Talk:Juche

message: The section "Comparisons to religion" (formerly known as "Religious features of Juche") appears to be premised on an original argument synthesised from various sources. Whoever added this section split it into three subsections: "Presence of a sacred leader", "Rituals", and "Familism". The original wording of the introductory paragraph for this section was as follows (appropriate revision linked here):
The sentence that explains the nomenclature of the three subsections (i.e. the long second sentence in the paragraph) cites page 192 of the Historical Dictionary of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by James Hoare. However, Hoare does not mention any of these three elements. The full text of the page is as follows:
In fact, everything in the second sentence cannot be verified by the source given; Hoare does not mention anything about the influence of East Asian religions on Juche, nor studies which view it as a "national and indigenous religious movement" (emphasis mine). The only sentence that even references comparisons of Juche to religion is the last one: "To many outsiders,  seems more like a religious movement than a political philosophy, and it has been examined in this sense in a number of academic studies." Although this could be used to verify a reworded version of the first sentence, this is not necessary because it is a topic sentence and I gave specific examples from the Jung source ("Jucheism as an Apotheosis of the Family: The Case of the Arirang Festival" by Hyang Jin Jung) in my later edits.
Thus, the second sentence is in fact unsourced, along with the third and fourth sentences. The citations for the fifth and last sentence are also deceptively placed; they only speak to North Korea being an atheist state, but nothing to the second part of the sentence, i.e. "...but some argue (weasel words) that it maintains a cult of personality identical to a religion." For these reasons, I have reworded the first and second sentences and removed the latter three. However, I did not remove the part about the features being "the presence of a sacred leader, rituals, and familism" because it is the premise of the entire section. Instead, I have added a  tag to it.
The way this section is worded, however, makes me suspect that it is an original argument made by an editor's interpretation of multiple sources. Each subsection is a collection of various facts and arguments supporting an overarching thesis, specifically that the namesake of the subsection is an element of Juche. None of the authors cited actually groups these three elements in particular when making their comparisons of Juche to religion. I think this section would benefit from a modified explanation of its premise. For example, rather than definitively saying these three elements make Juche a religion (an assertion which none of the authors cited make), the introductory paragraph should say that scholars often point to these three elements when comparing Juche to religion(s).
As I continue to make edits to this article, this will hopefully serve to explain some of my edits to the "Comparisons to religion" section in particular. Yue🌙 05:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it's headed in the right direction.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in the section "Comparisons to religion"? 

message: It dawned on me recently that some of the section headings in this article are misleading. Notably, you will never see official works on Juche (nor scholars) describe Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, "Socialism of Our Style", "Great Leader theory", and Songun as concepts within Juche. Rather, they are concepts that scholars of Korean studies connect to Juche. Thus, a more accurate heading for this section would be "Related concepts".
But if the "Concepts" section does not actually touch on any of the concepts of Juche, are they explained elsewhere in the article? The answer is not really; basic principles like an emphasis on "self-reliance" and "man as the center of everything" are mentioned in passing to compliment a greater point. Most of the article features scholarly arguments, criticisms, and interpretations pertaining to Juche (or it is not even about Juche but North Korean politics in general; this is particularly egregious in the "Analysis and reception" section). By contrast, the Korean article (주체사상) has a massive section (사상 이론) which gives a comprehensive summary of the philosophical tenets of Juche. It is really easy to lead readers to a certain conclusion if one includes critiques that Juche is not an ideology and/or simply nonsense used to justify the WPK's rule, but omits any information on what Juche actually claims.
I hope other editors will help me remedy this issue by adding more content explaining what Juche is, or at least, what its proponents claim it to be. In my opinion, "Ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea" would be a more appropriate title for the current version of this article, as it barely touches on Juche beyond using it to posit other points. Yue🌙 07:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting comment. It might be hard to fix for editors without Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The content of this article 

message: Hi again! Will it be acceptable to change the first sentence from the intro "[...] is the state ideology of North Korea." to "[...] is the state ideology of North Korea and the official ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea." or something similar, you get the idea. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great suggestion. I always thought it was weird that the WPK was not mentioned in the lead. Next time you can just be bold and make the edit yourself. If I have a disagreement with your edit, I will voice it then, so do not worry about preemptively starting a discussion for your ideas. Yue🌙 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I'm reading the section on "Great Leader", it came from this edit. I'm checking the sources and none (so far) say "Great Leader". If other editors disagree with my changes, can they please ping me with a source that states "Great Leader". Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Great Leader" unsupported by source, posted by blocked user 

message: But some of the earlier works cited prominently in this article, like those of Charles Armstrong, treat them as such. The works of Brian R. Myers and those citing Myers, which have been referenced heavily in this article, make the distinction between Juche and the ideology of the WPK / DPRK. They are giving their own opinions on what they believe the ideology of the DPRK is in actuality. They are not claiming that Juche itself is fascism, because, as anyone who reads Juche literature would tell you, it is not fascistic. If an author critiques police brutality and authoritarian tendencies in the United States as akin to a fascist state, then we wouldn't be citing that critique as the basis for calling liberal democracy a fascist ideology. Yue🌙 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Juche'' is not synonymous with the ideology of the WPK or DPRK