Talk:History of North Korea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea.
|
 |
An event mentioned in this article is a September 9 selected anniversary.
[edit] ethnocentric
why is this article listed as "north korea" instead of dprk. north korea is an american coined phrase and i dont think it should be used.
- In my experience, South Koreans and Russians commonly call it North Korea (Korean Buk Han, Russian Severnaya Koreya). Can you support the claim that it's an "American-coined phrase?" -Reuben 18:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- actually, in korean it is "buk han" or "ebuk" in the south, but "buk choseon" is common in the north. as for calling it north korea instead of the DPRK, wikipedia is inconsistent on whether it calls a country by its official title or the commonly used english term. for example, china is one page, but the peoples republic of china has another page. russian federation is simply tossed under russia. Hongkyongnae 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tree Chopping Incident
Is it listed anywhere about the 1970s tree chopping incident? Three americans were beheaded along the DMZ and it almost caused a war. -Husnock 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] International bailout
The Current situation section says:
- An international bailout, which may be the best way to bring about a "managed transition" of the DPRK, would only be possible with the co-operation of the U.S.
I can see no reason why this is "only be possible with the co-operation of the U.S.". Why couldn't China or South Korea do that? This article] is relevant, saying:
- "China’s investments jumped from about a million dollars in 2003 to $200 million last year ... For nearly a decade, the Chinese have counseled North Korea’s leaders to follow their example, gradually opening the economy to market forces.".
I don't see why it needs to be a "bailout", investment alone could bring a gradual transition if the DPRK had the political will.
I'll change this, unless someone can source a justification for the current version. -- Rwendland 20:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I feel that the paragraph about North Korea's "Early Years" is not based on factual information, being largely biased. Perhaps this needs to be raised in the interests of integrity.
I am not sure what the exact criteria for placing a page in the "disputed" cateogry may be, but i doubt having someone "feel" that a paragraph maybe biased, and then providing absolutely no basis for this "feeling" qualifies. as far as the "paragraph" in question, if it verifiable if you refer to either bruce cumings' works or charles armstrong. perhaps the "feeling" in questions arises since so much of western representation of norht korea is negative that anything that does not attack north korea seems, in context, to be "biased." check virtually any standard of industial progess and urbanization and it is clear that in asia north korea was second only to japan until the 1970s. so, with that being said, i will remove the label to this section. Hongkyongnae 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
