Talk:Otto Warmbier

Infobox: "Charge: attempted theft"

Yes, he was initially arrested for supposedly trying to steal a poster, but he actually ended up being convicted of subversion under Article 60 of N. Korea's Criminal Code[1][2]. Perhaps the infobox (and article) should make this clear? Muzilon (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have both in the infobox. However, as discussed before, I think it should be "theft", not "attempted theft". See [3]. There clearly was asportation.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the article. For the time being I have tweaked the infobox to "subversion (through attempted theft)" as I have no idea whether N. Korean law distinguishes between asportation/burglary/theft/attempted theft (or whatever), and it appears the actual criminal charge was subversion rather than theft. As a sidenote, this didn't get much media attention, but there were also a few curious reports that Warmbier also got into trouble because when N. Korean authorities searched his belongings, they discovered he'd wrapped his shoes in a newspaper bearing a photo of Kim Jong Un.[4][5] Muzilon (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

When I went to North Korea we were told to be careful of pictures of the leaders. We were told about a tourist who had spilt a drink on a newspaper containing a picture of Kim Jong Un, screwed it up, and put it in the bin. She had to write a letter of apology. However, this story comes from an anti-North Korean activist and only surfaced a year later. I would be very sceptical about that because of the source. With regard to taking down the poster, that would not be called "attempted theft" in the USA. Whose language are we reflecting here?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Attempted theft" is (I hope) WP:PLAINENGLISH and MOS:COMMONALITY, since his "attempt" clearly did not succeed. (The story about wrapping his shoes in Kim Jong Un newspaper probably doesn't need to be included in the article per WP:EXCESSDETAIL.) Muzilon (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but what plain English definition are you relying on? The reason why the English common law emphasised asportation or carrying away is that it's the only way to distinguish theft from attempted theft. No one who is caught "succeeds" so no one could be charged with theft. If Warmbier had been caught with the poster under his jacket, or with it hidden in his hotel room, or in his luggage when he flew out, he would not have "succeeded", hence by your definition this would be "attempted theft". The only way it would be "theft", by your definition, he would have had to leave North Korea with the poster, which would mean that he would never have been charged with anything. Hence, it's not possible for a tourist to steal anything in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Various reliable sources (American, British, and Canadian) used the phrase "attempted theft" with regard to Warmbier's case.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] (This was presumably because of the alleged abandonment that occurred during the "attempt".) MOS:COMMONALITY says "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." Does English Common Law apply in N. Korea? I do not know. At any rate, Wikipedia says the N. Korean legal system is derived from Japanese colonial law, with Soviet influences. Muzilon (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, North Korea's English language press has not called it an "attempted theft". The crime is "subversion" or "hostile acts". No, North Korea does not use the English common law. But this is the English language Wikipedia, and we are trying to use "plain English". In no English-speaking country would what Warmbier did be legally described as "attempted theft". I think sources are evenly divided between using the word "attempted" or not. For example, these do not:[13][14][15][16][17]. The problem is "attempted theft" is not a commonly understood phrase. As I said, there is no way of knowing when "attempt" ends (unless you use the English common law definition of carrying away, or some other definition). What if he abandoned the poster in his room? Would that still be an attempt? What if he dumped it at the airport? Etc. "Abandonment" is not really relevant in the legal sense as he apparently left the poster behind because it was too heavy. First, we say it's only an allegation; then, we say that the allegation was only "attempt theft". Where does it end?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You wrote, In no English-speaking country would what Warmbier did be legally described as "attempted theft". The fact remains that several reliable sources in different Anglophone countries have used that exact phrase. It may be that they are using layperson's terms rather than legalese in explaining what led up to the subversion charge, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise what has been said in reliable sources. Yes, perhaps if Warmbier had smuggled the poster up to his hotel room or been caught with the item in his suitcase (rather than just dumping the item on the floor right underneath where it was hanging), then Anglophone news sources might have been more inclined to drop the "attempted" bit. Looking through the news sources you mentioned:

• BBC News says Warmbier was "accused of attempting to steal a propaganda sign". Isn't this just a synonym for "attempted theft"?
• MarketWatch says he was "convicted of theft of a propaganda poster". This is not strictly accurate if he was actually convicted of subversion.
• The Daily Mail is not considered a WP:RELIABLE source per this RfC. Muzilon (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The BBC article actually says both. But anyway... It would be good to say "propaganda poster" as that explains why it was seen as subversion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've tweaked the infobox to say "Subversion (through attempted theft of a propaganda poster)". Muzilon (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification about the case: "BBC News says Warmbier was "accused of attempting to steal a propaganda sign" & MarketWatch says he was "convicted of theft of a propaganda poster". It's much easier to understand the previous case. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Countries visited -- Europe

Does anybody happen to know which countries in Europe he had visited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD2:BB73:0:8853:D080:9AD:4D2 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo article cited simply says he travelled twice to Europe, without specifying which countries. At least one of those visits was to England, where he did a study-abroad course. Muzilon (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

'Claimed their son's body showed signs of torture'

They also claimed their son's body showed signs of torture, such as "rearranged" teeth, and disfigured hands and feet.

His parents (actually father) said no such thing in that interview, which is on YouTube. They were shocked at his condition certainly.The father merely said his son's front lower teeth looked like they had been rearranged with pliers, and did not mention either that or the condition of the hands and feet as being evidence of torture. The parents must be accounted as knowing what their son's front teeth looked like originally. The pathologist should not be quoted as if he is discrediting allegations from them, which they did not in fact make in that interview. There maybe was an implication, but they did not say what the article is saying they explicitly said, then dragging in the pathologist to discredit an assertion that they never made.Overagainst (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In their interviews with Fox News[18] and CNN[19], the parents repeatedly said that Otto was "tortured" and "intentionally injured" by North Korea. They specifically commented on his twisted teeth, and the scar on his foot. In the CNN interview they added the detail that his hands and legs appeared "deformed." The coroner, Dr Sammarco (who is female, btw), did publicly contradict the parents on these points, saying there was no clear evidence of torture, that Otto's teeth appeared fine, and that the cause of the scar on his foot was uncertain.[20] However, the coroner herself was later contradicted by Warmbier's private dentists, who testified during the federal court case that Otto's teeth were bent backwards. The WP article mentions these differences of opinion (appropriately, IMO) in accordance with WP:Conflicting Sources. Muzilon (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"They also claimed their son's body showed signs of torture, such as "rearranged" teeth, and disfigured hands and feet."

First of all that is wrong quoting because they definitely say his teeth looked like they had been rearranged with a hammer. You are quoting "rearranged" out of context, so change it or I will.Second you ought to be citing the NYT not just that interview which does not contain all the quotes from the parents you are using. You misrepresent Dr Sammarco, because she expressed no opinion as to whether he was tortured by merely reporting an absence of evidence for torture. More pertinently, the parents insisted he was kidnapped and tortured. You might as well cite a legal expert saying he was not kidnapped as a pathologist saying he was not tortured. It's slant and seems to be more agaimnst sensationalist news headlines than what the parents said. The parents are saying that his treatment by north Korea led to him being in a state that shocked them. That his feet and hands were deformed due to his coma, and his tooth damage was likely sustained during an emergency intubation is not contradicting the parents' complaint. Having watched the interview and read quotes in the NYT it is clear to me they are complaining about him being in a coma as a result of the maltreatment amounting to torture that he received. According to UN definition, torture is not necessarily physical it can be psychological.Overagainst (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I did not add that particular sentence to the article,[21] so please don't blame me for it. In fact, another editor has deleted it already as "unsourced", probably in response to your comments. Strictly speaking, the parents did not specify whether they meant physical or psychological torture, although when they said Otto had a scar on his foot and his teeth "looked like they had taken a pair of pliers and rearranged them" (emphasis added; and not a "hammer", btw), it is understandable that many people – including Trump, apparently – inferred the parents meant physical torture. According to the WaPo, Dr Sammarco said "I'm not denying that he was tortured... I don’t know that he was tortured or not tortured."[22] Presumably Sammarco was referring to physical torture, since her post-mortem would not have been able to verify psychological torture. Your speculation that the teeth damage was caused by intubation is plausible, but the federal court judgment apparently favored the view that it was the result of physical torture by Otto's N. Korean jailers. Muzilon (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The court judgment was a default judgment. The Warmbiers could not lose.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Irony

It's not ironic that he never saw Otto after saying "that's the last we'll see of him". It's fitting Qwerty21212121 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

60 Minutes Australia

I removed this from the article:

According to one of Warmbier's compatriots in the Young Pioneer tour, he and the rest of the group were not even in the hotel at the time of the alleged crime indicated by the time stamp in the surveillance footage the government used as evidence.

It is a video from 60 Minutes Australia, but I didn't think youtube should be used as a source. Perhaps this could be tidied up. This tourist (who is not a compatriot) gives a different account from other members of the group, who don't mention being ushered on board the plane with "machine guns". Compare with: [23][24][25] Her statement (around 7 minutes in) is that she remembers going back to the hotel around 3am, not before 2am. This is a recollection apparently years after the incident by someone who was potentially tired and intoxicated at the time. I haven't seen any other account of a group member who says this. This says, "Their second night in Pyongyang was New Year’s Eve and the whole group went out into the city square before coming back to the hotel for more drinking". Did they continue drinking after 3am? Was the bar still open? This suggests they returned to the hotel soon after midnight. Warmbier's roommate Gratton indicates that there was a "two-hour window" where no one could account for Warmbier and that he saw him sleeping in his bed at around 4:30am. I think the reality is that different people have different recollections — which are possibly based on different experiences, because the group might not have been together at this point. I think we could expand on this section, but we should be aware that there are differing accounts.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, this could be interpreted as supporting the 60 Minutes account: "The tourists waited in the square for hours [because of the disappearance of Gratton], until their guides eventually returned them to the hotel". This depends on taking "hours" literally and assuming the hours started from midnight. This interpretation would mean that Gratton's version can't possibly be true. Gratton couldn't have returned to the hotel at the same time as the group, and there would have been no "two-hour window". He wouldn't have returned to the hotel till after 3am and probably didn't go bowling. However, if you relax this interpretation, Stone Fish's story is compatible with Gratton's, if you accept there is some exaggeration. Gratton's misadventure could have been over quickly, and he could have returned to the hotel fairly promptly. Stone Fish is vague about the time. However, it's not all about Gratton. Journalists have spoken to other tourists and the tour guides, and no one else — as far as I have seen — has made the point that they returned to the hotel around 3am.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Muzilon, what do you think about this?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As you've indicated, the various tour group members seem to have given differing accounts of precisely what happened before, during, and after Warmbier's arrest at the airport. Is there an official transcript of the 60 Minutes episode online somewhere? That might be a better (written) source. Muzilon (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find one.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem is that if you include the 3am claim, you should note that other sources don't agree with this. But if you note that there are differing accounts, you are then raising an issue that is mentioned in no source (as far as I know). You are creating a controversy which might have very little substance. I am inclined to ignore the issue and assume the discrepancies were mainly explained by the fact that it was late at night and copious amounts of alcohol had been consumed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hotel's CCTV footage

@Jack Upland: I note you've removed the paragraph describing the hotel's security camera footage of the shadowy figure removing the poster from the wall. As the video attracted a fair amount of media commentary (with some of Warmbier's travel companions even suggesting it was faked), I think it should rate a mention. Muzilon (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed in 2017. The text I removed was simply a description of the footage that was released by KCNA, not the footage that was used in the trial. There was no commentary. This is simply misleading, as it suggests that's all the footage that was available.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have restored a mention of the KCNA footage, along with further information about the footage used in the trial.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

How many Americans?

Another problem. This, quoted in the article, says, "Ten other U.S. citizens were on the tour". This refers to "Gratton and the other tourists, a mix of Canadians, Australians, Europeans, and at least one other American". I'm not sure why we care how many Americans were in the group, but there does seem to be a big discrepancy. This says there were 20 people in the group all ap.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we can only summarize what has been reported in WP:RELIABLE sources. I suppose, strictly speaking, GQ's mention of "at least one other American" does not automatically rule out the possibility of "10 Americans" as cited by Reuters. Muzilon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a stretch.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This source says there were "about 50" (not 20) people in Warmbier's tour group, although I suspect the journalist here may be garbling the combined totals of the two different tour groups (YPT and Koryo) that were in Pyongyang at the time. The number of Americans is of some interest due to suggestions that Warmbier was focussed upon by the N. Korean authorities because they wanted to take a random American hostage. If there were other US citizens in his group, why would Warmbier have been singled out for special attention? Muzilon (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Stuff also says that they were mostly American. This says, "Of the dozens of people I reached out to who visited North Korea on the trip with Warmbier, several declined to comment because Warmbier’s family had asked participants not to speak with the press." "Dozens" implies there was more than 20. It seems likely that the Americans adhered to the famiy's wishes, and that is why only one American has commented from what I've seen. This could have led to the comment that I quoted above.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

YPT's site says we cap our tour groups at a maximum of 24 people. Once we hit 25 we divide our tours into 2 different groups with their own vehicle.[26] That might perhaps explain the apparently conflicting figures of ~50 vs. ~20 people in Warmbier's group. Muzilon (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking 50 was a large group. This could also explain the discrepancies about the time they returned after NYE. It is quite possible that one vehicle headed back to the hotel after midnight, while the other vehicle stayed in the square waiting for Gratton (or whatever). It still remains true we don't know this basic information.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete Sentence

A sentence in the "Early Life" section reads, "He was a member of the Theta Chi fraternity and also." Chocohall (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)