Talk:Human rights in North Korea/Archive 1

Unsorted text
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

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 -
 * Amnesty International
 * U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea
 * MSNBC report
 * --Alexxx1 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anybody see this?
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm They label the US as the worst human rights violator :D.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I saw that. The KCNA is a laughing stock, only taken seriously by Kim's buddies and commies in denial that their precious paradise is a myth. 92.8.99.85 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether to feel sorry for these people or hate them. Have no North Korean symppathisers realised that all their news comes from the same place? Have they not realised that their government run forum has made up names on it and people who talk in exactly the same way. They quote people who do not exist and meetings that never happened, it is such a shame that people actually believe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.21.228 (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources and Bias
Propaganda Section - the citation for the statement that "many of the North Koreans believe that Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il "created the world" and can "control the weather"" is from another Wikipedia article that no longer claims this. Can we get a better citation, or more accurate statements?--76.254.46.103 (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Girdi, any objective site will come out with very harsh criticism of North Korea. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.224.198 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FIRSTLY, Do not remove this section. You are the one who is un-balanced in your view, and I will consistently make that clear. And this is the "discussion" area for the article. If you have a problem with someone disagreeing with you in the "discussion" area, then you should probably not be involved with the editing of this article.


 * There is no "extreme bias" here. If anything, the information here is too easy on the DPRK government. The atrocious human rights record of the DPRK is well documented. If you have questions, refer here to the completely trusted and respected Human Rights Watch list of DPRK human rights violations and atrocities: [ http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=nkorea ] I have worked extensively with North Korean refugess in Manchuria, and I have seen the horrible ways that North Koreans are treated like animals. You make huge claims about how this article is biased. I recommend that you travel to Manchuria, find some refugees, listen to their stories, and then come back here and tell us this article is biased.


 * This article should strictly be limited to presenting the opinions of groups and other observers. Categorical statements such as "people are not free to speak their minds" are absolutely unacceptable. Government specialists in the DPRK are to be given equal weight because they have a better idea of what goes on in their country than corporate-manipulated Western media and semi-government groups like "Human Rights Watch." The tone of this article is clearly hostile to the DPRK and its people.Sky01 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to be hostile to a people when trying to explain victimization. DPRK government specialists are free to edit the article to balance the viewpoint as long as sources are included. It wouldn't be too difficult. Regarding freedom of speech, to show news reports of differing viewpoints and domestic dissent against the government. For freedom of movement, to show records of gasoline and power consumption of consumer traffic, or number of users of public transport connecting domestic and international locations. Etcetera. Just having anyone say that "it isn't so", at this point, can't reverse opinions based on cataloged evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.48.3.79 (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All statements of fact or opinion in this article should be sourced, meticulously. We should leave it up to the reader whether those sources are biased. That said, there is a comparable article at Human rights in the United States. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then go and put it on the United States page. It has no relevance here, unless you believe that two wrongs make a right. 92.20.108.96 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to move this article under "Human rights issues in North Korea"
I have briefly scanned through this article and it does not really tell us about the human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a.k.a. North Korea. This article really is only talking about human rights issues in North Korea. It does not even tell specifically about how the North Korean government regulates that. While I found an article on BBC stating that North Koreans are not allowed to talk to the foreigners (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1994008.stm) it wasn't even told on this specific article. Even in the beginning section of this article, the first paragraph, and the first sentence of this article really is talking about human rights issues in North Korea. This is evidenced by quotes from the article: "The human rights record of North Korea is extremely difficult to fully assess due to the secretive and closed nature of the country." Keywords such as "human rights record" or the following phrase "secretive and closed nature of the country" really defies the title and the main purpose of the article. Especially in the beginning of paragraph 4 it states that the United States passed the "North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004". This is a way of that not only Wikipedia but is a country who is criticizing another country's human rights in which is outside Wikipedia's control. I really strongly recommend that editors and the fellow administrators should really move this article under the new title "Human rights issues in North Korea". I suggest redirecting the current page to the new title. It would really would help the understanding of the article by the inexperienced who knows nothing about North Korea. What is the purpose of an article that deals nothing with or defies the title. -> Challisrussia (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

'''Disregard the statement above as North Korea is a pure and respectful country. We are socialist and reply to the needs expressed by our people''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Dalek (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BOOSTERISM ALERT! Whoever just agreed with that would perhaps also agree that the cultural "revolution" or more accurately massacre was acceptable? or that japanese and german people that were sent to the USSR to be slaves were deserving of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"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)


 * Hah! Learn to write English too.  Dope.  71.201.4.78 (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lack of respect for human rights in the DPRK is well documented and considered fact by every single world leader, scholar, institution of higher learning, as well as the world press, the UN, and every single NGO that works in the region. The sources people use to document these abuses are sometimes critical of the United States, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. But even these organizations, considered to be left of center by most, would readily contend that the abuses in DPRK might be almost considered the very worst in the world. Your contention that all sources are biased is officially declared unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.240.215 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Bias in this Article
It seems that nearly all the cite sources for the allegations are pro-US/Western, and only serve to justify an imperialist agenda. Objectively, the United States itself has caused quite aggregious violations of human rights: having the highest incarceration population per capita, which grossly unfairly targets and exploits minorities, Guantanamo bay/gitmo/etc., as well as the many massacres of civilians perpetrated by the US military and CIA. It seems if anything that one ought to hold the US more responsible for such atrocities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.173.25 (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me know when the US government begins throwing tens of thousands of undesirables into concentration camps and testing chemical and biological agents on them... or forcibly removing the handicapped to the countryside. Besides, the U.S. human rights record is completely and totally irrelevant in an article on North Korea's record. --70.145.76.243 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The United States has absolutely nothing to do with this article, which is about North Korea. It is fine if you argue that the United States is worse, but that does not change the actions of North Korea. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we all understand that North Korea has its government flacks sitting around at one of their six computer screens (nationwide) inserting these editorial comments. Techno-Stalinism. As sadly amusing now as it was in Soviet back in the 1970s. 71.201.4.78 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The basic problem with the article is the use of unreliable, overly partisan sources that include the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Senate, South Korean popular media, emigres based in South Korea, CIA-sponsored propaganda like Radio Free Asia, Washington-backed "Committee for Human Rights in North Korea" and so forth. Worst of all is that these sources are not attributed and clearly identified. Instead, previous versions of the article attempt to state every single one of the allegations as recorded historical facts. This is unacceptable and will be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.121 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

75.51.171.121
By the way User:75.51.171.121 I am willing to discuss sourcing and coverage of the issues in this article, but cannot accept mass removal of well-sourced material. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A TV program streamed on Netflix is not a reliable source when the politics of North Korea have been covered extensively by academics and other experts. This absolutely is not a reliable source, and its statements are contradicted by more authoritarian accounts about North Korea. I don't have a problem with mouthpieces of American and South Korean regimes being used, but they have to be clearly attributed and identified in the text rather than presenting all of their allegations as facts. And if these sources are allowed to stay, then the North's side of the story should also be fairly and equally represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.121 (talk • contribs)
 * The source on the church is interesting. Pyongyang was the center of Korean Christianity before North Korea was established; However, all identifiable Christians there have, together with their families, been put into labor camps. It is a questionable source, but, as I say, quite interesting. A movie by National Geographic about well-known material is a reasonably good source. We must rely on what we have, which is intelligence agencies and reports of refuges. Nothing the regime says is reliable other than as a statement of their position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough with cutting out large amounts of information. If you have objections, you must state your objections on a case by case basis.  All of the content seems to be on topic and there is no COATRACK issues here.  ViriiK (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take an example. You claimed that the source is misrepresented.  However that is not true
 * It says Deeply concerned at the persisting deterioration in the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, at the continuing reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in the country and at the unresolved questions of international concern relating to the abduction of nationals of other States, and urging the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms fully,
 * So tell me, how was that statement being misrepresented? ViriiK (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your personal observations are not of relevance to the contents of this article. Popular media sources like a TV program are not reliable on a subject like this that has received extensive academic coverage. Your allegation about "all identifiable Christians" being put in labor camps is a dishonest one, especially when there is content cited in this article showing the contrary.


 * That you find this to be "interesting" is quite something. The source describes itself as taking "an explicitly biblical worldview." They have zero expertise about Korean affairs and are not in any way accountable to a process like peer review. It is not a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.121 (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder cherry-picks from the book by Jiyoung Song to claim that Kim Il-Sung denies the need for civil rights. In fact, the report that the DPRK delegation issued to the United Nations shows this not to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.121 (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing the regime says is reliable -- according to whom, you? So if the "regime" reports that North Korea's defense minister is on a visit to China, we have to discount what they say because it comes from "the regime"? Yet, you accuse me of making POV edits to this article? How absurd. Basic research standards cannot allow for the exclusion of the views of those involved in a dispute, which in this case is about the state of human rights in DPRK.75.51.171.121 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I trust nothing from the DPRK. Nonetheless, I know I'm supposed to maintain neutrality but when Bushmaster (admin) pointed out that the well is poisoned, it confirms my skepticism of anything that comes from the DPRK. ViriiK (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Section about 1990s' cdonditions
Versions of the article promote the POV that a famine resulted from "state-controlled economy", "severe mismanagement", and "poor land management". But the North attributes the difficulties to the dissolution of its trading bloc and the natural disasters that took place.
 * I don't have much information on this matter. How does it relate to this article? I think we have a article on the famine, North Korean famine. We'll have to look at the sources used for that article. See North_Korean_famine. North Korea may have better information they have generated internally, but it has not been released. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is the endorsement of the estimate of 2 million deaths because of famine. But this news entry provides the most complete summary of the controversy surrounding this: the North's data shows that there were some 200,000 excess deaths, while estimates that the North rejects say that 1-3 million died from a famine.75.51.171.121 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The United Nations food program should have good information. However, it would not trump the higher estimates. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * People who die in a famine don't usually starve to death; often they die of opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis or a strep infection. That may be part of the statistical discrepancies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Church in Pyongyang
The church belongs to Korean Christian Federation a North Korean state agency. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hong Kong source treats it as though it is a legitimate Christian church. That is the major factual problem. However, you are correct that as a Christian web site it appears to be a poor source despite the general objectivity and quality of the information there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole religion section seems to use far too many non-WP:RS sources, many Christian POV groups, and is seriously problematic. One claims NK is "crushing the heads of underground church leaders under a steamroller", a claim I've never heard before - this really does not seem the kind of sources WP should relying on. Whould we strictly apply WP:RS, which would leave a very small section? Rwendland (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free; this article has been neglected for years. "crushing the heads of underground church leaders under a steamroller" is a metaphor; imprisoning those who get caught, along with their families to the 3rd degree, for life at hard labor is the actual practice, see . User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not neutral
As noted in this edit the subject of concentration camps where entire families are imprisoned for life at hard labor is not neutral, but Wikipedia is not censored. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The other issue I had with it was that he claimed that it wasn't sourced but those two links did discuss it. I'm guessing he took issue with the figure of 150,000 to 200,000.  ViriiK (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 75.51.171.121
75.51.171.121 has been briefly blocked. While 75.51.171.121 is blocked I will go through the long series of edits 75.51.171.121 made and evaluate them, trying to use them as much as possible and considering the validity of edits which deleted material. This article has been long neglected. A number of the sources used are dated and even the better sources used may not reflect the current situation or changes being made. I will try to discuss the edits and changes here as much as I can and candidly explain why I made them. I will try to maintain as friendly a tone as I can. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Two issues raised previously
Fred Bauder cherry-picks from the book by Jiyoung Song to claim that Kim Il-Sung denies the need for civil rights. In fact, the report that the DPRK delegation issued to the United Nations shows this not to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.121 (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In this edit the following material was added:

"President Kim Il-Sung explained that the imprisonment and corrective labor of prisoners convicted of political crimes was a "legitimate measure to protect the country's democracy from its hostile and impure elements who have abused the democratic order and attemtped to destroy our socialist system." He said that the DPRK's concept of democracy cannot "provide freedom and rights to hostile elements who oppose socialism or impure elements who act against the interests of the People." "


 * I don't have access to that book, but, assuming the information is correctly transcribed, that is a good source for the claim that Kim Il-Sung rejected civil rights for political opponents. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It turns out that this passage googles well, see Google Books' search User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A quotation from Kim Il-Sung in that passage speaks of a system of social democracy which protects the civil right of supporters but punishes "class enemies." Sung rejects what he calls "supra-class democracy" which can provide freedom and political rights to hostile elements. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On page 106 there is authority for the proposition that Sung rejected individual rights as a social vice which he considered the basis of capitalist exploitation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you link to or access "the report that the DPRK delegation issued to the United Nations"? User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it: http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session6/KP/A_HRC_WG6_6_PRK_1_E.pdf User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing the regime says is reliable -- according to whom, you? So if the "regime" reports that North Korea's defense minister is on a visit to China, we have to discount what they say because it comes from "the regime"? Yet, you accuse me of making POV edits to this article? How absurd. Basic research standards cannot allow for the exclusion of the views of those involved in a dispute, which in this case is about the state of human rights in DPRK.75.51.171.121 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nearly universal agreement among objective observers that North Korea conceals unfavorable information such as the existence of an elaborate system of labor camps and publishes false information, for example that human rights are respected. Often the North Korean government and its subordinate agencies does publish factual material which can be reasonably relied on. Editorial judgment is required. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Concealing information does not mean that the material they publish is inherently unreliable. And who exactly are these objective observers? Would they include experts from China, for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.121 (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Scholars who study North Korea find out sooner or later, usually sooner, that there is a vast difference between information presented by North Korea and its agencies and the situation on the ground. Information about Chinese information and attitudes about North Korea is classified in China. China is making an effort to engage North Korea, see "North Korea Must Become Prosperous, Leader Says". NK News is a good source for news. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Internal Debate within China on the DPRK User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Position of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Added, as a section, and as the source for the first sentence in the article:

According to a official document submitted to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly by the DPRK in 2009 in response to an annual series of resolutions raising concerns with its human rights record, the Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea guarantees the human rights of its people, guarantees which are fully elaborated in its laws and regulations. Human rights guarantees and laws are strictly enforced in every particular throughout the country and with respect to every individual. The DPRK has been the victim of a systemic campaign of slander and aggression spearheaded by the United States. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and Weasel Words
I have a major a problem with the line under the 'Freedom of the Press' section:

According to the North Korean government's account of history, the country was the victim of aggression during the Korean War by the United States, while historians from the West say that it was North Korea that started the war.[46]

Whether or not US intervention in Korea was justified morally is irrelevant, I feel its rather far fetched and far from neutral to describe it as anything other than aggression- did the Koreans cross the Pacific to attack the US first and pose a major threat? I fail to see any argument the US did not show aggression in sending their military across the Pacific.

Also 'while historians from the West...' - Who? All of them? Noteworthy ones? Neutral ones?

Again, perhaps the US was fully justified morally but that is irrelevant, the line should not be in the article, and I will remove it now 7PusaAJ (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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. 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)
 * Smoove, you hit the nail right on the head. After all, its not the outside world cutting North Korea off from information, its the other way around. If North Korea wants to show its version of the truth is the correct one, it should open up and prove it. 92.10.90.71 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the fact remains that nowhere, across the news and information media, East and West, can we find specific examples. And take a look at Human Rights Watch's page on North Korea.  They don't cite specifics either.  Also, there's the matter of propaganda to be considered.  I could go on about this but the upshot is that I think words like "alleged" should be used here along with citing where/who an allegation came from rather than giving any credence to what amounts to second hand information and others' assumptions. As facts come to light, and they certainly will over time, the page will be updated. Wikipedia is a living document. There's no hurry. 50.54.230.107 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits by 75.51.171.121
The content of Human_rights_in_North_Korea after editing by is based nearly entirely on a propaganda document issued by North Korea. That document may be used only as a source for the official position of the North Korean government, not for any other purpose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have opened a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect he is back as 75.51.174.240. Both IP's edits are fairly similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.189.200 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians
The section titled Persecution of Christians has information on both Christians and Buddhists mixed together. Would someone who knows about this subject (I am entirely ignorant about it) please revise this? Maybe it's best just to rename the section, but I don't know. 173.66.232.53 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. I just got done editing the preceding passage about "Freedom of Religion" after noticing it was a copy paste from a DPRK report. The entire section may need some work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.189.200 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Annnnnd... It's gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.189.200 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

99% of this article is lies
Many NGO (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch) sources are in fact infiltrated by Western intelligence agencies (the CIA) to spread war propaganda. In addition, the CIA pays many people to come here and spread those lies. See this article detailing their tactics.

I hope no readers fall for this crap. Wikipedia, as it is controlled by said Western intelligence agencies have policies (WP:RS) that cause Wikipedia to be biased towards these other sources that they also control while creating a false appearance of neutrality.

According to leaks by Edward Snowden, most of the editors of this page are not in fact real people but someone sitting in a room at the CIA propaganda department with software that lets them control hundreds of fake identities across sites like Reddit, Wiki, Facebook, and others.

71.191.189.195 (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Executions of Musicians
I have removed the information about executions of musicians, as this story seems to have been discredited by the revelation that Hyon Song-wol wasn't executed after all.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

POV February 2014
the article consists entirely of hearsay/opinion. Considering N. Korea is cited in the latest document as "non cooperative" and with its closed nature, the verifiability of partisan political opposition reports into its human rights violations are then alleged as most parties to the claim have not been there (if so, the report would not claim they are non-cooperative by having allowed them, basic logic). The article would better fit to Allegations of human rights violations in North Korea until and unless there is affirmation on this and not just allegations. We are not here to rubber stamp what the accuser of the "axis of evil" alleges. freedom house is non partisan with its political links??? (note- I am NOT crticising the editors, its due to their personal objectivity that they even added the caveat...so kudos there)Lihaas (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read some of the many comprehensive reports before you write your unjustified claims. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry worked a whole year to collect testimonies and evidence and compiled a 400 page report recently. Amnesty International and many other independent human rights organisations have also published reliable reports. The position of the North Korean government is clearly mentioned in the article. Unfortunately they just flatly reject any report on the human rights situation, but don't provide information, e. g. about prison locations, procedures and so on. -- Gamnamu (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with much of what the first poster said. I also have about as much love for North Korea's human rights records as I do for surprise root canals without anastheisa. That being said, I have to agree that their is a bit of a style issue with much of the article. It lacks the encyclopedic objectivity and tone we strive for here. We make a lot of statements as statements of fact, rather than representing it more correctly in the context of the references. I'm not saying the references are wrong or invalid, most of this ois well referenced. I just think that the way we state it matters...it's the difference between saying "North Korea is (insert criticism here)" and "International agencies such as (x,y,and z) have characterized North Korea as (insert criticism here). I think were much better of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety by taking as neutral a tone as possible, which includes not presenting something as a universal fact in Wiki's voice, but putting it in the context of the references.Jbower47 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Except you present these facts in a way that unduly creates the impression that these sources are in fact credible. You would of course never mention the fact that Amnesty Intl is a CIA front. 71.191.189.195 (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I personally would never have thought to mention the 'fact' that Amnesty Intl is a CIA front. Ironically (or perhaps not) for exactly the same reason, as it would unduly create the impression that that might actually be the case (as it is not). PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jbower47; his approach is very sensible, in wording the statements making mention of which institution/source the claim comes from. It gives more perspective. Then it is easier for the reader to decide whether s/he wants to believe that assertion, depending in his/her own trust of the source mentioned. Responding to the user that suggests that Amnesty Intl has a hidden agenda, we can leave up to each reader to make up his or her mind. Further, any characterizations of the institution will be better made in the wiki article on the institution, which all readers can also go have a look. Any substantive discussion on Amnesty International or other organizations, it is probably better had in the talk page of that wiki aritcle first. Personally, I vote to continue to use Amnesty International's reports as source, of course, duly balanced and complemented with other sources. (talk) user:Al83tito 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The section on forced prostitution
The section on forced prostitution is about that, not about the extent of prostitution in North Korea as addition of this material is concerned with:

"There is no organized prostitution in the DPRK, and there is the absence of nightclubs, bars, and casinos. The firmness of the security apparatus prevents the use of hotels and inns for illegal activities, and the police are difficult to bribe. Foreign visitors have reported that they have not had offers made by women. "

I have looked at page 107 of the reference. In the context of a discussion of the puritanical sexual attitudes of the North Koreans, it states that there is no organized prostitution, that is no brothels or other facilities such as nightclubs where it might customarily be found. However the information in the source states that there is some amateur prostitution around railway stations and hotels. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we need this section as it is a single allegation. Perhaps a link to the main article could be inserted elsewhere on the page. The main article needs to be improved. In fact, the article about state prostitution could be merged with it...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Shin Dong-hyuk
This article should acknowledge that Shin Dong-hyuk has recanted some of his testimony.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, Shin Dong-hyuk has acknowledge he lied on some issues re his life in NK. The wiki article should be updated. Here are some sources:


 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/prominent-n-korean-defector-shin-dong-hyuk-admits-parts-of-story-are-inaccurate/2015/01/17/fc69278c-9dd5-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/shin-dong-hkuy-controversy_n_6896666.html
 * http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/18/asia/north-korea-defector-changes-story/

(talk) user:Al83tito 14:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is covered on his page. I think the easiest approach here would just be to delete him from this page. He is no longer a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing him from this page is ok with me in principle. The challenge is that in the 3 places in this article where he is mentioned, he is mentioned in context or connection to other people or events. So removing him is not easy, and will take some careful editing.(talk) user:Al83tito 13:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Exchange Students and Workers Etc.
An editor recently described my comment about foreign exchange students and workers in North Korea as a "joke". It isn't. For example, Andrei Lankov was a student in North Korea. Felix Abt and Guy Delisle worked there for some time. It's not very important for this topic, but I think editors should avoid making assumptions about what North Korea is like.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Human rights in North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051231001011/http://www.rsf.org:80/article.php3?id_article=13430 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13430

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Human rights in North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114071906/http://www.opendoorsusa.org:80/press/press-release/2012/January/Islamic-Majority-Countries-Top-Open-Doors-2012-World-Watch-List to http://www.opendoorsusa.org/press/press-release/2012/January/Islamic-Majority-Countries-Top-Open-Doors-2012-World-Watch-List
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120306003144/http://www.awomansvoice.org:80/nl1-2004-2.html to http://www.awomansvoice.org/nl1-2004-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Human rights in North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013216/http://www.kcckp.net/en/news/news_view.php?0+1671 to http://www.kcckp.net/en/news/news_view.php?0+1671
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121012080250/http://hrnk.org/wp-content/uploads/HRNK_HiddenGulag2_Web_5-18.pdf to http://hrnk.org/wp-content/uploads/HRNK_HiddenGulag2_Web_5-18.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929090443/http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200510/kt2005101917570810510.htm to http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200510/kt2005101917570810510.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Party congress
Text about restrictions on movement, weddings, and funerals at the time of the party congress was moved here, but I don't think it's particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust
North Korean Holocaust links here. I don't think this is a commonly used term. There is one sentence in the introduction, but no mention of the Holocaust in the body of the article. The sources cited are not major sources. Two of the sources cite Shin Dong-hyuk who is somewhat discredited. This seems to be giving undue weight to a term that is far from neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Logical Fallacies
I don't see a problem with this edit by. However, it was reverted by without explanation. I have reverted back. I will note that I not seen this creative use of wiki-links before, but I think it is helpful to the reader to see the nature of the logical fallacy claimed. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it would be OK without the overlinking.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually forgot about this edit until I was pinged here just now, and was not aware it had been reverted without consideration by a registered user. To explain: I thought that, to the casual reader who is not versed in either the subject or in logical discourse, the overview as it was might read as if the DPRK had made a legitimate response to the criticisms of its human rights record, which it obviously has not. I didn't see a good way of explaining why these are not valid responses in the overview without being overly wordy (Indeed, I believe the difficulty in disentangling the faulty reasoning of these fallacies is a large part of why they are so popular), so I thought linking the appropriate explanations was a suitable solution. 124.189.0.118 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at it now, it seems to be heavy-handed editorialising, without sources to back it up, as well as overlinking. In any case, North Korea's argument might be wrong, but it's not a logical fallacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The wikilinks should be removed. They are POV, overlinked, and very unintuitive per MOS:EGG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that using links this way to slyly call out "fallacies" this way would be tolerated in other articles. NPOV obligates a statement of the DPRK's position, so there it is, along with everything else, and people can make their conclusions. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

POV tag removed
There is no discussion of the POV tag, placed over three weeks ago by anonymous user 173.66.116.54. The user did not provide any examples or a basis for discussion, despite ample opportunity to do so. Moreover, this tag is the user's sole contribution to Wikipedia. It appears to be a "drive-by tagging". Therefore, I have removed the POV tag. I don't doubt that someone might have an opinion about this article's POV. If a suitable reasoning for the tag can be provided, then a proper discussion of how to improve the article can take place. Illexsquid (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are some issues, for example:
 * The article uses this source which claims that women are forbidden to wear trousers or ride bicycles. This can easily be refuted by photos.
 * It uses sources based on the testimony of Shin Dong-hyuk who is somewhat discredited.
 * It says the churches are fake, but this is only one view.
 * It says that Kenneth Bae was "imprisoned for evangelism". That's not really true, is it? It says that "the North Korean news agency explained that it is a criminal act to spread Bible tracts, as this hurts the people’s absolute trust in their leader", but that's not what the source says.
 * It says that "Only the most loyal, politically reliable and healthiest citizens are allowed to live in Pyongyang." That's a big claim, particularly considering Pyongyang is the biggest city. And it isn't supported by a source.
 * Regarding "Criminal justice", it says: "There is no indication that independent, nongovernmental defence lawyers exist or that defence lawyers are always assigned... There are no indications that the presumption of innocence is respected in practice." Sounds like a presumption of guilt.
 * It cites defector Lee Soon-ok, but according to this other defectors deny she was ever a political prisoner.
 * It cites Kang Chol-hwan, who falsely claimed that the 1966 World Cup soccer team were sent to jail.
 * This gives a different account of the factory manager's execution.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added the POV tag because the article contains a string of unreliable claims from unreliable sources (as sketched out above). In the examples of disability rights and the right to food, the information of authoritative sources is ignored. The article includes idiotic statements such as, "According to NGOs, North Korea is amongst the countries where persecution of Christians is the worst." In Saudi Arabia, Christianity is banned, but North Korea has produced its own edition of the Bible. But facts don't matter. Most of these sources come from world powers that have been long-term enemies of North Korea (but not of Saudi Arabia!). The article is also full of bombastic rhetoric such as, "The country has spent decades near or at the top of virtually all measures of state repression." As discussed below, this is unsourced and unsupportable. The article is not neutral at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Topping the Scale?
The lead says: "The country has spent decades near or at the top of virtually all measures of state repression." There is no source for this. This statement needs a citation, and it needs to be more specific and less sweeping.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The CIRI Human Rights Data Project puts North Korea equal 4th.
 * Freedom in the World and the Press Freedom Index put NK in the same category as many other countries.
 * World Index of Moral Freedom puts NK midway on the list.
 * NK does not rank highly in Amnesty International's report on the death penalty.
 * NK does not rank highly in numbers of refugees.
 * NK is not usually mentioned in relation to extrajudicial killings, ethnic cleansing, contemporary war crimes etc.
 * I think we should remove the claim. It's clearly not factual. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)