Talk:Education in North Korea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Template:Education infobox

I created a template, Template:Education infobox which can give a quick at a glance demographics table for education articles. See its implementation at Education in the United States and feel free to help improve the template.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The current version includes the statement <<Teachers have been criticized for looking the other way when students and colleagues plagiarize. Some believe that the allowance of plagiarism stifles learning and creativity in many Asian countries.>> Well: this is interesting, and potentially true – but then it needs to be substantiated and made more precise, through verifiable sources, etc. Which teachers have been criticized by whom? And please explain, user Scifiintel, whether the statement you put in is meant to apply to all of "many Asian countries" or specifically to North Korea.

If no satisfactory backing up of the statement emerges, I vote for its deletion. Slavatrudu 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New Section

I have added a "History" section to the article to deal with the WP:LEAD concern and I have removed the "intro" template. Ripberger 05:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

sources

i would recomend that you put in more sources than you already have.hawkey131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree with that point. so if you could add more sources that would be wounderful.--Hawkey131 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Added References

I added references also from recent readings and recent references there is no new news for North Korea's education system. --Trulystand700 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim Chaek University

Is it the same as Kim Chaek University of Technology ? Apokrif (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

This reads like a puff piece for North Korea. "1.3 million intellectuals"? Really? Can we try to get a little bit of objective information here? Monado (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can edit this article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales quote

An editor has inserted information in to the article, but this has repeatedly been reverted by Smallbones based on an unproven assertion of the person inserting it being someone named "Thekhoser". I have placed it back.

The quote is notable because it has been published in the reliable media. Is there any reason this should not stay in the article? 62.165.191.107 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We understand why you are here, but no, jamming factoids into articles is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Find a secondary source that refers to the use of USB sticks with Wikipedia as being significant for the education system in North Korea. Otherwise, find an article on trolling and insert it there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I would have put it that way, but I agree that it doesn't belong in the article unless it is more widely covered or commented on. --Malerooster (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Extreme lack of neutrality

This article is written as if it was directly taken from North Korean propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.70.186 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Education in North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509052452/http://pust.kr/ to http://pust.kr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

literacy in rural areas and labor camps

There are children born into labor camps that do not receive schooling. There are homeless orphan children running around at produce markets eating scraps of lettuce off the ground. I doubt they go to school. Kids in extreme rural areas that are isolated probably do not go to school. What about mentally ill and sick children in hospitals? Does the literacy rate include those who lack the mental facilities to learn? Trying to claim 99% - 100% is like trying to prove something is an absolute. While I wouldn't put it past the government to claim these numbers, outside of North Korea a) we cannot prove these numbers and lack the ability or sources to verify such a claim. b) we know the government lies and makes claims that have been proven to be false. While it is likely that they have a relatively high rate of literacy within cities where life is more controlled, I question the rate throughout the entire country. Also, what about during the famine? Something tells me things likely fell apart during that time and some people that were children during that time never had the available schooling to learn and may lack literacy as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonlimeotter (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange Americentric sentence

The sentence "even the United States doesn’t have 100% literacy rate" is a rather strange sentence to be there. This seems to imply the United States has the highest literacy in the world, while sources seem to imply it is not even in the 50%. This same source shows several countries that in fact do have a literacy rate of 100%.

I'd argue for the removal of the entire part ", as even the United States doesn’t have 100% literacy rate. (approx.)", as well as adding citations for the sentence "Experts agree that these numbers are most likely exaggerated". As it stands this is a strange argument that doesn't fit wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.214.194.255 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)