Talk:Illicit activities of North Korea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hacking

Should hacking be included here? We have 2013 South Korea cyberattack and the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I think it's worth noting that the major source for this article is Illicit written by Sheena Greitens, the wife of Eric Greitens, the Republican Governor-Elect of Missouri and a US veteran. The article also cites as "experts" Paul Rexton Kan, a professor at the US Army War College, and Bruce Bechtol, a former professor at the Marine Corps University. These "experts" have co-authored Criminal Sovereignty with Robert Collins, a long-term US veteran, which is another key source of the article. Another author prominently used is Balbina Hwang, a South Korean-born scholar who was once adviser to Christopher R. Hill, a key US diplomat dealing with North Korea. These are not independent observers, but representatives of the US military-industrial complex. Relying heavily on these sources is another reason why this article is not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland, Lankov recommends Greitens' (then Chestnut) earlier 2007 paper in The Real North Korea. I've added it as Further reading. Without commenting on due weight, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with Greitens' work. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the sources, but so many here are representatives of the US military-industrial complex. It would be good to broaden the sources used.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree, the topics and how they’re conveyed are impartial and abrasive Neaumusic (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Abductions

I don't think abductions are human trafficking.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Scope of article

I think this article is about North Korea's alleged involvement in organised crime for financial reasons. Therefore it should exclude the admitted abductions and the terrorist issues which were part of the Korean conflict. These issues have their own articles and are separate from the kind of crimes that this article focusses on.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the abductions and the terrorism into a separate section.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the article is biased propaganda, both in word choice and topics discussed, the scope of this article is less the topic and mostly hypothetical pop culture finger pointing! Neaumusic (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Title "North Korea's illicit activities" v "North Korea's alleged illicit activities"

@Jack Upland: I think the long-standing title ("North Korea's illicit activities") is better. On the whole, it is not in doubt that North Korea has engaged in these activities and that such activities are illicit. Sure, some of them involve more speculation than others, but on the whole there is no substantial doubt that North Korea engages in illicit activities. We don't rename articles "alleged" if it contains a sketchy piece of detail or two. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This article — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/27/north-korea-cliches-debunked-hazel-smith — casts doubt on whether the regime has engaged in these activities. What precisely do we know for sure? Even if these allegations are true, do we know that the North Korean government itself — as opposed to particular officials — is to blame? Simply establishing North Koreans are responsible isn't enough. We don't write about the USA's illicit activities simply because American citizens or officials are implicated. There is an implication that the government itself is responsible, and I don't think that is completely accepted. I'm not opposed to an improvement in the title, but I don't think the original title was neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I don't think it's tenable to keep asking whether something is or is not by the government when it's actually individuals who do these things. Everything governments do is, in the end, done by people (so let's not rename North Korea to North Korean people because everything the article describes is in fact done by its people). As for the US, we don't have United States' illicit activities because this is not a common typology that sources use. We have United States war crimes because it is, even though every single thing described there is done by individual soldiers.

There is no doubt in RSs that North Korea engages in illicit activities either proactively or through systematic lack of oversight of its officials. I don't know where The Guardian is getting "The major source in the public arena for alleged DPRK narcotics production and smuggling is an unverified list of incidents from a 1999Intelligence Section report by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency". It's not my experience with sources (see e.g. chapter "Illicit Activities" in The Impossible State for a good overview).

I understand your concern with the title, but titles need not be that descriptive. "North Korea's illicit activities" covers the entire discourse: the allegations, their methodology, what's confirmed, criticisms, etc. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We have an article Crime in North Korea about crimes committed by North Korean people. "North Korea's illicit activities" clearly suggests that the North Korea government is orchestrating these activities, because when used in active sense "North Korea" means the "North Korean government". Hence we need to be clear on that point. The sources that I've seen are quite explicit in saying that the North Korean government is indeed behind these activities. But this is an allegation. The topic of this article is really allegations that the North Korean government is engaged in criminal activities beyond its borders. (I don't know why we're using "illicit", a less common variant of "illegal", when really we mean criminal.) I think the title could be improved. I also think that, whether you agree with them on not, there are sources that dispute the allegations. We have a situation where there is a lot of speculation and accusation (particularly from US sources), but very few convictions. I think it's problematic to have a title that suggests the allegations are proved in this context.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yes, this should be old title per sources. There is no doubt that such activities actually happen. If anyone insist on renaming, please make an RfC and get consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The fundamental issue wasn't whether the activities happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)