained a phrase that said 'However, the majority of the North Koreans could be described as religious from a sociological viewpoint'. I followed the link given to support this claim, and the link led to a general description of the Korean-American culture, and while it did mention North Korea intermittently, it did NOT make a single reference to North Korean spirituality. I deleted the phrase and the link, leaving the sentence to read something like 'However, traditional religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism still has some impact on North Korean spirituality', which is actually supported by some valid citations.

I don't know what makes people lie through their teeth about the state of religious life in North Korea, but please do not lie about the contents of your sources. Strangely enough, some people seem to be unable to handle the fact that North Korea is irreligious - why would anyone care? (1tephania (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Can people just say "deleted unsourced claims" and move on? Rklawton (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible that this is the result of careless editing, or an honest mistake. Sometimes references get deleted, sometimes the wrong one is given by accident. WP:AGF says we should assume cock-ups rather than conspiracies. Personally, I think the idea that people could be "described as religious from a sociological viewpoint" sounds more like a misunderstanding of what sociology is about than a statement about beliefs in any case. Or to put it another way, it isn't a lie, it is just meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I just have a quick temper and get really mad when I perceive people lying about academic facts. Case closed. (1tephania (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

The existence of this article without the emphasis on human rights violations is a disgrace.
Outside of the "Human Rights" and "Personality Cult" section, there is almost no mention of the true, depraved state of this country outside of the following sentence: "Although North Korea is officially a socialist republic, many outside media organizations report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim family and one of the worst human rights records of any country."

If I didn't purposefully opt to search for North Korea, and in the absence of its mentioning, I could believe I was reading of almost any country in the world - this, alone, is a testament to the tone which must be altered to provide substantial footing about the modern state of North Korea. Known for their willful diligence to fabricate facts and figures (which are used in this article in relation to its economic and social prosperity), it is saddening to see so many assertions about North Korea backed up as "fact."

For this article to exist without testimonials and first-hand accounts of human rights violations (including its concentration camps) is a disgrace to humanity and a desecration of the millions of North Koreans who are suffering under the tyranny of the North Korean government.

An entire section dedicated to "tourism?!?" Is that a shameless joke?! North Korea is the physical imagining of Hitler's Third Reich and this website has the audacity to mention places that individuals can travel to have fun in North Korea?

Wiki should exist to detail the facts, and no one should argue against that point, but this isn't a "long ago" theocracy which we can write about with mere mention to its transgressions.

I suggest a wider portion of this article be dedicated to these transgressions, using primary sources and first-hand accounts of North Korea's human rights violations, lifestyle and the culture/motive of the government.

SOURCES:

"Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea" by Barbara Demick, detailed primary sources of life inside of North Korea. Link to book found here: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives-North/dp/0385523904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292545192&sr=8-1

Kwon Hyuk's witness account of Camp 22, including a gas chamber and experimentation of chemical weapons on North Koreans found here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr_1UNWH-8k

Kim Young-soon witness account of life in a gulag found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html

Kim Young-sam's witness account of life of Camp 14 found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html

Detailed pictures, as well as primary source material regarding Camp 22 found here: http://freekorea.us/2007/02/18/holocaust-now-looking-down-into-hell-at-camp-22/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribledisgrace (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "without the emphasis on human rights violations is a disgrace" Wikipedia tries to be neutral, even in controversial cases; hence, the Tourism and other such sections. However, the very fact that there are dedicated Human Rights and Personality Cult sections in this article and not many others should tell you something.
 * "without testimonials and first-hand accounts of human rights violations": primary sources aren't always the best ones to use; which is certainly not to say they shouldn't be used or that the article could not be improved using such material. Go ahead, have at it and add to the article! Best, --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree absolutely with what Cybercobra says: some properly sourced details about the more negative aspects of North Korea certainly wouldn't go amiss, but they do need proper sourcing, and it will need careful attention not to stray into hyperbole and questionable sources. Let the facts speak for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow OP's comment. So, a "tourism" section is biased, POVed and wrong, but having the entire article circulating around controversies isn't POV? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The place for information about human rights is the Human rights in North Korea article. This article is about the entire country and the human rights section in this article should essentially be the same as the lead section of the main article i.e. a summary. If you have strong feelings about a subject you should probably stay away from it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe north korea as an absolute monarchy, rather than a dictatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 22, 2010
 * Got a source to back up calling it a monarchy over a dictatorship? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolute monarchy is a form of dictactorship. Actually, I agree that the term absolute monarchy is quite good here. To be precise, it could be termed a hereditary, absolute monarchy, as the son of the leader is the next in position to take over. While socalled constitutional monarchies, like my own country, Norway, are de facto republics, North-Korea, while being a republic on the paper, is a de facto monarchy. --Oddeivind (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung passed power to his son Kim-jung il. and he plans to pass power to his son Jong Un. that sounds like an absolute monarchy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, his title wasn't King or Emperor. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But the passing of power if essense of monarchy and so tied very well to the article IMO. The situation is almost the same as in Syria. I dont know if North Korea should be called a monarchy but it does fufill well the shape of a monarchy.--Ssavilam (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, there is no doubt that North-Korea is a de facto absolute monarchy, although formally (de jure) it is a republic. In fact you also have several examples of the contrary, that is a country that is only formally a (constitutional) monarchy. Constitutional monarchies where the "kings" or "queens" have no power, but are pure symbols, are de facto republics. An example of this is my own country, Norway. Maybe one should differentiate between de facto and de jure form of government? There is hardly any doubt that de facto form of government is what counts. Whether you choose to call the absolute monarch "king" or "president" doesn`t really matter. Kim-jung il is a de facto absolute monarch, while the Norwegian "king" is just a symbol with no power what so ever. --Oddeivind (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * . Point to a reliable source characterizing the country as a monarchy. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to read what other people write before answering. Do you have a reliable source saying that North Korea have more in coomon with a republic like the USA than with (other) absolute monarchies? If not, how can you then classify those two countries together? North-Korea claims to be a republic. East Germany claimed to be a democracy. Does this make it a democracy? The fact that the head of state is a president doesn`t necessarily say anything about the structures of government. --Oddeivind (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that the infobox also includes the more apt descriptors "Single-party state" and "Military dictatorship", and the lede gives 3 separate sources supporting the "dictatorship" classification. By contrast, the "socialist republic" description is heavily couched in an "Officially", and aside from some editors' personal opinions, no reliable sources have been presented to support the "monarchy" characterization. FWIW, no, I personally don't think NK is much of a republic, but NPOV dictates that we at least mention the official self-description. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Ruler is pretty much the same thing as King or Emperor. But, Kim's no Augustus Caesar. Nor is he a King Aurthur. 96.244.39.181 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)OctaviusCaesarOF

Edit request from Igirlapplerocks, 29 December 2010
I would like to change the title of this artical to The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) because that is the official long name of the country. North Korea is added because more people know The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea by that name.

Igirlapplerocks (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Renaming the article would just make it awkward.  Our articles about countries seem to be mostly their common names: cf Burma (Republic of the Union of Myanmar), South Korea (Republic of Korea), United States (United States of America).  See also WP:UCN. The official names can be (and are) shown in the infobox and the lead text (as is already the case in this article).  Using the common name in the title makes it easier for somebody to find the article.  Anybody who looks for the article "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" will find a redirect to "North Korea" anyway. -- Why Not A Duck 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Padlock-olive-arrow2.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 23:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

NGC discoveries
May be you can get some info from here -

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3089/Overview

Should at least link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.71 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Autocracy
North Korea should be describe as Autocracy because is depend on Kim Jong Il and his family more than the Party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.166.254 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps
Does anyone know why North Korea is shown absolutely empty on Google Maps: North Korea on Google Maps There are detailed satellite images, (down to single bushes and plants in the fields) but the map part shows nothing. No cities, no roads... detailed information can be found in any (printed) world atlas, so it's hardly a secret where things are in NK... -- megA (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Google have no official data from OFFICIAL North Korea (just even if You are USA infant You are there enemy, and Google is based in USA). They depend usually only on official data, and there is not so much google maps users there ;-). And just is some problem with world atlas because there are not so many roads etc. and they depend I think on some CCCP-Russia-China-North Korea shared info, so it may be very outdated somewhere...

Mansudae Art Studio
"North Korea employs artists to produce art for export at the Mansudae Art Studio in Pyongyang. Over 1,000 artists are employed. Products include water colors, ink drawings, posters, mosaics and embroidery"

why is this in the culture section ? what does this have to do with anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.143.94 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Becuase not everything is "hurr missiles" in North Korea obviously. An article only showcasing the bad things of North Korea would clearly not be neutral. Plus, it's not like other countries' articles aren't the same. The South Korea article has "here are a bunch of SK companies, oh and also we make TV series too", Taiwan has "check out our fish markets and amazing streets selling food", and Russia has "look, we've been constructing lots of things these past years". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about the arts in North Korea hence it's in the culture and arts section. Seems obvious. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming
This entry should be titled "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" not "North Korea" as other nations are usually named by their official name (e.g. People's Republic of China). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.123.68 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so, see East Germany and South Vietnam. The PRC is never referred to by any similar geographic name, whereas North Korea (and the other examples I just gave) almost always are. --80.5.222.104 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
In the "military" section, "asymetric warfare" should be spelled "asymmetric warfare" (two M's) 69.181.162.134 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Media and communications: questionable statistic(s)
The section states: "North Korea has an adequate telephone system, with 1.18 million fixed lines available in 2008.[147] However, most phones are only installed for senior government officials." Assuming single-line phones, that means that there one "senior government official" for every 20.38 North Koreans. Can someone clarify this? Scutigera (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The keyword here is "most". I can also say "most people in Sweden are white", without having to make a lie. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the terms "fixed line" and telephone being used interchangeably? I know nothing about NK's communications technology, but the wording at least seems to cause confusion.  Assuming these words are rough synonyms, in order to satisfy the "most" statement, a minimum of 601,800 (51%) lines must be in the hands of party bosses.  If the average phone/party member is 1:1, the number of party members would be ~1/40th of the population.  If phones/member ~ 3:2,members would be ~1:60.  If "most" = 75%, the ratios might range ~1:27 to 1:41. --Brokev03 (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

War or peace
Something seems contradictory here, I realize there might be a difference between peace agreement and peace treaty, but Wikipedia has a redirect in place for those terms. Could someone elaborate? Sertmann (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "On October 4, 2007, South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il signed an 8-point peace agreement, on issues of permanent peace, high-level talks..."
 * "North and South Korea are still technically at war (having never signed a peace treaty after the Korean War)"
 * Yes. The agreement signed in 2007 merely said that they both agree peace has to happen in the future and that the armistice needs to end.  To quote CNN's translation of the fourth of the eight points, ""South and North Korea agree on [the] need to end the current armistice and establish permanent peace"  Verhalthur (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename?
The country's name is not North Korea, it is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". It may be best known as North Korea, but for an Encyclopaedic entry, surely we should use the official name? Sheepdean (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I learnt from some very passionate defenders of the name of the United States article that common names are used for country articles. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Britannica says North Korea. The purpose of the title is help readers find the article. As a search term, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" doesn't even chart. People could still find it as "Korea," but that doesn't distinguish from South Korea. Kauffner (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read the archives for this article. This issue has come up numerous times, and has always been resolved to "North Korea."--Brokev03 (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

New Amnesty International data, and others valuable info needed in this article
Please ad, that according to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13272198 that there are about 1 percent of population in work(rather slave) camps, expanding in compare to 2000. It's a bad sign for changing ruler. That means it is nearly North Korea business(from 1950s expanding and making most of underground facilities), and working hours from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. with 9 p.m. - 11 p.m break for political 'lecture'.

Also (this is another neutral point of view) could You add some satellite or other images (as fair use or other)? Most images in this article are from only 'cccp' like city(and it's one of the best and propaganda) - the main of North Korea. With some exceptions most 'cities' look like villages, without electricity, shortages on food, even no radio/computers/telephones. Just like 200 years ago in Europe (or more)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.90.176 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The above certainly is not from a neutral point of view. No other country gets that kind of treatment. Rather, simply reference the many groups which have greivences against these problems in North Korea. It's clearly an opinion - one which I agree with - but an opinion nonetheless. Believe it or not, there are countries actually poorer than North Korea but there isn't a wiki page trying to humiliate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.242.84 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)