This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in Wikipedia about the DPRK, and I have read almost all of them (DailyNK ones are the most ridiculous).
I have never seen such amount of original research pulled together with no sanctions whatsoever. After this article was created, western media started using this false term in their publications.
As confirmed by Alejandro Cao de Benos, there's no such thing as a "Songbun" in North Korea, hell, that word isn't even known in the DPRK.-- Kmaster ( talk) 09:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
So any dissenting voice should be suppressed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, your sources are largely carbon copies themselves. (Though at least Lankov shows some scepticism.) The UN also endorsed Iraq's WMDs based on similar evidence - defectors and analysts from the other side of the world.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never denied the existence of the supposed songbun ascribed status system. I have only asked for a NPOV. I have sought to balance the current presentation with Bruce Cumings' contrary view of North Korean society but this has been blocked. At least I am allowed to cite the North Korean government. Perhaps not a reliable source. But Saddam was perhaps not a reliable source on WMDs - but he was right.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
New light has been shed on this by the revelation that the story of Hyon Song-wol being executed was totally false. On the subject of the DPRK, many mainstream sources are simply not reliable, and uncritically report negative stories.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The article says that songbun is pivotal in people's lives, but then says Kim Jong Un's mother Ko Yong-hui was able to marry into the ruling dynasty despite her bad songbun.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
So in the key example given, it doesn't apply.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In other words, truth and logic don't matter. It's all about assertion.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
On the North Korea page I argued that the presentation of songbun violated the NPOV policy as it reflected the opinion of some analysts, not others. I provided a quote from American historian Bruce Cumings. This was described as wrong, biased, irrelevant, original research, and even a misrepresentation of Cumings.
Here is a fuller quotation, taken from Korea's Place in the Sun (p 397):
This is deemed irrelevant because it doesn't use the magic word songbun. However, Cumings does use it (in passing) in North Korea: Another Country. After saying:
he gives the following example in a footnote (p 234):
I would submit that this is a totally different view of the issue than the one presented in this article. It might be wrong, but it is non-neutral to exclude it. And I don't see how quoting a secondary source can be construed as original research.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you are wilfully distorting what the issue is. The issue is not whether the Korean word "songbun" exists, or whether there are social differences in North Korea. The question is whether there is a caste system in the country. The fact that the government denies it is relevant, because this makes it a secret caste system, which is a rather strange concept.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly a crowd-pleaser. It could say: "We have a wonderful social system that rewards patriotism and punishes treachery even unto the third generation. Human rights is an imperialist plot, and the very concept of equality is a denial of the natural order of things." Moreover, caste systems by their nature require caste to be obvious: hence caste marks in India. Discrimination can be based on skin colour (with white or black areas), or the oppressed group can be forced to wear a yellow star. Such extreme discriminatory social systems have been operated quite openly. Apparently not in the DPRK.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
So you agree NK does not have a caste system? The article uses the term ascribed status, and that article gives a caste system as a key example. The other key example is a race-based system, which isn't applicable here. However, apartheid would be a good comparison. The South African government did not deny apartheid existed. It would be impossible for apartheid to exist in secret. It just claimed apartheid was a good system for everyone. Similarly, the NK government does not deny having a planned economy where private property is minimal. It just claims this is a good system.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe Demick any more than I believe the DPRK government (or Cumings!). I'm just genuinely trying to insert some NPOV. I know you mean well, but maybe you should practise what you preach.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I came here after reading this, curious what WP had to say. Seems OK, though maybe should mention that things are changing under the influence of recent economic and cultural exchange with China. Rd232 talk 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a major discrepancy on social background. Speaking about songbun, Helen-Louise Hunter describes the descendents of "factory workers, laborers, and poor farmers" as making up (together with the descendents of guerrillas) 25-30% of the population and being the "elite of today" (pp 4-5).
But what is the social background of the other 70%? Hunter states that most Koreans were uneducated in 1946, and that most intellectuals and technicians had fled south by the end of the war in 1953 (p 207). Similarly, Bruce Cumings paints a picture of pre-Communist north Korea being rough country with a "vast peasantry" mostly engaged in subsistence farming and largely ruled over by absentee landlords who lived in the south (and by the Japanese), and with a heavy industrial base largely owned by Japanese corporations. With the Communist take-over, he says many capitalists and landlords fled south, and there were shortages of experts. (Korea's Place in the Sun, pp 182, 228, 232, 397).
If this is true, poor workers and poor peasants must have represented more than 30% of the population in 1953. In fact, it seems clear they would have been a majority before 1945, and their relative weight in the population would have only increased as Japanese, officials, capitalists, landlords, intellectuals, and technicians fled over the next decade. Hence, the amount of people in the "elite" would have to be very much larger than Hunter and others imply. There seems an inbuilt bias in sources such as Hunter to complain about the injustice of the "songbun" system as if it affects the vast majority of North Koreans, whereas this appears to be logically impossible.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13470/
read this well cited forum post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's apparently 'not credible and read like obvious propaganda', in spite of the numerous citations. Seems opposing political viewpoints regarding North Korea are illegal in Wikipedia, The Free Propaganda. 125.161.137.252 ( talk) 03:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in Wikipedia about the DPRK, and I have read almost all of them (DailyNK ones are the most ridiculous).
I have never seen such amount of original research pulled together with no sanctions whatsoever. After this article was created, western media started using this false term in their publications.
As confirmed by Alejandro Cao de Benos, there's no such thing as a "Songbun" in North Korea, hell, that word isn't even known in the DPRK.-- Kmaster ( talk) 09:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
So any dissenting voice should be suppressed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, your sources are largely carbon copies themselves. (Though at least Lankov shows some scepticism.) The UN also endorsed Iraq's WMDs based on similar evidence - defectors and analysts from the other side of the world.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never denied the existence of the supposed songbun ascribed status system. I have only asked for a NPOV. I have sought to balance the current presentation with Bruce Cumings' contrary view of North Korean society but this has been blocked. At least I am allowed to cite the North Korean government. Perhaps not a reliable source. But Saddam was perhaps not a reliable source on WMDs - but he was right.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
New light has been shed on this by the revelation that the story of Hyon Song-wol being executed was totally false. On the subject of the DPRK, many mainstream sources are simply not reliable, and uncritically report negative stories.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The article says that songbun is pivotal in people's lives, but then says Kim Jong Un's mother Ko Yong-hui was able to marry into the ruling dynasty despite her bad songbun.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
So in the key example given, it doesn't apply.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In other words, truth and logic don't matter. It's all about assertion.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
On the North Korea page I argued that the presentation of songbun violated the NPOV policy as it reflected the opinion of some analysts, not others. I provided a quote from American historian Bruce Cumings. This was described as wrong, biased, irrelevant, original research, and even a misrepresentation of Cumings.
Here is a fuller quotation, taken from Korea's Place in the Sun (p 397):
This is deemed irrelevant because it doesn't use the magic word songbun. However, Cumings does use it (in passing) in North Korea: Another Country. After saying:
he gives the following example in a footnote (p 234):
I would submit that this is a totally different view of the issue than the one presented in this article. It might be wrong, but it is non-neutral to exclude it. And I don't see how quoting a secondary source can be construed as original research.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you are wilfully distorting what the issue is. The issue is not whether the Korean word "songbun" exists, or whether there are social differences in North Korea. The question is whether there is a caste system in the country. The fact that the government denies it is relevant, because this makes it a secret caste system, which is a rather strange concept.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly a crowd-pleaser. It could say: "We have a wonderful social system that rewards patriotism and punishes treachery even unto the third generation. Human rights is an imperialist plot, and the very concept of equality is a denial of the natural order of things." Moreover, caste systems by their nature require caste to be obvious: hence caste marks in India. Discrimination can be based on skin colour (with white or black areas), or the oppressed group can be forced to wear a yellow star. Such extreme discriminatory social systems have been operated quite openly. Apparently not in the DPRK.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
So you agree NK does not have a caste system? The article uses the term ascribed status, and that article gives a caste system as a key example. The other key example is a race-based system, which isn't applicable here. However, apartheid would be a good comparison. The South African government did not deny apartheid existed. It would be impossible for apartheid to exist in secret. It just claimed apartheid was a good system for everyone. Similarly, the NK government does not deny having a planned economy where private property is minimal. It just claims this is a good system.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe Demick any more than I believe the DPRK government (or Cumings!). I'm just genuinely trying to insert some NPOV. I know you mean well, but maybe you should practise what you preach.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I came here after reading this, curious what WP had to say. Seems OK, though maybe should mention that things are changing under the influence of recent economic and cultural exchange with China. Rd232 talk 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a major discrepancy on social background. Speaking about songbun, Helen-Louise Hunter describes the descendents of "factory workers, laborers, and poor farmers" as making up (together with the descendents of guerrillas) 25-30% of the population and being the "elite of today" (pp 4-5).
But what is the social background of the other 70%? Hunter states that most Koreans were uneducated in 1946, and that most intellectuals and technicians had fled south by the end of the war in 1953 (p 207). Similarly, Bruce Cumings paints a picture of pre-Communist north Korea being rough country with a "vast peasantry" mostly engaged in subsistence farming and largely ruled over by absentee landlords who lived in the south (and by the Japanese), and with a heavy industrial base largely owned by Japanese corporations. With the Communist take-over, he says many capitalists and landlords fled south, and there were shortages of experts. (Korea's Place in the Sun, pp 182, 228, 232, 397).
If this is true, poor workers and poor peasants must have represented more than 30% of the population in 1953. In fact, it seems clear they would have been a majority before 1945, and their relative weight in the population would have only increased as Japanese, officials, capitalists, landlords, intellectuals, and technicians fled over the next decade. Hence, the amount of people in the "elite" would have to be very much larger than Hunter and others imply. There seems an inbuilt bias in sources such as Hunter to complain about the injustice of the "songbun" system as if it affects the vast majority of North Koreans, whereas this appears to be logically impossible.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13470/
read this well cited forum post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's apparently 'not credible and read like obvious propaganda', in spite of the numerous citations. Seems opposing political viewpoints regarding North Korea are illegal in Wikipedia, The Free Propaganda. 125.161.137.252 ( talk) 03:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)