Talk:North Korea/Archive 3

message: Which is North Korea's take on Mexico? 
El Chompiras 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Context? "Yes, Mexico.. It's a country.. over there.." --Streaky 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: Request:
Ryugyong Tower link to the external links: http://ryugyonghotel.com/
:You can be brave and add the link yourself, you know, although I think that hotel link would work much better in the Pyongyang article. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryugyong Hotel link 

message: Something's wrong with the flag and coat of arms label, at the top of the box on the right. Can someone fix it? HSL 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box formatting 

message: Shouldnt the name of this article be Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that is the official name) insted of north korea? Revengeofthynerd 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but see the discussion regarding altering the name of the DPRK on wiki.  The result was no consensus hence it was never changed Jsw663 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best reason to keep it as it is, you're looking up the country after "North Korea", not "Democratic Repu...", so the shortened name is the commonly used one and probably what you'd find in a hard cover encyclopedia as well (with the offical name in brackets after it ;-) ). --Grendelshitsuren 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But note that even Chris Hill (the US govt official on East Asian + Pacific affairs) refers to the country in official press conferences as the DPRK, not North Korea. Jsw663 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Will the user from Takoma Park, MD, USA (IP 71.252.52.8) stop vandalizing the page?  Jsw663 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've done my best to archive any inactive discussions from above, as the page was getting intolerably long. I tried to leave behind any discussions where there were comments from July or August of 2006, since those might still be active. If I accidentally moved any active discussions, it might be better to restart the discussion further on down than to dredge up the original back out of the archives - I saw a lot of sections with comments from 2005 or even 2004 followed up by comments from 2006. Might be a good idea to come back and do some more archiving in a month or so. crazyeddie 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: The article currently states that a 7th (or possibly 6th, since the 6th in the series is currently disputed) missile was fired on July 6th. I've not been able to find reference to this, and the Wikipedia article on the whole incident seems to only contain rumors that a 7th launch was being readied, not that on was fired off. Could it be that somebody just jumped the gun in reporting that 7th launch here? Or is my researching ability being imparied by the fact that is about 3AM local time? At least it is already marked with a "citiation needed" notice...
At any rate, I'd like to link to the main article on the missile test, and reduce the amount of language this article dedicates to it. I won't attempt that now, because of the aforementioned local time. If anybody gets a chance to do something about this before I get a round to it, be bold. crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 missile test

message: I would suggest changing:
:North Korea has the sovereign right to test its missiles and pursue its weapons program.
to
:North Korea claims that it has the sovereign right to test its missiles and pursue its weapons program.
or something similar. Suggestions? Objections? Alternatives? crazyeddie 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, with the addition of what rationale used by DPRK to claim that it has such a sovereign right (e.g. a UN resolution, its own inalienable rights, something Juche-related...?) Leaving "has the right" seems to be slanted in favour of the regime, "claims it has the right" makes it sound a bit dubious... "claims it has the right" with verifiable backup info seems just right to me. Nach0king 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   has some good info. I will now amend the sentence in a preliminary fashion but any further editing is more than welcome, particularly from someone with more expertise on the subject than myself. Nach0king 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was in something of a rush as I wrote it. Not to mention that my writing is clumsy at the best of times :) Nach0king 10:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions to make this sentence more NPOV?

message: I feel uncomfortable about having a seperate first level section for "issues." I'd like to move the human rights subsection to foreign relations and the famine subsection to economy. This isn't a perfect solution, but I think it's better than the current status quo. Comments? crazyeddie 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
*Support. Use the proper name, and redirect if needed.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. --Kusunose 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I know how silly it is, but, according to North Korean law, Kim Il Sung (deceased) is forever the President of Korea. It sure is cultish, bizarre and freaky, but I don't think we should disregard his official status no matter how absurd it may be. He should be listed on the information box as the president. --Ce garcon 19:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: &#25925;&#37329;&#26085;&#25104;

message: That's what the official website of the DPRK (maintained by a third-party organization, though) says:
"13. Is North Korea a dictatorship?
No, the DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party."
http://www.korea-dpr.com/faq.htm
Bayerischermann 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ow wow. --Streaky 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the website that Bayerischermann linked to happens to be increadibly propagandistic, does not mean that they were "just lying", the information is correct, there are in fact three parties in the Supreme People's Assembly that compete for votes.
This Finnish anthropologist's blog: 
http://hunjang.blogspot.com/2005/08/dlp-and-the-korean-social-democratic.html 
"To remind those who have been erroneously thinking that DPRK is a one-party state, the representatives of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Republic of Korea are at the moment visiting DPRK on the invitation by the Social Democratic Party of Korea "
The south Korean Website of the Democratic Labor Party of the RoK (South Korea) here: 
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=200508221824481&code=910303
Explains their delegations travels to the DPRK to meet with the opposition Korean Social Democrats (which competes against the Workers Party for votes but is not a subversive organization trying to overthrow the government, it is a legal party in a multi-party state).  
It is obvious that the South Korean political parties believe North Korea to be a multi-party state, so the one party state claim, which is totally unsourced, except in the fact that its a frequently repeated unsupported claim, has no basis in fact.  NoJoyInMudville 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "multi-party constitutional democracy"?