Talk:North Korea

Government

Add "Constitutional Monarchy" as the de facto government. Here are sources. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/From-Republic-to-Monarchy,-Pyongyang-%E2%80%99will-be-governed-only-by-Kim%E2%80%99-28758.html https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1296394/democratic-peoples-monarchy-korea-north-korea-changes-ruling-principles https://worldpopulationreview.com/governments/north-korea/ Manabimasu (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources you cited are dumbfounded since they only refer to the DPRKs 10 principles and isn't part of the constitution. So don't call it "constitutional monarchy if it isn't even in the fucking constitution redditor. Also the statement doesn't say anything about hereditary monarchy since they only state that their thankful, NOT that they are blindly following them!Dunkin' Capitalism (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Would North Korea really be a socialist republic? It is much more centered around one man than China is, Kim Jong-Un is at a near-godlike status, he has complete control over North Korea. I would consider it a socialist republic under a totalitarian dictatorship, akin to Stalinist Soviet Union or Maoist China. AustinC2002 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Zero Coronavirus case on north korea

Theres no coronavirus case in North Korea but why? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it could be interesting to have some covering of this subject. As far I have read, North Korea closed the borders for Chinese citizens soon after the new coronavirus became known. Now, I think the borders are more or less completely closed. It would be nice to see some reliable sources. --Madglad (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh... but Supreme leader might be feeling ill... Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I told a coworker at the beginning of all this that the only way we might hear of COVID-19 in North Korea was if Kim got sick. And even then they would probably try to hide it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s the topic I’m talking about! Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And They can’t be trusted

Busted Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Name is "North Korea" instead of their actual name democratic peoples republic of Korea

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. It's like calling the United States Mid North America. Let us call the nation by its name. Dunkin' Capitalism (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Too bad for them we are not speaking Korean. We are speaking English. And, in English, there is no such insult in the name. Or should I be insulted by the fact that I live in North Carolina? We use the English common names of countries. For this country that is "North Korea". End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s Called North Korea in short, Such as South Korea Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying South Korea is not called Korea?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

He may or may not be, but I am. I've never encountered such a usage. --Khajidha (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s called Korea also but we know it as South Korea
Okay 
A mistake. Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

*Typos*  Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposition to alter the word "regime" in the 4th paragraph to a more impartial "government"

Regime implies that the North Korean government is authoritarian. There is mixed definitions of the word, but most suggest that the government in question is either authoritarian or totalitarian. This is a subjective interpretation, even if it is held by many. Therefore, to honor Wikipedia's guidelines for impartial writing, and to allow readers to come to their own conclusions, this should be altered.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exabella (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we only use "regime" in that one place, and use "government" many times in the article. I've made the change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Change: 'Most service—such as healthcare, education, housing and food production—are subsidized or state-funded.' to: 'Most services—such as healthcare, education, housing and food production—are subsidized or state-funded.' Paul W Norris (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Is food production a service?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything NK is service to state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un status

Kim Jong-un in page listed Party and State Affairs Commission Chairman. But Jong-un status is unknown, mystery: [1] [2]. I suggest page say "maybe Kim Jong-un" or "unknown" because mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary. Either he is fine, and this "mystery" will blow over, or he is dead, and a new chairman will be announced. Unless you have absolute proof of where any particular person is and what their health is at all times, there is a similar "mystery" with any such position. --Khajidha (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Point is we do not know now, and significant reports on possibilities. Very different from some leader without newscast from past hour. Taking your argument, we should state a Schrödinger's cat is alive until proof otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While we may have uncertainty about the man, there is no uncertainty about the office. The office is held by Kim Jong-un until he is confirmed dead. So, while we may have a section of the article discussing his health and rumors of death, any listing of the titles he holds (like in the infobox) should be left alone. Note that I am not saying whether we should or should not have a section on these rumors, just that they do not affect the presentation of offices held--Khajidha (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t know is he dead or not. Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am gonna discuss on the Page of Kim Jong-un Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

The history of Korea before the 1945 should be rendered at minimum identical for the ROK and DPRK articles. The inclusion of the history of Korea only under the ROK article at present could be interpreted as a bias in favour of one as being more legitimate than the other. 8.9.85.28 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. The history section describes the history of North Korea. It is not the history of the whole of Korea. We do not need to mimic the article about South Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add Hanja to all Sino-Korean words

Please add Hanja to all Sino-Korean words included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.149.45 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Should "The Lies and Truth of Kim Jon Un" by The People on Youtube be mentioned here ?

The video on YouTube has amassed a lot of attention.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

False balance regarding NK government claims on human rights

I noticed that my edit to remove the sentence "the North Korean government denies these allegations" with regard to the UN report on human rights from the lead was reverted. I appreciate Cloud200's attempt at compromise by asking references for both claims. However, I still think that the wording needs to change, if we are going to include the sentence. Describing the position of the UN and human rights organization as "allegation" the government denies gives undue weight to the claims of a despotic government with nothing but propaganda to back up what they are saying. The North Korean government's position, if it is mentioned at all, should be framed in this light. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to reflect the NK government's position as being propaganda, and added references. Please feel free to discuss. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't need citations in the introduction — and certainly not three per statement — and neither of these statements are contested. We should have an impartial tone (see WP:NPOV), and heavy-handed editorialising about the North Korean government's response being "propaganda" is not appropriate. It is also not necessary. Readers should be able to make up their own minds. As I see it, the sentence only indicates what the North Korean government's response is. This is informative. The government has not admitted fault, or defended such actions, but has denied them. This is entirely appropriate to include. This, after all, is supposed to be an article about North Korea. (As to your statement that there is "nothing but propaganda to back up what they are saying", this is actually not true. One of the star witnesses at the UN Inquiry Shin Dong-hyuk has admitted that he was lying. Singer Hyon Song-wol who was widely reported to have been executed by Kim Jong Un turned up alive and well. And so on. However, I say this as an aside.)--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I added the citation needed template because these were quite decisive statements yet were completely unsourced and this just didn't look serious. They are extensively sourced in the further part of the article so it shouldn't be any problem to re-use these references in the lead. Cloud200 (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding statements from North Korean government, I wouldn't take for granted even a single word of a government that prevents its own citizens from freely leaving the country or allows any foreign monitors, because this single aspect effectively cancels any ability to independently verify these statements. Even if Shin Dong-hyuk was hiding the fact that he denounced his family (as this was the main aspect of his lies as I read) let's not lose the focus on what is the key message of all the people from escaped from such regimes: they were not free to leave the country in the first place and the regime applied lethal measures to prevent them from doing so. You can't give equal weight to statements from such countries. Cloud200 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is informative to mention that the NK government denies its abuses. However, using the word "allegations" conveys that the claims of human rights abuses are unsubstantiated, and undermines the facts of the matter. There may be some examples of confusion over specific cases, especially given how tightly the NK government controls information and access to foreign journalists, but no serious humanitarian organization, NGO, or news organization denies that human rights abuses are rampant. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's drop both "allegations" and "propaganda" as misleading/unspecific. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Cloud200 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the changes, but I would like to add that I think any discussion of North Korea should be as factual as possible. Vague opinions, guesses, and statements of belief are not particularly useful. By his own admission, Shin has lied multiple times. The writer Simon Winchester commented that the "authority" of the UN Commission of Inquiry report was "somewhat challenged" by this revelation. And in fact there are many North Koreans who travel and live in other countries and return home.[3][4] And the northern border is often described as porous.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the North Korean workers rented as a low-paid half-slave work force to Russia and some Eastern European countries[5] as their families in North Korea as held as a guarantee they will not escape. I'm sure you would agree this is not the best example for "freedom of movement. And the border being described as "porous" does not imply people have freedom of movement, quite the opposite, they are just prevented from moving with less than 100% efficiency. Cloud200 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence ("The North Korean government denies these allegations.") is consensual and neutral. The term "allegations" doesn't mean, that charges of human rights violations by the UN, HRW or AI are substantiated or unsubstantiated. First sentence of the paragraph informs, that the UN conducted an "inquiry" and "concluded", that can be called not neutral, because charges were unsubstantiated. For example, not all the facts were reliable and it can't be checked. And the UN is still involved in the Korean war against North Korea. Охранник Леса (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)