Talk:North Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1700:6180:6290:5010:9eb9:d3a7:db33 (talk) at 02:47, 8 September 2022 (→‎Requested move: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abbynlew (article contribs).


National Anthem

Please replace the vocal version of the anthem with the instrumental one. The vocal would better suit in the national anthem's main page : Aegukka

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DevanshVerma039 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

I want to add an audio example of the national anthem. Justin L. 1230 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please upload the audio file first and then reopen the request with a link to the audio file so that it can be added if it is appropriate. Terasail[✉️] 15:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Soviet split in introduction

From the intro:

Despite the war's failure, the post-war North Korea prospered as its first leader, Kim Il-sung, exploited the Sino-Soviet split to procure benefits from Moscow and Beijing, and in the 1960s boasted higher living standards than in the South.

The comment about exploiting the split is not in the body of the article and has no citation. My understanding is that North Korea sided with China originally.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is also not expanded on and contradicted in the article body. I can remedy this tomorrow; I already have citations prepared that verify your exact claim. Yue🌙 07:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentence is not explained in the body of this article, nor in the body of History of North Korea:

Kim ramped up tensions throughout the 1960s and 1970s in a bid to try and replicate the success of Communists in Vietnam. However, these efforts were unsuccessful.

I have thus removed it from the lead, per MOS:LEAD (i.e. no context in the article body). Yue🌙 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

System of government

We should be careful with making claims of the country being a ‘totalitarian dictatorship’ which shows bias. A better way of phrasing it is a ‘unitary jucheist dominant party socialist republic’ because while you may have opinions on politics it is better to keep Wikipedia unbiased. Marxistnatalie (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although things like "totalitarian dictatorship" are shallow political analysis and your alternative here is more robust, I'm sure there are enough RS to justify continued use of "totalitarian dictatorship." In my view the second edit you attempted -- removing "hereditary dictatorship" is more valuable. Hereditary dictatorship is not its form of government, and that label leads to confusion. Far better to use a description like yours with the phrase "whose political leadership is dominated by the Kim family." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be "biased" is couching a totalitarian dictatorship in nicey touchy-feelgood terms. A spade is a spade. ValarianB (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the other editor is arguing ("nicey touchy-feelgood terms") and we should avoid that kind of hyperbole or strawman, and be constructive with newcomers. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use words incorrectly please, there was no strawman here. The OP wishes to couch it in "unitary jucheist dominant party socialist republic" terms, which is quite touchy-feelgood. ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before. This field is not for whatever you can come up with to describe a country. It is for the form of government as explicitly reported by reliable sources. Something along the likes of Britannica: "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house". No source says "Unitary Jucheist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship", making it blatant WP:SYNTH. The solution is to revert back to a verifiable phrasing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica phrasing is good. We should use it for the infobox. The "hereditary"/domination by the Kim family aspects and repressive aspects are dealt with elsewhere in the article. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as discussed before.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop and @Jack Upland, I revised the info box to add Chondoism after State Atheism in the Religion category, and I went ahead and changed to the Britannica description of form of government as you suggested JArthur1984 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vif12vf what are the grounds behind your unexplained reversion? Why don't you join us on the talk page instead, where we have discussed the infobox JArthur1984 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we adding this one religion over others? Moxy- 23:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My addition wasn't intended to suggest that only Chondoism and State Atheism are worth including, is there a specific religious practice you also thought was worth adding?
My reasoning is that I believe Chondosim is currently the most practiced religion in the country, although I don't have the citation for "most practiced" at hand. At a minimum, it was the second-most practiced religion as of 2007 as per an article we already cite in the article body, shortly behind Korean shamanism. It is also a uniquely Korean (particularly North Korea) syncretic faith, well worth making more information available about.
Perhaps we add both Korean Shamanism and Chondoism, as other religious practice is miniscule? JArthur1984 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your RV only refers to the inclusion of Chondoism. Are you objecting to including the form of government that we sourced from Encyclopedia Britannica as well, or did that just get caught up because you undid my whole edit? JArthur1984 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's in 3rd place according to the sources in the article..... but should not be in at all as it implies there is religious freedom for this one denomination..... as for government type .....The WP:Sea of blue does not help in anyway. Should simply say what most academic sources say...don't rely on other tertiary sources .... academic sources simply say "socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" then explain more in a conventional place....for us that would be the government section. That said government type here will change over and over again year after year. Moxy- 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following some but not all of your points.
On the religious observance question:
Factually, it is the *second most* practiced religion per the 2007 article. This article talks about how the variation in estimates, but includes an estimate showing Chondoism as having the most practitioners.
I don't think being listed in the infobox suggests religious freedom necessarily, so I don't understand that impression. But the fact is that Chondoism is specially favored and approved of by North Korean government. The Religion in North Korea article discusses this. So even if someone makes the same interpretation you do, it would still be OK because they would be correct. Does that address your issue?
On form of government:
I made (and am advocating for) the edit that took away the WP:sea of blue issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still misleading the fact that the vast majority have no religious adherence and we're listing a religion out of the blue is not neutral or proper representation....list the five that are relevant or make a sea also link below as seen at Canada so people will understand the context. Moxy- 00:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either of those suggestions. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

System of government - Again

Juche is a term unique to North Korea, and has zero value in describing a system of government in the context of comparing and contrasting it with other systems. If you're tossing it in there because it's part of their constitution, it's also not really correct unless you want to toss seongun in there somewhere as well. Also, while it certainly has been hereditary in practice thus far, it isn't explicitly so. This was pointed out above. If one must adhere to the structural fiction that North Korea is a 'republic', which I can only imagine would be *some* sort of POV or OR problem if changed, then one must acknowledge that there is nothing restricting power from being passed on to someone outside the Kim family.24.182.239.226 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've returned it to what Britannica says. This is a verifiable, non-WP:SYNTH wording. And the fact that Britannica is a WP:TERTIARY source is useful. As per the policy "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other", which is exactly the case here. We're both encyclopedias trying to give a one-line answer to the question: "What is the form of government of North Korea?", which is not what academic sources typically seek to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea is not a republic, let's not be absurd here. Restored previous wording, minus Juche. ValarianB (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like us to use the Britannica wording as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, of course North Korea is a republic. Not only do reliable sources say that is, but it's also nothing that is mutually exclusive with it (i.e. a monarchy of any sort). A republic is not necessarily a well-functioning democracy. Likewise, the form of government does not necessarily reflect the content of politics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping up this issue, @Finnusertop, and for your focused comments. As you say, "the form of government does not necessarily reflect the content of politics," and I might add: nor does the form of government necessarily reflect a value judgment. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is still called a republic with the existing wording, however it is also made clear that it is a totalitarian dictatorship in reality, which is highly reflective of sources. It is the prototypical example of a totalitarian state in the world. It is dissimilar to China where the party apparatus has significant power independent of Xi. in NK, only the Kim family holds any power. This has been stable long enough that I believe an WP:RFC will be needed to change it (though I don't mind removing Juche). ― Tartan357 Talk 21:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The country would likely to be called Democratic People's Republic of Korea and not North Korea. 2600:1700:6180:6290:5010:9EB9:D3A7:DB33 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Korea&oldid=1109123332"