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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
I noticed the page had the Category:Military dictatorships category added to it but before I remove it, I would like to have a consensus on the talk page. I don't think North Korea counts as a military dictatorship. It does use the "military-first" policy but it doesn't really fit in the category of a military dictatorship as it would usually imply something like martial law is implemented and a military dictatorship almost always starts with a military coup from a government the military perceives as corrupt or dangerous. North Korea had been under the same kind of dictatorship since it was founded in 1948. The Songun policy does say military-first but it does not make it a military dictatorship. Jackninja5 ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Koreas martial art is tae kwon do. It means punch kick arts.The story was that Japan ataked korea and then any one spot useing tae kwon do would be arested but someone secretly learned tae kwon do and then other people learnd it with him so the law was vetoed and people learned tae kwon do.
Would it be possible to mention sultanism in the government section of the infobox? 50.92.18.181 ( talk) 01:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Why does this article use the informal derogatory term North Korea rather than the official title, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Rhemmiel ( talk) 07:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It has grown quite large. Suggestions on what might be trimmed ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/192.44.242.19|192.44.242.19]] ([[User talk:192.44.242.19|talk]]) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) }}
Should we use juche in the infobox? Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
|government_type =
parameter, which
the infobox template says is "". The current version does this while restraining from enumerating tangential topics such as ideologies. There isn't a single reliable source that would say that the type of government of North Korea is "Juche", and misconstruing it as such is blatant WP:SYNTH. Please stick to what reliable sources define the country's type of government as. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)often a compound multi-wikilinked term, e.g. 'Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic', etc)
{{
Infobox country}}
has no provision for the ideology of a party. Granted that the party is ruling the nation, but that doesn't mean we need to put it into the infobox. This is something the infobox is not designed for. We don't do it for any other countries either. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
09:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Can you make the RFC more specific? Please specify the parameter in the infoxbox to which you are referring. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Why is Ukrainetz1 apparently having a conversation with himself? ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on 28 December 2016 with the following discussion being had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#North korea juche which is now concluded.
The above discussion was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on 27 December 2016 with the following discussion being had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IP editor votes in RfC and closes it which is now concluded.
Sport and politics ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
During the 18th meeting of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, the contribution from the DPRK's ruling party, the Worker's Party of Korea, mentioned the policy of "Byongjin". Byongjin, from my understanding, appears to be an advancement on the earlier Songun policy, replacing the military first policies with nuclear deterrent.
Contribution by the WPK can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-PP8SlF2WQEcFpNeXF6d21hMWdUWS1UajlVdFB3RTVwQzZ3/view
Specifically, this quote is of interest; "The Worker's Party of Korea under the unfurled banner of the Byongjin policy will work hard to remove, by means of our power nuclear deterrent, the root cause of the threat of nuclear war created by the United States and to safeguard peace in the region and the rest of the world."
EDIT: There are additional sources which support that this policy is being implemented, including the Institute For Far Eastern Studies, reports financed by the SK government, etc.
Sources:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-PP8SlF2WQEcFpNeXF6d21hMWdUWS1UajlVdFB3RTVwQzZ3/view http://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/policies/byongjin/ http://search.proquest.com/openview/29355b37cd81fdeee7d6a9e39b80d460/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=46815 Graydar ( talk) 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Every country that has a official language other than English has names at the top of the infobox in that other language, below the English one. North Korea is missing its official Korean name in the infobox. Bokmanrocks01 ( talk) 00:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted a section on "Propaganda" because it was unsourced, and had extreme claims, such as that 40% of the North Korean budget is spent on idolising their leaders.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Juche, rfc saying no consensus means no common agreement NOT a firm rejection to it Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 08:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"The number of Korean dead, injured or missing by war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population. The majority of those killed were in the North, which had half of the population of the South; although the DPRK does not have official figures, possibly twelve to fifteen percent of the population was killed in the war, a figure close to or surpassing the proportion of Soviet citizens killed in World War II"
http://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.m.flood ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The article should no longer refer to Obama as "Current US President" -- 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article:
The source doesn't support this. It says: "But Buddhists apparently have fared better than Christians, who have been sent to labor camps or even executed for practicing their religion, defectors have said." It doesn't talk about funding for the promotion of Buddhism, but about the restoration of a Buddhist temple in the Kumgang tourist area. The information I've removed doesn't reflect what's in the Religion in North Korea article. It is inconsistent with the information about Chondoism, which has its own political party and seems to have fared better than Buddhism.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 13:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The article on United States involvement in regime change includes a paragraph beginning "South Korea 1945-1950" that claims that, "On August 28, 1945 these committees formed the temporary national government of Korea, naming it the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK) a couple of weeks later." This is inconsistent with claims in this article on North Korea. Might someone have the time to reconcile the differences? Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The article said:
Shouldn't that be providedoffered flood relief? As far as I can tell from reading the sources, no actual goods were shipped or delivered. South Korea said that didn't need help, but was only entertaining the offer of help to avoid looking bad. Talks broke down over the North's condition that trucks be allowed to cross the border, and the South's refusal to allow this. --21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
North Korea should be in caps to stand out from all of us because of different country if they won't to be them let them but war will not be any where in the world not USA AND NOT NORTH KOREA UNDERSTAND DONALD TRUMP AND KINGJONGUN THANKS. Jack turnbull ( talk) 21:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the early 1980s, I have noticed that a few times per decade North Korea will either (a) denounce the USA as an "aggressor" which is planning to invade or attack at any moment; or (b) dig tunnels under the DMZ, which are then detected; or (c) launch a minor attack on South Korea like strafing a naval vessel. This year, it's standing toe to toe with Trump.
What's the best section to describe this sort of thing? Is it "Military" or "Foreign relations", or what? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction, it says "The Korean state originated with Korean pottery in around 8000 BC". As far as I can tell this is being used as an indication of the earliest known human settlement of the peninsula, but this is not explained well at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldScratchJohnson ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
We mention Brian Reynolds Myers nine times by name, and cite his work more. For example, in "Political ideology":
In this one sentence we cite Myers three times and reviews of Myers three times. This is like a personality cult. It's also misleading to talk about the views of "others", when we are really just presenting the view of Myers six times.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
References
From its beginnings in 1945 the regime has espoused—to its subjects if not to its Soviet and Chinese aid-providers—a race-based, paranoid nationalism that has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. [...] North Korea has always had less in common with the former Soviet Union than with the Japan of the 1930s, another 'national defense state' in which a command economy was pursued not as an end in itself, but as a prerequisite for rapid armament. North Korea is, in other words, a national-socialist country
Evaluating your web page has given me an understanding that your sense of humor has been vanquished because of your discipline of perfection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.153.86 ( talk) 14:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There being no objections, I have simplified this sentence and removed some of the citations.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "government" section, it says "Hereditary juche.." but it doesn't state whether it's Unitary of Federal. 173.66.49.101 ( talk) 02:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 ( talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Osas congo comedy and skizz ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The North Koreans have good reason to be annoyed with the US. Pres Clinton promised them 800,000 barrels of oil annually if they behaved themselves and did not use nuclear power. Around 2003 the North Koreans said they were freezing and starving to death by the thousands and would need to use nuclear power because the had no other source of energy [hint!]. Soon afterwards the US said that if they are going to use nuclear power then they intend to build nukes, and therefore these 'bad guys' did not deserve the oil which the US did not have because of the Chavez Venezuelan oil strike! The US did not reveal that it did not have enough oil to keep its promise and it then pestered North Korea so much that they decided to actually make nukes. Moreover, defense head Hilary Clinton sent the US Navy to further blame and annoy the North Koreans.
in 2009 the North Koreans jailed two journalists who worked for Bill Clinton's friend Al Gore. When Bill Clinton departed from North Korea with them we saw the North Koreans smiling and waving because they thought they were about to receive their oil. But no. About six months later the North Koreans allegedly sank a South Korean destroyer. Fidel Castro later stated that " The US will find it very difficult to admit that they sank the destroyer [A 'false flag operation to tarnish North Korea's reputation so that it again did not deserve the oil]." The North Koreans might be mad but they are also angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.246 ( talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
For instance, the article gives a false impression when it states that N.K. has the largest submarine fleet in the world - since the vast majority of these craft are things like 'human torpedoes' and mini-subs - there are very few full-sized submarines in their military and they are all outdated clunkers. A novice might read this section and come away with an entirely wrong idea about the strength and power of their submarine force. Any confrontation with allied powers in the area of submarine warfare would be very short and very exciting - for the North Koreans. Other reliable sources should be quoted to give some balance to the statement. 104.169.17.29 ( talk) 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see the justification for this new section, which draws together "Foreign relations" and "Human rights" from elsewhere. The "introduction" to this section says that the ROK doesn't recognise the DPRK. Equally, the DPRK doesn't recognise the ROK. The same thing is echoed in the lead. I think it's important to say this, but not in a way that concentrates on the ROK point of view. Then the introduction talks about travelling from South to North, without citations. I don't think this information is entirely accurate. Then it talks about diplomatic recognition, which belongs under "Foreign relations".-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of statements which appear worded to sound like great achievements or sinister threats, but are actually just normal everyday features of modern life worldwide (i.e. not notable). For example, the section "Law enforcement and internal security" contains:
But that's true for pretty much any country that has broadband and cellular phones. It's perfectly ordinary for a country's emergency services to be able to locate a cell phone user, and it's perfectly ordinary for state institutions to monitor communications to defend national security. It's done in France, the UK, the USA, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. etc. and articles on those countries, certainly at the main article level, don't particularly highlight those features. So the article needs to justify WHY this is of particular note in North Korea, with citations to back up the reasoning.
I mean, I'd be pretty annoyed as a British taxpayer if our police were not monitoring the communications of suspected serious criminals, or if the police couldn't immediately detect my location when I called to report a violent crime in progress. And I'd be extra super annoyed if the British security services weren't sifting through internet traffic on the look-out for potential bombers.
There are other similar examples. A boy drowned while trying to rescue a photo of the president; but boys around the world drown doing all kinds of stupid things. If this were an example of a much larger pattern of people rushing into burning buildings or floodwater to rescue political photos at the exclusion of other sentimental artifacts, that'd be notable; but the article doesn't justify that. The article also seems to make a fuss about popular media being state-owned, but that's also the case for the BBC which doesn't attract similar attention in the main article about the UK, or state broadcaster NPO in the Netherlands.
If something as mundane as mass monitoring or cellphone location is worthy of note in North Korea, please explain how this contrasts with ordinary modern life in other countries. I am not arguing that is is not notable, I'm arguing that the article doesn't justify why it is notable. Andrew Oakley ( talk) 10:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive - this is a link opened when pressing "holds elections" in the intro, as well as the most of the page. Same in incognito on chrome and firefox.
Swil999 ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to have stemmed from an edit made by Special:Contributions/GodenDaeg, he added a pronunciation, but when that change was undid, it no longer linked to twitch. Swil999 ( talk) 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the part "Territory controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shown in green", add in a "claimed but uncontrolled territories shown in light green" and shade South Korea light green in the photo above the text. VoicefulBread66 ( talk) 12:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
17:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)On the 3rd September 2017 North Korea stated it had detonated its first Hydrogen Bomb as part of its nuclear testing program according to various news sources. If this is the case it ushers in a completely new global paradigm in nuclear arms proliferation signalling increased regional tensions and emergency meetings of the United Nations Security Council. The Ambassador to the United States of America, Nikki Haley, stated North Korean leader is '...begging for war...'.
Let's hear it, Naturallyunnatural, who added the tag. What exactly do you find objectionable in terms of WP:NPOV in this article? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chanhee is a North Korean spy. Lived in New Jeresy. Becareful. 197.248.183.34 ( talk) 08:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
조선 in Korean is spelled in English Chosun. Not Choson. English pronunciation Chosun sounds closest to 조선. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In4o2Read ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
there are two very contradictory reports regarding the DPRK hdi. One is the one from algora publishing presently mentioned in this article. the other is the 1998 U.N report mentioned in the 2009 version hdi a wiki article which states a far higher hdi of 0.766. Which one is correct? /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index_(2009)#Countries_missing_from_latest_report
Almost all of the sources we are using in the introduction to claim that the DPRK is "Stalinist", originate from British Imperialist sources which use the phrase as a derogatory propaganda slur word; The London Times, the London Telegraph, The Economist (a publication literally owned by the Rothschild super-capitalist dynasty), The New York Times and then some random Trotskyist site affiliated to the so-called Committee for a Workers' International. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and cannot be viewed as being balanced. In this context "Stalinism" is a hoax (there is no ideology under that name)... if they mean Marxist-Leninism even then it is more complicated than that, since Juche (the actual official ideology of the DPRK) blends elements of Marxist-Leninism and Korean specific cultural characteristics. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In response to some of your earlier points - The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the East Coast political establishment in the United States and that network is deeply tied to Anglo-American Imperialism so it is obviously going to be bias about a rival system; a socialist state like the DPRK. Same with The Economist, the fact that it is owned by perhaps the world's most famous capitalist dynasty (Rothschilds), is a strong indication of its bias against socialism. These publications support neoliberal economics and are opposed to Marxist-Leninism and any sovereign state which is in any way independent from British-American Imperialism (Venezuela, Russia, DPRK, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, etc), so how are they are neutral source in this area? It isn't a "conspiracy" just their natural biases and self-interest. I don't know what you find so strange. The Americans-British won a little thing called the Cold War, this state, the DPRK, was on the opposite side in that conflict and hasn't surrendered to it yet. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
"Various media outlets have called it ..."is both unnecessary and a form of WP:WEASEL equivocation. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism, but retained references to socialism.[111]
Following the mentioned source the word socialism is neither mentioned nor implied, therefor the half sentence of "but retained references to socialism" should either be dropped or requires a source that actually proves that. So the new sentence could be:
The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism and further elevated the military first ideology and increased the power of the leader Kim Jong-il.[111] 2003:D9:DBD6:ED00:7833:46AF:BE98:C4BF ( talk) 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The reason I added the update tag was that I noticed that a lot of our sources are roughly 10 years out of date, for example, Country Study 2009 and North Korean Handbook 2003. I realise that information on North Korea is hard to come by, but I think we should try to get something more recent. In the meantime it seems a good idea to warn the readers that information expressed in the present tense might be a decade out of date.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I have made a few edits to remove bias from the article. Koreans have been "exposed to K-pop" changed to "Listen to K Pop". The former implies that Nkoreans are passive leaves and that K pop is natural normative sunshine, rather than what any other article about subjective human beings might have said. I also removed the line in literature that talked about how "unlike the soviet union there are no dissident writers, etc" This is inappropriate and irrelevant. for a paragraph on literature of the country. Egaoblai ( talk) 15:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone points out that dissident writers are not allowed. How is that either inappropriate or irrelevant to a paragraph on literature in North Korea? 109.159.118.250 ( talk) 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
aewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.156.123.180 ( talk) 10:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
DPRK doesn't have relations with the United States, so-called Israel and others due to the human rights records and lack of legitimacy not of the former, but the rest. The framing of the article should be made neutral in this regard, instead of framing DPRK as uniquely evil compared to countries that have hundreds of documented human rights abuses, up to and including genocide. 50.101.248.225 ( talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add a citation or a "citation needed" tag to this sentence in the 4th paragraph: "Prisoners are frequently subject to slave labour, malnutrition, torture, human experimentation, rape and arbitrary executions." This-is-name ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"Soviet occupation and division of Korea" should be changed to "Occupation and division of Korea", as it was occupied by both Soviets and Americans. Hksy46 ( talk) 12:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Unitary one-party Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist Songun Juche democratic people's socialist republic ( de jure) under a totalitarian dictatorship ( de facto)
This is the most accurate description of the type of government of North Korea. AHC300 ( talk) 12:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the following from Korean War:
This has no citations and has very little to do with North Korea. Moreover, many of the statements are highly questionable. The war didn't "set the standard". It was fought almost as a "total war" like World War Two, whereas as later conflicts like the Vietnam War were limited and lower in intensity. While the Korean War is often viewed as a proxy war, this is quite problematic, particularly in an article about North Korea. As the article shows, North Korea was not manipulated by the USSR into the war. The war was not initiated by the superpowers, except in the sense that they initiated it by withdrawing their occupation forces. No one expected the USA to intervene in Korea. It was an unpredictable decision made by Truman without congressional support. He was reacting to growing Communist power around the world, including the recent Communist victory in China. He was not trying to get into a fight with Stalin. Similarly, there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to fight Truman, and he really played a very limited role in the war. This claim stems for an obsolete Cold War mentality which sees Soviet machinations behind world events, rather than acknowledging that developing countries like North Korea are not mere puppets. This has no place in this section, which should be about North Korea in the war, not about some lazy, outdated piece of analysis that treats North Korea as merely a pawn in a superpower game. Finally, I don't think the Cold War had "mostly been concerned with Europe" up to 1950. There had been Communist insurgencies in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaya. Then the Communists won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, sending shock waves round the world. In fact, the division of Korean in 1945 had been due to the emerging Cold War. And the Cold War was also American. Joseph McCarthy made his speech about Communist traitors in the State Department and Alger Hiss was prosecuted before the Korean War. It was never just all about Europe. I think what the war showed was that America would intervene anywhere in the world to halt the rise of Communism. But none of this is really relevant here because this article is about North Korea.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Under Kim dynasty, the article states:
This was added to this article by this edit in 2010. The citation to Bradley Martin's book, Under the Loving Care, was simply copied, without a page reference, from the preceding sentence which had been there for some time. It has been tagged "page needed" since 2015. Using Google books, I can't find this statement in Martin's book and it doesn't gel with what he does say about the personality cult. As we note, this idea is disputed by Myers, and it really makes no sense. How could Kim Il Sung have created the world if he was born outside of Pyongyang in 1912? If Kim Jong Il could control the weather why didn't he stop the flooding that devastated the country in the 1990s? If they had such supernatural powers, why couldn't they defeat the Americans?
To complicate matters, there is a similar sentence in North Korea's personality cult, added by this edit in 2013:
This has now been changed to:
This has a citation, a PBS article "compiled" in 2011, which says:
Given the nearly identical phrasing I believe this was compiled using Wikipedia. There is no mention, however, of an "almighty spirit" or the "blind and the sick". It is also odd that the sentence in both articles is so similar — "there is even widespread belief..." — since it is supposed to come from different sources. It seems to me that this is a hoax, parody, or piece of propaganda that someone is trying to foist onto the Internet. I don't think we should include it in either article unless we can get a verifiable reliable source for this that isn't tainted by citogenesis. (And if we are going to make a big claim that is contradicted by scholars, we need something stronger than "According to some reports...".)-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
"According to official North Korean media, military expenditures for 2010 amount to 15.8 percent of the state budget"
This line is from 2010 and there is a note left by a bot to update it. Updated information for this is not available and was not necessarily reliable or useful for understanding North Korea's military investment. It has been consistently reported that North Korea spends 22-23% of its gdp on military expenditures. 1 , 2, 3 This would update the information and would be more relevant
North Korea's military expenditures are reported to be 23.3% of its GDP placing it at the top for military expenditures relative to GDP.
Contentcreator ( talk) 23:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I am proposing an edit to the government and politics section of this article. I think it should be updated to include the current relations between Kim Jong Un and President Trump. I feel it would be beneficial to show these relations because it is important to our political climate and for people to be aware of the current political news, and the state of affairs between North Korea and the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitie Eddy ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The newly created Propaganda section is badly written, partisan, and questionable. For example, it says that, "One way the North Korean government spreads propaganda is by the implementation of epic poems. The use of epic poems instead of books was due to an economic collapse which lasted from 1989 to 1991." That is not exactly what the source says, [3] and gives a misleading view of North Korean propaganda. And the dates of the economic crisis are wrong. I'm not sure if we need a section on propaganda — it's covered elsewhere — but if we do, this section isn't it.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a propaganda section is not necessary here. The information is covered elsewhere, bu more importantly it is nearly impossible to get accurate information on this topic. You have already pointed out that that one source that was not totally accurate. In investigating some of the sources I discovered what they linked back to were not necessarily trust worthy sources. One was a blog by a university student, which is not a peer-reviewed scholarly source. Another source regarding propaganda was an interview with the editor-in-chief of Daily NK, North Korea’s primary news outlet. How can one get an unbiased opinion from the person perpetrating the propaganda. The information coming out of North Korea is so heavily censored it seems impossible to get at the root causes of the misinformation. 205.133.109.77 ( talk) 03:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
I noticed the page had the Category:Military dictatorships category added to it but before I remove it, I would like to have a consensus on the talk page. I don't think North Korea counts as a military dictatorship. It does use the "military-first" policy but it doesn't really fit in the category of a military dictatorship as it would usually imply something like martial law is implemented and a military dictatorship almost always starts with a military coup from a government the military perceives as corrupt or dangerous. North Korea had been under the same kind of dictatorship since it was founded in 1948. The Songun policy does say military-first but it does not make it a military dictatorship. Jackninja5 ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Koreas martial art is tae kwon do. It means punch kick arts.The story was that Japan ataked korea and then any one spot useing tae kwon do would be arested but someone secretly learned tae kwon do and then other people learnd it with him so the law was vetoed and people learned tae kwon do.
Would it be possible to mention sultanism in the government section of the infobox? 50.92.18.181 ( talk) 01:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Why does this article use the informal derogatory term North Korea rather than the official title, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Rhemmiel ( talk) 07:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It has grown quite large. Suggestions on what might be trimmed ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/192.44.242.19|192.44.242.19]] ([[User talk:192.44.242.19|talk]]) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) }}
Should we use juche in the infobox? Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
|government_type =
parameter, which
the infobox template says is "". The current version does this while restraining from enumerating tangential topics such as ideologies. There isn't a single reliable source that would say that the type of government of North Korea is "Juche", and misconstruing it as such is blatant WP:SYNTH. Please stick to what reliable sources define the country's type of government as. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)often a compound multi-wikilinked term, e.g. 'Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic', etc)
{{
Infobox country}}
has no provision for the ideology of a party. Granted that the party is ruling the nation, but that doesn't mean we need to put it into the infobox. This is something the infobox is not designed for. We don't do it for any other countries either. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
09:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Can you make the RFC more specific? Please specify the parameter in the infoxbox to which you are referring. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Why is Ukrainetz1 apparently having a conversation with himself? ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on 28 December 2016 with the following discussion being had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#North korea juche which is now concluded.
The above discussion was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on 27 December 2016 with the following discussion being had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IP editor votes in RfC and closes it which is now concluded.
Sport and politics ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
During the 18th meeting of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, the contribution from the DPRK's ruling party, the Worker's Party of Korea, mentioned the policy of "Byongjin". Byongjin, from my understanding, appears to be an advancement on the earlier Songun policy, replacing the military first policies with nuclear deterrent.
Contribution by the WPK can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-PP8SlF2WQEcFpNeXF6d21hMWdUWS1UajlVdFB3RTVwQzZ3/view
Specifically, this quote is of interest; "The Worker's Party of Korea under the unfurled banner of the Byongjin policy will work hard to remove, by means of our power nuclear deterrent, the root cause of the threat of nuclear war created by the United States and to safeguard peace in the region and the rest of the world."
EDIT: There are additional sources which support that this policy is being implemented, including the Institute For Far Eastern Studies, reports financed by the SK government, etc.
Sources:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-PP8SlF2WQEcFpNeXF6d21hMWdUWS1UajlVdFB3RTVwQzZ3/view http://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/policies/byongjin/ http://search.proquest.com/openview/29355b37cd81fdeee7d6a9e39b80d460/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=46815 Graydar ( talk) 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Every country that has a official language other than English has names at the top of the infobox in that other language, below the English one. North Korea is missing its official Korean name in the infobox. Bokmanrocks01 ( talk) 00:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted a section on "Propaganda" because it was unsourced, and had extreme claims, such as that 40% of the North Korean budget is spent on idolising their leaders.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Juche, rfc saying no consensus means no common agreement NOT a firm rejection to it Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 08:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"The number of Korean dead, injured or missing by war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population. The majority of those killed were in the North, which had half of the population of the South; although the DPRK does not have official figures, possibly twelve to fifteen percent of the population was killed in the war, a figure close to or surpassing the proportion of Soviet citizens killed in World War II"
http://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.m.flood ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The article should no longer refer to Obama as "Current US President" -- 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article:
The source doesn't support this. It says: "But Buddhists apparently have fared better than Christians, who have been sent to labor camps or even executed for practicing their religion, defectors have said." It doesn't talk about funding for the promotion of Buddhism, but about the restoration of a Buddhist temple in the Kumgang tourist area. The information I've removed doesn't reflect what's in the Religion in North Korea article. It is inconsistent with the information about Chondoism, which has its own political party and seems to have fared better than Buddhism.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 13:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The article on United States involvement in regime change includes a paragraph beginning "South Korea 1945-1950" that claims that, "On August 28, 1945 these committees formed the temporary national government of Korea, naming it the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK) a couple of weeks later." This is inconsistent with claims in this article on North Korea. Might someone have the time to reconcile the differences? Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The article said:
Shouldn't that be providedoffered flood relief? As far as I can tell from reading the sources, no actual goods were shipped or delivered. South Korea said that didn't need help, but was only entertaining the offer of help to avoid looking bad. Talks broke down over the North's condition that trucks be allowed to cross the border, and the South's refusal to allow this. --21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
North Korea should be in caps to stand out from all of us because of different country if they won't to be them let them but war will not be any where in the world not USA AND NOT NORTH KOREA UNDERSTAND DONALD TRUMP AND KINGJONGUN THANKS. Jack turnbull ( talk) 21:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the early 1980s, I have noticed that a few times per decade North Korea will either (a) denounce the USA as an "aggressor" which is planning to invade or attack at any moment; or (b) dig tunnels under the DMZ, which are then detected; or (c) launch a minor attack on South Korea like strafing a naval vessel. This year, it's standing toe to toe with Trump.
What's the best section to describe this sort of thing? Is it "Military" or "Foreign relations", or what? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction, it says "The Korean state originated with Korean pottery in around 8000 BC". As far as I can tell this is being used as an indication of the earliest known human settlement of the peninsula, but this is not explained well at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldScratchJohnson ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
We mention Brian Reynolds Myers nine times by name, and cite his work more. For example, in "Political ideology":
In this one sentence we cite Myers three times and reviews of Myers three times. This is like a personality cult. It's also misleading to talk about the views of "others", when we are really just presenting the view of Myers six times.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
References
From its beginnings in 1945 the regime has espoused—to its subjects if not to its Soviet and Chinese aid-providers—a race-based, paranoid nationalism that has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. [...] North Korea has always had less in common with the former Soviet Union than with the Japan of the 1930s, another 'national defense state' in which a command economy was pursued not as an end in itself, but as a prerequisite for rapid armament. North Korea is, in other words, a national-socialist country
Evaluating your web page has given me an understanding that your sense of humor has been vanquished because of your discipline of perfection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.153.86 ( talk) 14:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There being no objections, I have simplified this sentence and removed some of the citations.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "government" section, it says "Hereditary juche.." but it doesn't state whether it's Unitary of Federal. 173.66.49.101 ( talk) 02:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 ( talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Osas congo comedy and skizz ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The North Koreans have good reason to be annoyed with the US. Pres Clinton promised them 800,000 barrels of oil annually if they behaved themselves and did not use nuclear power. Around 2003 the North Koreans said they were freezing and starving to death by the thousands and would need to use nuclear power because the had no other source of energy [hint!]. Soon afterwards the US said that if they are going to use nuclear power then they intend to build nukes, and therefore these 'bad guys' did not deserve the oil which the US did not have because of the Chavez Venezuelan oil strike! The US did not reveal that it did not have enough oil to keep its promise and it then pestered North Korea so much that they decided to actually make nukes. Moreover, defense head Hilary Clinton sent the US Navy to further blame and annoy the North Koreans.
in 2009 the North Koreans jailed two journalists who worked for Bill Clinton's friend Al Gore. When Bill Clinton departed from North Korea with them we saw the North Koreans smiling and waving because they thought they were about to receive their oil. But no. About six months later the North Koreans allegedly sank a South Korean destroyer. Fidel Castro later stated that " The US will find it very difficult to admit that they sank the destroyer [A 'false flag operation to tarnish North Korea's reputation so that it again did not deserve the oil]." The North Koreans might be mad but they are also angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.246 ( talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
For instance, the article gives a false impression when it states that N.K. has the largest submarine fleet in the world - since the vast majority of these craft are things like 'human torpedoes' and mini-subs - there are very few full-sized submarines in their military and they are all outdated clunkers. A novice might read this section and come away with an entirely wrong idea about the strength and power of their submarine force. Any confrontation with allied powers in the area of submarine warfare would be very short and very exciting - for the North Koreans. Other reliable sources should be quoted to give some balance to the statement. 104.169.17.29 ( talk) 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see the justification for this new section, which draws together "Foreign relations" and "Human rights" from elsewhere. The "introduction" to this section says that the ROK doesn't recognise the DPRK. Equally, the DPRK doesn't recognise the ROK. The same thing is echoed in the lead. I think it's important to say this, but not in a way that concentrates on the ROK point of view. Then the introduction talks about travelling from South to North, without citations. I don't think this information is entirely accurate. Then it talks about diplomatic recognition, which belongs under "Foreign relations".-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of statements which appear worded to sound like great achievements or sinister threats, but are actually just normal everyday features of modern life worldwide (i.e. not notable). For example, the section "Law enforcement and internal security" contains:
But that's true for pretty much any country that has broadband and cellular phones. It's perfectly ordinary for a country's emergency services to be able to locate a cell phone user, and it's perfectly ordinary for state institutions to monitor communications to defend national security. It's done in France, the UK, the USA, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. etc. and articles on those countries, certainly at the main article level, don't particularly highlight those features. So the article needs to justify WHY this is of particular note in North Korea, with citations to back up the reasoning.
I mean, I'd be pretty annoyed as a British taxpayer if our police were not monitoring the communications of suspected serious criminals, or if the police couldn't immediately detect my location when I called to report a violent crime in progress. And I'd be extra super annoyed if the British security services weren't sifting through internet traffic on the look-out for potential bombers.
There are other similar examples. A boy drowned while trying to rescue a photo of the president; but boys around the world drown doing all kinds of stupid things. If this were an example of a much larger pattern of people rushing into burning buildings or floodwater to rescue political photos at the exclusion of other sentimental artifacts, that'd be notable; but the article doesn't justify that. The article also seems to make a fuss about popular media being state-owned, but that's also the case for the BBC which doesn't attract similar attention in the main article about the UK, or state broadcaster NPO in the Netherlands.
If something as mundane as mass monitoring or cellphone location is worthy of note in North Korea, please explain how this contrasts with ordinary modern life in other countries. I am not arguing that is is not notable, I'm arguing that the article doesn't justify why it is notable. Andrew Oakley ( talk) 10:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive - this is a link opened when pressing "holds elections" in the intro, as well as the most of the page. Same in incognito on chrome and firefox.
Swil999 ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to have stemmed from an edit made by Special:Contributions/GodenDaeg, he added a pronunciation, but when that change was undid, it no longer linked to twitch. Swil999 ( talk) 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the part "Territory controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shown in green", add in a "claimed but uncontrolled territories shown in light green" and shade South Korea light green in the photo above the text. VoicefulBread66 ( talk) 12:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
17:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)On the 3rd September 2017 North Korea stated it had detonated its first Hydrogen Bomb as part of its nuclear testing program according to various news sources. If this is the case it ushers in a completely new global paradigm in nuclear arms proliferation signalling increased regional tensions and emergency meetings of the United Nations Security Council. The Ambassador to the United States of America, Nikki Haley, stated North Korean leader is '...begging for war...'.
Let's hear it, Naturallyunnatural, who added the tag. What exactly do you find objectionable in terms of WP:NPOV in this article? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chanhee is a North Korean spy. Lived in New Jeresy. Becareful. 197.248.183.34 ( talk) 08:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
조선 in Korean is spelled in English Chosun. Not Choson. English pronunciation Chosun sounds closest to 조선. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In4o2Read ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
there are two very contradictory reports regarding the DPRK hdi. One is the one from algora publishing presently mentioned in this article. the other is the 1998 U.N report mentioned in the 2009 version hdi a wiki article which states a far higher hdi of 0.766. Which one is correct? /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index_(2009)#Countries_missing_from_latest_report
Almost all of the sources we are using in the introduction to claim that the DPRK is "Stalinist", originate from British Imperialist sources which use the phrase as a derogatory propaganda slur word; The London Times, the London Telegraph, The Economist (a publication literally owned by the Rothschild super-capitalist dynasty), The New York Times and then some random Trotskyist site affiliated to the so-called Committee for a Workers' International. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and cannot be viewed as being balanced. In this context "Stalinism" is a hoax (there is no ideology under that name)... if they mean Marxist-Leninism even then it is more complicated than that, since Juche (the actual official ideology of the DPRK) blends elements of Marxist-Leninism and Korean specific cultural characteristics. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In response to some of your earlier points - The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the East Coast political establishment in the United States and that network is deeply tied to Anglo-American Imperialism so it is obviously going to be bias about a rival system; a socialist state like the DPRK. Same with The Economist, the fact that it is owned by perhaps the world's most famous capitalist dynasty (Rothschilds), is a strong indication of its bias against socialism. These publications support neoliberal economics and are opposed to Marxist-Leninism and any sovereign state which is in any way independent from British-American Imperialism (Venezuela, Russia, DPRK, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, etc), so how are they are neutral source in this area? It isn't a "conspiracy" just their natural biases and self-interest. I don't know what you find so strange. The Americans-British won a little thing called the Cold War, this state, the DPRK, was on the opposite side in that conflict and hasn't surrendered to it yet. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
"Various media outlets have called it ..."is both unnecessary and a form of WP:WEASEL equivocation. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism, but retained references to socialism.[111]
Following the mentioned source the word socialism is neither mentioned nor implied, therefor the half sentence of "but retained references to socialism" should either be dropped or requires a source that actually proves that. So the new sentence could be:
The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism and further elevated the military first ideology and increased the power of the leader Kim Jong-il.[111] 2003:D9:DBD6:ED00:7833:46AF:BE98:C4BF ( talk) 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The reason I added the update tag was that I noticed that a lot of our sources are roughly 10 years out of date, for example, Country Study 2009 and North Korean Handbook 2003. I realise that information on North Korea is hard to come by, but I think we should try to get something more recent. In the meantime it seems a good idea to warn the readers that information expressed in the present tense might be a decade out of date.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I have made a few edits to remove bias from the article. Koreans have been "exposed to K-pop" changed to "Listen to K Pop". The former implies that Nkoreans are passive leaves and that K pop is natural normative sunshine, rather than what any other article about subjective human beings might have said. I also removed the line in literature that talked about how "unlike the soviet union there are no dissident writers, etc" This is inappropriate and irrelevant. for a paragraph on literature of the country. Egaoblai ( talk) 15:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone points out that dissident writers are not allowed. How is that either inappropriate or irrelevant to a paragraph on literature in North Korea? 109.159.118.250 ( talk) 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
aewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.156.123.180 ( talk) 10:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
DPRK doesn't have relations with the United States, so-called Israel and others due to the human rights records and lack of legitimacy not of the former, but the rest. The framing of the article should be made neutral in this regard, instead of framing DPRK as uniquely evil compared to countries that have hundreds of documented human rights abuses, up to and including genocide. 50.101.248.225 ( talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Korea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add a citation or a "citation needed" tag to this sentence in the 4th paragraph: "Prisoners are frequently subject to slave labour, malnutrition, torture, human experimentation, rape and arbitrary executions." This-is-name ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"Soviet occupation and division of Korea" should be changed to "Occupation and division of Korea", as it was occupied by both Soviets and Americans. Hksy46 ( talk) 12:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Unitary one-party Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist Songun Juche democratic people's socialist republic ( de jure) under a totalitarian dictatorship ( de facto)
This is the most accurate description of the type of government of North Korea. AHC300 ( talk) 12:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the following from Korean War:
This has no citations and has very little to do with North Korea. Moreover, many of the statements are highly questionable. The war didn't "set the standard". It was fought almost as a "total war" like World War Two, whereas as later conflicts like the Vietnam War were limited and lower in intensity. While the Korean War is often viewed as a proxy war, this is quite problematic, particularly in an article about North Korea. As the article shows, North Korea was not manipulated by the USSR into the war. The war was not initiated by the superpowers, except in the sense that they initiated it by withdrawing their occupation forces. No one expected the USA to intervene in Korea. It was an unpredictable decision made by Truman without congressional support. He was reacting to growing Communist power around the world, including the recent Communist victory in China. He was not trying to get into a fight with Stalin. Similarly, there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to fight Truman, and he really played a very limited role in the war. This claim stems for an obsolete Cold War mentality which sees Soviet machinations behind world events, rather than acknowledging that developing countries like North Korea are not mere puppets. This has no place in this section, which should be about North Korea in the war, not about some lazy, outdated piece of analysis that treats North Korea as merely a pawn in a superpower game. Finally, I don't think the Cold War had "mostly been concerned with Europe" up to 1950. There had been Communist insurgencies in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaya. Then the Communists won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, sending shock waves round the world. In fact, the division of Korean in 1945 had been due to the emerging Cold War. And the Cold War was also American. Joseph McCarthy made his speech about Communist traitors in the State Department and Alger Hiss was prosecuted before the Korean War. It was never just all about Europe. I think what the war showed was that America would intervene anywhere in the world to halt the rise of Communism. But none of this is really relevant here because this article is about North Korea.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Under Kim dynasty, the article states:
This was added to this article by this edit in 2010. The citation to Bradley Martin's book, Under the Loving Care, was simply copied, without a page reference, from the preceding sentence which had been there for some time. It has been tagged "page needed" since 2015. Using Google books, I can't find this statement in Martin's book and it doesn't gel with what he does say about the personality cult. As we note, this idea is disputed by Myers, and it really makes no sense. How could Kim Il Sung have created the world if he was born outside of Pyongyang in 1912? If Kim Jong Il could control the weather why didn't he stop the flooding that devastated the country in the 1990s? If they had such supernatural powers, why couldn't they defeat the Americans?
To complicate matters, there is a similar sentence in North Korea's personality cult, added by this edit in 2013:
This has now been changed to:
This has a citation, a PBS article "compiled" in 2011, which says:
Given the nearly identical phrasing I believe this was compiled using Wikipedia. There is no mention, however, of an "almighty spirit" or the "blind and the sick". It is also odd that the sentence in both articles is so similar — "there is even widespread belief..." — since it is supposed to come from different sources. It seems to me that this is a hoax, parody, or piece of propaganda that someone is trying to foist onto the Internet. I don't think we should include it in either article unless we can get a verifiable reliable source for this that isn't tainted by citogenesis. (And if we are going to make a big claim that is contradicted by scholars, we need something stronger than "According to some reports...".)-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
"According to official North Korean media, military expenditures for 2010 amount to 15.8 percent of the state budget"
This line is from 2010 and there is a note left by a bot to update it. Updated information for this is not available and was not necessarily reliable or useful for understanding North Korea's military investment. It has been consistently reported that North Korea spends 22-23% of its gdp on military expenditures. 1 , 2, 3 This would update the information and would be more relevant
North Korea's military expenditures are reported to be 23.3% of its GDP placing it at the top for military expenditures relative to GDP.
Contentcreator ( talk) 23:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I am proposing an edit to the government and politics section of this article. I think it should be updated to include the current relations between Kim Jong Un and President Trump. I feel it would be beneficial to show these relations because it is important to our political climate and for people to be aware of the current political news, and the state of affairs between North Korea and the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitie Eddy ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The newly created Propaganda section is badly written, partisan, and questionable. For example, it says that, "One way the North Korean government spreads propaganda is by the implementation of epic poems. The use of epic poems instead of books was due to an economic collapse which lasted from 1989 to 1991." That is not exactly what the source says, [3] and gives a misleading view of North Korean propaganda. And the dates of the economic crisis are wrong. I'm not sure if we need a section on propaganda — it's covered elsewhere — but if we do, this section isn't it.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a propaganda section is not necessary here. The information is covered elsewhere, bu more importantly it is nearly impossible to get accurate information on this topic. You have already pointed out that that one source that was not totally accurate. In investigating some of the sources I discovered what they linked back to were not necessarily trust worthy sources. One was a blog by a university student, which is not a peer-reviewed scholarly source. Another source regarding propaganda was an interview with the editor-in-chief of Daily NK, North Korea’s primary news outlet. How can one get an unbiased opinion from the person perpetrating the propaganda. The information coming out of North Korea is so heavily censored it seems impossible to get at the root causes of the misinformation. 205.133.109.77 ( talk) 03:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)