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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
North Korea has been characterized by a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute as: "Highly repressive, heavily militarized, strongly resistant to reform, and ruled by a dynastic dictatorship that adheres to a hybrid ideology, North Korea might be 'the strangest political system in existence.' While distinctive, North Korea is an orthodox communist party-state best classified as an eroding totalitarian regime."
Source: [1]Author: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=5
It's an accurate quote of an abstract of what looks to be a prestigious enough journal. However, I'm unsure of WP:NPOV (including undue weight) and whether it should be in the intro section, politics section, Politics of North Korea or present at all. TransUtopian 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is correctly attributed, and at least it isn't some "North Korea is considered by many Globalist/Western/American/captilist warmonger observers to be..." weasel-worded monstrosity. It does adequately capture the majority POV. I would say that it's okay, but it needs to be immediately followed by the minority, pro-North Korean government POV - you know, how NK is a multiparty democractic worker's paradise. Make the minority report as strong as possible, and providing a source would be good too. Put the two paragraphs together, and I think we have a workable compromise. What do you guys think? crazyeddie 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a paragraph that looks useful:
"North Korea remains one of the world’s most closed societies. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. Freedom of expression, information and religion are almost non-existent. Thousands of North Koreans languish in forced labor camps, where torture is endemic. Many die in prison because of mistreatment, malnutrition, and lack of medical care. The government of North Korea has consistently refused to allow U.N. human rights rapporteurs and other independent and impartial organizations to investigate the situation inside North Korea, despite two successive resolutions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights urging that it do so. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea has been denied entry into the country."
How about this:
Still somewhat of a tug-of-war, but that's not easy to avoid in an article as controversial as this one. NK's "offical" website is not all that good of a source, but it would be difficult to find a more offical source for the NK party line on the internet. crazyeddie 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't find sources other than the CIA and the North Korean fansite either. AFAICT, the Korean Social Democratic Party is also the name of a South Korean party, which makes searching difficult. "Chondoist Chongu Party" only gets 656 Ghits, and many of those are Wikipedia mirrors. Did find this, which at least says how many seats the parties have. I think we'll just have to go with the CIA source. So how's this? crazyeddie 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest eliminating the CIA World Factbook reference. The history of the North Korea article shows that the topic frequently is polarizing, and there are some for whom any mention of "CIA" immediately evokes a negative reaction. Better to stick with NGOs. Many others could be added to your list of NGOs, such as Amnesty International [9], the University of Bern [10], the Committee to Protect Journalists [11], and so on. It could be worth adding a brief sentence something like "Other major NGOs generally concur in this assessment." (with supporting links) after the first sentence. Raymond Arritt 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Woot! Found confirmation of the minor political parties being under the control of the KWP: "Article 11 of the constitution reads: "The DPRK shall operate all of its activities under the leadership of the Worker's Party of Korea"." [12] Now I just need to find an English version of the constitution to confirm the confirmation... crazyeddie 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's odd. Government of North Korea has a link to Wikisource. But the link goes here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution Where there is no article. Searching for "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution" brings up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution which lists "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution," relevance 100% which lead back to a non-existant article. Okay, I realize that North Korea's constitution is Orwellian, but I didn't think it was that Orwellian. I think I'm going to bed now. crazyeddie 05:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Right now the opening paragraph says that the DPRK government is a "Communist-led multi-party state" and any claims to the contrary are mixed with words such as "Western governments claim" to make them sound extremely unreliable. I think there is no doubt that the NK government in practice functions as a dictatorship, and assuredly not a multiparty democracy, but for some reason there seems to be disagreement. For those who are changing it, why do you think we should not call North Korea a dictatorship, or at the very least, an oligarchy? Thanks, -- Atb129 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone answer this, please. Furiouszebra 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain, but I think that a unified front implies that only one candidate from the front runs for each office. -- Reuben 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently we also have your government's propaganda as well. crazyeddie 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha, here's some info on elections. This is from the presentation of Mr. Li Chun Sik, Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Pyongyang, April-May 1991 [14], p. 17-18.
So indeed, the front chooses one candidate per seat, and the ordinary voters can only approve or disapprove. -- Reuben 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have seen many references to the effect that the presidency of the DPRK was left vacant after the death of Kim Il-Sung. I have heard (I think from the BBC but I can't precisely remember) that Kim Il-Sung is still regarded as the President, making the DPRK the only nation to have a non-living head of state. Is this true or is it just a rumour? Walton monarchist89 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for the motto? A Google search only yields Wikipedia mirrors. Pruneau talk 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think with this site, it's the motto of The People's Republic of Taepodong II one of the three nations of North Korea and classified by the UN as psychotic dictatorship see [15] for details,
Although here [16] It says that's the motto for the country
And this could be the convincing one at transcripts from CNN. It was said by Phillip Doyle former assistant to the secretary of Defense. [17]-- JForget 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is radically different than the NK page I saw 2 months ago! Please .. a "positve growth rate since 1996" do in part to a "military-first" policy??? Are you kidding me? That policy is choking the life out of the NK people. Look, whether you hate America or not, you cannot "spin" NK to look good, in any way or metric. Zero positve. It is the most repressive and draconian country on the face of the Earth. The geography may be beautiful, but hell, Saturn looks nice from a distance, but that doesn't mean I would dare set foot on it if I was able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.239.162 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 March 2007 UTC
I removed the sentence denoting and linking to supposed Japanese footage from inside a labour camp because the link is dead.
Ruebens suggested I add a comment here.
I see at present the wrong short name is used to call the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on this article is "North Korea" which is not the abreviated name to call their country in English. Having been in contact with officials from DPR Korea I know the term they use, and respect their choice.
DPR Korea is also the name of the country used in practice in documents from important sources.
For example the UN:
UNEP launches first Report on the State of the Environment in the DPR Korea
Welcome to the Humanitarian Development Resource Centre (HDRC) DPR Korea
DPR Korea willing to accept emergency aid for flood victims, says UN food agency
Security Council demands that DPR Korea suspend ballistic missile activities
Certain news services and US administration refer to the DPR Korea as "North Korea", that isn't accurate and we should not give that alternative name credence over the official name, the recognised name and the name they would like their country to be called.
Therefore I propose revising the article and name to reflect the actual name used in practice, DPR Korea if short name, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea if a full name. now3d 2006-10-03 12:19 GMT
The title of an article has no bearing on what the "real" name is of the thing described. It is merely a convenience for our readers.
The most common name for the DPRK in English is "North Korea". The intro correctly mentions the country's official name.
If there is space in the infobox, we could indicate the "official short form" of the country's name, so that those who "repect" the government's wishes will know what those wishes are. The Wikipedia, however, is under no obligation to respect any government's wishes as to how it describes anything. We merely report others' points of view, we don't endorse or reject any POV. -- Uncle Ed 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
All that matters is how most English-speaking people would look for it in the encyclopedia. "DPR Korea" is a rare form, in the English-speaking world. I think you already know that.
If you want to ask for an exception to Wikipedia guidelines, you can, but it's an uphill battle.
Better to stick with the form that most people actually English-speaking people use: "North Korea". -- Uncle Ed 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
DPRK and ROK are abbreviations, used especially when contrasting the two governments on the Korean peninsula. A country is more than just a government. I think of "South Korea" for example, as the territory and populace below the 38th parallel; and the ROK ( Republic of Korea) as the government which rules this territory and people. -- Uncle Ed 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps any, but: North Korea - 151,000,000 Ghits [18]. DPRK - 2,560,000 Ghits [19]. DPR Korea - 3,650,000 Ghits [20]. "DPR Korea" - 810,000 Ghits [21]. Plus, if we were going to call it by what the inhabitants call it, then I doubt we'd be using English to do it. And, last I checked, it's Japan, not Nihon. If calling the place "North Korea" instead of "DPR Korea" is disrespectful, we are hardly singling it out. crazyeddie 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Opps, look like Ed (the other Ed) beat me to the Ghits thing. Sorry! crazyeddie 04:48, 6 October 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
North Korea has been characterized by a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute as: "Highly repressive, heavily militarized, strongly resistant to reform, and ruled by a dynastic dictatorship that adheres to a hybrid ideology, North Korea might be 'the strangest political system in existence.' While distinctive, North Korea is an orthodox communist party-state best classified as an eroding totalitarian regime."
Source: [1]Author: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=5
It's an accurate quote of an abstract of what looks to be a prestigious enough journal. However, I'm unsure of WP:NPOV (including undue weight) and whether it should be in the intro section, politics section, Politics of North Korea or present at all. TransUtopian 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is correctly attributed, and at least it isn't some "North Korea is considered by many Globalist/Western/American/captilist warmonger observers to be..." weasel-worded monstrosity. It does adequately capture the majority POV. I would say that it's okay, but it needs to be immediately followed by the minority, pro-North Korean government POV - you know, how NK is a multiparty democractic worker's paradise. Make the minority report as strong as possible, and providing a source would be good too. Put the two paragraphs together, and I think we have a workable compromise. What do you guys think? crazyeddie 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a paragraph that looks useful:
"North Korea remains one of the world’s most closed societies. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. Freedom of expression, information and religion are almost non-existent. Thousands of North Koreans languish in forced labor camps, where torture is endemic. Many die in prison because of mistreatment, malnutrition, and lack of medical care. The government of North Korea has consistently refused to allow U.N. human rights rapporteurs and other independent and impartial organizations to investigate the situation inside North Korea, despite two successive resolutions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights urging that it do so. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea has been denied entry into the country."
How about this:
Still somewhat of a tug-of-war, but that's not easy to avoid in an article as controversial as this one. NK's "offical" website is not all that good of a source, but it would be difficult to find a more offical source for the NK party line on the internet. crazyeddie 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't find sources other than the CIA and the North Korean fansite either. AFAICT, the Korean Social Democratic Party is also the name of a South Korean party, which makes searching difficult. "Chondoist Chongu Party" only gets 656 Ghits, and many of those are Wikipedia mirrors. Did find this, which at least says how many seats the parties have. I think we'll just have to go with the CIA source. So how's this? crazyeddie 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest eliminating the CIA World Factbook reference. The history of the North Korea article shows that the topic frequently is polarizing, and there are some for whom any mention of "CIA" immediately evokes a negative reaction. Better to stick with NGOs. Many others could be added to your list of NGOs, such as Amnesty International [9], the University of Bern [10], the Committee to Protect Journalists [11], and so on. It could be worth adding a brief sentence something like "Other major NGOs generally concur in this assessment." (with supporting links) after the first sentence. Raymond Arritt 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Woot! Found confirmation of the minor political parties being under the control of the KWP: "Article 11 of the constitution reads: "The DPRK shall operate all of its activities under the leadership of the Worker's Party of Korea"." [12] Now I just need to find an English version of the constitution to confirm the confirmation... crazyeddie 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's odd. Government of North Korea has a link to Wikisource. But the link goes here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution Where there is no article. Searching for "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution" brings up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution which lists "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution," relevance 100% which lead back to a non-existant article. Okay, I realize that North Korea's constitution is Orwellian, but I didn't think it was that Orwellian. I think I'm going to bed now. crazyeddie 05:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Right now the opening paragraph says that the DPRK government is a "Communist-led multi-party state" and any claims to the contrary are mixed with words such as "Western governments claim" to make them sound extremely unreliable. I think there is no doubt that the NK government in practice functions as a dictatorship, and assuredly not a multiparty democracy, but for some reason there seems to be disagreement. For those who are changing it, why do you think we should not call North Korea a dictatorship, or at the very least, an oligarchy? Thanks, -- Atb129 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone answer this, please. Furiouszebra 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain, but I think that a unified front implies that only one candidate from the front runs for each office. -- Reuben 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently we also have your government's propaganda as well. crazyeddie 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha, here's some info on elections. This is from the presentation of Mr. Li Chun Sik, Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Pyongyang, April-May 1991 [14], p. 17-18.
So indeed, the front chooses one candidate per seat, and the ordinary voters can only approve or disapprove. -- Reuben 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have seen many references to the effect that the presidency of the DPRK was left vacant after the death of Kim Il-Sung. I have heard (I think from the BBC but I can't precisely remember) that Kim Il-Sung is still regarded as the President, making the DPRK the only nation to have a non-living head of state. Is this true or is it just a rumour? Walton monarchist89 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for the motto? A Google search only yields Wikipedia mirrors. Pruneau talk 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think with this site, it's the motto of The People's Republic of Taepodong II one of the three nations of North Korea and classified by the UN as psychotic dictatorship see [15] for details,
Although here [16] It says that's the motto for the country
And this could be the convincing one at transcripts from CNN. It was said by Phillip Doyle former assistant to the secretary of Defense. [17]-- JForget 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is radically different than the NK page I saw 2 months ago! Please .. a "positve growth rate since 1996" do in part to a "military-first" policy??? Are you kidding me? That policy is choking the life out of the NK people. Look, whether you hate America or not, you cannot "spin" NK to look good, in any way or metric. Zero positve. It is the most repressive and draconian country on the face of the Earth. The geography may be beautiful, but hell, Saturn looks nice from a distance, but that doesn't mean I would dare set foot on it if I was able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.239.162 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 March 2007 UTC
I removed the sentence denoting and linking to supposed Japanese footage from inside a labour camp because the link is dead.
Ruebens suggested I add a comment here.
I see at present the wrong short name is used to call the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on this article is "North Korea" which is not the abreviated name to call their country in English. Having been in contact with officials from DPR Korea I know the term they use, and respect their choice.
DPR Korea is also the name of the country used in practice in documents from important sources.
For example the UN:
UNEP launches first Report on the State of the Environment in the DPR Korea
Welcome to the Humanitarian Development Resource Centre (HDRC) DPR Korea
DPR Korea willing to accept emergency aid for flood victims, says UN food agency
Security Council demands that DPR Korea suspend ballistic missile activities
Certain news services and US administration refer to the DPR Korea as "North Korea", that isn't accurate and we should not give that alternative name credence over the official name, the recognised name and the name they would like their country to be called.
Therefore I propose revising the article and name to reflect the actual name used in practice, DPR Korea if short name, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea if a full name. now3d 2006-10-03 12:19 GMT
The title of an article has no bearing on what the "real" name is of the thing described. It is merely a convenience for our readers.
The most common name for the DPRK in English is "North Korea". The intro correctly mentions the country's official name.
If there is space in the infobox, we could indicate the "official short form" of the country's name, so that those who "repect" the government's wishes will know what those wishes are. The Wikipedia, however, is under no obligation to respect any government's wishes as to how it describes anything. We merely report others' points of view, we don't endorse or reject any POV. -- Uncle Ed 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
All that matters is how most English-speaking people would look for it in the encyclopedia. "DPR Korea" is a rare form, in the English-speaking world. I think you already know that.
If you want to ask for an exception to Wikipedia guidelines, you can, but it's an uphill battle.
Better to stick with the form that most people actually English-speaking people use: "North Korea". -- Uncle Ed 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
DPRK and ROK are abbreviations, used especially when contrasting the two governments on the Korean peninsula. A country is more than just a government. I think of "South Korea" for example, as the territory and populace below the 38th parallel; and the ROK ( Republic of Korea) as the government which rules this territory and people. -- Uncle Ed 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps any, but: North Korea - 151,000,000 Ghits [18]. DPRK - 2,560,000 Ghits [19]. DPR Korea - 3,650,000 Ghits [20]. "DPR Korea" - 810,000 Ghits [21]. Plus, if we were going to call it by what the inhabitants call it, then I doubt we'd be using English to do it. And, last I checked, it's Japan, not Nihon. If calling the place "North Korea" instead of "DPR Korea" is disrespectful, we are hardly singling it out. crazyeddie 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Opps, look like Ed (the other Ed) beat me to the Ghits thing. Sorry! crazyeddie 04:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)