Talk:Human rights in North Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (North Korea), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


This is not an encyclopedia article article -- it is simply an observation about North Korea's worse-than-dubious human rights record. Notwithstanding that "human rights in North Korea" is indeed an oxymoron, this (correct) observation does not an article make. I'm sure there's a section under the North Korea article on human rights that could be expanded, even though it's surely infinitely more complex than this non-article is.Zantastik 06:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haham hanuka - You have challenged the accuracy of this article. You have challenged without presenting any reason and by marking as "m" a minor change. Please change inaccuracies in the article, provide areas of challenge or remove dispute notice. --Hunfe 8 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

I can't say it's factually inaccurate or even non-neutral, but I can say it's pretty much a carbon-copy of this section in the North Korea main article. Re-write it or delete it. --yalbik 04:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a large section centered on a direct citation from the most recent United Nations Human Rights Resolution on North Korea that specifically refers to major human rights resolutions. Since its from the UN I figured it was appropriate and probably the best source of authority on the subject. Does anyone disagree? The Way 02:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the first commentator. The content in this article is appropriate for wikipedia. If this is not appropriate, then I guess information on the human rights abuses under Stalin is not appropriate for a encyclopedia article. That said: I have researched North Korea from various sources, including the references mentioned in the article, and I would have to agree with the author. I can't see anything in the article that is factually inaccurate and if anyone can, I would appreciate it if they would bring it to the attention of the readers. (minus the propaganda from the North Korean Government) However, I would appreciate specifics. artsbiotech

Contents

[edit] POV tag

Looking over the article I find it a bit long on sensational language and POV conclusions about which sources should be trusted, both of which are improper on Wikipedia. See, for example, this edit. I'll see if I work on the article later this week, but for now I have added the POV tag. Gazpacho 21:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gazpacho that this article should use more neutral language in a few places. There are some pretty extensive quotes in the article. Can these be summarised and shorter quotes used?
I also think the article needs better referencing and source material too. It would be really good if anyone has access to a source called Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, published in 1988. I have heard that it was one of the most thorough and detailed studies of the situation. Even though it was written 17 years ago, little has changed. Here is a description of this report from a column by Aidan Foster-Carter -
In the 1980s, two US monitors - Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee and Asia Watch - determined to tackle the hermit Kimdom full-on. In 1988 they published Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a 300-page book that set a benchmark for all subsequent work. Soberly presented and carefully researched - including tapping Koreans in Japan with relatives in North Korea, a valuable source previously overlooked - they provided a mine of information that still stands up.
And there is a host of other great resources on this topic to be found on the web. For example -
--Alexxx1 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV/Clean-up

Well, I've done an extensive clean-up of the article, rewording, replacing, and adding many paragraphs. I've also consolidated duplicate references and placed them in a reference section at the bottom, which makes the article look much more professional. I'd like to work on removing the POV tag; could anybody please mention specifics they would like to see corrected?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it enough to note North Korea's denials and the accusation that the defectors have an agenda. I'm sure it couldn't be too difficult to dig up press releases from NK news agencies and embassy, or some Western news reports where North Korean praise Kim Jong-il, etc. I'd like to add that, elaborate on the economy and criminal justice system, then submit to peer review.--ThreeAnswers 04:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I added two such references, but when looking for even a short reference to a North Korean position on or response towards defectors I came up short. I'd like to add some pictures, especially a map of prison camps, but it's going to hard enough finding images from inside North Korea which are under a free license, let alone of some of the most heavily guarded and dangerous places in the world.--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I also removed the POV tag. I can't really see anything which is not neutral any more. True, the article has nearly all bad things to report, but that's because North Korea is probably the world's worst offender when it comes to human rights. And the claims are well-documented, with and extensive reference section.--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration camps

narya, It may seem like a minor point, but the term "concentration camp" is forever associated with camps where most of the inmates are there because of their ethnicity (Jewish, Boer, Bosniak). I think "political prison camp" communicates more clearly what the camps are.

I appreciate your work to improve the article's tone and verifiability. Gazpacho 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment! I believe the term "concentration camp" was used long before WWII and I'm positive I've seen it used in this context (in reference to North Korea and several other nations) in many references since by respected western authorities. While there's no harm in varying terminology to reduce redundancy, these camps are concentration camps, see our own article for instance. And in any case the North Korean prison camps bear remarkable resemblance in their cruelty and inhumanity to those used by the Nazis.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with Nary. It has become increasingly clear over the last decade that the government of North Korea is the greatest violator of human rights in the world today (and yes, I realize that this statement, at least, is pov). But regardless of whether or not you believe that, it is a fact that the political prisons in North Korea are typically referred to as concentration camps and that all the information we have about them do show a terrifying resemblance to Hitler's concentration camps. Indeed, some defectors have reportedly made claims, which have been backed up by various intelligence data, that the North Korean government has systematically liquidated parts of the populations of these camps by testing chemical and biological weapons on them. Given this, I don't think it's pov to refer to them as being precisely what they are: concentration camps. --The Way 06:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing.

That's what this page should say. - Kudzu1 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of human rights organizations have condemned the government's record, including Amnesty International and the United Nations.

Could we change the phrasing on this? The UN as a whole isn't a human rights organization, though the UN Human Rights Council might be called that.

[edit] Important about citations and the truth behind them

Providing a citation for any given fact doesn't make that fact true. Consider this example: So-called "evidence" of human rights abuse in North Korea are often quoted from newspaper articles as the truth. There is a huge mistake in doing this. Let's say I can claim there are no human rights abuse in North Korea, and then cite another newspaper article. Then the problem arise: Which newspaper, indeed which individual article, can be viewed as truth? My point here is not to say that "all newspapers are equal, but some newspapers are more equal than others". It is indeed how people use citations I want to draw attention to. So, when citing some source, please do so like this:

According to a CNN documentary, (insert fact here) (insert URL footnote here). This could indicate that (insert speculation here).

Instead of this:

(insert fact and speculations here as if it was the only accepted truth, then tailor to suit writer's opinon
and that of the writer's society, plus include sarcastic remark about the
misguided ways of the opposing view)

Also, consider the neutrality of presenting information in such a way that quotations from CNN and KCNA could co-exist, possibly mutually exluding eachother, or complementing eachother. My point is that citation alone is not enough to make a factoid more truthful or verifiable, indeed the quality of an article also depend on how each fact making up the article is presented.

Especially this should be considered in controversial issues, where one side is less likely to be heard than the other. But will you falsify the truth by silencing one side of the story, just because you disagree? For instance, the disputed fact of who started the Korean War remains quoted in every Wiki article about Korea as if the universal truth is that the Northern side started the war, in spite of the North denying this. Repeatedly, whenever I add any kind of balance, like including a single sentence that the North disputes the one and only theory held to be the truth by the "entire world", my edit is reverted and discarded as people think North Koreas view is invalid and biased. But, dear fellow wikipedians, North Korea was a major player in the Korean war. Marginalizing it by saying China intervened on its behalf is just as rational as marginalizing the South Korean due to US assitance. That is not my point! My point is that to have really informative wiki articles that really are NPOV that can serve mankind regardless of race, religion, political orientation or bias, each factoid need to be able to stand on its own shoulders as not only referenced, but also self-contained sentences who introduce facts respectfully without trying to compete with other facts that are different from it, and who is formulated in such a way as not to cover up the full detail of the factoids origin, first and foremost, the factoid itself, and then concluding with something describing the fact that would educate the reader in such a way that it becomes part of the articles combined facts and the reader is able to see more sides of the same story.

Imagine how much more interesting for a reader to know both sides of the story instead of what the reader already knows by the mere association with the word "human rights in North Korea". --Bjornar 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suggest you take a look at WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Other than the North Korean government and the affiliated student organizations in Japan and South Korea, nobody disputes that human rights violations there are endemic. The view that human rights are protected there is one of an extreme minority and it therefore does not merit being given much attention in this article. NPOV does not mean including the views of those who insist that up is down.--ThreeAnswers 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying, that because many people beleive a thing, therefore it must be the predominant view? I would agree if the topic was entirely theoretical, and if the opposing view was held by an extreme minority, it would of course not be eligible for inclution in a Wikipedia article. But, 21 million Koreans are hardly a minority, neither are the millions of ethnic Koreans living in Japan and China plus elsewhere. Maybe you will claim that only Kim Jong Il himself denies human rights abuse in the DPRK, but if you ask every DPRK citizen, he or she would also deny it. If someone speculates that the opinion of a DPRK citizen is of less value than a westerner because of his political system, then that someone is seriously misguided. Furthermore, the idea of "Undue weight" seems to be to destroy unneccessary inclution of fringe opinion or clearly wrong thesis such as saying the earth is flat. Now, it would not be wrong in this context to cite the KCNA about human rights in the DPRK, since it represents the position of the government of the DPRK, a vital player in this piece. Not to include it would be moronic and no less than shooting oneself in the foot.--Bjornar 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's fairly clear that every adequate article must have proper sources. Video and photo evidence (notably by award winning refugee/photojournalist Ahn Chol), economic analysis, and non-partisan humanitarian groups back up the statements made by refugees describing human rights abuses. Mere opinions of anyone, or any 21 million people, cannot make a Wikipedia article. The DPRK government, citizens, and supporters are freely able to back up their own opinion with similar evidence. This must be proof that the evidence of others is false. Not showing poverty or suffering in other nations and saying "what about them", not showing scenes of happy masses in Pyongyang, not releasing video of a well staffed and well used aid distributing facility and claiming there are hundreds like it around the country... Allow NGOs free access to all prisons to see the conditions. Allow aid groups to monitor food aid directly from the source to being served to people in need in all parts of the country. Only providing the transparency that the large majority of the world's nations give can give the DPRK credibility. Maybe if Japan starts to take over Asia again or if the US starts an unprovocated nuclear war with Pyongyang, or evidence that either are reasonably considered can be shown, the KCNA can be trusted. Until then it's just a comedy source. And not a bad one.
No DPRK source provides evidence refuting the accusations others have made, or opens those claimed areas of the country to outside sources for open varification. Why believe mere words? No number of people of any status in any location can convince the world that 2+2=5 unless evidence comes with it. I guarantee you that the free world finds 2+2=5 to be hardly less believable than the DPRK having a moral stand on human rights for its own citizens.
And there are many "DPRK citizens" who feel the same way... In my research and casual conversation with the various Korean groups in Osaka, it is clear that the vast majority of Chosen Soren and related group members are disgusted by the DPRK government. They remain part of the group in name only due to various pressures and the only real members campaigning for the group are the ones in power or those who can gain personally from it, such as owners of pachinko parlors, banks, or the MK taxi company. Much like the actual DPRK, only those with power in Chongryon have traditionally had a voice to the outside. (Protip: one of the main reasons for the newfound cooperation between Chosen Soren and Mindan after so many years of animosity is because Mindan recognized that Chosen Soren members are generally not supportive, yet were not free to join Mindan. Mindan made the effort to reach out and give these people a forum to voice their concerns, and Chosen Soren took the opportunity to attempt a boost to its credibility.)
The state of Israel exists. Should the article of the state of Israel be removed because there are millions of people who refuse to recognize it? Of course not, only the fact that millions don't recognize Israel should be mentioned in that article. It is the same as far as this wiki goes; the severe human rights situation for disproportionally many in North Korea exists without question. Only the fact that millions (those of priviledge in the DPRK or the people who go out of their way to avoid objective observance of the evidence) refuse to recognize it. That's pretty much how it is written and how it should stay.
The point is that no government or organization puts its faith into heresay, which is all the DPRK has without independently verifiable evidence. Expecting the world to believe it would be moronic and no less than shooting oneself in the foot.Smoove K 12:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political classifications

There should be some mention of the political classifications of such and such percentage of the population as "reliable", "unreliable" etc., and the different privileges this brings for individuals of different classifications. AnonMoos 08:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disabled

Could someone with better wiki skills than myself include this UN report information and reference? http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/23/un.nkorea.ap/index.html Smoove K 06:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famine

In the third paragraph it states that lack of food in North Korea is caused by famine. I happen to believe that famines are caused by lack of food, not the other way around. PS. one of the reasons for it was lack of soviet fertilizers... With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article might be balanced if Human rights in South Korea were addressed, such as exiles, violent conscription methods, and an extremely dubious judicial procedure.

There is already an article Human rights in South Korea, which would be the appropriate place to bring up these issues. I notice you recently added a paragraph to this article, since cut by another editor, referring to the South Vietnamese - but looking at the link you provided as a source, I wonder if you meant to refer to Korea? Barnabypage 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

The Propaganda section of this article is written in a very unprofessional style and is completely unsubstantiated. While I don't doubt for a second that propaganda is prevalent in North Korea, this article's "information" about DPRK propaganda seems to hurt the argument that it exists rather than help it. Cronny 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Human rights in North Korea"?

More like "Lack of human rights in North Korea", am I right? 90.231.13.46 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No you are not, and I find this article extremely bias. It's sources are also all bias (US sources, like freekorea.us). --Girdi (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and Bias

I find this article extremely bias and just fuels the propaganda of the West and the US's attitudes to the DPRK. The sources of these facts are also coming from Anti-DPRK sites and Pro-US and Pro-South Korean sites (like www.freenorthkorea.org) and such. It is also being bias against the DPRK's news sources trying to depict it has a cover up and such (Like "In the Soviet files it states the North invaded the South").

I strongly advise any others to add with me in this discussion how bias this and many other DPRK (North Korean)-related articles are here on the English wikipedia. Keep in mind, people check this site extremely frequently for quick facts, research projects, and just curiousity. We can't be making a bias article attacking a nation. --Girdi (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Could you suggest some articles and sources you believe are more suitable? Then we could more accurately investigate a bias Czar Kirk (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)