Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk

Criticism

In a previous discussion, I raised the issue of lack of corroboration. I was accused of breaking Wikipedia rules, and was challenged to produce a source. Now when I find a source, my edit is changed beyond recognition. Perhaps I should be thankful it wasn't just deleted, but I guess that will come.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what you wrote:

Felix Abt, a businessman who has lived in North Korea, commented that Shin's story was blindly accepted at face value even though there was no way of verifying it. Abt pointed out that Shin had changed his story over time.

Felix Abt says almost none of that about Shin. You think he did, but a close reading does not show that. Abt's book is offline but in discussing Shin in another source Abt says:

The stories these authors tell are indeed heart-wrenching. Journalist Blaine Harding, formerly at the Washington Post, wrote a biography of Shin Dong Hyuk in the 2012 book "Escape from Camp 14." Shin was a famous defector born and raised into the brutal environment of a labor camp from where he later escaped. Unfortunately, there's a big flaw. The defector initially presented his story differently from what he later told to the author. Harden acknowledges in his book that the defector lied to him about his experiences, but decided to believe him anyway.

So now we now what Felix is getting at. Harden did acknowledge that Shin initially didn't tell his full horrible story. That issue is already addressed in the article (see second sentence of the "Books" sub-section about his mother's death). Shin didn't so much "lie" as he found it difficult to confide in Blaine initially on a sensitive personal matter: Shin was responsible for the death of his own mother and brother. That's how Blaine describes it, but Felix frames Shin as a "liar" and a "big flaw". -- GreenC 02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Abt is a biased source with a financial interest, who worked for Kim Jong-un for God's sake!! Obviously the story Shin Dong Hyuk had to tell was not easy, and who could admit to everything on the first go, including his role in his mother and brother's deaths??!! Quis separabit? 03:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say what the book says without reading it. This is what it says:

Not all defectors are making up their stories, and many of their terrible experiences are true. But some academics and authors seem to blindly accept all stories at face value, especially when they stem from North Korean defectors, even though there's no way to verify them.

This is true with the biography of one defector, Shin Dong Hyuk, a man born and raised in a labor camp from which he later escaped. Washington Post journalist wrote his story in the book Escape from Camp 14, published in 2012. The problem was that he initially presented his story differently from how he told it later. The "insight", of course, isn't entirely true.[p 118, my bolding]

Now, I would agree that this could more clearly expressed. But I think my edit did reflect Abt's comment. He makes similar comments about journalistic methods elsewhere is the book. I consider it a valid point, and the fact that Abt was a businessman in North Korea does not invalidate his point of view. On the contrary, it makes him qualified to comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: "the fact that Abt was a businessman in North Korea does not invalidate his point of view. On the contrary, it makes him qualified to comment" -- if that is your view and your opinion you are entitled to hold it. Obviously I disagree.
However -- and I haven't read Abt's comments -- what other reason(s) would Shin (and so many others) have for fleeing or attempting to flee the Kim Jongian paradise?
Is there any concrete evidence that Shin's story is so untrue as to merit his having been denied asylum (in South Korea, where the people are hardly ignorant about the North)?
Having formerly worked (at an extremely low level) at a branch of the US federal government (no details), I can say that people have applied for asylum who told stories which had discrepancies or could not be 100% confirmed. Sometimes the grant of relief was denied and a higher board or panel granted upon review, and sometimes not.
I am not saying Abt should be ignored, but his comments must be put in proper perspective as well as his own possible interests, and added in proportion to Shin's article. Shin's story remains essentially unimpeached, IMO. Sometimes one person (Abt) can be right and everyone else wrong, but in my half-century on this earth, it seems that occurs relatively rarely. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Allright I guess we have to include something about the difficulty of verifying the stories of NK defectors since it's in a "reliable" source though I'm not happy with this source for reasons noted by Quis separabit?, Abt is not the best source for this type of thing, but it's framed correctly as his opinion so there it is. I'm opposed to using the same language as Abt ("blindly accept all stories at face value") which would be POV in Wikipedia (and plagerism), it's reworded neutrally without loosing the meaning. -- GreenC 17:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Shin would have had to apply for asylum as such. My understanding is that all North Koreans are considered citizens of the Republic of Korea, and South Koreans citizens of the DPRK.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But let's look at what Blaine Harden actually wrote:

[p 55] Shin was so shocked by the news [that his mother and brother had been caught trying to escape] that he found it difficult to speak...

"No, I really didn't know," Shin said...

[p 56] This was the story that Shin told when he arrived in South Korea in the late summer of 2006. He told it consistently, he told it often and he told it well...

After the NIS [South Korea's National Intelligence Service], Shin told his story to counsellors and psychiatrists..., then to human rights activists and fellow defectors, and then to the local and international news media. He wrote about it in his 2007 Korean-language memoir...

There was, of course, no way to confirm what he was saying. Shin was the only available source of information about his early life...

[p 57] On a cloudless morning...Shin revisited and revised the story...

Shin said he had been lying about his mother's escape. He invented the lie just before arriving in South Korea...

[p 58] He wanted to explain - in a way that he acknowledged would damage his credibility as a witness - how the camp had warped his character.

So did Shin lie? Yes, he did. He was either lying initially or he lied in revising the story, or both.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Still no answer???--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And now Shin has admitted to lying again. See reference in the article. His credibility is really collapsing.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

Just wondering how they established his date of birth, or even the year. Obviously he has no birth certificate. Quis separabit? 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well there are many people without official records who know their own age. If he was claiming to the world's oldest person or something a birth certificate might matter but his stated age seems reasonable. The guards might have even told him (school ends at a certain age in the camp etc). In fact I remember something along those lines in Harden's book, at some point he stopped school and went into the fields to work. -- GreenC 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I get that he might know his own age (at least roughly), and certainly a birth certificate is not going to be available. But how does he know the exact date of birth is 19 November? Quis separabit? 21:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And what about his original name? His parents apparently weren't married. Whose surname did he take? Did his mother or father give him a name or was this name just generally accepted?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Quis separabit, his mother was alive in his living memory, they lived together, she could have told him on his birthday. I don't know how he arrived at a surname but since NK is such an extreme patriarchal society it would seem logical he take the father's name. None of it is "official" in the sense of legal documents or requirement for marriage.. this was a slave labor camp where people are bred, often by the guards. Not even sure if they officially had names, or numbers, need to recheck the book. -- GreenC 16:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Further:

• He was born Shin In Geun and his father's name is/was Shin Gyung Sub, so I guess that makes sense given the Korean language/naming systems. The name was later changed to Shin Dong-hyuk after he left North Korea.
• "Not even sure if they officially had names, or numbers" - I seem to recall, when browsing through the book, that Shin said the guards called the women "bitches" and their children "sons of bitches" (and presumably "daughters of bitches"). Quis separabit? 00:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

An extreme patriarchal society??? Where does that come from??? Would an extreme patriarchal society train all its women in the use of AK47s??? Does the truth matter to you at all???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according to Harden, his parents were married. His elder brother, Shin He Geun, was born in 1974. In Geun and He Geun grew up with their parents in a house in a village in Camp 14, and went to primary and secondary school. I agree this is rather incongruous, but that is Harden's version of the facts (pp 7-8, 23-24, 35, 38, 60).--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition

I'm not sure I like the recent addition. We're supposed to write in prose, not list format. And much in that list is already written in prose format in his biography, it's a repeat of the same stuff - in a list - in the middle of the text. Also calling it "human rights violation" is POV, that's a specific term with legal meaning, I doubt 60-minutes can make that determination. I suggest that any new material be incorporated into his biography in prose format, while maintaining the chronology of events, and not repeating the same stuff with slightly different wording. -- GreenC 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a list of human rights violations, hence the list format. That said, I think that this list is appropriate for the article, as it goes into details that were not specifically mentioned in the text beforehand.

Also, that is not POV, as these are really violations of set human rights conventions, but that's debatable ("atrocities" is more POV). I'd also planned to wikilink to Human rights in North Korea, within the text that is now deleted, to show how these actions were similar to the human rights conventions that NK follows, or doesn't. Epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I ask we maintain the biography section as a chronological prose biography, and not make it into a platform. Yes he suffered terrible violations according to certain legal conventions, many details of which are in his biography. When the article over-emphasizes and repeats these things it comes across like the article has an agenda. -- GreenC 12:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I thought it was relevant, but it probably belongs in North Korean prison camp articles instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

References

All the references to Harden's book are to page 224. This is obviously wrong. I will attempt to fix what I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this; I've been meaning to do this for a long time and never got around to it. You may consider either having each reference as a separate entry, such as "Harden, p. 12." and "Harden, p. 14.", or use Template:Rp and have the page numbers in superscript after each citation (which I would prefer). It looks like from the section below that you don't own a physical copy, so if you're unsure about something I can help as I have both the hard and paperback versions of the book. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For various reasons I'll have to pass this task on to someone else. I believe every footnote should stand alone. It's neater and easier on readers and editors. But that's just my opinion. I guess we should also aim for a standard edition...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I might try to do it over the holidays and use the hardback as a reference. Once that's done, we can focus on the neutrality issues and getting it to be a high-quality article overall. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can reborrow the library book if that helps, but I don't want to get involved in an endless edit war. If you are unsure of what my references refer to, let me know and I will try to explain.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Very Problematic

This article is very problematic and unreliable.

1. In his book, Harden states there is no corroboration for Shin's story, and that, in fact, Shin was repeatedly lying in previous accounts (see above - Criticism section). Even if this lie is put aside, there seem to be major discrepancies between the story as told by Harden and other published accounts.
2. Harden's book is the key published source, but he is not reliable. He makes not attempt to address Shin's credibility problems. He includes very few footnotes and frequently makes wild claims. For example, he claims that North Korea does not have a functioning electricity grid, and that the cities used to have their own generators powered by cheap Soviet oil. He states that, "There is not enough power in the country even to keep the lights on in Pyongyang, where the government tries to pamper the elite" (p 89). This is false, and furthermore it shows he doesn't even understand electricity.
3. The editors who wrote this article have cherry-picked Harden and the sources in order to write a horror story. For example, until I edited it, the article didn't say Shin's parents were married. It didn't mention that he went to school. Etc. In the case of Felix Abt mentioned above, editors deliberately falsified references to suit their preconceived agenda.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, my recent edits based on Harden's text were destroyed by some self-righteous, dishonest self-appointed editor calling her or himself Green Cardamon. My edits were utterly justified by the text. The text referred to use of tractors. This is mechanised farming. The text referred to a hydro-electric dam being constructed to serve the camp. The text referred to prisoners working in mines. The text said that Shin was unaware of the famine. The text made several references to the abundance of food. The text supported everything I said. However, this doesn't fit the agenda being pushed by this page. QED.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And then the edits attempt to deny that Shin was lying, even though this is extensively documented in Harden's book. This article is itself a lie.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article essentially relies on a single book and the dubious and often self-inconsistent and unprovable narrative of the person whom the article is actually about. It very much needs to be rewritten with a wider variety of sources and far more neutrally than its current state. There are many possible other sources which provide a different story, but many of these are from the DPRK's embassy in Moscow, the Korean Friendship Association etc. and very likely have a bias as well. HerrGeisterhuhnmann (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's already in the article, the official story from the DPRK is that "Shin worked in a mine and fled North Korea after being accused of raping a 13 year-old girl." No one outside of DPRK believes that story. Meanwhile every expert that has looked at the case believes Shin's version of events. What your missing is there is a majority opinion about Shin, and the article reflects that majority opinion POV. There are multiple POVs in the article but their weight and credibility is reflected by consensus per the sources. Also this "single book" isn't just a book, it's his official biography, of course the article relies on his testimony since the DPRK is a secretive state there won't be much forthcoming from other sources. Personal opinions and original research by Wikipedia editors not withstanding. -- GreenC

Okay, this is fair enough. The current article best reflects current knowledge and the majority opinion. In this case, it is not about veracity, since that cannot be firmly established, but rather what can be definitively cited. Whatever the "truth" is, is unimportant at the moment. What matters most is citations and well-sourced references, which this article has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerrGeisterhuhnmann (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I own an electronic copy of the book so it's trivial to search for words:

1. "Tractor" only appears in the first sentence of chapter 10 and only says that one was used to bring food to the workers. It says nothing about mechanized farming, and in fact says in other places the work is done manually - with slave labor. It's a slave labor camp.
2. The word "dam" appears in multiple places and nowhere does it says it was built to serve the camp. It is adjacent to the camp partly because that was were the slave labor was available to build it. Elsewhere it says the dam was part of national effort to provide hydro-electric power to the country, and to power nearby factories. There's also lengthy discussions of Shin's difficulties at the dam and worker deaths when building. It's a slave labor camp.
3. "the abundance of food", the word "abundance" doesn't appear anywhere in the text in relation to food. It was lack of food that inspired Shin to risk his life to escape.
4. "unaware of the famine", Shin was unaware of anything outside the camp. Furthermore it's evident in many places that Shin was living in famine-like conditions most of the time anyway famine or not.
5. The only "lie" Shin told is well documented in the article, regarding his mother, and the reason he told this lie.

-- GreenC 15:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a copy to hand any more, so I can't produce full quotations at the moment, but I do have notes. I would suggest that if you argue I am misrepresenting the text, you could reproduce in full the passage which I have misrepresented. I note that you have neglected to explain or justify your bizarre and biased edits.

1. So we agree (from Harden's account) that the "camp" has tractor(s). Hence it is mechanised. This can also be gleaned from the satellite images. They do not look like hand-hoed furrows.

2. According to my notes, on page 88, Harden discusses a hydro-electric dam being built to serve the camp on the Taedong River in 1998. As I said, Harden doesn't understand electrical power. You wouldn't build a dam merely to serve a prison camp. However, this is what he says. As discussed above, he states that the regime can't supply electricity to Pyongyang (p 89). But he also says that the camp has an extensive electrified fence strong enough to kill a man (p 30 etc) and that a cell in the underground prison within the camp has an electric light (p 66). Your statement about "manual labour" defies all logic. You cannot operate mines purely with your hands, i.e., no digging machines, explosives, pumps, lights etc!!! And the book frequently mentions prisoners working in mines (e.g., p 38). Moreover, why would Shin be taught the 3 Rs (pp 7-8 35, 38) if he is purely carrying out slave manual labour??? By Harden's description, the "camp" is clearly an agricultural-industrial complex. As the article says, Shin's father is said to work in a machine shop. Have you read the book?

3. & 4. My reference is to page 30. The famine did not affect the camp. There are several points in which Harden describes the variety of food crops grown in the camp. If you read the book you will find plenty. He also discusses his mother's cooking, etc.

5. So we agree that (according to Harden), Shin lied repeatedly to many people. His motives are not in question. His credibility is. How do you know he is telling the truth now? As Harden said, there is no corroboration of his story (p 56). As often said, the story is "incredible", i.e. has no credibility. QED.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you have a copy of the book? Your account has been trying for over a year to discredit this article and Blaine's book. More than a year ago it was suggested to get a copy of the book, and now finally you have it, but don't have it - just notes on the positive aspects of the camp and pages numbers. Strange. If you don't have the book it's pointless to discuss a contentious source based on memory and notes. Furthermore your page numbers don't match my page numbers, you're using a different edition of the book so if I quote page numbers, you won't be able to know what I'm talking about. Since you're the one trying to add information from the book, how about obtain a copy of the book and quote sections, or reference chapter#+paragraph# (or first few words of a paragraph + chapter#), and then we can see what the book is saying as a whole and not cherry picking certain sentences here and there to support original conclusions. The book never calls it an 'agricultural industrial complex'. Even if they work with machinery they are still slaves and treated as such (our article discusses the sewing machine incident). The book never says Shin's credibility is in question. That is your interpretation, you question his credibility. -- GreenC 15:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I borrowed the book from a library, took notes, edited the page, and then returned it. I don't think you need page numbers if you have an electronic copy. The book isn't very long anyway. Just skim through it. Or read it. You have read it, haven't you???!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we are, more than a year into this discussion. You have spent countless hours of your time, yet you still have not obtained a copy of the book. It's sold in the millions available on the used market for next to nothing. Amazon.com shows it for $4 + shipping. Or maybe you live somewhere it's hard to obtain. Maybe your bureau library has such a short checkout period you had to return it almost the same day you posted. What is your library check out period? Have you considered other editors will be challenging your edits in the future. Do you plan to check the book out from the library every time someone brings up problems with the citations? If you're going to make controversial edits you should get a copy of the book, one that you own. I suggest an ebook so you can search on words and copy-paste passages. -- GreenC 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that Shin "lied repeatedly" or that his story is "incredible". Shin has initially not told the truth about one fact, his mother's escape. All the rest is just your personal interpretation. Human rights organizations, e. g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and so on, and also the United Nations Commission of Inquiry believe Shin's report. And Shin's report is consistent with reports by other former prisoners about other prison camps. I don't know why you want to discredit Shin's testimony, but there is reason for this. -- Gamnamu (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me?! Why would I buy a book that I think is trash??? The statement that Shin lied repeatedly is taken from the book. Extensive quotation given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a controversy sub section with a cited press release Blaine Harden officially released on January 17, 2015, per his conversation with Shin, retracting or correcting some of Shin's confessed inaccuracies along with a cited Washington Post article based on info Shin gave. Petsmartstar (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is now even more problematic because (if reports can be believed) we have:

• Harden admitting he was taken in by a liar (again) and his account was false on numerous counts, but nevertheless, possibly because of his vested interests in keeping his reputation as a journalist intact, asserting that the gist of Shin's account must be true. No real evidence is provided. Harden says he will release a new book, but why should we believe it is more accurate than the two (or more?) previous books about Shin, which Shin now admits (apparently) were not true.
• Shin admitting he was lying again, and giving no clear explanation as to why.
• The alleged "vetting" procedures by South Korean intelligence, human rights activists, UN commissars, etc, have obviously failed to detect these lies.
• Certain Wikipedia editors refuse to apologise or even hold back and continue to distort facts and carry on as if nothing has happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If the sources change than there is nothing to be sorry about. Most sources are still saying Shin is credible, so your contention that he is not credible is still unsupported by secondary sources. What we have to do is wait and see what the sources say, and not sit here and judge based on personal opinion that since he lied he is not credible. People can lie and still be considered credible, people will look at the motive for the lie, what was lied about and what wasn't lied about. The other thing is the story now involves places outside the total control zones, as well as in China, so corroborating evidence should be more available. For example it was some other escapees who saw problems in his original story because they knew his parents or something from a different camp. Harden of course will be under a lot of pressure to provide additional corroborating evidence for his early life. -- GreenC 15:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Which source says Shin is credible??? He has now told two different versions of his supposed life story, and admitted he has lied repeatedly to many people (including the heroic dudes who supposedly "vetted" his false and dishonest story). A proven liar is not credible, by definition. I have added another source, an article by Andrei Lankov which discusses this issue, so you can stop your character assassination of poor Felix Abt. I think the problem with the article will deepen if Harden doesn't produce a new book, for whatever reasons. Then the article will be based on a single, discredited source. And you don't think that's problematic... Which doesn't say much for your credibility.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag dispute

The use of the NPOV tag in this article by Jack Upland has not been satisfactorily justified. Am I alone in believing this? Or is there consensus for a NPOV tag on this article. -- GreenC 18:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please leave it for now. Generally speaking, the NPOV tag should be left until consensus is reached, and only in extreme situations should the tag be removed with objection.

Per the discussion under the "References" section above, I plan on revising the citations for the Harden book and looking at neutrality from there. It might be worth noting that neither the hardcover nor paperback versions have 224 pages, yet all Harden sources reference this page for some reason. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a somewhat extreme situation. Tony, Upland has been trying to add a NPOV tag to this article for over a year. Review the talk archives. He comes and goes, each time with similar logical fallacies that misread the source and rarely gets consensus. It has been going on for years. Also, prior to Upland, there was another editor who made similar logical fallacies, it ended up at ANI after which that editor has disappeared from Wikipedia. If you want to verify this article, no problem. However, the NPOV tag can't stay for long, it holds the article hostage and there has been no justification for it beyond Upland's continual original (mis)interpretations of the source.

BTW all page numbers were added by Upland in his recent edits. Attempts to verify the page numbers left me confused. If you would like to agree on a book edition ISBN, I will be happy to work with you to add page numbers for every sentence that uses Harden's book as a ref. I own the Epub ebook which is preferred for searching and cutting pasting text, it has page numbers, but will buy a book if needed. Let me know which edition of the book you have if you're serious about working together to verify the article and I will buy that edition. - GreenC 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the NPOV issue is a red herring. The much bigger issue is the lack of correct and diverse (i.e., besides Harden's book) citations and the lack of development in the article. My recommendation is to first fix the citations using the hardcover book as a source for page numbers, then add high quality content as appropriate using a variety of sources, and then get a peer review for feedback on the article generally as well as the NPOV issue from a third-party who isn't likely to be familiar with Shin and thus unbiased. They could then say whether the article is neutral or not, and if it is in fact neutral we could then remove the NPOV tag. Overall, the article itself should be the focus, not the banner on top.

I also corrected the ISBN number in the Further reading section to the hardcover one, as the previous one didn't match either book. I own both the hardcover and paperback versions and verified it there. I'm not sure about your electronic version, but if it matches the hardcover one, you can verify it using that version. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Epub Chapter 10 starts on page 75. Does this match either the hardcover or paperback edition? -- GreenC 03:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It matches the hardcover, which is good. However, I've fixed the references already using the print version. Luckily, it only took a couple hours to fix all of them, which was much quicker than I anticipated. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is heading in the right direction, but I stand by my comments about its problematic nature (which have never been answered). I object to the attitude that Harden's book is a reputable source. But even more I object to the attitude that Harden's book is a reputable source only when references can be cherry-picked to suit a particular war-mongering agenda. I gave extensive quotations from the book about Shin lying. Was I wrong??? Was I mistaken??? Hello??? Anybody there??? Hello??? No, the book is the only source, but any information that doesn't support the phony cause (the human rights of kiddies to be bombed) must be suppressed by any means available. I should be glad I haven't been assassinated by some teenager in a raincoat.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's crazy bombastic talk. Nothing in the article remotely approaches a "war-mongering agenda". Regarding "Shin lying", the only thing is about his mother, which we already cover in too much detail in the criticism section. You've cherry the pick the word "lie" and applied it to Shin's entire life story, rather than just the one aspect about his mother the book discussed. Furthermore your inconsistent, one moment saying Harden's book is unreliable, the next moment quoting Harden's book as evidence to support a point. -- GreenC 13:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tony, excellent work with the citations. That really needed to be done, and good to know the Epub matches the hardcover, thank you. In regards to diversity of sources: Harden's book is Shin Dong-hyuk's official biography. He only told his story in full to one journalist (besides an earlier book in Korean, snippets to the press and classified secret testimony). He has a book contract. This is normal. For example the 33 Chilean miners told their story to 1 journalist and there is only 1 official biography. Many articles on Wikipedia rely on official biographies when that is the main source for the life of a person(s). At this point it's probably the most reliable source for details about Shin's life in Korea we have. We also have some other sources, but Harden is the touchstone. Maybe the next step would be to look at Harden's footnotes and bring some of those in. -- GreenC 13:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. There's already some diversity regarding sources, but any other news articles or publications would be good additions. Fixing the Harden references was quite a bit of work for one article, but I'll try to keep working on the article as it still has a lot of room for improvement.

Also, on a minor point, I added a British English tag to the top of this talk page. It seems that the article uses that standard, including "Honours" in a section heading, so we should make sure to stick to that. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an old legal principle: false in one thing, false in everything. Of course, this doesn't mean Shin is lying in everything. If you believe the North Korean government, his father is living in North Korea. But if he lied repeatedly, he's not reliable. And he did lie repeatedly. Again according to Hardin. As I've said, this article is problematic as it relies on a single source, Shin as told to Hardin, and neither of those are reliable, as has been amply demonstrated. Green Cardamom, you are correct in pointing out the paradox, but what can I do? Harden appears to be the only source, and his book appears to be nonsense. I am not deleting the stuff you and others have selected from Hardin's text (and other accounts): I am adding in the other stuff. It is you and your lot who are cherry-picking, not me. Complain if and when I start deleting stuff about people being killed etc. It's never going to happen. But I think the kiddoes have a right to know about Shin's alleged secondary education. And, yeah, I think the whole story is a lot of bull, but that's just my opinion. This is a man who changes his name and changes his story, as told to a man who doesn't understand electricity. As I said above: very problematic. Unfortunately, as reliable as Wikipedia might aspire to be, it can never be more reliable than reality. And as for killing children, if you think I'm being bombastic, why don't you and your stupid buddies stop doing it. Do everyone a favour. And then you can write about it on Wikipedia and impress your friends.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you say "he's not reliable" because he lied about his mother initially, then that would invalidate not only Harden's book but any source that relies on his word, which is pretty much everything about him. Unless we base the entire article off of a guard's testimony or something along those lines, everything up to his escape (at least) will rely on what you consider to be unreliable source(s).

As you said before, this article is heading in the right direction, and I think we should keep the momentum going instead of arguing endlessly on the talk page. It might be better to just keep improving the article, using sources other than Harden if available, and allow a peer review to determine NPOV and source reliability. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So STOP saying that. Practice what you preach! It's Harden who calls Shin a liar. Read the book!!! There's no point having correct page numbers if you're distorting the source!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't say what you think it does. -- GreenC 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okaaaaayyyy, because when I quoted the text, you didn't disagree. I put the book to my ear, asked a few questions, but it stayed stumm. I don't get it!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Parallel

There seems a parallel with the case of Park Yeon-mi.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are in fact some parallels, as both hail from North Korea and have been active in the human rights realm. Park has also garnered a decent amount of attention recently. Her Wikipedia page is still in its infancy and was written by someone who isn't a native English speaker, although I've tried to spruce it up a bit. Feel free to do the same if you are able. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote

Quote by Shin might be something to include, or possibly in another article:

"If you even mention the words 'political prison camp' in North Korea, you are hauled off to prison," Shin told an audience at a film screening in Seoul on Tuesday. "But people who have lived comfortable lives in capitalism often go to the North and come back saying it's not such a bad place." [1]

-- GreenC 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've never said that. But do we need more quotes from this liar???--Jack Upland (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excessive tagging

Everything in the article is well sourced so if you're going to insist on a tag then you will need to support it by listing what is factually inaccurate ie. which facts in the cited sources are not supported by the cited sources. That doesn't mean original research drawing on other sources to disagree with the cited sources, that is a separate issue and now what the factual accuracy tag is for. -- GreenC 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a comment by User:HerrGeisterhuhnmann that is buried in the "Very Problematic" section above but basically says that the article needs more references other than Harden, similar to what User:Jack Upland has been saying. I believe Step 1 should be to assemble a list of good references that have not already been used in this article and then go from there in writing and rewriting the article as needed to ensure reliability and NPOV. This is always difficult with subject matter like this, but will be easier once a bibliography is laid out first.

Here are a couple of references (tags removed) that were in the lead section in the past, but I removed these as the facts are already elsewhere and I wanted to avoid references in the lead. I wouldn't use these in the article, but want to mention them in case someone runs by them again.

• cite web|url=http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/496234b723.html |publisher=UNHCR Refworld|title=Korean gulag escapee speaks out
• cite web|url=http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/2007-09-atbirth.htm |publisher=Life Funds for North Korean Refugees (NGO)|title=I was a Political Prisoner at Birth in North Korea Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Harden is Shin's official testimony and naturally takes up a big portion. If that's a problem his testimony can be found in other sources besides Harden. However Jack Upland and HerrGeisterhuhnmann have said that any source that supports Shin's testimony is biased, POV etc.. they are coming at this with a preconception that Shin's story is fundamentally unbelievable as a testimony, and both have said so. This is a logical fallacy. Shin is widely considered to be a reliable witness and his account is broadly believed, there is no controversy or counter narrative with any weight (the DPNK version of events has no consensus). The few legitimate criticisms of Shin are already in the article and sourced. I'm not sure what we hope to accomplish by adding yet more sources in support of Shin's testimony, other than to make the Ref section have fewer "Hardens" when doing a visual scan of the page. -- GreenC 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think having less reliance on Harden would be an improvement. The problem, however, goes deeper. Most of these sources are effectively primary sources, by and large. Harden, as he himself acknowledges, is just repeating what Shin told him without verification, as are the journalists who base articles on interviews with Shin etc. It would be good to have a secondary source, which gives some assessment of Shin's testimony taken with other evidence, etc. This is what Felix Abt does, though not as well as it could be done. A good source would not need to counter Shin, but it would need to take up an independent, analytical stance. This is not merely my point of view: it is Wikipedia policy. Biographical articles should not be based on a first-person account.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Harden did more than just repeat Shin's version of events, he vetted the story, as he states: "the story has been vetted and rang true to survivors of other labor camps, to scholars, to human rights advocates, and to the South Korean government." (emphasis added). Harden is a journalist writing a biography in which he vetted the testimony (by way of other experts), it contains original analysis and a lengthy Notes section with dozens of sources besides Shin. -- GreenC 21:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's so dishonest. Because Harden says the vetting did not turn up Shin's repeated lying. And Harden also says that Shin's story is unverifiable. Quotation given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And Blaine Harden has now said that Shin has admitted he lied again, and revised the story for a second time. See reference in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the changes Jack Upland made to the article just now regarding the inaccuracies in the original story look good. I also think that it could be expanded upon, so I'll work on that over the next few days and you all can let me know how it looks. I think if we cover this part and the video from his father contesting the story, we could remove the factual accuracy tag and cover all sides. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why the tag is such a big deal.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the tag itself, but the fact that the article's factual accuracy/NPOV is debated. That is the title of this section, after all. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the changes Jack made look good. It is out of balance with what the rest of the world says about Shin Dong-hyuk. There is no "skepticism" about Shin Dong-hyuk except with two people: Jack Upland, and Felix Abt who is arguably not a reliable source. The United Nations, governments, experts, etc.. all say Shin is credible. Tony, show me a single source that is skeptical of Shin' (beside Abt's 1-sentence comment). There is no justification for a section like this. It runs afoul of WP:WEIGHT, it's Jack Upland's personal biases twisting the sources to blow out of proportion something the rest of the world has not done. We don't create original research, synthesizing the source to build a case as to why people should be skeptical. -- GreenC 14:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I think that the article needs a permanent tag of some kind until there's some definitive source to settle things one way or the other. The predominant source for the article is Shin himself, primarily as told to Harden. We now know that Shin has altered his story yet again, and that Harden's book is being revised. According to the report, Harden seems to have a bottomless faith in Shin, and believes in whatever the latest version is. I find Shin's inaccuracy very troubling, and Harden's blind acceptance of it even more so. This seems to go against the very basis of what a reliable source is. At the very least, surely we need to warn readers that Shin and Harden have retracted the existing story. It appears that no one is now asserting the factual accuracy of the article as it stands.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We're not supposed to write self-referentially eg. "This article.." rather state the facts and tag the problem. I've added an Update tag. I think we should keep the biography as written because we don't know the extent or seriousness of the changes. Based on the Post article it looks like he left things out, but didn't make stuff up. And everyone interviewed continues to support Shin's basic account. If he is a reliable source or not will be determined by the sources. If the UN, experts, etc.. continue to support him. It is more than just Harden and Shin that supports his account, for Wikipedia purposes he is still reliable because many support him. If there are detractors then we can weigh, but right now there is only 1, Felix, and he doesn't have much weight. -- GreenC 18:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think NPOV is a different, but overlapping, issue from accuracy. I'm very concerned about editors like you, Green Cardamom, who claim to know what sources say when you haven't read them (and apparently you've never read Harden's book), and who dismiss them even when they are proven correct. Wikipedia is not a propaganda website for the DPRK, but equally it is not a propaganda website against them. Any neutral person would now acknowledge that Shin is now a very dubious source about anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision by Harden

It now appears that Harden is not going to put out a revised edition of the book. He has written a new foreword which discusses Shin's recantation, to be included with reprints and with the ebook - see his website. The revised narrative that it gives is only sketchy. It appears that Shin now says that his mother and brother were executed after trying to escape Camp 18. This raises the question why Shin wasn't executed after his repeated escapes. Park is not mentioned, and it is not clear how he fits in with the new account, if at all. The foreword also raises multiple issues about Shin's credibility: notably Harden's comment that "It seems prudent to expect more revisions". Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be to briefly summarise the account given in the book, and then note how Shin has changed his story so far.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"The foreword also raises multiple issues about Shin's credibility" I understand you personally believe that but Wikipedia is not Jack Upland's essay. Do you have a reliable source that says Harden's forward raises multiple issues about Shin's credibility? And please don't reply justifying your position, I don't care. Only care if you have a source. -- GreenC 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you read the foreword, Harden raises the issues himself (as quoted) and cites other people. But how do you think the article should be revised?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction Park is mentioned indirectly in the foreword: "One Camp 18 survivor (who has declined to grant interviews) has told human rights activists that the inmate Shin claims was his accomplice in escaping Camp 14 actually died elsewhere in a mine accident." Harden notes that Shin has admitted he wasn't "nearly as naive as he had earlier claimed to be about the world outside the camp’s fence". In the book, Park's major role was informing Shin of the outside world. This interview with Harden is also worth noting.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as why Shin wasn't executed, he was transferred from Camp 18 to Camp 14 after the first escape. The same could be said about his father, who was shown in a video alive after Shin's escape. Presumably he was allowed to live as he is in Camp 18, which is more lax than Camp 14.

For Park, here's some more of what Harden says:

"Shin maintains that his January 2005 escape from Camp 14 occurred as described in this book, noting that the extraordinary scars on his legs were caused by that camp’s high-voltage electric fence.

But some details of his escape differ from what he has said before: He was motivated to escape, he now says, because he had been informed that he was scheduled to be executed in February of that year. He also said he was not nearly as naive as he had earlier claimed to be about the world outside the camp’s fence." Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

However, in the book it says that it was from Park that he first learned anything about the outside world (including the DPRK regime) and that Park's stories inspired his escape. According to the foreword, Shin first learned of the DPRK regime when he was transferred to Camp 18, and he had previously escaped to China. Therefore, the foreword contradicts most of what the book says about Park. But as I said, the foreword doesn't mention Park directly. Park is an example of a loose end. We can speculate and infer what Park's role is in the revised version, but I don't think that's appropriate for the article. I don't think it's possible to "update" the article from the limited information in the foreword. That's why I'm suggesting that the two versions are represented in the article side by side. That is, that we add an account of what Harden says in the foreword, rather than try to "revise" the existing story of Shin's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think side by side is fine. Since the information is from a primary source and has been updated recently, it wouldn't make sense for us to try to synthesize the two versions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if that was done we could get rid of the tags and a lot of the "Reliability" section would be redundant.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another important article about the revised story with several quotes directly from Shin:

http://thespeaker.co/headlines/north-korean-camp-survivor-dong-hyuk-shin-tells-true-feelings-book-campaign/

If you have time, feel free to make the changes you noted in the previous comment. I might do so eventually if I get around to it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that he says in that article that he wants to ask his father why he was born in a prison camp. I'd like more explanation of that. I've tried to revise the article, but I don't really like the structure or the way it's expressed. I haven't really touched the old account of Shin's life. Maybe someone else can take a fresh look.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DOB

According to the Foreword, North Korea claims Shin was born on 19 November 1980, not 1982.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of Harden's site says that "Shin was fifteen at the time, according to a North Korean government listing of his birthdate, which says he was born on November 19, 1980. (Shin now says he is not sure what year he was born but that his father told him it was 1982.)" This seems to be common for North Korea, where even the official birthdate of the Kims is one year off from what outside sources claim. Adding an endnote might be better than saying "allegedly" born on a certain date. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's common, but, yes, it could be better expressed in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In the video, his father says he was born in 1980, and the North Korean press release the Foreword links to says that he changed his birth date in order to create a false life. This makes some kind of sense. If he changed the year of his birth and his given name, it would make him hard to trace. In any case, the North Korean authorities seem to be insistent on 1980. As Shin says he's not sure, it seems reasonable to note the 1980 alternative, which I have now done.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Summarise Bio?

I feel that Shin's biography prior to his recanting should be trimmed down to a summary. There doesn't seem to be much point in going into details when the narrative in parts is admittedly false. It seems to be setting a trap for an unwary reader. On the other hand, we are recording what he said, which is his claim to notability. But if it stays, I think it should be better signposted. What do other editors think?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's tricky since Wikipedia requires articles to reflect published sources, not the analysis of editors in determining what is correct or not. I agree with your argument, but think that some detail should be kept to establish the contrast with the 2015 revision. If you really want, you might consider a RfC or peer review to get some outside feedback on how to balance it and structure the article. We might not even need to have the book's description and the 2015 revision separately - this might make it easier for readers not to get confused. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"setting a trap for an unwary reader". Is that true? It says clearly in the first sentence. You'd have to be really unwary to miss that but then read everything else. I think the article reflects the sources and the history of how he said one thing, then later changed it. It's a mirror of the sources and what has transpired in the real world. -- GreenC 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think having the two accounts side by side is the only solution at this stage. We can't have a synthesis - that would be yet another version of Shin's life created by a couple of Wikipedia editors. I was only talking about cutting down the biography as it is quite lengthy and goes into quite minor detail at some points (some of which was added by me). Certainly, the article needs to make clear Shin has changed his story. How much detail is needed, I'm not sure. For example, the article doesn't say that Shin has changed his story about the amputation of his finger.

With regard to signposting, I don't think most people read Wikipedia articles from start to finish. I think it would be fairly easy to skip over one sentence.

I don't think a RfC etc is necessary at this stage, because Harden has said that there could be further revisions.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC - how to structure the article?

The following discussion 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.

---

In 2015, Shin Dong-hyuk, a North Korean defector, admitted to fabricating parts of his story as told in the biography Escape from Camp 14 and reflected in this article. The biographer, Blaine Harden, hasn't explained precisely what Shin has retracted, nor has he published a revised account. The article therefore has a long "Biography" section that Shin has admitted is partly untrue. However, we don't know which parts. How should we handle this?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There are several options:

A (the current option): leave the article basically as is, but tack on section about the 2015 revision. Pros: this preserves the reason Shin became famous and allows people to read the well-known version of his story. Cons: this could be highly misleading and confusing to readers, it means the article is stating things we know to be false, and it means that the sections are out of chronological order.

B: construct a narrative of Shin's life based on the sources that we have. Pros: this would be easier to understand and could be closer to the truth. Cons: this would create yet another version of Shin's story, constructed entirely by Wikipedia editors based on a synthesis of sources and their own judgments and opinions.

C (my favoured option): begin the article when Shin rose to fame after he left North Korea (leaving his early years a blank), summarise the different versions of his North Korean life as accounts he told at various times over the years, note the various revisions he has made over the years, interspersed with the other events of his life. Pros: this sticks to what is verifiable because we know what he said (we just don't know it is true). This avoids confusing and misleading readers by reproducing an account that could well be highly inaccurate. This means the article tells the story in chronological order. Cons: this could be seen as disappearing the most important part of his life and could be seen as unfairly painting him as a serial fantasist.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no way to differentiate fact from fiction, maybe the best option would be to leave it as is but preface the information with a statement noting that parts of the story are fabricated but that it is unknown exactly what parts are fictitious? Then the information is presented with context as a whole and allows for the reader to use judgement on what is or is not accurate.Fusion2186 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it already does this basically? First sentence, Biography section. Followed by a lengthy section about the recantation. -- GreenC 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with how it is, which already clarifies the situation saying at the top The following is Shin's biography as told by him prior to 2015 which he later partially recanted. Followed by an entire section on recanting which is notable in of itself. The article accurately reflects the course of events: the publication of a well-known testimony (still being published as-is with a new Introduction) and a later recantation of parts (we generally know which parts). There is no danger of it being "highly misleading", in fact it couldn't be more clear. If this method is good enough for the source, it should be good enough for Wikipeia. It mirrors what the main (though not only) source for his life does. -- GreenC 19:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What is "the source"? Escape from Camp 14? This is basically Shin's account, without any corroboration, which he now says is partly fabricated. I don't think this is a reliable source. Apart from the North Korean government account, Shin is the only source for his life in North Korea, as Harden says himself. With regard to the decision to publish a new foreword without revising the book, there is this commentary:

Harden announced the revelations himself on his website and subsequently updated the foreword of his book to include the latest version of the story. He, however, left the main text unchanged, a move that sparked criticism from some North Korea observers.

Asked in a recent interview with NK News if it was responsible to leave so much of the book unchanged, Harden emphasized the steps he had taken in an effort to be forthright.

“I felt an obligation to rush to Seoul and to interview Shin as much as I could and get as much information as I could from him and other defectors as quickly as I could, and get it onto my website and as a preface to the book,” Harden said. “And that’s why we decided to do it that way. It would have taken much longer, months, maybe even longer, to redo the whole book – so that was the decision that was made.”

Harden’s decision to leave the book unaltered, as well as his acknowledgement that Shin’s story could conceivably change again in the future, has led some North Korea-watchers to question his judgment. Joo Sung-ha, a defector who works as a reporter for South Korea’s DongA-Ilbo newspaper, recently accused him of being an “accomplice” to Shin’s “lies,” a quote to which Harden said he has no reaction.[2]

There is no reason for us to "mirror" the source. The source is unreliable. The decision to continue to publish the unaltered text with a new foreword is controversial. In this interview, Harden's reason not to revise the book is the time it would take. This is not applicable to a Wikipedia article which could be changed quite easily. Why would we "mirror" the source???

With regard to GreenC's comment that "we generally know which parts" Shin has recanted, I don't think that's true. The article currently has two paragraphs about Park, a fellow prisoner. However, it is implied by the 2015 revision that Park's part in the story is fictitious, but unless Shin explicitly revises this part of the story we can't be sure. But, if I am wrong, why not remove the parts that Shin has recanted? Why have a curate's egg of an article? If we know parts of the story are rotten, why are we repeating them???--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many sources for it, not just the book. I think the recanting is so non-specific that it isn't possible to synthesize a coherent narrative that wouldn't be Original Research, based on what we think happened and which parts we think should be removed or changed. There's really nothing wrong with reporting what he said originally, and what he said in the recanting, both found in multiple reliable sources, and let the reader determine. So long as it's framed properly with the opening sentence to avoid any possible confusion. -- GreenC 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• A Simplest and best for now. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: if this is the best solution, it is not the one we use for Norma Khouri, Binjamin Wilkomirski, Laurel Rose Willson, Brian Dennehy, Helen Darville etc. We do not normally repeat a fabricated story as if it is fact and then add a rebuttal. This is a problematic exception. Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• B or C Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such inaccurate information or information that can not be verified should not be included. Even if it was once verified it can no longer be considered credibile. Leaving something that may be inaccurate is not effective. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ✅ (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The above is a blocked sock account. -- GreenC 21:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Because this RfC has attracted very little comment, apart from Green C and me who have maintained the positions we held in 2015, I think this should be closed as "no consensus". I agree not to change the article until something new turns up, but I think it would be counterproductive for a new editor to be bound by an RfC which has had so little participation.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

Order of article

Should "Revision in 2015" come after "Post-North Korean life"?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Shin Dong-hyuk (human rights activist" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Shin Dong-hyuk (human rights activist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Shin Dong-hyuk (human rights activist until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)