Talk:Illicit activities of North Korea

Policy
Is this type of page allowed by WP policy? Sure it's all sourced, but it's also a laundry list of allegations and tends toward a POV fork of Economy of North Korea. I'm sure New Zealand's illicit activities (just to pick a random country with enough enwiki contributors) would get speedied in no time. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good question and it's one that I've given some thought to. Most of the items listed are directly state-driven activities which are illegal under international law. The topic itself has considerable news coverage and has resulted in both political and academic discussion & publication. It's different than simply "illegal things that happen in North Korea", but rather it's about "illegal things the government of North Korea does", and the level of illicit activities actually plays a large role in the the county's economy and DPRK policy. POV, to me at least, means you're pushing a particular point of view with little to no real evidence; this topic is very well supported by credible sources. I'm not trying to push a view point, the article is about something very real that has received world-wide attention, and resulted in intervention by the United Nations, the US, Japan, South Korea, China, and others. It may be controversial, as many things with North Korea are, but it's much more than just a theory or fringe notion. Coinmanj (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the title include "alleged" somewhere? For example, here Isaac Stone Fish admitted with regard to his ice story: "I have no idea what is actually happening inside North Korea." The officers on the Pong Su were found not guilty. The article uses sources from the Heritage Foundation, HRNK, and the Strategic Studies Institute, which are far from neutral sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One of Stone Fish's sources is the defector Shin Dong-hyuk, who has since admitted to fabricating parts of his story. Fisher and Greitens both use Stone Fish as a source.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This suggests that these are unsubstantiated allegations.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding neutrality, many of the statements already have "claimed" "allegedly" "according to" type qualifications. There are also multiple non-human rights organizations used as references. If anything within the article has actually been directly recanted or proven to be false, let me know what portions and I'll remove/change them or remove/change them yourself. This article is about international crimes committed by a nation state, unless that state gives evidence to the contrary or unless there are organizations out there contradicting the claim of "illicit", I don't see how this article could be any more neutral. From China, to the UN, and other national governments, there's plenty of legitimate sources of information that back up, verify, and support the things mentioned in the article. Coinmanj (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some statements are qualified; a lot aren't. It would be hard to falsify a lot of these statements. But what is the evidence that they're true? I think this would be legitimate as a list of allegations with evidence, but most of it is represented as fact. And, by the way, I never objected to human rights organisations being used.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which statements specifically are you concerned with? I'd be more than happy to do what I can to address them, add any necessary references, re-word things etc. Coinmanj (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already explained my concerns about the ice allegations. With regard to unqualified statements, it's very easy to find them. For example: the first two paragraphs of the lead, the first two paragraphs of the "Drug trade" section (which turns a rumour recounted by a defector about an opium farm into a fact), the statement that "In 2001, North Korea circulated $100 million in counterfeit currency", and the statement that "The country is a source country of men, women, and children for sex trafficking and forced labor". The substance behind the "sex trafficking" is that North Korean women have become prostitutes in China. That's not sex trafficking of men, women, and children. "Counterfeit cigarettes have been a lucrative item for the country, and is linked to both exporting them and importing them." Again, that's unqualified (and ungrammatical), and I don't understand why North Korea would deliberately import counterfeit cigarettes...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say "qualified", what exactly do you mean? I don't see how things like counterfeiting, the drug trade, and sex trafficking need to be qualified with "according to..." (as though the subject matter is suspect or pure rumor) when the UN, US, China, other nations, plus NGOs all say these things exist; especially since references are provided. But I'll add a few. Understanding why North Korea would import counterfeit cigarettes isn't necessarily relevant, however, from what I can tell, it's a means of making money. The grammatical issue I'll fix. Coinmanj (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The importing of counterfeit cigarettes was a misquoting of the source, which I've removed. The article should reflect what sources say. With regard to China, the article says, "China officially admitted to the drug problem stemming from North Korea in 2004". The source says, "But in July 2004 Chinese authorities officially recognized that relatively limited quantities of North Korean drugs, mostly methamphetamine (also called “ice”), were shipped into China". David Rose's article is full of qualifications: " 'They need money,' says Park. 'Where else can they get it?' The answer, he and senior U.S. officials believe, is by means of organized crime". But in the article, the activities of Room 39 are a certainty, which is pretty strange for an organisation shrouded in mystery. Many statements in the article have to be estimates or speculations, but they are presented as facts. From what I've seen there's a consistent distortion of what the sources say.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Illicit activities of North Korea"
I feel that moving this article to "Illicit activities of North Korea" would be more in line with typical title standards. That title currently redirects to this article. My reasoning is that articles on topics pertaining to a given nation almost never use the country's name in the possessive (e.g. "Government of Sweden" vs. "Sweden's government," which redirects to the former). Is there any objection to this? I should clarify that I take no stance on discussions the inclusion of "alleged" in the article title.) Titan  Andromeda  05:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that "Illicit activities of North Korea" sounds a bit strange and unnatural.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with TitanAndromeda's suggestion. The current title does not follow Wikipedia's conventions. Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, I also agree. Maybe 'Illicit activities from North Korea' would flow better. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From doesn't sound right.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or 'by', 'in' etc....whichever preposition sounds right to people. They all feel like an improvement to me compared to the current title. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite late but I came across this page in my Watchlist and decided to check in on this discussion. Given that the few responses are generally in favor of renaming, I've gone ahead and moved the page to my proposed name. I am watching this page in case there is any disagreement or further discussion. Titan Andromeda  20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete
This is a real stinker of an article; POV both in title and intent, poorly sourced, and with no obvious equivalents elsewhere on the Wiki (is the DPRK the only country in the world that conducts "illicit activity?" It's not in the top twenty). I know it's by now accepted that Wikipedia is a reflection of US foreign policy and NATO ethics, but surely this is too blatant to stand. This needs to go for deletion, yesterday. DublinDilettante (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this article is problematic, but deletion is highly unlikely.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tusk, tusk
This might be useful: Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)