Talk:North Korea/Archive 6

Quote - Keep, modify or remove?
North Korea has been characterized by a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute as: "Highly repressive, heavily militarized, strongly resistant to reform, and ruled by a dynastic dictatorship that adheres to a hybrid ideology, North Korea might be 'the strangest political system in existence.' While distinctive, North Korea is an orthodox communist party-state best classified as an eroding totalitarian regime."

Source:Author: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=5

It's an accurate quote of an abstract of what looks to be a prestigious enough journal. However, I'm unsure of WP:NPOV (including undue weight) and whether it should be in the intro section, politics section, Politics of North Korea or present at all. TransUtopian 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is correctly attributed, and at least it isn't some "North Korea is considered by many Globalist/Western/American/captilist warmonger observers to be..." weasel-worded monstrosity. It does adequately capture the majority POV. I would say that it's okay, but it needs to be immediately followed by the minority, pro-North Korean government POV - you know, how NK is a multiparty democractic worker's paradise. Make the minority report as strong as possible, and providing a source would be good too. Put the two paragraphs together, and I think we have a workable compromise. What do you guys think? crazyeddie 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. So far I've got
 * "[T]he DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party."




 * I'm looking for a stronger quote and a better lead-in than just "According to the DPRK's official website". I might look at some of the external links later. I googled "north korea" democratic "multi-party" worker's. TransUtopian 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the "North Korea has been characterized..." quote is inappropriate, mainly because it's the assessment of a single individual -- an academic expert, yes, but still one person. Better to give statements of fact from NGOs and other sources that are the voice of more than one person, then let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. (The article as a whole reads a bit too much like a tug of war between competing POVs, in my opinion.) Raymond Arritt 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's one that was removed from the article earlier. Joint NGO letter to United Nations Security Council on North Korea's lack of human rights Garnering facts from it might help. Should a quote or description of the pro-North Korean position immediately follow, or would that still be tug-of-war? TransUtopian 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph that looks useful:

"North Korea remains one of the world’s most closed societies. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. Freedom of expression, information and religion are almost non-existent. Thousands of North Koreans languish in forced labor camps, where torture is endemic. Many die in prison because of mistreatment, malnutrition, and lack of medical care. The government of North Korea has consistently refused to allow U.N. human rights rapporteurs and other independent and impartial organizations to investigate the situation inside North Korea, despite two successive resolutions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights urging that it do so. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea has been denied entry into the country."

How about this:


 * According to a joint letter by Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Anti-Slavery International, and the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, North Korea is one of the world's most closed societies, and lacks organized political opposition, independent civil society, and freedom of expression, information, and religion. By contrast, the government of North Korea states that it is constitutional democracy which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens, and points out the existence of three seperate political parties. insert some language pointing out that the two "independent" parties are subserviant to the KWP.

Still somewhat of a tug-of-war, but that's not easy to avoid in an article as controversial as this one. NK's "offical" website is not all that good of a source, but it would be difficult to find a more offical source for the NK party line on the internet. crazyeddie 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds better. I concur that presenting divergent viewpoints is inherent in controversial articles such as this, and that description is preferable to quoting in most cases. The Korean Central News Agency is also an official pro-NK source if you want to browse or search for keywords. So far all I've got on the two parties being controlled by the KWP is the CIA World Factbook. An NGO (B-I-NGO?) would be preferred. TransUtopian 11:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find sources other than the CIA and the North Korean fansite either. AFAICT, the Korean Social Democratic Party is also the name of a South Korean party, which makes searching difficult. "Chondoist Chongu Party" only gets 656 Ghits, and many of those are Wikipedia mirrors. Did find this, which at least says how many seats the parties have. I think we'll just have to go with the CIA source. So how's this? crazyeddie 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to a joint letter by Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Anti-Slavery International, and the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, North Korea is one of the world's most closed societies, and lacks organized political opposition, independent civil society, and freedom of expression, information, and religion. By contrast, the government of North Korea states that it is constitutional democracy which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens, and points out the existence of three seperate political parties. The CIA World Factbook describes both the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party as being under the control of the Korean Worker's Party, and, as of 1992, the KWP controled 87.5% of the Supreme People's Assembly.(PDF)

I'd suggest eliminating the CIA World Factbook reference. The history of the North Korea article shows that the topic frequently is polarizing, and there are some for whom any mention of "CIA" immediately evokes a negative reaction. Better to stick with NGOs. Many others could be added to your list of NGOs, such as Amnesty International, the University of Bern , the Committee to Protect Journalists , and so on. It could be worth adding a brief sentence something like "Other major NGOs generally concur in this assessment." (with supporting links) after the first sentence. Raymond Arritt 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Woot! Found confirmation of the minor political parties being under the control of the KWP: "Article 11 of the constitution reads: "The DPRK shall operate all of its activities under the leadership of the Worker's Party of Korea"." Now I just need to find an English version of the constitution to confirm the confirmation... crazyeddie 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's odd. Government of North Korea has a link to Wikisource. But the link goes here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution Where there is no article. Searching for "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution" brings up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution which lists "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution," relevance 100% which lead back to a non-existant article. Okay, I realize that North Korea's constitution is Orwellian, but I didn't think it was that Orwellian. I think I'm going to bed now. crazyeddie 05:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Description of Government
Right now the opening paragraph says that the DPRK government is a "Communist-led multi-party state" and any claims to the contrary are mixed with words such as "Western governments claim" to make them sound extremely unreliable. I think there is no doubt that the NK government in practice functions as a dictatorship, and assuredly not a multiparty democracy, but for some reason there seems to be disagreement. For those who are changing it, why do you think we should not call North Korea a dictatorship, or at the very least, an oligarchy? Thanks, --Atb129 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone answer this, please. Furiouszebra 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * dprk actually holds elections every five years, and while the head of state is not directly elected, his advisers are I know this after speaking to people who have visited DPRK--Frogsprog 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In these elections, is there more than one candidate for each opening? Can you explain how aspiring nominees go about getting onto the ballot? Raymond Arritt 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * well they have to be in the democratic re-unification front, which is not a political party in itself, merely a national patriotic coalition, so basically to stand as a candidate you have to pledge full alleigence to DPRK --Frogsprog 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To get back to my original question, how many candidates are on the ballot for each opening? Raymond Arritt 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont know, and I very much doubt that information is released internationally, sorry --Frogsprog 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. Since you imply that the people you have spoken with are familiar with the DPRK electoral system, it's surprising they never mentioned such a basic point. Raymond Arritt 00:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that a unified front implies that only one candidate from the front runs for each office. --Reuben 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the reason you are not certain would be because.. you're wrong. sorry but there are always at least two candidates, I'm just not clear on how many candidates for each parliamentary constituency --Frogsprog 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know if you have a verifiable source for this information, as it contradicts the assessment of DPRK elections by numerous NGOs. Raymond Arritt 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * well what I know of DPRK democracy is all original research really, any "verifiable source" would more than likely be from the yanks, so it would probably be anti DPRK --Frogsprog 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see... Raymond Arritt 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that highly patronising, what right do you have to judge DPRK? the only info you have on them is your govt's propaganda! Frogsprog 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't say I knew how many candidates there are for each constituency in North Korea, I just mentioned that the term "united front" seems to imply there's only one. But of course we need a real source either way.  By the way, it doesn't appear to be correct that there are always at least two (serious) candidates.  See  and note that Kim Jong-il received 100% of the votes for his constituency, i.e. any hypothetical opponent did not even get his own vote.  There's nothing inherently undemocratic about that; it's common in many countries to have obviously popular candidates run unopposed in some races.  But it does mean that there aren't "always" at least two candidates.  --Reuben 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we also have your government's propaganda as well. crazyeddie 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BBC is government controlled, our labour government is controlled by George W Bush indirectly --Frogsprog 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha, here's some info on elections. This is from the presentation of Mr. Li Chun Sik, Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Pyongyang, April-May 1991, p. 17-18.
 * The PRESIDENT thanked Mr. Li Chun Sik for his presentation and asked about the electoral system. Mr. Li Chun Sik replied that the basic provisions governing the system were laid down in the Constitution and that elections were on the basis of universal direct suffrage with a secret ballot. Constituencies elected roughly one member per 30,000 population. While candidates could be nominated by anyone, it was the practice for all candidates to be nominated by the parties. These nominations were examined by the United Reunification Front and then by the Central Electoral Committee, which allocated candidates to seats. The candidate in each seat was then considered by the electors in meetings at the workplace or similar, and on election day the electors could then indicate approval or disapproval of the candidate on the ballot paper.

So indeed, the front chooses one candidate per seat, and the ordinary voters can only approve or disapprove. --Reuben 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Head of State
I have seen many references to the effect that the presidency of the DPRK was left vacant after the death of Kim Il-Sung. I have heard (I think from the BBC but I can't precisely remember) that Kim Il-Sung is still regarded as the President, making the DPRK the only nation to have a non-living head of state. Is this true or is it just a rumour? Walton monarchist89 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Great leader Kim Il Sung is the eternal president of the DPRK, his son, Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is the chairman of the defence commission, and the highest ranking officer of the army, so he runs the country in his father's honour --Frogsprog 16:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so the DPRK does indeed have a dead head of state. Thanks for this confirmation. Walton monarchist89 09:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto
Does anyone have a reference for the motto? A Google search only yields Wikipedia mirrors. Pruneautalk 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think with this site, it's the motto of The People's Republic of Taepodong II one of the three nations of North Korea and classified by the UN as psychotic dictatorship see for details,

Although here It says that's the motto for the country

And this could be the convincing one at transcripts from CNN. It was said by Phillip Doyle former assistant to the secretary of Defense. --JForget 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The first website is that of a Role Playing Game; I doubt that the UN classifies any country as a "psychotic dictatorship". The second website clearly states that information was taken from Wikipedia. In the third website, Philip Coyle doesn't say anything about the motto; the journalist does, and I am not sure that qualifies as a reliable source. Pruneautalk 09:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Who Changed the overall discripttion?
This is radically different than the NK page I saw 2 months ago! Please .. a "positve growth rate since 1996" do in part to a "military-first" policy??? Are you kidding me? That policy is choking the life out of the NK people. Look, whether you hate America or not, you cannot "spin" NK to look good, in any way or metric. Zero positve. It is the most repressive and draconian country on the face of the Earth. The geography may be beautiful, but hell, Saturn looks nice from a distance, but that doesn't mean I would dare set foot on it if I was able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.239.162 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 March 2007 UTC


 * I don't think there's any room to disagree that the military-first policy is what has the economy growing at between 1-2% per year. This is not the forum to debate the merits of the policy or the adverse effects it has.  It is simply stating that military spending has sustained the country's economy with the assistance of foreign food aid.  all of this is made clear in the paragraphs.
 * I think the issue here is not about spinning NK to look "good", but instead identifying what is happening in reality and simply stating it. There is no need to make NK look "bad" and i certainly don't think there is any prevailance of "Pro-NK attitude" on this page.  I only intend to keep it neutral - and to label NK draconian and to say there is Zero positive does little to help maintain neutrality.
 * I do appreciate that you raised concern on this discussion page as opposed to just deleting and rewording. Also, please tag your comments so we can tell who's raising the issue.
 * thanks- Icactus 12:40 - March 15, 2007 UTC

Footage from labour camp
I removed the sentence denoting and linking to supposed Japanese footage from inside a labour camp because the link is dead.

Correcting the short name to DPR Korea from North Korea
Ruebens suggested I add a comment here.

I see at present the wrong short name is used to call the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on this article is "North Korea" which is not the abreviated name to call their country in English. Having been in contact with officials from DPR Korea I know the term they use, and respect their choice.

DPR Korea is also the name of the country used in practice in documents from important sources.

For example the UN:

UNEP launches first Report on the State of the Environment in the DPR Korea

World Hunger - Korea (DPR)

Welcome to the Humanitarian Development Resource Centre (HDRC) DPR Korea

DPR Korea willing to accept emergency aid for flood victims, says UN food agency

Security Council demands that DPR Korea suspend ballistic missile activities

Certain news services and US administration refer to the DPR Korea as "North Korea", that isn't accurate and we should not give that alternative name credence over the official name, the recognised name and the name they would like their country to be called.

Therefore I propose revising the article and name to reflect the actual name used in practice, DPR Korea if short name, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea if a full name. now3d 2006-10-03 12:19 GMT


 * Please read through the debate at the top of this page. - Lee Stanley 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We've been through this debate on this talk page numerous times and have decided otherwise on more than one ocassion. The fact that you didn't even bother to read through the talk page and made this change unilaterally is rather... rude.  Furthermore, if we were going to use the name you suggest we'd use DPRK and not DPR Korea which really doesn't flow at all; part acronym, part regular name, doesn't work well.  I'm an international studies graduate student and I've never seen it called "DPR Korea."  Regardless, given the previous debates and the consensus reached, as well as Wikipedia's policy of using the common name rather than official name, it should be reverted to North Korea.   --The Way 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although we did have a long debate, and if I remember correctly it reached 'no consensus', should we have another debate on this very issue, say, in two years' time? Hopefully we'll get more people's opinions by then so it doesn't have to stay as 'no consensus'.  Jsw663 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One small point - I took the result to be "no consensus for a move," not "no consensus either way." --Reuben 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of an article has no bearing on what the "real" name is of the thing described. It is merely a convenience for our readers.

The most common name for the DPRK in English is "North Korea". The intro correctly mentions the country's official name.

If there is space in the infobox, we could indicate the "official short form" of the country's name, so that those who "repect" the government's wishes will know what those wishes are. The Wikipedia, however, is under no obligation to respect any government's wishes as to how it describes anything. We merely report others' points of view, we don't endorse or reject any POV. --Uncle Ed 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed, using the common short form DPR Korea or DPRK is not about respecting the government, it is about using the common, widely used name that people from DPR Korea use, the UN, the US and most other people use. now3d 2006-10-04 18:37 GMT


 * Hello, Just to confirm I previously read the debate which was kept for reference at the top of this talk page -- to assume otherwise is incorrect. Also, I didn't make unilateral changes, you aren't the only people documenting the activities of DPR Korea. IMHO a mistake is a mistake, and wikipedia is built by people developing articles and not propagating opinions such as the non-conventional name (North Korea).


 * In addition there was no comment at the top of the article about your opinion of a different name (North Korea). Many of my revisions have not been reverted I note, in addition to many references correctly using other other less common abbreviation, DPRK I also note. So there is already a trend to use common short names, just the article name and other places also use the name "North Korea" which describes it's geographic position at the end of the Korean War, and not the country name -- this isn't cartography, it's about a country!


 * Indeed, DPRK would be an improvement over a name only certain media outlets use, we should use the common name as you call it, which isn't "North Korea". The common name is either DPR Korea as you can see from the quick selection of links I included in my first post, or "DPRK".


 * At present the article does not follow the wikipedia naming convention for countries, it propagates an opinion, in short, it should follow the naming convention. Other articles on wikipedia support my point that the common name should be used, e.g. German Democratic Republic.


 * You will also see on that even the wikipedia Naming conventions (common names) Criterion demonstrate a form of DPRK abbreviation or full should be used, which supports my point.


 * Re The Way International studies graduate, I'm surprised you never encountered the commonly used short name DPR Korea. Did your course cover countries in the Korean Peninsular then?


 * I have dealt with citizens of DPR Korea, and when they speak in English they use that name, all of them use the same name as does all documentation. Have you met anyone from DPR Korea who has told you otherwise?


 * As you say wikipedia's policy is to use the common name, therefore it should be reverted back to DPR Korea. You have not cited any sources which back up your points for using a name different to the common name DPR Korea.


 * Please take my comments as constructive, I'm not intending any of this to be argumentative, I'd like us to come to an agreement on how to move the article forward. now3d 2006-10-04 18:24 GMT

All that matters is how most English-speaking people would look for it in the encyclopedia. "DPR Korea" is a rare form, in the English-speaking world. I think you already know that.

If you want to ask for an exception to Wikipedia guidelines, you can, but it's an uphill battle.


 * Google search for "DPR Korea" gets 800 thousand hits
 * Google search for "North Korea" gets 50.8 million hits

Better to stick with the form that most people actually English-speaking people use: "North Korea". --Uncle Ed 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I take your criticism as being constructive. I do want to apologize for the tone of my previous post to this discussion, it's no excuse but I wasn't in a very good mood when I replied to the initial statements here.  However, to answer your question I have never, until now, seen it called DPR Korea though I took a look at the links you supplied and see that the term is used.  Still, everytime I've seen references to the official name its either been fully spelled out or completely shortened to DPRK.  I do feel, personally, that if we do reach a new decision to go with the official term, DPRK would be a better option because it is both shorter to read/write and I feel that it flows better while still being correct.  I attend class with a South Korean and he refers to it as DPRK rather than DPR Korea, although he actually does also refer to it as North Korea from time to time (which I assume is more so that Americans know what he's talking about rather than that being a term he actually would use back home).
 * As far as I am aware, it's Wikipedia's policy to use the common name rather than the official name, at least insofar as the actual title of the article is concerned. In that case, at least as far as the US is concerned, North Korea would be the 'common name' though I'm not sure if the term is as common in other english-speaking countries.  Yes, the term DPRK is used in America by diplomats, government officials and academics but the general citizen probably wouldn't even know that the term refers to what they call North Korea; all of the major news networks call it North Korea rather than DPRK, at least for the most part.
 * As for examples of the use of the term North Korea rather than DPRK, if you look at the major news networks and their websites, they'll use the term North Korea. CNN.com right now has a top headline where it refers to 'North Korea.'  The BBC also has not one, but several, headlines with 'North Korea' rather than DPRK. ABC and Fox News (which, I recognize, is crap as far as news is concened) aslo typically refer to it only as North Korea.  The major newsmagazines TIME, Newsweek and US News & World Report refer to it as North Korea as well, I've seen that name on numerous covers but have yet to see DPRK.  Finally, some more 'professional' news magazines also refer to it as North Korea.  As an example, The Atlantic's cover story this week is "The Menace of North Korea."  Thus, it's apparent that the term North Korea is the common name applied insofar as the media is concerned.  If you were to talk to the average American citizen and you mentioned the 'DPRK' they'd likely have no idea what you were talking about, though they'd understand North Korea perfectly.  Now, I recognize that this site is not meant to cater specifically to Americans but I'm only acquainted with the way Americans would refer to the country and can't speak for other english nations.  Also, it should be mentioned that American politicians use the term North Korea as well; in fact, when President Bush named the 'Axis of Evil' he called the country North Korea, not the DPRK.  Indeed, I can't think of any instances where I've had a US politician talking to the public and calling it anything other than North Korea, though clearly in diplomatic situations that term would be used.
 * I personally would prefer using 'DPRK' throughout the article, though I'm less sure of whether it should be used as the title for the reasons mentioned above. However, it should be recognized that the official names of many countries are not used in this sense in articles on their countries because the common name is so much more accepted.  --The Way 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DPRK and ROK are abbreviations, used especially when contrasting the two governments on the Korean peninsula. A country is more than just a government. I think of "South Korea" for example, as the territory and populace below the 38th parallel; and the ROK (Republic of Korea) as the government which rules this territory and people. --Uncle Ed 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps any, but: North Korea - 151,000,000 Ghits. DPRK - 2,560,000 Ghits. DPR Korea - 3,650,000 Ghits. "DPR Korea" - 810,000 Ghits. Plus, if we were going to call it by what the inhabitants call it, then I doubt we'd be using English to do it. And, last I checked, it's Japan, not Nihon. If calling the place "North Korea" instead of "DPR Korea" is disrespectful, we are hardly singling it out. crazyeddie 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Opps, look like Ed (the other Ed) beat me to the Ghits thing. Sorry! crazyeddie 04:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "North Korea" is often considered insulting, like Ostdeutschland (East Germany) was in the DDR days. "North Korea" is never used by the official bodies of the state. Everton 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither is "South Korea" used by the ROK... If the South was at Republic of Korea and the North was at North Korea, I could see the point.  However, as long as the same policy applies equally to both Koreas, it's difficult to see what the problem is.  -- Visviva 12:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the South should be ROK too. The two states are ROK and DPRK. Everton 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)