Talk:North Korea/Archive 9

"Juche"
Juche should be quoted, as it is not a widely recognized type of state, and its professed ideology is not particularly well respresented anywhere in the world, including North Korea, and as such NK is only a Juche State in that its own government defines it as such. --NEMT 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * placing Juche in quotes suggests there is something artificial about the system - for example referring to the "democratic" people's republic of Korea. Whether or not the system of self-reliance is "widely" replicated elsewhere in the world should have no barring on whether it is a legitimate term to describe the north korean state, and infact it can be well argued that understanding the NK use of the term Juche to describe it's governing system is essential to understanding NK.  Without delving to far into personal analysis, the fact that NK uses a unique term to describe it's own system is in itself part of the idea of Juche.  At the very least, there needs to be a good reason to place quotation marks to qualify any term - and a good reason has not been given.  It is a dangerous assertion if it is made without any backing and you will be hard pressed to find an academic to back this opinion. (Icactus 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Can you provide an academic source that describes North Korea's form of government as a "Juche State"? Without this, you won't have any grounds to stand on.  Rklawton 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the beginning of North Korea's constitution as revised in 1998:

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a socialist fatherland of Juche which embodies the idea of and guidance by the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung.

The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the founder of the DPRK and the socialist Korea.

Comrade Kim Il Sung founded the immortal Juche idea, organized and guided an anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle under its banner, created revolutionary tradition, attained the historical cause of the national liberation, and founded the DPRK, built up a solid basis of construction of a sovereign and independent state in the fields of politics, economy, culture and military, and founded the DPRK. I understand the value of providing sources for everything but i think it speaks to part of the problem of Wikipedia which is people contributing to topics of which they know next to nothing. I appreciate your desire to avoid spreading propaganda, but in doing so you end up pushing the North Korea is a "rogue state" and "outpost of tyranny" proganda which is neither academic nor particularly informative. Icactus 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A search on North Korea and Dictatorship yields about a 7:1 ratio for dictatorship to Juche. A search limited to scholarly sources produces a similar ratio.  A search on world governments by type also reveals that North Korea is a dictatorship.  Is anyone shocked?  Let's keep North Korean propaganda out of this article as best we can.  Rklawton 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another search reveals a more detailed description: "Communist state one-man dictatorship" with over 700 exact matches to this term for North Korea. Rklawton 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, i must say your "rule by google scholar search totals" is not helpful here. I'll cite the leading athority on North Korea - Prof. Bruce Cummings of the University of Chicago: the guiding philosophy is known as 'Juche' - essentially the idea that the country should be self reliant and independent in all areas of economic and political life.   If you would like to learn more about Juche you can read some of Cummings' books, but here's a quick link to a summary of some of it:.  In the interest of Wikipedia being and education tool, lets use it to educate people about North Korea instead of pushing anti-north korea propaganda.  I am certainly not in favor the north korean style of government but i think it is irresponsible not to learn what it really is before judging it - and not using the label "juche", with the link to the Juche ideology page, is irresponsible.Icactus 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really silly. Look, a search for "hitler loves north korea dictatorship" on google scholar yields 1,390.  "Kim Jong il dictator" yields 374, while "Kim Jong il Juche" yields 543.  Basically unless someone knows academically what they are talking about i really think they should avoid editing on contensious points - especially with no personal background in the issue.  It just really seems irresponsible to me.  I'm certainly not going to go to a page on Islam and try to mediate an argument over whether it's an "evil terrorist religion" or not just because i have been fed one set of information. Icactus 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what. You add "ruling philopshy" as Juche State, and we'll leave government type at "Dictatorship."  Rklawton 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of being neutral (as opposed to providing a US viewpoint) it seems appropriate to default to the language of the country's constitution (as is done on China (PRC)'s page with the term "Socialist republic") and use the country's term of Juche state. The term "Juche" is much more informative than "dictatorship" and makes sense for the same reason that Cuba is a "military Junta" and not a "dictatorship".  A lack of knowledge about what Juche means is not grounds for dismissing it as the governmental structure of a nation - unless the attempt is to discredit the constitution of the DPRK which takes us to a point which is certainly not Neutral.  lets air on the side of information.  If it pleases one admin, the CIA assessment (as universally NPOV as that can possibly be) can be cited in a footnote.Icactus 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Scholars categorize governments by type. The type "Juche State" does not exist in this scheme.  When we declair the government type for this article, it needs to be in keeping with scholarly work and not the nation's own propaganda.  Rklawton 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think categorisation into a larger category that is used outside NK is in order. I am pretty sure the majority of countries describe themselves differently in their constitution compared to the infobox. (e.g., the French constitution talks about "République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale" (should we put that in the infobox??); the Dutch constitution does not explicitly mention a government form (apparently it has none??) but it mentions this (about the monarch: "Nadat de Koning de uitoefening van het koninklijk gezag heeft aangevangen, wordt hij zodra mogelijk beëdigd en ingehuldigd in de hoofdstad Amsterdam in een openbare verenigde vergadering van de Staten-Generaal. Hij zweert of belooft trouw aan de Grondwet en een getrouwe vervulling van zijn ambt." should we add that??? or can we abbreviate this to "Grondwettelijke monarchie"). In brief what is in the constitution of a country should not be binding without discussion. Arnoutf 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How shall we proceed? We've got two editors who revert any changes to this on sight - and one has (at least on my talk page) stated baldly that he refuses to discuss the matter.  Rklawton 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees North Korea at the most broad descirption is a communist state. (please repsond if you disagree).
 * I think that also everyone agrees that NK calls itself a Juche state. (which is the most detailed specification I know).
 * We all agree that CIA factbook lists the country as "Communist state one-man dictatorship" but may not be unbiased.
 * IMHO The question is whether Juche state gives sufficient information to the unknowing reader (after all, this is a encyclopedia, not an expert to expert forum). Personally I think most people will not understand Juche; so we might need to change that slightly.
 * Again in my opinion the phrase communist should be somewhere in the government type. However I can agree with the problems against the one-man dictatorship communism. First of all because almost all dictatorships are one-man rule; so this addition is trivial. Also the fact that many other typical dictatorships (e.g. Zimbabwe) are not listed as such in Wiki (nor in CIA factbook for that matter) should count for something.
 * As far as I understand Juche has a typical part in the worhship of KimIlJung (IMHO not unlike the roman/medieval veneration of emperors (as Gods) or Kings (as appointed by God - recall Louis XIV - The state is me). This is fairly exceptional in worldwide state forms nowadays, so some specific name may be in order after all.
 * Combining all my own arguments my suggestion would be to change "Juche State" to "Juche Communism". This gives (IMHO) due account to the specific case of the North Korean leader worship, while giving lay-readers the information that this state form is a subdivision of Communism.
 * I hope this is an acceptable solution for everyone involved Arnoutf 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as compromises go, it's OK with me. Rklawton 01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Juche is what North Korea is classified as. Just because 99% of the world is ignorant and doesn't know it, doesn't mean you re-write the encyclopedia to accomadate their asses
 * If you want to characterize others as ignorant for not sharing your point of view, you should put more effort into spelling properly. Also, please sign your comments.  --Reuben 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'Kingfisher Childrens encyclopedia' (maybe not the best of sources) lists the form of government for every state on earth. For N. Korea, they simply put 'communist'

It is Juche, not Communist. For the Iran page should we change it from 'Islamic Republic' (a term which the Iranians invented) to a theocracy? I heavily doubt it. Regardless of your opinions on the DPRK and their ideology, the page should simply state, 'Juche State'.

I have not completely read the wikipedia article on Juche so perhaps the source of contention lies in how it is being demostrated on this site. I hope people aren't writing with wikipedia being their ownly knowledge of the term.Icactus 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NUKE PROGRAM

 * Please Keep fairness I cannot understad why someone deleate Nuke Warhead issue without discussion even I showed proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Wow (barf)
These pictures make North Korea look like a paradise! Look at those high-tech industries! Why is there not a single picture of the countryside? Most North Koreans live in the countryside outside of Pyeongyang and Hamhung. I can't believe Wikipedia has turned into a source of North Korean (and recent South Korean) propaganda. --JakeLM 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Foreigners who visit North Korea aren't allowed to venture anywhere unattended, and the tour guides obviously won't take you to the countryside. See its corresponding Wikitravel article. Who'd want to spread North Korean propaganda? Carson 02:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll read this article's edit history, you'll see... Rklawton 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, isn't it anti-North Korean or just basic vandalism? Carson 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the funny thing about North Korea. Telling the truth about it can be easily confused with POV pushing or vandalism.  A few editors have made a concerted effort to make North Korea sound and look as nice as any other country - to the point of removing a rather telling satellite image showing the Korean peninsula at night.  Rklawton 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are people who have made it very clear that they /are/ intending to push a certain anti-North-Korean point of view. I am by no stretch of the imagination 'pro-NK' but you really have to temper yourself.  This is an encyclopedia.  If you want to get polemic, start a blog.  65.60.208.212 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The level of anti-north korean bias is amazing. Just because the country is run by a dictatorship doesn't mean it doesn't have cities, or industy, or big buildings, or sunny days.  South Korea was a dictatorship too until the late 80's but nobody seems to go argue there that the wikipedia page is "too nice".  I think it is important for people to see pictures of Pyongyang so that this image of North Korea of a country of nothing but wasteland can be reassessed.  I am particularly annoyed by the self-appointed North Korea "experts" that are only interested in the aspects of human rights and democracy as if they were the only true defining qualities of a "real country" and that discussing anything else about the country isn't worth the time.  To further address specifics, that photo of the blackout that Rumsfeld was so fond of was taken during a blackout in the North (except for pyongyang which has electrical priority as the largest and most necessary for function city in the country) and inaccurately depicts the north as a country in the "middle ages" compared to the glowingly modern south.  Here's a helpful statistic i hope many will take to heart: China's per capita income for 2006 was $1750.  North Korea's was estimated at $1800.  That compares with South Korea at $14000.  I don't see anyone objecting to pictures of downtown Beijing or Shanghai as unfairly representing China.  North Korea was devistated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US gave billions to South Korea to build it up.  I don't see how it is unreasonable to see that North Korea was given the short end of the stick simply because it did not care to do business with the US for many many many reasons and as a result is struggling to sustain itself an its Juche policy of self-reliance.  This is not the place to discuss whether or not it is acceptable or excusable, but it is the place to point out that not everything in North Korea is a shit-hole and for people who don't have any academic knowledge of the country to voice displeasure with the view they learned from who knows where seems academically irresponsible.  Besides, isn't wikipedia trying to be an academic collection of knowledge?  If you want to call the regime a "Juche Communism" because it makes the most number of people happy even though nobody uses that term, then that's fine because that's how wikipedia chooses to operate and i accept that.  If you wanted to use "Juche Communist Dictatorship" that would be even more accurate.  If people want to pretend to be academians though and speak their mind without knowledge of facts or a historical background of any sort, i really don't understand or accept that. Icactus 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish, do you think we should also go to the London page, remove the images of Westminster, the London Eye and Wembley, and replace it with pictures of deprived estates featuring dilapitaed blocks of flats, drug dealers and homeless people on the streets? Anti-NK drivel, the page is fine as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.153.220 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, some of those are great ideas. I've long held the opinion that Wikipedia makes solid efforts at maintaining neutrality in every aspect except in its photography.  The East St. Louis, Illinois article springs quickly to mind.  What I find especially appealing in the satellite image is that it shows the entire picture all in one shot.  On the other hand, I don't see how this image represents anti-NK drivel.  Perhaps you should argue that NK's energy conservation efforts lead the world in "green" policies instead.  I wouldn't.  But you might.  Rklawton 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely stating that he claims the pictures make the country look like a 'Paradise', yet I'm sure most country pages have similiar images. It's well known that Pyongyang is made to be a supposed showcase capital, and it shows in the pictures. Famine or no famine, Pyongyang can be a beautiful city with stunning buildings. If somebody has some of the less flattering pictures of NK, though, do feel free to put them up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.153.220 (talk • contribs).

Neutrality -
Please provide examples of non-neutral text in the main article so they can be examined and corrected if necessary so the neutrality tag can be removed. If none are provided after a certain length of time i would imagine it would be acceptable to remove the tag. Icactus 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There don't seem to be any. The "disputed" tag has been removed. An article is "disputed" when there exists a REASONABLE dispute about factual accuracy. We must not allow a "heckler's veto" by frenzied juche stooges. WikiFlier 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: North Korea
This is a dispute about the appropriate label for North Korea's form of government


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * Most reliable sources list this country as a Communist Dictatorship. However, I've accepted the compromise "Juche Communist Dictatorship."  A novice editor wishes to change this compromise back to "Juche State."  Rklawton 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * This particular issue is only the tip of the iceberg. Over the last several months this article has been "sanitized" by several pro-North Korean editors, and I would like to invite all experienced editors to review this article, its edit history, and its editors in detail - up to and including use of Check-User.  Rklawton 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Juche is North Korean propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia article, at least not describing the form of government, IMO. In this case its best to default to the most common label used by reliable sources, of which the North Korean government does not qualify. If there is any doubt to that last assertion then ask them about the Ryugyong Hotel. My two cents via RfC. IvoShandor 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Classifying as a "Juche state" is not very informative. It's the North Korean leadership that defines the term Juche, rather than the other way around.  The terms Juche, socialism/ist, and communism/ist all appear in the national constitution, so I don't see a fundamental reason why any of them could not be used here.  Something along the lines of "Communist State" is most informative, but there are many other variations that would also be acceptable.  Expanding to "Juche Communist State" doesn't add much, because "Juche Communism" amounts to saying the same thing as "North Korean Communism."  By the same token, it doesn't hurt anything to include the extra word.  --Reuben 17:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To address this issue of novice editors, i would appreciate seeing some form of cited arguments when dealing with issues of neutrality - especially regarding the juche discussion. For those who find "juche" to be north korea propoganda, i think the discussion would benefit from finding a source to back such a claim, or a scholar who agrees that juche is propoganda and not objectively accurate in describing the north korean system.  I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone in the field who agrees with such an assertion and i don't think it is helpful to wikipedia to make decisions without some scholarly backing.  Bruce Cummings (prof at u. chicago) is considered the foremost authority on north korea and contends strongly that juche is essential to understanding the uniqueness of the origins of north korea as well as finding it an accurate term.  I know wikipedia attempts to give weight to academic works over a simple majority in resolving disputes and i think it is paramount for those who express personal opinions on this cite to have some academic backing for what they say.  otherwise it really is just glorified hear-say - and that goes for both anti- and pro- north korean editors.  What this page needs more of are healthy doses of people who are qualified to write about the country and there are just far too few.  So please, use sources! Icactus 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * on a separate note, i don't have the source here but i will get it and retract this comment if i can't find it, but North Korea is fine with the term "Dictatorship" and they are quite proud of their "Rally round the leader" model. So long as juche is included (and communist is almost equally essential if we are aiming to be educational with our description) it seems rediculous to ban the inclusion of "dictatorship" as a descriptive term.  RKlawton, i appreciate your compromise and your effort to help find a neutral way through this.  I only favored the picture of Pyongyang at night (as opposed to the satellite photo (which has pyongyang and the other major cities lit)) because it shows people an idea of north korea that probably contradicts what they imagine in their head.  The notion of the capitol actually being a functioning city seems to be unbelievable to many people.  including both is probably cluttering, but i thought to challenge conventional notions with that picture would be educational without automatically being "propoganda". Icactus 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a novice editor and the gist of my comment was use what the reliable sources say, I will let the editors around here decide what that constitutes, it is my opinion that anything the government of North Korea has to say about it is not reliable concerning this article. North Korean history didn't start with communism so I doubt that juche is essential to understanding the origins of North Korea. While it has its place in any discussion on North Korea that place is the Juche article not here in a description of the government (maybe a sentence or two referring to the main article somewhere). Per RKLawton it would seem that most reliable sources categorize the government as a Communist dictatorship. And while Wikipedia attempts to give weight to academic sources it isn't going to give undue weight to the opinion of one scholar, but if we have other sources that continuously assert that this a more descriptive and accurate means of describing the government in North Korea then they should be included in this discussion. It is my impression based on what Lawton said (an editor whose judgment I trust) that those won't be found. IvoShandor 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * north korean history didn't start with communism?? i know this isnt' the forum for discussing actual topics and only for discussing changes to the article but that's a suprising assertion, unless you ment someting else. The "People's Republic" as it was originally described was the essential difference that the north used to try to gain support from the southern people to push-out the pro-japanese pro-american leadership that Rhee brought with him.  I wasn't categorizing you as a novice editor, i'm only asking for those who wish to edit to source the things they say.  I understand that there are other sources that don't use the term Juche because it is too specific and they prefer broad terms like "communist republic", etc. but i'm just asking for future assertions (like "juche is propoganda") to be backed by a source who is making that claim other than the wikipedia editor.  While i generally agree with Reuben, i disagree that juche is the same as saying North Korean communism because in korean the word has special significance and including it in the description will encourage readers to click link and learn what juche is and why the north finds it so important.  I appreciate Reuben's suggestion that it doesn't hurt anything to add it, but i would argue that it significantly enhances the article to include it for educational value.Icactus 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that the link doesn't have value I just don't think it would be the correct description of the government if we are going to use reliable sourcing, since it is used specifically by the state to describe itself, I can find some sources if you want, but I assumed Lawton already had since that was what he essentially posted, and he was merely looking for viewpoints on whether juche was appropriate, based upon his assertions, I say we go with the reliable sources. As for the North Koreans, the people, land and whatever makes them distinct certainly existed prior to the split, whether or not you could call that North Korean is up to opinion I guess. IvoShandor 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * lawton doesn't have any sourcing that discredits juche because there isn't any to be quite frank. I appreciate that you have edited wikipedia for a while and have that knowledge, but when it comes to north korea from what you've just written you really don't have any idea what you're talking about and it is that kind of mindless editing that doesn't help us here. Icactus 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And to be fair, you haven't produced any sources either, other than your own assertions, glass houses, stones and stuff. Your tone is, to be frank, a bit uncivil. Perhaps if you produce some sources that outweighs the points Lawton brought up here I may be more prone to agree with you, but just calling it a day by characterizing my edits as mindless and being done with them isn't really assuming too much in the way of good faith. Come with the sources now and I will do the same. IvoShandor 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone notice that "Juche Communist dictatorship" yields one result, this page. I haven't looked for sources yet but we are going to use the most common terminology used in reliable sources, not a neology like "Juche Communist State," which isn't a type of government. I recommend adding Juche as a parenthetical link, I don't like it but after the government type, which because this is an encyclopedia we must follow what most reliable sources use, now if you can find some other sources on the government type being described as a Juche Communist State, then we can discuss inclusion. I will try to post my sources tonight, I am still compiling them. IvoShandor 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than try to hold some sort of debate here i'd like to just offer this article from globalsercurity.org (we use it on wikipedia often enough as a neutral source and it's not a bad primer on juche) that explains the function of Juche as both a model of the FORM of government as well as the IDEOLOGY and even the RELIGION of north korea. Since we all don't have JSTOR access this is the best thing i could find on short notice that wouldn't be labeled "one-sided":  Having a box with the word "Government:" seems overly simplistic and i have been pushing for a more educational phrase involving some inclusion of the Juche influence.  The compromised "juche communist dictatorship" is not an officially recognized "category" because it was not my aim to just use a popularly recognized category to describe the government.  I just think it would be helpful to describe the government's unique qualities with some qualifying term, and Juche (like Marxist or Stalinist) is a term to qualify the nature of the government and the manner in which the government fuctions.  If the consensus only wishes to purely categorize the government using a limited number of option then i can understand why people wish to omit the word Juche.  I just hope after reading this article you will understand the helpfulness the word provides when being included.  If anyone has a JSTOR account there are many articles on the topic but if you're looking for newspaper articles to say "North Korea, the Juche Communist Dictatorship" you won't find many as such - but i don't think that makes the title less informative.  We could add the term "fascist" because the country is rallied around a militaristic center, we could add "authoritarian", we could add "hyper-sovereign" to describe the juche ideology's determination to keep all decisions regarding north korea's land to be made by north korea (that means approving all foreign influence), we could add militaristic, we could add Stalinist because some scholars like to argue that the North was merely a puppet state of russia (though they would be wrong as Cummings documents in "Korea's place in the sun" because of the abscence of material and miltary aid during the korean war), but we could still use it because some scholars have argued it.  The point is that if we have to only pick a few words we could just use "dictator" of just use "communist" or just use "Juche State" but if we aim to be educational (and if you have read a bit about what the word juche means) i think we should preserve the current phrase "Juche Communist Dictatorship" as a compromise - certainly nobody can argue that North Korea is not that. and certainly nobody can argue that some aspect of the manner of governing is not included.  I have never had the desire to mask the existance of north korea's "communist dictatorship", only to insist on the consideration and inclusion of "juche", much like the use of "Federal" to describe the united states as a "federal republic".Icactus 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that the article gets a bit POV toward the end with the jab "reduced to making desperate and dangerous tactical displays of military power to threaten its neighbors" but the beginning provides an understanding of Juche that is acceptable and should be helpful since it includes a anti-NK slant. Icactus 05:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Korean peninsula at night.jpg
I've restored this famous image to the Economy section. It had been replaced a couple of months ago with an image showing only the capital city at night - an image that failed to represent in a glance the state of North Korea's economy. While this satellite image captures only one moment in time, similar images taken in other years show a very consistent picture. As a result, this image is both extraordinarily illustrative of the state of North Korea's economy, and it does so in a fair and neutral manner. Rklawton 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. These images are also an accurate reflection of North Korea's power generation capacity, which is much more well known than N. Korea's economic stats. Scamiran 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is pure propaganda Ignoring most of the other pro-western, anti-NK BS in this article, I ask that you please remove the satellite image of North Korea at night. Not only is it American propaganda, but it's also racist and meant to say that Asians are not as great as the so-called "superior white race" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.219.243 (talk • contribs)
 * I dunno; Japan looks pretty well lit up in these types of images. So does South Korea.  Last I checked they were mostly Asian.  Maybe it's the electricity that's racist.  Rklawton 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Checked from several different sources. The image seems to be correct. I am not sure whether it reflects econonomy though. Maybe they just sleep at night. ;) Suva 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out, Its Rumsfeld at a press conference in front of the img: http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/homepagephoto%5C2006-10%5Chires_061011-D-9880W-197B.JPG Nat Tang ta 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Racist or not, this type of image is not a one-off. Although the one uploaded here is narrowly cropped, larger images showing a similar lighting situation have appeared (for example on the cover of a Korea Now issue). They showed elements such as large areas of sea lit up by squid fishermen, an embellishment unlikely to be considered by your average Photoshopper creating a fake. —  AjaxSmack     17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Economic Growth numbers
Violates NPOV. Kim Myong Chol describes himself as, "unofficial spokesman for Kim Jong-il". The Asia Times article "cited" with a growth rate number was an opinion piece written by Kim Myong Chol, with no citations within the piece. Economic growth numbers must be calculated statistical, not via hearsay. Until a "real" cite is availabe, either an "official" North Korea government spokes person (not terribly credible), or a World Financial institution (more credible), this section should be removed, as it smacks of pro-military-first policy propaganda. 71.228.4.69 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also removed "government reports 1-2% yearly growth rate". Mis-cited, the cited article has no reference to economic growth numbers except as compared to South Korea in a footnote, in which case it describes a "20 fold gap". This offhand comment is insufficent to determine growth numbers, and more significantly in no way represents "government reports". 71.228.4.69 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar edit in the "Foreign Commerce" section. No such information at the South Korean Unification Ministry website, and certainly not at the link provided. Citations, please. 71.228.4.69 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar edit under "Theaters built in every city". No cite. Scamiran 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tourism
On the official North Korea tourism homepage you can read something about ONE tour through Korea. Could somebody who made this tour tell me what you exactly can see and what flights you make with Air Koryo? Dagadt [ 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTS) ]
 * Why don't you ask them instead of us? Speedboy Salesman 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. This page is for discussing the contents and improvement of the North Korea article, it is not a general discussion forum about North Korea. IvoShandor 11:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two figures presented for South Korea's (yes South Korea's) military spending???
Could someone please check on the figures in this article and deliver a single number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.177.10 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian Efforts
As I understand it, very few organizations currently are helping North Koreans directly(smuggling food in and smuggling North Koreans out). Aside from LINK, what other humanitarian organizations/efforts are currently in place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwhelanx (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this CALLED "North Korea" When Taiwan is called "Republic Of China" Formally?
Someone just answer me that. I WILL be changing this Now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlatko (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We have articles for Taiwan and for the Republic of China. One is about the island, one is about the state.  We could also put the article about the state under the name "Taiwan," which would reflect common usage, but then we would have to find a different way to disambiguate the two articles.  In the case of North Korea, we only need one article, and it's under the most common name in English: North Korea.  Please see Naming conventions (common names). --Reuben 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reuben, this is ridiculous! Have a look at SFRJ, note how it isnt called Yugoslavia, and people reffered to it as only Yugoslavia, it makes no sense to name North Korea's article after a nickname for the country! Zlatko 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no comparison. "Yugoslavia" is ambiguous (it depends on time period).  "North Korea" is not.  Rklawton 13:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is an article at Yugoslavia. If the SFRJ were the only thing under that name, we would move SFRJ to Yugoslavia.  But because there were several Yugoslav states, we have one article for Yugoslavia overall, and specific articles for each of those historical states.  As you would know if you read Naming conventions (common names), we title articles according to the most common name that doesn't conflict with another article.  Republic of China has the title it does because there's already a Taiwan article about the island.  SFRJ has the title it does because there's already a Yugoslavia article, about the entire history of the country.  --Reuben 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The DPRK is the current government of the territory known as "North Korea" and is the only government diplomatically recognized as such. The ROC is not widely recognized as the sovereign government of Taiwan. The SFRJ is not a current government. Therefore we have a country article called "North Korea" that covers both the government and the territory, just as we have an article called "Libya" that covers the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and its territory. The name is also easier to type, just like "United Kingdom" is easier to type than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Gazpacho 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dictatorship"
Removed this term from the infobox, due to the longstanding problems of neutrality (dictatorship according to whom) and original research (editors cherry-picking the sources that agree with them). This has previously been hashed out with regard to Category:Dictators, List of dictators, and elsewhere. Gazpacho 06:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might want to try removing "dictatorship" from Nazi Germany. Rklawton 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. Gazpacho 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, we have the "communist state" article precisely so that the various views about communist states can be treated with some fairness, rather than coming down definitely on "communism = dictatorship."

I know it may seem silly and academic, but the experience is that these labels are like weeds. If they're tolerated in one place, then people will try to spread them to promote their idea of ideological or political balance. Gazpacho 06:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If commmunism = dictatorship, then it would be redundant to add dictatorship and I wouldn't care. They aren't the same thing, however.  And in the case of North Korea and Nazi Germany, the term "dictatorship" applies - and most sources support this.  By the way, before you go changing Nazi Germany to "Republic", please read WP:POINT.  Rklawton 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it at your request, and applying core policies isn't disruption. Gazpacho 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eternal President in Infobox
This is crap. It's going.

I'm being bold.

--M a s 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually when we make collaborative edits, something more useful than "this is crap" is left in our wake so other editors have the opportunity to improve upon or refute the argument. Rklawton 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It ought to stay. Info like that is what makes the DPRK (and Wikipedia) interesting. Popkultur 19:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument is obvious. The man is dead.  His importance in the history and psyche of DPRK is clearly discussed in the article.  This is DPRK-apologizing and wikiality.  Unless, please, name another existing country info-box where a dead person is in the "Government" section.  The fact that he is the "Eternal President" is noteworthy and should be in his bio if not the main article, but to put it in the infobox concedes way too much.  --M a s 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's another country where the constitution names a dead man as eternal president, so there's no possible comparison with other countries. As for DPRK-apologizing, it doesn't look that way to me; if anything, it looks bad for North Korea by highlighting the personality cult.  But that's a matter of perspective (as it should be, since the article doesn't need to be editorializing).  --Reuben 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the DPRK constitution, I think you will find that the Presidency is referred to only as an honorary title, like "father of the country" and is no longer mentioned anywhere as a real constitutional office. Gazpacho 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite without any parallel in most other countries. Of course it doesn't mean that Kim Il Sung is ruling from beyond the grave by occult forces.  But likening the status of Kim Il Sung in North Korea to the "father of the country" in other places understates things quite a bit.  The 1998 revision of the constitution has a preamble that's entirely dedicated to praising Kim Il Sung; it names him as eternal president, and describes itself as a "Kim Il Sung constitution."  He's not mentioned outside the preamble.  To complicate matters a little bit more, the Communist understanding of a national constitution is not the same as the Western understanding.  In the US and many other countries, the constitution is a fundamental document that prescribes the structure and powers of the state, and all laws and government actions must conform to it.  Communist countries, on the other hand, usually understand a constitution to be a formal description of existing social and state relationships - it's descriptive rather than prescriptive (but descriptive in light of the goals of the Party).  Of course our goal is also to describe, but without any particular agenda.  So the question is, how do we present this information without adding our own interpretation?  I think the most natural thing is to take the DPRK's documents and media on their own terms.  There are plenty of sources including the constitution in which Kim Il Sung is named as Eternal President.  Are there North Korean sources to back up the idea that this should be taken in a symbolic, less literal sense?  --Reuben 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did this go back in? 202.156.10.12 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Weeding Out the Weak
My brother did a project on Pyongyang a while back. . . I don't remember where he saw it, but something said that pregnant women and crippled people are banned from Pyongyang. --Penguin boy93 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I recall reading something like that before as well. I'll get back to you if no one else does. ALTON   .ıl  01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Do North Koreans play with Barbie Dolls?
I may like to know if they play with dolls like that over there, and if they ever play with toys over there or not. But to note, that I realzed in a Documentary that they sometimes have elements of outside stuff over there like Red Sox Caps and Minnie Mouse miniature toy or something. So please answer me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.237.67 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone with the right tools and skills can make a doll or a toy. However, North Korea does not have the means to make and distribute toys on a large scale. Trade between North Korea and the US is prohibited, so Mattel cannot sell Barbie dolls in North Korea.


 * Foreign aid workers sometimes distribute secondhand items that have US cartoon characters and logos on them. Gazpacho 06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if they're ronery. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.27.240 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder their play . Korean little girls are as cute as American little girls . A cute doll like The Barbie Dolls will appear in North Korea sooner or later . I hope the amiable Koreans' constructing the national intercourse between Japan and North Korea . --The DQN,macbeth 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Name Change
I think this article should be called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" rather than "North Korea". DPRK is the official name of the country so therefore should be used. It would be like calling the United Kingdom article "Britain" or the United States of America article "America".

This is nothing to do with politics, just common sense. Jamezcd 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. North Korea is the most common way of referring to the country and should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.1 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been partly dealt with before. Check out the contents section of this talk page [ Talk:North Korea/Archive 9 ]. I say North Korea is the common name and should be kept.--Postmortemjapan 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Page rendering in Firefox?
This page does not seem to be rendering correctly in Firefox (version 2.0.0.7). --Philarete 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of problems do you see? Do you mean the article itself, or this talk page?  They both look OK to me in 2.0.0.6.  --Reuben 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No longer seeing the problem. Philarete 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias with regard to "Juche" and the two Koreas' economies
1. "Juche" in this article cross-references to an "ideology" that is characterized as giving "the people" "independence" of thought, among other things. Since NK is a dictatorship that in fact allows no independence of thought, it is inaccurate to characterize it as "following" the Juche ideology. It would be more accurate to say that the country's government styles itself as following the Juche ideology than to say it does so. I have made changes to reflect this.

2. Someone used the passive voice twice to characterize NK's economic growth rate up to the 1970s as superior to South Korea's growth rate after 1948. This repeated statement is unsourced and seems quite implausible given that SK's current economy is more than 50 times larger than NK's. I have deleted it. If someone can supply a plausible source, perhaps it could be restored, although I am quite confident that the claim is fictional.

Nathanhcr 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)NathanHCR
 * Your #2 is quite true. Here's one source, if you can use JSTOR: .  Depending on the assumptions used and the method of comparison, South Korea's GNP per capita overtook North Korea's some time between 1976 and 1989(!).  --Reuben (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Current Sub-Section: "Nuclear weapons program"
Can someone clarify this sentence? (Even US minuteman 500 only & there no 200 US bases or Nuke Missiles in Japan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.198.254 (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone possibly redo the entire current sub-section: "Nuclear weapons program"? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe the information used is fact, and, from the way the words are placed, it looks like the writer may be from North Korea. Please. Read this, and you will see how bad it is: "As of October 2006, North Korea aimed 200 Rodong-1 missiles which can deliver Nuke warhead or Chemial warhead to Tokyo.(Even US minuteman 500 only & there no 200 US bases or Nuke Missiles in Japan). And ISIS reserch warn the possibility that DPRK have the 3NukeWarheads which deliverble to Tokyo Osaka Nagoya by Rodong-1 missiles. And ISIS also warned the dangerousness of 2NEW reactors which under construction at yongbyon(50MW/generate Pu for 10warheads per year) and Taechong-(200MW/45warheadthat per annual)."

It goes on with no citations, no wikifying, words bolded that shouldn't be bolded, and a propagandous tone.

Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.194.48 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alice S
 * 1) Pls Discuss &Dialogue before you revert.
 * 2) Pls Discuss based on analyst report or materials. Pls do not discuss based on your personal recognition.
 * 3) I think It is not Fair that you Quote the sentence WITHOUT FOLLOWING CITATION PART. Most of the case report from the analyst more credible than Newspaper, because generalist Newspaper wrighter have less knowledge than the expart analyst. And if you read CNS report ,you can see CITATION that NK is aiming 200 Rodong-1 Balistic Missiles to Japansese Cities. If you read ISIS report,you can see CITATION that NK May have deliverable 3nuke warheads which can strike Tokyo, and constructiong Big new reactors which can generate hundreds of Nuke Warheads. And I recommend you to check former defence secretary Mr. William Perry's bliefing at Lower House on Jan 2007. He warn the dangerousness of Nuke mathproduction Big reactors.
 * ISIS report abt 3deliverble warheads&50MW new reactor
 * Missle of DPRK.Please see TaepodongX 4000km moval balistic missile, from USSR Submarine launch missile technology. It is already under service


 * 4) I'm not writing from pyongyang. I'm writing from Tokyo. I should confess that I'm not happy the situation,NK's dictator aiming 100-200 Rodong-1 missiles with WMD warhead to OUR WIFES & KIDS. But you & US newspapers should not hide what NK communists doing. In 1980's US helped WestGerman by removing SS20. But 2007 why US negrect NK's 200 Rodong-1 aiming Japanese Cities & NK's 50MW/200MW reactors which will mathproduct nuke warheads for Rodong-1 & Moval ICBM? It may because lackage of informations. Ofcourse I will introduce the left people's opinion for NPOV. My intention is introducing bothside accurate detailed information.

--202.239.229.7 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can just call me "Alice" if you like. Perhaps you would like to register a username? It makes it so much easier, as your IP address might change and there are also other advantages that make discussions easier.


 * Firstly, may I welcome you to our great project - if nobody has done so previously. Secondly, you make some very good points which I will try and respond to in the order you have made them:


 * 1) You make an excellent point that it is usually better to discuss edits in a co-operative way before you revert them. In this case, I deliberately did not use either the revert or undo tools but merely remarked out your text so that it could be improved upon and amended. I recognise that you added some useful material - unfortunately it was so novel in its English usage, etc that we can't let it appear until it has been copy edited, etc.
 * 2) I concur. My suggestion is that we work on the proposed text to be added together. Perhaps we can discuss that together here?
 * 3) You are absolutely right that good sources are vital. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy (unreferenced material is subject to being removed, so please provide references); Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics like this one. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, we should declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed and contine to hammer out details on this talk page and follow dispute resolution if necessary.
 * 4) I don't live in the US or read too many US Newpapers and I don't have any strong US bias and I do agree that US influences (both on and off Wikipedia) can be overwhelming at times. That's why I would like to help you put your material into better English, etc - even though I'm a newbie myself.
 * Please consider creating an (anonymous?) user account now so that we can continue to improve our article. For the avoidance of doubt, I have reverted your revert today - not because it was made with poor intentions but for the reasons I have alluded to above. Hope to see you back soon with your brand new user name!


 * PS: there are a lot of unanswered messages for you at your user talk page, here!  A l i c e  ✉  22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Alice
 * sorry late reply
 * Thanks Your advise & I create my account
 * Because US Newspapers should overview all over the world, I think sometimes US newspaper drop/run through the detailed information about Far East regional news
 * "Russia& USA aiming 500-650 ICBM to each other. And DPRK aiming 200 Rodong-1 MRBM to Japan, Japan does not aiming any ballistic missiles to DPRK."
 * "DPRK does not spending their money for replacing their Old border gurd Tanks and Air defence fighters, but they are spending huge money for strategic attacking tool Rodong-1 MRBM and Nuke Program" And this information is proofed by some analyst reports. I think it is NOT the question of NPOV. I can understand the disire of Unification of the people who live in devided countries.  I feel anxiety and sadness about the doom of Far East countries but I'm just introducing the accurate situation& information at NPOV.
 * --RightLiberalJap 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Welcome aboard!


 * You might like to place a note on your old IP user talk page, here giving details of your new account. If you don't know how to do that, just post a message at User talk:Alice.
 *  A l i c e  ✉ 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not dictatorship
I changed it to democracy earlier today, but someone changed back to dictatorship. Well, of course it is a democracy, it is even in the country's name. It is not called "Dictatorial Dictator's Dictatorship of Korea", or something. Helpsloose (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Government type reflects the type of government currently in place. It is not intended to reflect what the government calls itself.  Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But North Korea is so isolated, can we be sure it is a dictatorship? Maybe the best source on what kind of government it is, is government itself. Helpsloose (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're trolling, aren't you? Rklawton (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Our job is to take the authoritative sources and turn them into an article. Here are some authoritative sources that describe North Korea as a Dictatorship or refer to either Kim as a Dictator:
 * CIA World Fact Book
 * National Geographic
 * New York Times Almanac 2004.
 * &mdash;Noah 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal choice of 3 words to describe the governmental system would be Juche Stalinist Dictatorship.


 * Juche is important because it is one of the uniquely notable features of the professed governmental system and may give a clue to our readers that we are dealing with a very bizarre and unique kind of regime; Stalinist because it might encapsulate the cult of personality and corruption of socialist principles that results in widespread economic mismanagement, imprisonment and a police state; and dictatorship for those of our readers that might not understand the other two words.


 * However, Noah is right; it is not our own respective opinions that count; we need to provide a balanced and unbiased summary of the authoritative sources. And we can't do that adequately in a Userbox. We explore the different standpoints in our article but the infobox is not big enough and there will be endless arguments and edit wars. That's why I suggest that we just stick with "Juche" for the Infobox and describe the DPRK's horrible dead-end system fully in our article.


 * PS: Personally, I'd appreciate editors not assuming I'm an ignorant Bimbo and pasting personal comments on my talk page - here is the place to discuss what our article says. (For the record, neither the government of the DPRK nor any academic commentator since the days of McCarthy would describe the administration of the DPRK as "communist") - for one thing, the state shows no signs whatever of "withering away" as in standard Marxist theory in the DPRK!  A l i c e  ✉  21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to warn/block anyone harassing you on your talk page. Next, as you point out, the article explains the subject in greater detail.  I think we should label the government type with whatever is most commonly used by reliable sources.  Have you any idea how the various academic geo-political journals refer to NK?  Given the views you've expressed above, I would hazard a guess that no country in the world's history has ever been "communist."  So I think your definition of "communist" needs some work.  Lastly, I'm curious, what government type would you list for Cuba?  Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I was forced to actually have this field in the infobox (I think it's impossibly misleading to have such a field in an infobox. We don't have a field called "culture" - otherwise there would be continual edit-warring as to what to put in the USA's between "popcorn" "superb" and "imperialist") and I don't think you can usefully encapsulate "government type" in one (or even three) words. I'd pick "siege socialist" for Cuba.


 * Yes, you're right, I can't think of a government that you could unequivocally label as either communist or a democracy - with the possible exception of Switzerland.


 * We should not "label" but discuss at length so as to inform rather than mislead our readers.  A l i c e  ✉ 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What about simply writing "Republic"? Helpsloose (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not very helpful, since the DPRK displays some of the characteristics of an hereditary monarchy. Perhaps we could delete the field altogether or refer readers to our article body at that point?  A l i c e  ✉ 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To Noah: you used CIA a a proof? It is a government agency! Why do you mean we can trust that government and not the North Korean one? Helpsloose (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the great majority of editors on Wikipedia would consider the CIA World Fact book a reputable and reliable reference source especially when backed up with other sources for verification. &mdash;Noah 20:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there's quite a lot of good information available about North Korea, both from North Korean sources and others. Obviously, you have to be careful about some things: it may not mean much that a country describes itself as "democratic," and speculations about who will be the next leader of North Korea in western media can't be relied upon. Some things are simply secret, like the number and type of nuclear devices. But you can find out a lot about everyday things that affect a lot of people. We know what North Korean media are like, because they are available outside the country and anybody can see them. We know what the education system is like. Where politics are concerned, the motivations and ideas of the leaders are sometimes mysterious, but the structures, procedures, and institutions are pretty well documented. The system is similar to many other communist-led countries: there are parliamentary elections, but the slate of candidates is selected by party organizations. Individual citizens can only vote "for" or "against" the party's nominees, and do not have the option of choosing between several candidates. Ordinary citizens do not have a voice in selecting the candidates, because the party controls its own membership, which is difficult to attain. There's nothing controversial or subjective in this description of the electoral mechanism - North Korean and foreign sources pretty much agree that's how things are done. You can find out more in Elections in North Korea and the sources therein. I don't care to argue about the Infobox in the article, but I just want to point out that even though North Korea is isolated and relatively closed, there is a lot that we do know about it, even in considerable detail. --Reuben (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point for your consideration: former South Korean leaders such as Park Chung-hee are described as dictators, even though they would never have used the term themselves. Should we call South Korea a democracy from 1948-1988 because it was formally democratic? Or characterize the reality based on the consensus of outside opinion? --Reuben (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We should précis and summarize what the sources say in the body of our articles and refrain from applying misleading and simplistic labels in Infoboxes which can never really encapsulate the nuances involved.  A l i c e  ✉ 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dictatorship
Dictatorship is not NPOV in any sense of the world, and gives the false impression that communism is dictatorship, a false lie being peddled on this article. Communism is the highest form of democracy because it puts the means of production into public hands (the whole populace), as opposed to capitalism which puts the economy into private minority elite hands, that is why NK is the 'Democratic' people's republic.

In any case the most appropriate government type is socialist republic, the DPRK is listed in the wiki of 'list of socialis countries' as a socialist state, so that's how it should be on this article, the same as Vietnam, China and Cuba. The right-wing loons should quit trying to enforce themselves on these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.225.104 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [ Moved for continuity]
 * Please don't post in the middle of the talk page, as it breaks up the flow of discussion and makes it likely that your comments will be lost, without any response. I don't see any right-wing loons around here, and I think you need to do some more reading. Leaving aside outside sources for the moment, the North Korean constitution itself disagrees with you on many points. It does in fact describe the country as a dictatorship in certain contexts; the state and the party do not represent the whole populace, nor do they claim to do so; the goal is the eventual construction of Communism, rather than a functioning Communist system today - the means of production are primarily owned by the state; and this is not connected with the use of the word Democratic in the name of the state, which refers to a form of political rather than economic organization. --Reuben (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Wording
"North Korea is often regarded by First World media as a Stalinist dictatorship" is misleading. It implies that the media of the first world are the only ones that view them so. Virtually every free country across the globe views them as a dictatorship (or at least a cult of personality), as does virtually every reputable political science department across the world. It's weasel wording to narrow the view down to only one group, the first world media, that possesses it. Suggest change to "North Korea is often regarded by outside sources as a Stalinist dictatorship". That way it's far more accurate to the actual perception of the country across several reputable groups, yet the North Korean censors with nothing better to do then come on here and tame their page down (like it makes a difference in how they're precieved) can still point out that they claim otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.177.217 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'ved changed the level of your section heading to make it a sub-section of the previous section (generally, new sections go at the bottom).


 * Secondly, it's better if you sign your contributions on talk pages (NOT on articles).


 * Your substantive point is valid. However, to make it on Wikipedia, you will need to find non First World media sources that categorise the DPRK as a "Stalinist dictatorship" and either cite them and discuss them here before you make the changes or just be bold and risk reversion.  A l i c e  ✉ 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalinism and Maoism are both systems made by power-hungry people. Mao and Stalin did not care about the working class, they only cared about there own live. Stalinism killed may, but Maoism killed many more in China. But because they called them self Communist, the western world believes that Stalinism and Maoism is Communism. Today what America calls Communism is the Stalinist version of Communism. But the only Stalinist nations today are Cuba and North Korea, the other Stalinist State have turned back to capitalism. --UDSS (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalinist
This is totally POV bias, 'Juche Stalinist Dictatorship' is obviously just some far-right loons attempt at humor, and will change it back to what it properly should be, 'socialist republic', it's listed as such in the 'List of socialist countries' wiki article and it makes perfect sense. Juche is far too subjective, and simply refers to state policy of autarky (self-sufficiency) in economic, military and political spheres, and 'dictatorship' is just absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.26.19 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, 'Juche Stalinist Dictatorship' is quite fair. Any quick research of North Korea will describe something out of George Orwell's 1984.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
 * Dan (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Motto
Can someone translate the motto? I can't. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s  ( Talk to Me  ) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the page right now, the motto is something that means "We rule with an iron fist." I'll fix it... --Reuben (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Section
The Human Rights section contains typos, conflicting arguments, and does not site any of it's sources or provide adequate evidence for either of those arguments. Johnnymonicker (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I was wondering, if you should mention a section on "Human rights" here, shouldn't one be included in the article on the United States, especially with regards to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? 202.59.73.50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashers
You may want to review this article since some members of the KFA has been in here, as they self say, improving and removing lies. Just see the democracy-debate above. Time to restore relevant information again? --Boongoman (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information should be put back. The KFA's position is that they accept the official word of the government of North Korea, and as a result they remove what they consider to be "lies", even when there is evidence to support the information given. They even go so far as to say that refugees and defectors are paid or coerced into giving accounts against the government and therefore can't be used as sources of information. If the KFA disagree with something in the article and see it as lies, then they should provide evidence to the contrary from unbiased sources. Deleting information supported by evidence because they don't want people to see it is wrong, and any KFA edits without discussion or sources should be treated as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.235.58 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)