![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 19 |
How ironic this article is protected from outside interference...just like North Korea. It reads like manifesto written by useful idiots in the West. Maybe there should be more about the likes of Camp 22 that is North Korean reality not crap like this:
Wow happy place huh? This article is about neutral as the neutral zone. 86.160.110.149 ( talk) 18:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
What do you dispute about that extract and why? Do you have any citations to support you?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the last 2 sentences of the lead, I couldn't tell if I was reading about North Korea or Sweden. I've added a bit to the lead. Once you're autoconfirmed you may edit the page. Naapple ( Talk) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Practice what you preach.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"North Korea has also developed a wide range of unconventional techniques and equipment, such as GPS jammers,[147] stealth paint,[148] midget submarines and human torpedoes,[149] a vast array of chemical and biological weapons,[150] and anti-personnel lasers.[151]"
I know its refernced but I dont believe a lot of it, GPS jammers and stealth paint ok, they have been around for years, but anti-personnel lasers and human torpedoes? ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Anti-personal lasers is easy, as in the sense that in its current form is nothing more than a laser that shines at eye level. Any laser pointer can actually do that. The real difficulties are power-mobility and use in combat. Laser needs power to cover a sufficient area to be useful and it needs to be compact to be able to move fast, because lasers are easy for missiles to home on. Then there is actual use, most modern armies already wear eye wear to protect against flash bangs and flying debris. So an abti-personal lasers system is of rather limited as it is.
Human torpedoes, used since WW2, first by the Japanese, then later experimented with by the British, (British pilots would 'bail out' before the torpedo hit. Nothing really new. And it didn't work then, and unlikely to work now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.204.114 ( talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
North Korean anti-personnel lasers are certainly not laser pointers, but military blinding laser weapons (ZM-87's). Soldiers do not wear eye-protection which defends against blinding lasers, or the light emitted by concussion grenades. Blinding lasers are illegal to use in warfare, but would certainly be useful in specific situations. Torpedo propulsion systems are much more reliable now, as are compact computerized inertial navigation systems, making the threat of a human torpedo much greater against merchant craft in limited maneuvering conditions. Did you just make all these criticisms up? You clearly have no experience with infantry weapons systems or undersea warfare. 50.147.26.108 ( talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
¿wdnfwdfeu — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
R3tr0 (
talk •
contribs)
02:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A majority of this section deals with North Korea's foreign relations with the United States. And does not address their history. While this information is limited due to their dictatorship, this section does need clean up. It needs to be informational for the rest of the world and not a section that should be called U.S.-North Korean relations. 70.94.46.99 ( talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The climate is described as a continental climate, which is defined as being due a "lack of significant bodies of water nearby". Is the Pacific Ocean not significant?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Middle ages.
This should be shown as "Middle Ages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.233.141 ( talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The idea that the quality of healthcare is "controversial" is laughable. No one is saying that North Korea has decent health care, not even North Korea from the sources I've seen. NK does claim their healthcare is free, which doesn't jive with outside sources we have, and has been noted in the lead.
As to the quote from the WHO official says something along the lines of NK being a "model for developing nations". It's hardly a endorsement of quality, and more importantly, as stated in the source for the citation given, it is clearly explained that the endorsement was to cater to North Korea, so that WHO could continue to access this impoverished nation and help these malnourished and broken people.
Again, there is no debate from anyone about the quality of healthcare in North Korea. From the several sources listed in the lead, it's made abundantly clear that these "hospitals" lack basic equipment, electricity, running water, and medicine. Doctors sell their drugs as soon as they get them. There's a first hand account of someone having their foot amputated without anesthetic. The only real debate on the quality of healthcare in North Korea is whether it's the worst in the world, or if there's some African nation that's got them beat.
Naapple ( Talk) 00:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The intro includes this sentence:
However, the citation does not back up this statement. The citation is a BBC report in which WHO officials who have visisted North Korean hospitals disagree with an Amnesty report which is based on defectors, some of who left NK a decade ago. I think WHO is a more reputable source. Amnesty International is not a recognised health organisation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
WHO and AI disagree and both question each other's credibility. If only the elite live in Pyongyang, it must be a pretty big elite.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to say that this is a very fair and good article. I support the DPRK (to a certain degree), and I think you have very aptly balanced the very real human rights violations with the history and positive things for people living in North Korea, rather than painting it as a simple hellhole. Keep it up wikipedia 92.22.142.115 ( talk) 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Weapons manufacturing section says that North Korea produced n number of AK-47 rifles. Doing a quick Google Image search (in accordance with WP:GOOGLE) for "north korean guns" came up with a number of pictures of AK-style rifles, but the magazine curve suggests to me that, rather than the 7.62×39mm AK-47, the military uses the 5.45×39mm AK-74 round. A number of pictures supporting my point and what I found:
Of course, the article says North Korea produced AK-47s, not that it necessarily uses what it produces, but one of the search results referred to the Type 88 as an "ultra rare North Korean-produced Type 88-1. Obviously, as these sources are mainly forum posts, they are not reliable, but I think "AK-47" should at least be generalized to "AK" or even "Kalashnikov-style" rifles until a reliable source can be found, if one exists.
Imadeausername! ( talk· contribs) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, change it to Kalashnikov.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought the numbers of domestically produced armaments looked suspiciously high, so I had a look at the source referenced. It seems pretty heavily biased, claiming amongst other things, that NK MiG 21s would be able to successfully take on F-14 and F-15 aircraft with machine guns only. The rationale given is that because Korea is quite a narrow country, the planes would all be fighting at close range and thus the MiGs would win because American Air-Air Missiles would get confused. It also claims NK artillery would be able to reliably sink carrier battle groups by firing certain numbers of missiles at them.
All in all, it's kind of a childish analysis, and it's not even clear what position the author of the report holds.
I'm not entirely sure what the wikipedia policy on biased sources is so I'm just posting this as a notification, but look for yourselves!
OneCatch ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence is found in the article:
"It created the idea of a proxy war, where the two superpowers would fight in another country, forcing the people in that country to suffer most of the destruction and death involved in a war between such large nations."
This should be deleted for the following reasons:
1) It is completely inaccurate, there were many proxy wars before the Korean War. The Korean War did not "create the idea" 2) The editorial tone of the remarks about proxy wars are not relevant, accurate, or appropriate,
Marcel Samek ( talk) 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article has the following:
Can someone possibly tell the readership whether any influence seeks to change that situation?
How does Samaritan's Purse, an organization coordinated by Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, manage to operate in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Rammer ( talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There's is even a religious (non-Christian) party in the People's Assemby.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
A lot of this article refers to "claims" when citing official DPRK sources. Great, I think that's perfect, but how come only the DPRK is considered by wikipedia to be a biased and propogandistic source? I'd like editors to be conscious of this when they're editing other pages; every "official" claim is at least suspect enough to warrant a note that it is a "claim". 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Division of Korea(1945)" sub-section under "History", the concluding sentence of the first paragraph does not have a period. 71.31.187.52 ( talk) 21:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
...to the point that it now reads like a Conservapedia article. It needs to be completely rewritten, IMO. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Many hospitals lack basic medicine, equipment, running water, and electricity due to economic problems and minimal budget allocation; at approximately 1 dollar per person per year, lower than that of most African countries
You seem to be very knowledgeable, any other opinions ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 19:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The World Food Program which is working in the DPRK does not say people are starving. The problem is that reputable sources, including officials, journalists, and academics, who have actually visited the country, are drowned out by crazily hyperbolic anti-DPRK propaganda. And people justify this by saying the DPRK is totally evil and anyone who queries this crazy propaganda is at best a fool who has somehow been brainwashed by the DPRK government. Let's stick to the facts, and use the same rules for the DPRK as for everyone else.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is probably among the most frequently edited articles in Wikipedia and many editors means many different writing styles. I agree that at some parts a little cleanup is necessary. The quoted sentence on health care is valid in the relevant paragraph and similarly appears in other country articles, but information about health care or e. g. political parties does not have to appear in the intro. Still some people confuse balance with writing as much positive as negative and want to provide for each well-sourced negative information the official obviously untrue government position. Fact is that the human rights situation in North Korea by all neutral accounts provided by human rights organisations is much worse than in other countries and that has to be explained in this article. I do not know any country with less freedom and less transparency and it is not acceptable to whitewash this, just because it does not fit into your world view or you cannot believe it. The “crazily hyperbolic anti-DPRK propaganda” and “special North Korea rules” are only an imagination; even the few exaggerated news in some newspapers are mostly closer to the reality than the official propaganda of “everything is perfect in the DPRK”. Before editing this article I would suggest people to first read the reliable sources, e. g. from human rights organisations. -- Gamnamu ( talk) 08:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not even the DPRK government says everything is perfect! The attitude is that negativity and accuracy are the same thing. It's embarrassing to any intelligent life form.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I see a lot of complaining, but neither TIAYN or Tourbillon has bothered it to edit the page. I can see why political prisons (and the whole google earth thing for that matter) don't belong in geography. Move it. I doubt you'll see any resistance. Also, more background on the logistics of the government would be good too. I don't think anyone is trying to prevent the article from having more information, it's just not too long ago there were serious attempts to whitewash it. It didn't help that thepiratebay.org got hacked [ [1]] some while ago with a fake message that they'd moved to N Korea. Every Anonymous wannabe jackass who didn't bother to see if the message was real came up here and whitewashed the page. That was undone, but the page is hardly perfect. Edit away. Naapple ( Talk) 22:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a nonstandard term to me, possibly borrowed from Russian. I can't edit but it would be nice to replace this with "dental office".
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the following:
After Korea was divided by the UN, the two Korean powers both tried to control the whole peninsula under their respective governments. This led to escalating border conflicts on the 38th parallel and attempts to negotiate elections for the whole of Korea.[47] These attempts ended when the military of North Korea invaded the South on 25 June 1950, leading to a full-scale civil war. With endorsement from the United Nations, countries allied with the United States intervened on behalf of South Korea.
This senseless information could result in killing many people. Also nobody with brain in head could trust this information is not only one influencing people with ignorance about facts.
95.82.165.78 (
talk)
07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been a series of edits changing the description of government in the header box, so I'm opening the discussion here. My take is that among other things, it should primarily be described as a Juche state, consistent with the "Government and politics" section. This is the main ideology put forward by the state. Abstractematics ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Juche, self-reliance, is not really that distinctive. It is described by the regime as a development of Marxism-Leninism, and the regime continues to use Marxist-Leninist concepts (imperialism, socialism, central planning etc).-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Does the Battle of Chosin Reservoir qualify as part of the "Korean War?" The fighting appears to have been between Western allies and China. Twillisjr ( talk) 15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The lead for this article is currently six long paragraphs, a lot of it filled with information that doesn't belong in a lead and are details that should be elaborated in the body. From my analysis it doesn't follow WP:LEAD, as it elaborates a little too much and it should ideally have only four paragraphs. A lot of people use the limit for lead length as being able to fit into the whole computer screen. I know there are parts of it we can remove for the sake of being more reader-friendly and less cluttered with detail, but my attempt to fix this was reverted. Cadiomals ( talk) 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As shown here, North Korea is now a Democratic Peoples' Monarchy. We should change the page to reflect that
It seems like everyone here wants to show the readers how bad North Korea is, by not improving the article and it's section on human rights abuses, but adding politically charged labels instead.... This discussion, on the very same subject, has taken place on the Soviet Union, East Germany, Ba'athist Iraq and the China talk pages, and I think it's time for it being taken here too. -- TIAYN ( talk) 08:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Somebody insisting that Totalitarianism needs to be added, should read that article first. The term is described as Western anti-communist propaganda term that has been widely criticized. So no, it's not a neutral term. Human rights abuses in NK are detailed in this article even without the term Totalitarian. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Naapple, you are currently edit warring which is a blockable offense here at WP. As someone who is only active on WP for a mere year and whose edits are two thirds not on articles (~55% on talk pages) [2], you may not know that and therefore I for now refrain from reporting you. However you may want to consider listen to users with more experience [3] [4]. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 01:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think totalitarian should be included, since while it's a tightly controlled country, it's not the only one. I would be more inclined to have more varying and specific description in the infobox if it was a historical article, instead of an article for a currently active state. Single-party states often have nondemocratic governments, so I think that suffices for the justified negative connotation. I'm mixed about including "hereditary dictatorship", since it's a de jure republic, and Kim Jong-il originally did not necessarily want family succession for the leadership. Abstractematics ( talk) 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see a line near the beginning of the article like this "The current government of North Korea is possibly the most diabolical, oppressive, and brutal regime in human history [or "that has continued from the 20th into the 21st century"]. It has been ruled by three generations of the same family, the Kims, for six decades." Anyone agree that a statement like this would be appropriate and could fit in somewhere in the intro section? csAge ( talk) 23:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It depends completely upon which definition is used. The Wikipedia article referenced itself includes a number of different measures / definitions. By several of them the USA and China are more "militarised" than North Korea. Even so, these days, a simple count of the number of humans involved is increasingly irrelevant. It is the weaponry controlled by the military which correlates better with military strength.
"North Korea is the world's most militarized country, with a total of 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel."
This uses one definition, presumably to convey a particular impression intended by the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.89 ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the information bar on the right hand side, there seems to be a mistake. Even though the DPRK is ranked at 157th on the Human Development Index, it still says it is ranked as "high" on this page. In fact, it does not even have a ranking according to this source: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PRK.html 98.109.198.83 ( talk) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: The "high" indication is provided by the infobox country template. If you look at our article,
List of countries by Human Development Index, you will see that 0.733 is in the high range for this year, but North Korea is not rated this year. I think the template may be using the number incorrectly and I will raise the issue at
Template Talk:Infobox country. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
04:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
... arising from amateur editors in Wikipedia.
"A small section of the Tumen River also lies along the border between the Russian Federation, following the river's thalweg."
Between the Russian Federation and *what*, exactly?
I removed [5] this sentence:
In 2000, Taiwan began exporting nuclear waste to North Korea for disposal.
This bit was sourced to a book published in 2000 which stated Taiwan and North Korea had signed a contract for this in 1997.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A1RkmPuA3ygC&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false.
However, this seems to have fallen through as per
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2013/03/04/371938/Nuclear-waste.htm and
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/03/02/2003556051
I don't really care either way if someone prefers to readding the information with the clarification that the deal fell through.
Jonathanfu (
talk)
09:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the North Korean anthem, Aegukka on homepage under map http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjV2EErPHdg Amoo Laban ( talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sang-Hun, Choe (3 December 2013). "North Korea Says Leader's Uncle Was Executed as a Traitor". New York Times.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Friday that Jang Song-thaek, the uncle and presumed mentor of its leader, Kim Jong-un, was executed for plotting a military coup.
The announcement was a highly unusual admission of instability from the reclusive, nuclear-armed country, which normally cloaks any signs of disloyalty to the Kim dynasty that has ruled since the country’s founding. It was the first time in recent decades that the North revealed what it purported was an attempt to overthrow its leadership, analysts said, and the first publicly announced execution of a member of the ruling family.
Calling him a “traitor” and “worse than a dog,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Mr. Jang, 67, was executed on Thursday, immediately after he was convicted of treason in a special military court.
Conrad T. Pino ( talk) 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Notable for this article? Hcobb ( talk) 17:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Although the Kim family has comprised the rulers of North Korea, the government is not a hereditary government. The United States had two Adams as presidents, two Bushes, doesn't make it a hereditary monarchy. While the Kim family has occupied the position of power, if anything, it would fall under family dictatorship (not that I suggest this be put in, I suggest it just be removed). Much like the Julian-Claudian period in Rome's history, the dictator has come from one family, but it is not automatic in any line of succession, and does not resemble any hereditary/monarchical forms of government. Again, I just suggest this be removed since it is basically wrong. And it most certainly is not an absolute monarchy. One-Party States may have strongmen, but they are never approaching the power and control of the reign of an absolute monarch. 74.89.79.208 ( talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a definitive source for the change to the "Ten Principles"?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this from the intro - "North Korean food output is one of the lowest worldwide" - and reworded the passage because there wasn't any supporting citation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we need this section? Do we need a blow-by-blow account? Surely it could be summarised in a sentence, particularly as nothing has come of this?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The article states:
"According to Amnesty International, based on satellite images and testimonies, around 200,000 prisoners (about 0.85% of the population) are held in six large political prison camps"
The UN report ( http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx ) lists 5 political prison camps and estimates the number of prisoners to be 120.000.
As I have only glanced over it right now: Has one prison been closed? Was the previous information wrong? Or are there less prisoners? (Released? Dead?) -- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the nation's capitol is misspelled. Correct spelling is "capitol," not "capital." Akieken ( talk) 16:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Akieken, 19 April 2014
![]() | This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WEPON NEXT TIME FAMYLY KIMU JONNIRU^^
There are a few sourced lines on surveillance, law enforcement and state security scattered throughout the article. I believe it would be best to unite all those into a "Domestic security" or "Law enforcement" section, but I'm not sure where it would be best to put it. I have a bit more information to add on the subject (real-time texting surveillance, functions of State security, etc.) so it can be a very informative subsection that would be fully relevant to the article. I think it should go under Government, but any suggestions are welcome. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 10:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
These are poorly written, poorly sourced and largely outdated. Furthermore, much of the information there is irrelevant for the main article and contributes little to the overall understanding of the country so I propose removing these sections entirely. I wrote a completely updated Economy section which includes the most valuable information on Transport under Infrastructure and the communications network is going to be added to Science and technology. I'll also add the Media subsection to Culture. Any objections or recommendations ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As already included on the South Korea Wiki Article, I think having the Offical North Korean Name in Hanja would be beneficial to this article "朝鮮民主主義人民共和國"
However, I don't think South Korea uses North Korea's official name.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of "North Korea" should be " Democratic People's Republic of Korea " [3] Heil Stalin ( talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)why should north korea be listed as a de facto single state and not de jure? lets not include original reasearch in the article, also can we incude north korea being a de jure single party state in the infobox, the workers party of korea is mentioned in the same way as china in their constitution and china is regarded and written on wikipedia as single-party state, north korea has two other parties but workers party is the sole ruling, china has 8 other parties too Dannis243 ( talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, this discussion is about the infobox.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Copypasted from my talk page -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 05:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
you said it does not meet wp:v but if you read the article there are sources which support north korea as a single party totalitarian state Dannis243 ( talk) 07:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- See Tourbillon's comment here: "There is no consensus among the community of North Korea researchers as for what the government is. ... Juche in itself is a very authoritarian concept so any of the dictatorial characteristics of the North Korean government would be obvious once you get to read about it." Furthermore, "totalitarian" falls under WP:LABEL. Please stop infobox-warring and accept consensus. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 07:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- althought i supported the inclusion of "totalitarian" i did not add it to the infobox athother user did, what i did is to add "single-party state" to the infobox which Tourbillon proposed on the talkpage, so can you please partialy revert your edit by removing totalitarian but including "singe-party state" Dannis243 ( talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:BRD. Tourbillon added "Finally, it is de facto a single-party state because the Chongu Party and the SDP are legally required to support the KWP and be in a coalition with it. But that does get too complicated so I think "Juche state" would be better." Many other editors in the discussion seem to agree, so the consensus is against your proposal. You will have to convince all other interested editors that the change you propose is warranted before the change can be made. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
UPI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 19 |
How ironic this article is protected from outside interference...just like North Korea. It reads like manifesto written by useful idiots in the West. Maybe there should be more about the likes of Camp 22 that is North Korean reality not crap like this:
Wow happy place huh? This article is about neutral as the neutral zone. 86.160.110.149 ( talk) 18:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
What do you dispute about that extract and why? Do you have any citations to support you?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the last 2 sentences of the lead, I couldn't tell if I was reading about North Korea or Sweden. I've added a bit to the lead. Once you're autoconfirmed you may edit the page. Naapple ( Talk) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Practice what you preach.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"North Korea has also developed a wide range of unconventional techniques and equipment, such as GPS jammers,[147] stealth paint,[148] midget submarines and human torpedoes,[149] a vast array of chemical and biological weapons,[150] and anti-personnel lasers.[151]"
I know its refernced but I dont believe a lot of it, GPS jammers and stealth paint ok, they have been around for years, but anti-personnel lasers and human torpedoes? ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Anti-personal lasers is easy, as in the sense that in its current form is nothing more than a laser that shines at eye level. Any laser pointer can actually do that. The real difficulties are power-mobility and use in combat. Laser needs power to cover a sufficient area to be useful and it needs to be compact to be able to move fast, because lasers are easy for missiles to home on. Then there is actual use, most modern armies already wear eye wear to protect against flash bangs and flying debris. So an abti-personal lasers system is of rather limited as it is.
Human torpedoes, used since WW2, first by the Japanese, then later experimented with by the British, (British pilots would 'bail out' before the torpedo hit. Nothing really new. And it didn't work then, and unlikely to work now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.204.114 ( talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
North Korean anti-personnel lasers are certainly not laser pointers, but military blinding laser weapons (ZM-87's). Soldiers do not wear eye-protection which defends against blinding lasers, or the light emitted by concussion grenades. Blinding lasers are illegal to use in warfare, but would certainly be useful in specific situations. Torpedo propulsion systems are much more reliable now, as are compact computerized inertial navigation systems, making the threat of a human torpedo much greater against merchant craft in limited maneuvering conditions. Did you just make all these criticisms up? You clearly have no experience with infantry weapons systems or undersea warfare. 50.147.26.108 ( talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
¿wdnfwdfeu — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
R3tr0 (
talk •
contribs)
02:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A majority of this section deals with North Korea's foreign relations with the United States. And does not address their history. While this information is limited due to their dictatorship, this section does need clean up. It needs to be informational for the rest of the world and not a section that should be called U.S.-North Korean relations. 70.94.46.99 ( talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The climate is described as a continental climate, which is defined as being due a "lack of significant bodies of water nearby". Is the Pacific Ocean not significant?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Middle ages.
This should be shown as "Middle Ages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.233.141 ( talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The idea that the quality of healthcare is "controversial" is laughable. No one is saying that North Korea has decent health care, not even North Korea from the sources I've seen. NK does claim their healthcare is free, which doesn't jive with outside sources we have, and has been noted in the lead.
As to the quote from the WHO official says something along the lines of NK being a "model for developing nations". It's hardly a endorsement of quality, and more importantly, as stated in the source for the citation given, it is clearly explained that the endorsement was to cater to North Korea, so that WHO could continue to access this impoverished nation and help these malnourished and broken people.
Again, there is no debate from anyone about the quality of healthcare in North Korea. From the several sources listed in the lead, it's made abundantly clear that these "hospitals" lack basic equipment, electricity, running water, and medicine. Doctors sell their drugs as soon as they get them. There's a first hand account of someone having their foot amputated without anesthetic. The only real debate on the quality of healthcare in North Korea is whether it's the worst in the world, or if there's some African nation that's got them beat.
Naapple ( Talk) 00:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The intro includes this sentence:
However, the citation does not back up this statement. The citation is a BBC report in which WHO officials who have visisted North Korean hospitals disagree with an Amnesty report which is based on defectors, some of who left NK a decade ago. I think WHO is a more reputable source. Amnesty International is not a recognised health organisation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
WHO and AI disagree and both question each other's credibility. If only the elite live in Pyongyang, it must be a pretty big elite.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to say that this is a very fair and good article. I support the DPRK (to a certain degree), and I think you have very aptly balanced the very real human rights violations with the history and positive things for people living in North Korea, rather than painting it as a simple hellhole. Keep it up wikipedia 92.22.142.115 ( talk) 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Weapons manufacturing section says that North Korea produced n number of AK-47 rifles. Doing a quick Google Image search (in accordance with WP:GOOGLE) for "north korean guns" came up with a number of pictures of AK-style rifles, but the magazine curve suggests to me that, rather than the 7.62×39mm AK-47, the military uses the 5.45×39mm AK-74 round. A number of pictures supporting my point and what I found:
Of course, the article says North Korea produced AK-47s, not that it necessarily uses what it produces, but one of the search results referred to the Type 88 as an "ultra rare North Korean-produced Type 88-1. Obviously, as these sources are mainly forum posts, they are not reliable, but I think "AK-47" should at least be generalized to "AK" or even "Kalashnikov-style" rifles until a reliable source can be found, if one exists.
Imadeausername! ( talk· contribs) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, change it to Kalashnikov.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought the numbers of domestically produced armaments looked suspiciously high, so I had a look at the source referenced. It seems pretty heavily biased, claiming amongst other things, that NK MiG 21s would be able to successfully take on F-14 and F-15 aircraft with machine guns only. The rationale given is that because Korea is quite a narrow country, the planes would all be fighting at close range and thus the MiGs would win because American Air-Air Missiles would get confused. It also claims NK artillery would be able to reliably sink carrier battle groups by firing certain numbers of missiles at them.
All in all, it's kind of a childish analysis, and it's not even clear what position the author of the report holds.
I'm not entirely sure what the wikipedia policy on biased sources is so I'm just posting this as a notification, but look for yourselves!
OneCatch ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence is found in the article:
"It created the idea of a proxy war, where the two superpowers would fight in another country, forcing the people in that country to suffer most of the destruction and death involved in a war between such large nations."
This should be deleted for the following reasons:
1) It is completely inaccurate, there were many proxy wars before the Korean War. The Korean War did not "create the idea" 2) The editorial tone of the remarks about proxy wars are not relevant, accurate, or appropriate,
Marcel Samek ( talk) 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article has the following:
Can someone possibly tell the readership whether any influence seeks to change that situation?
How does Samaritan's Purse, an organization coordinated by Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, manage to operate in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Rammer ( talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There's is even a religious (non-Christian) party in the People's Assemby.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
A lot of this article refers to "claims" when citing official DPRK sources. Great, I think that's perfect, but how come only the DPRK is considered by wikipedia to be a biased and propogandistic source? I'd like editors to be conscious of this when they're editing other pages; every "official" claim is at least suspect enough to warrant a note that it is a "claim". 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Division of Korea(1945)" sub-section under "History", the concluding sentence of the first paragraph does not have a period. 71.31.187.52 ( talk) 21:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
...to the point that it now reads like a Conservapedia article. It needs to be completely rewritten, IMO. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Many hospitals lack basic medicine, equipment, running water, and electricity due to economic problems and minimal budget allocation; at approximately 1 dollar per person per year, lower than that of most African countries
You seem to be very knowledgeable, any other opinions ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 19:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The World Food Program which is working in the DPRK does not say people are starving. The problem is that reputable sources, including officials, journalists, and academics, who have actually visited the country, are drowned out by crazily hyperbolic anti-DPRK propaganda. And people justify this by saying the DPRK is totally evil and anyone who queries this crazy propaganda is at best a fool who has somehow been brainwashed by the DPRK government. Let's stick to the facts, and use the same rules for the DPRK as for everyone else.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is probably among the most frequently edited articles in Wikipedia and many editors means many different writing styles. I agree that at some parts a little cleanup is necessary. The quoted sentence on health care is valid in the relevant paragraph and similarly appears in other country articles, but information about health care or e. g. political parties does not have to appear in the intro. Still some people confuse balance with writing as much positive as negative and want to provide for each well-sourced negative information the official obviously untrue government position. Fact is that the human rights situation in North Korea by all neutral accounts provided by human rights organisations is much worse than in other countries and that has to be explained in this article. I do not know any country with less freedom and less transparency and it is not acceptable to whitewash this, just because it does not fit into your world view or you cannot believe it. The “crazily hyperbolic anti-DPRK propaganda” and “special North Korea rules” are only an imagination; even the few exaggerated news in some newspapers are mostly closer to the reality than the official propaganda of “everything is perfect in the DPRK”. Before editing this article I would suggest people to first read the reliable sources, e. g. from human rights organisations. -- Gamnamu ( talk) 08:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not even the DPRK government says everything is perfect! The attitude is that negativity and accuracy are the same thing. It's embarrassing to any intelligent life form.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I see a lot of complaining, but neither TIAYN or Tourbillon has bothered it to edit the page. I can see why political prisons (and the whole google earth thing for that matter) don't belong in geography. Move it. I doubt you'll see any resistance. Also, more background on the logistics of the government would be good too. I don't think anyone is trying to prevent the article from having more information, it's just not too long ago there were serious attempts to whitewash it. It didn't help that thepiratebay.org got hacked [ [1]] some while ago with a fake message that they'd moved to N Korea. Every Anonymous wannabe jackass who didn't bother to see if the message was real came up here and whitewashed the page. That was undone, but the page is hardly perfect. Edit away. Naapple ( Talk) 22:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a nonstandard term to me, possibly borrowed from Russian. I can't edit but it would be nice to replace this with "dental office".
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the following:
After Korea was divided by the UN, the two Korean powers both tried to control the whole peninsula under their respective governments. This led to escalating border conflicts on the 38th parallel and attempts to negotiate elections for the whole of Korea.[47] These attempts ended when the military of North Korea invaded the South on 25 June 1950, leading to a full-scale civil war. With endorsement from the United Nations, countries allied with the United States intervened on behalf of South Korea.
This senseless information could result in killing many people. Also nobody with brain in head could trust this information is not only one influencing people with ignorance about facts.
95.82.165.78 (
talk)
07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been a series of edits changing the description of government in the header box, so I'm opening the discussion here. My take is that among other things, it should primarily be described as a Juche state, consistent with the "Government and politics" section. This is the main ideology put forward by the state. Abstractematics ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Juche, self-reliance, is not really that distinctive. It is described by the regime as a development of Marxism-Leninism, and the regime continues to use Marxist-Leninist concepts (imperialism, socialism, central planning etc).-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Does the Battle of Chosin Reservoir qualify as part of the "Korean War?" The fighting appears to have been between Western allies and China. Twillisjr ( talk) 15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The lead for this article is currently six long paragraphs, a lot of it filled with information that doesn't belong in a lead and are details that should be elaborated in the body. From my analysis it doesn't follow WP:LEAD, as it elaborates a little too much and it should ideally have only four paragraphs. A lot of people use the limit for lead length as being able to fit into the whole computer screen. I know there are parts of it we can remove for the sake of being more reader-friendly and less cluttered with detail, but my attempt to fix this was reverted. Cadiomals ( talk) 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As shown here, North Korea is now a Democratic Peoples' Monarchy. We should change the page to reflect that
It seems like everyone here wants to show the readers how bad North Korea is, by not improving the article and it's section on human rights abuses, but adding politically charged labels instead.... This discussion, on the very same subject, has taken place on the Soviet Union, East Germany, Ba'athist Iraq and the China talk pages, and I think it's time for it being taken here too. -- TIAYN ( talk) 08:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Somebody insisting that Totalitarianism needs to be added, should read that article first. The term is described as Western anti-communist propaganda term that has been widely criticized. So no, it's not a neutral term. Human rights abuses in NK are detailed in this article even without the term Totalitarian. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Naapple, you are currently edit warring which is a blockable offense here at WP. As someone who is only active on WP for a mere year and whose edits are two thirds not on articles (~55% on talk pages) [2], you may not know that and therefore I for now refrain from reporting you. However you may want to consider listen to users with more experience [3] [4]. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 01:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think totalitarian should be included, since while it's a tightly controlled country, it's not the only one. I would be more inclined to have more varying and specific description in the infobox if it was a historical article, instead of an article for a currently active state. Single-party states often have nondemocratic governments, so I think that suffices for the justified negative connotation. I'm mixed about including "hereditary dictatorship", since it's a de jure republic, and Kim Jong-il originally did not necessarily want family succession for the leadership. Abstractematics ( talk) 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see a line near the beginning of the article like this "The current government of North Korea is possibly the most diabolical, oppressive, and brutal regime in human history [or "that has continued from the 20th into the 21st century"]. It has been ruled by three generations of the same family, the Kims, for six decades." Anyone agree that a statement like this would be appropriate and could fit in somewhere in the intro section? csAge ( talk) 23:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It depends completely upon which definition is used. The Wikipedia article referenced itself includes a number of different measures / definitions. By several of them the USA and China are more "militarised" than North Korea. Even so, these days, a simple count of the number of humans involved is increasingly irrelevant. It is the weaponry controlled by the military which correlates better with military strength.
"North Korea is the world's most militarized country, with a total of 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel."
This uses one definition, presumably to convey a particular impression intended by the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.89 ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the information bar on the right hand side, there seems to be a mistake. Even though the DPRK is ranked at 157th on the Human Development Index, it still says it is ranked as "high" on this page. In fact, it does not even have a ranking according to this source: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PRK.html 98.109.198.83 ( talk) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: The "high" indication is provided by the infobox country template. If you look at our article,
List of countries by Human Development Index, you will see that 0.733 is in the high range for this year, but North Korea is not rated this year. I think the template may be using the number incorrectly and I will raise the issue at
Template Talk:Infobox country. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
04:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
... arising from amateur editors in Wikipedia.
"A small section of the Tumen River also lies along the border between the Russian Federation, following the river's thalweg."
Between the Russian Federation and *what*, exactly?
I removed [5] this sentence:
In 2000, Taiwan began exporting nuclear waste to North Korea for disposal.
This bit was sourced to a book published in 2000 which stated Taiwan and North Korea had signed a contract for this in 1997.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A1RkmPuA3ygC&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false.
However, this seems to have fallen through as per
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2013/03/04/371938/Nuclear-waste.htm and
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/03/02/2003556051
I don't really care either way if someone prefers to readding the information with the clarification that the deal fell through.
Jonathanfu (
talk)
09:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the North Korean anthem, Aegukka on homepage under map http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjV2EErPHdg Amoo Laban ( talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sang-Hun, Choe (3 December 2013). "North Korea Says Leader's Uncle Was Executed as a Traitor". New York Times.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Friday that Jang Song-thaek, the uncle and presumed mentor of its leader, Kim Jong-un, was executed for plotting a military coup.
The announcement was a highly unusual admission of instability from the reclusive, nuclear-armed country, which normally cloaks any signs of disloyalty to the Kim dynasty that has ruled since the country’s founding. It was the first time in recent decades that the North revealed what it purported was an attempt to overthrow its leadership, analysts said, and the first publicly announced execution of a member of the ruling family.
Calling him a “traitor” and “worse than a dog,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Mr. Jang, 67, was executed on Thursday, immediately after he was convicted of treason in a special military court.
Conrad T. Pino ( talk) 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Notable for this article? Hcobb ( talk) 17:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Although the Kim family has comprised the rulers of North Korea, the government is not a hereditary government. The United States had two Adams as presidents, two Bushes, doesn't make it a hereditary monarchy. While the Kim family has occupied the position of power, if anything, it would fall under family dictatorship (not that I suggest this be put in, I suggest it just be removed). Much like the Julian-Claudian period in Rome's history, the dictator has come from one family, but it is not automatic in any line of succession, and does not resemble any hereditary/monarchical forms of government. Again, I just suggest this be removed since it is basically wrong. And it most certainly is not an absolute monarchy. One-Party States may have strongmen, but they are never approaching the power and control of the reign of an absolute monarch. 74.89.79.208 ( talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a definitive source for the change to the "Ten Principles"?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this from the intro - "North Korean food output is one of the lowest worldwide" - and reworded the passage because there wasn't any supporting citation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we need this section? Do we need a blow-by-blow account? Surely it could be summarised in a sentence, particularly as nothing has come of this?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The article states:
"According to Amnesty International, based on satellite images and testimonies, around 200,000 prisoners (about 0.85% of the population) are held in six large political prison camps"
The UN report ( http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx ) lists 5 political prison camps and estimates the number of prisoners to be 120.000.
As I have only glanced over it right now: Has one prison been closed? Was the previous information wrong? Or are there less prisoners? (Released? Dead?) -- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the nation's capitol is misspelled. Correct spelling is "capitol," not "capital." Akieken ( talk) 16:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Akieken, 19 April 2014
![]() | This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WEPON NEXT TIME FAMYLY KIMU JONNIRU^^
There are a few sourced lines on surveillance, law enforcement and state security scattered throughout the article. I believe it would be best to unite all those into a "Domestic security" or "Law enforcement" section, but I'm not sure where it would be best to put it. I have a bit more information to add on the subject (real-time texting surveillance, functions of State security, etc.) so it can be a very informative subsection that would be fully relevant to the article. I think it should go under Government, but any suggestions are welcome. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 10:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
These are poorly written, poorly sourced and largely outdated. Furthermore, much of the information there is irrelevant for the main article and contributes little to the overall understanding of the country so I propose removing these sections entirely. I wrote a completely updated Economy section which includes the most valuable information on Transport under Infrastructure and the communications network is going to be added to Science and technology. I'll also add the Media subsection to Culture. Any objections or recommendations ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As already included on the South Korea Wiki Article, I think having the Offical North Korean Name in Hanja would be beneficial to this article "朝鮮民主主義人民共和國"
However, I don't think South Korea uses North Korea's official name.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of "North Korea" should be " Democratic People's Republic of Korea " [3] Heil Stalin ( talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)why should north korea be listed as a de facto single state and not de jure? lets not include original reasearch in the article, also can we incude north korea being a de jure single party state in the infobox, the workers party of korea is mentioned in the same way as china in their constitution and china is regarded and written on wikipedia as single-party state, north korea has two other parties but workers party is the sole ruling, china has 8 other parties too Dannis243 ( talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, this discussion is about the infobox.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Copypasted from my talk page -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 05:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
you said it does not meet wp:v but if you read the article there are sources which support north korea as a single party totalitarian state Dannis243 ( talk) 07:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- See Tourbillon's comment here: "There is no consensus among the community of North Korea researchers as for what the government is. ... Juche in itself is a very authoritarian concept so any of the dictatorial characteristics of the North Korean government would be obvious once you get to read about it." Furthermore, "totalitarian" falls under WP:LABEL. Please stop infobox-warring and accept consensus. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 07:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- althought i supported the inclusion of "totalitarian" i did not add it to the infobox athother user did, what i did is to add "single-party state" to the infobox which Tourbillon proposed on the talkpage, so can you please partialy revert your edit by removing totalitarian but including "singe-party state" Dannis243 ( talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:BRD. Tourbillon added "Finally, it is de facto a single-party state because the Chongu Party and the SDP are legally required to support the KWP and be in a coalition with it. But that does get too complicated so I think "Juche state" would be better." Many other editors in the discussion seem to agree, so the consensus is against your proposal. You will have to convince all other interested editors that the change you propose is warranted before the change can be made. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
UPI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).