Talk:North Korea/Archive 19

National Anthem
Please replace the vocal version of the anthem with the instrumental one. The vocal would better suit in the national anthem's main page : Aegukka

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DevanshVerma039 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hereditary Dictatorship
This should probably have a citation. The article itself talks very little of the DPRK being a monarchy or a hereditary dictatorship. As far as I know, there is no legal code (for lack of a better term) that establishes familial ancestry as how succession works. Especially since Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un all occupied different positions with different roles and functions. Genabab (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, the government field of the infobox should stick to its forms/structures and avoid the SYNTH characterization. This field should simply say "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house" as supported by, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Republic" flies in the face of numerous sources. They call it a dictatorship, and so should we. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is missing the point a bit. We call it a dictatorship numerous times in the article body. That's the correct place to do so. No one who has read the article can miss these characterizations. This is a question about what to list in the infobox field, specifically. This is a field where we should be focused on the forms and structures of government. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the infobox descriptions of some other dictatorships:
 * Belarus Unitary presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship
 * Syria Unitary presidential republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship
 * Venezuela Federal presidential republic under a centralized authoritarian state
 * I think this partly supports my edit, but also partly not. The word "republic" does appear. But they also say that it's under a dictatorship. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though these sorts of comparisons seem intuitive, they are not an appropriate basis for decision due to the policies inOTHERCONTENT. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's what it is, according to sources. Anything else would be incorrect. JArthur1984, you should not be trying to force a change when you yourself have repeatedly advocated this negationist view in the past without reaching consensus for a change. Sources have been provided to you, it's not synth. While I am aware that you believe the whole concept of a totalitarian dictatorship is shallow political analysis, you are up against the majority of scholarly tertiary sources on the matter. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a non-constructive response. Of course my position is consistent. Keep in mind that my view is about what the "government" field in the country infobox is for. You are incorrect on the procedure - another editor made this fix (I believe about a week ago) when the only talk page participants were in favor of making the correction. No one else joined the discussion. I reverted once following another editor's driveby RV (this other editor did not engage in the talk page discussion). This is neither disruptive nor trying to force a change.  JArthur1984 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * who writes these articles????????? 2601:603:1400:B9D0:60FD:2D2E:B47E:F3A8 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more important that we consider what is in the DPRK's own constitution. What better source is there? If you want to add a "de facto" this or that afterwards that's another discussion. But for now, the current description ought to change. Genabab (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between dictatorship and 'Totalitarian Hereditory Dictatorship'. In any case could you add the sources you're talking about that call North Korea a Totalitarian Hereditory Dictatorship? It would help normal readers a lot, or if those sources don't exist maybe remove that phrase to adhere to Wikipedia standards of sourcing. Himanshu.cracked (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Genabab, you can read Political Dynamics of Hereditary Succession in North Korea if you would like to see a good explanation of how the succession works. You say it cannot be a dictatorship because the dictators change titles frequently, but that is a North Korean propaganda technique that does not substitute for RS on Wikipedia. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources which use "hereditary dictatorship" etc Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is frankly, a concerning degree of historical negationism around this topic. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mind quoting me where I said. I did not suggest that the DPRK was not authoritarian. I said that it was not a hereditary monarchy or something. Which there is no mention of in the DPRK's constitution.
 * I'm just very confused where: "You say it cannot be a dictatorship" came from because I never said anything vaguely similar Genabab (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, “Heads of State,” “Heads of Government,” “Heads of Parliament,” and “Premiers of North Korea” are not part of this family. Additionally, the State Affairs Commission, Cabinet, Central Committee of the WPK, Politburo, and SPA all have many members not within this specific Kim family.
 * The Kim family itself does not inherit any positions. Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un, hold the position of Premier. After Kim Il-Sung it was Hong Song-Nam who held the position.
 * Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un were President of the Presidium. That being held by Choe Ryong-Hae.
 * Now to be clear, a position of power that Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jon-Un have both held is The Chairman of the National Defense Commission.
 * But legally speaking, neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un are the heads of state.
 * Which, again, is why I am saying that if you want to talk of a de facto hereditary succession, then do that. But as it is implies that this is what the legal code for succession is in the DPRK. Which is just not reflective of reality. Genabab (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not going to convince anyone here of your position by appealing to political semantics. If you're trying to argue that Kim Jong Un didn't succeed his father as North Korea's top political leader because a couple of meaningless titles were swapped around, then this conversation is already over. You will not find common ground with 99.9% of the editors here who are citing reliable sources. The existing status quo in the infobox does not imply that North Korea is constitutionally or legally a hereditary dictatorship. If this is your reading of how the infobox is, then why would you not have a problem with North Korea being described as authoritarian, totalitarian, or a dictatorship? Does your understanding of the infobox not extend to those labels? Yue 🌙 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is exactly "political semantics" when these are different positions with different roles and purposes. Do you disagree that this is the case?
 * > then this conversation is already over.
 * It helps no one to be reductive...
 * Also, only one reliable source was cited. The list of 3 sources offer no analysis of the DPRK as a monarchy or hereditary dictatorship. Reffering to it as such in terms of "maybe this will be the next ruler??" and in passing over all. The other source, I haven't had the time to read it yet so I can't comment
 * In what way does it not imply that? If it is saying "this is what the government is" then that is precisely what it implies, no?
 * I would have a problem with it because there is no mention of this in the constitution of the DPRK. And that is what matters when looking at what a countries government is. Any further analysis belongs in the rest of the article. Genabab (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In Addition, there are sources that refer to the DPRK in the same form as the edit I provided as JArthur1984 showed with Encyclopedia Britannica, so I don't know why you said only one side here has sources Genabab (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We will not be citing the North Korean constitution. It’s a primary source and a propaganda document. We aren’t bound by North Korean law here on Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources to assess the situation impartially. 25stargeneral (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * > and a propaganda document
 * Says who? Is the US constitution also a propaganda document?
 * > We aren’t bound by North Korean law here on Wikipedia
 * I don't think anyone was saying we were?
 * > We rely on secondary sources to assess the situation impartially
 * I think this misunderstands the point. For a fair analysis, sure. This is a good way of doing things. But when you're looking at, legally speaking, what something is. It makes sense to look at these primary sources. The arguments against that and de facto situation come later, in the body of the article. Genabab (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The last sentence here gets to the center of the issue for me. The government field in country infoboxes should describe the de jure government. Characterizations should be dealt with in the body of the article where attribution can be clearer and multiple views can be given their due weight.
 * I don't think there is more to do here unless other editors join the discussion and the consensus shifts again. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on this User: Yue, user:25stargeneral? Genabab (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You and JArthur1984 appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. We follow reliable, secondary sources. They say the form of government is a hereditary dictatorship, so that's what we say. You say But when you're looking at, legally speaking, what something is. It makes sense to look at these primary sources. There is no such Wikipedia policy, and in fact we have strong policies against that. I couldn't care less what laws the North Korean government passes attempting to distort reality. That's not what determines what reality is. 25stargeneral (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * > We follow reliable, secondary sources
 * The secondary sources in question appear to say "hereditary" in passing, which isn't reliable. That doesn't prove anything other than that's what they think. There is no analysis being made.
 * > There is no such Wikipedia policy
 * I'm pretty sure there is. You seem to be confusing the wikipedia policy for analysis (which, again, belongs in the main body of the article) with the governmant tab.
 * > . I couldn't care less what laws the North Korean government passes attempting to distort reality
 * This is their constitution?
 * > That's not what determines what reality is.
 * No offense but I believe you are going out of you way to ignore parts of my argument. No one is saying you cannot challenge the North. But *the place to do that is in the body of the article*. Right? Genabab (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Me disagreeing is not the same thing as not listening. Hereditary is not mentioned "in passing", it's actually in the title and whole point of the source I gave you. Wikipedia does not abandon our sourcing policies when it comes to infobox. Our content standards apply everywhere in the article. You will have to point to what you think supports your claim to the contrary, because it's unclear what you're talking about. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * > Me disagreeing is not the same thing as not listening
 * I didn't say it was. But I did point out: "For a fair analysis, sure. This is a good way of doing things. But when you're looking at, legally speaking, what something is. It makes sense to look at these primary sources. The arguments against that and de facto situation come later, in the body of the article."
 * If you then say "that's not what determines what's going on" then you are unfortunately ignoring what I said.
 * > Hereditary is not mentioned "in passing", it's actually in the title and whole point of the source I gave you.
 * I was more reffering to User:Horse Eye's Back.
 * > You will have to point to what you think supports your claim to the contrary
 * I will reiterate that this was said near the exact start. A secondary source, from a reliable place (i.e. encyclopaedia Britannica) describes the DPRK as such. Genabab (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does it describe it as such? The article doesn't mention heredity or dictatorship anywhere.
 * https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Korea
 * Or is Wikipedia just blatantly taking the same positions as the US state department for some unfathomable reasons? Himanshu.cracked (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia infoboxes do not reflect de jure positions; they reflect what reliably sourced content in the article body states. You can argue there's a bias to it, because the sources in English language media deemed reliable by the Wikipedia community collectively in past discussions tend to be mainstream press from the U.S. and Europe. However, that's a completely different discussion. Yue 🌙 00:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we are only looking at it encyclopedically speaking. We aren't a court or legal organization. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Hereditary dictatorship" is only one description of the government.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking
As per MOS:SOB, links should not be placed next to each other such that they appear to be a single link - this is a usability issue for readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request - Thu. September 21st, 2023
North Korea is technically a communist Stalinist state. Could you please add that to its “Politics and Government” section? 174.165.213.3 (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌: Please provide a reliable source for that claim. Yue 🌙 05:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Qalso north Korea has very low freedom and it is one of the most strict countries in the world as you can not watch any movie or TV show and there is only wifi for a few hours before the electricity goes out and there is only one Chanel and the Chanel is completely government controlled and the Chanel is all about praising Korea and the festivals are all about the army 105.183.105.138 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is all pretty well known. What's your point? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
there is a grammar mistake Remagamer (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Can specify where it is? Liu1126 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Government Type Infobox
In the infobox, we are currently using totalitarian dictatorship. However, we do have reliable sources that use the term "absolute monarchy" and "Stalinist dictatorship" in the actual article as well. Is there a particularly compelling reason for keeping totalitarian dictatorship? I understand some may have strong feelings on this, but at the end of the day WP:SYNTH needs to be avoided. Sagflaps (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am an advocate to keep this field of country infoboxes confined to the structure of government and leave characterizations to the body entirely. I think the reader should at a glance know whether a government unitary, federal, prime minister or president, how many legislative houses etc.
 * In the earlier discussion, I stated that one reason I like leaving characterizations for the body is that there are sources for so many characterizations, a focus on the forms and structures of government in the infobox may avoid arguments. I made a comment like, ‘what’s to happen when someone decides they have a source for Stalinist dictatorship’, so it’s a bit funny to see your comment. This is why I like de jure forms for the infobox.
 * My preference continues to be phrases like “under a … (characterization)” out of the infobox.
 * The more abstract or figurative or interpretive the language, the worse it is. So just like “hereditary” is quite bad because it’s really describing the cross-generational concentration of power within the Kim family (what titles are heritable? What are the rules of their heredity? partition? Primogeniture?) “absolute monarchy” is even worse.
 * “Stalinist” is perhaps a bit worse than the current “totalitarian” but again in my view none of the adjectives are good for the infobox. This sort of gloss can go in article bodies where it can be explained and attributed as necessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You raise the issue of sources too. If it’s sourced and accorded due weight, of course it’s appropriate for the body. I’m taking a sharp focus on the infobox. My previously suggested version is supported by Britannica, in any case. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All very well sourced....pls no guess work. This country is the main example of a totalitarian dictatorship in the form of an absolute monarchy. We should simply say what sources say... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is appropriate for discussion in the body, for the sake of avoiding guess work. Sagflaps (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why my focus on this discussion is cabined in terms of placement in the infobox, and using a concrete description of government that minimizes characterizations and adjectives. There are many sources and many characterizations. You have cited an NGO. I have cited the classic English-language an encyclopedia: "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house." You evoke simply saying what sources say. Mine is another example of what sources say, and indeed it's more concrete, less guesswork. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What we are looking for is the best sources not just tertiary source such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. So like other articles within this scope (Russia or Afghanistan)...lets give our readers the most info we can.... not hide it in the body... lets link for research purposes as we do with other articles. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not hidden in the body, references to totalitarian dictatorship are easy to find in the body without scrolling very much at all. Sagflaps (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, as a general note, Freedom House is an American organization who receives significant funding from the US Department of State. While I'm sure it's generally reliable, in this particular case it definitely requires extra scrutiny since its editorial independence could reasonably be challenged when it comes to North Korea. That said, there are plenty of other sources cited in the article, which is why I'm just noting this generally. Sagflaps (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am for removing speculative discussions from the info box and leaving them in the article. I agree with Sagflaps about Freedom House, at best anything from them deserves attribution.Stix1776 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Best we start an RFC see if others think it's best we don't follow sources.  Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 05:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we don't follow sources Moxy. What I am suggesting is that the due weight be given to reliable sources that use other descriptions of the government. Sagflaps (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why Freedom House is receiving so much focus here, as if it is one of the primary or only sources describing the DPRK government as "totalitarian". Yue 🌙 05:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thousands of sources out there.....not sure why this is a problem. Is there any source that don't call this a totalitarian regime? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 06:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, for example I keep going back to Britannica which also does not put such characterizations into its infobox. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NGL I wasnt aware that there were other, non Freedom House sources for "totalitarian". Still, I think that JArthur makes a good point. I'm not seeing other articles with similar categories in their infobox, such as Saudi Arabia. I do support having an RFC to close this issue entirelyStix1776 (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why I haven't opened an RFC on it is because from past talk page discussions, it seems like the kind of thing that can easily turn into editors engaging in advocacy or accusing each other of propaganda. And I don't want to be the person who starts something like that. Sagflaps (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The direction of current discussion and edits suggest a change of consensus. An RfC may of course be a good idea, but 'that ball appears to be in the other court' for the time being. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears many of the editors who have been adding things in the past were doing so for advocacy reasons. Which is fine in the sense that editors are allowed to have opinions, but many here seem to think that the pro-American world view on issues is the absolute truth. If it matters at all, I'm saying this is as an American editor with no personal interests beyond WP:GLOBAL. Sagflaps (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Russia or Afghanistan). Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cuba China Vietnam Laos. Some have suggested the addition of Juche in the past, but there wasn't a consensus to do that. Either way I'm generally of the opinion that we should evaluate each country individually. Sagflaps (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I think we have somthing odd going on here February 6, 2024 Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency across Wikipedia, should “totalitarian” be removed from the infoboxes of other (past and present) regimes that are (usually/often/widely, etc.) considered totalitarian, if the consensus here is that it does not belong? ZFT (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Best to bring such discussions up on a page by page basis. Otherwise discussions tend to spiral. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only guidance is MOS:INFOBOX, which doesn't give many clear answers besides what is effectively "less is more". Sagflaps (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Most sources define the political system in the country as a totalitarian state (e.g. ,,,,). Hence it should be described accordingly in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition, that was a long-standing consensus version. Please do not change it without getting consensus on article talk page. To establish such consensus, please start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. People have been debating over it since at least 2018. I don't think that is enough justification to edit war further. The vast majority of edits have been "drive-by" editors, who didn't discuss their change.  Sagflaps (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources My very best wishes posted do not call "totalitarian" a system of government.Stix1776 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, of course they call it a totalitarian regime and explain why (see quotations in RfC below). My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hereditary Dictatorship take 2
It appears there was a discussion in August over the use of hereditary dictatorship. The discussion mostly devolved into a debate over what is propaganda what isn't, which I'm not here to discuss. Generally, this is English Wikipedia so people here will have a bias towards western points of view. Rather, it seems like some reliable sources use hereditary dictatorship and others do not or use other terminology, so that sort of discussion should occur in the article body rather than the infobox. However I'm more than willing to hear opposing viewpoints. However, please keep in mind WP:GLOBAL is a consideration when editing topics like this. Also, some have suggested that I find the content offensive and therefore I am removing it for that reason. I am not. Neither do I have any affiliations with North Korea or other socialist countries. Sagflaps (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that discussion suffered for a lack of focus.
 * The discrete question is whether the “government” field should include “hereditary dictatorship.”
 * This is not a characterization suitable for conclusion as a matter of Wikivoice in the infobox.
 * It is fair game for the body of the article, where characterizations can be attributed and distinctions between de jure government and de facto concentrations of power can be addressed with clarity. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would we not list the type of government as we do with outher countries? This country is literally the example of this type of government. Do we have sources that say otherwise? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue is that it contradicts with the body. If you read into the body, you will see the language hereditary dictatorship, absolute monarchy, Stalinist dictatorship. The CIA's world factbook, which is quite obviously biased against NK, calls it "dictatorship, single-party state; official state ideology of "Juche" or "national self-reliance". It doesn't use the term hereditary dictatorship. So in those situations, it is fair to leave those determinations in the body for the reader to come to their own conclusions instead of synthesizing the sources ourselves. Sagflaps (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction follow the links. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the proposal -- "Unitary one-party socialist republic."
 * A nice example source here is how Britannica approaches it in the Britannica "infobox": "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house (Supreme People’s Assembly)" JArthur1984 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think best use academic sources over terrestrial sources. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but the lead/infobox should be a synopsis of the body, and the body as it stands makes mention of many different characterizations of the government in this regard, as I talked about above. So for us to choose our most preferred characterization mostly makes for original research as the body of the article currently stands. Sagflaps (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll add my voice to this. The sources don't call North Korea a "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". So far a majority of editors in this discussion (3 vs 2), are asking for a removal. This is maddening that such a large body of editors can be against its inclusion (ie not consensus), yet it's pushed and edit warred to be included.Stix1776 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not a vote. Best look for sources over guess work...
 * > Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There seem to be plenty of sources which call it a hereditary dictatorship (example ) but I would agree that the addition of "totalitarian" is redundant as all dictatorships are totalitarian. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should say what type of dictatorship...Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian(very different 'read me) and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies." Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet I can find any number of sources which refer to North Korea as authoritarian... As much as I wish wikipedia was a polisci journal it isn't. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The conversation seems to be veering off-topic a bit, so please keep in mind the original point. This is that while there are reliable sources in favor of hereditary dictatorship, there are other sources that say other things as well (as evidenced when you read the article). I'm trying to keep this discussion on the original issue instead of going off on a tangent as happened in the last discussion. Sagflaps (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I say fallow sources...no guess work Freedom House. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but in the case of different sources characterizing the country in different ways, this discussion should be happening in the body of the article where we can explain it in long form, and not in the infobox. Generally, I don't it is proper for us as Wikipedia editors to take a position on matter. Instead, we explain what different sources say (as the body currently does), and allow the reader to decide for themselves how the country should be characterized. Sagflaps (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We say..."North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family." The short for of this statement (used in all sources presented thus far and ones in the lead) is a "dynastic/ hereditary totalitarian dictatorship". This terminology has been used for decades to describe the country even in the media by academics....like  Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not saying that there doesn't exist sources in favor of hereditary dictatorship, just that if you read the bottom paragraph of that section where it actually mentions the words hereditary dictatorship, it is described in far less authoritative terms than is used in the infobox, and mentions other characterizations of the government by other sources. As it is stands right now, to make an actual decision in this regard would require us to weigh the political merits of the claims, which has not led to productive conversations in the past and is basically just original research. Sagflaps (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor sure what your saying.... the article body describes all three of these points...that is a dictatorship totalitarianism and dynastic. Doing so in great detail using a multitude of terms that all describe the three main points. Can you quote from the article what your referring to? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not sourced directly, and you're edit warring to keep it against a majority of editors. Stix1776 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly sourced and has been restore to the long standing version by 4 diffent editors ( including myself ). ....vs it's bold removal despite the edit note by 1 editor multiple times and one other editor. If you wish to form a new consensus a new RFC would need to take place at this point...... or at the very  least new sources for a change. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like the issue is that you're throwing around all these phrases as if they all are just essentially the same thing. Anyways, it's not that hard to CTRL+F, search for "hereditary dictatorship", and come to the conclusion that how we are currently using it in the article doesn't support its inclusion in the infobox. Sagflaps (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I've dug through many many pages of archives, and it appears that there never was a formal consensus on the talk page in favor of hereditary dictatorship in the first place, it was added by users User:Vulcan300 and User:BakedGoods357, unilaterally. When the note was added to not change without consensus, another editor had also unilaterally restored the version with hereditary dictatorship after the note was added. Sagflaps (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So your POV over someone like Walter Clemens POV....sure your doing right by our readers by blanking source content for the 4th time? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're going too far, nobody is going to take you seriously if these are the sorts of arguments you make. People are going to think you're either incompetent or trolling and I'm sure you don't want that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What we have is a new account removing sourced content based on their  POV with no sources and  ignoring academic publications that can educate our readers.  WE have block many here for the same thing for years. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring them, because this is a discussion about what should go in the infobox specifically, which is an area where there is limited space and we can't write a whole paragraph about what various different sources say. It appears this discussion has run its course. I don't think anyone is going to come to any further understanding by continuing this conversation. I just feel like I'm repeating the same things over and over again really. Sagflaps (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree there are many different descriptions of NK's government. Hereditary dictatorship is just one of them and it doesn't belong in the infobox. It can be discussed in the body of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will fix article so those not familiar with term can understand. Will propose changes here. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I fear we bog down in disagreements whose scope exceed the discrete question -- what belongs next to the "government" field in infobox. We should simply describe the form of government and leave the characterizations to the body. There is not, and will never be, room for every characterization supported by sources to fit. To give just one example, an editor not participating on talk wanted to add "under totalitarian dictatorship." What happens when an editor decides "Stalinist" is supported by sources and should be jammed into the infobox as well. Let's stick to the basics as there is plenty of talk in the article to encompass characterizations. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why it needs to be more clear... "Stalinist" is a type/style of totalitarian. Its clear that its not clear to all as seen by this talk The article is talking about the types of totalitarian people have used to describe this form of goverment. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the issue I notice. Dealing with the issue in this manner will never lead to a consensus as we have a situation where many reliable sources use different descriptions, and limited infobox space. Just looking around, even a source like the CIA world factbook which would be slanted in favor of a US point of view stops short of calling the DPRK a totalitarian dictatorship. There other sources which do, but that's besides the point when that can be discussed in the body. Sagflaps (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Korean Wikipedia, for example, uses the terminology "Unitary state, unicameral system, republican system, collective leadership system" or "단일국가, 단원제, 공화제, 집단지도체제" in the original Korean. While I'm not suggesting that we cite another language edition of Wikipedia, I was generally interested in seeing how other encyclopedias handle it, and Korean Wikipedia editors will probably have greater knowledge of the subject. Sagflaps (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we follow their lead and include multiple but separated by commas? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No Sagflaps (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The last time we had multiple terminology it was ridiculous. There was a long string of verbiage. The longer it was the more inclined were editors to add more.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should simply follow the example used in all the other totalitarian states..... especially considering this is the main example thatt every source about the topic uses in our time. Not sure why it should be different here. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * List of totalitarian regimes if you want to quickly look through it Sagflaps (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The articles for most of those regimes have “totalitarian” in the infobox. For the sake of consistency, shouldn’t the same be true for this article’s infobox as well (regardless of whether or not the regime also classifies as a hereditary dictatorship)? ZFT (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I should have scrolled down a bit further before commenting. ZFT (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

History
Do we really need the entire history of all of Korea in this article? We have discussed this before, but it seems to keep on being added back. I think it's time for an RfC. Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the articles for North Korea and South Korea should both start from the "Modern history" sections, and all the histories prior to their foundation should be at Korea § History. The scope of each article should be about their respective sovereign states, not the Korean nation or geographical region.
 * The scopes are dissimilar to those of other articles like China and Japan because North Korea and South Korea are fractured and smaller versions of previous Korean states. The history content that predates the states' foundings do not specifically talk about developments in the northern or southern half of Korea, so it confuses the readers into believing that history that happened in a South Korean city happed in present-day North Korea, or that those past polities were also divided along the DMZ, etc.
 * The only way the status quo would make sense is if we pretend that both Koreas, at the same time, are the continuators of all of Korea, as both governments contend. Yue 🌙 05:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is harm in some earlier history, which does help explain how the polity got to where it is today, but as is common for country article history sections both are simply too long. CMD (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be enough pre-founding history to establish the background for the states' foundings. I would argue that the proper starting point then would be the late decline of Joseon and the establishment of the Korean Empire, or even later at the Japanese occupation of Korea. Yue 🌙 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is indeed too long. Given how all of those responding to you on talk generally agree thus far, perhaps it would be more efficient to begin making the edits in a wp:BeBold style. Rather than the bureaucratic RfC. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I ventured some initial edits along these lines. I would suggest further cuts as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the history up to 1945. A reader interested in the earlier history can look elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how blanking helps our readers at all. Lead, infobox, culture section no longer follow the history section. This format is not the norm in anyway. Think best we lead our readers to the history of the country here....as we do with every other country. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Corea del Norte" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corea_del_Norte&redirect=no Corea del Norte] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Prodraxis  ( talk ) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC about government type infobox
What text should be written in the "Government Type" infobox description for the article North Korea? How specific should this description be? This RfC is only about the infobox specifically, and not other parts of the article. Sagflaps (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * - Unitary one-party socialist republic. As mentioned in previous discussions, no source calls it "hereditary" or "totalitarian" as a system of government, no do other pages do this. See United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and Japan. Editors wishing to keep both these terms are not in the majority.Stix1776 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A totalitarian regime or as suggested by Moxy below. Most sources define the political system in the country as a totalitarian state. For example,
 * "North Korea: Fading totalitarianism in Hermit Kingdom, this is a scholarly article, it tells that North "was described as one of the most totalitarian societies of modern time", and even after 1990s, it "should still be characterized as a totalitarian society"
 * , Amnesty International, "It is a totalitarian state where tens of thousands of people are enslaved and tortured."
 * WaPO, "Increasingly, North Koreans are not fleeing their totalitarian state because they are hungry..."
 * North Korea: Systematic Repression. Totalitarianism Empowered with Absence of International Pressure, Human Rights Watch,
 * The Black Book of Communism has a chapter about North Korea and defines the system as a totalitarian communist regime.
 * And so it goes. One can collect any number of such references, including scholarly ones, such as ,,,,, etc. Hence this should be described accordingly in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Black Book of Communism is one of the most unreliable works and has been debunked by many communists worldwide and the author has admitted in exaggerating. Also, elections and such are existent in DPRK. DPRK even has less centralized structure than the United States, where they abolished the highest legislative power. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox right now says "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". It seems good enough for me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But perhaps this is too lengthy, isn't it? To explain what I mean further, either "Unitary one-party socialist republic" and "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" could be sufficient descriptions on their own. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally, to reach this description, one has to WP:SYNTH many different sources which use those adjectives independently, but not in tandem. Sagflaps (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about “totalitarian one-party state”? Is that succinct enough? ZFT (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I take exception that the some of My very best wishes's links. The first "scholarly article" journal is funded by the | South Korean government, the last is the Black Book of Communism. Wikipedia should describe disputes, but not engage in them.Stix1776 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To avoid WP:NOTFORUM, I will not go too deep into the Black Book of Communism, but it is almost certainly not a reliable source in this case. From the article:
 * "The Black Book of Communism has been translated into numerous languages, has sold millions of copies, and is considered one of the most influential and controversial books written about the history of communism in the 20th century, in particular the history of the Soviet Union and other state socialist regimes."
 * The other sources are just OK, although generally reliable. Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, obviously has quite a vested interest in promoting anti-socialism and anti-communism topics, given that he would probably like to keep his $180 billion net worth. HRW is also funded by major corporate interests in the US. Sagflaps (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, this is an excellent RS as an academic book by a group of well known scholars we have pages about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this is the Black Book of Communism you are talking about, yes? Sagflaps (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If so, I would agree that it is an academic source, but also definitely a controversial one and not very reliable. Sagflaps (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No guess work pls.... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that what I said above was guesswork. A source can be both published by a reputable publisher and have a controversial reception at the same time. If this were to be cited in the body, it would most likely need a direct attribution. So, I don't believe this source is fit for the infobox. Sagflaps (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * a unitary one-party socialist republic isn't necessarily totalitarian. Some are just authoritarian, and it doesn't even necessitate an authoritarian system of government.
 * I think "Unitary one-party totalitarian socialist republic" is good INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest we not use the word "hereditary." That's figurative expression meant to express the cross-generational concentration of power in the Kim family. We are not well-served by including figurative expressions in the infobox. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Such type of succession is happening in any monarchy, but "hereditary" is not misleading in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - Unitary one-party socialist republic. I recommend the Britannica model of approaching infobox government descriptions: describe the form of government and leave characterizations to the body of the article. We will always have many sources and many variations which could plausibly characterize governments. In the infobox, We should define the structure of government and leave characterizations to the body where they can be attributed, alternative characterizations can be expressed, and views can be afforded their due weight. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, EB does not say this is a "socialist" republic. Calling this political system "socialist" is a big concern. Their ruling party, Workers' Party of Korea officially calls itself "communist". That would be better. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that the WPK considers itself to be a communist party. However, the country itself its not a communist form of government. Sagflaps (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See constitution:
 * "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the socialist State of Juche where the ideas of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung and the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il on State building and their exploits in it are applied."
 * Sagflaps (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good observation on EB, I'd be amenable to dropping the socialist descriptor as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But I am surprised it calls the system "republic". As our page correctly says, "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ("public affair"), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy". The political system in North Korea is anything but that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship Amazed to see things like "no source calls it "hereditary" or "totalitarian" as a system of government, ".  Just need to read the article for source or look some up.... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the essence of the the dispute is not whether there are sources out there that call it totalitarian, but whether it should go in the government type infobox specifically. In terms of the source you picked, it has the benefit of being from a peer-reviewed journal, but it also appears to be one that is funded (at least significantly) by the South Korean government. Sagflaps (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can use any source you like .. 34,700 results in just Google scholar Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will evaluate the sources that you specifically mention. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to say much about it, if at all. Sagflaps (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of country articles on Wikipedia that reference some form of dictatorship in the infobox. Both Syria and Turkmenistan explicitly reference “totalitarian hereditary dictatorship”, like this page did as well for the past 3 years. There is no reason to break precedent on this years old, platform wide consensus on this one article, especially when this is so well sourced. BakedGoods357 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where there has been a previous RfC or consensus on this. Can you link me to this? Regardless, if an implied consensus existed without discussion, the continued changes to it suggest that such an implied consensus has been broken. Sagflaps (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * These matters are non-precedential. Analogies to other pages are not so good. WP:OTHERCONTENT is the policy which discusses this. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But why not the UK, Saudi Arabia, or Japan? Stix1776 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The UK and Japan are both liberal democracies with a constitutional monarch who has little day to day governing power as head of state.
 * Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship but the dynasty’s power is institutionalized through the monarchy, hence “absolute monarchy”.
 * There is nothing in the DPRK constitution that grants the Kim family absolute power and hereditary leadership privileges, hence “hereditary dictatorship.” BakedGoods357 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are sources that go with "absolute monarchy", see the article. This is mainly on a de facto basis. Sagflaps (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this is reasonable because different sources define this differently. This is a quite unusual political system. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Every country has its quirks. The United States, for example, has quite the unique political system. However, it is only described in three words, "Federal presidential republic". Sagflaps (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unitary one party socialist republic I've discussed this at great length in the sections Talk:North_Korea and Talk:North Korea Sagflaps (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not "republic". As our page correctly says, "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ("public affair"), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy". The political system in North Korea is anything but that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Socialist republic. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it should be "Socialist state" (actual title), not "Socialist republic" (a redirect). However note that North Korea appears as a "communist state" on this page (Socialist_state). A "communist state" would be more acceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Communist state is a very generic term..... akin to saying a democracy. It is why at List of socialist states we list forms of government. We should be specific and link terms that explain..like sources. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are very long articles on the differences between communism and socialism. They are not generic terms. Each one is defined rather precisely, with ownership of the means of production being the main factor. Sagflaps (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Types of socialism "There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them"...what we are looking for is to educate our readers (and editors) by way of links and sources. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not the most inclined in favor of adding references to Juche or Marxism-Leninism, because at the end of the day, the description for the infobox should be short. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, I am certainly willing to consider it if there is a compelling argument. Sagflaps (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Juche is nominally a part of Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, so the correct descriptor would be "Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist". However, I don't think its inclusion is warranted in this context as most sources in English and Korean describe the Workers' Party of Korea as a Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist party, but not the DPRK as a Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist state. Yue 🌙 04:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At present, government type of North Korea in the infobox should be written as "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship".
 * Numerous academic references describe North Korea as a "totalitarian" state under a "hereditary dictatorship". Several sources have been provided by the users Moxy and My very best wishes which describe North Korea as a "totalitarian" state under a "hereditary dictatorship".
 * The current version is short enough for the readability purpose in infobox.
 * As of present, wikipedia pages specify the political systems of totalitarian regimes in the infobox. If some editors have an objection with inserting political systems of totalitarian regimes (such as "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" in the case of North Korea) being written in the infobox, then they should conduct a general RfC regarding it elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8 Do you have any reliable sources that reach this particular conclusion in whole? What I mean here is, while there have been sources that reach the conclusion that North Korea is totalitarian, and other sources that reach the conclusion that it uses hereditary succession, do you have sources to conclude "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" specifically? Sagflaps (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup as linked above days ago  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)
 * I believe that when Freedom House was brought up, there was concerns over it being a US State Department funded sources. Though my memory on it isn't the best. Sagflaps (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you have mentioned that western sources are not good for some reason with zero sources saying so....thus far your evaluation of sources have not been backed by anything but your POV. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Freedom House isn't on the list of perennial sources, but there has been significant discussion about it on the noticeboard if I remember correctly. Sagflaps (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In light of the longstanding consensus, the article should accurately reflect North Korea as a "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship." I engaged in a discussion with Moxy where I initially misunderstood certain sources suggesting North Korea could be considered a 'post-totalitarian regime,' leading to some erroneous edits on my part. However, upon further review, it's clear that North Korea remains a totalitarian state. While there may be discussions regarding the extent of corruption within the regime, I believe maintaining the status quo description is appropriate, albeit without the '[dubious – discuss]' notice. Gooduserdude (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is this longstanding consensus? I don't believe there was previously an RfC on this matter, or a general consensus in favor of any particular version. Sagflaps (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * i was referring to the fact that "totalitarian" part remained unchanged for the past 3 years Gooduserdude (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it appears that there was at some point a presumed consensus only for the use of "totalitarian", but it no longer exists due to the dispute. Sagflaps (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The dispute has to be based on sources...thus far the "I dont like it " does not hold much  mustard. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a sources based discussion, Moxy. I just haven't really brought it up since it's been mentioned so many times and I don't really like repeating myself ad nauseam. My main point here has been that the use of "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" requires an improper synthesis of sources, and generally speaking there seems to be no clear consensus amongst sources for it.     Sagflaps (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stalinism is a style/ideology of a one-party totalitarian state with a “cult of personality” (just like NK) Its used in this context as an example for comparison .  List of totalitarian regimes Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet, I can just as easily find this peer reviewed journal article that argues for Marxist-Leninist or Kimilsung-Kimjongilist. Sagflaps (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you can because they are both "one-party totalitarian state" basics are here Quote ="modern examples of totalitarian states include the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty." Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion here is unclear to me. Are you in favor of adding one of Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist, Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist, or omitting it altogether? Sagflaps (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can say . Kimilsungist-Kimjongilis is simply a part of Juche...or a rebranding of Marxist-Leninist. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stalinism isn't an ideology. Stop utilising pejorative terms and adhere to proper terms. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stalinism Sagflaps (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lots of guess work here. Stalinism is a political ideology that follows the principles of communism, Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. If Stalinism is an "ideology", then it makes no sense for Stalin to not have written a work. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another Wikipedian bullshit. Many communists organisations and individuals have debunked it. Good example is by Politsturm. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Moxy There are sources which do not call it hereditary. One notable example is Encylcopedia Britannica which calls it a "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house" Genabab (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They use the term "Kim dynasty" . We source all the related terms in the article Kim family (North Korea). Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That they do. But not in the descriptor for what the government actually is. Which is probably more important, no? Genabab (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – I am personally going to remain neutral on this matter. I have read through the arguments of all editors who have contributed to the discussion so far and I understand the reasonings given. I am unsure if setting a precedent of having what is "de facto" true (according to the majority opinion of reliable sources) in the infobox specifically is a good path forward, as it could open a whole can of worms for other articles. The labels are contentious, but this is not an issue in the article body because there is plenty of room to attribute different descriptions of the DPRK government. In the infobox information should be condensed, so having the same amount of detail there cannot be the case. I am also unsure if having two descriptions listed, a "de jure" and "de facto" one, would be an appropriate solution, because the article would then have to cite sources that explicitly use those terms (to verify the assertions of those labels). I do not think "See: Government of North Korea" (similar to the Soviet Union's article) is a good solution either because the DPRK government has not changed with significantly since independence, so there is no complexity that has to be broken down, just two opposing characterisations of the government. Yue 🌙 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we consider USSR under Brezhnev, that would be a one party communist state. If we consider it under Stalin, that would be a one-party totalitarian police state. But it would miss a significant difference: the hereditary transfer of power typical for monarchies in North Korea. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment is very reasonable. I wouldn't say the descriptions being debated over are fundamentally opposing. Just that they describe the government type in varying levels of verbosity. Sagflaps (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment is very reasonable. I wouldn't say the descriptions being debated over are fundamentally opposing. Just that they describe the government type in varying levels of verbosity. Sagflaps (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose hereditary dictatorship: There is no law of succession. Kim Jong Un is not the eldest son. The term "dictatorship" is contentious. Some commentators do not believe Kim is a dictator: see . Dictators normally seize power; they do not inherit it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your source is a decade old before Kim Jong Un consolidated power by killing off officals including the assassination of his half-brother. Modern view Kim Jong Un has started his succession planning Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is wayyyy too speculative to be used as a source in the infobox. This article states that the South Korean government views Kim Ju Ae as a possible heir apparent, but also says "The NIS public affairs office told The Associated Press that it still considers all possibilities regarding the North’s power succession process because Kim is still young, has no major health issues, and has at least one other child. Kim turns 40 on Monday." Sagflaps (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As seen above many sources say this as does this (we are on the third generation) ...the source your talking about by Seong-Hyon Lee from Harvard University explains how there is intent for the family rule to continue into the fourth generation. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a circular argument. It assumes a dictatorship exists and that killings were carried out by this dictatorship, Jack Upland (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some combination of "Totalitarian", "one-party" or "unitary", and "dictatorship" and specifically it should mention (briefly) Juche ideology. As long as those things are included, I think it's nitpicky the rest of how it's worded. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it comes down to it, we can always cite Conservapedia and go with "Communist totalitarian state". Sagflaps (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Must be a terrible encyclopedia when it comes to facts. North Korea isn't communist as of 2009. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You may need to update your scholarship then; communism was readded into the ruling party's documents by Kim Jong Un in 2021. If you mean that the DPRK has not been de facto communist since 2009, then the arguments for that claim predate that year by a lot. Yue 🌙 04:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for telling me. North Korea can be classified as de jure communist. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe totalitarian should be left there. Since political opponents are non existent and often taken out even in other countries. But Hereditary is dubious because that is unconfirmed and there has been speculation as to whether his sister may be in line should he have a health problem. However, it’s tough to confirm anything with the DPRK, as it’s the hermit kingdom, afterall. MoMoChohan (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You all got to stop edit warring over the infobox... at the end of the day, none of this is that big of a deal. I'm sure many have strong feelings about this country, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Sagflaps (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship per Moxy JM (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. Several sources have described North Korea as totalitarian and some even as hereditary. INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning here is original research. The connections need to be made by the sources, and not the editors. For example, if sources individually say "totalitarian", "authoritarian", "absolute monarchy", "hereditary", then to combine to "unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" is original research. Sagflaps (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sagflaps It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You don't have to argue with every editor for whom you disagree. You've started the RFC, left a comment, and now let others comment. Nemov (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with this, so I will take this page out of my notifications list. Previously, every time someone would respond here, I would get an email in my inbox Sagflaps (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a little confused: if one source refers to North Korea as a "socialist republic", and another refers to it as a "hereditary dictatorship', wouldn't synthesizing the two into "socialist republic under a hereditary dictatorship" violate WP:SYNTH? 296cherry (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, unless at least one of the sources contradicts the other in text and context of the publisher, it does not violate WP:SYNTH.
 * What SYNTH is not INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change the map without the claims on South Korea?
Hi. With the recent situation in North Korea right now basically abandoning any hopes of reunification with the south, is it safe to assume that the government has abandoned its claim to the remainder of the country? Even news media has stopped portraying the unified peninsula as is in its news broadcasts. However, the country's constitution remains unchanged as of this date; still explicitly mentioning reunification as a national priority de jure albeit de facto after Kim's speech the government has basically rescinded any mentions of reunification with the south overnight. With the changes at hand, should the map be altered to only include North Korea alone without its territorial claims or it should be left as it is for now at least before the N.K. government officially removes any mentions of reunification in its constitution? Teruterubozo618 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This mostly seems reasonable, though I'm not sure if North Korea's intent is to erase such a claim. They have, after all, written South Korea into the constitution as their main enemy. Sagflaps (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not at all clear that NK has renounced its claim. It seems to be referring to peaceful reunification. We should wait and see what the new policy is. Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The weather report is very interesting, although my general impression from the news is similar to Jack Upland's at the moment. Long-term we don't have to reflect a constitutional claim if it is in practice moribund, but we are not at that point yet. CMD (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was reading some Korean language reports earlier today to see if I was missing something from the English language coverage, but I found nothing that indicates a renouncement of the DPRK government's claim over the territory controlled by the ROK. It seems that the DPRK government is simply recognising the de facto situation, that their claimed territory (all of Korea) is not united. There is no change in rhetoric or nomenclature from the north describing the south as a "puppet regime of the US imperialists", etc. Yue 🌙 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and they are unlikely to go back on that description of South Korea as long as there is a strong US military presence in the area. Which probably ain't happening anytime soon. Sagflaps (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Teruterubozo618 made a point and provided sources directly backing up their claim. Can editors please read the links they posted before making conclusions without any posted evidence.Stix1776 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we are all responding to the same story. I just don't think it warrants a change to the map etc yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to respond to Stix1776's last comment on this dead conversation a couple weeks ago but thought not to since it's just a backhanded remark about other editors. Teruterubozo618's proposed change is not supported by what their given source says, nor the points they brought up. There is no evidence that other editors could find that supports this change; that is all that was said. Yue 🌙 06:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024
A citation is needed at the end of the second paragraph of the page. There is a statement that, "In 2024, the DPRK formally abandoned efforts to peacefully reunify Korea." This should be accompanied by a citation. Masonicscribe (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: since the claim is easily attributable and a citation is already provided in the linked article, there is no need to clutter the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I recommend SERIOUS efforts to rewrite the entire page
The whole page makes suppositions and judgements that are not the place of an encyclopedia to make. It is not the place of wikipedia to decide who is evil or who is good, and there are a lot of statements that have no sources whatsoever that dramatically need them, such as calling the country a "totalitarian dictatorship with no elections similar to the soviet union" with no sources on that topic. If i am to believe that Wikipedia cares about the truth and is impartial than this is unnacceptable Drzaiusoffical (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please give specific examples and cite policy-based reasons for your grievances and suggestions. Asking other editors to conduct a task as monumentous as an entire rewrite and offering zero specifics or proposals is as helpful as talking to a wall about your grievances. You feel good after soapboxing to nobody, but nothing gets changed.
 * Regarding your paraphrased sentence, content in the introductory paragraphs is often repeated and sourced in the body paragraphs because the lead is meant to reflect information in the article body. The "unsourced" sentence in the lead is sourced in the section Government and politics. Yue 🌙 05:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)