Talk:North Korea

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)

Proposal to change the map without the claims on South Korea?

Hi. With the recent situation in North Korea right now basically abandoning any hopes of reunification with the south [1], is it safe to assume that the government has abandoned its claim to the remainder of the country? Even news media [2] has stopped portraying the unified peninsula as is in its news broadcasts. However, the country's constitution remains unchanged as of this date; still explicitly mentioning reunification as a national priority de jure albeit de facto after Kim's speech the government has basically rescinded any mentions of reunification with the south overnight. With the changes at hand, should the map be altered to only include North Korea alone without its territorial claims or it should be left as it is for now at least before the N.K. government officially removes any mentions of reunification in its constitution?
Teruterubozo618 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This mostly seems reasonable, though I'm not sure if North Korea's intent is to erase such a claim. They have, after all, written South Korea into the constitution as their main enemy. Sagflaps (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s not at all clear that NK has renounced its claim. It seems to be referring to peaceful reunification. We should wait and see what the new policy is. Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The weather report is very interesting, although my general impression from the news is similar to Jack Upland's at the moment. Long-term we don't have to reflect a constitutional claim if it is in practice moribund, but we are not at that point yet. CMD (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I was reading some Korean language reports earlier today to see if I was missing something from the English language coverage, but I found nothing that indicates a renouncement of the DPRK government's claim over the territory controlled by the ROK. It seems that the DPRK government is simply recognising the de facto situation, that their claimed territory (all of Korea) is not united. There is no change in rhetoric or nomenclature from the north describing the south as a "puppet regime of the US imperialists", etc. Yue🌙 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and they are unlikely to go back on that description of South Korea as long as there is a strong US military presence in the area. Which probably ain't happening anytime soon. Sagflaps (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Teruterubozo618 made a point and provided sources directly backing up their claim. Can editors please read the links they posted before making conclusions without any posted evidence.Stix1776 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we are all responding to the same story. I just don't think it warrants a change to the map etc yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going to respond to Stix1776's last comment on this dead conversation a couple weeks ago but thought not to since it's just a backhanded remark about other editors. Teruterubozo618's proposed change is not supported by what their given source says, nor the points they brought up. There is no evidence that other editors could find that supports this change; that is all that was said. Yue🌙 06:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC about government type infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What text should be written in the "Government Type" infobox description for the article North Korea? How specific should this description be? This RfC is only about the infobox specifically, and not other parts of the article. Sagflaps (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

- Unitary one-party socialist republic. As mentioned in previous discussions, no source calls it "hereditary" or "totalitarian" as a system of government, no do other pages do this. See United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and Japan. Editors wishing to keep both these terms are not in the majority.Stix1776 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A totalitarian regime or as suggested by Moxy below. Most sources define the political system in the country as a totalitarian state. For example,

1. "North Korea: Fading totalitarianism in Hermit Kingdom, this is a scholarly article, it tells that North "was described as one of the most totalitarian societies of modern time", and even after 1990s, it "should still be characterized as a totalitarian society"
2. [3], Amnesty International, "It is a totalitarian state where tens of thousands of people are enslaved and tortured."
3. [4] WaPO, "Increasingly, North Koreans are not fleeing their totalitarian state because they are hungry..."
4. North Korea: Systematic Repression. Totalitarianism Empowered with Absence of International Pressure, Human Rights Watch,
5. The Black Book of Communism has a chapter about North Korea and defines the system as a totalitarian communist regime.

And so it goes. One can collect any number of such references, including scholarly ones, such as [5],[6],[7],[8],[9], etc. Hence this should be described accordingly in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism is one of the most unreliable works and has been debunked by many communists worldwide and the author has admitted in exaggerating. Also, elections and such are existent in DPRK. DPRK even has less centralized structure than the United States, where they abolished the highest legislative power. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The infobox right now says "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". It seems good enough for me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But perhaps this is too lengthy, isn't it? To explain what I mean further, either "Unitary one-party socialist republic" and "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" could be sufficient descriptions on their own. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally, to reach this description, one has to WP:SYNTH many different sources which use those adjectives independently, but not in tandem. Sagflaps (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How about “totalitarian one-party state”? Is that succinct enough? ZFT (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I take exception that the some of My very best wishes's links. The first "scholarly article" journal is funded by the | South Korean government, the last is the Black Book of Communism. Wikipedia should describe disputes, but not engage in them.Stix1776 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To avoid WP:NOTFORUM, I will not go too deep into the Black Book of Communism, but it is almost certainly not a reliable source in this case. From the article:

The Black Book of Communism has been translated into numerous languages, has sold millions of copies, and is considered one of the most influential and controversial books written about the history of communism in the 20th century, in particular the history of the Soviet Union and other state socialist regimes.

The other sources are just OK, although generally reliable. Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, obviously has quite a vested interest in promoting anti-socialism and anti-communism topics, given that he would probably like to keep his $180 billion net worth. HRW is also funded by major corporate interests in the US. Sagflaps (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, this is an excellent RS as an academic book by a group of well known scholars we have pages about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: To clarify, this is the Black Book of Communism you are talking about, yes? Sagflaps (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If so, I would agree that it is an academic source, but also definitely a controversial one and not very reliable. Sagflaps (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

No guess work pls...."The Black Book of Communism". Harvard University Press. Retrieved 2024-02-13. Moxy- 22:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that what I said above was guesswork. A source can be both published by a reputable publisher and have a controversial reception at the same time. If this were to be cited in the body, it would most likely need a direct attribution. So, I don't believe this source is fit for the infobox. Sagflaps (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

a unitary one-party socialist republic isn't necessarily totalitarian. Some are just authoritarian, and it doesn't even necessitate an authoritarian system of government.

I think "Unitary one-party totalitarian socialist republic" is good INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we not use the word "hereditary." That's figurative expression meant to express the cross-generational concentration of power in the Kim family. We are not well-served by including figurative expressions in the infobox. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Such type of succession is happening in any monarchy, but "hereditary" is not misleading in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

- Unitary one-party socialist republic. I recommend the Britannica model of approaching infobox government descriptions: describe the form of government and leave characterizations to the body of the article. We will always have many sources and many variations which could plausibly characterize governments. In the infobox, We should define the structure of government and leave characterizations to the body where they can be attributed, alternative characterizations can be expressed, and views can be afforded their due weight. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, EB does not say this is a "socialist" republic. Calling this political system "socialist" is a big concern. Their ruling party, Workers' Party of Korea officially calls itself "communist". That would be better. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in that the WPK considers itself to be a communist party. However, the country itself its not a communist form of government. Sagflaps (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

See constitution:

"The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the socialist State of Juche where the ideas of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung and the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il on State building and their exploits in it are applied."

Sagflaps (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Good observation on EB, I'd be amenable to dropping the socialist descriptor as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But I am surprised it calls the system "republic". As our page correctly says, "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ("public affair"), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy". The political system in North Korea is anything but that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship Amazed to see things like "no source calls it "hereditary" or "totalitarian" as a system of government, ". Just need to read the article for source or look some up...Goedde, Patricia (2020). "Beyond Sham: The North Korean Constitution". Asian Perspective. 44 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1353/apr.2020.0002. ISSN 2288-2871.. Moxy- 15:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the essence of the the dispute is not whether there are sources out there that call it totalitarian, but whether it should go in the government type infobox specifically. In terms of the source you picked, it has the benefit of being from a peer-reviewed journal, but it also appears to be one that is funded (at least significantly) by the South Korean government. Sagflaps (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

We can use any source you like .. 34,700 results in just Google scholar Moxy- 16:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I will evaluate the sources that you specifically mention. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to say much about it, if at all. Sagflaps (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There are dozens of country articles on Wikipedia that reference some form of dictatorship in the infobox. Both Syria and Turkmenistan explicitly reference “totalitarian hereditary dictatorship”, like this page did as well for the past 3 years. There is no reason to break precedent on this years old, platform wide consensus on this one article, especially when this is so well sourced. BakedGoods357 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where there has been a previous RfC or consensus on this. Can you link me to this? Regardless, if an implied consensus existed without discussion, the continued changes to it suggest that such an implied consensus has been broken. Sagflaps (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

These matters are non-precedential. Analogies to other pages are not so good. WP:OTHERCONTENT is the policy which discusses this. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

But why not the UK, Saudi Arabia, or Japan? Stix1776 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The UK and Japan are both liberal democracies with a constitutional monarch who has little day to day governing power as head of state.

Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship but the dynasty’s power is institutionalized through the monarchy, hence “absolute monarchy”.

There is nothing in the DPRK constitution that grants the Kim family absolute power and hereditary leadership privileges, hence “hereditary dictatorship.” BakedGoods357 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There are sources that go with "absolute monarchy", see the article. This is mainly on a de facto basis. Sagflaps (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is reasonable because different sources define this differently. This is a quite unusual political system. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Every country has its quirks. The United States, for example, has quite the unique political system. However, it is only described in three words, "Federal presidential republic". Sagflaps (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Unitary one party socialist republic I've discussed this at great length in the sections Talk:North_Korea#Government Type Infobox and Talk:North Korea#Hereditary Dictatorship take 2 Sagflaps (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not "republic". As our page correctly says, "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ("public affair"), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy". The political system in North Korea is anything but that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Socialist republic. Moxy- 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be "Socialist state" (actual title), not "Socialist republic" (a redirect). However note that North Korea appears as a "communist state" on this page (Socialist_state#List_of_communist_states). A "communist state" would be more acceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Communist state is a very generic term..... akin to saying a democracy. It is why at List of socialist states#Current socialist states we list forms of government. We should be specific and link terms that explain..like sources."North Korea: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report". Freedom House. North Korea is a one-party state led by a dynastic totalitarian dictatorship Moxy- 19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There are very long articles on the differences between communism and socialism. They are not generic terms. Each one is defined rather precisely, with ownership of the means of production being the main factor. Sagflaps (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Types of socialism "There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them"...what we are looking for is to educate our readers (and editors) by way of links and sources. Moxy- 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not the most inclined in favor of adding references to Juche or Marxism-Leninism, because at the end of the day, the description for the infobox should be short. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, I am certainly willing to consider it if there is a compelling argument. Sagflaps (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Juche is nominally a part of Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, so the correct descriptor would be "Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist". However, I don't think its inclusion is warranted in this context as most sources in English and Korean describe the Workers' Party of Korea as a Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist party, but not the DPRK as a Kimilsungist–Kimjongilist state. Yue🌙 04:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

At present, government type of North Korea in the infobox should be written as "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship".

• Numerous academic references describe North Korea as a "totalitarian" state under a "hereditary dictatorship". Several sources have been provided by the users Moxy and My very best wishes which describe North Korea as a "totalitarian" state under a "hereditary dictatorship".
• The current version is short enough for the readability purpose in infobox.

As of present, wikipedia pages specify the political systems of totalitarian regimes in the infobox. If some editors have an objection with inserting political systems of totalitarian regimes (such as "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" in the case of North Korea) being written in the infobox, then they should conduct a general RfC regarding it elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8 Do you have any reliable sources that reach this particular conclusion in whole? What I mean here is, while there have been sources that reach the conclusion that North Korea is totalitarian, and other sources that reach the conclusion that it uses hereditary succession, do you have sources to conclude "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" specifically? Sagflaps (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup as linked above days ago [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

I believe that when Freedom House was brought up, there was concerns over it being a US State Department funded sources. Though my memory on it isn't the best. Sagflaps (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes you have mentioned that western sources are not good for some reason with zero sources saying so....thus far your evaluation of sources have not been backed by anything but your POV. Moxy- 21:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Freedom House isn't on the list of perennial sources, but there has been significant discussion about it on the noticeboard if I remember correctly. Sagflaps (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

[11] Moxy- 21:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In light of the longstanding consensus, the article should accurately reflect North Korea as a "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship." I engaged in a discussion with Moxy where I initially misunderstood certain sources suggesting North Korea could be considered a 'post-totalitarian regime,' leading to some erroneous edits on my part. However, upon further review, it's clear that North Korea remains a totalitarian state. While there may be discussions regarding the extent of corruption within the regime, I believe maintaining the status quo description is appropriate, albeit without the '[dubious – discuss]' notice. Gooduserdude (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gooduserdude: Where is this longstanding consensus? I don't believe there was previously an RfC on this matter, or a general consensus in favor of any particular version. Sagflaps (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

i was referring to the fact that "totalitarian" part remained unchanged for the past 3 years Gooduserdude (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Then it appears that there was at some point a presumed consensus only for the use of "totalitarian", but it no longer exists due to the dispute. Sagflaps (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The dispute has to be based on sources...thus far the "I dont like it " does not hold much mustard. Moxy- 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a sources based discussion, Moxy. I just haven't really brought it up since it's been mentioned so many times and I don't really like repeating myself ad nauseam. My main point here has been that the use of "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" requires an improper synthesis of sources, and generally speaking there seems to be no clear consensus amongst sources for it. Sagflaps (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalinism is a style/ideology of a one-party totalitarian state with a “cult of personality” (just like NK) Its used in this context as an example for comparison .[12] List of totalitarian regimesMoxy- 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet, I can just as easily find this peer reviewed journal article that argues for Marxist-Leninist or Kimilsung-Kimjongilist.[13] Sagflaps (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes you can because they are both "one-party totalitarian state" basics are here Quote ="modern examples of totalitarian states include the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty."Moxy- 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion here is unclear to me. Are you in favor of adding one of Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist, Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist, or omitting it altogether? Sagflaps (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We can say "North korean totalitarian ideology of Juche has been comparied to Stalinist, Maoism and Marxist-Leninist"[14]. Kimilsungist-Kimjongilis is simply a part of Juche...or a rebranding of Marxist-Leninist.Moxy- 16:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalinism isn't an ideology. Stop utilising pejorative terms and adhere to proper terms. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalinism Sagflaps (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of guess work here. Stalinism is a political ideology that follows the principles of communism, Prozorov, Sergei (2016-03-01). The Biopolitics of Stalinism: Ideology and Life in Soviet Socialism. Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.3366/edinburgh/9781474410526.001.0001. ISBN 978-1-4744-1052-6. Moxy- 14:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit. If Stalinism is an "ideology", then it makes no sense for Stalin to not have written a work. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian bullshit. Many communists organisations and individuals have debunked it. Good example is by Politsturm. LeonidasTheodoropoulos (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy There are sources which do not call it hereditary. One notable example is Encylcopedia Britannica which calls it a "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house" Genabab (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They use the term "Kim dynasty" . We source all the related terms in the article Kim family (North Korea). Moxy- 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That they do. But not in the descriptor for what the government actually is. Which is probably more important, no? Genabab (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment – I am personally going to remain neutral on this matter. I have read through the arguments of all editors who have contributed to the discussion so far and I understand the reasonings given. I am unsure if setting a precedent of having what is "de facto" true (according to the majority opinion of reliable sources) in the infobox specifically is a good path forward, as it could open a whole can of worms for other articles. The labels are contentious, but this is not an issue in the article body because there is plenty of room to attribute different descriptions of the DPRK government. In the infobox information should be condensed, so having the same amount of detail there cannot be the case. I am also unsure if having two descriptions listed, a "de jure" and "de facto" one, would be an appropriate solution, because the article would then have to cite sources that explicitly use those terms (to verify the assertions of those labels). I do not think "See: Government of North Korea" (similar to the Soviet Union's article) is a good solution either because the DPRK government has not changed with significantly since independence, so there is no complexity that has to be broken down, just two opposing characterisations of the government. Yue🌙 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If we consider USSR under Brezhnev, that would be a one party communist state. If we consider it under Stalin, that would be a one-party totalitarian police state. But it would miss a significant difference: the hereditary transfer of power typical for monarchies in North Korea. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is very reasonable. I wouldn't say the descriptions being debated over are fundamentally opposing. Just that they describe the government type in varying levels of verbosity. Sagflaps (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose hereditary dictatorship: There is no law of succession. Kim Jong Un is not the eldest son. The term "dictatorship" is contentious. Some commentators do not believe Kim is a dictator: see [15]. Dictators normally seize power; they do not inherit it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your source is a decade old before Kim Jong Un consolidated power by killing off officals including the assassination of his half-brother. Modern view Kim Jong Un has started his succession planning Moxy- 15:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is wayyyy too speculative to be used as a source in the infobox. This article [16] states that the South Korean government views Kim Ju Ae as a possible heir apparent, but also says "The NIS public affairs office told The Associated Press that it still considers all possibilities regarding the North’s power succession process because Kim is still young, has no major health issues, and has at least one other child. Kim turns 40 on Monday." Sagflaps (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  As seen above many sources say this as does this (we are on the third generation) ...the source your talking about by Seong-Hyon Lee from Harvard University explains how there is intent for the family rule to continue into the fourth generation. Moxy- 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a circular argument. It assumes a dictatorship exists and that killings were carried out by this dictatorship, Jack Upland (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Some combination of "Totalitarian", "one-party" or "unitary", and "dictatorship" and specifically it should mention (briefly) Juche ideology. As long as those things are included, I think it's nitpicky the rest of how it's worded. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  If it comes down to it, we can always cite Conservapedia and go with "Communist totalitarian state". Sagflaps (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Must be a terrible encyclopedia when it comes to facts. North Korea isn't communist as of 2009. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  You may need to update your scholarship then; communism was readded into the ruling party's documents by Kim Jong Un in 2021. If you mean that the DPRK has not been de facto communist since 2009, then the arguments for that claim predate that year by a lot. Yue🌙 04:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah thanks for telling me. North Korea can be classified as de jure communist. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe totalitarian should be left there. Since political opponents are non existent and often taken out even in other countries. But Hereditary is dubious because that is unconfirmed and there has been speculation as to whether his sister may be in line should he have a health problem. However, it’s tough to confirm anything with the DPRK, as it’s the hermit kingdom, afterall. MoMoChohan (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You all got to stop edit warring over the infobox... at the end of the day, none of this is that big of a deal. I'm sure many have strong feelings about this country, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Sagflaps (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship per Moxy JM (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I support this proposal. Several sources have described North Korea as totalitarian and some even as hereditary. INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your reasoning here is original research. The connections need to be made by the sources, and not the editors. For example, if sources individually say "totalitarian", "authoritarian", "absolute monarchy", "hereditary", then to combine to "unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" is original research. Sagflaps (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Sagflaps It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You don't have to argue with every editor for whom you disagree. You've started the RFC, left a comment, and now let others comment. Nemov (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I agree with this, so I will take this page out of my notifications list. Previously, every time someone would respond here, I would get an email in my inbox Sagflaps (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little confused: if one source refers to North Korea as a "socialist republic", and another refers to it as a "hereditary dictatorship', wouldn't synthesizing the two into "socialist republic under a hereditary dictatorship" violate WP:SYNTH? 296cherry (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware, unless at least one of the sources contradicts the other in text and context of the publisher, it does not violate WP:SYNTH.

  Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not unnecessary INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024

A citation is needed at the end of the second paragraph of the page. There is a statement that, "In 2024, the DPRK formally abandoned efforts to peacefully reunify Korea." This should be accompanied by a citation. Masonicscribe (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: since the claim is easily attributable and a citation is already provided in the linked article, there is no need to clutter the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)