Talk:Korean Friendship Association

message: Propaganda/advert for a website. — Bill 21:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion discussion – 2004

message: I am removing the comment (In an ironic note, or perhaps not so ironic, Mr Cao de Benos' Spanish pedigree is a distinctly fascist one). There is no reference cited for this claim and therefore it is mere innuendo rather than a salient point. If anyone has evidence that either Cao or the North Korean government subscribe to fascist ideals, please feel free to restore the comment.  --213.1.45.2 20:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gossip should not belong on Wikipedia 

message: Changed the picture and replaced with the kfa logo which is more relevant to the article. Alejandro Cao has an own bio with a picture which is relevant to that article.
--Bjornar 21:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The npov tag was removed as the article is now balanced
--Bjornar 21:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 

message: Don't be so negative to think that this article cannot develop into something that supports the Wikipedia requirements of a Neutral Point of View. Think about other controversial topics and try to realize although people will always contribute to articles using their own point of view, they should allow all opposing views to emerge so the reader can see both sides of the story. We can agree that what is directly untrue, rumours, speculation, gossip etc don't belong in the article, and if there is a dispute about the truth, then of course that truth needs to be backed up by people making official statements non-anonymously or through various sources. The problem about the internet democracy is that anyone can write whatever on a blog, and call it an official source. Another problem is that people lie to journalists or twist the truth. For the sake of giving a balanced view, I shall not remove people's statements as long as they identify who they are and they will stand personally behind their opinion. I will continue to remove what is directly untrue, rumours, speculation, gossip etc. and I am positive that the article will reach a state where is is unbiased and tells the whole story with a number of different angles.--Bjornar 13:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative attitude about NPOV? 

message: This is just a publicity-raising stunt for a fairly unimportant group. There are more important and larger groups campaigning for human rights in the fascist state of North Korea, but get no mention on Wikipedia. The people involved in this organisation are unpleasant, but also unimportant. It's like having an article on the "Clean Up Nottingham Campaign" - only the Korean Friendship Association is attempting to befriend a state that sends people to gas chambers. The group does not even have a constitution or a bank account, just an unelected hierarchy. As for the article on its fuehrer Alejandro Cao de Benos de Whatever, who the hell is he? He's about as important as a chairman of the local chamber of commerce - perhaps less. This Wikipedia article is just intended to give publicity to a self-publicist with a military fetish. Is this the best use of Wikipedia? --Rugover
I completely agree, the KFA are little more than a glorified propaganda agency. But perhaps we should work our opinions into the article while remaining balanced. And I think the KFA, pathetic joke that they are, are worth an article on Wikipedia as they pretty much represent the DPRK to the rest of the world, organise travel and such. Cao de Benos is a nutcase, but he also deserves an article as DPRK Ambassador to Reality and one of the few foreigners to find himself sucked in to their web of deceit and evil. M.C. Brown Shoes 23:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity-seeking 

message: *Critics accuse the KFA of being little more than an international DPRK propaganda agency and a means of recruiting foreigners to promote the government's views and improve the DPRK's stance with the international community.
*Critics say the name "Korean Friendship Association" is misleading, as the organization only promotes friendship with people 100 % supportive of the DPRK government, while it ignores the suffering and starvation of millions of people under Kim Jong-il.
These two versions of what critics say would be easier to reconcile if we could have links to where the critics actually say these things. Unnamed critics have no place in Wikipedia. -Willmcw 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, we shouldn't have any trouble finding specific criticisms to summarize. If we can't find them, then we shouldn't summarize what they are not saying.  -Willmcw 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, indeed almost everyone, who is not a member, but heard about the organization says so. Still the KFA is too unimportant, as that really many people would write about it. But I added the link to Asia Times again to make it more obvious. I guess even KFA members would not insist to promote friendship with people not supporting Kim Jong-il. - Gamnamu 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critics say..." 

message: Wow, wow--WOW
I don't even know where to begin.  Somebody seriously needs to clean up and format those e-mail transcripts so that they look more like part of a Wikipedia article and less like part of the Timecube homepage.
Also, there are some POV problems we need to agree on.  Such as:
The name "Korean Friendship Association" is misleading, as the organization only promotes friendship with people 100 % supportive of the DPRK government [1], while it ignores the suffering and starvation of millions of people under Kim Jong-il.
There's just a lot of sensationalism and childishness (usefulidiotism).  Not to mention some language that could used cleaned up.
Can somebody here who is more knowledgable about this topic and more familiar with Wikifying chip in on this?  I'll try and get some obvious stuff.
--Adamrush 17:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess and a half 

message: I did a Google search and was unable to find the Simonsen/Carter email discussion anywhere. I propose that the entire transcript is, in its current form, unsuitable and impossible to independently verify. Hence I don't see how it can either be claimed to be accurate, or defended against claims of inaccuracy. 
In any event the circumstances of Carter's departure are given in the previous report on the "Andrew Morse incident" of which there are several reports by different authors cited. Rugxulo 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy dispute: Simonsen/Carter correspondence 

message: The article is misused to advertise for the KFA. It exaggerates the importance and promotes a biased pro-DPRK/pro-KFA POV. It goes “Simonsen says, Cao says, Kim says, the KFA line is” and so on. In fact almost no one outside the KFA shares this POV about the KFA. The purpose is not to “promote a favourable view of the DPRK”, it is to promote non-factual information provided by the DPRK. Propaganda slogans are mixed into the text, e.g. “DPRK’s right to self-determination”, “claims in the western media”.
 
Outside the KFA few people doubt serious human rights violations in the DPRK, because there is massive evidence. “Sincere questions usually receive explanations?” Could the KFA then please give an explanation, why Amnesty International (or any other independent organization) is not allowed to verify/refute the “claimed existence of North Korean concentration camps”?
- Gamnamu 23 September 20:48 (UTC)
:As the author of the edits which led you to declare non-NPOV, I deny that it was my intention to turn the article into an advert for the KFA and do not think that it has become an advert for the KFA. I don't think it is POV to say that the KFA promotes a favourable view of the DPRK. This is not an endorsement of the KFA position. Surely nobody suggests they promote an unfavourable view of NK? Your own opinion that the KFA "promote non-factual information provided by the DPRK" does not conflict with this text. As regards the human rights issues, I see nothing wrong with stating the fact that the KFA denies that any issues exist. Again it does not endorse the KFA position. There are other pages on human rights in NK, which are linked to from the KFA page, and it is there that the comments from Amnesty should appear (unless Amnesty have made statements about the KFA itself). Incidentally I do not believe that any country has a perfect and unblemished human rights record but that discussion belongs elsewhere.
:With regard to the comment about sincere questions being answered, it is the impression I have from reading posts on the KFA's web forum. In the past I have also discussed controversial issues with Alejandro Cao and other members of the KFA, on an amicable basis. However I would concede that these are personal observations. If you or anyone else can introduce more NPOV wording please do so.
:With the possible exception of that issue I do not believe that my edits introduced a non-neutral point of view, in fact I suggest they moved the page toward a more neutral POV. As regards the comment "In fact almost no one outside the KFA shares this POV about the KFA." - Wikipedia articles are meant to be written with a neutral point of view, not the view of "almost no one outside the KFA" nor the viewpoint of western governments. Regards, Rugxulo 22:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bjornar: I did report the threats I received from Alejandro on the phone to the police, but they said that as he lives in another country and as there is no "proof" - I guess they mean taping the conversation, which is illegal anyway - then there is little they can do about it. They said they would take action if it was repeated, which it wasn't. Alex has also threatened a former employer of mine, a publisher, due to what he regarded as "factual inaccuracies" - this is despite the fact that he published an English translation of a book by Kim Jong-Il. Alex is a nasty little man and completely irrelevant, as is your KFA. It is little bigger than a village twinning organisation and serves the same function: visits and tours. I really don't understand why there is an entry on the organisation. I've noticed that Bjornar plays good cop to Alex's bad cop. I actually object to an entry on Alex, who is not worthy of an encyclopaedic entry.--Rugover 19:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article became again a copy of the KFA homepage 

message: I suggest the reference to the classified ad be removed since it is outside the scope of this article, which is about the KFA and not focusing on slander/name-calling. Also the way it is presented without any context explaining why it is important or relevant to know about should be sufficiant grounds for categorizing it as a violation of the NPA policy.
See WP:NPA#Examples
"Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. "
--195.159.86.62 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards the personal advert, I am inclined to think it is a forgery. It has been placed on a Hawaiian website, whereas Alejandro Cao is known to divide his time between Barcelona and the DPRK. It would be more logical for a gay man in Barcelona to place a personal ad on a local website, and in the local language (in the case of Barcelona, Catalan or Castilian Spanish). In addition many gay men use false names when posting personal ads, to guard against gay-bashers, blackmailers etc, and they also use separate email addresses.  Spain is a macho country and, outside the major cities, quite conservative, and these considerations would be uppermost in people's minds. However this advert is in Mr Cao's full name using a well known email address of his. For these reasons I suspect the advert is a forgery, sent to a website which doesn't validate email addresses in adverts, but as the site needs Java and I don't have any browsers with Java I am unable to try posting an advert. In any event I can't see the relevance of a person's sexuality to the matter in question which is the Korean Friendship Association. It does look as though the primary motivation for linking to this advert is a homophobic one. Rugxulo 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classified ad is a Personal attack / slander 

message: I suggest we change this section: The KFA literature condemns universally accepted allegations against the North Korean leadership and its economic conditions, and uses many common cliches that smack of North Korean Chauvinism; referring to Kim Jong-il as the "great leader" and discussing his brilliance, referring to the West as "imperialist", etc..
Now the KFA is being criticised for what it is, namely a pro-DPRK organization. I think this is a logical fallacity. You can say we don't agree with the universally accepted allegations such as labour camps and starvation, but nobody can hold it against us that we address our Leader in the correct way according to DPRK society norms and values, since these are the things we promote. I think the one who wrote this part can't accept that someone actually support the DPRK as opposed being purely against it. Also the word "cliché" is highly biased.
The section should be changed into The KFA does not recognize almost globally accepted allegations against the North Korean leadership and its economic conditions. Because it is a pro-DPRK organization it commonly uses the same phrasology as the KCNA and other North Korean institutions, referring to Kim Jong Il as the "Great leader", discussing his brilliance, referring to the West as "imperialist", and so on.
I am going to remove information on this page that is not sourced. If the KFA wants to describe itself on this page there must be sources. It is not appropriate however to use this page as a primary source in itself. Wiki users that are also KFA members cannot use their personal knowledge, even if correct, to post on wiki pages. All information must be have primary or secondary sources. So if you want the info to stay up then source it. As a compromise, I'll give you a few days to do this. But this page must adhere to wiki policy that all info is to be sourced. Get rid of all the 'west' and 'western' colloquialisms. I know there are critics of the kfa and the dprk from new zealand, which is east of the drpk. Thus some easterners would fall under this vague 'west/western' term that is an imprecise category. the word critic is more precise.
HarrySalmon 07:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulitiotism? 

message: I think I got kicked out of the KFA for posting a link to this article. They obviously don't like it.
:Not a surprise.  A2Kafir 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KFA 

message: :Image:Kfa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kfa.jpg

message: In my opinion, this article is not of encyclopaedic quality. Assertions are not backed up with references, which leads me to question the objectivity of the article, which appears quite negative in tone.
As far as I can see, the article needs a rewrite to be of any useful quality.  Timephoenix 10:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some info. Anyway, comparing the KFA to the British Council or the Alliance française appears far from negative in tone ! Wedineinheck 07:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Quality

message: In a netweeting on the KFA Forum on February 3, 2008, the following is uttered which I believe is of concern to Wikipedia and the editors concerned with the integrity of the present article in particular:
>>> Pensée Mao Zedong 毛泽东思想万万岁 <<< says:
Patrick >> Everyday I go to WIKIPEDIA and clean the articles concerning us, the KFA
Bjørnar Simonsen (Norway) ブジョルナル says:
We can only fight in spite of all the people who hates us. But you should learn to ignore wikipedia and use the time for KFA forum instead.
>>> Pensée Mao Zedong 毛泽东思想万万岁 <<< says:
Patrick >> as you see, the article on KFA in WIKIPEDIA does not contain anymore the section of "controversy"
Bjørnar Simonsen (Norway) ブジョルナル says:
Every second on wikipedia is another second lost for our KFA cause and for Kim Jong Il.
>>> Pensée Mao Zedong 毛泽东思想万万岁 <<< says:
Patrick >> I also cleaned the page about Alejandro dongji, people told lies...
Bjørnar Simonsen (Norway) ブジョルナル says:
It took me many years to learn to ignore wikipedia, as Alejandro can witness. 
__meco (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot there. It is well known that the KFA vandalise pages about North Korea, removing negative comments despite the fact that they are supported by evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.241.81 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is made up of a community, an internet community. Being the internet is extremely expensive in the DPRK, it is very difficult for citizens of the DPRK to voice their opinion on the internet. What gives it then the right for citizens of the USA to write according to their propaganda? It is not just the DPRK, it is also Russia v. Chechnya, Russia v. Georgia, Israel v Palestine, any country v africa, and any country v Afghanistan. This is not what I think Jimmy Wales intended on for Wikipedia being a "history book", because History is written by winners. The KFA is simply a voice and speaking out for the people of the DPRK, whom have every right as Americans do to defend their country and negative attacks. The point of Wikipedia is to have a neutral POV, not a bias POV. As I am sure you have read through the guidelines of Wikipedia, I recommend you re-read them again to ensure you know what Wikipedia is all about, becuase it is surely not a propaganda tool for Western/American governments. --Girdi (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause for vigilance 

message: Firstly whilst I am by no stretch of the imagination an apologist for communism or the Korean government it seems that some unreferenced commentary attacking the article's subject is getting through and although a lot of it may be accurate it is still not appropriate. Also - is this KFA even notable? --Tangola (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and notability

message: I deleted the link to a site selling a propaganda DVD. Its not Wikipedia's job to sell your products for you. Please link to articles and free information only. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.241.81 (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know which link you mean. Someone put it back. I didn't know Wikipedia allowed advertising for products either. I'm gonna go and put some links to my ebay items on some pages...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.160.249 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Isn't this a very clumsy section title? __meco (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, its because most of the previous stuff is added by the KFA themselves and doesn't really reflect the truth. The quote at the end of that section has the more accurate description of the FA. 92.11.8.243 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a totally unacceptable argument. If some sections are POV due to lax quality control doesn't justify attempting to rectify that by creating an opposite POV section. An article should definitely not polemicize against itself. __meco (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, but anytime people change it the KFA come and put their propaganda back on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.88.37 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other editors who keep an eye out of also. __meco (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Meco fully. And you are being more bias by setting your opposite POV which is highly unacceptable. I adjust the title to "KFA Criticism" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Also keep in mind those who think that this section is really "reality" really show their ignorance and know nothing at a--Girdi (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that your POV? ;) 92.23.11.192 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The KFA in Reality" 

message: As of November 16, 2008, a large number of the external links in this article do not seem to be working.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.245.55 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have  handy to mark off those. __meco (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I removed this insertion from the article:
UN special rapporteur on North Korean human rights, Vitit Muntarbhorn, reported to the 10th Session of the UN Human Rights Council on March 17, 2009 with what is said to be the most troubling account yet of the situation in the hermit kingdom. With adjectives like "grim", "dire" and "desperate", Muntarbhorn described vast malnutrition from constant food shortages as well as widespread instances of torture, collective punishment, state-controlled media, forced labor and more. this type of issue is ignored by the Korean Friendship Association.
This belongs in other articles about the DPRK. The comment relating this emerging information to the KFA also should not be voiced by an editor of Wikipedia, but only referred to coming via a reliable source. __meco (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed from article 

message: the KFA are clearly not a neutral organisation, this article portrays them as one in most circumstances. I have been banned from their website after I replied to an article denying there was a food crisis with "so if the UN stopped all aid, NK would be fine?"
Also, in the T&C of the website anything in the slightest not in total support of the country is deleted (really, read them yourself)
it was a simple question, and it has now been deleted. can someone please add this to the article in some way, as I am not good at writing articles myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.40.85 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're as biased as they come. They don't even let their own members talk freely anymore. Their website lost its forum and now only "approved" articles can be posted. It seems that fat Spanish guy has learned a lot from his corrupt North Korean masters. 92.22.55.1 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless some mainstream media reports on these conditions we cannot mention them. The reason for this is that one cornestone of Wikipedia's editing guidelines is no original research. It should be mentioned in the article that the forums have been closed and possibly the official reason given for this, if any. However, individuals' claims of bias and censorship is basically inapplicable until referenced by a reliable source. __meco (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong bias, oppression of anything rational 

message: Am I the only one unsettled by the fact that all the sources seem to be from the KFA itself? I'm not questioning the bias of the article, but the actual alignment of the KFA with KDPRK. Are they REALLY an organization doing what they say they are, or is it simply a scam for the owner to trick people out of 350 euros to attempt to travel to North Korea, only to receive the message "sorry, you're not allowed in, but we'll keep your money anyway"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bountyhunter219 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The legitimacy of the article? 

message: On a blog I find mention of a Spanish occultist who once vied for the leadership of the Ordo Templi Orientis, Gabriel Lopez de Rojas, who writes in the "January/February 2005 bulletin of the Korean Friendship Association, based in Catalonia, Spain, Rojas' homeland". Now, Bjørnar Simonsen, second in command of the KFA is a thelemite from my personal observations both in that he used to post 93 greetings on his Facebook profile in the past when I could access it, and also he brought one of Aleister Crowley's books with him to a meeting between him and myself in Oslo in January 2009. Obviously none of this is anyway near information that can be presented in this article. I am posting this, however, as a heads-up to interested editors to look out for more sources that could possibly corroborate this very peculiar connection. __meco (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to occultism 

message: I propose that Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les y Pérez be merged into Korean Friendship Association. I think that the content in the Alejandro article can easily be explained in the context of KFA, and the KFA article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Alejandro will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --S. Rich (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add that the idea came from an IP user comment on Cao's page.  See:  By merging, we eliminate the vanity article aspect of Cao's own particular BLP. --S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Keep separate.  At this time, I think there is enough in the separate articles to keep them as two distinct articles.  Cao de Benos has enough for his own BLP in his official capacity, and the KFA has many members, not just Cao de Benos.  If the Association were an alter ego, perhaps.  Saebvn (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: In two recent newspaper articles this individual is referred to as "communications director of the Korean Friendship Association in the US." I'm not quite sure what to infer from this about the level of activity and size of the KFA in that country, or on organizational structure. __meco (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Droll 

message: You have an incorrect website address . It has now changed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.25.141 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Address has changed 

message: The hacking of the KFA website and the shutdown of the KFA's server by the US government is not mentioned  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.25.141 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacking of KFA website not mentioned 

message: Isn't ironic that this wiki article which is basically slanderous was used as "evidence " in internal disciplinary procedures against a KFA official at his workplace , resulting  in him being forced out of his job. This article gives rise to 
victimisation , blacklisting and McCarthyite fingering . It is a disgrace  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.25.141 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article encourages McCarthyism and victimisation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Korean Friendship Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120527000542/news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=108987 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=108987
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified