Talk:Korean Friendship Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion discussion – 2004[edit]

Propaganda/advert for a website. — Bill 21:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Litter/advocacy. Geogre 02:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but correct the title case (I don't have administrator privileges and cannot do so. It's the official government cultural liaison agency for North Korea, basically North Korea's idea of the British Council or the Alliance Francaise. I'm doing a massive cleanup right now. --JuntungWu 04:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes you can; click on "Move" or "Move this page"; when you do, please read the instructions carefully. --Jerzy(t) 11:46, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 20:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Carr 18:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. clean up. Gwalla | Talk 19:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. clean up, add to it. Explain why it's important. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The KFA is a genuine organisation. Rugxulo 00:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Looks like North Korean press release[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks this article could appear on KCNA with little change? 22:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. This isn't biased enough to belong to the KCNA. I joined the KFA out of curiosity, and because I wanted to know more about ordinary North Korean people. What I got was the party line forced down my throat. All attempts to discuss things properly are stifled. Anyone posting moderate views is likely to be banned. Sometimes reading this article I felt as if it was being too kind to the KFA.

Why does someone think the article is taken from KCNA?[edit]

If you are unhappy with the article, why don't you edit it?

Adding more controversy[edit]

For people adding content, I remind everyone to follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding that everything added should be verifyable. I refer to the following document that supports my actions, and encourage everyone else to follow their principles:

Gossip should not belong on Wikipedia[edit]

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. -- 20:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's description of fascism, which is also a fitting description of North Korea.

" Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life. Many scholars consider "fascism" to be part of, or in coalition with, extreme right politics, however the definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves. There are clearly elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism.

Modern colloquial usage of the word has extended the definition of the terms fascism and neofascism to refer to any totalitarian worldview regardless of its political ideology, although scholars frown on this. Sometimes the word "fascist" is used as a hyperbolic political epithet.

Italian Fascism is often granted the capital "F", as it is the parent of generic fascism (small "f"). Italian Fascism is considered a model for other forms of fascism, yet there is disagreement over which aspects of structure, tactics, culture, and ideology represent a "fascist minimum" or core.

The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations:

- exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual. - stresses loyalty to a single leader. - uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to - forcibly suppress political opposition. - engages in severe economic and social regimentation. - engages in corporatism. - implements totalitarianism.

In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative..."

Mussolini, in a speech delivered on 1925-10-28, stated the following maxim that encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".) Therefore, he reasoned, all individuals' business is the state's business, and the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual. "

What does logic have to do with the truth?

^ Amen. M.C. Brown Shoes 28 June 2005 07:35 (UTC)

Wait... you aren't serious about North Korea NOT being fascist, are you? -Aguyuno (talk)


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)

NPOV removed[edit]

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


This article will never be balanced because you work for the KFA while others deplore what the KFA fails to grasp about North Korea and we both will continue to edit this article ad infinitum.

Negative attitude about NPOV?[edit]

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)


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)Reply[reply]

Alejandro "Cao de Benos" has sreamed death threats down the phone at me because I published an article on the famine in North Korea. He is nothing but a thug. Even the North Koreans recognise that. They don't treat the KFA or Alejandro seriously because they distrust foreigners. Alejandro's "medals" are nothing but tourist souvenirs and North Korean passports are like Dominican Republic citizenship or the Liberian flag of convenience; you can purchase them if you pay the price. His North Korean citizenship means he was mad enough to fork out money, but he will never have a position in that country's society. The KFA portrays itself as something more than it really is. It is not a diplomatic mission or a formal body of the North Korean state, but a collection of losers, fanatics and thugs. It does not even have a North Korean-hosted website. The only proof they have of an association with North Korea is a few holiday snaps and hand-shakes with minor officials. If you can show me a picture of Alejandro with Kim Jong-Il, then I'll know that he's important. But there isn't one and I believe that Kim Jong-Il hasn't even heard of the man. If Wikipedia can publish this article, then will it allow me to publish something on my local Neighbourhood Watch? --Rugover

"Critics say..."[edit]

  • 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)Reply[reply]

In this case "critics" refers to basically the whole of society outside the KFA's close circle of lunatics. M.C. Brown Shoes 21:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

This article is a mess and a half[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Accuracy dispute: Simonsen/Carter correspondence[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

This article became again a copy of the KFA homepage[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Let people choose what to believe, says the North Korea supporter. Oh the fucking irony. M.C. Brown Shoes 06:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


Source for the Carter/Simonsen correspondence: Also, this webpage proves that is Alejandro's personal email address. This is the same email address that is on the personal classified ad that was posted by someone who identified himself as Alex from Spain. This should remove any reasonable doubt.

Reagarding the phone threat, Bjornar is going over the top. If someone says that Alejandro threatened him on the phone the someone doesn't have to provide a police report in order to sufficiently source their claim. They can say they were threatened by Alejandro in something as simple as a blog and then provide a link on wikipedia. and if alejandro claims differently and is upset by the allegation then he can pursue the matter civilly through the courts-western ones, by the way.

as to the issue of npov, i kinda agree with bjornar. the kfa says alot and just becuz you disagree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted here. However, for all of the kfa's propaganda there is also a substantial body of propaganda that slams the KFA as nothing but a bunch of hubristic/self-interested north korean running dogs, revisionists, toadies to the world's most despotic regime, heartless monsters who refute the first-hand testimony of those who were brave and strong enough to escape the DPRK.

I believe that for NPOV to be reached each claim made by the KFA, ie "We are a non-profit organization called the Korean Friendship Association who works for understanding of the North Korean culture" should be followed up with its counter, ie "The KFA, ie Alejandro, receives tens of thousands of euros to let people into NK while attempting to indoctrinate such visitors with the theories of kim jong il, kim il sung and the Workers Party of Korea line of propaganda". Both statements are true and the pro-kfa and anti-kfa sides both have a say.

Neither statement is neutral though, which leads me to think that NPOV should be changed to BPOV - Balanced -- at least for wikipedia entries on biases entities, such as the KFA, or the GOP, or any other political party.

HarrySalmon 07:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It actually proves that it is, or was, his email address. Do you deny this? HarrySalmon 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classified ad is a Personal attack / slander[edit]

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. "

-- 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attack!!! You make it sound like there's something wrong with being gay! A person's sexuality is not an issue unless that person is public with it - such as in Alejandro's case. Alejandro runs, admins and created the KFA. Perhaps the relevancy of the ad is that KFA membership is overwhelming male. It's not slander or name calling. The link is to a site "About a KFA Person" and it fits the title of the section, that's why the link is there. If it was not Alejandro then he should make a public statement that the post was not by him and then the issue of this post will cease.HarrySalmon 19:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Alejandro didn't start the KFA until 2000. The ad is from 1999. Alejandro should comment about this and clear the air.

The ad is pathetic in itself, notwithstanding its homosexual nature. If it were a hetero ad you can be sure I would add it to the listing of links "About KFA persons" because it adds another dimension to the body of knowledge about that particular person, in this case the president of the KFA. That other dimension is that the person is lame enough to make such postings. For example, if this wiki page were about, let's says Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatistas, and it was found that he had a hetero classified ad on some pathetic personal website then such an ad would be liable to turn up on a wiki page about the zapatistas or subcomandante marcos himself.

Your homophobic speculation is rooted in a worldview that making an issue of one's homosexuality causes unease. The world I live in would mock someone because they were sad enough to make the advertisement online, not because it has anything to do with homosexuality. HarrySalmon 06:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compare for yourself the body of information on the Web about the KFA and see what the general conclusion about this association is.

Moreover, "In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view."

In my opinion, North Korea is a totalitarian state. This is a majority view. The KFA is a group which describes itself as offering an understanding of the DPRK that is totally dominant within the DPRK: this is the minority view, even though it is the vast majority in the DPRK.

The majority view of the KFA is best captured in the Asia Times "Useful Idiots" article:

"The KFA indicates clearly that they enjoy the "support and endorsement" of the Northern regime - Kim Jong-il certified. The group's activities include "information" seminars where the enlightened benevolence of Kim's rule is championed, all part of its "alternative" view of the North. The ragged wretched displays of poverty and starvation are edited out and the voice of North Koreans not in the direct employ of Kim Jong-il are conspicuously absent. In place of uncomfortable reality, the KFA offers vacation photos of "their" North Korea taken during recent, state supported visits, complete with bowling, golf, amusement parks and Karaoke with young female party members. Members write glowing pieces, oblations celebrating Kim Jong-il's wise rule. No starving people, torture, summary execution, penury or despair in the Korean Friendship Association's North Korea. Just golf, great meals and evenings in the company of Kim Jong-il's beauties."

Yet, this is not what the viewer sees on the KFA page. And this is why I am arguing that the KFA wiki page is biased to make the minority point of view in favour of the KFA and the DPRK seem like the majority POV. I am going to add this above quote into the Purpose section to help fix this.

And I agree with Bjornar that an experienced wikipedian who hasn't yet worked on this page should offer their perspective on this page and this discussion.

HarrySalmon 07:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Carter email is relevant because it shows just how much of a clown outfit the KFA really is. Respectable associations of "friendship" don't get accused of slandering an ex-high ranking member as Carter was. Obviously KFA Int'l Counsellor Bjornar does not want this correspondence to see the light of day because he wants to keep all depictions of the KFA sweet and rosy and adhering to the party line. It doesn't matter that Carter or Bjornar don't want to see this correspondence made public. It happened, it's authentic and it provides insight into the internal machinations of the KFA. If Carter and Bjornar don't want their correspondence to be public then next time they should think twice before CCing it to dozens of people. And why doesn't Bjornar embrace the spirit of free speech, upon which wikipedia is built, and provide the context and related emails on this subject? And by the way, the use of the word 'West' on this page denigrates the word to mere jargon. I would expect wiki contributors to at least have a decent grasp of the English language before contributing. Go work on a norweigan kfa wiki page until you pass some esl courses. HarrySalmon 01:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Bjornar on this one, I doubt the KFA cares about your race or gender as long as they have a foreigner to tout as supportive of the regime. But just out of interest: are there any women in the KFA? M.C. Brown Shoes 12:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there are at least a few women in the KFA. I've seen some posts to the KFA forum by members with female names.(Non-members have unlimited reading access to the forum, but posting is restricted to members). Mike1981 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Well, the truth hurts sometimes. I joined out of curiosity myself, and I was kicked out too for my more moderate views. In a discussion on Western "propaganda" I said it was silly to think the DPRK told the truth all the time. Hey presto, next day my password wouldn't work. I suppose it may be an odd coincidence. =)

There was an article in the winter issue of 2600 about how to hack the KFA online store, and lo and behold the store is now down. Anonymous

Fair use rationale for Image:Kfa.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Article Quality[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Cause for vigilance[edit]

In a netweeting on the KFA Forum on February 3, 2008[1], 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)Reply[reply]

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 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

POV and notability[edit]

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)Reply[reply]


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 (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The KFA in Reality"[edit]

Isn't this a very clumsy section title? __meco (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
LOL, but anytime people change it the KFA come and put their propaganda back on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are other editors who keep an eye out of also. __meco (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)ll.Reply[reply]
Is that your POV? ;) (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

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 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have {{dead link}} handy to mark off those. __meco (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text removed from article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Strong bias, oppression of anything rational[edit]

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 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

The legitimacy of the article?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a legitimate organization as far as tourism and it being endorsed by the DPRK goes. Look up "Friends of Kim" on Youtube, it's a particularly notorious visit. The actions of their members however are not necessarily endorsed by the DPRK, which can again be seen in "Friends of Kim" when, near the end, a Korean woman notes that a not-so-nice action by Alejandro was decided by himself only, and that the Koreans had nothing to do with it. --Mrdie (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connection to occultism[edit]

On a blog[2] 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)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No merger. The lack of support for the proposal as well as low input activity does not provide sufficient mandate for the proposed merger. __meco (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I will add that the idea came from an IP user comment on Cao's page. See: [3] By merging, we eliminate the vanity article aspect of Cao's own particular BLP. --S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martin Droll[edit]

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.[4][5] __meco (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Website Address has changed[edit]

You have an incorrect website address . It has now changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hacking of KFA website not mentioned[edit]

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 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Article encourages McCarthyism and victimisation[edit]

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 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]