Talk:North Korea/Archive 2

".dpr.kr"
Wouldn't the operators of North Korean websites be more willing to use the domain suffix ".dpr.kr" rather than ".kp"? ".dpr.kr" would probably go over with them better than ".kp", since they wish for Korea to be one, wouldn't you say? Now how would one go about starting up the ".dpr.kr" domain suffix in the first place?

Example site (does not exist {yet}) http://www.kist.ac.dpr.kr would be a hypothetical main website for Kim Il Sung Taehakkyo (University) --Shultz 21:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought DPRK didn't have the power or technology to have its own websites...plus I recall .kp is only the unofficial domain suffix. And all of the "official" North Korean websites are maintained from abroad. Though I'm no expert in this. —Thorri 15:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My gut indicates that they'll be more fond of using ".dpr.kr" rather than ".kp" so they ought to get wind of this suggestion. They want reunification of the Korean peninsula since they are all one people, and desire a single country again, so with the anti-separation sentiment going on right now, they wish to also use the .kr domain suffix, so they would be more for the ".dpr.kr" than the ".kp". Perhaps when they gain enough power/technology to host their sites from their own country, they might go ahead with it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shultz (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Somehow, I doubt it. That would make their internet presence seem to be a sub-unit of South Korea's.  Sukiari 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A subb unit of South korea's? then why is www.korea-dpr.com hosted in spain? (198.53.45.58 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Edit by anon editor moved to talk page
The following was inserted in the text by user:70.108.30.138 on 00:22, February 7, 2006 and I moved it here:

==International Conflicts==

Hello! These are FACTS: "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited" If this doesnt belong here, tell me where it does belong please. thanks. In the 1980s North Korea was linked to two international terrorist attacks. In October 1983, North Korean agents were responsible for an attempt on the life of South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan at at Burma's National Cemetery in Rangoon, Burma which killed 17 South Korean officials including the South Korean foreign minister and ambassador to Burma as well as four Burmese. President Chun arrived at the cemetery behind schedule and was unharmed. The Burmese government later apprehended the North Korean agents responsible. North Korea is also believed to be responsible for the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 on November 29, 1987 over the Andaman Sea in which all 115 passengers and crew were killed. That attack is thought to have been devised to scare tourists away from visiting the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul after North Korea was not asked to co-host the events. North Korea has sponsored numerous acts of terror against South Korea since its founding.

--rogerd 05:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox edits
I corrected info in the infobox because it was incorrect or unverifiable. For instance, I removed the hanja characters because their use is banned in North Korea, which hardly makes it an official name. And the GDP estimates go back; I hardly think that the CIA underestimates North Korea's GDP for propaganda, it doesn't make sense. And 40 billion seems like a little too round of a figure to be anything but a complete and total guess.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image commentary
"Major Pyongyang boulevard during rush hour." Was the picture actually taken during rush hour? Apokrif 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Official Sport
I believe that the official sport of North Korea is StarCraft because it managed to boast North Korea's economy significantly.

Wrong Korea, even though you were joking--193.195.185.254 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea
User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

typical north korean home?
how do we know this is typical? is there a reputable source for that description & the speculation on how the picture was taken? after all, it wouldn't be hard for someone to take a picture of a "redevelopment" project in any city, USA, & label it "typical". Appleby 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

UN membership
According to the South Korea article, both Korean states are members of the UN since 1991. This article here doesn't mention that fact. Could one of the regular editors please consider how to include it. Thanks, Str1977 (smile back) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is one source for the 1991 date. This article needs a full "Military and foreign relations" section.  -- Visviva 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Must-See Documentary
I put a new documentary up, I believe that everyone must see this. It sheds alot of light on the situation in North Korea.

Gimpyn00b 11:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Paragraph/Sources

 * "Large numbers of North Koreans illegally entered the People's Republic of China in search of food"

Large numbers? how many? find an estimation and a source.


 * "and there were also stories of cannibalism."

There were stories? Where? Unless a source is put here it should be deleted.


 * I'm not the one who inserted this, but I did provide a link on the cannibalism entry that points to evidence of it in modern North Korea. There are accounts by refugees as told in Discovery's "Children of the Secret State" and elsewhere. Smoove K 09:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do believe the alligation is accurate. Having read many defectors stories on various sites (including BBC) a lot of them do refer to cannibalism. Most recently I read about a woman defector who used to work at the cemetary and reported that people used to sneak in at night to find meat by digging up graves. Also another story speaks of a woman who had to eat her 7 month year old baby, also on the BBC source. The article is sceptical whether these people are telling the truth but it claims that the number of defectors who report similar events is simply growing. Another article I read is here http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200403/200403020016.html about another defector's story who is reporting cannibalism. It is highly possible and I find little reason for defectors to say such horrible tales. [Nick K, 15/07/06 17:01 GMT]

Atheist Police State
I know that this may be a touchy subject, and that my suggestion may be taken in a negative light, but in many ways North Korea fits the description of an Atheist Police State. I know that chances of getting the words mentioned in the description of North Korea are minor, but because of allegations of targeted assassinations, laws against proselytizing, extreme nationalism, and an environment in which the military also acts as a Police force, I think it would be rather fitting.

I should note, in order to keep this from being misconstrued as an attempt to associate Atheism with a totalitarian regime, that I am an Atheist myself and that my concerns are with the many worldly and (supposedly) objective observations of North Korea's political structure, military police structure, and hard line anti-religious doctrine, as well as the doctrine of loyalty to the state and leader above all else. --Lucavix 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Why can't the plain and simple term "Police State" be used instead? It defines all of the criteria you described, yet keeps the article closer to a NPOV. Admittedly you cannot lable North Korea a police state with the information we have, but we can draw comparisions and allow the reader to make up their own mind.


 * I will give you two reasons to abandon this line of thinking.
 * 1) There is no law prohibiting proselytizing! Show me the law if you can!
 * 2) The term "Police state" can be adopted by any nation with Police. Actually the DPRK has less police than most European countries. --Bjornar 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, North Korea is a police state. A "police state" doesn't mean that it has too many cops, it is used for a country that is, quote,


 * 1. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.


 * 2. A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government. (Both were from Answers.com)


 * North Korea is a country with a brutal and arbitrary government that maintains obedience, not through police, but a system of "tattle-tales" who double as a sort of secret police. The army is also strongly present. So therefore DPR of K is a police state.


 * --Thorri 12:35, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * North Korea is, by all means, a police state. In fact, one could argue that its a totalitarian one.  It also is a state based on a personality cult surrounding Kim Jong-Il and his now-deceased father.  The fact that it is also communist implies that its atheist, thus calling it an "atheist police state" would be redundant and tend to focus negative attention, and therefore POV, on the term 'atheism' (And yes, I realize this reply is a little late.) --The Way 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A Communist Totalitarian Police State :) --86.8.33.224 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Communist state"
The term "Communist state" is inaccurate.

1) Technically, the term "communist state" is an oxymoron. 2) There is no communist party in North Korea 3) There are not just one party in North Korea. There are several 4) North Korea erased the last mentioning of Marxism-Leninism in the 90's. 5) Their official ideology is Juche, NOT marxism.


 * North Koreans describe their country as "Socialists" so I propose to change "Communist State" into "Socialist State". If people oppose this, it's because they feel that "Socialist" is too benign for North Korea, but then they are also neglecting the truth, which is that the DPRK defines itself as Socialist. To kill any argument against it, I will remind everyone that the first "S" in the former USSR was "Socialist", even though the USSR is totally distinct from the DPRK. --Bjornar 16:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.....let's see.....Red Star....Allied(Or previously allied) with USSR and China....Stalinism. Sounds Communist to me. Dudtz 9/6/05 6:06 PM EST

Their not Stalinist in practice, only have Stalinist qualities. -Comrade Shane-

A Communist society is one without qualitative class distinctions and no State. Any sentient creature who doesn't buy into NK propaganda knows this is not the case in NK. A socialist society is one in which the (former) proletariet owns the means of production and has control over its labor power. Again, nothing even remotely like this exists in NK. Sure, the "DPRK defines itself as Socialist." It also defines itself as a "Democratic People's Republic". Such a title would make Orwell cry, but I guess I'm just "neglecting the truth". -Nobody123

North Korea is not a Communist state?! Boy, this "political 'correctness'" is getting out of hands... --Thorri 12:46, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thorri, explain how saying that North Korea is not in fact a Communist state an act of "political 'correctness'"? Historically correct? Yes. Politically correct? Perhaps in Finland. -Nobody123


 * Maybe "politically correct" wasn't the best expression. But take a look at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Schools_of_communism


 * According to that the Juche policy DPRK uses does make DPRK a Communist state. --Thorri 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything Thorri. All it proves is that whomever authored the wikipedia page classifies Juche as a "school of communism". That ignores the fact that Juche is inherently anti-Marxist in its isolationism. The most extreme examples of the Cult of Personality can be found in NK. Marx in a letter to Wilhelm Blos wrote :"Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules." NK doesn't look like a communist state. It looks like a totalitarian hell on Earth animated by a rotten religious cult adhering to a crazy belief system call Juche. -Nobody123


 * Yes, but traditionally it has been regarded as a Communist state and I'm not gonna change that since the rest of the world classifies it as Communist. Though (now) I believe Juche is it's own weird system...I hope the government in DPRK falls soon and people finally realize Communism was a mistake and that there are better systems.


 * Though I must say, in a way it is Communism because Stalin changed Communism fundamentally as well (for the worse), the original idea by Marx/Lenin was much more noble, not the hideous...thing we know now.


 * Sadly, Capitalism can go wrong, too, like it has in America (no proper health care, or social security, greedyness, etc.). But I'm not going to start preaching about that! --Thorri 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the sooner the regime falls, the better. For us and more importantly for the people of NK. I think to call America a capitalist state is an inaccurate use of the word. There is no "free market" in relation to what Smith, et al spoke of in the US. It's a State-Capitalist economy. When the richest capitalists take a risk and loose their shirts, they run to and get a bail out from the government. So much for "market discipline". I certainly agree that our health care system if fucked up because the rich have so much control over the political process and want it dismantled and privatized. But they haven't enough control to kill social security as they tried to earlier this year. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobody123 (talk • contribs).

The only way the DPRK is not a Communist state is if you say it believes in juche, its official national ideology since the 1970s. As for Nobody's comment about the regime falling being better for the DPRK people, this is a very superficial look at a problem. Do you not think of the consequences, or is overthrowing a regime the limit of your thinking (much like Iraq)? The unification of the Germanys were incredibly hard on West Germany as will the reunification of Korea on the South Koreans. Whereas the Koreans are limited to paltry amounts of grain per day at present, anarchy will mean they won't even get that. The refugee problem will be horrific, not to talk about sanitation, aid, etc. Anarchy is also very likely to result in war on the Korean peninsula. Even the DPRK's missiles and nukes will not be under control. But I guess this doesn't really concern you? Jsw663 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not an expert on the Marxist dialectic, but IIRC, Communism is a stateless utopia which is the desired end result of Marxism. States which we in the West call "Communist" think of themselves as socialist states, which (according to Marxism) is an intermediate stage on the way to true communism. But another way of looking at it is that Communists are those who desire the communistic end result, while Socialists are content to get a socialist state. North Korea is currently socialist (or at least claims to be), but aspires to communism (or, again, claims to). So both terms apply. Or at least that way I see it.


 * In short, I'm equally agreeable calling NK Socialist or Communist. Not worth fighting over. But if anybody really wants to make a fuss about it, how about putting it up for a straw poll or something? crazyeddie 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just don't call it a "Communist State", as that is, as mentioned above, an oxymoron and makes no sense. --Ionius Mundus 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For all intents and purposes "Communist state" (the term used in the west) and "Socialist state" (the term used by all so-called Communist states) have an identical meaning, of course "communist state" is not meant to imply that it is in a state of communism but rather that it is a socialist state run largely by marxists. NoJoyInMudville 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Korea's Military?
This article has nothing to say about Korea's military strength. Or their nuclear capabilities (none yet evidently). And the same for chemical and biological weapons. Is it a lack of valuble info? or are we just sidestepping the issue?


 * Lack of valuable info - how many people actually know how many nukes a given country has, for example.. and we're talking about a country that refuses to even release financial information, you'll never get anything out that you would bet your house on being correct. --Streaky 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

dprk
if their official name is democratic peoples republic of korea, why is the official page for the dprk redirected to "north korea". that doesnt seem very professional of wikipedia to do that. it should be reversed. the title should read dprk and then (north korea) should be in brackets.


 * isn't this a valid point? does anyone object? Appleby 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * actually, i see that germany, russia, mexico, etc are all under the common names, not official gov't names. but these examples refer to a historic/geographic entity and the current polity together. korea/south korea is a bit different, since south korea refers to the modern polity only so there's more of a reason to use the official name, kinda like the separate entries for historic china/prc, where the latter is under the official name.Appleby 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that you have a valid point. I think the redirect is on the wrong direction and the redirect should go from North Korea to DPRK and not the other way around. A simple way to surely resolve this would be to use the names of countries as published on the the UN website (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html) as this represents the correct official name for the country. A redirect can them be made from common parlance to the correct name. Anything else is surely not NPOV as who can argue against what a country wants to be officially known as. --Duchovny1 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use official titles, it uses English names, and for an excellent reason: it's written in English. North Korea is the correct name for the country, whether you're speaking Canadian English like me, or Wikipedia's more prevalent American English or British English.  Roughly speaking, the point of Wikipedia is to catalogue facts *as they exist*, not *as they are officially proclaimed*. WilyD 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider North Korea more like a geographical name. The DPRK claims the whole Korea even though it cannot administer the South. The Republic of Korea also claims the whole Korea even though it cannot administer the North. However, as North Korea and the DPRK are practically used like synonyms for now, I do not oppose staying North Korea as the main article name, though I, as a Chinese speaker, do consider using "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" more formal.--Jusjih 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Appleby on this point - official titles should be used, regardless of the language. For example, we don't see the page of the USA being redirected to 'the States'. Can't we appeal to Wiki? This issue should become even more important if Wiki decides to establish itself as a legitimate competitor to the official (print) encyclopedias (instead of just another internet source). Jsw663 11:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * shouldn't it be 'Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk' by that measure? or better yet - 조선민주주의인민공화국朝鮮民主主義人民共和國 - the issue is, that noth korea is common usage, plus, i'd personaly refuse to call it democratic when it blatantly isn't.. when a north korean tells me otherwise i'll change my POV.. North Korea fits with NPOV, and the CIA factbook and basically every news organisation uses the term 'North Korea' not some cooked-up term that makes it look like NK actually holds elections. --Streaky 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you don't know much about North Korea or Korean for that matter - you repeated the name of the country twice there, one in Korean script, the other in Hanja (Sino-Korean) script. In another of your edits you even called Kim Jong-il Mr. Jong-il as if his surname was Jong-il, instead of Kim.  The country is NOT calling itself democratic or a democracy as you understand it; it is calling itself a PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY, ie a communist state - those two terms are entirely different.  Naming the country has nothing to do with POV...  the CIA + other US news organisations are not the official ones of the world, nor do they present unbiased viewpoints or represent the world's opinion.  Even CNN is hardly neutral.  Wake up and see the world outside of the USA.  Jsw663 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Censorship, political police
The article doesn't inform about the censorship and political police. Xx236 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do some research and add information to the article. Make sure to provide reliable sources! Sukiari 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This area DEFINITELY needs some representation. The complete lack of any outside media information available to the average North Korean citizen is what, to me, is most representative of the way their countrky wors.  I've found several websites that illustrate this fact, but they're mighty POV.  Perhaps I'll link them here first and see if they're usable.JD79 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's one of the big problems for this country, along with a handful of other nations with massive human rights violations (the Sudan, Liberia). Given the nature of the regime, most sources come off as obviously being opposed to it...  Its like writing about Hitler. --The Way 06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
All three photographs on this page are of Pyongyang. These should be balanced with pictures of the rest of the state, as in China's entry, which has historical and rural, not just modern and urban, views. Such pictures can come from documentaries, from human rights organizations, or from historical documents. Someone more knowledgeable than I on this subject could help a lot. Calbaer 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, it's hard to come by allowed media from outside of the city. --TJive 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really; few pictures are taken, but those pictures are widely distributed; the only issue is licensing. See, for example, this site.  I'm not sure how to go about asking, but, unless someone adds them, I'll try to find out how in the coming days. Calbaer 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked, and although he was willing to put them on Wikipedia, he hasn't agreed to the CC licence or the GFDL. I'll add a link. Calbaer 21:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Check / Overview
I added a POV check banner at the top of this page because the overall mood seems to be from an American or "western" point of view  violating wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Is it really even possible to be NPOV on an article like this? Not a lot of information comes out of North Korea. 71.19.6.20 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we still have to try don't we?

There is a lot of information from Korean, Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Latin American and other non-western sources you just have to look, it is the lazy and biased way out to just accept reporting from a single point of view, NoJoyInMudville 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently made a slight change to the government section which I feel falls under NPOV. I changed North Korea is one of the last Communist States to North Korea [...] few communist states. I believe that assuming there will be no new communist states in the coming years is perhaps a more Western thought, and that history will be the judge of whether or not any new countries decide to become communist. Who knows... in a thousand years, the human race as a whole may be communist... probably not, but it could happen.

I also added a Fact to the first paragraph... see my notes in the page source for more information on my reasoning. - Âme Errante 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the needed reference links. Someone might also want to change "is often described as" to "has been described as", but I don't think that's necessary. --70.142.40.34 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fawning?
Is there a reason that every fact with a negative connotation is immediately rebutted with obvious propaganda? Re: Famine - "The North Korean government has worked hard to resolve many of the supply problems and the future looks bright according to their website."

"...according to their website"?! I'm appalled. There is a POV, but it's obviously in favor of North Korea.

Actual event?
North Korea is an actual event?.. That tag should be in the section that the person who put it thinks is an actual event, but a country an actual event? literally... yes... but then you have to put the tag in every country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauta (talk • contribs)


 * The tag was included by due to the current US-NK missile controversy, please see this edit. Cheers. --Nkcs 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in 10 years where everone starts forgetting about it where there is no more testing(And maybe no N.Korea either!) it could moved history.--Scott3 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

current events
It is great that wikipedia can be updated to the lastest news story, but I don't think that from a long term perpective the launching of 6 missiles is such a big deal. North Korea has had a weapons program for some time and this is just one of many steps in that dirrection. I think that all to often we forget that we are tring to write an article that will last a long time, not one that will have to be updated every few weeks to remain accurate. Jon513 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seven missiles. The significance of this test is not in the testing itself, but in the breaking of its own moratorium on long range missile testing. I strongly disagree that this is no "big deal". --208.41.98.142 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no constants in international politics. Please remember that.  For God's sake, the paper encyclopedias couldn't scramble quickly enough to keep pace with events in our tumultuous twentieth century!  We have here a capacity, and we're making use of it.  That's all.  --VKokielov 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What does "Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk"
What does "Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk" is just the translation of the Demorcartic Republic of Korea or is it somthing elese?--Scott3 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * see Names of Korea for full details on Joseon, a name of ancient korean kingdom & last dynasty (that's south korean romanization; north korea romanizes the same word as Chosŏn). minjujuui means democracy; inmin means people; konghwaguk means republic. Appleby 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be somthing in the article about that then--Scott3 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Name
Perhaps I'm naïve, but why is North Korea's offical name Democratic People's Republic of Korea? As far as I've read, it is neither democratic nor is it about the people&mdash;it's a communist dictatorship, the opposite of its chosen nomenclature. Is this just some more inexplicable weirdness from the insane Great Leader or his even more insane offspring, Dear Leader? Avalyn 12:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People's Republic would help understanding the naming. --Kusunose 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the countries in the world, isnt it funny that all those that are called democratic in their name isn't? so the name implies Democratic (because they are not) Peoples (because they are the creatures that dont want to live there) Republic (Because that is something they are not) and Korea.. well because that is where they are. Hope that explains things :o) --Sneaking Viper 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all about foreign relations, I think. If your country was called "Totalarian One-Party Dictatorship of {Insert name here}, people wouldn't think very highly of it. As it stands, Kim Jong-IL is doing his very best to convince both outsiders and North Koreans that the country is actually a Utopia.--Planetary 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good call Oyo321 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Propaganda


 * Well, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. I don't see a difference here. ;) -- TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!  17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A similar discussion to this is also being talked about on the six-party talks discussion board. Just thought I'd highlight it. Jsw663 11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the Max Clifford school of PR - lie-lie-lie-lie-lie :) --Streaky 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And of course the US government never lies, ever. Jsw663 06:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, this has nothing to do with the article, please go find another forum for general discussion. But first, I'd like to point out that while the US government has not always been completely truthful, I don't think it has ever found it necessary to lie - twice - simply by naming itself! crazyeddie 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The DPRK considers itself to be "democratic" and believe it or not the constitution allows for multi-party elections with universial voting for all citizens over the age of 16, .  Capitalist states dispute socialist state's claim of democracy and likewise socialist states dispute capitalist liberal democratic states claims of democracy, as they consider a capitalist economy incompatable with democracy.  This is a mater of POV.  As for the "People's" section it is a standard way of designating a state as socialist, it distinguishes the DPRK from the Republic of Korea (which is to say south Korea) NoJoyInMudville 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)