Talk:North Korean Postal Service

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

North Korea Post's LOGO

• ... that North Korea had official mail circulation with the South from 1946 to 1950?

• • ALT1: ... that North Korea just officially restored postal mailbag exchanges with China and Russia since the COVID-19 pandemic? Source: Russia restores N. Korea's postal lifeline, DailyNK; June 19, 2025 and North Korea-China Land Mail Route Reopens After Five Years, The Chosun Daily; October 10, 2025
  • ALT2: ... that North Korea signed postal agreements with China [zh] and USSR before its independence? Source: Provisional Agreement on Postal and Telecommunications Services Between the Northeast Liberated Area of the Republic of China and North Korea and its Implementation Rules, National Institute of Korean History; January 17, 1948 and Provisional Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and North Korea on Postal and Telegraphic Communication, National Institute of Korean History; August 16, 1946
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Based on a comprehensive review of primary historical materials, including the Database of Contemporary Korean History by National Institute of Korean History in Korean, the Treaty Database of P.R.C. by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in Chinese and a revealed secret document by CIA in English, my content expansion significantly supplements the history chapter of postal exchanges of North Korea with South Korea, the Soviet Union, and China, overturning the previous conclusion that "North and South Korea had NO postal contact". It also supplements the information on the recent resumption of postal routes of North Korea with China and Russia, based on recent news reports.

HCCB3947 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC).

• In 2025, the government-controlled stamp-issuing authority (Korea Stamp Corporation) published a release notice for new stamps that — for the first time — included Russian alongside English, Chinese, and Korean, reflecting the regime’s growing alignment with Russia. Source : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4425valentina (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • This should belong to another Wikipedia page named Korea Stamp Corporation. Stamp issuing and postal service are two separate systems in DPRK. For example, the corporation has their own official website, while the post do not. Source: Entities responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising from adherence to the Acts of the Union and UPU S108 standard International Mail Processing Centre (IMPC) codes, open offices by Universal Postal Union. HCCB3947 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm 99.99% sure interlanguage links aren't allowed for DYK hooks, though ALT2 could become a multihook, but I don't see that as necessary. Roast (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:Accuracy, it is not suitable to replace the interlanguage link with other articles such as Republic of China (1912–1949). This is because in the original treaty text, it is specified that the Chinese signer of the agreement is "Northeast Administrative Committee of the Republic of China", which is led by the CPC, not the KMT who led the R.O.C. They are different historical political entities, with the former one have no corresponding English article(s). Anyways, it's the last ALT hook that only applicable when the community see the first two are both "unnecessary". HCCB3947 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Article is fine (date, size, etc.). I am midly concerned about the hooks, wbich are not very inspiring (I doubt the admins would want to use a red link, even ILL-style, on the main page, so the hook using it is dead - but if we replace the weird red China link with link to PRC like in other hooks, it would be fine). I'd instead suggest the following hooks as more interesting (IMHO):
• ALT3: ... that during North Korea’s 1990s famine, some North Korean postal workers reportedly burned letters in their mail cars to keep warm? ref --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Would have been a brilliant item if it were not for "reportedly" - I would rather not have rumours posted in what should be a section for facts - but other proposals are not too exciting. I'm torn.

Do you have any other sources that could elaborate on mail burning? Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 01:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Reply: If you checked the history, you may find this sentence already exists before my expansion. I did not pay attention to find any related citations, at least in the cited passage, this statement relies on single anonymous source. As you mentioned, it may be only defined as "reportedly" according to existing information.

Again, as I replied to another person above, the reason for hook ALT2 being the last one is that it's the least recommended hook in my opinion. Regardless of the linking issue of hook ALT2, what is your opinion on the main hook? North Korea regards South Korea as the nearest enemy, that's why I regard their postal circulation fascinating. Do you have any suggestions on the hook, since no more sources can be found on your revision? HCCB3947 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki are you willing to give the tick to ALT3? As Piotrus notes, the first three are a little dull. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, HCCB3947, 4425valentina, Guerreroast, and Piotrus: I opened a thread at DYK talk page to solicit outside input because I'm not sure if this hook is eligible or even desired. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 23:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki and Szmenderowiecki: If the issue is the hook angle is unworkable or unclear, maybe we could try again with a different angle?

ALT4 ... that information about North Korea's postal service is limited? (A bit of a "well, duh" hook, but maybe people would be surprised they have a postal service at all.)

ALT5 ... that it sometimes took North Korea's postal service to send a letter from the north to Pyongyang during the 1990s famine?

As an aside, I noticed that the article uses the term "Free World". Is it not considered a non-neutral or loaded term right now? I'm not sure if it would be allowed per NPOV (even if it is objectively true with respect to North Korea). Finally, while not a major DYK issue, I think the article might still need some copyediting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Applying WP:POSA:

• Alt4 is not going to be interesting. Snail mail has been around for quite some time, definitely existed at the time Korea split. If they abolished the postal service at some point (presumably the only one possible), that would be interesting.
• Alt5 as written is screaming "holy shit, the post is doing its job!" I suspect you missed a few words, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense. I don't think I heard of the post service collapsing countrywide in the last century. If that were the case, that would be interesting.

So no.

Re: "Free World", NK is anything but free but that term is straight from Western propaganda manuals (and the source is literally the CIA, so yeah). So that should be changed, yes. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 03:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: For ALT5 I was originally going to add the "few hundred kilometers away" aspect, but I wasn't sure how to do it without making the hook clunky. Regrettably I could not find anything else in the article that was either hooky or airtight. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki: The nominator hasn't edited since December 12: do you see this nomination still having a path forward? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If we want to stick with ALT3, then we need more discussion because there's no apparent consensus on how to deal with this kind of hooks - two people backed Piotrus but one person backed my position. Piotrus is the reviewer, so whether he approves any of ALT0-ALT2 is up to him. As formulated, these hooks are not great but I've seen worse. ALT4 and ALT5 are DOA. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• In any case, this seems moot anyway as the nominator hasn't edited since December 12, and no one else has adopted the article or nomination. Unless someone is willing to adopt this and address the remaining concerns, there does not appear to be a path forward at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki:I was travelling and did not check wikipedia. If you and Piotrus think hook ALT 3 is bad, just delete it. Use other hooks that are suitable. All information that I can obtain at the time being has been edited, even I do some later editions, it would only be focused on de-centralization, like focusing on "free word" and "the bloc". HCCB3947 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

How about this ALT6. or a variation? (typing fast due to limited time, sorry): ...that even through the Cold War ended, the international postal system of North Korea has become more restricted than in the past? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That might be synthesis unless it is explicitly mentioned in a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

How about simply describing the power relationship, this ALT 7 is not eye-catching but the most concise one with no issues to be discussed: ... that North Korean Postal Service is managed by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of DPRK? HCCB3947 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

My proposal: ALT8 "that despite sharing a land border, North Korea's post will not service mail bound for South Korea?" Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 11:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki:I agree with your ALT 8. HCCB3947 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

ALT7 is bad, ALT8 is fine (edit: by fine, I meant in terms of interest). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for ALT8, which is reiterated below with proper formatting. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• ALT8: ... that despite sharing a land border, North Korea's post will not service mail bound for South Korea?

@HCCB3947, BlueMoonset, and Piotrus: The nomination is already two months old, so rather than timing this out I'll take a look at ALT8. The issue is that the hook as currently written is not reflected in the article. The hook says that North Korea will not service mail to South Korea, but the article suggests that it is actually South Korea that does not want to re-establish postal links. The article also merely states that there are currently no postal services between the two, but it does not outright say that North Korea does not process mail to South Korea, merely suggesting it. As in, the hook implies that North Korea actively does it, when the article does not make that implication. This needs to be addressed, and fast. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I also find that hook dull and not surprising to anyone who knows even basic facts about SK/NK. Shrug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies: I had misread the date (I was looking at the DYKN section rather than the comment date), and this doesn't turn two months old for another week. Still, the core issues remain: ALT8 is not supported in the article, and with there being an objection to that wording, either the article or the hook (ideally both) have to be rephased. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, Piotrus, and BlueMoonset: Thank you all for your efforts. I expand the article once again, but it still seems quite weak to fully support ALT8. Any suggestions? HCCB3947 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The changes still don't support ALT8 as currently written, so that angle may need to be abandoned. I think that rather than a hook about North Korea not servicing mail (which is still not supported in the article), a hook about how South Korea is against mail relations due to wanting to avoid "an influx of subversive materials" (the wording is vague if it means materials into South Korea or into North Korea) might work. Maybe Piotrus can come up with a good wording? Finally, "As indicated above" is not considered encyclopedic wording and may need to be removed or reworded. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm sure this could be reworded further, but could a hook that goes something like: ALT9 ... that South Korea has declined engaging with North Korea's postal service, fearing an influx of subversive materials? would work? The actual article still needs to be reworded and clarified, but maybe this angle could be a starting point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki, Piotrus, and HCCB3947: How does ALT9 sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Good for me, thank you for trying! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't checking for accurateness but more for being interesting. This hook is interesting. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 11:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it works! Let's use ALT 9 then. HCCB3947 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Somebody needs to officially approve the ALT9 hook (or some other hook) with the appropriate tick icon if this is to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Since three editors have decided ALT9 works, I'll approve this as interesting. I'm also marking the CIA content as PD-USGov since the part referred in the hook is copied straight from the source, though I don't think this will affect its expansion eligibility much. I'm rewriting the part in question since I'm concerned about an extended debate about whether discounting it would drop it below the length criteria (copied PD content doesn't count) or whether to invoke IAR; WP:PROSESIZE truncates everything straight to kB so it's hard to find an exact number. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

    @HCCB3947, Narutolovehinata5, and Miraclepine: Is a declassified 1960s CIA document a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes (a publication with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy")? I can't think of any reasons why it might be, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. (please mention me on reply; thanks!) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

    @TechnoSquirrel69: I think it should be fine. Sure, it's an intelligence agency, but the document had been originally created with internal circulation in mind, so there was much less reason to produce misleading or outright false claims. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

    I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point, but Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source is different from that. Intentional or not, there's a real possibility of factual inaccuracies and political bias creeping into a document like this (I would not assume an American federal agency would be speaking neutrally about anything related to North Korea). Unfortunately, I couldn't find an RSN discussion about the CIA, so we'll have to form a consensus anew. Like I said, we should presume any source is unreliable until proven otherwise, including this one. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

    Agree. CIA reports aren't produced with encyclopedic accuracy or neutrality in mind; imo there is a non-trivial risk of bias or just straight-up errors. Zzz plant (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, neither are many news outlets we consider reliable. The point is not whether they produce them with encyclopedic accuracy, it's whether they care about accuracy and what they produce accurate info, period. You can argue that CIA's assessments are wrong, but there's no special heightened requirements for government intelligence organisations than those mentioned in WP:RS. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 14:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• • @Miraclepine: I somehow agree with your point. Although the document reports on the hostile camp from an American perspective, its original purpose was to provide the U.S. government with information on the development of North Korea's postal and telecommunications industry. Therefore, even if it contains political overtones, stereotypes, or even more serious biases, the authors of the document still tried to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of its content as much as possible. Wikipedia may not consider it a rigorous source due to the issues mentioned above, but the U.S. government certainly referred to various documents (like this) produced by the CIA when making decisions regarding North Korea at the time. Considering the document's confidentiality and North Korea's unique situation, it is almost impossible for the figures in the document to be cross-verified intertextually by any other sources. Meanwhile, I also agree with @TechnoSquirrel69:'s statement, which is " not assume an American federal agency would be speaking neutrally about anything related to North Korea", as well. With reasons mentioned above, I‘m convinced that it is a recognized fact that the United States leaned toward South Korea during the Cold War. Against this backdrop, if the CIA chose to attribute the disruption of mail exchanges between North and South Korea before 1962, after the Korean War, to problems on the North Korean side, we could question this as a stereotype or some form of bias; but the CIA did not. Instead, it attributed the issue to South Korea’s concern about the influx of communist subversive materials, not siding with its ally, which is actually more credible than the former. With such an logic flow, I assume it's harder to achieve @Zzz plant:'s argument, which stating CIA might make mistakes regarding the judgement of which side cancelled mail exchanges between North and South Korea. HCCB3947 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• I know this nomination was approved, but since this has received many replies since then, its significantly over the WP:DYKTIMEOUT territory, and there hasn't been any comments for 9 days, I'm making this for closure. JuniperChill (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)