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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Which is North Korea's take on Mexico? El Chompiras 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Request:
Ryugyong Tower link to the external links: http://ryugyonghotel.com/
Something's wrong with the flag and coat of arms label, at the top of the box on the right. Can someone fix it? HSL 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt the name of this article be Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that is the official name) insted of north korea? Revengeofthynerd 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Will the user from Takoma Park, MD, USA (IP 71.252.52.8) stop vandalizing the page? Jsw663 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done my best to archive any inactive discussions from above, as the page was getting intolerably long. I tried to leave behind any discussions where there were comments from July or August of 2006, since those might still be active. If I accidentally moved any active discussions, it might be better to restart the discussion further on down than to dredge up the original back out of the archives - I saw a lot of sections with comments from 2005 or even 2004 followed up by comments from 2006. Might be a good idea to come back and do some more archiving in a month or so. crazyeddie 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states that a 7th (or possibly 6th, since the 6th in the series is currently disputed) missile was fired on July 6th. I've not been able to find reference to this, and the Wikipedia article on the whole incident seems to only contain rumors that a 7th launch was being readied, not that on was fired off. Could it be that somebody just jumped the gun in reporting that 7th launch here? Or is my researching ability being imparied by the fact that is about 3AM local time? At least it is already marked with a "citiation needed" notice...
At any rate, I'd like to link to the main article on the missile test, and reduce the amount of language this article dedicates to it. I won't attempt that now, because of the aforementioned local time. If anybody gets a chance to do something about this before I get a round to it, be bold. crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest changing:
to
or something similar. Suggestions? Objections? Alternatives? crazyeddie 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good, except I'm not sure what NK's actual rationale is, or where to find that out. (Where's Bjornar when you need him/her?) Could somebody figure that out, or suggest an interim solution until somebody figures it out? crazyeddie 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked it some, more for reasons of aesthetics than NPOV or anything else. crazyeddie 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The section currently consists of:
First off, I'm fairly sure that more was involved than just the actions of the United States, so this would appear to be pretty POV. Secondly, this is pretty stubby, even for a summary. Any suggestions on how to improve this? crazyeddie 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It might be better to add more information to both articles than to simply remove the section. While South Korea doesn't have a section dealing with reunification, it does have a paragraph dealing with its relationship with the North. Perhaps something similar should be done here, a paragraph dealing with the North's relationship with the South rather than a seperate section? crazyeddie 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Here's the relevant paragraph from SK's article:
I've inserted a paragraph into the main foreign relations section dealing with NK's reunification policy, which I basically cut and pasted from the Korean reunification article:
I think it is best to talk about NK's policy rather than SK's policy in this article, so I've left out many of the details. crazyeddie 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable about having a seperate first level section for "issues." I'd like to move the human rights subsection to foreign relations and the famine subsection to economy. This isn't a perfect solution, but I think it's better than the current status quo. Comments? crazyeddie 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, wouldn't tourism be better placed under Economy than Culture? Or would it be better to remove the section altogether, and link to tourism article from See Also? crazyeddie 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the information from the famine subsection into the economy section, where there was already some langague dealing with it already. Could use a bit of massaging to blend it in better. crazyeddie 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That's done, now I'll just listen for screams.... crazyeddie 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
So, just because jesusland is gearing up to invade north korea doesn't mandate a list of websites criticizing the country. No other country seems to have such a section in their respective articles. It is ridiculous & I urge that it be removed asap.
The result of the debate was no concensus for move. Also North Korea, although not its self-identifying name, follows the naming conventions for countries. Joelito ( talk) 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
North Korea → Democratic People's Republic of Korea … Rationale: Proper name of the country, North Korea is informal. -- Hamedog Talk| @ 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that there is precidence for a case like this, in East Germany/German Democratic Republic. The article is under the name German Democratic Republic, despite the common english name of East Germany.12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is from WP:Naming Conventions: To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:
Criterion | Option 1 | Option 2 |
1. Most commonly used name in English | ? | ? |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | ? | ? |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | ? | ? |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of equal scores, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above).
My understand is that the table would look like this, if option 1 was Democratic People's Republic of Korea and 2 North Korea:
Criterion | Option 1 | Option 2 |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 0 | 1 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 1 | 0 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 0 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Providing self-identifying name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", then we have a further support for a change to Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
I know how silly it is, but, according to North Korean law, Kim Il Sung (deceased) is forever the President of Korea. It sure is cultish, bizarre and freaky, but I don't think we should disregard his official status no matter how absurd it may be. He should be listed on the information box as the president. -- Ce garcon 19:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jog on. 86.7.153.81 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If the North Korean government see him as the president of NK forever then he should be in the infobox.-- Scott3 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Me too. But there's already someone there, and I'm not sure how to change it without screwing things up.-- Planetary 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is really inaccurate, in the DPRK's new constitution after Kim Il Sung died, Kim Il Sung is refered poetically to as "the eternal president of the republic", in the preamble to the constitution, not in the body of the constitution itself. The preamble has no legal status, niether Kim Il Sung, the office of "president" or "eternal president" or any variation of it are referenced in the body of the text, so in fact he has no legal standing and the office does not exist. It seems that some westerners got a little carried away in over reporting the significance of an, admittedly rather cultish line, but not one that suggests what is being claimed.
NoJoyInMudville
17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's bogus. Why? A simple whois turned up the following:
domain: korea-dpr.com status: lock owner: Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les email: vientian@hotmail.com address: Valencia, 555, 3, 3 city: Barcelona state: Barcelona postal-code: 08026 country: ES admin-c: vientian@hotmail.com#0 tech-c: salva@digival.es#80 billing-c: salva@digival.es#0 reseller-1: Visite: www.digival.es reseller-2: Dominios com, net, org, biz. info. y .es reseller-3: 1a Empresa Espanola del sector certificado AENOR reseller-4: Rapido y economico. Visitenos nserver: a.ns.joker.com 194.176.0.2 nserver: b.ns.joker.com 194.245.101.19 nserver: c.ns.joker.com 194.245.50.1 registrar: JORE-1 created: 2000-08-08 03:51:24 UTC core modified: 2004-07-08 09:47:36 UTC JORE-1 expires: 2006-08-08 03:51:24 UTC source: joker.com
db-updated: 2005-04-06 02:15:18 UTC
A spanish guy and joker.com ... doesn't seem very dprk-ish...
This is infact the Official Webpage of the DPRK, and yes, it is made by a Spanish person known as Alejandro Cao de Benos, who is appointed by the DPRK Government as Special Delegate of the DPRK government. The DNS host provider does not help to convince people that it is an official webpage, but other evidence will prove that it is. The evidence is clear, do a google for "korea-dpr.com" and see the BBC links. Click on "webpages that link to korea-dpr.com". About Cao de Benos, see among other this link from NKZONE http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/04/honolulu_pyongy.html where multiple news organizations (Like Yonhap) are referring to his webpage and news of the signing of the "Friendship City" between Honolulu and Pyongyang, See also the Slate article http://slate.msn.com/id/2076686/ about DearLeader.com - Kim Jong-il's fanboy home page. This should settle the status of www.korea-dpr.com and I am adding it back on the page if its missing. Let this stand for future reference. -- Bjornar 13:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For those who are curious, www.korea-dpr.com has now changed its DNS servers. -- Bjornar 09:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the webpage were official it would be based inside the DPRK and run by North Korean citizens. However, korea-dpr.com is run by mere fans and supporters of the North Korean government and is simply a fanpage. Generously-speaking, one might refer to it as the official North Korean fansite. 220.126.38.85 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The previous comment is incorrect. North Korean citizens do not have access to the internet. The country has its own domestic intranet which features North Korean pages only and is not connected with or accessable from the Internet. For this reason, all official N.K. websites on the Internet are based in other countries. Examples include the KCNA site (based in Japan) and Naenara (based in Germany). -- Winword10 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Within the article it says:
>and in practice almost no-one is refused entry by North Korea
However in referenced article "Fancy a round, Dear leader?" (Independent), it says:
>The local proverb "seeing is believing" goes some way to explaining why the
>DPRK bothers granting any of its meagre 1,500 tourist visas issued annually
>to Western travellers
I can't see how they don't refuse entry when they only allow 1500 tourist visas.
I have changed it, but find the whole section on culture to be lacking. -- 32.97.110.142 18:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The edit performed by me today is a more fair distribution of facts from each opposing side, which roughly breaks down to this:
1) The official western viewpoint: The DPRK is a hellish regime like 1984 where half the people are always starving and the other half is inside a consentration camp. Millions of reports are inside the media, often lacking real evidence since many of the news are fabricated from a few set of sources, but widely circulated and repeated again and again in the western media.
2) The official policy of the DPR Korea government: The DPRK is a socialist country recovering from the "arduous march" and almost totally independant now of foreign aid, with the economy back on track, and an independant nuclear power plant producing more power to the people and with an emerging tourist industry and with more exports and trade with countries like the United States.
I should think that my editing will not last long, as human rights advocates surely will litter the page again with 100's of links to Amnesty or MSNBC, however since Wikipedia must always have a balanced perspective, as anyone can see from the history, my edit is precisely balanced between these two lines, even mentioning the preposterous idea of a "gas chamber" although the remnants of Auswitch can be seen on any satelite image, the so-called massive consentration camps that are supposed to exist cannot be seen on satelite even though they claim that millions of people live there. Everyone knows that the US has the technology to zoom in and read the clock of your hand or the license plate of a car, so with 10 million people supossedly in concentration camps, why are there no pictures?
-- Bjornar 3 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
That's what the official website of the DPRK (maintained by a third-party organization, though) says:
"13. Is North Korea a dictatorship?
No, the DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party."
http://www.korea-dpr.com/faq.htm
Bayerischermann 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The viewpoint of a site claiming that 'the Leaders are the sun of the nation and mankind' is being considered at all here? Joffeloff 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Of cource there just lying. They may say that there a "multi-party constitutional democracy" but do they fit the defintion? No.
This Finnish anthropologist's blog:
http://hunjang.blogspot.com/2005/08/dlp-and-the-korean-social-democratic.html
"To remind those who have been erroneously thinking that DPRK is a one-party state, the representatives of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Republic of Korea are at the moment visiting DPRK on the invitation by the Social Democratic Party of Korea "
The south Korean Website of the Democratic Labor Party of the RoK (South Korea) here:
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=200508221824481&code=910303
Explains their delegations travels to the DPRK to meet with the opposition Korean Social Democrats (which competes against the Workers Party for votes but is not a subversive organization trying to overthrow the government, it is a legal party in a multi-party state).
It is obvious that the South Korean political parties believe North Korea to be a multi-party state, so the one party state claim, which is totally unsourced, except in the fact that its a frequently repeated unsupported claim, has no basis in fact. NoJoyInMudville 21:45, 31 August 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Which is North Korea's take on Mexico? El Chompiras 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Request:
Ryugyong Tower link to the external links: http://ryugyonghotel.com/
Something's wrong with the flag and coat of arms label, at the top of the box on the right. Can someone fix it? HSL 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt the name of this article be Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that is the official name) insted of north korea? Revengeofthynerd 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Will the user from Takoma Park, MD, USA (IP 71.252.52.8) stop vandalizing the page? Jsw663 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done my best to archive any inactive discussions from above, as the page was getting intolerably long. I tried to leave behind any discussions where there were comments from July or August of 2006, since those might still be active. If I accidentally moved any active discussions, it might be better to restart the discussion further on down than to dredge up the original back out of the archives - I saw a lot of sections with comments from 2005 or even 2004 followed up by comments from 2006. Might be a good idea to come back and do some more archiving in a month or so. crazyeddie 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states that a 7th (or possibly 6th, since the 6th in the series is currently disputed) missile was fired on July 6th. I've not been able to find reference to this, and the Wikipedia article on the whole incident seems to only contain rumors that a 7th launch was being readied, not that on was fired off. Could it be that somebody just jumped the gun in reporting that 7th launch here? Or is my researching ability being imparied by the fact that is about 3AM local time? At least it is already marked with a "citiation needed" notice...
At any rate, I'd like to link to the main article on the missile test, and reduce the amount of language this article dedicates to it. I won't attempt that now, because of the aforementioned local time. If anybody gets a chance to do something about this before I get a round to it, be bold. crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest changing:
to
or something similar. Suggestions? Objections? Alternatives? crazyeddie 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good, except I'm not sure what NK's actual rationale is, or where to find that out. (Where's Bjornar when you need him/her?) Could somebody figure that out, or suggest an interim solution until somebody figures it out? crazyeddie 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked it some, more for reasons of aesthetics than NPOV or anything else. crazyeddie 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The section currently consists of:
First off, I'm fairly sure that more was involved than just the actions of the United States, so this would appear to be pretty POV. Secondly, this is pretty stubby, even for a summary. Any suggestions on how to improve this? crazyeddie 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It might be better to add more information to both articles than to simply remove the section. While South Korea doesn't have a section dealing with reunification, it does have a paragraph dealing with its relationship with the North. Perhaps something similar should be done here, a paragraph dealing with the North's relationship with the South rather than a seperate section? crazyeddie 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Here's the relevant paragraph from SK's article:
I've inserted a paragraph into the main foreign relations section dealing with NK's reunification policy, which I basically cut and pasted from the Korean reunification article:
I think it is best to talk about NK's policy rather than SK's policy in this article, so I've left out many of the details. crazyeddie 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable about having a seperate first level section for "issues." I'd like to move the human rights subsection to foreign relations and the famine subsection to economy. This isn't a perfect solution, but I think it's better than the current status quo. Comments? crazyeddie 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, wouldn't tourism be better placed under Economy than Culture? Or would it be better to remove the section altogether, and link to tourism article from See Also? crazyeddie 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the information from the famine subsection into the economy section, where there was already some langague dealing with it already. Could use a bit of massaging to blend it in better. crazyeddie 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That's done, now I'll just listen for screams.... crazyeddie 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
So, just because jesusland is gearing up to invade north korea doesn't mandate a list of websites criticizing the country. No other country seems to have such a section in their respective articles. It is ridiculous & I urge that it be removed asap.
The result of the debate was no concensus for move. Also North Korea, although not its self-identifying name, follows the naming conventions for countries. Joelito ( talk) 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
North Korea → Democratic People's Republic of Korea … Rationale: Proper name of the country, North Korea is informal. -- Hamedog Talk| @ 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that there is precidence for a case like this, in East Germany/German Democratic Republic. The article is under the name German Democratic Republic, despite the common english name of East Germany.12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is from WP:Naming Conventions: To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:
Criterion | Option 1 | Option 2 |
1. Most commonly used name in English | ? | ? |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | ? | ? |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | ? | ? |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of equal scores, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above).
My understand is that the table would look like this, if option 1 was Democratic People's Republic of Korea and 2 North Korea:
Criterion | Option 1 | Option 2 |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 0 | 1 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 1 | 0 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 0 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Providing self-identifying name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", then we have a further support for a change to Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
I know how silly it is, but, according to North Korean law, Kim Il Sung (deceased) is forever the President of Korea. It sure is cultish, bizarre and freaky, but I don't think we should disregard his official status no matter how absurd it may be. He should be listed on the information box as the president. -- Ce garcon 19:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jog on. 86.7.153.81 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If the North Korean government see him as the president of NK forever then he should be in the infobox.-- Scott3 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Me too. But there's already someone there, and I'm not sure how to change it without screwing things up.-- Planetary 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is really inaccurate, in the DPRK's new constitution after Kim Il Sung died, Kim Il Sung is refered poetically to as "the eternal president of the republic", in the preamble to the constitution, not in the body of the constitution itself. The preamble has no legal status, niether Kim Il Sung, the office of "president" or "eternal president" or any variation of it are referenced in the body of the text, so in fact he has no legal standing and the office does not exist. It seems that some westerners got a little carried away in over reporting the significance of an, admittedly rather cultish line, but not one that suggests what is being claimed.
NoJoyInMudville
17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's bogus. Why? A simple whois turned up the following:
domain: korea-dpr.com status: lock owner: Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les email: vientian@hotmail.com address: Valencia, 555, 3, 3 city: Barcelona state: Barcelona postal-code: 08026 country: ES admin-c: vientian@hotmail.com#0 tech-c: salva@digival.es#80 billing-c: salva@digival.es#0 reseller-1: Visite: www.digival.es reseller-2: Dominios com, net, org, biz. info. y .es reseller-3: 1a Empresa Espanola del sector certificado AENOR reseller-4: Rapido y economico. Visitenos nserver: a.ns.joker.com 194.176.0.2 nserver: b.ns.joker.com 194.245.101.19 nserver: c.ns.joker.com 194.245.50.1 registrar: JORE-1 created: 2000-08-08 03:51:24 UTC core modified: 2004-07-08 09:47:36 UTC JORE-1 expires: 2006-08-08 03:51:24 UTC source: joker.com
db-updated: 2005-04-06 02:15:18 UTC
A spanish guy and joker.com ... doesn't seem very dprk-ish...
This is infact the Official Webpage of the DPRK, and yes, it is made by a Spanish person known as Alejandro Cao de Benos, who is appointed by the DPRK Government as Special Delegate of the DPRK government. The DNS host provider does not help to convince people that it is an official webpage, but other evidence will prove that it is. The evidence is clear, do a google for "korea-dpr.com" and see the BBC links. Click on "webpages that link to korea-dpr.com". About Cao de Benos, see among other this link from NKZONE http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/04/honolulu_pyongy.html where multiple news organizations (Like Yonhap) are referring to his webpage and news of the signing of the "Friendship City" between Honolulu and Pyongyang, See also the Slate article http://slate.msn.com/id/2076686/ about DearLeader.com - Kim Jong-il's fanboy home page. This should settle the status of www.korea-dpr.com and I am adding it back on the page if its missing. Let this stand for future reference. -- Bjornar 13:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For those who are curious, www.korea-dpr.com has now changed its DNS servers. -- Bjornar 09:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the webpage were official it would be based inside the DPRK and run by North Korean citizens. However, korea-dpr.com is run by mere fans and supporters of the North Korean government and is simply a fanpage. Generously-speaking, one might refer to it as the official North Korean fansite. 220.126.38.85 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The previous comment is incorrect. North Korean citizens do not have access to the internet. The country has its own domestic intranet which features North Korean pages only and is not connected with or accessable from the Internet. For this reason, all official N.K. websites on the Internet are based in other countries. Examples include the KCNA site (based in Japan) and Naenara (based in Germany). -- Winword10 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Within the article it says:
>and in practice almost no-one is refused entry by North Korea
However in referenced article "Fancy a round, Dear leader?" (Independent), it says:
>The local proverb "seeing is believing" goes some way to explaining why the
>DPRK bothers granting any of its meagre 1,500 tourist visas issued annually
>to Western travellers
I can't see how they don't refuse entry when they only allow 1500 tourist visas.
I have changed it, but find the whole section on culture to be lacking. -- 32.97.110.142 18:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The edit performed by me today is a more fair distribution of facts from each opposing side, which roughly breaks down to this:
1) The official western viewpoint: The DPRK is a hellish regime like 1984 where half the people are always starving and the other half is inside a consentration camp. Millions of reports are inside the media, often lacking real evidence since many of the news are fabricated from a few set of sources, but widely circulated and repeated again and again in the western media.
2) The official policy of the DPR Korea government: The DPRK is a socialist country recovering from the "arduous march" and almost totally independant now of foreign aid, with the economy back on track, and an independant nuclear power plant producing more power to the people and with an emerging tourist industry and with more exports and trade with countries like the United States.
I should think that my editing will not last long, as human rights advocates surely will litter the page again with 100's of links to Amnesty or MSNBC, however since Wikipedia must always have a balanced perspective, as anyone can see from the history, my edit is precisely balanced between these two lines, even mentioning the preposterous idea of a "gas chamber" although the remnants of Auswitch can be seen on any satelite image, the so-called massive consentration camps that are supposed to exist cannot be seen on satelite even though they claim that millions of people live there. Everyone knows that the US has the technology to zoom in and read the clock of your hand or the license plate of a car, so with 10 million people supossedly in concentration camps, why are there no pictures?
-- Bjornar 3 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
That's what the official website of the DPRK (maintained by a third-party organization, though) says:
"13. Is North Korea a dictatorship?
No, the DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party."
http://www.korea-dpr.com/faq.htm
Bayerischermann 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The viewpoint of a site claiming that 'the Leaders are the sun of the nation and mankind' is being considered at all here? Joffeloff 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Of cource there just lying. They may say that there a "multi-party constitutional democracy" but do they fit the defintion? No.
This Finnish anthropologist's blog:
http://hunjang.blogspot.com/2005/08/dlp-and-the-korean-social-democratic.html
"To remind those who have been erroneously thinking that DPRK is a one-party state, the representatives of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Republic of Korea are at the moment visiting DPRK on the invitation by the Social Democratic Party of Korea "
The south Korean Website of the Democratic Labor Party of the RoK (South Korea) here:
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=200508221824481&code=910303
Explains their delegations travels to the DPRK to meet with the opposition Korean Social Democrats (which competes against the Workers Party for votes but is not a subversive organization trying to overthrow the government, it is a legal party in a multi-party state).
It is obvious that the South Korean political parties believe North Korea to be a multi-party state, so the one party state claim, which is totally unsourced, except in the fact that its a frequently repeated unsupported claim, has no basis in fact. NoJoyInMudville 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)