Talk:North Korea/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Do they really eat kids? I heard that people in the province are so poor that a secret restuarant actually cook little kids that get lost. Very shocking also the fact that most of the people there are brain washed by their own government.

I've read about many North Koreans running away to China in order to escape insufficient food and political repression. However, Russia also borders the DPRK so don't any North Koreans ever escape to Russia? What is Russia's policy regarding North Korean refugees? --Shultz 15:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Russia gives economic considerations with the DPRK priority over human rights considerations. There are almost no direct refugees via the only 19 km direct border; however some refugees manage to flee via China to Russia. They are mostly sent back to China, then deported to the DPRK, then tortured in local concentration camps. There is one interview about such a case in 1999 [1]; however I cannot judge whether this is typical and details are 100 % accurate.

i think that Russia would not accept refugees from its own ally. If any refugees try to escape to Russia, the Russian government would send them back to Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .

Reviewing the first two sections I consider these statements are not from a NPOV.

I would counter the statement "The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command, the Chinese People's Volunteers and North Korea signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement" unless there is a reference to support this. Having viewed the Armistice Agreements I would contend they were only signed by North Korea and the United Nations and the statement should be reworded "The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command and North Korea signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement"

Re' the statement, "Thus, in Socialist countries such as the DPRK, it is the Chairman of the Communist Party and not the Head of State who is the repository of power." This implies that a Socialist country == DRPK, and ignores deomocratically elected Socialist countries that have no concept of a Chairman of a Communist Party. Suggest this is reworded to the following if there are no objections "Thus, in countries such as the DPRK, it is the Chairman of the Communist Party and not the Head of State who is the repository of power".

--Duchovny1 12:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement "The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command, the Chinese People's Volunteers and North Korea signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement" All you need to do is look at the Armistace Agreement.

Nam Il signed for the Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's volunteers. General William Harrison JR. signed for the United Nations Command. The Republic of Korea refused to allow their representatives name to be added to the agreement. --32.97.110.142 18:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue is with the manner this is written in. Your statement "... the United Nations Command, the Chinese People's Volunteers and North Korea signed ..." would indicate 3 signatories. There were only two. William Harrison signed on behalf of the United Nations combatants and Nam Il signed on behalf of the Delegation of Korean People's Army and the Chinese peoples volunteers. Hence I shall make this and my other suggested edit above. Ref : http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html --Duchovny1 16:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraphy states: "To the south along the DMZ, it borders South Korea, with which it had formed a single nation until 1948." This is incorrect. Between 1910 and 1945 Korea was a possession of the Empire of Japan, not a nation. Korean nationhood/independance was not recognized by any nation or, during the interwar period, the League of Nations. I suggest this line be change to read soemthing like: "To the south along the DMZ, it borders South Korea, with which it had formed a single nation until 1910, at which time the Korean Peninsula was annexed by Japan. The peninsula was partitioned into North and South Korea in 1948 by occupying Soviet and American forces."

C White

---

I put the following elit into the article. It was deleted after a short while. Why? Are there some North Koreans who can't stand Free speach?

"[edit]THERE ARE RECURRING COMPLAINTS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN NORTH KOREA. Allegations about vile North Korean human experimentation are yet more examples. "

You are right, this is intolerable. I suggest you add this notice back, on this page and on the United_States page. Of course, any affirmation requires references. So I suggest you have a look at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, MKULTRA, Tuskegee syphilis study and Willowbrook State School. Free speech (with references) rules ! ;-)

--nct 21:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above is a logical fallacy known as a tu quoque[2]. Whatever the human rights abuses the U.S has committed in no way mitigates or cancels out the ones that North Korea has committed. Trent1492--Trent1492 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to link this article from the Main Page since this nation is at the top of the news right now. But This article is in such sad stubbish form it would be embarrassing for the project if I did link it. Could somebody flesh this out per the WikiProject Countries format? --mav

I looked at your request last night (my time) and thought Yes, good idea, I don't know much about Korea, but I have lots of books and know how to use Google to find things out, surely I could add a little to help flesh it out. I looked at the article and its stubs for a while, somehow didn't see anything that sparked enough interest to prompt me to make a start anywhere, and eventually wandered off to do some other things, feeling vaguely that I'd let the side down, and also that everyone else seemed to feel the same way, at least to judge by the resounding silence this entry has attracted so far.

It was only this morning that I realised why I felt that way about it (and, it seems, quite a few other people as well): "North Korea" isn't really a country, just an artificial political construction. Sure, there are lots of other places that this applies to in almost equal measure - most of Africa consists of "countries" that got their borders simply because some diplomat in Europe happened to draw a line on a particular part of a map, after all - but this seems more true of North Korea than of many places. I understand that Koreans don't think of themselves as "South Koreans" or "North Koreans", just "Koreans". Korea as a whole has distinct geography, culture, history, and language; "North Korea" does not and probably never will - it is destined, sooner or later, to merge back into Korea as a whole and become a mere footnote to history.

It's always going to be difficult to create a set of pages on North Korea in the standard Wikipedia form, in other words. The case for merging the pages on the two Koreas seems strong. After all, is it better to bend the Wikkipedia to better fit the world, or to bend the world to better fit the Wikipedia? Tannin 19:34 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Mergeing them is a bad idea. -fonzy

North Korea has been an independent nation for more than 50 years. It is as much a country as West Germany, East Germany, Confederate States of America, North Vietnam, or other former nations that no longer exist. At some point, there may be only one country called Korea, as there was prior to 1945, but let's not try to merge together two separate countries with their own governments their own leaders and their own histories until that actually happens. Even then, we should leave the separate articles to indicate what happened when they were separate. -- Zoe

North Korea is administered by a separate internationally recognized government than South Korea and so it should get its own page. To do otherwise is going to reopen the (unwanted) controversy over the China/Taiwan pages. Besides Hong Kong and Macao get their own Wiki country pages despite having less sovereignty than North Korea does.

As far as history goes, one can do what is done with the history of china which goes up to 1949 before being split into history of PRC and history of Taiwan.

--User:Roadrunner

The article as-is should be good-enough for now. Much more is needed of course. --mav

Another note: While people from North and South call themselves "Koreans" they actually use different words! The North Koreans use "Chosun Saram", while South Koreans use "Hanguk Saram" (Saram means People/Persons and Chosun and Hanguk are the short country names. --Alain

---

Can someone please check to see that my browser didn't mangle the Korean characters when I edited it? I don't have all the fonts. Thanks. KQ

---

Provinces in Hanja

The provinces, as a political division of modern NK, have only Hangul and no official Hanja. Even though they historically have been written in Hanja, and this has been documented on the Provinces of Korea article. They should probably be deleted. -Menchi 03:40 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The listing of government authorities in the table should reflect who is in charge. What's with putting a dead guy there? Officially, the presidency, being occupied by a dead guy, is not the highest state office. It's just an honor. --Jiang

History
As a country only existing from the 1950s, should N.Korea include history from Korea (giving at least three different (Korea|N.Korea|S.Korea) data-sets to edit when people want to upgrade pre-1950 Korean history), or should it only include information only after 1950? The History of North Korea is a (mostly) good set of post-1950 history detailing information as it relates to North Korea. I'd much rather see that and a (proposed) History of Korea linked (or a link to Korea, with only sparse details in the history section of the North Korea article.
~ender 2003-09-09 21:24:MST

I wrote the original history section just as you suggest but somebody thought it was a good idea to move that to History of North Korea and leave the confused mess you mention. I say we delete the para that isn't about North Korea. --mav 04:52, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Removed para:

Traditionally said to have been founded in 2333 BC, Korea was divided into the three kingdoms of Baekje, Goguryeo, and Silla during the 1st to 7th centuries, of which the latter alone remained. It in turn was replaced by the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties, during which Korea was under extensive Chinese influence and Buddhism and Confucianism became part of Korean life. Known by the 19th century as the Hermit Kingdom because of its reclusive attitude, it was forced to open up at the end of that century, and was annexed by Japan in 1910.

This isn't about North Korea. --mav 04:56, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All of that information appears to be in Korea, so I think it could be deleted.

~ender 2003-09-09 22:22:MST

---

--Trent1492 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The duplicated notice by Sewing was moved to Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan, not to make discussion scattered over Wikipedia.

The above unsigned comment was added by Nanshu. --Sewing 16:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In June 1950, the North Korean Peoples Army attacked, launching the Korean War.

I thought it was unknown who started the conflict. Crusadeonilliteracy 19:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought so too--131.216.163.213 04:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to documents in the Soviet archives in Moscow Kim Il-sung convinced a rather reluctant Stalin to agree to an invasion of the ROK. I dare anyone to find an academic reference that states that either it is not known which side was the aggressor or that the ROK was the aggressor. HarrySalmon 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm. It looks like a slight pro-North Korea government POV has been replaced by an obviously anti-North Korea government POV. I will have to fix this this weekend. Until then please read our NPOV policy. --mav 08:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Bagel, I noticed your "a paranoid and incompetent government" in the North Korea article violates the NPOV policy. I believe the North Korean government is extremely competent as an oppressive, genocidal, quasi-Stalinistic, over-militarized dictatorship. If North Korea was incompetent, why do other nations fear North Korea? --Hcheney 19:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Due to one one of the highest literacy rates in the world, autonomous religious activities are now almost nonexistent in the North."

I take particular issue with the implication that high literacy = low religion. Once people can read, they can grow past religion? Or is it that religious people are illiterate, illogical and ill-prepared to leave the mundane sphere of religion and enter secular society? Someone please explain this fallacious reasoning.

Or is this passage indicative of some troubles plaguing Wikipedia at large? Are there movements within the online community to insert such ignorant and offensive language into erstwhile fact-based documents? -lward

(Under Culture) Did the U.S. government really ban its citizens from entering North Korea? I haven't heard of any type of prohibition at all. According to the State Department, they don't issue letters for people seeking DPRK visas, but there's no ban as far as I know. (Update: edited page due to U.S. Treasury sanctions document indicating the absence of American travel restrictions.)--bceaglejoe 03:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could someone with a better grip on formatting issues than mine please do something about the horrible white space at the top of this article? Adam 07:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

This page uses the style "Worker's Party of Korea (WPK)", while Politics of North Korea uses "Korean Worker's Party (KWP)". Is there a standard form? If so, both pages should use it. If not, we should choose one and stick with it.

For what it is worth, "Workers Party of Korea" gets more hits on Google than does "Korean Workers Party". Molinari 02:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Having in front of me a few books published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Pyongyang, I can say that I cannot find one instance of "Korean Workers' Party". It seems that the Kims Il Sung and Jong Il in "For the Victory of the Socialist Cause" and "Selected Works" (respectively) and in all the other English-language Korean material I have both call their party the WPK. Accordingly, I've changed the article. Dafyddyoung 14:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google isn't a real authority. It is like saying USSR and Soviet Union Dudtz 9/6/05 6:13 PM EST

I really think that any article about North Korea should include information about the recent market trials. I have attempted to add a paragraph about this with NPOV based on information now widely available about North Korea's market trials. This information is just not very widely reported in North America due to political reasons, but a few have popped up, which you can use as research material for expanding information about North Korea's trials, including a number of articles from reputable sources such as BBC and Washington Post: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mdrejhon 05:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whenever I try to load a page that has to do with Korea (North_Korea, Korea, History of Korea, etc.) I get an IE (version 6.0.2600.00) error (page has created errors) and IE closes. Very strange, I have never seen anything like this. Anyone else the same problem? Perhaps something to do with a font?? Pascal 00:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why have we changed from 'Panmunjom' to the far less common English spelling 'Panmunjeom'? jguk 18:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Revised Romanization is Panmunjeom (32200 Ghits). The McCune-Reischauer is P'anmunjŏm (174000 Ghits). It is at the North and South border.--Jusjih 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

That is absurd, and this article is not to be some sort of a Communist mouthpeice. Have a look at some other encyclopedias on the subject of N Korea... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me - I don't dispute for a moment that the North Korean economy just fell off a proverbial cliff... I think you haven't grasped all meanings of the word 'develop'. 'Develop' doesn't have to refer to a positive event. Wars, famines and natural catastrophies can all 'develop'. I don't see why you oppose using this word so much. --Ce garcon 04:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to add this link multiple times:

• Where Is Ms. Cho? - opinion piece about Cho Sung-hye and other North Koreans who attempt to leave North Korea.

but the system won't let me.A2Kafir 01:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz, Gzornenplatz, to keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.--Jerryseinfeld 23:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the article is titled North Korea and the article uses that term freely (common convention in the English language you must agree), then it should be said the DPRK is the official term for the country--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 02:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the previous comment about 1500 visas, I can confirm that there is officially no fixed amount of visas allowed. That would also contradict other reports of a yearly tourist flow of about 2000-4000 tourists in NK every year, and also that the government of DPRK alledgedly need the "hard cash". Why then should there be a fixed limit?

Also, regarding the "Further Reading" list of links. I think it is too long and should be broken into subsections, or maybe even put in their own articles with categories that match some of the links. Because I think right now many of the links presented cover too wide a range.

My suggestion is keep the official links, and the bare neccessities, move "Travel accounts" to its own article presenting maybe "Travels to DPRK" or "North Korean Tourism". Move food recipie links to "North Korean Food Recipies" as a subset to "Korean Cuisine". I am sure everyone reading this will agree, that the list of links at the bottom of the article for "North Korea" cover to wide an area, and should therefore be put in its own subset of context.

-Bjørnar-

Very good the way the links is organized now.

--Bjornar 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been bold and tidied the links section. Firstly, the Pedia is not a link collection (readers can engage Google, themselves). Secondly, I couldn't stand the misspelling of independent. Thirdly, which other country has a section of links against the country? This is so not NPOV... Fourthly, some of the links were dead anyway. I have considered every link before removing. For example, a travel account? We don't have links to travel accounts to the US, do we? OK, North Korea is less of a common destination, but it is possible to visit. A Japanese comedy site with video clips? Not very authoritative, and well, it's got errors there, too. Let's not confuse propaganda with the Pedia... Metro0 23:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really stumbled when I saw the following sentence: "It is due to this nuclear capability, the United States has placed North Korea into the Axis of Evil, as the nation is an Outpost of Tyranny."

I would argue that these phrases represent Bush administration talking points rather than neutral statements of fact.

Counter point: When a man who sends his citizens off to jail for disagreeing with him and who furthermore has access to nuclear weapons he fits in with the Stalin-Hitler-Mao-Hussein group!

Isn't wikipedia NPOV? If it is, why are the references to the body of water between Korea and Japan called 'East Sea'? Calling it 'East Sea' is a POV. Calling it 'Sea of Japan' is not. The official name of the body of water is 'Sea of Japan'. If you want to dispute this, there is an entire article devoted to that. if you want to dispute this, do it at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, not here. This is fact only, not point of view. I know if you click on the link 'East Sea' in this article, it takes you to the Sea of Japan page. If you enter 'East Sea' in the search it takes you to five links for East Seas around the world. I am going to change this site back to NPOV and away from POV. If you have a problem with that, take it up on the correct article at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Masterhatch

A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. For more information, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):

• Should all bodies of water on Wikipedia have the same name throughout all pages as to maintain a standard and avoid country specific POV?"

In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Enter your votes at the talk page here: Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch

It has been brought to my attention that it is difficult to find where the naming dispute over the East Sea/Sea of Japan is actually being discussed. It is an ongoing dispute and it is being discussed here:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

Thank you. Masterhatch 8 July 2005

Repeatedly I tried to save some small changes to this article. Every time, I got this message:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: memsess_key() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/User.php on line 1579

Michael Hardy 1 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

This country has currently not really a geography entry (it refers to the whole island). Kokiri 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to expand the Geography entry, concisting of one section describing the whole country, and then with links to individual regions. --Bjornar 19:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it because it was not very specific I have replaced one party with Communism I did leave the dictatorship part in If you are unhappy with this change please give me some reasons Dudtz 7/30/05 6:30 PM EST

"North Korea" is a wrong and insulting term, since it refers to the northern half of the Korean peninsula in a geographical sense, not the state named DPRK. The DPRK and its people normally see the term "North Korea" as insulting one which means the denial of the DPRK as a state.

And the name "Korean Workers' Party" is also wrong. In the official documents the governming party of the DPRK is always referred to as the "Workers' Party of Korea". Everton 03:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't resist a little comment: given that the citizen's of the DPRK are TOTALLY shut off from non-state run media and the viewing of anything coming from outside of the DPRK is a political crime I doubt the people of the DPRK see the term as insulting given that they never hear it. --The Way 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has answered me, I will move this article to the correct title (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Any objections? Everton 16:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

North Korea is synonymous with the DPRK. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) applies here.

Can you provide evidence to back your claims that "North Korea" is considered insulting and "Korean Workers' Party" is incorrect? --Jiang 16:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't really that important if anyone thinks that North Korea is insulting any way. Wikipedia policy clearly is in full favor of the term "North Korea" and not "DPRK", which I happen to find insulting to democracy and ordinary human decency.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, if they find it insulting let someone from N. Korea change it. (do they even have a gov. controlled ISP?)

• No, they have no ISP. Except for unde 1000 people (either politicians or staff working for the Korean Computer Center), there is no Internet access in North Korea. --Xanthar 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this has bee nasked before, but why is they no picture of the North Korean's flag in the main infobox? - Nick_C 12:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Kim Jong-il is sometimes also referred to as Kim Jong II? Is this a protocol thing or something to do with transliteration from Korean? --Infilms

The latter. --Bjornar 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. The romanization of Korean is very tricky in some cases, such as Korean names. It can be written as Kim Jongil, Kim Jong-il or Kim Jong Il. However, usually Korean names are not written with a hyphen, so in fact it should be Jongil.

--Thorri 12:44, 6 Nov 2005, (UTC)

Should the new British documentary film A State of Mind be mentioned in the external links or somewhere as a resource? It is one of the very first documentaries to, be allowed to, be made by westerners inside North Korea. Very interesting stuff to see on screen. --Fluxaviator 10:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Official movie site

I've seen the documentary. It's very interesting. You can download it on emule. If you're interested in better understanding the country, its people and regime, you should see this documentary. I also recommend "North Korea: A Day in the Life" [9] Also see "Welcome to North Korea"[10]. It's not suprising the streets of Pyongyang were filled with people deep in mourning for their oppressor Kim Il Sung. They were so thoroughly indoctrinated from day 1 to worship him. In one of the documentaries, there was this family they followed around who lived in the capital. In their apartment, in everyone's I should say, there is a speaker that throughout the day spews propaganda. You can turn the volume down, but you can't turn it off. Their view of the Korean war is a nearly a total inversion of the truth. Sickening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.23.253 (talk • contribs) .

George Bush placed North Korea in the Axis of Evil in 2002, not in 2005 as the article suggests. I will make the appropriate edit.

After further reflection, anybody beating up soldiers or stealing their weapons or rampaging across town would run the risk of being shot in any country I can think of.

Sukiari 07:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

139.164.130.170 made a reversion stating that Bush added N. Korea to the 'Axis of Evil' in 2005 as a response to Korea's declaration that they had nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush placed N. Korea in the Axis of Evil when he first coined the phrase in his State of the Union address in 2002. If 139.164.130.170 insists on pointing out the talking point phrase 'Axis of Evil' then I think it would be preferable to do this in an accurate manner.

Sukiari 04:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason folks insist on reverting my edit of this page, back to the old version which said that Bush put N. Korea into the Axis of Evil as a result of their declaration they were a nuclear power. In fact, Bush put them in the Axis when he invented the term in his 2002 State of the Union address.

I can't figure out why this keeps getting reverted to the old and nonfactual version. If it continues, I will request that this page be protected.

This was not my intention in reverting and I plan to fix it soon. --TJive 12:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The page was reverted again. I am requesting that this page be protected until whoever keeps making this non-factual reversion explains why they would try to deceive everyone with incorrect information. Sukiari 03:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In the article, it say NK's motto is One is sure to win if one believes in and depends upon the people (translation). Can anyone verify this? Because even the Korean editors of Korean Wikipedia couldn't find the source, nor the original version of it. Thanks, -- WB 02:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[[11]] says the new national motto as of 1998 is "prosperous and great country." "one is sure to win..." was kim il sung's motto, according to a 1997 bulletin of some u.s. agency. [[12]] says kim jong il's personal motto is "the people are my god" Appleby 16:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Any more well known sites? Both of them are not the most reliable sources. I think it's better to leave them blank for right now. -- WB

i have heard that there was an exodus of communists(including many scientists and engineers) from soviet union to DPRK , when soviet union collapsed. is that true?

I believe this idea is from many post-USSR works of fiction where unemployed former-soviet scientists take part in North Korea's war-related efforts. There was no exodus as almost all of such candidates in former USSR lived in secluded cities and bureacratic confusions after collapse made it extremely difficult for them get permissions to travel. Also, North Korea does not, due to its Juche ideology, welcome foreigners from interfering in any manners with itself. Even Chinese, who are closest to ally as North Korea have, have met with considerable oppositions to them giving any assistance. -- Revth 08:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)