![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
While orthographic is preferable, its "zoom height" is too high; it's very hard to see details of the border. Can it be tweaked? — Cybercobra (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
...still this article says its 75 on the HDI index? Better than Turkey! Thats got to be bias. Its more like 175. 83.108.198.236 ( talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever happened to that list of countries with the word "democratic" in their names which are decidedly un-democratic? I ran across a George Orwell quote today, about the use of the word "democratic".
Far be it from me to assert that the North Koreans are using the word in a consciously dishonest way - my own opinions are worthless in this context. But if anyone recalls hearing a quotable source, maybe we can use it. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military section of this article states that the KPA is divided into four branches ("The army has four branches: Ground Force, Naval Force, Air Force, and the State Security Department"), but the article "Korean People's Army" states that there are five branches ("The KPA has five branches: the (i) Army Ground Force, (ii) the Navy, (iii) the Air Force, (iv) the Artillery Guidance Bureau, and (v) the Special Operation Force"). Furthermore, I don't see any relevant citations concerning this discrepancy. I'd recommend correcting this, but I'll leave that up to an actual editor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.94.66 ( talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The gini coefficient cited for north korea is unverified. If you follow the link given, it leads to the Global Peace Index which cites the gini as from the UN. On their website, the UN clearly states that they have no knowledge of the Korea (People's Republic of) gini coefficient. So the GPI reference is incorrect. Therefore it is incorrect to state North Korea as having a low coefficient. I will add an unverified link to the gini, or I request it be removed/be made n/a. I will do so in the next day, unless you reason otherwise. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtss ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody with more knowledge please do some background-check on this recently added ext. link? My initial impression says there's something fishy about it... doesn't look "official" to me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A few days ago I added link to outstanding video about North Korea:
The link dissapeared. Today I restored the link and added another link:
Quinacrine ( talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why a link to "businessNK" on YouTube cannot be made, a site that shows videos on foreign investment and business activities in North Korea one cannot find anywhere else and that wants to contribute to a better understanding of North Korea, (legitimate) business opportunities and its business environment. Plenty of websites made a link to it, but Wikipedia seems to ignore or to refuse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innoqua ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny, some links are admitted and some are not "because wikipedia is not a website"... I'm trying to understand the wikipedia logic. Innoqua ( talk) 09:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So, history in North Korea starts in 1945. Really? I assume people lived in the middle of the Manchurian peninsula before that time. Even if nothing historically significant happened there, you'd think it would be worth mentioning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.131.59 ( talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the dictatorship of NK is quite hereditary, revolving around members of the Kim Dynasty; thus, might North Korea be an absolute monarchy pretending to be a republic? 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
http://img.4chan.org/b/res/177704472.html
Suggest lock. -Paulkimpaul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.177.85 ( talk) 04:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a pressing request, such that I won't use {{ edit protected}}, but the lead sentence of the economy section (currently, in pertinent part, "North Korea has an industrialised, autarkic...") should be edited to reflect the economy's being near-autarkic (as the second paragraph of Autarky#Modern examples rightly observes, "A false example of a supposed current autarky is North Korea...which has extensive trade with [many countries]"); in the alternative, Autarky should be edited in order that it mirrors this article—I'll leave that to someone more qualified to address the issue. 76.199.155.106 ( talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles on "proxy wars" and the "Greek Civil War" indicate that the Greek Civil War was in fact the first armed conflict of the Cold War, not the Korean War as this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.199.154 ( talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget about China. The U.S. backed Chinese forces fought Russian backed Chinese Communists during and after WWII through 1949. Rklawton ( talk) 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to the leadership statements. Officially Kim Il Sung is the President and leader of the state even though he is dead. John Chamberlain ( talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"Single party socialist state"? Given the actual realities of the situation, surely "hereditary absolute monarchy" would be more correct? -- Chronulator ( talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to call the DPRK a monarchy. All citizens live equally under the Dear Leader and the Juche system of self reliance. Don't listen to western propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 ( talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources, people, sources - what constitutes a reliable source as far as describing the nature of a government? You know, something academic as well as neutral and unbiased? Rklawton ( talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to distinguish the actual form by definition an the wording that is used by the government itself. The definition of a republic is quite clear and North Korea does not qualify for being one. It has already been determined that the form of government is monarch and hereditary. The quality of the english wikipedia would improve if it wouldn't name things which "they indeed aren't". Source: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic], first paragraph, definition. 194.55.1.242 ( talk) 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
please take out the profanity in this page
Snowcleanerobject ( talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A specific request for a verbiage change and a second point on whether the sentence should be included at all.
The second sentence of this subsection of the article states,
I would posit this is not in accordance with the the first sentence of the History section which states that, "...Korea was divided at the 38th parallel in accordance with a United Nations arrangement...." Therefore, I would propose the verbiage be changed to the following:
My reasoning as to whether the above specified sentence (and the one following) should be included at all is, if Stalin's acquiesce had to be gained by Kim Il-sung (see last sentence of ' Division of Korean' and second paragraph of History_of_North_Korea#The_Korean_War) before large-scale hostilities could commence, then that presupposes that Kim Il-sung had seen that re-unification of the peninsula was to be carried forward by military means. Therefore, the division of the peninsula into two distinct (and mutually hostile) political regimes, while laying the setting for the conflict, wasn't the precipitant of the conflict, but rather Kim's desire for re-unification by any and all means. In other words, if Stalin hadn't agreed to Kim's request for large-scale military action against the Southern regime, (theoretically) there'd be no war. Consequently, the sentence's attempted summation of the war's causes is inaccurate, imprecise, overly-simplistic and at odds with other sources on Wikipedia and elsewhere and should be excised. If, on the other hand, the reasons given in the sentence and the following one is correct, then numerous other articles (e.g., History_of_North_Korea#The_Korean_War, Korean_War#North_Korea_Escalates_the_Conflict_.28June_1950.29 to name a couple) should be edited to align with the reasons given in these two sentences. -- Dasnyderx ( talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the article Sinuiju Special Administrative Region states that the Special Administrative Region project has been discontinued, should it also be removed from the list of special administrative regions in this article? U-238 ( talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I was consulting this article today in light of the DPRK's recent appearance in the news, and I was surprised by some qualifiers that appear to me to be unnecessary and perhaps even misleading. Here are two that I spotted:
1. The satellite photo of the Korean peninsula. The caption says that the disparity in nighttime illumination is cited "by some" as an indication of differing levels of development. The "by some" seems to me to suggest that there is an alternate point of view on this, although no cites to an alternate view are given and it seems beyond dispute that the ROK's level of development is much higher than the DPRK's.
2. The introduction says that "many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship." Again, this seems to imply that media organizations inside North Korea would take a different view and that their view would be appropriate for citation in an encyclopedia. It seems to me, again, to be beyond dispute that the DPRK is in fact a totalitarian dictatorship, and that it would not be appropriate to cite North Korean media reports to the contrary, particularly insofar as the media are state-controlled.
To put this in terms of Wikipedia policies (I am a new user, so I am not sure I have all this right): WP:V says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It seems to me that in the absence of reliable sources suggesting that these two points are in dispute, the qualifications ("by some" and "many media organizaitons outside North Korea report") should be removed. Tfolkman ( talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the date North Korea withdrew from the Armistice be May 26, 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.214.11 ( talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the country's recent currency devaluation be mentioned in the economy section? Sounds like it was fairly drastic (see here). TastyCakes ( talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
all the pictures in the article all seem to be quite complimentary and don't fit the actual facts mentioned in writing, for example it is reported in the article that the healthcare system is essentially in shambles, but the included picture of medical facility contrasts sharply with this(now it's like showing a ferrari showroom from a western nation as an example of typical means of transportation). it would be more factual in style to include at least one picture from one of the plentiful abandoned construction projects of the capital for example, instead of the beautiful foggy scenery photo.
the text itself as well is quite complimentary in style(by avoiding mentioning social issues, practical state slavery and so on), but not so as the pictures accompanying it.
-kasiyks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.86.114 ( talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Does anyone have an opinion on the threat of the Korean War resuming, and if that should be put in the article? I've heard that the two countries are still technically at war, with only a temporarily binding ceasefire having been declared. It seems recent events may be provoking more active military action on both sides (See ROKS Cheonan sinking).-- Gniniv ( talk) 04:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole situation with NK is similar to the way the nations work in 1984, ie a constant state of war keeps the peopel hyped, with propoganda and the secret police working to prevent revolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.197.147 ( talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that North Korea is being blamed for something it didn't do, and the following spells it out. Could this please be included?
Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette by Wayne Madsen http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19433
...the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette, the Cheonan, was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea.
One of the main purposes for increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula was to apply pressure on Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to reverse course on moving the U.S. Marine Corps base off Okinawa. Hatoyama has admitted that the tensions over the sinking of the Cheonan played a large part in his decision to allow the U.S. Marines to remain on Okinawa....
The Salvor, a civilian Navy salvage ship, which participated in mine laying activities for the Thai Marines in the Gulf of Thailand in 2006, was present near the time of the blast with a complement of 12 deep sea divers.
Beijing, satisfied with North Korea's Kim Jong Il's claim of innocence after a hurried train trip from Pyongyang to Beijing, suspects the U.S. Navy's role in the Cheonan's sinking, with particular suspicion on the role of the Salvor. The suspicions are as follows:
1. The Salvor engaged in a seabed mine-installation operation, in other words, attaching horizontally fired anti-submarine mines on the sea floor in the channel. 2. The Salvor was doing routine inspection and maintenance on seabed mines, and put them into an electronic active mode (hair trigger release) as part of the inspection program. 3. A SEALS diver attached a magnetic mine to the Cheonan, as part of a covert program aimed at influencing public opinion in South Korea, Japan and China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon992244 ( talk • contribs)
Currently the article reads: "Almost 100% of the population has access to water and sanitation, but it is not completely potable." I wonder if there are any data to support this statement, or to further qualify what is meant by "not completely potable". Does anyone have examples of waterborne disease outbreaks in North Korea, or any data on the percentage of the population served by treated water? I can't-unsurprisingly-find anything particularly useful on the internet to back up the statement either way. 2008 census data (reported on here apparently indicates that 85% of the population in North Korea is served by drinking water. This recent report from Amnesty International states that "Oxfam halted its aid operation on clean water in and around the capital Pyongyang because of the difficulties assessing the impact of its aid programme in North Korea". We might suppose that if aid agencies are providing water around the capital, then the drinking water infrastructure is in a very poor state. It also states that health facilities are frequently without running water. Jimjamjak ( talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
the text says "North Korea continues to have strong ties with its socialist southeast Asian allies in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia."
Cambodia is not a socialist country
158.169.131.14 (
talk)
15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This article should be updated to remove all references to NK as a communist state, outside of historical discussion. The constitution was amended in 2009 to change the political basis from Marxism-Leninism to songun (military first). It is, even by its own description, a military state rather than a communist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.216.123 ( talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The article calls it a "Juche" state - that's another made up word self-applied by North Korea. I suspect there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe it as a "communist dictatorship". Rklawton ( talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting discussion. I believe that all of the terms you have touched on ( communism, militarism, Stalinism, and nationalism) could be applied to North Korea, and have played a part in shaping the ruling regime's government. I've also heard it described as a Rogue state due to its utter self reliance policy (internally called " Juche"). Time will only tell if it can remain in uneasy equilibrium, or if recent events (See ROKS Cheonan sinking) will cause it to crumble due to external and internal belligerent pressure....-- Gniniv ( talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that it should be clarified in a general discussion what is meant by describing a state as communist, nationalist, republic, kingdom, or whatever. Is this designation intended to reflect the respective goverment's wording, the de-facto style of government, or what? If we say that we describe the de-facto government style, then (if it becomes clear that Kim Jong-Un will be the next head of state) then it may well be appropriate to call North Korea a de-facto absolute hereditary monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.185.126.78 ( talk) 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be conflicting statements on the title of the presiding officer of the SPA Presidium. The title in the infobox appears as President of the Presidium, where as in the list of heads of state of North Korea, it is Chairman. The Constitution [3] itself has conflicting titles, firstly naming the presiding officer as "President", then going on to say "The SPA shall elect its chairman and vice chairmen. The chairman shall preside over the sessions." Which title should be used?-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
From the lede:
'It is reported as having one of the world's worst human rights records.[23] After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a famine which killed an estimated 2-3 million.'
2-3 million what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.184.139 ( talk • contribs) 15:08, August 8, 2010
Thanks. I agree it was obvious but we shouldn't be asking the reader to make assumptions - especially in the lede. -- 78.100.235.101 ( talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm sure that it would be more fitting to refer to North Korea as DPRK in the opening sentence of the article, as I have done in my recent edit, but I would also see it necessary to move the article to Democratic People's Republic of Korea, even if the rest of the article referred to NK. All other states' respective articles, that I know of, should surely refer to the full title of the country at the article's beginning, and possibly under /wiki/Official_Name? Just a thought · AarnKrry · Words speak louder than actions · 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently an addition has been made to the wikipedia article "Sports in North Korea" under the section of "Domestic Football". The addition reads as followed:
In September 2010, the first official friendly match between a domestic football team and a foreign club took place in the Kim Il-Sung Stadium. In these two matches Singapore-based "German All Stars" (GAS) played two matches against the 2nd and 3rd team of Pyongyang. The matches ended 1-0 respectively 4-2 for the Korean side. GAS Midfielder Matthias Bertl became the first German footballer to ever score a goal in the DPRK and also the first ever to score two goals. Further first-time records were set by Rene Schieber with the first ever shot on goal by a German footballer and Hendrik Bohne being the first footballer to nutmeg a DPRK player during an official match. As part of the team Simone Magnani become the first ever Italian to play a friendly in the DPRK. The Team was led by Florian Schmidt as the Captain for the opening match and consisted further of Steffen Schacher, Ingo Hartmann, Joerg Buenzel, Dr. Hermann Bergmann, Denis Mecklenburg, Philipp von Pein, Helge Muenkel and Thomas Berner in addition to previous mentioned players.
This addition is referring to the first official friendly match between a foreign team and a domestic football team and was conceived by the North Korean site as a very important gesture of friendship - especially in times of rising sanctions that mainly effect the people of the DPRK rather than the government.
We therefore would like to request to add this section to the sports section of the article "North Korea" to show that there is in fact interaction with outside countries besides the Olympics, World Cup (Qualifiers) and other official tournaments which shall have a signaling effect to all readers.
Thank you very much for your consideration
HBohne ( talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the Temporary capital article...
Is this view correct? If so, is it worth mentioning it in this article?
Well, North Korea's 1972 constitution says... (according to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea_(1972) )
but the constitution has been revised in 1992 and 1998... KPUFFERFİSH Ṫ• Ċ 09:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
the article would look much better. I have the image, but do not know anything about formatting it. The article is defintiely improving since IK last saw it, by the way, well done.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Why show a photo from 2002, i.e. almost a decade ago, when Putin met the dictator Kim? And, as for recent years and given the situation today, it's wrong to say that North Korea has any close relations to Russia - besides, of course, being geographical neighbours. Before the fully justified editing the presented information in the beginning of the section seemed quite biased and gave wrong information about the relations between N.K. and other countries, in this case N.K. and Russia. For example - why not a picture of Kim meeting his South Korean or Chinese counterparts? Note: Any further act to change this is going to be seen as vandalism, and an attempt to falsify the actual political situation. But feel free to update the information in line with the actual and current situation in the relationship-question, and with the above said in mind. One may also note that the actual relationships with the former Eastern block is mentioned in the next sentence; one way to go with the photo-issue could be to insert a picture of a N.K-leader meeting a Chinese or Soviet leader in the old days, when the relationship actually was a strong one - today N.K. is quite isolated; even the sole undisputable international 'partner' today, China, is sometimes of different opinion than the regime in N.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe some information on North Korean Literature should be inserted? Or at least there should be short section with a link to the wikipage "North Korean Literature"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a big deal, but the article is locked, so I can't do anything about it. There is a sentence in the opening paragraph that reads: "The country's government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, developed by the country's former President, Kim Il-Sung." The main article on Juche however, in the section "criticism" states "...Juche is nothing but a sham developed to establish Kim Il-sung as a political thinker alongside Mao Zedong." with reasons for this given afterwords.
I think it would be a good idea to perhaps say "The country's government claims to follow the Juche ideology..." or maybe "The country's government purportedly follows the Juche ideology..."
Small change, but I can't do it, and in the name of accuracy, I think it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.225.227 ( talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They are 154th on the list and not 188th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.114.139 ( talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
HDI of DPRK is 0.760-- 125.27.51.246 ( talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please edit the line "Due to the government's secretive nature and its reluctance to allow in foreigners, North Korea is today considered the world's most isolated country and has thus been given the moniker "The Hermit Kingdom" by some." Please change "foreigners" to "immigrants". Thanks. 75.118.250.122 ( talk) 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I have made a few edits to the DPRK page.
1) Under 21st century, I was surprised to see no mention of President Obama in the article. I've added a line that outlines his general policy approach towards the DPRK, known as strategic patience. 2) Under tourism, I've added information from the pre-existing CNN page that approx. 2500 Americans have been to North Korea since 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mks12 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing productive is coming out of this. Let's move on. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
This seems inappropriate to me. If we're going to retain this redirect, we should probably clarify the saying's origins at some point in the article. Pixel Eater ( talk) 03:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You guys are the least fun ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.188.173 ( talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
North Korea is Best Korea, you have no proof otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoxicated Spy ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC) |
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change this paragraph in the 'Culture and Arts' subheading;
In February 2008, The New York Philharmonic Orchestra became the first US musical group ever to perform in North Korea, [1] albeit for a handpicked "invited audience." [2] The concert was broadcast on national television. [3]
to;
In February 2008, The New York Philharmonic Orchestra became the first US orchestra to perform in North Korea, [4] albeit for a handpicked "invited audience." [5] The concert was broadcast on national television. [6] The American Christian band Casting Crowns were previously invited to perform at the annual Spring Friendship Arts Festival in April 2007, held in Pyongyang. [7]
because;
The New York Philharmonic Orchestra were not the first American musical group to perform in North Korea. The band Casting Crowns performed there in April 2007. Source: http://www.cmspin.com/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=4222&z=26 Makirika ( talk) 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
On November 23, 2010, North Korea fired artillery shells on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. Two South Korean marines were killed and 15 soldiers and civilians were wounded. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron.hoffman16 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
LaRouxEMP added material covering this to the article. Cybercobra removed the material saying that it "does not merit a top-level section." I, intending only to be a reader and not an editor, and having already read the New York Times article on it, came to wikipedia to see the more digested version as one expects in an encyclopedia. I was surprized to find that there was nothing. Seeing that the material had been there and was removed, I restored it. User:AndyTheGrump has subsequently removed it again. This is very important material and this article is where the user of wikipedia would expect to find this material. While wikipedia is not a news source, it often does include information about recent and ongoing events. And well it should. I would say to Cybercobra and AndyTheGrump, that if the material needs fixing, fix it, but please do not remove the very sort of material that the user would be looking for in the article. Sterrettc ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now added a brief summary, and a link to the newly created article shelling of Yeonpyeong. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm satisfied. Sterrettc ( talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the addition was unsourced didn't help. Had a source been cited, I would have been happy to simply move the material like eventually ended up happening. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
There is a reference to North Korea sharing it's Northern border with Russia. This should be with China.
Christopher ( talk) 21:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone please update this article with Tuesday's madness, with good sources. 220.244.163.200 ( talk) 11:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This whole article is one sided pro DPRK. There is nothing mentioned about the poverty of people living there.
This article looks like a DPRK guided propaganda tour of North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.36.77 ( talk) 09:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this article is ridiculously pro-North Korea. The New York Times just published a recent article showing how miserable and what an enormous failure this country is. It is clearly a FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.14 ( talk) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Problems with the economic section - there is no mention made of rampant starvation, the fact that most of the country exists without electricity, or that most N. Korean industry either sits idle or makes products no one wants. Cell phone use is cited as an example of N. Korea's wonderful growth and modernization - how about comparing cell phone ownership/usage rates with S. Korea and China? Why is there no mention whatsoever at the inability of the N. Korean government to provide even the most basic needs of its citizens, and procluding individual efforts for meeting those needs, so that there is the starvation mentioned before as well as repeated attempts by many to leave the country, in spite of grave repercussions to those who make the attempt and their families. The tone of the economy section makes N. Korea sound like a really wonderful place, but the data used to make this assumption comes soley from a biased data from within N. Korea and has no counter-balance (FAO uses almost entirely self-reported data). Compare with tone on economy section for US or Brazil - problems are mentioned repeatedly. There is no such counterbalance in the N. Korea article. If this is what passes for Wikipedia's standards, Wikipedia will not continue as a useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.231.42 ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of the most one-sided articles on Wikipedia that I have ever read. It is obviously written by/for the DPRK. 173.165.120.65 ( talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that no matter how many re-writes we have of various sections, there will be editors who argue the article is pro or anti nK. But POV is more of a problem when the intro uses terms like "most", "crumbling", "elaborate", and "worst". However true or untrue these descriptions may be, they are still MOS:OPED. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
How about elaborating on the government's claimed "tax free" system? When a government claims to spend around a quarter of GDP [admittedly low by USA standards], saying that the government collects no taxes seems dubious unless some angel investor keeps volunteering billions per year. The money has to come from somewhere, and a tax by any other name would cut as deep. 4.78.249.3 ( talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
On the opposite end of spectrum of opinion, every paragraph in the History: 21st Century section mentions a US president and US reactions to north korea. While some degree of centrism on north korea's relations with other nations is understandable, making the entire paragraph about USA policy is not fair to other nations who must also interact with North Korea. It would of course even covering many nation's reactions to the country, not be a fair representaiton of North Korea's history, but at least it would be a fair description of reactions to the country that is being excluded in its own history sections. -- 71.191.173.80 ( talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
its written filed, it should be 'fired" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.2.144 ( talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The REAL NAME of North Korea's leader is Kim Jeong-il, not Kim jong-il — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Paul Sartre ( talk • contribs)
I just edited 'Religion' section, which contained a phrase that said 'However, the majority of the North Koreans could be described as religious from a sociological viewpoint'. I followed the link given to support this claim, and the link led to a general description of the Korean-American culture, and while it did mention North Korea intermittently, it did NOT make a single reference to North Korean spirituality. I deleted the phrase and the link, leaving the sentence to read something like 'However, traditional religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism still has some impact on North Korean spirituality', which is actually supported by some valid citations.
I don't know what makes people lie through their teeth about the state of religious life in North Korea, but please do not lie about the contents of your sources. Strangely enough, some people seem to be unable to handle the fact that North Korea is irreligious - why would anyone care? ( 1tephania ( talk) 21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Outside of the "Human Rights" and "Personality Cult" section, there is almost no mention of the true, depraved state of this country outside of the following sentence: "Although North Korea is officially a socialist republic, many outside media organizations report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim family and one of the worst human rights records of any country."
If I didn't purposefully opt to search for North Korea, and in the absence of its mentioning, I could believe I was reading of almost any country in the world - this, alone, is a testament to the tone which must be altered to provide substantial footing about the modern state of North Korea. Known for their willful diligence to fabricate facts and figures (which are used in this article in relation to its economic and social prosperity), it is saddening to see so many assertions about North Korea backed up as "fact."
For this article to exist without testimonials and first-hand accounts of human rights violations (including its concentration camps) is a disgrace to humanity and a desecration of the millions of North Koreans who are suffering under the tyranny of the North Korean government.
An entire section dedicated to "tourism?!?" Is that a shameless joke?! North Korea is the physical imagining of Hitler's Third Reich and this website has the audacity to mention places that individuals can travel to have fun in North Korea?
Wiki should exist to detail the facts, and no one should argue against that point, but this isn't a "long ago" theocracy which we can write about with mere mention to its transgressions.
I suggest a wider portion of this article be dedicated to these transgressions, using primary sources and first-hand accounts of North Korea's human rights violations, lifestyle and the culture/motive of the government.
SOURCES:
"Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea" by Barbara Demick, detailed primary sources of life inside of North Korea. Link to book found here: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives-North/dp/0385523904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292545192&sr=8-1
Kwon Hyuk's witness account of Camp 22, including a gas chamber and experimentation of chemical weapons on North Koreans found here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr_1UNWH-8k
Kim Young-soon witness account of life in a gulag found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html
Kim Young-sam's witness account of life of Camp 14 found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html
Detailed pictures, as well as primary source material regarding Camp 22 found here: http://freekorea.us/2007/02/18/holocaust-now-looking-down-into-hell-at-camp-22/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribledisgrace ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe north korea as an absolute monarchy, rather than a dictatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, August 22, 2010
Kim Il-Sung passed power to his son Kim-jung il. and he plans to pass power to his son Jong Un. that sounds like an absolute monarchy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 ( talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Supreme Ruler is pretty much the same thing as King or Emperor. But, Kim's no Augustus Caesar. Nor is he a King Aurthur. 96.244.39.181 ( talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)OctaviusCaesarOF
[9]
{{edit semi-protected}}
I would like to change the title of this artical to The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) because that is the official long name of the country. North Korea is added because more people know The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea by that name.
Igirlapplerocks ( talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
May be you can get some info from here -
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3089/Overview
Should at least link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.71 ( talk) 12:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
North Korea should be describe as Autocracy because is depend on Kim Jong Il and his family more than the Party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.166.254 ( talk) 12:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know why North Korea is shown absolutely empty on Google Maps: North Korea on Google Maps There are detailed satellite images, (down to single bushes and plants in the fields) but the map part shows nothing. No cities, no roads... detailed information can be found in any (printed) world atlas, so it's hardly a secret where things are in NK... -- megA ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Google have no official data from OFFICIAL North Korea (just even if You are USA infant You are there enemy, and Google is based in USA). They depend usually only on official data, and there is not so much google maps users there ;-). And just is some problem with world atlas because there are not so many roads etc. and they depend I think on some CCCP-Russia-China-North Korea shared info, so it may be very outdated somewhere...
"North Korea employs artists to produce art for export at the Mansudae Art Studio in Pyongyang. Over 1,000 artists are employed. Products include water colors, ink drawings, posters, mosaics and embroidery"
why is this in the culture section ? what does this have to do with anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.143.94 ( talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This entry should be titled "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" not "North Korea" as other nations are usually named by their official name (e.g. People's Republic of China). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.123.68 ( talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In the "military" section, "asymetric warfare" should be spelled "asymmetric warfare" (two M's) 69.181.162.134 ( talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The section states: "North Korea has an adequate telephone system, with 1.18 million fixed lines available in 2008.[147] However, most phones are only installed for senior government officials." Assuming single-line phones, that means that there one "senior government official" for every 20.38 North Koreans. Can someone clarify this? Scutigera ( talk) 19:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Something seems contradictory here, I realize there might be a difference between peace agreement and peace treaty, but Wikipedia has a redirect in place for those terms.
Could someone elaborate? Sertmann ( talk) 11:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The country's name is not North Korea, it is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". It may be best known as North Korea, but for an Encyclopaedic entry, surely we should use the official name? Sheepdean ( talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Please ad, that according to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13272198 that there are about 1 percent of population in work(rather slave) camps, expanding in compare to 2000. It's a bad sign for changing ruler. That means it is nearly North Korea business(from 1950s expanding and making most of underground facilities), and working hours from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. with 9 p.m. - 11 p.m break for political 'lecture'.
Also (this is another neutral point of view) could You add some satellite or other images (as fair use or other)? Most images in this article are from only 'cccp' like city(and it's one of the best and propaganda) - the main of North Korea. With some exceptions most 'cities' look like villages, without electricity, shortages on food, even no radio/computers/telephones. Just like 200 years ago in Europe (or more)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.90.176 ( talk) 22:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The above certainly is not from a neutral point of view. No other country gets that kind of treatment. Rather, simply reference the many groups which have greivences against these problems in North Korea. It's clearly an opinion - one which I agree with - but an opinion nonetheless. Believe it or not, there are countries actually poorer than North Korea but there isn't a wiki page trying to humiliate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.242.84 ( talk) 08:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
While orthographic is preferable, its "zoom height" is too high; it's very hard to see details of the border. Can it be tweaked? — Cybercobra (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
...still this article says its 75 on the HDI index? Better than Turkey! Thats got to be bias. Its more like 175. 83.108.198.236 ( talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever happened to that list of countries with the word "democratic" in their names which are decidedly un-democratic? I ran across a George Orwell quote today, about the use of the word "democratic".
Far be it from me to assert that the North Koreans are using the word in a consciously dishonest way - my own opinions are worthless in this context. But if anyone recalls hearing a quotable source, maybe we can use it. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military section of this article states that the KPA is divided into four branches ("The army has four branches: Ground Force, Naval Force, Air Force, and the State Security Department"), but the article "Korean People's Army" states that there are five branches ("The KPA has five branches: the (i) Army Ground Force, (ii) the Navy, (iii) the Air Force, (iv) the Artillery Guidance Bureau, and (v) the Special Operation Force"). Furthermore, I don't see any relevant citations concerning this discrepancy. I'd recommend correcting this, but I'll leave that up to an actual editor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.94.66 ( talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The gini coefficient cited for north korea is unverified. If you follow the link given, it leads to the Global Peace Index which cites the gini as from the UN. On their website, the UN clearly states that they have no knowledge of the Korea (People's Republic of) gini coefficient. So the GPI reference is incorrect. Therefore it is incorrect to state North Korea as having a low coefficient. I will add an unverified link to the gini, or I request it be removed/be made n/a. I will do so in the next day, unless you reason otherwise. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtss ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody with more knowledge please do some background-check on this recently added ext. link? My initial impression says there's something fishy about it... doesn't look "official" to me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A few days ago I added link to outstanding video about North Korea:
The link dissapeared. Today I restored the link and added another link:
Quinacrine ( talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why a link to "businessNK" on YouTube cannot be made, a site that shows videos on foreign investment and business activities in North Korea one cannot find anywhere else and that wants to contribute to a better understanding of North Korea, (legitimate) business opportunities and its business environment. Plenty of websites made a link to it, but Wikipedia seems to ignore or to refuse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innoqua ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny, some links are admitted and some are not "because wikipedia is not a website"... I'm trying to understand the wikipedia logic. Innoqua ( talk) 09:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So, history in North Korea starts in 1945. Really? I assume people lived in the middle of the Manchurian peninsula before that time. Even if nothing historically significant happened there, you'd think it would be worth mentioning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.131.59 ( talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the dictatorship of NK is quite hereditary, revolving around members of the Kim Dynasty; thus, might North Korea be an absolute monarchy pretending to be a republic? 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
http://img.4chan.org/b/res/177704472.html
Suggest lock. -Paulkimpaul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.177.85 ( talk) 04:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a pressing request, such that I won't use {{ edit protected}}, but the lead sentence of the economy section (currently, in pertinent part, "North Korea has an industrialised, autarkic...") should be edited to reflect the economy's being near-autarkic (as the second paragraph of Autarky#Modern examples rightly observes, "A false example of a supposed current autarky is North Korea...which has extensive trade with [many countries]"); in the alternative, Autarky should be edited in order that it mirrors this article—I'll leave that to someone more qualified to address the issue. 76.199.155.106 ( talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles on "proxy wars" and the "Greek Civil War" indicate that the Greek Civil War was in fact the first armed conflict of the Cold War, not the Korean War as this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.199.154 ( talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget about China. The U.S. backed Chinese forces fought Russian backed Chinese Communists during and after WWII through 1949. Rklawton ( talk) 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to the leadership statements. Officially Kim Il Sung is the President and leader of the state even though he is dead. John Chamberlain ( talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"Single party socialist state"? Given the actual realities of the situation, surely "hereditary absolute monarchy" would be more correct? -- Chronulator ( talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to call the DPRK a monarchy. All citizens live equally under the Dear Leader and the Juche system of self reliance. Don't listen to western propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 ( talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources, people, sources - what constitutes a reliable source as far as describing the nature of a government? You know, something academic as well as neutral and unbiased? Rklawton ( talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to distinguish the actual form by definition an the wording that is used by the government itself. The definition of a republic is quite clear and North Korea does not qualify for being one. It has already been determined that the form of government is monarch and hereditary. The quality of the english wikipedia would improve if it wouldn't name things which "they indeed aren't". Source: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic], first paragraph, definition. 194.55.1.242 ( talk) 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
please take out the profanity in this page
Snowcleanerobject ( talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A specific request for a verbiage change and a second point on whether the sentence should be included at all.
The second sentence of this subsection of the article states,
I would posit this is not in accordance with the the first sentence of the History section which states that, "...Korea was divided at the 38th parallel in accordance with a United Nations arrangement...." Therefore, I would propose the verbiage be changed to the following:
My reasoning as to whether the above specified sentence (and the one following) should be included at all is, if Stalin's acquiesce had to be gained by Kim Il-sung (see last sentence of ' Division of Korean' and second paragraph of History_of_North_Korea#The_Korean_War) before large-scale hostilities could commence, then that presupposes that Kim Il-sung had seen that re-unification of the peninsula was to be carried forward by military means. Therefore, the division of the peninsula into two distinct (and mutually hostile) political regimes, while laying the setting for the conflict, wasn't the precipitant of the conflict, but rather Kim's desire for re-unification by any and all means. In other words, if Stalin hadn't agreed to Kim's request for large-scale military action against the Southern regime, (theoretically) there'd be no war. Consequently, the sentence's attempted summation of the war's causes is inaccurate, imprecise, overly-simplistic and at odds with other sources on Wikipedia and elsewhere and should be excised. If, on the other hand, the reasons given in the sentence and the following one is correct, then numerous other articles (e.g., History_of_North_Korea#The_Korean_War, Korean_War#North_Korea_Escalates_the_Conflict_.28June_1950.29 to name a couple) should be edited to align with the reasons given in these two sentences. -- Dasnyderx ( talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the article Sinuiju Special Administrative Region states that the Special Administrative Region project has been discontinued, should it also be removed from the list of special administrative regions in this article? U-238 ( talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I was consulting this article today in light of the DPRK's recent appearance in the news, and I was surprised by some qualifiers that appear to me to be unnecessary and perhaps even misleading. Here are two that I spotted:
1. The satellite photo of the Korean peninsula. The caption says that the disparity in nighttime illumination is cited "by some" as an indication of differing levels of development. The "by some" seems to me to suggest that there is an alternate point of view on this, although no cites to an alternate view are given and it seems beyond dispute that the ROK's level of development is much higher than the DPRK's.
2. The introduction says that "many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship." Again, this seems to imply that media organizations inside North Korea would take a different view and that their view would be appropriate for citation in an encyclopedia. It seems to me, again, to be beyond dispute that the DPRK is in fact a totalitarian dictatorship, and that it would not be appropriate to cite North Korean media reports to the contrary, particularly insofar as the media are state-controlled.
To put this in terms of Wikipedia policies (I am a new user, so I am not sure I have all this right): WP:V says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It seems to me that in the absence of reliable sources suggesting that these two points are in dispute, the qualifications ("by some" and "many media organizaitons outside North Korea report") should be removed. Tfolkman ( talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the date North Korea withdrew from the Armistice be May 26, 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.214.11 ( talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the country's recent currency devaluation be mentioned in the economy section? Sounds like it was fairly drastic (see here). TastyCakes ( talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
all the pictures in the article all seem to be quite complimentary and don't fit the actual facts mentioned in writing, for example it is reported in the article that the healthcare system is essentially in shambles, but the included picture of medical facility contrasts sharply with this(now it's like showing a ferrari showroom from a western nation as an example of typical means of transportation). it would be more factual in style to include at least one picture from one of the plentiful abandoned construction projects of the capital for example, instead of the beautiful foggy scenery photo.
the text itself as well is quite complimentary in style(by avoiding mentioning social issues, practical state slavery and so on), but not so as the pictures accompanying it.
-kasiyks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.86.114 ( talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Does anyone have an opinion on the threat of the Korean War resuming, and if that should be put in the article? I've heard that the two countries are still technically at war, with only a temporarily binding ceasefire having been declared. It seems recent events may be provoking more active military action on both sides (See ROKS Cheonan sinking).-- Gniniv ( talk) 04:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole situation with NK is similar to the way the nations work in 1984, ie a constant state of war keeps the peopel hyped, with propoganda and the secret police working to prevent revolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.197.147 ( talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that North Korea is being blamed for something it didn't do, and the following spells it out. Could this please be included?
Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette by Wayne Madsen http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19433
...the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette, the Cheonan, was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea.
One of the main purposes for increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula was to apply pressure on Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to reverse course on moving the U.S. Marine Corps base off Okinawa. Hatoyama has admitted that the tensions over the sinking of the Cheonan played a large part in his decision to allow the U.S. Marines to remain on Okinawa....
The Salvor, a civilian Navy salvage ship, which participated in mine laying activities for the Thai Marines in the Gulf of Thailand in 2006, was present near the time of the blast with a complement of 12 deep sea divers.
Beijing, satisfied with North Korea's Kim Jong Il's claim of innocence after a hurried train trip from Pyongyang to Beijing, suspects the U.S. Navy's role in the Cheonan's sinking, with particular suspicion on the role of the Salvor. The suspicions are as follows:
1. The Salvor engaged in a seabed mine-installation operation, in other words, attaching horizontally fired anti-submarine mines on the sea floor in the channel. 2. The Salvor was doing routine inspection and maintenance on seabed mines, and put them into an electronic active mode (hair trigger release) as part of the inspection program. 3. A SEALS diver attached a magnetic mine to the Cheonan, as part of a covert program aimed at influencing public opinion in South Korea, Japan and China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon992244 ( talk • contribs)
Currently the article reads: "Almost 100% of the population has access to water and sanitation, but it is not completely potable." I wonder if there are any data to support this statement, or to further qualify what is meant by "not completely potable". Does anyone have examples of waterborne disease outbreaks in North Korea, or any data on the percentage of the population served by treated water? I can't-unsurprisingly-find anything particularly useful on the internet to back up the statement either way. 2008 census data (reported on here apparently indicates that 85% of the population in North Korea is served by drinking water. This recent report from Amnesty International states that "Oxfam halted its aid operation on clean water in and around the capital Pyongyang because of the difficulties assessing the impact of its aid programme in North Korea". We might suppose that if aid agencies are providing water around the capital, then the drinking water infrastructure is in a very poor state. It also states that health facilities are frequently without running water. Jimjamjak ( talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
the text says "North Korea continues to have strong ties with its socialist southeast Asian allies in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia."
Cambodia is not a socialist country
158.169.131.14 (
talk)
15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This article should be updated to remove all references to NK as a communist state, outside of historical discussion. The constitution was amended in 2009 to change the political basis from Marxism-Leninism to songun (military first). It is, even by its own description, a military state rather than a communist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.216.123 ( talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The article calls it a "Juche" state - that's another made up word self-applied by North Korea. I suspect there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe it as a "communist dictatorship". Rklawton ( talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting discussion. I believe that all of the terms you have touched on ( communism, militarism, Stalinism, and nationalism) could be applied to North Korea, and have played a part in shaping the ruling regime's government. I've also heard it described as a Rogue state due to its utter self reliance policy (internally called " Juche"). Time will only tell if it can remain in uneasy equilibrium, or if recent events (See ROKS Cheonan sinking) will cause it to crumble due to external and internal belligerent pressure....-- Gniniv ( talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that it should be clarified in a general discussion what is meant by describing a state as communist, nationalist, republic, kingdom, or whatever. Is this designation intended to reflect the respective goverment's wording, the de-facto style of government, or what? If we say that we describe the de-facto government style, then (if it becomes clear that Kim Jong-Un will be the next head of state) then it may well be appropriate to call North Korea a de-facto absolute hereditary monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.185.126.78 ( talk) 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be conflicting statements on the title of the presiding officer of the SPA Presidium. The title in the infobox appears as President of the Presidium, where as in the list of heads of state of North Korea, it is Chairman. The Constitution [3] itself has conflicting titles, firstly naming the presiding officer as "President", then going on to say "The SPA shall elect its chairman and vice chairmen. The chairman shall preside over the sessions." Which title should be used?-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
From the lede:
'It is reported as having one of the world's worst human rights records.[23] After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a famine which killed an estimated 2-3 million.'
2-3 million what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.184.139 ( talk • contribs) 15:08, August 8, 2010
Thanks. I agree it was obvious but we shouldn't be asking the reader to make assumptions - especially in the lede. -- 78.100.235.101 ( talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm sure that it would be more fitting to refer to North Korea as DPRK in the opening sentence of the article, as I have done in my recent edit, but I would also see it necessary to move the article to Democratic People's Republic of Korea, even if the rest of the article referred to NK. All other states' respective articles, that I know of, should surely refer to the full title of the country at the article's beginning, and possibly under /wiki/Official_Name? Just a thought · AarnKrry · Words speak louder than actions · 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently an addition has been made to the wikipedia article "Sports in North Korea" under the section of "Domestic Football". The addition reads as followed:
In September 2010, the first official friendly match between a domestic football team and a foreign club took place in the Kim Il-Sung Stadium. In these two matches Singapore-based "German All Stars" (GAS) played two matches against the 2nd and 3rd team of Pyongyang. The matches ended 1-0 respectively 4-2 for the Korean side. GAS Midfielder Matthias Bertl became the first German footballer to ever score a goal in the DPRK and also the first ever to score two goals. Further first-time records were set by Rene Schieber with the first ever shot on goal by a German footballer and Hendrik Bohne being the first footballer to nutmeg a DPRK player during an official match. As part of the team Simone Magnani become the first ever Italian to play a friendly in the DPRK. The Team was led by Florian Schmidt as the Captain for the opening match and consisted further of Steffen Schacher, Ingo Hartmann, Joerg Buenzel, Dr. Hermann Bergmann, Denis Mecklenburg, Philipp von Pein, Helge Muenkel and Thomas Berner in addition to previous mentioned players.
This addition is referring to the first official friendly match between a foreign team and a domestic football team and was conceived by the North Korean site as a very important gesture of friendship - especially in times of rising sanctions that mainly effect the people of the DPRK rather than the government.
We therefore would like to request to add this section to the sports section of the article "North Korea" to show that there is in fact interaction with outside countries besides the Olympics, World Cup (Qualifiers) and other official tournaments which shall have a signaling effect to all readers.
Thank you very much for your consideration
HBohne ( talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the Temporary capital article...
Is this view correct? If so, is it worth mentioning it in this article?
Well, North Korea's 1972 constitution says... (according to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea_(1972) )
but the constitution has been revised in 1992 and 1998... KPUFFERFİSH Ṫ• Ċ 09:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
the article would look much better. I have the image, but do not know anything about formatting it. The article is defintiely improving since IK last saw it, by the way, well done.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Why show a photo from 2002, i.e. almost a decade ago, when Putin met the dictator Kim? And, as for recent years and given the situation today, it's wrong to say that North Korea has any close relations to Russia - besides, of course, being geographical neighbours. Before the fully justified editing the presented information in the beginning of the section seemed quite biased and gave wrong information about the relations between N.K. and other countries, in this case N.K. and Russia. For example - why not a picture of Kim meeting his South Korean or Chinese counterparts? Note: Any further act to change this is going to be seen as vandalism, and an attempt to falsify the actual political situation. But feel free to update the information in line with the actual and current situation in the relationship-question, and with the above said in mind. One may also note that the actual relationships with the former Eastern block is mentioned in the next sentence; one way to go with the photo-issue could be to insert a picture of a N.K-leader meeting a Chinese or Soviet leader in the old days, when the relationship actually was a strong one - today N.K. is quite isolated; even the sole undisputable international 'partner' today, China, is sometimes of different opinion than the regime in N.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe some information on North Korean Literature should be inserted? Or at least there should be short section with a link to the wikipage "North Korean Literature"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a big deal, but the article is locked, so I can't do anything about it. There is a sentence in the opening paragraph that reads: "The country's government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, developed by the country's former President, Kim Il-Sung." The main article on Juche however, in the section "criticism" states "...Juche is nothing but a sham developed to establish Kim Il-sung as a political thinker alongside Mao Zedong." with reasons for this given afterwords.
I think it would be a good idea to perhaps say "The country's government claims to follow the Juche ideology..." or maybe "The country's government purportedly follows the Juche ideology..."
Small change, but I can't do it, and in the name of accuracy, I think it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.225.227 ( talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They are 154th on the list and not 188th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.114.139 ( talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
HDI of DPRK is 0.760-- 125.27.51.246 ( talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please edit the line "Due to the government's secretive nature and its reluctance to allow in foreigners, North Korea is today considered the world's most isolated country and has thus been given the moniker "The Hermit Kingdom" by some." Please change "foreigners" to "immigrants". Thanks. 75.118.250.122 ( talk) 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I have made a few edits to the DPRK page.
1) Under 21st century, I was surprised to see no mention of President Obama in the article. I've added a line that outlines his general policy approach towards the DPRK, known as strategic patience. 2) Under tourism, I've added information from the pre-existing CNN page that approx. 2500 Americans have been to North Korea since 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mks12 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing productive is coming out of this. Let's move on. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
This seems inappropriate to me. If we're going to retain this redirect, we should probably clarify the saying's origins at some point in the article. Pixel Eater ( talk) 03:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You guys are the least fun ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.188.173 ( talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
North Korea is Best Korea, you have no proof otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoxicated Spy ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC) |
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change this paragraph in the 'Culture and Arts' subheading;
In February 2008, The New York Philharmonic Orchestra became the first US musical group ever to perform in North Korea, [1] albeit for a handpicked "invited audience." [2] The concert was broadcast on national television. [3]
to;
In February 2008, The New York Philharmonic Orchestra became the first US orchestra to perform in North Korea, [4] albeit for a handpicked "invited audience." [5] The concert was broadcast on national television. [6] The American Christian band Casting Crowns were previously invited to perform at the annual Spring Friendship Arts Festival in April 2007, held in Pyongyang. [7]
because;
The New York Philharmonic Orchestra were not the first American musical group to perform in North Korea. The band Casting Crowns performed there in April 2007. Source: http://www.cmspin.com/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=4222&z=26 Makirika ( talk) 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
On November 23, 2010, North Korea fired artillery shells on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. Two South Korean marines were killed and 15 soldiers and civilians were wounded. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron.hoffman16 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
LaRouxEMP added material covering this to the article. Cybercobra removed the material saying that it "does not merit a top-level section." I, intending only to be a reader and not an editor, and having already read the New York Times article on it, came to wikipedia to see the more digested version as one expects in an encyclopedia. I was surprized to find that there was nothing. Seeing that the material had been there and was removed, I restored it. User:AndyTheGrump has subsequently removed it again. This is very important material and this article is where the user of wikipedia would expect to find this material. While wikipedia is not a news source, it often does include information about recent and ongoing events. And well it should. I would say to Cybercobra and AndyTheGrump, that if the material needs fixing, fix it, but please do not remove the very sort of material that the user would be looking for in the article. Sterrettc ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now added a brief summary, and a link to the newly created article shelling of Yeonpyeong. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm satisfied. Sterrettc ( talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the addition was unsourced didn't help. Had a source been cited, I would have been happy to simply move the material like eventually ended up happening. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
There is a reference to North Korea sharing it's Northern border with Russia. This should be with China.
Christopher ( talk) 21:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone please update this article with Tuesday's madness, with good sources. 220.244.163.200 ( talk) 11:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This whole article is one sided pro DPRK. There is nothing mentioned about the poverty of people living there.
This article looks like a DPRK guided propaganda tour of North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.36.77 ( talk) 09:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this article is ridiculously pro-North Korea. The New York Times just published a recent article showing how miserable and what an enormous failure this country is. It is clearly a FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.14 ( talk) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Problems with the economic section - there is no mention made of rampant starvation, the fact that most of the country exists without electricity, or that most N. Korean industry either sits idle or makes products no one wants. Cell phone use is cited as an example of N. Korea's wonderful growth and modernization - how about comparing cell phone ownership/usage rates with S. Korea and China? Why is there no mention whatsoever at the inability of the N. Korean government to provide even the most basic needs of its citizens, and procluding individual efforts for meeting those needs, so that there is the starvation mentioned before as well as repeated attempts by many to leave the country, in spite of grave repercussions to those who make the attempt and their families. The tone of the economy section makes N. Korea sound like a really wonderful place, but the data used to make this assumption comes soley from a biased data from within N. Korea and has no counter-balance (FAO uses almost entirely self-reported data). Compare with tone on economy section for US or Brazil - problems are mentioned repeatedly. There is no such counterbalance in the N. Korea article. If this is what passes for Wikipedia's standards, Wikipedia will not continue as a useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.231.42 ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of the most one-sided articles on Wikipedia that I have ever read. It is obviously written by/for the DPRK. 173.165.120.65 ( talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that no matter how many re-writes we have of various sections, there will be editors who argue the article is pro or anti nK. But POV is more of a problem when the intro uses terms like "most", "crumbling", "elaborate", and "worst". However true or untrue these descriptions may be, they are still MOS:OPED. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
How about elaborating on the government's claimed "tax free" system? When a government claims to spend around a quarter of GDP [admittedly low by USA standards], saying that the government collects no taxes seems dubious unless some angel investor keeps volunteering billions per year. The money has to come from somewhere, and a tax by any other name would cut as deep. 4.78.249.3 ( talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
On the opposite end of spectrum of opinion, every paragraph in the History: 21st Century section mentions a US president and US reactions to north korea. While some degree of centrism on north korea's relations with other nations is understandable, making the entire paragraph about USA policy is not fair to other nations who must also interact with North Korea. It would of course even covering many nation's reactions to the country, not be a fair representaiton of North Korea's history, but at least it would be a fair description of reactions to the country that is being excluded in its own history sections. -- 71.191.173.80 ( talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
its written filed, it should be 'fired" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.2.144 ( talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The REAL NAME of North Korea's leader is Kim Jeong-il, not Kim jong-il — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Paul Sartre ( talk • contribs)
I just edited 'Religion' section, which contained a phrase that said 'However, the majority of the North Koreans could be described as religious from a sociological viewpoint'. I followed the link given to support this claim, and the link led to a general description of the Korean-American culture, and while it did mention North Korea intermittently, it did NOT make a single reference to North Korean spirituality. I deleted the phrase and the link, leaving the sentence to read something like 'However, traditional religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism still has some impact on North Korean spirituality', which is actually supported by some valid citations.
I don't know what makes people lie through their teeth about the state of religious life in North Korea, but please do not lie about the contents of your sources. Strangely enough, some people seem to be unable to handle the fact that North Korea is irreligious - why would anyone care? ( 1tephania ( talk) 21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Outside of the "Human Rights" and "Personality Cult" section, there is almost no mention of the true, depraved state of this country outside of the following sentence: "Although North Korea is officially a socialist republic, many outside media organizations report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim family and one of the worst human rights records of any country."
If I didn't purposefully opt to search for North Korea, and in the absence of its mentioning, I could believe I was reading of almost any country in the world - this, alone, is a testament to the tone which must be altered to provide substantial footing about the modern state of North Korea. Known for their willful diligence to fabricate facts and figures (which are used in this article in relation to its economic and social prosperity), it is saddening to see so many assertions about North Korea backed up as "fact."
For this article to exist without testimonials and first-hand accounts of human rights violations (including its concentration camps) is a disgrace to humanity and a desecration of the millions of North Koreans who are suffering under the tyranny of the North Korean government.
An entire section dedicated to "tourism?!?" Is that a shameless joke?! North Korea is the physical imagining of Hitler's Third Reich and this website has the audacity to mention places that individuals can travel to have fun in North Korea?
Wiki should exist to detail the facts, and no one should argue against that point, but this isn't a "long ago" theocracy which we can write about with mere mention to its transgressions.
I suggest a wider portion of this article be dedicated to these transgressions, using primary sources and first-hand accounts of North Korea's human rights violations, lifestyle and the culture/motive of the government.
SOURCES:
"Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea" by Barbara Demick, detailed primary sources of life inside of North Korea. Link to book found here: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives-North/dp/0385523904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292545192&sr=8-1
Kwon Hyuk's witness account of Camp 22, including a gas chamber and experimentation of chemical weapons on North Koreans found here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr_1UNWH-8k
Kim Young-soon witness account of life in a gulag found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html
Kim Young-sam's witness account of life of Camp 14 found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html
Detailed pictures, as well as primary source material regarding Camp 22 found here: http://freekorea.us/2007/02/18/holocaust-now-looking-down-into-hell-at-camp-22/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribledisgrace ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe north korea as an absolute monarchy, rather than a dictatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, August 22, 2010
Kim Il-Sung passed power to his son Kim-jung il. and he plans to pass power to his son Jong Un. that sounds like an absolute monarchy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 ( talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Supreme Ruler is pretty much the same thing as King or Emperor. But, Kim's no Augustus Caesar. Nor is he a King Aurthur. 96.244.39.181 ( talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)OctaviusCaesarOF
[9]
{{edit semi-protected}}
I would like to change the title of this artical to The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) because that is the official long name of the country. North Korea is added because more people know The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea by that name.
Igirlapplerocks ( talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
May be you can get some info from here -
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3089/Overview
Should at least link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.71 ( talk) 12:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
North Korea should be describe as Autocracy because is depend on Kim Jong Il and his family more than the Party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.166.254 ( talk) 12:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know why North Korea is shown absolutely empty on Google Maps: North Korea on Google Maps There are detailed satellite images, (down to single bushes and plants in the fields) but the map part shows nothing. No cities, no roads... detailed information can be found in any (printed) world atlas, so it's hardly a secret where things are in NK... -- megA ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Google have no official data from OFFICIAL North Korea (just even if You are USA infant You are there enemy, and Google is based in USA). They depend usually only on official data, and there is not so much google maps users there ;-). And just is some problem with world atlas because there are not so many roads etc. and they depend I think on some CCCP-Russia-China-North Korea shared info, so it may be very outdated somewhere...
"North Korea employs artists to produce art for export at the Mansudae Art Studio in Pyongyang. Over 1,000 artists are employed. Products include water colors, ink drawings, posters, mosaics and embroidery"
why is this in the culture section ? what does this have to do with anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.143.94 ( talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This entry should be titled "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" not "North Korea" as other nations are usually named by their official name (e.g. People's Republic of China). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.123.68 ( talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In the "military" section, "asymetric warfare" should be spelled "asymmetric warfare" (two M's) 69.181.162.134 ( talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The section states: "North Korea has an adequate telephone system, with 1.18 million fixed lines available in 2008.[147] However, most phones are only installed for senior government officials." Assuming single-line phones, that means that there one "senior government official" for every 20.38 North Koreans. Can someone clarify this? Scutigera ( talk) 19:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Something seems contradictory here, I realize there might be a difference between peace agreement and peace treaty, but Wikipedia has a redirect in place for those terms.
Could someone elaborate? Sertmann ( talk) 11:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The country's name is not North Korea, it is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". It may be best known as North Korea, but for an Encyclopaedic entry, surely we should use the official name? Sheepdean ( talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Please ad, that according to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13272198 that there are about 1 percent of population in work(rather slave) camps, expanding in compare to 2000. It's a bad sign for changing ruler. That means it is nearly North Korea business(from 1950s expanding and making most of underground facilities), and working hours from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. with 9 p.m. - 11 p.m break for political 'lecture'.
Also (this is another neutral point of view) could You add some satellite or other images (as fair use or other)? Most images in this article are from only 'cccp' like city(and it's one of the best and propaganda) - the main of North Korea. With some exceptions most 'cities' look like villages, without electricity, shortages on food, even no radio/computers/telephones. Just like 200 years ago in Europe (or more)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.90.176 ( talk) 22:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The above certainly is not from a neutral point of view. No other country gets that kind of treatment. Rather, simply reference the many groups which have greivences against these problems in North Korea. It's clearly an opinion - one which I agree with - but an opinion nonetheless. Believe it or not, there are countries actually poorer than North Korea but there isn't a wiki page trying to humiliate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.242.84 ( talk) 08:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)