Talk:North Korea/Archive 9

message: *Please Keep fairness I cannot understad why someone deleate Nuke Warhead issue without discussion even I showed proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NUKE PROGRAM 

message: These pictures make North Korea look like a paradise! Look at those high-tech industries! Why is there not a single picture of the countryside? Most North Koreans live in the countryside outside of Pyeongyang and Hamhung. I can't believe Wikipedia has turned into a source of North Korean (and recent South Korean) propaganda. --JakeLM 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreigners who visit North Korea aren't allowed to venture anywhere unattended, and the tour guides obviously won't take you to the countryside. See its corresponding Wikitravel article. Who'd want to spread North Korean propaganda? Carson 02:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll read this article's edit history, you'll see... Rklawton 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, isn't it anti-North Korean or just basic vandalism? Carson 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the funny thing about North Korea.  Telling the truth about it can be easily confused with POV pushing or vandalism.  A few editors have made a concerted effort to make North Korea sound and look as nice as any other country - to the point of removing a rather telling satellite image showing the Korean peninsula at night.  Rklawton 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are people who have made it very clear that they /are/ intending to push a certain anti-North-Korean point of view.  I am by no stretch of the imagination 'pro-NK' but you really have to temper yourself.  This is an encyclopedia.  If you want to get polemic, start a blog.  65.60.208.212 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The level of anti-north korean bias is amazing.  Just because the country is run by a dictatorship doesn't mean it doesn't have cities, or industy, or big buildings, or sunny days.  South Korea was a dictatorship too until the late 80's but nobody seems to go argue there that the wikipedia page is "too nice".  I think it is important for people to see pictures of Pyongyang so that this image of North Korea of a country of nothing but wasteland can be reassessed.  I am particularly annoyed by the self-appointed North Korea "experts" that are only interested in the aspects of human rights and democracy as if they were the only true defining qualities of a "real country" and that discussing anything else about the country isn't worth the time.  To further address specifics, that photo of the blackout that Rumsfeld was so fond of was taken during a blackout in the North (except for pyongyang which has electrical priority as the largest and most necessary for function city in the country) and inaccurately depicts the north as a country in the "middle ages" compared to the glowingly modern south.  Here's a helpful statistic i hope many will take to heart: China's per capita income for 2006 was $1750.  North Korea's was estimated at $1800.  That compares with South Korea at $14000.  I don't see anyone objecting to pictures of downtown Beijing or Shanghai as unfairly representing China.  North Korea was devistated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US gave billions to South Korea to build it up.  I don't see how it is unreasonable to see that North Korea was given the short end of the stick simply because it did not care to do business with the US for many many many reasons and as a result is struggling to sustain itself an its Juche policy of self-reliance.  This is not the place to discuss whether or not it is acceptable or excusable, but it is the place to point out that not everything in North Korea is a shit-hole and for people who don't have any academic knowledge of the country to voice displeasure with the view they learned from who knows where seems academically irresponsible.  Besides, isn't wikipedia trying to be an academic collection of knowledge?  If you want to call the regime a "Juche Communism" because it makes the most number of people happy even though nobody uses that term, then that's fine because that's how wikipedia chooses to operate and i accept that.  If you wanted to use "Juche Communist Dictatorship" that would be even more accurate.  If people want to pretend to be academians though and speak their mind without knowledge of facts or a historical background of any sort, i really don't understand or accept that. Icactus 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, some of those are great ideas.  I've long held the opinion that Wikipedia makes solid efforts at maintaining neutrality in every aspect except in its photography.  The East St. Louis, Illinois article springs quickly to mind.  What I find especially appealing in the satellite image is that it shows the entire picture all in one shot.  On the other hand, I don't see how this image represents anti-NK drivel.  Perhaps you should argue that NK's energy conservation efforts lead the world in "green" policies instead.  I wouldn't.  But you might.  Rklawton 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow (barf) 

message: Please provide examples of non-neutral text in the main article so they can be examined and corrected if necessary so the neutrality tag can be removed. If none are provided after a certain length of time i would imagine it would be acceptable to remove the tag. Icactus 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't seem to be any. The "disputed" tag has been removed. An article is "disputed" when there exists a REASONABLE dispute about factual accuracy. We must not allow a "heckler's veto" by frenzied juche stooges. WikiFlier 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality - 

message: This is a dispute about the appropriate label for North Korea's form of government
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
*Most reliable sources list this country as a Communist Dictatorship.  However, I've accepted the compromise "Juche Communist Dictatorship."  A novice editor wishes to change this compromise back to "Juche State."  Rklawton 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juche is North Korean propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia article, at least not describing the form of government, IMO. In this case its best to default to the most common label used by reliable sources, of which the North Korean government does not qualify. If there is any doubt to that last assertion then ask them about the Ryugyong Hotel. My two cents via RfC. IvoShandor 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To address this issue of novice editors, i would appreciate seeing some form of cited arguments when dealing with issues of neutrality - especially regarding the juche discussion.  For those who find "juche" to be north korea propoganda, i think the discussion would benefit from finding a source to back such a claim, or a scholar who agrees that juche is propoganda and not objectively accurate in describing the north korean system.  I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone in the field who agrees with such an assertion and i don't think it is helpful to wikipedia to make decisions without some scholarly backing.  Bruce Cummings (prof at u. chicago) is considered the foremost authority on north korea and contends strongly that juche is essential to understanding the uniqueness of the origins of north korea as well as finding it an accurate term.  I know wikipedia attempts to give weight to academic works over a simple majority in resolving disputes and i think it is paramount for those who express personal opinions on this cite to have some academic backing for what they say.  otherwise it really is just glorified hear-say - and that goes for both anti- and pro- north korean editors.  What this page needs more of are healthy doses of people who are qualified to write about the country and there are just far too few.  So please, use sources! Icactus 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on a separate note, i don't have the source here but i will get it and retract this comment if i can't find it, but North Korea is fine with the term "Dictatorship" and they are quite proud of their "Rally round the leader" model.  So long as juche is included (and communist is almost equally essential if we are aiming to be educational with our description) it seems rediculous to ban the inclusion of "dictatorship" as a descriptive term.  RKlawton, i appreciate your compromise and your effort to help find a neutral way through this.  I only favored the picture of Pyongyang at night (as opposed to the satellite photo (which has pyongyang and the other major cities lit)) because it shows people an idea of north korea that probably contradicts what they imagine in their head.  The notion of the capitol actually being a functioning city seems to be unbelievable to many people.  including both is probably cluttering, but i thought to challenge conventional notions with that picture would be educational without automatically being "propoganda". Icactus 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not a novice editor and the gist of my comment was use what the reliable sources say, I will let the editors around here decide what that constitutes, it is my opinion that anything the government of North Korea has to say about it is not reliable concerning this article. North Korean history didn't start with communism so I doubt that juche is essential to understanding the origins of North Korea. While it has its place in any discussion on North Korea that place is the Juche article not here in a description of the government (maybe a sentence or two referring to the main article somewhere). Per RKLawton it would seem that most reliable sources categorize the government as a Communist dictatorship. And while Wikipedia attempts to give weight to academic sources it isn't going to give undue weight to the opinion of one scholar, but if we have other sources that continuously assert that this a more descriptive and accurate means of describing the government in North Korea then they should be included in this discussion. It is my impression based on what Lawton said (an editor whose judgment I trust) that those won't be found. IvoShandor 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  north korean history didn't start with communism?? i know this isnt' the forum for discussing actual topics and only for discussing changes to the article but that's a suprising assertion, unless you ment someting else.  The "People's Republic" as it was originally described was the essential difference that the north used to try to gain support from the southern people to push-out the pro-japanese pro-american leadership that Rhee brought with him.  I wasn't categorizing you as a novice editor, i'm only asking for those who wish to edit to source the things they say.  I understand that there are other sources that don't use the term Juche because it is too specific and they prefer broad terms like "communist republic", etc. but i'm just asking for future assertions (like "juche is propoganda") to be backed by a source who is making that claim other than the wikipedia editor.  While i generally agree with Reuben, i disagree that juche is the same as saying North Korean communism because in korean the word has special significance and including it in the description will encourage readers to click link and learn what juche is and why the north finds it so important.  I appreciate Reuben's suggestion that it doesn't hurt anything to add it, but i would argue that it significantly enhances the article to include it for educational value.Icactus 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not saying that the link doesn't have value I just don't think it would be the correct description of the government if we are going to use reliable sourcing, since it is used specifically by the state to describe itself, I can find some sources if you want, but I assumed Lawton already had since that was what he essentially posted, and he was merely looking for viewpoints on whether juche was appropriate, based upon his assertions, I say we go with the reliable sources. As for the North Koreans, the people, land and whatever makes them distinct certainly existed prior to the split, whether or not you could call that North Korean is up to opinion I guess. IvoShandor 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lawton doesn't have any sourcing that discredits juche because there isn't any to be quite frank.  I appreciate that you have edited wikipedia for a while and have that knowledge, but when it comes to north korea from what you've just written you really don't have any idea what you're talking about and it is that kind of mindless editing that doesn't help us here. Icactus 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And to be fair, you haven't produced any sources either, other than your own assertions, glass houses, stones and stuff. Your tone is, to be frank, a bit uncivil. Perhaps if you produce some sources that outweighs the points Lawton brought up here I may be more prone to agree with you, but just calling it a day by characterizing my edits as mindless and being done with them isn't really assuming too much in the way of good faith. Come with the sources now and I will do the same. IvoShandor 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone notice that "Juche Communist dictatorship" yields one result, this page. I haven't looked for sources yet but we are going to use the most common terminology used in reliable sources, not a neology like "Juche Communist State," which isn't a type of government. I recommend adding Juche as a parenthetical link, I don't like it but after the government type, which because this is an encyclopedia we must follow what most reliable sources use, now if you can find some other sources on the government type being described as a Juche Communist State, then we can discuss inclusion. I will try to post my sources tonight, I am still compiling them. IvoShandor 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than try to hold some sort of debate here i'd like to just offer this article from globalsercurity.org (we use it on wikipedia often enough as a neutral source and it's not a bad primer on juche) that explains the function of Juche as both a model of the FORM of government as well as the IDEOLOGY and even the RELIGION of north korea.  Since we all don't have JSTOR access this is the best thing i could find on short notice that wouldn't be labeled "one-sided":  Having a box with the word "Government:" seems overly simplistic and i have been pushing for a more educational phrase involving some inclusion of the Juche influence.  The compromised "juche communist dictatorship" is not an officially recognized "category" because it was not my aim to just use a popularly recognized category to describe the government.  I just think it would be helpful to describe the government's unique qualities with some qualifying term, and Juche (like Marxist or Stalinist) is a term to qualify the nature of the government and the manner in which the government fuctions.  If the consensus only wishes to purely categorize the government using a limited number of option then i can understand why people wish to omit the word Juche.  I just hope after reading this article you will understand the helpfulness the word provides when being included.  If anyone has a JSTOR account there are many articles on the topic but if you're looking for newspaper articles to say "North Korea, the Juche Communist Dictatorship" you won't find many as such - but i don't think that makes the title less informative.  We could add the term "fascist" because the country is rallied around a militaristic center, we could add "authoritarian", we could add "hyper-sovereign" to describe the juche ideology's determination to keep all decisions regarding north korea's land to be made by north korea (that means approving all foreign influence), we could add militaristic, we could add Stalinist because some scholars like to argue that the North was merely a puppet state of russia (though they would be wrong as Cummings documents in "Korea's place in the sun" because of the abscence of material and miltary aid during the korean war), but we could still use it because some scholars have argued it.  The point is that if we have to only pick a few words we could just use "dictator" of just use "communist" or just use "Juche State" but if we aim to be educational (and if you have read a bit about what the word juche means) i think we should preserve the current phrase "Juche Communist Dictatorship" as a compromise - certainly nobody can argue that North Korea is not that. and certainly nobody can argue that some aspect of the manner of governing is not included.  I have never had the desire to mask the existance of north korea's "communist dictatorship", only to insist on the consideration and inclusion of "juche", much like the use of "Federal" to describe the united states as a "federal republic".Icactus 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add that the article gets a bit POV toward the end with the jab "reduced to making desperate and dangerous tactical displays of military power to threaten its neighbors" but the beginning provides an understanding of Juche that is acceptable and should be helpful since it includes a anti-NK slant. Icactus 05:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: North Korea

message: I've restored this famous image to the Economy section.  It had been replaced a couple of months ago with an image showing only the capital city at night - an image that failed to represent in a glance the state of North Korea's economy.  While this satellite image captures only one moment in time, similar images taken in other years show a very consistent picture.  As a result, this image is both extraordinarily illustrative of the state of North Korea's economy, and it does so in a fair and neutral manner.  Rklawton 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno; Japan looks pretty well lit up in these types of images.  So does South Korea.  Last I checked they were mostly Asian.  Maybe it's the electricity that's racist.  Rklawton 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Checked from several different sources. The image seems to be correct. I am not sure whether it reflects econonomy though. Maybe they just sleep at night. ;) Suva 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Korean peninsula at night.jpg]]

message: Violates NPOV. Kim Myong Chol describes himself as, "unofficial spokesman for Kim Jong-il". The Asia Times article "cited" with a growth rate number was an opinion piece written by Kim Myong Chol, with no citations within the piece. Economic growth numbers must be calculated statistical, not via hearsay. Until a "real" cite is availabe, either an "official" North Korea government spokes person (not terribly credible), or a World Financial institution (more credible), this section should be removed, as it smacks of pro-military-first policy propaganda. 71.228.4.69 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Economic Growth numbers 

message: On the official North Korea tourism homepage you can read something about ONE tour through Korea. Could somebody who made this tour tell me what you exactly can see and what flights you make with Air Koryo? Dagadt [12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTS)]
: Why don't you ask them instead of us? Speedboy Salesman 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. This page is for discussing the contents and improvement of the North Korea article, it is not a general discussion forum about North Korea. IvoShandor 11:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism 

message: Could someone please check on the figures in this article and deliver a single number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.177.10 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there two figures presented for South Korea's (yes South Korea's) military spending??? 

message: As I understand it, very few organizations currently are helping North Koreans directly(smuggling food in and smuggling North Koreans out).  Aside from LINK, what other humanitarian organizations/efforts are currently in place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwhelanx (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanitarian Efforts 

message: Someone just answer me that. I WILL be changing this Now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlatko (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have articles for Taiwan and for the Republic of China.  One is about the island, one is about the state.  We could also put the article about the state under the name "Taiwan," which would reflect common usage, but then we would have to find a different way to disambiguate the two articles.  In the case of North Korea, we only need one article, and it's under the most common name in English: North Korea.  Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Reuben 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reuben, this is ridiculous! Have a look at SFRJ, note how it isnt called Yugoslavia, and people reffered to it as only Yugoslavia, it makes no sense to name North Korea's article after a nickname for the country! Zlatko 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no comparison.  "Yugoslavia" is ambiguous (it depends on time period).  "North Korea" is not.  Rklawton 13:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there is an article at Yugoslavia.  If the SFRJ were the only thing under that name, we would move SFRJ to Yugoslavia.  But because there were several Yugoslav states, we have one article for Yugoslavia overall, and specific articles for each of those historical states.  As you would know if you read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we title articles according to the most common name that doesn't conflict with another article.  Republic of China has the title it does because there's already a Taiwan article about the island.  SFRJ has the title it does because there's already a Yugoslavia article, about the entire history of the country.  --Reuben 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The DPRK is the current government of the territory known as "North Korea" and is the only government diplomatically recognized as such. The ROC is not widely recognized as the sovereign government of Taiwan. The SFRJ is not a current government. Therefore we have a country article called "North Korea" that covers both the government and the territory, just as we have an article called "Libya" that covers the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and its territory. The name is also easier to type, just like "United Kingdom" is easier to type than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Gazpacho 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this CALLED "North Korea" When Taiwan is called "Republic Of China" Formally? 

message: Removed this term from the infobox, due to the longstanding problems of neutrality (dictatorship according to whom) and original research (editors cherry-picking the sources that agree with them). This has previously been hashed out with regard to :Category:Dictators, List of dictators, and elsewhere. Gazpacho 06:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, you might want to try removing "dictatorship" from Nazi Germany. Rklawton 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Gazpacho 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If commmunism = dictatorship, then it would be redundant to add dictatorship and I wouldn't care.  They aren't the same thing, however.  And in the case of North Korea and Nazi Germany, the term "dictatorship" applies - and most sources support this.  By the way, before you go changing Nazi Germany to "Republic", please read WP:POINT.  Rklawton 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it at your request, and applying core policies isn't disruption. Gazpacho 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dictatorship"

message: This is crap.  It's going.
I'm being bold.
--M a s 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually when we make collaborative edits, something more useful than "this is crap" is left in our wake so other editors have the opportunity to improve upon or refute the argument.  Rklawton 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It ought to stay.  Info like that is what makes the DPRK (and Wikipedia) interesting. Popkultur 19:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is obvious.  The man is dead.  His importance in the history and psyche of DPRK is clearly discussed in the article.  This is DPRK-apologizing and wikiality.  Unless, please, name another existing country info-box where a dead person is in the "Government" section.  The fact that he is the "Eternal President" is noteworthy and should be in his bio if not the main article, but to put it in the infobox concedes way too much.  --M a s 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's another country where the constitution names a dead man as eternal president, so there's no possible comparison with other countries.  As for DPRK-apologizing, it doesn't look that way to me; if anything, it looks bad for North Korea by highlighting the personality cult.  But that's a matter of perspective (as it should be, since the article doesn't need to be editorializing).  --Reuben 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's quite without any parallel in most other countries.  Of course it doesn't mean that Kim Il Sung is ruling from beyond the grave by occult forces.  But likening the status of Kim Il Sung in North Korea to the "father of the country" in other places understates things quite a bit.  The 1998 revision of the constitution has a preamble that's entirely dedicated to praising Kim Il Sung; it names him as eternal president, and describes itself as a "Kim Il Sung constitution."  He's not mentioned outside the preamble.  To complicate matters a little bit more, the Communist understanding of a national constitution is not the same as the Western understanding.  In the US and many other countries, the constitution is a fundamental document that prescribes the structure and powers of the state, and all laws and government actions must conform to it.  Communist countries, on the other hand, usually understand a constitution to be a formal description of existing social and state relationships - it's descriptive rather than prescriptive (but descriptive in light of the goals of the Party).  Of course our goal is also to describe, but without any particular agenda.  So the question is, how do we present this information without adding our own interpretation?  I think the most natural thing is to take the DPRK's documents and media on their own terms.  There are plenty of sources including the constitution in which Kim Il Sung is named as Eternal President.  Are there North Korean sources to back up the idea that this should be taken in a symbolic, less literal sense?  --Reuben 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did this go back in?  202.156.10.12 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal President in Infobox 

message: My brother did a project on Pyongyang a while back . . . I don't remember where he saw it, but something said that pregnant women and crippled people are banned from Pyongyang.  --Penguin boy93 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall reading something like that before as well. I'll get back to you if no one else does. ALTON .ıl 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE:  Weeding Out the Weak

message: I think this article should be called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" rather than "North Korea". DPRK is the official name of the country so therefore should be used. It would be like calling the United Kingdom article "Britain" or the United States of America article "America".
This is nothing to do with politics, just common sense. Jamezcd 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I disagree. North Korea is the most common way of referring to the country and should stay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.1 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been partly dealt with before. Check out the contents section of this talk page [Talk:North Korea/Archive 9#Why is this CALLED "North Korea" When Taiwan is called "Republic Of China" Formally?].  I say North Korea is the common name and should be kept.--Postmortemjapan 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Name Change 

message: This page does not seem to be rendering correctly in Firefox (version 2.0.0.7). --Philarete 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of problems do you see?  Do you mean the article itself, or this talk page?  They both look OK to me in 2.0.0.6.  --Reuben 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No longer seeing the problem. Philarete 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rendering in Firefox? 

message: 1. "Juche" in this article cross-references to an "ideology" that is characterized as giving "the people" "independence" of thought, among other things. Since NK is a dictatorship that in fact allows no independence of thought, it is inaccurate to characterize it as "following" the Juche ideology. It would be more accurate to say that the country's government styles itself as following the Juche ideology than to say it does so. I have made changes to reflect this. 
2. Someone used the passive voice twice to characterize NK's economic growth rate up to the 1970s as superior to South Korea's growth rate after 1948. This repeated statement is unsourced and seems quite implausible given that SK's current economy is more than 50 times larger than NK's. I have deleted it. If someone can supply a plausible source, perhaps it could be restored, although I am quite confident that the claim is fictional.
Nathanhcr 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your #2 is quite true.  Here's one source, if you can use JSTOR: .  Depending on the assumptions used and the method of comparison, South Korea's GNP per capita overtook North Korea's some time between 1976 and 1989(!).  --Reuben (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias with regard to "Juche" and the two Koreas' economies 

message: Dictatorship is not NPOV in any sense of the world, and gives the false impression that communism is dictatorship, a false lie being peddled on this article. Communism is the highest form of democracy because it puts the means of production into public hands (the whole populace), as opposed to capitalism which puts the economy into private minority elite hands, that is why NK is the 'Democratic' people's republic.
In any case the most appropriate government type is socialist republic, the DPRK is listed in the wiki of 'list of socialis countries' as a socialist state, so that's how it should be on this article, the same as Vietnam, China and Cuba. The right-wing loons should quit trying to enforce themselves on these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.225.104 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't post in the middle of the talk page, as it breaks up the flow of discussion and makes it likely that your comments will be lost, without any response. I don't see any right-wing loons around here, and I think you need to do some more reading. Leaving aside outside sources for the moment, the North Korean constitution itself disagrees with you on many points. It does in fact describe the country as a dictatorship in certain contexts; the state and the party do not represent the whole populace, nor do they claim to do so; the goal is the eventual construction of Communism, rather than a functioning Communist system today - the means of production are primarily owned by the state; and this is not connected with the use of the word Democratic in the name of the state, which refers to a form of political rather than economic organization. --Reuben (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictatorship

message: Can someone translate the motto? I can't. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the page right now, the motto is something that means "We rule with an iron fist." I'll fix it... --Reuben (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: The Human Rights section contains typos, conflicting arguments, and does not site any of it's sources or provide adequate evidence for either of those arguments.  Johnnymonicker (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And I was wondering, if you should mention a section on "Human rights" here, shouldn't one be included in the article on the United States, especially with regards to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? 202.59.73.50 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Section 

message: You may want to review this article since some members of the KFA has been in here, as they self say, improving and removing lies. Just see the democracy-debate above. Time to restore relevant information again? --Boongoman (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the information should be put back. The KFA's position is that they accept the official word of the government of North Korea, and as a result they remove what they consider to be "lies", even when there is evidence to support the information given. They even go so far as to say that refugees and defectors are paid or coerced into giving accounts against the government and therefore can't be used as sources of information. If the KFA disagree with something in the article and see it as lies, then they should provide evidence to the contrary from unbiased sources. Deleting information supported by evidence because they don't want people to see it is wrong, and any KFA edits without discussion or sources should be treated as vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.235.58 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashers