Talk:North Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive 1 created August 9, 2006 by crazyeddie

Archive 2 created August 31, 2006 by crazyeddie

Archive 3 (July-August 2006), created November 7 2006 by Visviva.

Archive 4 (September 2006), created November 7 2006 by Visviva.

Map of Korea WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Pavilion at Gyeongbok palace, Seoul
Korea-related tasks:
This article is part of WikiProject Countries, an attempt to formulate a template for country articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Wikipedia CD Selection North Korea is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.


Contents

[edit] Correcting the short name to DPR Korea from North Korea

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

World Hunger - Korea (DPR)

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

Please read through the debate at the top of this page. - Lee Stanley 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this debate on this talk page numerous times and have decided otherwise on more than one ocassion. The fact that you didn't even bother to read through the talk page and made this change unilaterally is rather... rude. Furthermore, if we were going to use the name you suggest we'd use DPRK and not DPR Korea which really doesn't flow at all; part acronym, part regular name, doesn't work well. I'm an international studies graduate student and I've never seen it called "DPR Korea." Regardless, given the previous debates and the consensus reached, as well as Wikipedia's policy of using the common name rather than official name, it should be reverted to North Korea. --The Way 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Although we did have a long debate, and if I remember correctly it reached 'no consensus', should we have another debate on this very issue, say, in two years' time? Hopefully we'll get more people's opinions by then so it doesn't have to stay as 'no consensus'. Jsw663 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
One small point - I took the result to be "no consensus for a move," not "no consensus either way." --Reuben 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Uncle Ed, using the common short form DPR Korea or DPRK is not about respecting the government, it is about using the common, widely used name that people from DPR Korea use, the UN, the US and most other people use. now3d 2006-10-04 18:37 GMT
Hello, Just to confirm I previously read the debate which was kept for reference at the top of this talk page -- to assume otherwise is incorrect. Also, I didn't make unilateral changes, you aren't the only people documenting the activities of DPR Korea. IMHO a mistake is a mistake, and wikipedia is built by people developing articles and not propagating opinions such as the non-conventional name (North Korea).
In addition there was no comment at the top of the article about your opinion of a different name (North Korea). Many of my revisions have not been reverted I note, in addition to many references correctly using other other less common abbreviation, DPRK I also note. So there is already a trend to use common short names, just the article name and other places also use the name "North Korea" which describes it's geographic position at the end of the Korean War, and not the country name -- this isn't cartography, it's about a country!
Indeed, DPRK would be an improvement over a name only certain media outlets use, we should use the common name as you call it, which isn't "North Korea". The common name is either DPR Korea as you can see from the quick selection of links I included in my first post, or "DPRK".
At present the article does not follow the wikipedia naming convention for countries, it propagates an opinion, in short, it should follow the naming convention. Other articles on wikipedia support my point that the common name should be used, e.g. German Democratic Republic.
You will also see on that even the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) Criterion demonstrate a form of DPRK abbreviation or full should be used, which supports my point.
Re The Way International studies graduate, I'm surprised you never encountered the commonly used short name DPR Korea. Did your course cover countries in the Korean Peninsular then?
I have dealt with citizens of DPR Korea, and when they speak in English they use that name, all of them use the same name as does all documentation. Have you met anyone from DPR Korea who has told you otherwise?
As you say wikipedia's policy is to use the common name, therefore it should be reverted back to DPR Korea. You have not cited any sources which back up your points for using a name different to the common name DPR Korea.
Please take my comments as constructive, I'm not intending any of this to be argumentative, I'd like us to come to an agreement on how to move the article forward. now3d 2006-10-04 18:24 GMT

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)


I take your criticism as being constructive. I do want to apologize for the tone of my previous post to this discussion, it's no excuse but I wasn't in a very good mood when I replied to the initial statements here. However, to answer your question I have never, until now, seen it called DPR Korea though I took a look at the links you supplied and see that the term is used. Still, everytime I've seen references to the official name its either been fully spelled out or completely shortened to DPRK. I do feel, personally, that if we do reach a new decision to go with the official term, DPRK would be a better option because it is both shorter to read/write and I feel that it flows better while still being correct. I attend class with a South Korean and he refers to it as DPRK rather than DPR Korea, although he actually does also refer to it as North Korea from time to time (which I assume is more so that Americans know what he's talking about rather than that being a term he actually would use back home).
As far as I am aware, it's Wikipedia's policy to use the common name rather than the official name, at least insofar as the actual title of the article is concerned. In that case, at least as far as the US is concerned, North Korea would be the 'common name' though I'm not sure if the term is as common in other english-speaking countries. Yes, the term DPRK is used in America by diplomats, government officials and academics but the general citizen probably wouldn't even know that the term refers to what they call North Korea; all of the major news networks call it North Korea rather than DPRK, at least for the most part.
As for examples of the use of the term North Korea rather than DPRK, if you look at the major news networks and their websites, they'll use the term North Korea. CNN.com right now has a top headline where it refers to 'North Korea.' The BBC also has not one, but several, headlines with 'North Korea' rather than DPRK. ABC and Fox News (which, I recognize, is crap as far as news is concened) aslo typically refer to it only as North Korea. The major newsmagazines TIME, Newsweek and US News & World Report refer to it as North Korea as well, I've seen that name on numerous covers but have yet to see DPRK. Finally, some more 'professional' news magazines also refer to it as North Korea. As an example, The Atlantic's cover story this week is "The Menace of North Korea." Thus, it's apparent that the term North Korea is the common name applied insofar as the media is concerned. If you were to talk to the average American citizen and you mentioned the 'DPRK' they'd likely have no idea what you were talking about, though they'd understand North Korea perfectly. Now, I recognize that this site is not meant to cater specifically to Americans but I'm only acquainted with the way Americans would refer to the country and can't speak for other english nations. Also, it should be mentioned that American politicians use the term North Korea as well; in fact, when President Bush named the 'Axis of Evil' he called the country North Korea, not the DPRK. Indeed, I can't think of any instances where I've had a US politician talking to the public and calling it anything other than North Korea, though clearly in diplomatic situations that term would be used.
I personally would prefer using 'DPRK' throughout the article, though I'm less sure of whether it should be used as the title for the reasons mentioned above. However, it should be recognized that the official names of many countries are not used in this sense in articles on their countries because the common name is so much more accepted. --The Way 18:08, 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[1]. DPRK - 2,560,000 Ghits[2]. DPR Korea - 3,650,000 Ghits [3]. "DPR Korea" - 810,000 Ghits[4]. 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)

"North Korea" is often considered insulting, like Ostdeutschland (East Germany) was in the DDR days. "North Korea" is never used by the official bodies of the state. Everton 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither is "South Korea" used by the ROK... If the South was at Republic of Korea and the North was at North Korea, I could see the point. However, as long as the same policy applies equally to both Koreas, it's difficult to see what the problem is. -- Visviva 12:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the South should be ROK too. The two states are ROK and DPRK. Everton 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppression

  • In North Korea, listening to South Korean radio is regarded as betrayal of the regime for which the accused and all his family members are imprisoned and severely punished. [5]
Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have evidence for this, add it to the article. If it's just your opinion, then this is the wrong place to discuss it. And please sign your username or IP with four tildes - I hate anonymous contributions. Walton monarchist89 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIAS!!!!!!

Wow I know that North Korea has a highly authoritarian regime but this article particularly sounds so extermely biased and westernized I am amazed!!!! It sounds like George W. Bush wrote it!! The entire intro is basically saying North Korea has a decadent corrupt regime and needs to be westernized and that the country is a danger!!!! This is a country what about it's geography or some historcial context in intro rather than again and again stating the repression?? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of information about the geography etc. if you read the whole article. I don't think it's particularly biased either; where does it say anything about a decadent corrupt regime? Please take the time to read the article carefully before posting your criticisms. Walton monarchist89 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds more like a philosphical debate. Does reality have an inherant bias? The facts are that North Korea faces many very harsh accusations. But since North Korea doesn't officially recognize any criticsm, does that mean that everything said is mere conjecture? (directedition)

[edit] Flag and Coat of Arms label

The label under the flag reads [[Flag of {{{common_name}}}|Flag]] and the coat of arms has the same problem. I tried to change it but it seems to be part of the template. Does anyone know how to fix this? sijarvis 10:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has said anything but it seems to have been fixed, thanks whoever it was. sijarvis 13:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not DPRK?

The state's name is DPRK, not North Korea. "North Korea" is a controversial word like Ostdeutschland.Everton 10:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is more commonly known as "North Korea" among English-speaking people, so maybe that's why. (Stefan2 10:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
Well http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostdeutschland is a German term... that the German speakers themselves had no problem making an article out of... so isn't it a bad example?--Greasysteve13 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If you read earlier sections of this talk page, this debate has already taken place twice, with very little productive result. Since the intro uses both names, and "DPRK" redirects to this page anyway, I don't think it really matters. Walton monarchist89 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah.--Greasysteve13 06:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I noticed some examples vandalism on this page. I reverted one version where it said things such as "Stupid DPRK" and manually removed the text "(a g@y)" from the name of the Chairman of the National Defence Commissioner. I couldn't find the version where the text was added, though, so maybe it's better if someone checks the whole text for other, similar, errors. (Stefan2 10:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Sadly, politically-motivated vandalism is always a huge problem on these kind of controversial pages. I will keep checking the article text for any deliberate errors. Walton monarchist89 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Do not vandalize, it stops others from helping with the project, it interferes with the process.--Afa86 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Pre-' Introduction

Surely the 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence ("North Korea is often referred to by global media sources as Stalinist, isolationist, and authoritarian.") and 2nd paragraph about the US professor's quote is more apt for the section where it talks about politics later on. Otherwise the (pre-)intro is hardly a 'summary', and provides so much opinion that one cannot read the rest of the article without a biased mindset from the start. Jsw663 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reuben: This is NOT to do with anything about the 'archived straw poll'. This is about content at present. Please actually READ what you're deleting before you do it. Jsw663 15:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From the diff of the edit in question, you can see that the target was in fact a stray new vote in the archived straw poll section. But I goofed this time, and unintentionally removed some other edits along with it. I have restored the comments that were affected. Thanks for pointing out my error. --Reuben 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seismic Activity Contradiction

This is tough since I've seen reports that the seismic activity magnitude was 3.6 and others that say that it was 4.2. The article states both in two different paragraphs. Can someone verify and correct? --Damae 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers are from different sources. 4.2 is the number reported by the USGS; South Korean scientists reported 3.58. See OhMyNews and Janes, also USGS report. -- Visviva 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. I've therefore removed the contradict tag. Walton monarchist89 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue state, Axis of Evil.

It appears certain people do not want to mention the fact that North Korea is a rogue state, and part of the Axis of evil in the article. Could you please explain why this information should not be mentioned. Thanks? Cerebral Warrior 10:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Axis of evil? Rogue state? Have you thought about US presidency? :) Those terms are just words used by Bush to describe the US position on North Korea, and as an encyclopedia information is presented objectively here, "axis of evil" and "rogue state" definitely do not qualify, what we do instead is present a detailed background of the North's government and political situation and leave our readers to form their own conclusions. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What does the US have to do with this? North Korea is a rogue, Axis of Evil state, as can be seen here. Cerebral Warrior 07:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that information is adequately covered in the Foreign relations section; in any event, such specific characterizations of the state probably don't belong in the lead paragraph. Cheers, -- Visviva 10:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the term Axis of Evil is American political terminology - and although there is no disputing the facts, this is the opinion of one nation. Please remember that Encyclopedias should be objective - terminlogy such as "rogue state" are subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.118.6.245 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although I'm inclined to describe it as a rogue state myself, in the interests of NPOV we have to present all sides of the argument. Walton monarchist89 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This description was reinserted in the lead; I've removed it. "Rogue state" is an undefined term, and "axis of evil" is a characterization used by one country. They are not neutral descriptors. A properly referenced statement to the effect that the USA has declared NK part of the axis of evil, or that the USA considers NK to be a rogue state, would be fine. But we can't categorically state in the lead that this is what NK is. Eron 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

True that, the view of the US is not exactly cannonical. For example if Pakistan thought that the US is part of an Axis of Evil, would you place that in the US page?. We must treat this article like if it was from your own country, its the only wat to achieve NPOV.

[edit] Mass Line (Mass Games?) and Intellectuals

The last of the opening paragraphs mentions ways in which North Korea differs from superficially similar states, but the main article never goes into detail. Can someone who knows about this provide some? Maybe in an Ideology section? DavidBofinger 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that's funny. The Wikipedia seems to have a healthy population of Communists, but there is no article on the mass line? Well, IIRC, the mass line goes like this: Marx said that the revolution would be fought by the proletariat. In Russia, there was no real proletariat, so Lenin proposed a mass line: proletariat + peasants + intellectuals. Kim il-Sung (the father) added soldiers to this. At least that's what my memory is reporting... crazyeddie 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See the article on Juche. Walton monarchist89 10:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some oddities

Some things I noticed, doing a mass diff over the last few days:

although all outside experts view the nation as a totalitarian, single-party dictatorship under the absolute control of Kim Jong-il–"a living, breathing Stalinist" state.[1]

The "all outside experts..." phrase does not appear in the source. And, given some of the moshing around on this page, I seriously doubt that "all outside experts" agree on any thing. Should we do someting about this language, or just wait for one of the pro-NKs to throw a winger?

Aircraft holdings include 190 MiG-21s, 30 MiG-29s, 60 MiG-23s, 40 Q-5 Fantans, plus an additional 250 or so of older MiG-19s, MiG-17s and Su-7s. Since the 1980s, the air force has expanded its inventory of helicopters from 40 to 275.

As far as I can tell from the source [6], that should be 150 MiG-21s. Am I reading the source wrong?

We also need a source for Amnesty International and North American Free Speech Association statement in Human Rights section. crazyeddie 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Korea 31st / 38th Parallel

History section of "North Korea" references the 31st Parallel incorrectly, although link is properly provided to 38th Parallel.

[edit] Protection of Page in the wake of atomic testing?

Any chance of this page being protected/semi protected?

As much as I enjoy a good chuckle, "OMG KOREA HAS T3H NUKEZORZ, KIM JONG ILL IS INSANE" doesn't quite grab me as encyclopedic.203.129.42.54 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is on my watch list. There was a flurry of extra vandalism right after the test but it seems to be waning. I doubt the admins would go for SP status as the article isn't markedly vandal-prone relative to other articles on controversial topics. Even non-controversial articles such as The Beatles are vandalized about as much as this one. Sure, vandalism is an annoyance, but the more serious damage to this article is done when someone comes in determined to push a POV. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I think vandalism is a problem, particularly viz-a-viz recent nuclear developments. The problem with vandalism on this page, compared to The Beatles, is that almost all of it is politically motivated - and much of it is more subtle than OMG KOREA HAS T3H NUKEZORZ, KIM JONG ILL IS INSANE. Walton monarchist89 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12 japanese girls abducted by North Korea and used as slaves to teach North Korean spys how to act

Again, 12 japanese girls abducted by North Korea and used as slaves to teach North Korean spys how to act. This is ALL OVER the news right now, if we don't edit this in. I will tomorrow morning. 71.236.225.50 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about this. If you add it to the article, make sure you provide adequate and specific citations. Walton monarchist89 10:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I see the guy hasn't put it up there, or if he has, it's been removed. It's been mentioned in quite a few publications over the years and former Japanese PM Koizumi Junichiro went to NK to discuss the matter, among others. In fact, Charles Robert Jenkins, a US Army deserter who fled to NK to avoid being deployed to Vietnam, married a captured Japanese woman. So, I mean, the cases are documented, it's just a matter of citing them. I'll look into maybe adding it later. Shadowrun 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.pyang.su

Has anyone noticed this website, which was just added to the "websites about North Korea" section? It seems to only have been around for a few weeks, and looks to me like it might actually be an amazingly elaborate propaganda site, or maybe some sort of joke. Either way, the link should be reclassified or removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krutherford43 (talk • contribs).

This link was added by an IP that has been frequently blocked for vandalism. I've removed the link. (By the way please sign your comments by putting four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia!) Raymond Arritt 02:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a joke. --Reuben 05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A Whois on the domain does return a contact with an 850 area code (This was recently changed to the 850 number from a number with an Edmonton area code) however--although admittedly inconclusive--a whois on the listed nameserver(s) displays a Canadian address. The webmaster suggests in the 'ask a Korean' section that he submits received questions to Pyongyang by fax but having tried faxing Pyongyang myself from Canada (same city as listed in the whois on the domain's nameserver); I found it impossible to get a clear enough line to successfully transmit. kev. 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Scary site, apart from the "Ask a Korean" section (in wich aparently true letters are sent, yet dubious koreans reply), there is another, scarier section called "News", in wich you can see who ranks on the music chart (LaToya Jackson has been number 1 for weeks) and news about "hordes of south koreans fleeing to North Koreans" (wasnt it the other way around?) and my personal favorite, the gripping tale of Dilara Alisultan, a girl who was kidnapped by orders of Bush himself to be raped in the senate, and how she sent a letter to the dear leader who sent special operation squads to america to save her. So, propaganda?... nah, how could you even think that.

[edit] Motto

Does anyone have a reference for the motto? A Google search only yields Wikipedia mirrors. Pruneautalk 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 [29] for details,

Although here [30] 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. [31]--JForget 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The first website is that of a Role Playing Game; I doubt that the UN classifies any country as a "psychotic dictatorship". The second website clearly states that information was taken from Wikipedia. In the third website, Philip Coyle doesn't say anything about the motto; the journalist does, and I am not sure that qualifies as a reliable source. Pruneautalk 09:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Jong Il and Madeleine Albright

Forgive my lack of Wikipedia techno-savvy, but what the heck is up with this picture? Is that Wil Wheaton? The high-res version used in the article is unaltered, at least. Hiddekel 01:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal alert!

" an East Asian country situated on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula run by a reportedly exiled transgendered mentally-challenged extra-terrestrial going by the name of Kim Jong-Il, who formerly played on Saturday Night Live the character of "Pat," a sexually ambiguous and androgynous individual. "

That sounds funny, but does not belong here. Should be protected! 195.70.48.242 10:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That (and some other recent vandalism) is taken care of; vandalism has been very intense here lately. Would not object to semi-protection here. -- Visviva 11:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to link here and syphon off some of the jokers? crazyeddie 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

the vandal is back! the whole page is full of this junk now, including the image subtexts --Maximilian77 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the level of vandalism has become too hard to keep up with and the article needs to be semi-protected. Will request. Raymond Arritt 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Raymond Arritt 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description of Government

If the DPRK is a Communist-led state, why are some people poorer than others? An extremist dictatorship like that of Kim, is no better than fascism. SENSAY911 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Kim is a rogue, Axis of Evil dictator. Cerebral Warrior 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nort Korea give food about 200 - 300 mln. dol. but it is about 0.5 - 0.75 pesent his economi or 10 - 15 dol. one people. T4 06:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please restrict your comments to those relating to the article itself. Walton monarchist89 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. Some people believe that North Korea is not Communist-led, and might want to change the article accordingly. I can't see how this has nothing to do with the article...Specusci 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Yong Il's Title

It's really unnecessary to have all that information about how people in different languages call him. I think it ought to be cut.

No, it's not irrelevant. The title of Kim Jong Il is a matter of controversy, and is an immensely important part of DPRK political life (owing to the cult of personality). The fact is, everything about DPRK is so controversial at present that any changes to this page, however trivial, could be viewed as politically motivated. So I'd advise you not to cut any of it. Walton monarchist89 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected status

Earlier, it was agreed that this page should be semiprotected, due to the high levels of politically motivated vandalism - but it doesn't seem to have been given semiprotected status yet. I strongly feel that this page should be semiprotected. Walton monarchist89 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It had been semi-protected for about 12 days, but was unprotected today. See here. Shall we request re-protection? -- Visviva 13:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: In the approximately 12 hours since un-protection, there have been three cases of clear vandalism by anons or new users, and one anon test. If this keeps up, which it surely will, we're looking at about 6 rvv's per day; that's not impossible to handle, but it's more than enough to get in the way. I've got plenty of other pages to patrol for vandalism, so I myself am leaning towards requesting re-protection. -- Visviva 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Do note that when I unprotected the page, the page was not linked off the main page. Since then it's been linked back on the main page again. I don't believe 6 reverts on one page per day is beyond Wikipedia's capabilities, and Wikipedia should aim to minimize the number of protected pages. However, I'm not entirely opposed to re-protection, as long as someone remembers to un-protect it when vandalism subsides. theProject 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Visviva and strongly request re-protection. Walton monarchist89 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North-South relations

I changed some of the information that made North and South Korea sound like they where getting better in their relations. Perhaps this is true on part of the government, but the citizens of both nations despise each other. Two south korean friends of mine use "north korean" as an insult not all that dissimilar from english phrases like "fag".

~Specusci

Fair enough, but bear in mind that you need to provide citations for any information that you add to the articles. By the way, to sign your username, use four tildes: ~~~~ Walton monarchist89 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. My own experience suggests that your friends are far from representative of the South Korean people. -- Visviva 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way, Visviva, but these friends have only been living outside of South Korea for about a year now. They're more or less average koreans. But I will look for references, as I agree that the opinion of a friend is not substantial enough. Specusci 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Specusci

[edit] Population

Very little information comes in and goes out of Nort-Korea. How can we know that there is a population of 23 millions? I think it maight be a some smaller amount.

It looks like the source for the 23 million+ figure is the CIA World Factbook. How they got the information is anybody's guess - they could tell us, but then they'd have to kill us. So the short answer is that we don't know. Of course, even in this country (the USA), the census isn't perfect, so our estimate of our population is bound to be off a bit. Since the figure is properly sourced, that's good enough for the Wikipedia. Unless you've got a hotline to God or something, you aren't likely to get a more accurate fix. crazyeddie

[edit] Politics

I know that not much of what we might consider politics goes on in NK, but still, a section on "government and politics", such as it is, wouldn't be amiss, right? Biruitorul 08:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of War

Just wanted to let you all know I removed a short clause stating the United States and North Korea are technically still at war, since a peace treaty was never signed. If we're going to refer to technicalities, North Korea and the United States were technically never at war to begin with. There was a citation for the statement which seemed relevant to the article as a whole, but not to that statement specifically; I removed it as well. Ogthor 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. North and South Korea are still at war -- or at least that's the prevailing understanding -- so I expect that's the source of the mistake. -- Visviva 10:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's supposed to be North and South Korea that are still locked in a state of war, not North Korea and the United States. It could have even been vandalism? Specusci 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I am fairly certain that North Korea is NOT officially atheiest. Crocodilicus 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/r/Talk%7ENorth_Korea_1a7c.html"