Talk:North Korea/Archive 5

cowardly
Cowardly redirects to this page. I don't know how to change it though...


 * Taken care of. Thanks for pointing that out. --Ionius Mundus 05:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Only 1 "Cite needed" left
I just finished citing a boatload of sentences. Why don't the people who put these tags actually do some fact cheking themselves? It took me seconds to find the verify the facts on google (no, I didn't just find site that copy Wikipedia.) The only trouble I had was trying to link to the Ministry of Unification's statistics page. The url stays at the homepage for some reason. Click "facts and figures", and then "Statistics on North Korea", and the GDP will be on that page. There are links to downloading the PDF and DOC files, but I'm not Wiki-knowledgable enough to figure out how to post them instead. I think I'll remove those tags now.--Planetary 06:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy
The economy section both provides specific figures and says that the north korean government doesn't release economic figures, where are these figures comming from. How is it possible for instance to say that military spending is 25% of the north's GNP if the norths GNP, military spending, and government budget, are all unreleased? NoJoyInMudville 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Article links to CIA world factbook, which doesn't seem to support the 25% figure. According to the CIA summary, military spending ~ $5B, GDP ~ $40b, therefore more like 1/8 than 1/4.  As for the source of the estimates, I imagine they are based on satellite observations, reporting of imports / exports by other countries, the observed standard of living, the reports of North Korean emigrants, etc. --Reuben 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think i have heard the 25% figure before though, for instance here [] (where, its suggested its 25% GNP not 25% GDP, although given the DPRK's economy i'd think the two figures would be almost identical as its not like they have a lot of foriegn investment or nationals with property overseas) although, it doesn't explain how the author came to that conclusion either. The same website gives a different estimate, 20-25% GNP here [] and gives the ROK's as 5% rather than 2.5%, although again its not really explained where those numbers are coming from or why they're different. A non-Korean Communist author gives a 25% figure here as well [], again GNP not GDP...Presumably though there must be some source since people are repeating it.NoJoyInMudville 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, [] suggests that military spending is up to 30% the government budget, which presumably would be far less than 25% GNPNoJoyInMudville 02:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article says

"As for GNP per capita: our "structural growth equations" indicate that a country with North Korea's assumed literacy, urbanization, and life expectancy levels would report a GNP per capita of about $1,700 to $3000 under "traditional" Communist polity, and $2,500 to $5,400 under "reform socialism" or post-Communist polity. That is to say: our regressions predict that a country with North Korea's assumed range of literacy, urbanization, and life expectancy levels would generate a GNP of $39 billion to $69 billion under a "traditional" communist polity and $58 billion to $123 billion under "reform socialism" or post-Communist polity.  We do not have a reliable set of estimates for current GNP in the DPRK.  By way of comparison, however, the ROK bank of Korea estimates DPRK for 2003 at $18.1 billion" and it goes into a great deal of detail on how those estimates were obtained. The CIA though gives an estimate of 40 billion GDP, more than twice the ROK bank of Korea estimate, but within the range of the nightly buisness report estimate. It really does seem though that there is no clear consensus on what the DPRK's GDP actually is, so surely there can't be a consensus on any of the other economic claims.

Another thing about the economy section is that the estimated famine death toll given in the wikipedia article doesn't match the source provided. The current article says its estimated at 600,000 to 3.5 million, but the article given [] says that "two million would be the highest possible estimate", citing unnamed US government sources and it makes no reference at all to the 600,000 low estimate, so its entirely unclear were either the low figure or the high figure is coming from. The line "The resulting famine killed between 600,000 and 3.5 million people in the DPRK during the 1990s." should be changed to "The resulting famine killed up to 2 million people in the DPRK during the 1990s according to US congressional estimates,", or an alternative source supporting the 600,000-3 million claim should replace the current one. NoJoyInMudville 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Best would be to give a range of estimates with sources. Ideally, all of this should first go into the separate article on the economy of North Korea, with a summary here. --Reuben 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

speculative claims
It seems like some people are tempted to introduce speculative claims as fact. Khrushchev said "They pay little attention to what we say and prefer to read tea leaves" which is basically what people are doing with the DPRK. Its fine to report on what people are speculating, as long as it is presented as speculation in the context its given, it is a POV issue if it is presented as fact without evidence. This sort of stuff resembles westerners trying to figure out the "real power" in the soviet union by where kremlin officials were seated on Mayday parades.

I would also point out that when people want to talk about where "real power" is in the state, there is a big difference between legal power, which is to say the ability to issue orders, edicts, carry out actions directly, and political influence, the ability to convince or manipulate other public officials into doing what they want. Its not hard to understand that in the US Senate for instance, all senators have basically equal legal power, but some of them are vastly more influential and effective than others, and yet we would not go into the page on the United States and say that "The US Houses of Congress officially are the top legislative body but the real power lies in a tiny clique of neo-conservative law makers enjoying the president's patronage", because while that may or may not be an accurate assessment of the degree of influence it is not an accurate assessment of the legal system. The nature of claims about "real power" in such terms are essentially unverifiable and therefore non-encyclopedic.

By trying to remove parts of sentinces indicating where something is a western perspective, as well as deleting the DPRK's perspective, it introduces systematic bais. NoJoyInMudville 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This also goes for whoever just edited in "The vast majority of Communists outside north korea deny that the KWP is still a communist organisation or that North Korea is still socialist", unless there is some kindof a survey thats a purely speculative claim...one that frankly seems extremely unlikely to be true considering that most Communists are Chinese and the Chinese Communist Party does not take that line. Given this i think it is almost certain that denying that North Korea is socialist is actually a minority view among non-Korean Communists, however i'm not going to edit in that its a minority view either as that would also be pure speculation if somewhat more realistic. Anyways please consider Neutral_point_of_view issuesNoJoyInMudville 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask again, NoJoyInMudville, what familiarity do you actually have with North Korean media? The simple fact is that Kim Jong Il is referred to as "The Great Leader" multiple times in every day's news broadcast, not simply in quoted speech but as the standard way of referring to him by the news anchors, in numerous commemorative plaques and monuments, in slogans on train stations and public buildings, etc., etc.  Please choose any day's broadcast from .  Although "Dear Leader" has been supplanted by "Great Leader" and is therefore less common, you can still find it in commemorative items put out by the state postage stamp agency, attributions of authorship to Kim Jong Il in books published by the state publishing house, older news articles, etc., etc., as I have linked a few examples on your talk page.  Your edits are factually wrong. --Reuben 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A few random examples of "Dear Leader,"
 * a plate for KJI's 50th birthday
 * list of book titles
 * press notes from DPRK 55th anniversary postage stamp release:
 * Rodong Sinmun article
 * None of these is simply quoted speech, and none of the original documents/items comes from the KFA (although the web pages may be administered by them). --Reuben 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless you have been deleting large sections of the article utterly unrelated to this point. I am preserving your edits to the "great leader"/"dear leader" issue but restoring the large unrelated chunks of the article that you deleted. What you're doing is essentially vandalism, do not delete sections without any explaination again. If you dispute the other sections, other points of fact, and so fourth, you can discuss it here on the talk page.NoJoyInMudville 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want your edits considered independently, you are free to make them separately. Also, please be advised of Wikipedia's three revert rule.  You've now remade the same edits four times, in violation of this rule (this is for your information; I don't think you intended to break any rule here).  I think you have a pretty weak case to claim that reverting edits with factually inaccurate (and even silly) claims is vandalism.  May I take it that we are in agreement regarding Great Leader and Dear Leader?  --Reuben 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that despite saying "I am preserving your edits to the "great leader"/"dear leader" issue," you seem to have inserted weasel-wording very similar to your previous edits to this section. Also, please note that some parts of your edit do nothing other than introduce grammatical errors (state's -> states's).  Also, I think I can say without much controversy that North Korean official news and press releases are authoritative sources as far as reporting their contents, but not for establishing what they say as actually true.  --Reuben 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing you've specifically addressed in any talk page has been the line "Western media sources widely publicize Kim Jong Il's personality cult especially the use of the phrase "the dear leader" to describe him". This is not "factually inaccurate" it is factually identical to the phrasing you prefer, as the older phrasing suggests that kim jong il has a personality cult and the phrase "the dear leader" is used to describe him, and adds the fact that this is something highly publicized in the western media, something i dont' think is reasonably deniable. Therefore you cannot claim that you were changing something for "factual accuracy" as you simply took out one of the factual claims made in that line while rewording the other two without changing the effective content, you were changing for tone and emphasis not for facts. In any case, the current version of the sentince in question "Kim Jong Il is known by the title of "dear leader" as part of a personality cult and is refered to as such by some of his western supporters" is your version, and this is the only issue you've brought up in any talk page. What other sentinces specifically do you have a problem with if any and if so why? NoJoyInMudville 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not "my version," it's the version from before your edits. The Western media has nothing to do with it; it's totally extraneous.  It has zero relevance to the subject at hand, and makes it sound as if this is simply an allegation of the West rather than a verifiable fact.  That's misleading at best.  "This is not however an official title and it is not standardized in usage" is factually inaccurate.  The current usage is Great Leader rather than Dear Leader, but it is absolutely formulaic and unquestionably a standard.  The KCNA news broadcasts begin with the formula "The Great Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il..." . every . single . day . and this formula, along with a handful of similar formulas - "The Great Comrade Kim Jong Il," "The Great General," and "The Fatherly General" - are repeated literally hundreds of times throughout each half-hour broadcast.  To try to pass this off as just an occasional, informal, affectionate term sometimes used by a few people and perhaps occasionally quoted in the media is factually inaccurate.  (Please note that I would support updating "Dear Leader" to "Great Leader," with mention that this changed over in the late 1990s). --Reuben 04:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, i think the fact that there are many titles used means that its clearly not a standardized usage (i mean if you can't decide whether its dear leader or great leader this is clearly the case) however i don't think the line is important and i'm not interested in pursueing an arguement about it, however you've still not argued that its an official title and this in fact something that many westerners believe. To my knowlege, the only official titles with legal status that i'm aware of are chairman of the national defense committee and the associated military ranks, and gen. sec. of the korean workers party. In any case i'll take out the phrase about it being nonstandardized as i think its probably debatable either way, but unless you can like cite a law passed granting him official use of that title or something of that sort, its not an official state title and shouldn't be assumed to be suchNoJoyInMudville 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely standard. It's just that "Dear Leader" is out of date, and "Great Leader" is current.  I'm not going to edit war with you; in fact I think I will stop editing the article but perhaps follow the discussion page.  (This comment toned down by me; apologies for the original overheated version).  --Reuben 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on the "cult of personality" paragraph. "Dear Leader" should be updated to the current style, "Great Leader," with perhaps a note that "Dear Leader" was used until a few years after Kim Il Sung's death.  The references to English-language materials and the KFA should be taken out; they would be more appropriate in a section about foreign relations or the public image of North Korea abroad, while this section is about the personality cult inside North Korea.  The sentence about "not an official title" doesn't belong, as it's misleading.  What makes a title official?  The fixed and regular use of this style in state news broadcasts, museum displays, educational materials, commemorative and inspirational markers put up by the state in public places and state-run enterprises, patriotic songs played in public places such as the subway, items produced by the state engraving agency, author lists of state publishing houses, etc. etc. ad nauseum, make any protestation of "not an official title" disingenuous at best. --Reuben 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the english language material is important because this is an english language website, this is the english version of wikipedia and therefore the vast majority of the readers who do not read korean, can only verify or determine the tone of the usage in the english language material, and you are basising the inclusion of the title on their media.

The "not an official title" statement is not misleading it is accurate and clarifies a misconception. As to "what makes a title official", a title is an official state title when it is bestowed on a citizen by an act of parliamentary law or conferred on them by a head of state acting in their capacity as a fount of honour, in contrast to "titles" that the media has coined for someone and continues to use consistently but without legal implications. The mere fact that Kim Jong Il's "title" could shift from "the dear leader" to "the great leader" simply because various figures in the media and low ranked public officials started calling him something different and others followed, makes it obvious that this is a "title" in the media sense only and not in the official legal sense.

To make this distinction clear by example, the former prime minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher, was widely refered to by her supporters and in the state run media as "The Iron Lady." "The Iron Lady" is certaintly phrased like a title, and it was used widely and consistently as a title, and in fact, the Soviet media would make fun of her for using that title in a similar way that the American media makes fun of Kim Jong Il for using the "Dear Leader" title, but the Iron Lady was never an official title despite its widespread use and recognition, it was a media and cultural creation. In 1992 though, the UK parliament advised the queen to give her the title of "Baroness Thatcher", which had legal implications rather than simply being a media promoted term, so that is an official title, and "Lady Thatcher" is a state confered official title, but "the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher" is not. Similarly "General Secretary Kim Jong Il of the WPK" is an official title, but "the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il" is not. NoJoyInMudville 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not really analgous to compare Thatcher being called "The Iron Lady" by the media occasionally to KJI being referred to CONSTANTLY as the Great Leader or one of its varients. She wasn't referred to it every time her name was mentioned, it was just a nickname she had cos she was an evil old trollop. But that's beside the point. Cxk271 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "She wasn't referred to it every time her name was mentioned" no of course not, but neither is it with Kim Jong Il. In the english language north korean state media it is used infrequently.


 * Reading KJI's official biography  it's used fifteen times and the official website refers to the evil bastard as the 'great leader'. With thatcher the phrase was never used in an official context, because giving yourself titles like that is a hallmark of tyranny, and even thatcher didn't quite manage to get that far.  Can you really imagine the Downing street website (if it had existed then) referring to "The Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher"? Its the context of use that's important Cxk271 12:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That biography is a 160 pages long,  if you look at it, almost every single time Kim Jong Il's name is used its written as "Comrade Kim Jong Il" with no "dear leader" title and no government office (comrade is of course, a party courtesy title not associated with any rank or status, equivolent to 'mr' or 'ms'). I performed a search for the term "dear leader" in this biography (this is easily verifiable do it yourself) and it returned only one reference not 15, the one reference is:


 * Party members and the people felt the extraordinariness of Comrade Kim Jong Il through their own lives. So they admired him extremely, calling him "dear leader" and "intelligent leader".

I hope that this clears up the status of "dear leader", it is so clearly not an official title and appears only once, in quotes, in his official biography.

That is the single reference that they give to "dear leader." I am aware that the so called "Official website of the DPRK" refers to Kim Jong Il as "great leader", but as was mentioned earlier in this talk page, that website is in fact simply the website of the Korean Friendship Association, a group of fanatical european Kim Jong Il supporters, none of them are Korean and the DPRK government had no hand in creating that website, it was done by a Spanish person. Oh and by the way, the name "The Iron Lady" does appear on Margret Thatchers page on the official downing street website.NoJoyInMudville 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, that's irrelevant. This section of the article is about the Kims' personality cult in North Korea, not about how North Korea chooses to present itself to the outside world.  If you want to discuss that, it belongs somewhere else, and it's not a valid basis for making judgements about the personality cult inside North Korea.  If you look at Korean-language media for internal NK consumption, you will see Great Leader used incessantly. --Reuben 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point something out (and I'm in no way a supporter of the strange old git), but he is referred to as Dear Leader, and his father was referred to as Great Leader.


 * Currently they're both Great Leaders, but with a different word for "leader" in each case, to avoid confusion. --Reuben 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights in North Korea
I believe this section, in attempting to be NPOV gives too much credance and reliability towards the government of the DPRK. The section reads as though it aims to rubbish claims of the widespread human rights violations in North Korea by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The only people denying the total absence of any form of basic human rights in the DPRK are the government themselves. There appears to be plenty of evidence for North Korea being a tyranny charaterised by brutality and poverty, yet none for it being the workers' paradise it claims to be. To trust the KCNA as a valid source is ridiculous anyway. Those who have risked their lives to smuggle out footage of life in the dprk deserve to be taken much more seriously than a brutal oligarchy. Its akin to holocaust denial to deny the present situation in north korea Cxk271 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As (acting) representative of the government of the DPRK here on Wikipedia, it seems that it is unneccessary to discuss the validity of the so-called "wave of defectors", the testimony delivered by so-called DPRK defectors, some anonymous, others identified (Hwang Jang Yop), some glitchy footage here, some (possibly) arranged and manipulated photography there. My point is simply that NPOV or "Undue Weight" are limitations of Wikipedia which should be taken into consideration. When noting the predominant western view of the DPRK, one should include that very little fact, and very much speculation has gone into forming the picture of the DPRK that exist today. It doesn't help the image of the country that there was a famine 1995-2002, but our government never denied that this happened. The KCNA is valid in the DPRK, just like Fox News is valid in the US. Think carefully about this. Then consider avoiding too much righteousness and politics in Wikipedia, how about writing truthful articles, respecting information for what it is, the objective information about a topic knows no judgement of information other than to carefully build that information on sources that are reliable, credible and verifyable. In this way, the official news agency of the country should not be ignored, or one doesn't create an article about the reality of the country, but another country's perception of that country. If you go live in the DPRK for 5 years, then ask yourself who is more realistic, the KCNA or CNN? --Bjornar 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I would like to point out that Fox News and CNN are both independent of the government (although it may seem otherwise sometimes). That said, I would not accept any claim from Fox News uncritically, although I would be more accepting of CNN or, even more so, the New York Times. A better parallel to the KCNA might be the BBC - except the BBC has a very prestigious reputation, and doesn't seem loathe to critize the government of the UK. As for the KCNA, I would personally trust it about as far as I could throw it. As you say, perhaps the best test would be to live in NK for five years, but 1) I could only testify about my own experience, not that of the entire country - tourists, or for that matter, anyone who has ever had access to the internet at any point in their lives, will probably have a much different experience than the average joe and 2) quite frankly, I don't care enough about the issue to make that sacrifice. Take it from a philosophy student - any news source - including your own senses - is evidence, not proof, and there is always a probability that your news source is wrong. It's just that some news sources are more reliable than others. The Western news agencies might be completely wrong, but I trust them a lot more than I trust the KCNA.

That said, this article does need to present the other side, so we do need to report on what the KCNA says - properly attributed naturally. I would point out that our article on The Holocaust does have a section dedicated to holocaust denial. Of course, we need to respect WP:NPOV, and I agree with Cxk271 that this article has gone too far in the NK government's favor. Other than that, I'm staying out of it.

Oh, and it's nice to see Bjornar admit to being North Korea's representative :-) crazyeddie 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

north korea a democracy
north korea isn't a democracy yet its name democratic people' republic of korea is awkARD

I see what you're saying. Even if other political parties exist, they can't often compete with the workers party. Kim Jong-il and the workers party are praised in every media outlet there is. I seriously doubt the other parties get a fair share of 'air time'. We also don't know very much about the way they are allowed to campaign, if at all.


 * DPR Korea is democratic within the party structures, they have a parliament (Supreme People's Assembly), which meets annually to approve bills and legislation (this may largely be rubber stamping). now3d 2006-10-05 15:52 GMT


 * True. It's a de jure democracy, while being a de facto dictatorship (naturally the DPRK's supporters would dispute this). Walton monarchist89 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)