The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 27, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Seth's, Myers', and Suh's analyses and critiques were made in 2019, 2011, and 1988, respectively. Kim Jong Un changed the WPK's ideological direction in 2021. Irregardless, it seems odd to give those two particular critiques (that the WPK has "little in common with communism" and is "far-right") prominence in the infobox as no other article of a major political party does this. Myers also argues that the WPK has no ideology at all and is just a medium through which the Kim family expresses its cult of personality. Other scholars like American historian Derek R. Ford meanwhile argue that there is a continuity between WPK's ideology and Marxism-Leninism, so why is his opinion not messily cited? Myers' opinion, particularly his book The Cleanest Race, is widely cited or mentioned by academics and non-academic authors alike in news and magazine articles, but his opinion is by no means widely accepted by his peers. Yue🌙04:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree. A view shared by three separate scholars absolutely is prominent enough to at least warrant a mention in a footnote. You ask "why is [Ford's] opinion ["that there is a continuity between WPK's ideology and Marxism-Leninism"] not messily cited" but, as shown by the fact that the infobox denotes the WPK's ideology as "far-left" and lists "communism" as one of its ideologies, this opinion is not only cited but is also given full prominence. Loytra (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no common view shared by all three authors. Seth argues the party is primarily nationalist, Myers argues that the party has no ideology at all and borrowed its rhetoric from Japanese fascism, and Suh argues that the WPK had moved away from communism. To reiterate, these analyses and arguments were made in 2019, 2011, and 1988 respectively, before Kim Jong Un made it clear in 2021 that the WPK would recommit itself to communism. The previous notes attempt to combine three very different sets of analyses into one view, which is not what any of the three authors hold or held.
It is true that the far-left label was readded without the single citation that it had beforehand; I would not oppose its temporary removal until reliable sources are added for it. The communist label, however, is not unsourced or unmentioned in the article. This frequent desire to readd an asterisk to the infobox reflects a lack of knowledge of current WPK policies and relies on the misconstruing of analyses based on outdated information. Yue🌙06:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
