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).

"Korea (Pyongyang)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Korea (Pyongyang) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 24 § Korea (Pyongyang) until a consensus is reached. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist republic in infobox

The infobox is intended to summarise the body, yet the body does not make the claim that it a socialist state, but rather the softer claims that a) the constitution makes such a claim or b) they were socialist historically. I apologise for this not being researched in much depth, but I have heard that it is contested that it is a socialist state, and a brief Google appears to justify this. A full-blooded endorsement of it being socialist therefore appears inappropriate. At minimum, the information should reflect sourced body content. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they were socialist they still are. The country hasn't changed that much.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland Reading the article for juche seems to indicate some change in ideology at least. I can't see many sources making a full-throated endorsement of the state being socialist today, although Google is kicking up mostly op-eds. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had a Rfc about this:[1]--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the link. I find the discussion contained of whether "socialist" is applicable very inadequate and detached from sourcing. I don't really have the energy to press this at this time, but I will ask if you think it's bad that North Korea being socialist is unsourced in the article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have noticed, I disagreed with the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map

@Yue: I think it's time to remove "Territory claimed but not controlled (South Korea)" from the map. See [2] Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. North Korea does not seem to have rejected unification by force.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be convinced when the source is directly from the North Korean government and not "a map uploaded to RedNote" by a "self-described Korean learner". No mention of how the map was obtained by the anonymous user or how the Newsweek writer verified its authenticity. If this is the quality of journalism Wikipedia is supposed to take at face value, then I too will make my own map but to the contrary, slap a quote on it, and upload it to RedNote. Yue💌 07:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy that the Kim regime has departed from the dictums of the great Kim Il Sung, who was a supporter of peaceful reunification through confederation (also a support of military reunification during the 1950s and 1960s!). It is perfectly true that the Sunshine Policy aims at the downfall of the NK regime. Hence Kim Jong Un is merely stating facts, in my opinion. I'm not that fussed about the map itself. Does the map of Russia include claimed territory? Actually, yes, it does.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant in Russo-Ukranian war

North Korean involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Deployment of North Korean soldiers to Russia should be added to 'See also' 78.37.216.35 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem recentist. Remsense ‥ 论 15:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the DPRK even claim South Korea anymore?

Im just wondering because sources are often scarce, but from what I can tell Kim tore down the arch of reunification, and in the cancelled Next North Korean parliamentary election article it says North Korea is planning to no longer claim SK and declare them their 'primary foe.' EmilePersaud (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2025

I'd like to add an audio file of North Korea's national anthem, Aegukka within the Wikipedia page. Specifically, this audio file. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aegukka_-_National_Anthem_of_North_Korea.wav Italianmolisemapper (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Could you provide a bit more information on the Commons file page regarding the provenance of the recording, just to ensure it's in the public domain? Remsense ‥ 论 00:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a follow-up to my edit request from 25 March 2025 to add the audio file of North Korea's national anthem, Aegukka, located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aegukka_-_National_Anthem_of_North_Korea.wav to the page. In response to the question about the provenance and public domain status of the recording, I have conducted a legal analysis and found strong reasons to believe that "Aegukka" is in the public domain in the United States. Key points from this analysis include:
  • North Korea did not have a formal copyright law until 2001, after the anthem's creation and adoption.
  • Article 12 of the North Korean Copyright Law exempts "documents for state management" from copyright unless used commercially, and a national anthem likely falls under this category with primarily non-commercial use.
  • As there was likely no copyright protection in North Korea in 1996, the anthem would not qualify for copyright restoration in the US under the URAA.
  • There is an international trend for national anthems to be in the public domain to allow for widespread use. Italianmolisemapper (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all beside the point if it's not made clear where the recording even came from—the issue is the recording, not the composition itself. I want you to provide the specific information on the file page of when this recording was made, and when it was broadcast and captured in this recording. Thanks in advance. Remsense ‥ 论 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, I have updated the Wikimedia Commons file page for the "Aegukka" national anthem recording ([3]) as you requested.
The changes include:
  • Specific dates for the recording's creation (December 2011) and broadcast (March 6th, 2025) added to the file description.
  • The license section for the recording now uses the `{{PD-because}}` tag with a rationale explaining why the recording is believed to be in the public domain in the United States, based on the public domain status of the underlying musical work and its nature as a straightforward rendition by the state broadcaster.
  • A more detailed explanation is also provided in an below the license header.
Please take a look at the updated file page when you have a moment. Thank you for your guidance Italianmolisemapper (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: I have updated the Wikimedia Commons file page for the "Aegukka" national anthem recording ([4]) as you requested.
The changes include:
  • Specific dates for the recording's creation (early 2000s) and broadcast (December 2011) added to the file description.
  • The license section for the recording now uses the `{{PD-Because}} ` tag with a rationale explaining why the recording is believed to be in the public domain in the United States, based on the public domain status of the underlying musical work and its nature as a straightforward rendition by the state broadcaster.
  • A more detailed explanation is also provided in an below the license header.
Please take a look at the updated file page when you have a moment. Thank you for your guidance.
~~~~ Italianmolisemapper (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Korea
No tags for this post.