From Wikitravel

For future reference the Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:North Korea/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

The last update of North Korea was by myself. Computer took it upon itself to log out while I was writing. Professorbiscuit 22:10, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Contents 1 Respect 2 Israel 3 Fairness 3.1 People 4 Government Type 5 why visit NK

Respect

The page for North Korea doesn't have a Respect section, while that for the South does. Could a more educated Wikitraveller who is more knowledgeable on North Korea, see whether the things mentioned in the Respect section of South Korea are also valid for the North? Eyeflash 16:58, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

Israel

Removed 'Israel' from the list of countries whose citizens are generally not allowed to travel into NK. Currently, this rule applies only to US and SK citizens. note: NK does not recognize dual nationality.

This article in the Wall Street Journal disagrees — "North Korea has told travel companies it won't grant visas to journalists, Korean-Americans and Israelis.". What's your source? Jpatokal 20:59, 14 March 2006 (EST)

-- I am a photojournalist travelling to NK tomorrow. I was told that US, SK and japanese nationals cannot apply. I was OK. I am not Israeli but since israel was not mentioned in the correspondance with NK officials, I can conclude that israeli are allowed.

Fairness

I made some changes that were reverted with the motivation that wikitravel is not supposed to be NPOV but just fair and honest. I think this article is very coloured by a specific political point of view. I live in Sweden and here freedom of religion for swedes (immigrants had freedom of religion before that) was instituted in 1951. Would anyone say that the porpose of the state church and other state supported religious groups back then existed to "provide illusion of religious freedom"? Why then should this said about North Korea?

Because it's true about North Korea?

To expand on this, North Korea doesn't have legal religious activity of any kind. There are some show churches and such that foreign visitors are occasionally trotted out to, but the same visitors have confirmed that eg. the "Christian priests" don't know even the basics of their supposed religion. Jpatokal 14:01, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

No, the Wikitravel of 1950 would say about Sweden that Swedes did not have religious freedom and immigrants did. There would be no need to use the word "illusion" because as I understand from you, there wasn't even the illusion of religious freedom then. — Ravikiran 10:12, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Comparisons only go so far. My only point was that a system that seems fair in a country like Sweden is considered as evil when it occurs in Norh Korea. I am not a supporter of the North Korean government, Juche or communism - but painting them pitch black on all accounts is unnecessary. I think they should be judged the same way any other government is judged. Using inflammatory language against them serves no purpose. 82.99.36.162 06:34, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

I wouldn't consider the system in the Sweden of 1950 fair either. More pertinently, the question is not whether the system is fair or not. The question is whether the statement "Swedes do not have religious freedom" would have been a fair comment in the Wikitravel article of 1950. The answer is, yes, it would have been. — Ravikiran 06:48, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

I believe that the democrats and republicans in the US are essentially the same and that the bi-party system of the US is undemocratic since it effectively excludes all opposition parties. Does that mean that the article about the US should say that there are two political parties to "provide illusion of political freedom"? Well, obviously not.

I really can't see how my edit was not in the spirit of "fairness".

As for the Korean war. How can it be fair to call the actions of the north "overrunning" and the south/US "uniting". North korea winning the war would also have been a uniting, and the US conquering all of Korea would have been an overrunning of the North. Why is the positive word associated with the US and the negative with the north? 82.99.36.46 08:32, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

I'm not accusing you of being "unfair", just pointing out that there was nothing unfair (and therefore nothing inappropriate) about the material you changed. We don't want Wikitravel to read like an encyclopedia (someone's already doing that, next domain over), so editing something for a strictly NPOV is not generally consistent with our goals. Wikitravel is a guide. We're here to give our assessments about places... just honest and fair ones. If what's there now isn't fair – if Kim Jong-il really is doing his best to let people practise whatever they believe – by all means fix it. But don't neuter it just for the sake of NPOV, because that's not one of our goals. - Todd VerBeek 09:32, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

I rewrote the Korean War section, hopefully it's a bit better now. However, I think it's fair to place some blame on the DPRK, as they were the ones who invaded... Jpatokal 14:01, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

O bit off topic: Well, you could also see it as Koreans fighting for their national right of self determination against a foreign aggressor fighting to defend its economic and geopolitical interest. It could also be mentioned that the US could use UN only because the soviets were boycotting it. The american revolution showed the importance of the right to self determination, yet the US has been the greatest enemy of self determination in countries like Korea. 82.99.36.162 06:34, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

Again, this isn't Wikipedia. Let's stick to what happened, which isn't subject to much dispute, and leave the whys and wherefores to historians. Jpatokal 10:09, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

People

Not very much is to say about them, since you are not allowed to talk to them without the permission and supervison of your tour guide. ... okay..

Government Type

Someone likes to change the "Government Type" periodically. In some perverse way, their changes may be true. But the purpose of Wikitravel is to provide useful information to travellers. A change which obscures the Very Special nature of the North Korean government is not helpful. "Stalinist dictatorship" works best, I think, because it punches the reader in the face with a clear and unambigous description about what to expect. While it is more complicated than that, this short phrase gets the reader as close as any short phrase is going to get them to understanding. And then they can read the text for the petty details. -- Colin 22:16, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

I think totalitarian socialism describes the government more accurately, primarily because "stalinist" is an informal term, and because totalitarian socialism is the officially accepted description of the government, and it can be found on many international NGO websites -- Dan

This is not an encylopedia, so we don't need to use formal terms. Since this is a guide for travellers, we are looking for a short phrase that is easily understood by the traveller. By using "stalinist", we refer the reader to Stalin and the type of government that was with all its issues, which is the best comparison we have. And the article goes into the gory details, so we're just looking for quick comprehension in the countrybar rather than perfect details which can be left to the article. -- Colin 13:02, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

Having researched the subject of DPRK, I have realised that the country is actually a socialist democracy, why not stick to the facts of the government in the infobox, rather than the US government's opinion!-- Dan

This has nothing to do with "official US government opinion." We've already changed from that -- "Communist State" -- to something that is more easily understood by the traveller. Since Wikitravel:The traveller comes first and you have not addressed the traveller's concerns in your comment, I'll change it back. -- Colin 11:30, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

I am confused as to why people believe DPRK is a dictatorship, has anyone actually been? I have several times and I was highly aware of an election in Kaesong on one occassionDan

Your views appear to be so far from the mainstream that it is unclear to me if anything could bridge the gap.

So let me just say that we work here by Wikitravel:Consensus. By tradition, convention, and policy, you will need to gather a consensus to make your change. Steamrolling a change will not work; instead, you must convince people that your change is valid and get together a consensus of people who support your change. In the meantime, please refrain from trying to force your change to the status quo through -- that isn't how we do things here.

I oppose your edit. Per policy, you now need to get together a clear consensus (or convince me) before proceding with your edit. -- Colin 17:20, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

Oh... when trying to gather your consensus, if you feel no one is paying attention, trying asking for input at Wikitravel:Requests for comment. -- Colin 17:31, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

Hi Bill, you made a change calling this "Single-party Socialist (per constitution) republic". To me, that's one heckava mouthful that has way too many meaningless words: the constitution is only a convenience since it could be overthrown on a whim. Republic does mean anything to me either: a self-appointing oligarchy isn't really a republic since the slave-class has no republican rights and makes up the vast majority of the country (yeah, I'd decline to call ancient Athens a "republic" to a traveller too since that would imply a level of freedom that was nonexistent for the slaves, so it's too much of an oversimplification). In a republic, even the lowliest voters ought be able to promote a different leader, which isn't true in this heirarchical committee system.

I've always liked "Stalinist dictatorship" since it gets across the most important ideas to the readers fast: first, that the government is overcontrolling (unusually so even for a dictatorship!) like Stalin, and second that there is a head Stalin who should not be disrespected on peril of your life. I'd druther keep this meaning for fast-recognition by the traveller. Two-words of description, and the extra info a traveller might need is pretty much fine-level detail at that point.

And lastly, why compromise with someone who has been to North Korea and saw no dictatorship, and who's near-every-edit is politically motivated? I'd rather wait and compromise with someone who sees the situation as it is, but disagrees with the phrase. -- Colin 17:51, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

Also, Wikipedia is a poor example. As an encylopedia, they can use any archane term and then link to a full explaination of the term. We here should just use terms which are widely understood. -- Colin 17:52, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

I'm inclined to agree with Colin here that we should leave the article as it was, mostly based on the fact that "assume good faith" only lasts so long, and based on the editor in question's recent edits I'm not sure that the focus on government types is being made in the interest of doing what's most helpful towards creating a useful travel guide and in the spirit of calling a spade a spade. It might be worth discussing whether there's a source we can all agree on for lists of "government types", but until that discussion happens I'm very much opposed to making changes based on someone trying to push a political viewpoint. -- Ryan 18:14, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

I would tend to think "Beloved Leader" pretty much sums it up regardless of how you feel about him. I'm going to make that change, and see what happens. -- Mark 14:42, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

While I understand the joke, I don't think that makes much sense as a government type, and again cast my vote for the original -- "Stalinist dictatorship". Jpatokal 16:28, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

How about "The Beloved Leader"? -- Mark 17:19, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

why visit NK

This is a messed up place. Who would want to go to North Korea other than spies or journalists? Seriously people... --Member 15:22, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Good point. We should also get rid of the article on Pakistan, Iran, Palestinian Territories, Iraq, Liberia, and a bunch of others.

More seriously, people travel all over the world. Just because a place isn't suitable for family vacations doesn't mean there's no reason to provide travel information about it. -- Ryan 15:30, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Well, one group of folks I can think of are UN/NGO workers. They get to do the coolest business trips... Majnoona 16:00, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

I think that having coverage of places that only specialists will go to is one of the great strengths of Wikitravel. If we have a guide that helps an aid worker find their way around town, well, we've done a pretty good thing. --Evan 13:05, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

Also, look at it this way: now that you've read the article on North Korea, you won't make the mistake of going there.... 71.19.38.228 22:58, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

ROFL - Awesome point! Those KFA lunatics like to visit, so they can parade up and down in front of school kids and stuff for propaganda purposes. Check their video's on YouTube.

KFA arent really lunatics, they are a friendship society, really the only reason you dont like them is because of what the USA says about Korea

More seriously we don't concern ourselves with why. We write guides for people who are going or who are considering going and try to write a guide which will explain what to expect so that there are fewer surprises when travelling. -- Colin 15:08, 1 October 2006 (EDT)

Exactly, I mean who does it help if we debate whether its worth going to a destination :S --Korea dan 15:23, 1 October 2006 (EDT)