Talk:North Korea

Runaways to Russia?

I've read about many North Koreans running away to China in order to escape insufficient food and political repression. However, Russia also borders the DPRK so don't any North Koreans ever escape to Russia? What is Russia's policy regarding North Korean refugees? --Shultz 15:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Russia gives economic considerations with the DPRK priority over human rights considerations. There are almost no direct refugees via the only 19 km direct border; however some refugees manage to flee via China to Russia. They are mostly sent back to China, then deported to the DPRK, then tortured in local concentration camps. There is one interview about such a case in 1999 [1]; however I cannot judge whether this is typical and details are 100 % accurate.

i think that Russia would not accept refugees from its own ally. If any refugees try to escape to Russia, the Russian government would send them back to Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .

Reviewing the first 2 sections

Reviewing the first two sections I consider these statements are not from a NPOV.

I would counter the statement "The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command, the Chinese People's Volunteers and North Korea signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement" unless there is a reference to support this. Having viewed the Armistice Agreements I would contend they were only signed by North Korea and the United Nations and the statement should be reworded "The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command and North Korea signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement"

Re' the statement, "Thus, in Socialist countries such as the DPRK, it is the Chairman of the Communist Party and not the Head of State who is the repository of power." This implies that a Socialist country == DRPK, and ignores deomocratically elected Socialist countries that have no concept of a Chairman of a Communist Party. Suggest this is reworded to the following if there are no objections "Thus, in countries such as the DPRK, it is the Chairman of the Communist Party and not the Head of State who is the repository of power".

--Duchovny1 12:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement "The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command, the Chinese People's Volunteers and North Korea signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement" All you need to do is look at the Armistace Agreement.

Nam Il signed for the Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's volunteers. General William Harrison JR. signed for the United Nations Command. The Republic of Korea refused to allow their representatives name to be added to the agreement. --32.97.110.142 18:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue is with the manner this is written in. Your statement "... the United Nations Command, the Chinese People's Volunteers and North Korea signed ..." would indicate 3 signatories. There were only two. William Harrison signed on behalf of the United Nations combatants and Nam Il signed on behalf of the Delegation of Korean People's Army and the Chinese peoples volunteers. Hence I shall make this and my other suggested edit above. Ref : http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html --Duchovny1 16:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraphy states: "To the south along the DMZ, it borders South Korea, with which it had formed a single nation until 1948." This is incorrect. Between 1910 and 1945 Korea was a possession of the Empire of Japan, not a nation. Korean nationhood/independance was not recognized by any nation or, during the interwar period, the League of Nations. I suggest this line be change to read soemthing like: "To the south along the DMZ, it borders South Korea, with which it had formed a single nation until 1910, at which time the Korean Peninsula was annexed by Japan. The peninsula was partitioned into North and South Korea in 1948 by occupying Soviet and American forces."

C White

---

I put the following elit into the article. It was deleted after a short while. Why? Are there some North Koreans who can't stand Free speach?

"[edit]THERE ARE RECURRING COMPLAINTS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN NORTH KOREA. Allegations about vile North Korean human experimentation are yet more examples. "

You are right, this is intolerable. I suggest you add this notice back, on this page and on the United_States page. Of course, any affirmation requires references. So I suggest you have a look at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, MKULTRA, Tuskegee syphilis study and Willowbrook State School. Free speech (with references) rules ! ;-)

--nct 21:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would very much like to link this article from the Main Page since this nation is at the top of the news right now. But This article is in such sad stubbish form it would be embarrassing for the project if I did link it. Could somebody flesh this out per the WikiProject Countries format? --mav

I looked at your request last night (my time) and thought Yes, good idea, I don't know much about Korea, but I have lots of books and know how to use Google to find things out, surely I could add a little to help flesh it out. I looked at the article and its stubs for a while, somehow didn't see anything that sparked enough interest to prompt me to make a start anywhere, and eventually wandered off to do some other things, feeling vaguely that I'd let the side down, and also that everyone else seemed to feel the same way, at least to judge by the resounding silence this entry has attracted so far.

It was only this morning that I realised why I felt that way about it (and, it seems, quite a few other people as well): "North Korea" isn't really a country, just an artificial political construction. Sure, there are lots of other places that this applies to in almost equal measure - most of Africa consists of "countries" that got their borders simply because some diplomat in Europe happened to draw a line on a particular part of a map, after all - but this seems more true of North Korea than of many places. I understand that Koreans don't think of themselves as "South Koreans" or "North Koreans", just "Koreans". Korea as a whole has distinct geography, culture, history, and language; "North Korea" does not and probably never will - it is destined, sooner or later, to merge back into Korea as a whole and become a mere footnote to history.

It's always going to be difficult to create a set of pages on North Korea in the standard Wikipedia form, in other words. The case for merging the pages on the two Koreas seems strong. After all, is it better to bend the Wikkipedia to better fit the world, or to bend the world to better fit the Wikipedia? Tannin 19:34 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Mergeing them is a bad idea. -fonzy

North Korea has been an independent nation for more than 50 years. It is as much a country as West Germany, East Germany, Confederate States of America, North Vietnam, or other former nations that no longer exist. At some point, there may be only one country called Korea, as there was prior to 1945, but let's not try to merge together two separate countries with their own governments their own leaders and their own histories until that actually happens. Even then, we should leave the separate articles to indicate what happened when they were separate. -- Zoe

North Korea is administered by a separate internationally recognized government than South Korea and so it should get its own page. To do otherwise is going to reopen the (unwanted) controversy over the China/Taiwan pages. Besides Hong Kong and Macao get their own Wiki country pages despite having less sovereignty than North Korea does.

As far as history goes, one can do what is done with the history of china which goes up to 1949 before being split into history of PRC and history of Taiwan.

--User:Roadrunner

The article as-is should be good-enough for now. Much more is needed of course. --mav

Another note: While people from North and South call themselves "Koreans" they actually use different words! The North Koreans use "Chosun Saram", while South Koreans use "Hanguk Saram" (Saram means People/Persons and Chosun and Hanguk are the short country names. --Alain

---

Can someone please check to see that my browser didn't mangle the Korean characters when I edited it? I don't have all the fonts. Thanks. KQ

---

Provinces in Hanja

The provinces, as a political division of modern NK, have only Hangul and no official Hanja. Even though they historically have been written in Hanja, and this has been documented on the Provinces of Korea article. They should probably be deleted. -Menchi 03:40 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The listing of government authorities in the table should reflect who is in charge. What's with putting a dead guy there? Officially, the presidency, being occupied by a dead guy, is not the highest state office. It's just an honor. --Jiang

History
As a country only existing from the 1950s, should N.Korea include history from Korea (giving at least three different (Korea|N.Korea|S.Korea) data-sets to edit when people want to upgrade pre-1950 Korean history), or should it only include information only after 1950? The History of North Korea is a (mostly) good set of post-1950 history detailing information as it relates to North Korea. I'd much rather see that and a (proposed) History of Korea linked (or a link to Korea, with only sparse details in the history section of the North Korea article.
~ender 2003-09-09 21:24:MST

I wrote the original history section just as you suggest but somebody thought it was a good idea to move that to History of North Korea and leave the confused mess you mention. I say we delete the para that isn't about North Korea. --mav 04:52, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Removed para:

Traditionally said to have been founded in 2333 BC, Korea was divided into the three kingdoms of Baekje, Goguryeo, and Silla during the 1st to 7th centuries, of which the latter alone remained. It in turn was replaced by the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties, during which Korea was under extensive Chinese influence and Buddhism and Confucianism became part of Korean life. Known by the 19th century as the Hermit Kingdom because of its reclusive attitude, it was forced to open up at the end of that century, and was annexed by Japan in 1910.

This isn't about North Korea. --mav 04:56, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All of that information appears to be in Korea, so I think it could be deleted.

~ender 2003-09-09 22:22:MST

---

Notice

The duplicated notice by Sewing was moved to Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan, not to make discussion scattered over Wikipedia.

The above unsigned comment was added by Nanshu. --Sewing 16:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In June 1950, the North Korean Peoples Army attacked, launching the Korean War.

I thought it was unknown who started the conflict. Crusadeonilliteracy 19:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought so too--131.216.163.213 04:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to documents in the Soviet archives in Moscow Kim Il-sung convinced a rather reluctant Stalin to agree to an invasion of the ROK. I dare anyone to find an academic reference that states that either it is not known which side was the aggressor or that the ROK was the aggressor. HarrySalmon 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hm. It looks like a slight pro-North Korea government POV has been replaced by an obviously anti-North Korea government POV. I will have to fix this this weekend. Until then please read our NPOV policy. --mav 08:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Bagel, I noticed your "a paranoid and incompetent government" in the North Korea article violates the NPOV policy. I believe the North Korean government is extremely competent as an oppressive, genocidal, quasi-Stalinistic, over-militarized dictatorship. If North Korea was incompetent, why do other nations fear North Korea? --Hcheney 19:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Due to one one of the highest literacy rates in the world, autonomous religious activities are now almost nonexistent in the North."

I take particular issue with the implication that high literacy = low religion. Once people can read, they can grow past religion? Or is it that religious people are illiterate, illogical and ill-prepared to leave the mundane sphere of religion and enter secular society? Someone please explain this fallacious reasoning.

Or is this passage indicative of some troubles plaguing Wikipedia at large? Are there movements within the online community to insert such ignorant and offensive language into erstwhile fact-based documents? -lward

(Under Culture) Did the U.S. government really ban its citizens from entering North Korea? I haven't heard of any type of prohibition at all. According to the State Department, they don't issue letters for people seeking DPRK visas, but there's no ban as far as I know. (Update: edited page due to U.S. Treasury sanctions document indicating the absence of American travel restrictions.)--bceaglejoe 03:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Format

Could someone with a better grip on formatting issues than mine please do something about the horrible white space at the top of this article? Adam 07:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

WPK or KWP?

This page uses the style "Worker's Party of Korea (WPK)", while Politics of North Korea uses "Korean Worker's Party (KWP)". Is there a standard form? If so, both pages should use it. If not, we should choose one and stick with it.

For what it is worth, "Workers Party of Korea" gets more hits on Google than does "Korean Workers Party". Molinari 02:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Having in front of me a few books published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Pyongyang, I can say that I cannot find one instance of "Korean Workers' Party". It seems that the Kims Il Sung and Jong Il in "For the Victory of the Socialist Cause" and "Selected Works" (respectively) and in all the other English-language Korean material I have both call their party the WPK. Accordingly, I've changed the article. Dafyddyoung 14:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google isn't a real authority. It is like saying USSR and Soviet Union Dudtz 9/6/05 6:13 PM EST

Market Trials

I really think that any article about North Korea should include information about the recent market trials. I have attempted to add a paragraph about this with NPOV based on information now widely available about North Korea's market trials. This information is just not very widely reported in North America due to political reasons, but a few have popped up, which you can use as research material for expanding information about North Korea's trials, including a number of articles from reputable sources such as BBC and Washington Post: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Mdrejhon 05:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IE Error

Whenever I try to load a page that has to do with Korea (North_Korea, Korea, History of Korea, etc.) I get an IE (version 6.0.2600.00) error (page has created errors) and IE closes. Very strange, I have never seen anything like this. Anyone else the same problem? Perhaps something to do with a font?? Pascal 00:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Panmunj(e)om

Why have we changed from 'Panmunjom' to the far less common English spelling 'Panmunjeom'? jguk 18:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

故金日成

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)

Developed?

That is absurd, and this article is not to be some sort of a Communist mouthpeice. Have a look at some other encyclopedias on the subject of N Korea... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me - I don't dispute for a moment that the North Korean economy just fell off a proverbial cliff... I think you haven't grasped all meanings of the word 'develop'. 'Develop' doesn't have to refer to a positive event. Wars, famines and natural catastrophies can all 'develop'. I don't see why you oppose using this word so much. --Ce garcon 04:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can't add a link

I've tried to add this link multiple times:

• Where Is Ms. Cho? - opinion piece about Cho Sung-hye and other North Koreans who attempt to leave North Korea.

but the system won't let me.A2Kafir 01:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

Gzornenplatz, Gzornenplatz, to keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.--Jerryseinfeld 23:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the article is titled North Korea and the article uses that term freely (common convention in the English language you must agree), then it should be said the DPRK is the official term for the country--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 02:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

about the 'official' dprk website

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: [email protected] address: Valencia, 555, 3, 3 city: Barcelona state: Barcelona postal-code: 08026 country: ES admin-c: [email protected]#0 tech-c: [email protected]#80 billing-c: [email protected]#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)

small point

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 small number is due to the lack of people who want to enter North Korea, not because North Korea refuses entry. The many web sites I've seen by people who visited North Korea convinces me that this paragraph about no one being refused entry into North Korea is true. I am putting the information you deleted back into the article. -- KittySaturn 07:47, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Suggestion

Regarding the previous comment about 1500 visas, I can confirm that there is officially no fixed amount of visas allowed. That would also contradict other reports of a yearly tourist flow of about 2000-4000 tourists in NK every year, and also that the government of DPRK alledgedly need the "hard cash". Why then should there be a fixed limit?

Also, regarding the "Further Reading" list of links. I think it is too long and should be broken into subsections, or maybe even put in their own articles with categories that match some of the links. Because I think right now many of the links presented cover too wide a range.

My suggestion is keep the official links, and the bare neccessities, move "Travel accounts" to its own article presenting maybe "Travels to DPRK" or "North Korean Tourism". Move food recipie links to "North Korean Food Recipies" as a subset to "Korean Cuisine". I am sure everyone reading this will agree, that the list of links at the bottom of the article for "North Korea" cover to wide an area, and should therefore be put in its own subset of context.

-Bjørnar-

Very good the way the links is organized now.

--Bjornar 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links

I have been bold and tidied the links section. Firstly, the Pedia is not a link collection (readers can engage Google, themselves). Secondly, I couldn't stand the misspelling of independent. Thirdly, which other country has a section of links against the country? This is so not NPOV... Fourthly, some of the links were dead anyway. I have considered every link before removing. For example, a travel account? We don't have links to travel accounts to the US, do we? OK, North Korea is less of a common destination, but it is possible to visit. A Japanese comedy site with video clips? Not very authoritative, and well, it's got errors there, too. Let's not confuse propaganda with the Pedia... Metro0 23:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issue

I really stumbled when I saw the following sentence: "It is due to this nuclear capability, the United States has placed North Korea into the Axis of Evil, as the nation is an Outpost of Tyranny."

I would argue that these phrases represent Bush administration talking points rather than neutral statements of fact.

Counter point: When a man who sends his citizens off to jail for disagreeing with him and who furthermore has access to nuclear weapons he fits in with the Stalin-Hitler-Mao-Hussein group!

Change 'East Sea' to 'Sea of Japan'

Isn't wikipedia NPOV? If it is, why are the references to the body of water between Korea and Japan called 'East Sea'? Calling it 'East Sea' is a POV. Calling it 'Sea of Japan' is not. The official name of the body of water is 'Sea of Japan'. If you want to dispute this, there is an entire article devoted to that. if you want to dispute this, do it at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, not here. This is fact only, not point of view. I know if you click on the link 'East Sea' in this article, it takes you to the Sea of Japan page. If you enter 'East Sea' in the search it takes you to five links for East Seas around the world. I am going to change this site back to NPOV and away from POV. If you have a problem with that, take it up on the correct article at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Masterhatch

A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. For more information, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):

• Should all bodies of water on Wikipedia have the same name throughout all pages as to maintain a standard and avoid country specific POV?"

In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Enter your votes at the talk page here: Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch

It has been brought to my attention that it is difficult to find where the naming dispute over the East Sea/Sea of Japan is actually being discussed. It is an ongoing dispute and it is being discussed here:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

Thank you. Masterhatch 8 July 2005

Attempted edits

Repeatedly I tried to save some small changes to this article. Every time, I got this message:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: memsess_key() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/User.php on line 1579

Michael Hardy 1 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Recent edit is more balanced

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.

There are many reports; most of them are factual based on refugees' testimonies. What would you suggest as evidence? The DPRK never allowed access for independent human rights observers. And no one would ever expect the DPRK government to admit any human rights violation or any other failure. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

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.

This viewpoint is only shared by a handful of people outside the DPRK. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

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)

Shouting at human rights activists does not make you appear credible. Amnesty International e. g. is neutral and independent and I believe them more than any official DPRK statement. You publish only the government point of view. To deny everything you dislike (as the DPRK news agency does) is not considered NPOV. By the way, satellite pictures of the concentration camps could be found at this link [8]. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean presenting each side as if they are equally accurate when they are not. J. Parker Stone 5 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

I know, but who is to say what is accurate and what is not accurate? It all depends on your point of view (POV) doesn't it? So if you want to employ a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), of course you cannot even choose sides. So who decides what the balance will be between two opposing, mutually cancelling views? The only alternative would be to include them both, and to remove all kind of speculation for which there is no evidence, and all kinds of lousy arguments like "some people say.." or cite unverified sources. As for the article about the DPRK I am amazed on how common it is to brandmark the DPRK in defiance of the Wikipedia's guidelines on NPOV. --Bjornar 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

And I suppose the fact that they call themselves the DPRK when they've nothing even resembling democracy is NPOV?--68.95.228.67 03:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

For human rights violations and concentration camps in the DPRK there is much evidence. In fact there is no reason to doubt it (simple official denial is no evidence). Do you really think in the DPRK no one dares to criticize the "dear leader", because everyone likes him? Or isn't it much more likely everyone fears torture in case of disobidience? If you perceive a "common brand mark" did you ever think you could be wrong instead of all the others? - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

Geography

This country has currently not really a geography entry (it refers to the whole island). Kokiri 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to expand the Geography entry, concisting of one section describing the whole country, and then with links to individual regions. --Bjornar 19:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One Party State

I have changed it because it was not very specific I have repalced one party with Communism I did leave the dictatorship part in If you are un happy with this change plese give me some reasons Dudtz 7/30/05 6:30 PM EST

Bad Paragraph/Sources

"Large numbers of North Koreans illegally entered the People's Republic of China in search of food"

Large numbers? how many? find an estimation and a source.

"and there were also stories of cannibalism."

There were stories? Where? Unless a source is put here it should be deleted.

I'm not the one who inserted this, but I did provide a link on the cannibalism entry that points to evidence of it in modern North Korea. There are accounts by refugees as told in Discovery's "Children of the Secret State" and elsewhere. Smoove K 09:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong names: "North Korea" and "Korean Workers' Party"

"North Korea" is a wrong and insulting term, since it refers to the northern half of the Korean peninsula in a geographical sense, not the state named DPRK. The DPRK and its people normally see the term "North Korea" as insulting one which means the denial of the DPRK as a state.

And the name "Korean Workers' Party" is also wrong. In the official documents the governming party of the DPRK is always referred to as the "Workers' Party of Korea". Everton 03:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has answered me, I will move this article to the correct title (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Any objections? Everton 16:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

North Korea is synonymous with the DPRK. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) applies here.

Can you provide evidence to back your claims that "North Korea" is considered insulting and "Korean Workers' Party" is incorrect? --Jiang 16:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't really that important if anyone thinks that North Korea is insulting any way. Wikipedia policy clearly is in full favor of the term "North Korea" and not "DPRK", which I happen to find insulting to democracy and ordinary human decency.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, if they find it insulting let someone from N. Korea change it. (do they even have a gov. controlled ISP?)

• No, they have no ISP. Except for unde 1000 people (either politicians or staff working for the Korean Computer Center), there is no Internet access in North Korea. --Xanthar 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Flag?

I don't know if this has been asked before, but why is there no picture of the North Korean's flag in the main infobox? - Nick_C 12:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Atheist Police State

I know that this may be a touchy subject, and that my suggestion may be taken in a negative light, but in many ways North Korea fits the description of an Atheist Police State. I know that chances of getting the words mentioned in the description of North Korea are minor, but because of allegations of targeted assassinations, laws against proselytizing, extreme nationalism, and an environment in which the military also acts as a Police force, I think it would be rather fitting.

I should note, in order to keep this from being misconstrued as an attempt to associate Atheism with a totalitarian regime, that I am an Atheist myself and that my concerns are with the many worldly and (supposedly) objective observations of North Korea's political structure, military police structure, and hard line anti-religious doctrine, as well as the doctrine of loyalty to the state and leader above all else. --Lucavix 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Why can't the plain and simple term "Police State" be used instead? It defines all of the criteria you described, yet keeps the article closer to a NPOV. Admittedly you cannot lable North Korea a police state with the information we have, but we can draw comparisions and allow the reader to make up their own mind.

I will give you two reasons to abandon this line of thinking.

1) There is no law prohibiting proselytizing! Show me the law if you can!

2) The term "Police state" can be adopted by any nation with Police. Actually the DPRK has less police than most European countries. --Bjornar 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, North Korea is a police state. A "police state" doesn't mean that it has too many cops, it is used for a country that is, quote,

1. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

2. A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government. (Both were from Answers.com)

North Korea is a country with a brutal and arbitrary government that maintains obedience, not through police, but a system of "tattle-tales" who double as a sort of secret police. The army is also strongly present. So therefore DPR of K is a police state.

--Thorri 12:35, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Name style

Is there a reason why Kim Jong-il is sometimes also referred to as Kim Jong II? Is this a protocol thing or something to do with transliteration from Korean? --Infilms

The latter. --Bjornar 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. The romanization of Korean is very tricky in some cases, such as Korean names. It can be written as Kim Jongil, Kim Jong-il or Kim Jong Il. However, usually Korean names are not written with a hyphen, so in fact it should be Jongil.

--Thorri 12:44, 6 Nov 2005, (UTC)

"Communist state"

The term "Communist state" is inaccurate.

1) Technically, the term "communist state" is an oxymoron. 2) There is no communist party in North Korea 3) There are not just one party in North Korea. There are several 4) North Korea erased the last mentioning of Marxism-Leninism in the 90's. 5) Their official ideology is Juche, NOT marxism.

North Koreans describe their country as "Socialists" so I propose to change "Communist State" into "Socialist State". If people oppose this, it's because they feel that "Socialist" is too benign for North Korea, but then they are also neglecting the truth, which is that the DPRK defines itself as Socialist. To kill any argument against it, I will remind everyone that the first "S" in the former USSR was "Socialist", even though the USSR is totally distinct from the DPRK. --Bjornar 16:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.....let's see.....Red Star....Allied(Or previously allied) with USSR and China....Stalinism. Sounds Communist to me. Dudtz 9/6/05 6:06 PM EST

Their not Stalinist in practice, only have Stalinist qualities. -Comrade Shane-

A Communist society is one without qualitative class distinctions and no State. Any sentient creature who doesn't buy into NK propaganda knows this is not the case in NK. A socialist society is one in which the (former) proletariet owns the means of production and has control over its labor power. Again, nothing even remotely like this exists in NK. Sure, the "DPRK defines itself as Socialist." It also defines itself as a "Democratic People's Republic". Such a title would make Orwell cry, but I guess I'm just "neglecting the truth". -Nobody123

North Korea is not a Communist state?! Boy, this "political 'correctness'" is getting out of hands... --Thorri 12:46, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thorri, explain how saying that North Korea is not in fact a Communist state an act of "political 'correctness'"? Historically correct? Yes. Politically correct? Perhaps in Finland. -Nobody123

Maybe "politically correct" wasn't the best expression. But take a look at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Schools_of_communism

According to that the Juche policy DPRK uses does make DPRK a Communist state. --Thorri 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything Thorri. All it proves is that whomever authored the wikipedia page classifies Juche as a "school of communism". That ignores the fact that Juche is inherently anti-Marxist in its isolationism. The most extreme examples of the Cult of Personality can be found in NK. Marx in a letter to Wilhelm Blos wrote :"Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules." NK doesn't look like a communist state. It looks like a totalitarian hell on Earth animated by a rotten religious cult adhering to a crazy belief system call Juche. -Nobody123

Yes, but traditionally it has been regarded as a Communist state and I'm not gonna change that since the rest of the world classifies it as Communist. Though (now) I believe Juche is it's own weird system...I hope the government in DPRK falls soon and people finally realize Communism was a mistake and that there are better systems.

Though I must say, in a way it is Communism because Stalin changed Communism fundamentally as well (for the worse), the original idea by Marx/Lenin was much more noble, not the hideous...thing we know now.

Sadly, Capitalism can go wrong, too, like it has in America (no proper health care, or social security, greedyness, etc.). But I'm not going to start preaching about that! --Thorri 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the sooner the regime falls, the better. For us and more importantly for the people of NK. I think to call America a capitalist state is an inaccurate use of the word. There is no "free market" in relation to what Smith, et al spoke of in the US. It's a State-Capitalist economy. When the richest capitalists take a risk and loose their shirts, they run to and get a bail out from the government. So much for "market discipline". I certainly agree that our health care system if fucked up because the rich have so much control over the political process and want it dismantled and privatized. But they haven't enough control to kill social security as they tried to earlier this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobody123 (talk • contribs) .

State of Mind

Should the new British documentary film A State of Mind be mentioned in the external links or somewhere as a resource? It is one of the very first documentaries to, be allowed to, be made by westerners inside North Korea. Very interesting stuff to see on screen. --Fluxaviator 10:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Official movie site

I've seen the documentary. It's very interesting. You can download it on emule. If you're interested in better understanding the country, its people and regime, you should see this documentary. I also recommend "North Korea: A Day in the Life" [9] Also see "Welcome to North Korea"[10]. It's not suprising the streets of Pyongyang were filled with people deep in mourning for their oppressor Kim Il Sung. They were so thoroughly indoctrinated from day 1 to worship him. In one of the documentaries, there was this family they followed around who lived in the capital. In their apartment, in everyone's I should say, there is a speaker that throughout the day spews propaganda. You can turn the volume down, but you can't turn it off. Their view of the Korean war is a nearly a total inversion of the truth. Sickening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.23.253 (talk • contribs) .

Axis of Evil

George Bush placed North Korea in the Axis of Evil in 2002, not in 2005 as the article suggests. I will make the appropriate edit.

After further reflection, anybody beating up soldiers or stealing their weapons or rampaging across town would run the risk of being shot in any country I can think of.

Sukiari 07:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad revert by 139.164.130.170

139.164.130.170 made a reversion stating that Bush added N. Korea to the 'Axis of Evil' in 2005 as a response to Korea's declaration that they had nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush placed N. Korea in the Axis of Evil when he first coined the phrase in his State of the Union address in 2002. If 139.164.130.170 insists on pointing out the talking point phrase 'Axis of Evil' then I think it would be preferable to do this in an accurate manner.

Sukiari 04:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

dprk

if their official name is democratic peoples republic of korea, why is the official page for the dprk redirected to "north korea". that doesnt seem very professional of wikipedia to do that. it should be reversed. the title should read dprk and then (north korea) should be in brackets.

isn't this a valid point? does anyone object? Appleby 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

actually, i see that germany, russia, mexico, etc are all under the common names, not official gov't names. but these examples refer to a historic/geographic entity and the current polity together. korea/south korea is a bit different, since south korea refers to the modern polity only so there's more of a reason to use the official name, kinda like the separate entries for historic china/prc, where the latter is under the official name.Appleby 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that you have a valid point. I think the redirect is on the wrong direction and the redirect should go from North Korea to DPRK and not the other way around. A simple way to surely resolve this would be to use the names of countries as published on the the UN website (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html) as this represents the correct official name for the country. A redirect can them be made from common parlance to the correct name. Anything else is surely not NPOV as who can argue against what a country wants to be officially known as. --Duchovny1 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use official titles, it uses English names, and for an excellent reason: it's written in English. North Korea is the correct name for the country, whether you're speaking Canadian English like me, or Wikipedia's more prevalent American English or British English. Roughly speaking, the point of Wikipedia is to catalogue facts *as they exist*, not *as they are officially proclaimed*. WilyD 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued reverts of my edit to this page.

For some reason folks insist on reverting my edit of this page, back to the old version which said that Bush put N. Korea into the Axis of Evil as a result of their declaration they they were a nuclear power. In fact, Bush put them in the Axis when he invented the term in his 2002 State of the Union address.

I can't figure out why this keeps getting reverted to the old and nonfactual version. If it continues, I will request that this page be protected.

This was not my intention in reverting and I plan to fix it soon. --TJive 12:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The page was reverted again. I am requesting that this page be protected until whoever keeps making this non-factual reversion explains why they would try to deceive everyone with incorrect information. Sukiari 03:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Motto

In the article, it say NK's motto is One is sure to win if one believes in and depends upon the people (translation). Can anyone verify this? Because even the Korean editors of Korean Wikipedia couldn't find the source, nor the original version of it. Thanks, -- WB 02:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[[11]] says the new national motto as of 1998 is "prosperous and great country." "one is sure to win..." was kim il sung's motto, according to a 1997 bulletin of some u.s. agency. [[12]] says kim jong il's personal motto is "the people are my god" Appleby 16:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Any more well known sites? Both of them are not the most reliable sources. I think it's better to leave them blank for right now. -- WB

Soviet refugees to dprk?

i have heard that there was an exodus of communists(including many scientists and engineers) from soviet union to DPRK , when soviet union collapsed. is that true?

I believe this idea is from many post-USSR works of fiction where unemployed former-soviet scientists take part in North Korea's war-related efforts. There was no exodus as almost all of such candidates in former USSR lived in secluded cities and bureacratic confusions after collapse made it extremely difficult for them get permissions to travel. Also, North Korea does not, due to its Juche ideology, welcome foreigners from interfering in any manners with itself. Even Chinese, who are closest to ally as North Korea have, have met with considerable oppositions to them giving any assistance. -- Revth 08:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

".dpr.kr"

Wouldn't the operators of North Korean websites be more willing to use the domain suffix ".dpr.kr" rather than ".kp"? ".dpr.kr" would probably go over with them better than ".kp", since they wish for Korea to be one, wouldn't you say? Now how would one go about starting up the ".dpr.kr" domain suffix in the first place?

Example site (does not exist {yet}) http://www.kist.ac.dpr.kr would be a hypothetical main website for Kim Il Sung Taehakkyo (University) --Shultz 21:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought DPRK didn't have the power or technology to have its own websites...plus I recall .kp is only the unofficial domain suffix. And all of the "official" North Korean websites are maintained from abroad. Though I'm no expert in this. —Thorri 15:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My gut indicates that they'll be more fond of using ".dpr.kr" rather than ".kp" so they ought to get wind of this suggestion. They want reunification of the Korean peninsula since they are all one people, and desire a single country again, so with the anti-separation sentiment going on right now, they wish to also use the .kr domain suffix, so they would be more for the ".dpr.kr" than the ".kp". Perhaps when they gain enough power/technology to host their sites from their own country, they might go ahead with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shultz (talk • contribs) .

Somehow, I doubt it. That would make their internet presence seem to be a sub-unit of South Korea's. Sukiari 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship, political police

The article doesn't inform about the censorship and political police. Xx236 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do some research and add information to the article. Make sure to provide reliable sources! Sukiari 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit by anon editor moved to talk page

The following was inserted in the text by user:70.108.30.138 on 00:22, February 7, 2006 and I moved it here:

==International Conflicts==

Hello! These are FACTS: "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited" If this doesnt belong here, tell me where it does belong please. thanks.

In the 1980s North Korea was linked to two international terrorist attacks. In October 1983, North Korean agents were responsible for an attempt on the life of South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan at at Burma's National Cemetery in Rangoon, Burma which killed 17 South Korean officials including the South Korean foreign minister and ambassador to Burma as well as four Burmese. President Chun arrived at the cemetery behind schedule and was unharmed. The Burmese government later apprehended the North Korean agents responsible. North Korea is also believed to be responsible for the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 on November 29, 1987 over the Andaman Sea in which all 115 passengers and crew were killed. That attack is thought to have been devised to scare tourists away from visiting the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul after North Korea was not asked to co-host the events [13].

North Korea has sponsored numerous acts of terror against South Korea since its founding [14].

---

--rogerd 05:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox edits

I corrected info in the infobox because it was incorrect or unverifiable. For instance, I removed the hanja characters because their use is banned in North Korea, which hardly makes it an official name. And the GDP estimates go back; I hardly think that the CIA underestimates North Korea's GDP for propaganda, it doesn't make sense. And 40 billion seems like a little too round of a figure to be anything but a complete and total guess.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image commentary

"Major Pyongyang boulevard during rush hour." Was the picture actually taken during rush hour? Apokrif 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A "multi-party constitutional democracy"?

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)

Official Sport

I believe that the official sport of North Korea is StarCraft because it managed to boast North Korea's economy significantly.

Wrong Korea, even though you were joking--193.195.185.254 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

typical north korean home?

how do we know this is typical? is there a reputable source for that description & the speculation on how the picture was taken? after all, it wouldn't be hard for someone to take a picture of a "redevelopment" project in any city, USA, & label it "typical". Appleby 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

UN membership

According to the South Korea article, both Korean states are members of the UN since 1991. This article here doesn't mention that fact. Could one of the regular editors please consider how to include it. Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is one source for the 1991 date. This article needs a full "Military and foreign relations" section. -- Visviva 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)