Talk:Politics of North Korea

message: What was the Central People's Committee? It is mentioned in the 1992 The Parliamentary System of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea published by the Inter-Parliamentary Union as being able to adjudge laws of the Supreme People's Assembly to be invalid and unconstitutional. Int21h (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Central People's Committee

message: I find the current and past wording of the sentence about the Eternal President problematic. It used to read "The Eternal Korean President is Kim Il Sung, a title given posthumously as a recognition of his great achievements" but currently reads "The Eternal Korean President is Kim Il Sung, a title given posthumously." The problem is that the original wording implies that he did have great achievements, but this is very POV unless we go into detail. However, leaving that off and just saying that he is the Eternal President doesn't explain what the heck that means, or why he has that title. It needs to explain the importance of elevating someone to such a high title (and it is high, no matter what you think of their politics) without implying anything about the validity of that title, which could be disputed.  — Saxifrage (☎)  23:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about words to the effect of "The Eternal Korean President, a title given posthumously in recognition of great acheivement, is Kim Il Sung", restucturing the predicative emphasis --Nema Fakei 18:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Eternal President

message: --Charlestustison 06:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sentence should be put back in. Note that it said that N.K. is isolationist and it didn't say, as you seem to have read it, isolated. They are isolationist—a political stance that a government may take—because of Juche. Whether they are, in fact, isolated and why isn't treated on in the article.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Juche

message: Im thinking that the US human rights watch is not a reliable resource in issues concerning a past combatant. The US DID lose the war with North Korea so of course it IS going to slander it as much as possible. Thus why i put the POV tag up there. PLEASE people, use FACT not your own opinions on wikipedia.
Jeremy D. 19:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the source of that statement clear in the article, so that it does not sound like Wikipedia is endorsing the source beyond a simple "these people said this". Does that address your concern about the neutrality of the article? — Saxifrage ✎ 05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is incorrect Jeremy, North Korea lost the war. They invaded South Korea, but were eventually beaten back after suffering huge losses, and leaving many of their Southern brothers dead. It was only the actions of the Chinese army that pervented them from being utterly destroyed. Please, use facts, not your own opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.241.81 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The war ended in a stalemate, not a loss. As mentioned by someone else, the Chinese army is the only reason that the DPRK was not beaten to a pulp by the U.S. and ROK forces. Sure, the U.S. likely slanders the DPRK, but regardless--it likely isn't too far from the truth, the DPRK has the worst human rights record in the world, and it's not even close. Kazakhstan Enthusiast (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  US version of Human rights 

message: In this month's Atlantic Monthly it stated that North Korea is currently in a state of feudalsim. Local party officials and military officers control many small areas out of the supervision of the central government. This seems to be important as it indicates that the "dead leader's" regime has lost some of its power. Sound and Fury 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea Government 

message: :Image:Kim Jong il.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
 « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kim Jong il.jpg

message: I noticed that the individual listed as currently holding the position of foreign secretary is actually dead. Perhaps this section needs a comprehensive revision by someone versed in the topic. Nickmuddle (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet Positions

message: Hmm, well I havn't edited wiki for a long time mainly because I'm tired of seeing ridiculour bias. I mean, are people in this world capable of saying anything other than what they're told by their media? This is probably going to be considered irrelevant but am I the only person who finds it frustrating that people just paraphrase what their told? 
Anyway, my point is that this article is ridiculously biased. "widely considered"? What exactly does that mean. The reader may take that to mean that almost all nations are opposed to North Korea's actions. Why is it that only the USA's opinion counts when it comes to discussing politics. Oh, yeah! It must be because they are a "democracy". And no, I am not particularly against democracy for that matter.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I heard a rumour that when bills are signed into law they are signed in Kim Il-Sung's name.  If this were true it'd be good for the page on the eternal president.
   
           please find a source  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.10.98 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Eternal Presidency and executive assent

message: due to the reshuffle at the second session of DPRK parliament, i have changed the name of the premier on the government section of the article. the new premier is Choe Yong-rim Ksood91 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government 

message: It seems a touch out of place for a link to gay/lesbian rights in NK from this page. Does anyone have a particular reasoning for this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.64.171 (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay rights 

message: FYI,  was redirected here. However, the opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political parties in North Korea strongly suggests that a merge take place, since those !voting keep or merge form the almost unanimous position (one person left an opinion for solely redirecting).
76.66.200.95 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of political parties in North Korea 

message: In the section on the National Defence Commission, the Constitution of North Korea was incorrectly parenthesized as (꽃제비대국). 꽃제비 meaning "orphan" in North Korea, this is the equivalent of saying "North Korean constitution (Orphan Empire)." The text in parentheses was corrected to read (조선민주주의인민공화국 사회주의 헌법), which is the correct Korean name. If this was someone's idea of a joke, inaccuracy in Wikipedia is hardly the remedy for the myriad crimes of the North Korean regime against the North Korean people.
While I was at it, I added some article numbers to the quotes about the National Defence Commission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.151.137.87 (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Korean name of the Constitution corrected 

message: There was a great deal of copyrighted material pasted to the ‎Executive branch, ‎Legislative branch and ‎National Defence Commission sections (and elsewhere in the article), which I've now removed per WP:DCV with info on the infringed source in the edit summaries. The government sections were then left a bit sparse, so I've moved them to Government of North Korea, which is a better destination at any rate for material that's directly about :government rather than :politics. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged gov't sections 

message: Hi all, just wanted to request that the North Korean time zone be changed to 'Pyongyang Time' (GMT+8:30) as North Korea has created their own timezone. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.231.49 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean Time Zone 

message: "According to the constitution, North Korea is a part of rayan ahmed and bhuvan sharma's saudi arab and the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA)..."
What is "rayan ahmed and bhuvan sharma's saudi arab" supposed to mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.67.138 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I recently reverted an edit that removed the references to Cuba. I can understand some might feel that Cuba is not relevant here, but I think it says a lot about their politics. Other material in the article implies that the DPRK has jettisoned the Communist movement, and this counterbalances that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba 

message: Kim Jong-un has maintained the military-first political system that he inherited from his father's regime. He also inherited all of the major political positions his father once had. I'm going to expand on this more since there's no mention of Kim jong-un. It also seems important to add that North Korea is shifting away from using solely militaristic power by meeting with worldwide diplomats such as Donald Trump and China to negotiate denuclearization. Wardmc1996 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The article does need an update. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors working on North Korea to keep articles up-to-date.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transition of Power to Kim Jong-un 

message: I have removed this from the lead:
:The Western world generally views North Korea as a totalitarian dictatorship and a rogue nation.
It doesn't have a citation and it doesn't seem to reflect anything in the body of the article. The rogue state article doesn't support the view that the term is in general use across the West, noting that the US State Department stopped using it in 2000. Secondly, as I have pointed out at the Kim Jong Un article, sources do not universally say that North Korea is a dictatorship. In any case, I don't think this really fits with "Politics of North Korea". This is not an article about Western perceptions of North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogue nation