Talk:North Korea


North Korea as a communist state

Look. Just because North Korea says that Juche or whatever isn't Marxism-Leninism doesn't practically mean that North Korea isn't a communist state.

Is it a one-party state? Yes. Is the totality of the power belonging to a party adhering to some form of Marxism-Leninism? For the most part yes. Even if you don't think that Juche or whatever isn't a form of Marxism-Leninism, in practice the way the DPRK is governed is Marxist-Leninist, or 'communist'. Is there a supreme organ of state power and is there a principle of unified power? Yes.

It's a communist state. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what our cited reliable sources say, not original research by Wikipedia editors. Do you have sources backing up your change to the infobox? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there are no sources backing up the characterization of North Korea as a 'one-party socialist republic'... except the DPRK itself... which is not neutral. What are you even talking about? By that logic, is every instance of the article calling NK a 'communist state' also original research and thus should be removed too? TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of hand-waving, still no sources. We don't engage in original research. The sentence in the article "North Korea functions as a highly centralized, one-party totalitarian dictatorship" cites four sources including BBC, Washington Post, and Britannica. That's why it is called what it is.
To gain a consensus to say something different than the sources cited already say, you need to find a preponderance of other reliable sources saying something different. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Communist state is a scholarly term used by scholars. North Korea is a communist state, but a deformed one. I just searched Google Scholar for "North Korean communist state" and got 46 hits. If I search "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" on Google scholar I get 0 hits. I get 1 hit on Google books from a not so reliable book.
So what is most original research: communist state or "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship"? I think the answer to this is obvious.... TheUzbek (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's obvious. We have four sources being cited by that sentence in the article. Trying to change it to something else unilaterally without citing sources, as the OP did, is indeed original research. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling North Korea a communist state is not WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH in any way or form, and you know that. The form of government should be simple and not a bunch of terms added: its a bad compromise, and worst of all, it doesn't mean anything. Adding more words into a sentence does not make that sentence more meaningful. TheUzbek (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still more handwaving, and no sources. You want to form a consensus, start a WP:RFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a link to Google scholar with 46 hits... TheUzbek (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite search results. We cite sources. The WP:BURDEN is on you to come up with actual sources that are good enough to override the ones currently cited. Glancing through the first few of those search results, the term applies to the 1920s to 1940s, not present day government, which you would have realized if you had done more than merely tally search hits.
The article does say that a communist party is the current party in power, but that doesn't automatically make the country a communist state. Again, the article cites sources. If you want to change the designation, start an RFC and present more than hand-waving arguments and search hits to gain a consensus to change it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, what makes a communist state a communist state is that a communist party has a monopoly of power and the state is organised around a supreme state organ of power that holds unified power. Ever heard of this? TheUzbek (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And? Are you going to start an RFC or not? Are you going to present sources that support your position specifically with respect to North Korea or not? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can present it to you tomorrow. My point is that this is WP:OBVIOUS. Its like saying you need to have multi-party elections to be a liberal democracy. The leading role of the party through the monopolisation of the supreme state organ of power, which holds the unified power of the state is the essence of communist state governance. Again, its like saying "Yes. And?" if someone said the US was a liberal democracy since it separation of powers and, as said, multi-party elections. This is so very basic. TheUzbek (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, it's a 3 day weekend and I'm unlikely to be around.
In the meantime, you may want to review the prior RFC on this before you proceed, which resulted in the current infobox description. Talk:North Korea/Archive 19#RfC about government type infobox as well as the earlier discussions on that same archive page. You're going to need to start another RFC to overturn that one. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheUzbek It would very much be appreciated if you started on this. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist:
  • Juang Wang & Jung Eun Kim: "Categorizing People in the New States: A Comparative Study of Communist China and North Korea": "This reclassification based on a criterion of trustworthiness was so unique to North Korea, in comparison to other Communist states and the Soviet Union, that the Hungarian ambassador at the time described his “amazement,” which was shared by the Soviets (WWC June 1, 1964)." (indirectly says the DPRK is communist)
  • Seunghee Hwang: "Unification Path of North Korea's Kim Jong Un Regime: Comparative Analysis focused on East Germany and North Korea": "To conclude that North Korea has abandoned revolutionary unification in any formal sense, there would need to be demonstrable evidence that the regime had explicitly abandoned the idea of transforming South Korean society into a communist system." (indirectly)
  • Andrew Scobell :Making Sense of North Korea: Pyongyang and Comparative Communism": "This article examines North Korea in comparative perspective and contends that it is best understood as a communist system."
  • John Curtis Perry "Dateline North Korea: A Communist Holdout:" This personality cult is the most striking feature of North Korean political life and pervades aspects of it. The personality cult equals exceeds that of any other communist state, or present"
  • Jonathan K. Wev; "The Communist State of North Korea: A Capitalist Society": (the name of the article calls it that)
  • Jae-Jung Suh Origins of North Korea's Juche: Colonialism, War, and Development: "one-man communist state"
  • Hy-Sang Lee North Korea: A Strange Socialist Fortress; "The story of a Communist state in the northern half of the Korean peninsula commenced in 1945 when Soviet Army moved in as the Japanese occupation army"
There is no difficulty in finding scholarly sources defining North Korea as a communist state. The fact that we are discussing these confuses me. What is WP:OBVIOUS is that the present description, "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship", is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. No one outside of WIkipedia describes North Korea as "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". The least controversial description should be the one in use: that North Korea is a communist state. I have nothing against someone writing about the scholarly discussion on how to define North Korea. Is it a communist state that has experienced political decay? Has it transformed into something else? Or is it a communist state just with blatant nepotism? That is a scholarly discussion, and Wikipedia should not take part in it. The fact is that Cuba, China, Laos and Vietnam recognise North Korea as communist as well, and so does the mainstream opinion. TheUzbek (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above already, there was a prior RFC on this matter already, and you'll need to start another one to overturn the prior consensus. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.38north.org/2012/04/carmstrong042412/
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17046941
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/asia/2018/06/keeping-kims-north-korea-s-communist-monarchy
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1296394/democratic-peoples-monarchy-korea-north-korea-changes-ruling-principles
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/if-north-korea-isn-t-communist-then-what-it
Averytiredturkey3 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And? Are you going to start another RFC to overturn the most recent one? That isn't going to happen in this discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to do that I just have had some family issues and have been less active recently. Averytiredturkey3 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to start this discussion again: the monarchy angel was discussed below. Read the discussion. No one is denying that North Korea is developing into some sort of monarchy. However, it is ruled through communist state institutions, and that is a fact. TheUzbek (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:BADPOV. Admins need to address this. – KaijuEditor (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin and I have addressed this repeatedly in my comments above. Another RFC is needed to overturn the prior one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really incomplete to have North Korea's government type just as Communist State. It's also a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship. In the same way, why in Russia's page is the type of government described not just as "semi-presidential republic" but also "under an authoritarian dictatorship". Same standards should apply here too. Alistair0072 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Jong Un recently installed portraits of Marx and Lenin at a party cadre building ~2026-26780-4 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would not deny they act like its communist. But china also says its a democracy does that make china now democratic? Averytiredturkey3 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Averytiredturkey3 According to their own standards, China is probably democratic. According to liberal democratic standards, of course not.
But most importantly, the reason North Korea is classified as communist is not because od the belief of ifs leaders, but the formal set of institutions that exists that are, on paper, identical to those in the former USSR aand present-day China. TheUzbek (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Despite installing Marx and Lenin portraits, they have already excised Communism and Marxism-Leninism from its constitution revisions in 1992 and 2009, but never looked back since then. My guess is North Korea is not classified as a communist state since then. ~2026-73748-3 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
all of that just to say North Korea is communist. Sad, really. ~2026-98112-9 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Infobox Ideology

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was no consensus to change the government ("ideology") parameter in the infobox. Objections to the current description were raised, but there was no consensus reached for an appropriate alternative. Yue🌙 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Infobox ideology be changed from "Unitary communist state" to something else? Previous RfC didn't seem to go anywhere.

reworded on 26 December 2025 17:00 to comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 17:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Socialist is not the form of government; it was a people's democratic state until 1972, and the form of government never changed. These are tendentious propositions; you are pretending that your proposal is more neutral and closer to the official ideology, but you do not actually know what the terms "Socialist state" or "People's democratic state" actually mean. These terms concern the base-superstructural development of a given state and the ruling elites' perceived understanding of the social development that has occurred under their rule. You can have a communist system and not have a socialist base, for example, according to these elites themselves. That is why North Korea was established as a people's democratic state. The North Korean state system is formally proclaimed in articles five to seven in the DPRK Constitution, and the party's role in Article 11. The infobox should not portray the state's ideology, but its form of government. No parameter in the infobox says "State ideology".
We have only one article on Wikipedia discussing the form of government of these states: communist state. It needs to be linked there so our readers can get a generalised introduction to what a communist system actually is. TheUzbek (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR, your personal interperetation of Marxist Theory is not a source. I'm getting a little tired of your assertions. "People's Democratic State" is literally NEVER used in any scholarly work, despite your claim hinging on the number of times a word appears on google scholar. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 17:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? We have three pages on this topic, which I have written, all based on scholarly sources. See People's democracy, people's democratic revolution, and people's democratic state. This is pure nonsense. None of these things are "personal interpretation": this is what they themselves claim. Why do you think China's form of government was officially the same from 1954 til now despite changing the moniker from people's democratic state to socialist state? If you are not interested in learning, that is fine, but you clearly lack knowledge on the subject. TheUzbek (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be rude by attacking my supposed "lack of knowledge" on the subject. You first cited the 1948 North Korean constitution as proof it was a "People's democratic state", however I disputed that with proof that the currently used one omits "Communist" or "Marxist-Leninist". In response, you decide to cite wikipedia articles you wrote, this is blatant Original research. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How am I the rude one? You wrote: "This is WP:OR, your personal interperetation of Marxist Theory is not a source. I'm getting a little tired of your assertions."
You seem to completely misunderstand. The terms people’s democratic state and socialist state are not terms that describe the form of government, according to communists themselves. Again, North Korea does not define its form of government as socialist state, neither does any communist state. Yes, I wrote them using scholarly sources. I am guessing you are active on Wikipedia since you trust that Wikipedia can transmit truthful information. Look at the sources used in those articles. Do those imply that people’s democracy is a term not used by scholars? Since all these articles are properly cited nothing is stopping you from a) checking out those sources and b) reading them. TheUzbek (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that reputable scholars would call North Korea a "People's Democracy" but to each their own.
You keep ignoring the fact that North Korea has not considered itself communist since the 1970s and have continuously dropped the ideology of Marxism-Leninism since then. They have their own unique form of Socialism, and the article should reflect such. You are doing original research by claiming "they have not changed" without PROVIDING any sources and then vaguely hiting at sources on articles YOU wrote, which may or may not even be ABOUT north korea.⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until 1972, North Korea claimed it was a people's democratic state and scholars acknowledged that. Good scholars also tried to analyse the term itself, and found out it meant rule by the WPK. Good liberal scholars understand that as dictatorship.
That is also wrong. The WPK still teaches cadres in Marxism-Leninism. See [1] The North Korean media is full of direct references to Marxism-Leninism... Thomas Stock, a scholar, in his article, "North Korea’s Marxism-Leninism", argues that Juche is in the same tradition as M-L. Scholars Joe Pateman in his article, "Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism and Marxism-Leninism", reaches the same conclusion. The Korean Central News Agency even publishes articles that state "The ideological and mental source of the Juche idea is the idea of “Aim High” and its premise is Marxism-Leninism." In another article, the KCNA even states "The Juche idea presupposes Marxism-Leninism ideologically and theoretically."
What you are saying is factually inaccurate on so many levels. TheUzbek (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for actually providing sources this time instead of vaguely pointing to your own articles on Wikipedia.
Here's the quotation from your "Aim High" article:
In this course, the great leader sympathized with a socialist ideology embodied in Marxism-Leninism, but he saw through its limitation of an age, its historical limitation. And through a profound analysis of it, he found new principles of revolution and built the frame of an independent revolutionary idea, the Juche idea.
For this reason, the Juche idea is deeply connected with Marxism-Leninism that asserted to liquidate exploitation and oppression of man by man, eradicate all kinds of social inequality and build a socialist society where the broad working masses including working class enjoy a free and equal life.
However, this never means that the Juche idea is an idea which inherited directly some principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Though the Juche idea is an idea connected with Marxism-Leninism, it is a new, original revolutionary idea which gave answers to the demands of a historical age different from one of Marx and Lenin, and was evolved and systematized with its own peculiar principles.
They say it is related but not the same ideology. The other KCNA article basically has the same text verbatim albeit shorter.
Also, I believe the first article you cite falls under WP:TOOSOON considering this also happened about a year ago. But the article could state (and I believe this belongs on the page Workers Party of Korea) "Under the reign of Kim Jong Un, the Worker's Party of Korea, and by extension the government, have begun to revisit Marxism Leninism, etc. etc. Furthermore it could be useful to mention that Juche is derrived from Marxism Leninism, but from the currently established sources, it's considered a derived but separate ideology. I want to wait to see more information regarding the 2024 article, because if not much else changes, I think the impact on state ideology is minimal. There are sources saying the Cambodian People's Party still follows Marxist-Leninist party structure and governance, but it's ideology is completely divorced from leftism as a whole. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 17:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cambodian People's Party is still run as a tightly knit Marxist-Leninist party, but it is not Marxist-Leninist.
As for your point. You have accused me of original research and POV pushing a personal interpretation of Marxism-Leninism for much less. Wikipedia does not need your personal opinion. We follow what the sources say, especially scholarly ones. TheUzbek (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not engage with most of what I laid out. I don't think you or I are going to reach a conclusion anytime soon. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 18:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/No change needed – The current description is adequate and supported by reliable sources. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ping for some previously involved users: @TheUzbek: @Guninvalid: @TheodoresTomfooleries: @Ahammed Saad: @Moxy: ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 05:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC with canvassing from the nom. This feels like it could just go through the typical WP:BRD cycle. guninvalid (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After scrolling through this talk page, this one definitely does need a separate solo RfC. But please remember to avoid WP:CANVASSING in the future. guninvalid (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, me and a couple of other users were recently pinged for similar discussions on another article. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 15:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing to socialist, though of course I'd prefer to see more sources provided than just this one Stanford article. guninvalid (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer above. TheUzbek (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Rfc we already had consensus over the fact that DPRK is a communist state, ruled by a communist party with a goal of achieving communism. Wikipedia does not follow the DPRK constitution, and I think you don't really understand what a "communist state" is. A "communist state", theoretically, is achieved through stages: people's democratic state → socialist state → communism, and countries either identify themselves in these categories, yet, they still remain committed to communism. A communist state does not mean a state which is "communist" (moreover an ultimate communist system would not allow "states" to exist), it means that the state's ultimate goal is communism, and the state committed to attain this have to climb through people's democratic and socialist conditions. For example, Czechoslovak People's Republic declared their elevation from people's democracy to socialism and changed their name to Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia in 1960, still they were committed to bring communism thus was a "communist state". Such states never self-identify as "communist", but describe themselves "socialist" or "people's democratic"; if self-identification would've been the sole criteria, then USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos none have been described as "communist", but which are classified in reality. The problem is DPRK rulers has removed Marxism–Leninism from their constitution, a rare move among the communist party-ruled countries that creates confusion sometimes. Despite this, DPRK's political evolution since 1948 nonetheless shows that it's still a "communist state", in whatever description they use. Hope you have understand, Merry Christmas! Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR, your personal interperetation of Marxist Theory does not apply here. Provide sources explicitly calling modern North Korea a "communist state" or a "marxist leninist state". ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How it's original research?? See the communist state article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DPRK is not a Marxist state (officially), how is this my "interpretation of Marxist Theory"?? I said what communist state article says. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to "Unitary one-party socialist republic: The Current constitution proclaims this, in it's 1998 revision:
"The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is an independent socialist state representing the interests of all the Korean people." When searched, the term "Socialist/Socialism" is used 39 times. The term "Communism" is used only three times. And none of those articles refer to North Korea as a "Communist state" (Source text) Furthermore, all references to "Communism" or "Marxism Leninism" were removed from the constitution in 2009. From what the sources say, the term "Unitary communist state" is improper. I would suggest changing it to "Unitary one-party socialist republic". An individual group of editor's personal interperetation of Marxist-Leninist theory is not a source and is original research. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 05:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No per TheUzbek. North Korea is a communist state, no RS were presented that dispute this. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Really wish people would do their own research rather than listening to the loudest person. First statement dead wrong...Socialist is not the form of government.... Despite the ability for anyone to search even basic definitions say otherwise .https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism/Syndicalism quote= "Socialism is a form of government in which most forms of property, including at least the major means of production and natural resources, are owned or controlled by the state." I understand difference parts of the world have a different education system but we should follow basic Western standards of education.... "North Korea is a totalitarian, one-party hereditary dictatorship" Educart (2025-04-21). Educart CBSE Question Bank Class 9 Social Science 2025-26 on new Syllabus 2026 (Most Recommended NCERT based Reference Book). Educart. ISBN 978-93-6890-257-7. Moxy🍁 20:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion referred to the internal definition of a socialist state among communists, because the OP explicitly referred to the Korean Constitution. Per my understanding of communism, the socialism mentioned there is not about the form of government, so the statement by TheUzbek is accurate. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that all these scholars that use the term communist state are wrong? If socialist state is a form of government, is people’s democratic state too? And what should we do with the fact that communist states, like China and the USSR, do not define their form of government as socialist state, but rather as system of people's congress or as unified system of soviets? Its a bit unclear what your position is: Should we follow the scholars or the self-designation of these states? Do you mean the term, communist state, as used by scholars is irrelevant? And if that is the case, and you want to use the terminology of these states why stop at socialist? Why not system of people's assemblies under the leadership of the WPK? Logically, something is a bit off. Because your against both the scholarly accepted term and, for whatever reason, against linking to the only article discussing the communist form of government. The article on socialist state doesn't, and neither does any other article than communist state... TheUzbek (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to explain in simplified terms why the term socialist is misleading, and communist is good when using a term to define the form of government of North Korea.
  1. We must keep our heads above water and remember why the term communist state is correct: this is not about wordplay, but about how best to inform our readers on how North Korea is actually governed. Its a state based on a system of state organs of power with a supreme state organ of power at its apex that holds the unified powers of the state. This organ heads the unified state apparatus and delegates powers through a division of labour of state organs, and regulates this relationship through democratic centralism and formalises this in the communist state constitution. The supreme state organ of power and the lower-level state organs of power work under the leadership of the vanguard communist party per the leading role of the party in state and society, and this party is also organised on democratic centralism. All this is based on the idea that political power should be unlimited, and it seeks to harness the energy of the society not only through the state and party, but also through transmission belt mass organisations. I champion communist state because this, as I will detail below, is a) the only article here on Wikipedia that discusses the topic at hand, b) is in line with academic scholarship and c) also leaves spaces to have specific articles about national democratic state, people's democratic state, socialist state (communism) without confusing our readers.
  2. Communist state is a term used by Western scholars. This is not disputed. Why did they use communist state instead of socialist state? Because, these specialists knew that communist states designated themselves as workers' states, socialist state of workers and peasants, socialist state of the whole people, just socialist states, people's democratic states, national democratic states etc. Communist state is a general term used to collect all these states into one category, and to be able to scholarly define them what these states have in common and to study their form of government
  3. Why do communist states use terms like socialist state or people's democratic state? Marxism–Leninism differentiates between state type and state form. The state type is tied to what they perceive to be the historical economic system in place. For example, ancient Athens had a Slave-owning type of state, France in the 1200th century had a Feudal type of state, present-day America has a Capitalist type of state, and North Korea has a Socialist type of state. Again, this is according to themselves. So when North Korea says its a socialist state its saying its a "Socialist type of state".
  4. What does "Socialist type of state" mean? Marxist–Leninists use the term "state" here to determine which class interests are in charge of a given state. And what class interests govern, according to Marxist–Leninists, have direct implication on two other things: the economic system and what we call the "Government type". That is, a socialist state is a state run by proletarians that lead a unified system of state organs that govern what they perceive to be a socialist economy.... Of course, we all here know what North Korea really is...
  5. So what describes the form of governments? This is where the state form comes in. State form, according to M-L, encompasses three sub-terms: form of government (is it a republic or a monarchy), state structure (unitary or federal), and state regime (separation of powers or unified power). What they call the state form is what we (and Western scholarship) call "Government type"/Form of government.
  6. Why am I writing this? To make the following things clear:
    1. So when people say, "Hey, the North Korean constitution designate it as a socialist state", they are missing the fact that this stipulation in the constitution is defining North Korea's state type. Its a term with a specific meaning, which is understandable - its in the constitution.
    2. Communist state is a Western scholarly term to describe the forms of government of these states, and go beyond the internal terminology of these states. Again, North Korea was a people's democcratic state until 1972 and socialist state since, but has what we call its government type changed? Nope. The update was about the North Korean elite believing they had achieved socialism, and were marching successfully towards communism.
    3. We should follow scholarship, not misinterpretation of Marxist–Leninist constitutional theory or, for that matter, Marxist–Leninists themselves necessarily. We need to find an objective and neutral term to describe these states. That term, used by scholars, is communist state. The only article on Wikipedia that actually discusses the topic at hand is also called "communist state". By redirecting readers to highly generalised articles that don't even discuss the communist form of government, we are doing our readers a huge disservice. --TheUzbek (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the point being made by most over and over and over again....is this would be equivalent to calling the United States and Canada a democracy vs the type of democracy that they are. Yes they're both democracies but very different governance. I don't think anyone's arguing against the fact that there are five Communist States in the world.... what's being debated is what type of communist state because they're clearly not all the same. There's no way that anyone believes North Korea a hereditary totalitarian state is the same as China with an authoritarian single-party rule. Moxy🍁 00:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not, but we don't label liberal democracies according to your logic. We don't write in the American infobox "Supercapitalist neoliberal presidential federal republic" and in Norway's "Welfare state constitutional monarchy". Or for that matter, Mexico, which has the same form of government as the United States: we don't write: "Criminalised and corrupt federal presidential republic". These labels are supposed to be general. However, for some strange reason, when discussing non-liberal states, these labels have to be super-specific. TheUzbek (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct we don't use any of those bias made up terms for any of our articles. But what we do use is terms used by the sources to distinguish the types of democracies. We understand you're not a fan of the west but the problem is this is going to keep coming up cuz the majority of people here are educated by Western standards resulting in critical thinkers. Moxy🍁 00:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As a social democrat living in liberal democratic Norway, I am very fond of the West and happy that I don't live in Russia, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc (the list goes on).... But last time I checked, calling the United States of America a "Capitalist state" or a "Neoliberal state" is not "made up"; plenty of people use those terms, and you know it... If this is your closing argument, you have effectively lost. A personal attack or an accusation of personal bias without proof is not a strong argument. TheUzbek (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Like every other time this comes the vast majority of us don't have time or energy to debate your walls of text that are unsourced. Luckily it's only problem with zero solution due to stonewalling on a few articles that you and your former identities have been involved in. The reason the phrase "supercapitalist neoliberal presidential federal republic" is not used in Wikipedia is because it's not a standard political science term. Unlike all the sources provided for how North Korea is normally defined. I've always find a perplexing that you wish to hide this.... or should I say generalized all Communist States vs educating our readers on the government and political systems. Good luck on this when this comes up again and then again and then again. Moxy🍁 01:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I have given numerous sources for communist state being the scholarly term. Do you want more examples?
    2. Give me examples of unreferenced claims, and I will reference all of them. Just ask, I can verify it all. I don't think the problem is verification, but that you don't care about it.
    3. I don't think Western academic scholarship is wrong. You think Western academic scholarship is wrong. If scholars feel communist state is enough why isn't it for you?
    4. Indeed, "supercapitalist neoliberal presidential federal republic" is not a common term ( at least the merger of all these terms). Neither is "Unitary one-party socialist republic" or "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship"
    5. Moxy, I have treated you well. First, if you want me to verify something, say it. Its an option you are not using. Secondly, you seem to have a high bare for others, but a lower for yourself. You are against describing the US as a capitalist state or neoliberal atate since you don't view it as necessary, even if according to your own logic, that would keep readers uniformed about the differences betwee liberal democracies. I advice you to follow your own logic, and I advice you to actually ask. If you want me to reference a claim, then ask and I will do it. If you don't use that power its simply your own fault.
    TheUzbek (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify. My lengthy post about state form, state type, and communist state was intended to thoroughly explain the scholarly rationale, which is our basis for classification. The term 'communist state' is the standard political science term, just as 'federal presidential republic' is for the US. The examples you suggest for North Korea are, as you note for my US example, not standard terms. Our policy is to use such standard terms. If you have specific, sourced claims you believe are missing from the article body, I am happy to discuss incorporating them there, where detailed analysis belongs. I am very pro including information on North Korea's hereditary dictatorship and scholars' classification of it as totalitarian, dictatorship, etc. I am not against that: I actively support it. But that should be in the body: the infobox needs a general description. That is the term communist state. TheUzbek (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The term Communist state was specifically invented in the West to describe these states, to keep it is to be pro-West. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what RS sources say. The RFC was clear in its agreement that 'communist state' was the preferred term; the only disagreement came over whether or not to include 'totalitarian dictatorship' (or some form of it). TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Why do you keep deleting the HDI?

Whenever I put the human development index of North Korea on this page, it is not immediately deleted. However, when I return to this page a month later, I find it has been removed. Why is this? Dr. Precursor (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheodoresTomfooleries removed it last and I agree with their explanation. Prominently displaying data that is over three decades old (from 1995, published in a report from 1998) doesn't make sense. Yue🌙 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That makes only somewhat sense. Former countries such as the Soviet Union and Zaire have their HDI values stated, but stating they followed an outdated formula. If they can have their values displayed, why can't the DPRK? Dr. Precursor (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The DPRK is not a former country, the information on this page is more likely to be interpreted by readers as being current. CMD (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, even if we assume human and robot (e.g. LLM / AI) readers are 100% mistake-free and aware that the data is from 1995, how is such data serving MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE without any mention in the article body? How could such data be interpreted or understood constructively without any additional context? So much has happened since 1995; what is the purpose or intention of having incredibly outdated data in the infobox? Yue🌙 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the HDI from 1995 is a very niche topic as well. It should probably be removed from this article, as there is no way a top-level page like a country would include such an outdated HDI number. Sahib-e-Qiran 15:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. For a country like the Soviet Union, the 1990 HDI is *very* 'up to date' because it was only a year before the Soviet Union fell :) TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the infobox will state that North Korea's HDI is "high" with the 1995 value, but the classification was different back then and the official report calls North Korea's HDI "medium". That's why the outdated value should not be used. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Korea