Jump to content

Talk:North Korea/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Sounds bad

Can't Wikipedia allow edits for simple things like grammar and usage? For example, this sounds terrible: "This, compounded with only 18 percent arable land..." There's a remote antecedent (pronoun reference problem) and a nonstandard preposition. It would sound better to write "The famine, compounded by..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.82.69 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think WP doesn't "allow" edits like the ones you mention? Unless an article is protected/semi-protected, you should be able to make whatever edit you want even if you're not registered/logged in. Sugarbat (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Often portrayed in the media"

Is total weasle wording - it's almost as bad as tagging "so-called" onto something. North Korea is so widely considered to be a dictatorship there's no need to mention the media at all. --129.67.116.164 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading the talk page it seems there has been some comical hair-splitting by people uninterested in reality. To ammend this I've found a number of citations of "non-western" or "2nd/3rd world" sources refering to North Korea as a dictatorship. I've got Nigeriaworld[1], The Times of India ("North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is one of the world's most oppressive, closed, and vicious dictatorships") [2]), and The Journal of Turkish Weekly quoting some Namibian dude saying that NK is a "dictatorship" [3].

All from a five minute search of google news. Except none of these are needed now, as I think it's extremely easly to establish that public opinion in both developed and developing world (with the exception of China) is pretty united. --62.69.37.58 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Industrialization Rank

Does this make sense? It was also considered the 2nd-least industrialized nation in Asia, after Japan. Japan is the least industrialized nation in asia? What about Bangladesh? This must be second most. I'm going to modify this. Dan (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalinist?

The Stalinist mention in the intro is highly propagandistic and undescriptive, during the Sino-Soviet Split the DPRK retained somewhat of a neutral stance on Stalin, in fact 'Juche' came about as a response to the pressure it felt to take one side or the other, instead it opted for self-reliance in such matters.

Furthermore it should be noted that the DPRK rejected Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) decades ago, and removed all references in their Constitution to it etc, seeing as they think Juche and the 'Socialism of the Korean style' is superior to all ideologies.

As such, 'Stalinist state' in the intro is a little silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.39.158 (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

More or less undisputed characteristics of a 'Stalinist' state: an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent. Taken from the article on stalinism - i'd say this defeinition pretty much fits North Korea. It may not idolise Stalin or the USSR itself, and it did break with it, but its system of governance is a perfect example of a Stalinist state.

Your using the nominal perjorative form of Stalinism, not the substantive one, as such having 'Stalinist', especially at the top of the article, is highly propagandistic and not NPOV. Your using 'Stalinist' as a propaganda term for a dictatorship or totalitarian state, not the actual extensive writings and Marxist-Leninist concepts of Joseph Stalin himself. As such I am removing the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.33.228 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing POV-check

Hi everyone. I'm quite interested in North Korea in general (been there recently), and I'd like to contribute to the article. Maybe we could work together and first try to remove POV to get rid of the POV-check tag. I'll list what I think is POV-oriented and my proposals to fix it (forgive my english, not being a native speaker), please do the same if you can.

  • Birth of North Korea : "This arrangement was the creation of American leaders of the time and the dual occupation was done without consulting the Korean people." I suggest removing the sentence, this "arrangement" was between US and Soviet leaders, most probably without asking the Koreans
  • Economic evolution : "In the aftermath of the Korean War and throughout the 1960s the country's state-controlled economy slowed down at a significant rate. It may also have once been considered the 2nd-most industrialized nation in Asia, after Japan." Seems contradictory. From my knowledge, the NK economy in the 60s was not declining (I'll look into reliable sources). Could someone with a better english than myself propose a rephrase of this sentence?
  • Economic evolution : "In the 1970s the expansion of North Korea's economy, with the accompanying rise in living standards, came to an end and a few decades later went into reverse" again quite contradictory with previous sentence.
  • Economic evolution : "Collapse of large state-owned enterprises (which formally still exist but have neither raw materials nor customers) released a huge amount of workers who engage in cross-border trade with China." needs source of has to be removed
  • Human rights : "The system changed slightly at the end of 1990s when population growth became very low. In many cases where capital punishment was de facto replaced by less severe punishments. Bribery became prevalent throughout the country. For example, just listening to South Korean radio could result in capital punishment. However, many North Koreans wear clothes of South Korean origin, listen to Southern music, watch South Korean videotapes and even receive Southern broadcasts although they are still prohibited — in most cases punishment is nothing more than a pecuniary fine, and many such problems are normally solved "unofficially", through bribery." while I enjoy reading the source for this (Daily NK) it's a bit biased and this whole sentence would probably benefit from being a bit less affirmative.
  • Foreign relations : "Despite the foreign troops, Kim Jong-il has privately stated his acceptance of U.S. troops on the peninsula, even after a possible reunification. It is claimed by US sources that if North Korea and the United States normalize relations, both Koreas would wish to maintain the presence of US troops out of fear of China and Japan but North Korea strongly denies that and demands the removal of American troops (see North Korea-United States relations)." Not POV but somehow redundant
  • Military : "Annual military spending is not available, compared with South Korea's $24 Billion (2.7% of GDP)" again not POV but weird
  • Economy "In the aftermath of the Korean War and throughout the 1960s and '70s, the country's state-controlled economy grew at a significant rate and, until the late 1970s, was considered to be stronger than that of the South" while probably true and again completely contradictory with previous statements, needs sourcing or has to go

That's it I think, can you help? Do you see other required changes? Mthibault (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody here? :) Mthibault (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
From your comments, I believe your English is excellent, and the points you raise should not be controversial. Please be bold in improving the article! More specifically, I agree that North Korea's economy was not declining in the 1960's, so that claim should be removed or corrected to refer to a later decade, with an appropriate source. Some of the other sections you mentioned are indeed speculative or based on limited information. That's sometimes unavoidable in an article about North Korea, but we need proper attribution. "It is claimed by US sources" is too vague. Similarly, the text about capital punishment can hardly be based on large-scale studies. If the information comes from anecdotal evidence, that should be clearly stated. As for military spending, we used to give an estimate that seems to have been removed. Perhaps you can find a good source and restore it. --Reuben (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Changing the 60s to the 80s (perhaps mid-80s) in regard to the slowing economy would make it accurate in that regard. As far as punishments for listening to ROK broadcasts, etc., Daily NK has a POV but is generally considered accurate, vice Good Friends, which grossly exaggerates. You can say all defectors are biased, but they are the source or realistic information, as opposed to what Ted Turner said after his 2005 visit. The statement about the economy of the 60s and 70s is accurate, and again the change recommended above would make things flow better. I may have time soon to look over this. As far as econ refs, either Cumings (who I hate to use), or Noland should be good. Dprkstudies (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll implement the changes based on both your inputs and remove the POV tag when it's done. Of course if anyone has a problem with any of my edit please correct it. Mthibault (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

North Korea as a Single party state.

In North Korea it is illegal for other political parties to meet and take part in elections. Why is it when ever the phrase Single Party State is added to the article it is deleted? North Korea does only haee one legal political party and that is the Worker's Party of Korea. It even says in the article "Politics of North Korea" that the DPRK functions as a single party state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDespot666 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. The political system is formally open to several parties, and a few others do exist, but they must stand for elections as part of a united front that's controlled by the Workers' Party. So North Korea is a single-party state in the sense that only one party is permitted to hold effective power, but a multi-party system in the sense that there are other parties. See Chondoist Chongu Party for example. --Reuben (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

North Korea focused Weblogs under External Links.

This needs to be discussed by the larger audience of editors and North Korea watchers who participate in Wikipedia. First there was some back-and-forth with arbitrarily deletions of my blog (which had been there for a couple of years prior) under the “External Links” and “Weblogs” header, then the deletion of the entire sub-category of “Weblogs.” I’ve restored these links myself a few times, but several others have also recognized the anarchic nature of the deletions and restored them. Mthibault is responsible for most of the deletions and has apparently taken it upon himself to judge that these blogs are either spam or promoting something other than analysis of North Korean issues. Note that these are *not* links or references to blogs being placed in the main article, but clearly under “Weblogs” in “External Links.” The blogs listed are in fact very serious, for the most part written by specialists, and well read among Korea watchers, which makes them particularly pertinent to this page. Let’s hear your thoughts, please. Dprkstudies (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the whole section of "weblogs" once and your blog another time following Wikipedia:EL. I propose we take it to mediation :) Mthibault (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I opened a case at requests for third opinion : Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Mthibault (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been requested to provide an admin opinion on this matter. This is thus only one admins thoughts, to be taken on that basis. I concur that outside comment is likely necessary for the resolution of the inclusion of weblogs in this article. Opinion on North Korea is often very heavily politicised, and weblogs are frequently the product of unreviewed opinion and perhaps subjectively referral to facts. To have such a potentially biased source provided within an article - not withstanding how it is categorised there - requires continuing consensus. If the WP:3O is not to all parties satisfaction I would then suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment. During these processes, and where there is no agreed consensus, I strongly suggest that the weblog is not included in article space. I hope that this helps move the discussion onward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Responding to the Third opinion request - this dispute seems to involve more than two editors, so I'm not sure it's a good case for 3rdOp. Although only two editors had commented here (at the point the request was made, prior to LessHeard vanU's helpful comments), further editors had commented on Dprkstudies' talk page, and another editor has become involved in reinstating the blog links. I agree with the suggestion that a Request for comment would be more suitable, and also that the weblogs section is removed until the dispute reaches consensus. I have also asked Dprkstudies to consider removing the wikipedia-related post on his blog, per WP policy on recruiting allies in content disputes. Eve Hall (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, the weblogs section has been moved here from the article page until discussion reaches consensus:

Hello Eve; Per your request and the cited policy, I have edited my blog post/title to remove advocacy but have left it up as there are incoming links and comments, including a relevant comment from Mthibault that I have quoted from below. Dprkstudies (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to what the External Links Policy (Wikipedia:EL) actually states. Please see item four (4) of the External Links policy under both, “What should be linked,” and “Links to be considered;”

  • 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
  • 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Concerning blogs, note they are listed in item 11 under, “Links normally to be avoided,”

  • 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Mthibault has stated (in a comment on my blog) that, “links to blogs (of any kind) should be avoided,” which I believe misinterprets both the letter and spirit of the policy, and is more of an opinion. It should be noted that this did not start as the entire section (which had been there for a couple of years prior with no issue, including my own blog) being deleted, but one blog being arbitrarily singled out and deleted, for which an explanation was asked for a few times but never provided. I was under the impression that justifying such deletions, i.e. answering direction questions concerning them, was the norm. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the blogs listed are not entirely relevant to the topic of North Korea (under what should be linked). Even if one considers the blogs not to be “reliable sources,” they are definitely from “knowledgeable sources,” at least for this topic (under links to be considered). Also, there is no prohibition on linking to blogs in the External Links policy, unless you ignore the word “normally” in the heading for that section of the policy. The key here concerns, “those written by… recognized authorit[ies].” One could argue that the general public doesn’t know who, for example, Joshua Stanton or Richardson are, but most of the public won’t know where Pyongyang or Wonson are either. However these blogs are recognized authorities on North Korea within the Korea-blogosphere. The question to ask is this; what would be beneficial to the reader. Since the main article is not meant to cover closely current events (e.g. related to diplomacy, security, economics, human rights, etc.), linking to blogs that do should be beneficial to the reader looking for just such external links. Dprkstudies (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Fourth opinion: First off, all the links added in this diff don't belong on the page at all. I'd also remind User:Dprkstudies that it seems a little COI for you to push for the blogs to be included, given that your blog is one of the ones listed there. In terms of the argument raised above about reliable sources, my response would be: what makes Joshua Stanton or Richardson notable within the "Korea-blogosphere"? Are they scholars who have published articles in notable magazines or books? If they're just some guys sitting in their apartment who are recycling links, then no, they shouldn't be included. On a side note, the entire external links section here needs a lot of work. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate; why don’t those clearly North Korea focused blogs belong? Under the External Links policy there is nothing to prevent the links being added, and the implication of the items I note above would in fact point towards inclusion rather than exclusion. If you are not familiar with the Korea-blogosphere, perhaps those who are should comment. As to COI, I did not originally add my blog under the “Weblogs” header, but I did add it back after I noticed it and only it had been removed after begin there for about two years. Neither Joshua Stanton or myself – or many of the others – are just some guys sitting around recycling links. The About pages of either of our blogs speak to our credentials if you care to examine them, though I consider substance to be more important than credentials. I’ll steer back towards the overarching question; what would be beneficial to the reader. Dprkstudies (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


But there is Wiki policy against those links being added, and it's at WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." By recognized authority here, it means someone notable, as I said before - a scholar, an informed political figure, someone like that. There are a number of reasons why blog/personal web pages aren't allowed, but one of the big ones is that it's a potentially unreliable source. One of the links in question is http://www.xanga.com/linkorea, a Xanga page. Are you kidding? Why are we linking to their blog, where http://www.linkglobal.org/ is run by the same group and is an actual website? The Korea-blogosphere is irrelevant here; recognized authorities should be recognized outside of their own element. And in any case, Wiki policy trumps all. The burden is on you to to prove that the people are recognized authorities. As to your last question: what would be most beneficial to the reader would be content within the Wiki article, backed by verifiable secondary sources. Not links. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
First the policy in NOT against adding such links, unless you omit key words. If you think that policy should be changed, that's a different matter. Second, please provide an official definition of “recognized authority,” if there is one. Have you bothered to look at credentials? Also, as shown above, item 11 of “Links normally to be avoided” is in this case in conflict with items four (4) noted above. Wikipedia articles have many links to obviously relevant blogs (that apparently have not been put to the standards you read into the policy) and this is just such a case. Again, comments from someone actually familiar with the Korea-blogosphere would be particularly helpful. The opinion that the opinions from that group of Korea watchers is irrelevant is not particularly helpful. And I’ll restate that content is more important than credentials to avoid the fallacy of appeal to authority, and again point to the question of what make a more useful article, or an external link in this case. These links were in the external links section for an extended period of time; there should be a burden of proof for removing them, not leaving what for about two years no one apparently thought was inappropriate or not useful to the overall article. Dprkstudies (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's take a look. http://nkay.blogsome.com/ is one of the links. According to their about page, the guy is "just a college student with absolutely no ties in the Korean pennisula" who "decided to start a blog on North Korean Human Rights." That doesn't strike me as someone who's a recognized authority on the subject. http://nkmonitor.wordpress.com/ doesn't even have an about section; it's just a site that posts articles from other sites like Hankyoreh and Daily NK. Again, not a notable blog. Admittedly, http://freekorea.us/ and your blog are marginally notable. According to NK Econ Watch's talk page, the blogger works for Enterprise Africa, but provides no information on why he or his blog is notable. It's another site that largely collects posts from Daily NK and the like.
There's no grandfather clause present on Wikipedia. Just because something was there before doesn't mean that it should stay unless good reason is given otherwise. This is what the page looked like two years ago today. I don't see DPRK Studies or freekorea.us on there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You’ve quoted me slightly out of context a couple of times. First, re-read what I wrote above; “Neither Joshua Stanton or myself – or many of the others…” Second, I have repeatedly put “about” in front of “two years” (also, the two-year-old page contains a link to The Korea Liberator, which was a blog co-authored by Joshua and myself, among others. We later went back to our own blogs, OFK and DPRKS. Our individual blogs may have even been up before two years ago and been replaced by the group blog, I'm not certain.) The point here is that modifying words are important, not unlike “normally” in item 11 of the policy on blogs in external lings – when ignored they change the meaning of what was written.
I will indulge only a bit in the call to engage in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, over content, since it's being brought up again;
You may also refer to comments on the post at my blog on this topic, which contain more on "authority." Dprkstudies (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again everyone. I think there is a bing misunderstanding. External links are not sources : they are links to the "official" websites related to the article and to very selected related websites. This does not mean however that a claim in the article cannot be sourced using Dprkstudies blog. Again I'm not challenging Dprkstudies credibility, nor am I saying it is a reliable source. It just doesn't belong to the EL section (as most of the current links) unless proven otherwise.
Please see WP:EL : "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the External links template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template."
Per this policy, I'll save the current EL under this post and limit the list to sites with complete consensus including a link to the Open Directory Project.
Can we all work together to review what links should be restored (please see other articles about countries and you'll see what is acceptable) ? Mthibault (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is still under discussion, so a decision seems premature, especially since more than two editors are involved. Also, WP:EL does not limit External Links to "official" websites at all - that is not stated or implied in that policy. Since there are a very small number of blogs devoted to the study of North Korea, the description of other acceptable links as a "very selected related websites" seems to be a perfect fit, which argues for inclusion of these few DPRK blogs. Dprkstudies (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, I just noticed that there are major copyright problems with some of the videos Mthibault (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that no decision can be made yet. Can you list what you think are appropriate EL? If you beleive any of the links I left are not consensual, please remove them. Mthibault (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think all those external links should be restored ASAP, and if you want to remove any there should be consensus for removal, not the other way around. Whittling down such appropriate and useful information is counterproductive. As someone who has used Wikipedia to find references from time to time, including in external links sections, these mass deletions are bizarre. Dprkstudies (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I think there is consensus here. Mthibault, Lessheard and I are in agreement that the links should be removed. You're the only person who wants them included. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess so, if you discount the other admin that reinstated the blog links before, as well as the other users that did (see page history). Concerning the blog links, anyone can read that such links are not prohibited by the EL policy, and (though I consider content more valid) some level of authority has been established, yet the links are not restored. It's very clear that some don't want to include blog links regardless of the policy actually says and allows, which gets down to someone's personal preferences, not the policy. We should just admit that and be very clear about it. Dprkstudies (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're trying to accuse me of that, and I gotta say, I don't appreciate your tone. I just want the external links section to follow Wiki policy as best as we can, that's all. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Not an accusation, just pointing out the fact that this has moved beyond the policy cited - which clearly allows the blog links being deleted - and is now about personal opinion, someone's personal POV, not any Wikipedia policy. Claiming this is being done in the name of that policy is not accurate. It's best to be clear and upfront about this. Call it a Rectification of Names, or simple intellectual honesty. Dprkstudies (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please understand that this is a very serious accusation, if you do think what you're writing please use the dispute resolution process or report any behavior that you think does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy to the administrators notice board. Do you have time to spare to list the links you think should be restored in the section below? Thanks. Mthibault (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mthibault; the EL policy doesn’t prohibit blogs, and we’ve established some grudging admission of some level of authority for at least some of the blog authors. It should be glaringly obvious I think they should be reinstated. There is no reason for them not to be up this moment, except *your* opinion of how blogs should be treated – but not the policy. Explaining this repeatedly reminds one of Ground Hog Day. Dprkstudies (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
On the matter of the rest of the External Links; it is a waste of time to do things in this manner. Obviously, at some point in time, each of those links were thought worthy enough by someone to put on the page, and relevant enough to not have been removed by those who patrolled new edits. The more efficient approach would be to leave the External Links in place and discuss which ones are not relevant, appropriate, etc. I for one do not have the time to play these endless games steeped in false cordiality. Dprkstudies (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to again quote the entire policy : "Links normally to be avoided. Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" (...) "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.". If after that you still think a whole "weblogs" section is acceptable in an article I don't know what to say. As pointed out below though, exceptions do exists and some EL to blogs may be acceptable in specific situations. "My personal opinion on how blogs should be treated" is certainly not what prevents the whole section from being reinstated. You have been the sole editor to comment and suggest that those links were not inappropriate, please do not pretend I am the one with the dissenting view on this matter. Where you see " false cordiality" I'd rather see civility, guess what... Wikipedia has a policy on that too :o Mthibault (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
First, in reply to, “You have been the sole editor to comment and suggest that those links were not inappropriate, please do not pretend I am the one with the dissenting view on this matter.” That is a incorrect; I was pointing out the inconsistent deletion of my own, which is an very different thing.
Second, you commented on my blog that, “However, Wikipedia policies clearly states that ... links to blogs (of any kind) should be avoided.” Since the policy didn't say that, it certainly appears to be an opinion. If you replace "of any kind" with "normally," it would be accurate, but would also carry a much different meaning.
Finally, I nominate the following blogs as relevant, appropriate, and authoritative on North Korea, and that they be included in EL;
I’d prefer to include a couple more, but they don’t provide enough public data to determine credentials. Dprkstudies (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment

I have been invited to review this matter again, and it is my conclusion that outside opinion is required to settle the matter of the validity of the named blogspaces under WP:EL. If someone wants to draft an RfC - in a neutral tone, simply requesting consensus on the application of policy - then I will certify it. I would, however, advise that http(colon)//www(dot)dprkstudies(dot)org/ will not be able to be linked, while User:Dprkstudies edits North Korea related articles, per Wikipedia:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest and the wording "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." This policy point makes no claim on the validity of the blog, or its appropriateness otherwise under policy, but only that there cannot be a decision on merit where an editor has such a conflict of interest - it would be too much a debating point on where the line is drawn, and the wording seems to be that there is no instance where such a potential COI can be allowed. I suggest that removal of this bloglink/COI will allow Dprkstudies to more actively promote the inclusion of the other blogs without hinderance. As I said, I will certify a properly worded RfC and feel that this is the next (and hopefully final) step in resolving this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point I have no longer have any plans for contributing to the North Korea article and am perfectly fine with not editing if my blog is in EL (I think that is a very appropriate place for a blog that focuses entirely on North Korea), where it had been for about two years until apparently recently removed. My noticing that and adding it back to where it had been for sometime is what initiated all of this. I suppose this would not have been an issue if I had a different username, but I don't like that in blog commenting so won't do it here.
I believe my blog was incorrectly removed from the EL in the first place and again submit that my specialization in the subject meets the criteria for EL inclusion under existing policy for weblogs in EL.
Two questions; 1) does COI you mention for editing include all North Korea related articles, even with no DPRK Studies link, and 2) does that include discussion pages?Dprkstudies (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This would be my opinion only, and I suggest that you request further consideration among other reviewers, but I would certainly think that any article relating to modern North Korea be excluded - as this article is the main reference point and would be linked. Historical Korea related articles (pre World War II) may be okay as, even though there is likely to be a link to this article, the political situation was vastly different. I see no difficulty with talkpages, providing that the potential COI is confirmed to any party that may not already be aware - and especially when discussing that link or matters arising from it. That would be my view, and I again suggest you get a wider range of opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Building consensus

Hi everyone, I suggest we move on to build consensus on what external links should be in the article. May I suggest everyone looks around for articles that were given FA status in the same category? Again, if any link I left is not consensual, please remove it. I'll post the list I propose a bit later in the day. Mthibault (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having a consensus on what external links should be in the article. It should decrease amounts of non-credible resources.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Saved EL

Government-sponsored sources

News sources

  • KCNA - Korean Central News Agency, the official news agency of the DPRK
  • BBC News - "Country Profile: North Korea"
  • Pyongyang Watch, an archive of Asia Times articles
  • Another Korea - Background stories on North Korea
  • Daily NK - North Korea focused daily online newspaper

Documentaries

Weblogs

Nuclear Program and Military

Photo logs

Reunification

Miscellaneous

External links - summary so far

I thought it might help move the discussion on if I summarised some of the content and policy points that have been raised so far.

  • Thanks - I would like to thank all the editors involved for discussing the issues here on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war on the article page. It's refreshing to see some maturity and good faith on display, and I would like to see that continue. Please do remember to comment on the content of edits not on the editors.
  • DPRK Studies blog - Hopefully Dprkstudies has been reassured that his blog is not being singled out in particular, merely that the inclusion of blogs in general needs to be discussed.
  • Weblogs section - Although blogs are included in the list of links normally to be avoided, it does provide an exception for "those written by a recognized authority", and WP:EL is a guideline not an inviolable policy. So I think we need to move the discussion on from "These blog links are/are not allowed" to "These blog links are not prohibited, but are they meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article?"
  • External links - Further to the concerns about weblogs, it was noted that the article has a large number of external links, which is discouraged by WP guidelines/policy:

"Some external links are welcome (see What to link), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable."WP:EL, see also WP:NOT#LINKS

  • The way forward - I don't see any of the issues here as clear-cut "Policy is X" or "Policy is Y" situations, so we need to work together to get a consensus. I suggest a good guiding principle would be the "meritable, accessible and appropriate" criteria from the EL page. Additional viewpoints are going to be helpful, so I've flagged the discussion at Wikiproject Korea to get more input from editors knowledgeable about Korea.

Eve Hall (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. If Dprkstudies blog is considered by consensus to be desireable I will of course endorse its inclusion. I just would like this article to have a limited list of 'high quality' EL like any other. Mthibault (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK here's the list of EL that I think are appropriate:
I looked around and couldn't find any FA or A grade article with links to blogs. I read the recent entries of every blog in the list that was in the article. As any blog they have massive POV, all seem to range from conservative to very conservative and are not in my opinion encyclopedic material. If one was to be choosen to be included I would stay away from those with strong POV-oriented titles. Mthibault (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The original reason given for deleting DPRK Studies, and then all blogs, from the EL was that WP EL policy prohibited blogs. Now this is interpretation of EL policy is acknowledged as being inaccurate. There is no policy to cite in prohibiting it or the other proposed blogs for inclusion in EL. That some other articles don't include them is not a policy; the actual policy allows for them. If you do not have a policy to cite in preventing them from being added, please supply any other reason you may have. That would be much appreciated, since you have not commented on the suggestion for links that you solicited. If you do not think they merit inclusion, please provide reasons. Thanks. Dprkstudies (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, blogs are prohibited with the exception of "...link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one..." and "Links to blogs (...) written by a recognized authority".
What is also clear in the EL policy is that justification for the inclusion of any link into an article is the onus of those who wants the link added and not for anyone to justify why it shouldn't be added.
NK may be an exception for which linking to a blog may be acceptable (this is for you to prove, not for me to deny) to which the WP:IAR policy might apply.
The links I suggested are of course open to debate, I think they are either official sources or mainstream media information which justifies them being added.
I've asked for the Mediation Cabal and lauched a RfC to attract experienced editors attention to mediate this process. Mthibault (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is an exception to prohibition on including blogs in EL, then by definition blogs are NOT prohibited. You still can't get over that. I have discussed my credentials and those of the blog authors I suggest, and I am sure you read related comments on my blog in the thread you made several comments on.
If the onus is on me, then I think I have made my point; no policy prevents it as the conditions are met. In such a case, you should not object to the links being added. Dprkstudies (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading the answer to the RfC and LessHeard_vanU comment I would say that:
  • The onus to prove that the blog links (except you own blog) adds content value to the encyclopedia is on you (since you are for the moment the only one to desire their inclusion)
  • The onus to prove that a link to your blog adds content value to the encyclopedia is on other editors
Blogs are prohibited with exceptions (there is a request at the moment at Wikipedia_talk:External_links to define what "recognized authority" is, you may want to review that section.
I object to the inclusions of the blogs for multiple reasons (verifiability, npov, notability...) and more generaly because I don't see any of the authors fall into the category of "recognized authority". However, consensus may decide otherwise and I'll respect that, as much as I expect you to respect it if it's the other way around. To sum it up, even if consensus decides that the links are not prohibited by policy, they still need to meet the content criteriums. Mthibault (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading the About pages of the authors of the above blogs, as well as comments elaborating on credentials at my blog, if you still think I am not considered an authority on this topic, then, aside from a PhD, who is? Not someone who's been studying North Korea for over a decade, with a graduate degree focused on it, who speaks the language (though rather rustily at this point), who has lived on peninsula for a year and a half, who has interviewed defectors, and who has been employed working directly related issues??? I would be exceedingly curious to see what other accomplishments might put one past that threshold in your eyes. Dprkstudies (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your credentials are indeed impressive, but it seems clear to me that the exception for inclusion of a link to a blog is to link for example Kim Jong Il's blog (if it existed) on Kim Jong Il article. Imagine otherwise if every scholar on every subject was to link its blog in coresponding articles... That's what I undertand "recognized authority" means. Again, I may be wrong, we need more editors inputs. Mthibault (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As Kim Jong-il doesn't have a blog (that we know about), and the number of blogs that specialize on North Korea is exceedingly small, I think the analogy is off.
There is nothing in the existing policy to even hint at the absurdly high bar you set for defining an authority. Q: would you like to a serious suggestion, something more realistic? Let's hope no one wants to link to a blog from an article on God...
You continue to be creative, yet unconvincing, in your quest to prohibit even specialized blogs in EL. Dprkstudies (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Article POV and ELs

I'm requesting for comments on the changes I made to remove the POV tag and on the EL conflict. Mthibault (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If there is a consensus of uninvolved editors to include the Dprkstudies blog, then it should be included, but for the blog's administrator to edit war, and make personal attacks against those who revert him, is unacceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I added my blog back to the list, which it had been on about two years and had apparently only recently been removed. I believe it was reverted without merit and with no standing in policy as the editor who removed it then claimed that WP EL policy prohibited all blogs, which is incorrect. I also submit that the authors of the four blogs suggested for EL, including myself, are North Koren specialists and thus qualify to be considered authorities on the topic, which is the condition for including weblogs in EL. Dprkstudies (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say that Dprkstudies didn't edit war. Mthibault (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. Dprkstudies (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks also. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adomas21 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm mediating on behalf of the mediation cabal. For any outside commentators, here is the most recent version to contain the section in question. I'll point the editors to a couple of policies that are relevant: WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL. I want to make particular mention of the section WP:ELNO, or "Links to avoid", which specifically mentions blog links, unless "written by a recognized authority". There are two issues that need to be addressed here: 1) are any of these blogs written by a recognized authority, and 2) if so, are these blogs serving a purpose in the article that goes above WP:LINKFARM? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, being the editor who removed the links, you won't be surprised if I tell you that:
1. In my opinion, none of the authors of the blogs are authorities on the subject of North Korea, they are probably very qualified observers, specialists, commentators even experts, but are not authorities on the subject (I think Christopher R. Hill or Kim Jong Il would be authorities). A debate started but seems to be dying at Wikipedia_talk:EL to better define "recognized authority". In the interest of the encyclopedia, we have to limit links in articles to very selected materials (that's not my opinion, that's policy), I am therefore in favor of a strict definition of "recognized authority".
2. On the matter of the purpose of the blogs, they are critics of the regime (I must say that no sane individual can support the regime, I am not in any way supporting them, I want to make that very clear). The government of North Korea may be in this matter an exception, it is probably the less popular regime in the world, thus some may argue there is room for such critics in the article ELs (the US or France for example have many critics including lots of blogs written by very qualified people, but I do not think anyone would endorse their inclusions in those countries respective articles). Rather than blogs, for NPOV reasons since all these blogs are quite conservative, I'd rather see a link or two to NGOs working on human rights in North Korea (areligious and apolitical ones would be preferable), but that's my opinion.
We both tried with Dprkstudies to settle the issue, it started well but got nowhere, I hope you can help. Mthibault (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
First, I just saw this, so I'll make mention of it- the DPRK Studies blog has a posting mentioning this disagreement.
As for the links, when I first looked at the old revision, I was very surprised with the external links section. I don't think I've ever seen such an extensive collection, and that is in addition to the citations. Obviously, there are going to be many voices on both sides of an issue, and a great many blogs on both sides. However, as is the idea of WP:LINKFARM, we can't make an indiscriminate list of links, hence the recognized authority idea. To keep the EL section from becoming so large, I would agree on a strict adherence to WP:EL- only if a convincing argument could be made to declare a blog a "recognized authority" should it be included. The term is vague, as such, all arguments would be welcome, so if Dprkstudies or anyone else would like to comment, please feel free, and we'll discuss the merits. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have some things to be discussed. First, there is an argument at the DRPK About page to demonstrate the authority of the author. Also, the link in my previous post contains comments by Joshua (search the page for his name), which assert his claim to authority (he is the author of another blog on the list, "OneFreeKorea", and also makes points about the nature of DPRK). It would also be relevant to search google for the names of the blogs, and see if the number of hits demonstrates them to be notable. For now, let me know what you think of these links- do they demonstrate a status of authority for DRPK Studies and OneFreeKorea? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to JeremyMcCracken directly concerning the two questions he posed above.
I reject completely Mthibault's suggestion that an ambassador (Chris Hill) or a chief of state (Kim Jong-il) be the threshold for who is considered an "authority" on North Korea, or presumably related topics. I’m not sure how one can suggest this and expect to be taken seriously.
A “strict definition” of authority may not be desirable since authorities in largely different areas (North Korea, sports, woodworking, etc.) will have vast ranges in credentials, making any “strict definition” a less than useful approach.
It is also important to note that the study of North Korea differs from that of, say, China, in that the target is the most closed society on Earth, and foreigners as a rule have had extremely little contact with that secretive nation. Therefore obtaining any level of expertise is much more difficult, and consequently there is a much smaller pool of specialists on North Korea, and (again unlike China) a drastically smaller collection of blogs by those with substantial knowledge of North Korea. OneFreeKorea and DPRK Studies are two of those blogs.
An absurdity of this is that if I'd called my site something like, "The Center for DPRK Studies," and written "articles" as a private think tank rather that using blog software (WordPress) that creates "posts," none of this would be an issue.
It boils down to this; we know the opinions expressed in our blogs are POV and not appropriate for the main article, but we believe our messages are important and informed on North Korea, there are not a even a moderate number of similar sources, and the blogs are entirely appropriate for EL. Perhaps the EL for North Korea needs to be trimmed, but I don’t think those two blogs need to be. Dprkstudies (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick point of fact: Joshua of OneFreeKorea said that he testified before congress; while the transcript isn't there, a hit on google books confirms that he did, and shows his employment through the U.S. army. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I never questionned the credentials of the authors of those blogs. They are just not authorities in the spirit of the policy. None of these people are notable, what they are writing has bias, and some of the content of those blogs is not verifiable. There are some precendents (I looked through the archives at Wikipedia_Talk:EL) there is even a current RfC where a published professor's blog is proposed for addition by a third party but consensus for inclusion is clearly not reached.
I'm sorry not to offer any new arguments, I just think that everything I already presented several times on this talk page, and at Dprkstudies blog (side note to Dprkstudies: the french bashing was not the high point of your arguments) remains valid. This is not a rethorical fight, but an attempt to explain to a new editor the guidelines of this community (the first one in this case being COI). There has never been, and I highly doubt there will ever be consensus on adding those blogs to the article. I've done my best, in good faith, to attract attention to this talk page and get as many people as possible to comment, no one suggested the links be restored. What is your opinion Jeremy? Mthibault (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've re-read the OneFreeKorea blog, and I don't know what to think. The posts on human rights are of exceptional quality. We could make an exception with this blog, to represent the specific nature of the north Korean human rights issue. What do you both think? Mthibault (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"None of these people are notable, what they are writing has bias, and some of the content of those blogs is not verifiable. There are some precendents..."
One does not need to be notable or write w/o bias to be an authority - those aren't mutually exclusive things. The Notability policy is about articles and has nothing whatsoever to do with authors or EL. The "precedent" cited was not applicable. None of these things are logically applicable to the current situation. Dprkstudies (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Mthibault referenced an RfC concerning a professor’s blog that was deemed not appropriate for inclusion in EL. However, that case is not comparable to this case;
  • The blog (on intelligence testing) was not actually focused on the topic of the article (on intelligence in general)
  • The blog had advertising (neither of the proposed NK blogs have any advertising or solicit funds), which seems to be a major point against it in EL
Not a good example for this case concerning blogs strictly focused on North Korea in the EL of the North Korea article.
Also, I did not engage on any “French bashing” on my blog, please refrain from making such statements. Dprkstudies (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
" “Wikinazi” cuts MT on a couple of levels – being French and “just following orders.” " Mthibault (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a statement of fact concerning the comment by someone going by "Wiesenthal," and in regard to a related comment by James. To say that the comment reaches out on at least two levels in no way implies my endorsement. Thus "French bashing" is NOT any part of any of my arguments. Again, please refrain from taking my comments out of the obvious context. Dprkstudies (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the two issues I'd raised, the LINKFARM issue is gone, as the mass of ELs were removed. I'll point out that WP:EL doesn't exclude blogs outright- it requires an exception to include one. It requires each one to be assessed on an individual basis. Blogs can be included in they are by a "recognized authority".

In regards to OneFreeKorea, the blog's author is Joshua Stanton. Per the google books link above, we're told that Stanton was "a Judge Advocate Officer in the U.S. Army, U.S. Forces Korea, from 1998 to 2002." I can also find reference of the blog being used as a news source. Per that, I would consider Stanton to be a recognized authority.

Considering DPRK separately, we have to look at the qualifications of its creator, C. Richardson, a.k.a. User:Dprkstudies (I've left his full name off in case there are anonymity concerns; I found it on a linked article from the about link above). Richardson doesn't have the government involvement of Joshua Stanton; while he has worked with the Department of Defense, this doesn't imply a Korea tie. We therefore have to look at how widespread the blog is recognized by the community. I found one mention in a U.S. newspaper as to a posting on DPRK Studies. G-hits seem to be borderline on showing a widespread base of the blog, so I'm undecided as to its status as a "recognizable authority". Can any news sources be provided that would show a mention of it in the media, books, seral publications, etc., or something that could show a deeper involvement in Korean affaris? (e.g., a source to show that you've worked for the government, through the U.S. government in Korea, etc.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy. I beg to differ with your opinion on Stanton being a recognized authority, including his blog under this provision would open a pandora box that would basically allow any scholar blog to be linked in articles ELs (the farm would then come back quite quickly here). I am however in favor of its inclusions under the occasional exception clause for its irreplacable content (that's opinion).
The Dprkstudies blog is another story. Discussion about its inclusion is not even warranted, no editor except Dprkstudies himself has requested it be added (that's policy).
I would also like to add that WP is not US-centric, testifiying before the US congress or being quoted in a local US newspaper hardly means recognition of encyclopedic merits. The usual standard is scientific publication of research. Please see the RfC I mentionned above about Intelligence, you'll see the mentioned author is much more a notable authority but still fails to get consensus. Mthibault (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Mthibault, first you claimed that all blogs were forbidden per EL policy, which was incorrect. When you thought that, you stated in a comment on my blog, "...I do believe those of you who claim to be experts on the subject," referring to Joshua and myself (though neither of us had used the workd "expert," you did see fit to use that word after reading what Joshua added to our About pages). You now seem to reverse this, since the tide doesn't appear to be going your way concerning authority.
As the original editor to delete the blog and due to the shifting nature of your argument, I believe you should remove yourself from judging credentials as there appears to be bias and a clear conflict there. I'm sure you will claim there is not, but certainly it appears that way. Dprkstudies (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see where I reversed my judgment. I still believe those of you who claim to be experts, I am only saying you are not "recognized authorites" in the spirit of the policy, which is ultimately what matters. Please, avoid trying to undermine what I say by arguing I'm not consistent, apart from being untrue, it is also not civil: comment on edits, not on the editor. You also keep claiming I said blogs where forbidden, where the farthest I've been is saying that blogs should be avoided. Constantly repeating I said something I didn't say will not make it true. You will understand that I won't recuse myself from commenting, no one is here to "judge credentials", but to build consensus. Since you are accusing me of bias and COI I will ask that you open a request at RfC about me stating justification for your accusations and asking for review. Wikipedia is not a blog where you can make personnal attacks to push your POV. This being the third time you engage in this kind of behavior, I will be less liberal in the future should you do it again, I will report you. Mthibault (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Saying that there appears to be some bias and conflict is clearly NOT a personal attack, and commenting on this is certainly appropriate in this specific case. Warning me against pointing this out also seems a little bizarre since it’s your own strong POV against blogs in EL and what constitutes an authority that seems to be the cause of some potential bias/conflict and inconsistency here. The quotes above don’t need to be again repeated here, I think. Perhaps someone else should comment on that?
The latest direction is to question “recognized authority,” while at the same time referring to the authors of the blogs in question as “experts,” which certainly appears to be inconsistent. To observe this is certainly not a personal attack of any sort.
If you want to speak of the “spirit” of the EL policy, then extra consideration under the headings, “What should be linked” and “Links to be considered” is also called for. Dprkstudies (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, that's why I think an exception is warranted for OneFreeKorea under WP:IAR. Mthibault (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Extremely pleased to hear that, though I think it's a case of agreeing to the right thing for the wrong reason (i.e., existing EL policy is fine) Dprkstudies (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make a couple of points. First, with the absence of a good definition of "recognized authority", I was using two criteria: 1) that the author could be considered an expert in the field; 2) that the blog has widespread acceptance. I felt that OneFreeKorea met that. In looking at the other blogs (excepting DPRK, which I'll get to), some don't work at all, but I can't find any from the working ones where the author has anything to declare them an expert. I wasn't going off of the congressional testimony from Stanton, but rather, his employment with the Army that specifically dealt with Korea. In that vein, I'll mention that I did find something to show Richardson of DPRK worked with Korea- his DoD work was related to southeast Asia, as mentioned in an article that was published by a another organization. Keep in mind, experts in any field often get published in other journals, and these publications are usually intended to push an argument.

In regards to the intelligence RfC, two points: 1) that looks to be in the "no consensus" zone (keep in mind, it's a discussion, not a tallied vote); 2) a number of those wishing exclusion had a problem with the blog's advertising and promotional tone, which varies per the EL. If there are concerns with either of these, please include them, for they're worth considering.

I've been trying to determine the circulation and use in regards to the DPRK blog, but google's throwing false hits, so I'm having to sift. As yet, I'm not finding much to show widespread use. If Dprkstudies could provide any instances of it being cited in a non-blog medium, that would be helpful.

I didn't make mention of it because we already know it- Dprkstudies is arguing for inclusion of his own blog. While that is a COI, I'd prefer to take each link on its own merits.

BTW everybody seems very angry today; please, we're all adults, lets not attack those who don't share our opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have again replied directly to JeremyMcCracken concerning the questions he raises. Dprkstudies (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Per Dprkstudies' email, there are a number of links. Here are the ones that are telling:
Based on the fact these, I would say the DPRK link would also be considered a recognized authority. Here are the basic ideas that were in play:
  1. The authors were considered experts in the capacity of anyone that would be printed in a scholarly journal, regardless of whether they were published in one. (Typically, these publications come from researchers/college professors, but in this particular case someone who studied the country through a government agency isn't liable to be in a research agency or teach college studies. Others who may meet this criteria would be geographers or historians who had dedicated significant study to that of the area of Korea.)
  2. The blog in question receives 1)a significant number of readers, evident with both by the number of references by other bloggers; 2)mention from non-blog sources that elevates the links above the status of an opinion blog. In the case, we had them both cited as sources of reliable information, as well as news sources. Of course, it is imperative that the author/publisher/website be one of status; in this case, they were the U.S. Army and Netscape.
There is no set definition of "recognized authority", so I had to make an ad-hoc definition of it. There hasn't been any dialog since my last post, so if there are any ideas or pertinent information, feel free to include it. As I'd said before, as it stands, the other blogs from the old EL section don't seem to be "recognized authorities", and the other ELs fall into different sections of WP:EL, though they were not included in the mediation/RfC. I'll also point out that all situations are unique; in a different article with more ELs to start with, or a subject where more expert/specialists are writing, the definition of "recognized authority" should be made more stringent. It's meant to encompass the top authorities in the field. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. It's interesting to see that another editor supports the inclusion of those links because he thinks their authors are "recognized authorities". Would you mind clarifying 4 things:
  • Did the private correspondance through email you had with Dprkstudies contributed to your opinion (appart from the references you posted above)?
  • In your capacity as informal mediator, have you contacted the other editors who expressed opinion on this talk page regarding this dispute?
  • What prompted you to form an opinion before engaging in neutral mediation?
  • What do you think should happen next?
Thank you! Mthibault (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

  1. No- they were basically replies that you would see here, I guess he just thought email would be better. Specifically, I received three: one that gave his side, right after my initial post, which was pretty similar to what you first posted; one that addressed my comment about not showing an involvement in Korea, which pointed me to the article link I posted; and third, a list of hyperlinks, only some of which I used. I was asking him for some evidence on his part; he emailed it to me rather than posting it here.
  2. I was going by the editors you listed at the request.
  3. I gave my own opinion because it appeared to be a deadlocked argument- you were both repeating the same arguments in circles. I stress that this is my opinion based on what is here, and the medcab is an informal means of mediation. Keep in mind that Wikipedia tends to go by looser policies with some wiggle room, and we were facing a section that was very vague, that is, the definition of "recognized authority".
  4. If you were satisfied with these criteria for inclusion, great. It looks as though you aren't, so I'd recommend looking into formal dispute resolution. I think you and Dprkstudies can't reach an agreement over this matter, so DR is the way to go.

JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your honnest answers. Would you then mind filling the WP:RFM? Mthibault (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you do this, as you'd know any additional involved parties. I was going by the parties listed at medcab, but if you feel there are more, they'd need to be included. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy, for taking the time to actually examine credentials and evidence before making a thoughtful and well-explained call, and for taking a clearly unbiased look at the situation; that is very much appreciated.
I'm not familiar with DR, so will stay tuned to see what is expected. Dprkstudies (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as I said, I offered a third opinion, but it still seems deadlocked. We were able to lay some facts out, so those will be more readily available in DR. As I recommended, one of the parties involved should make the mediation request, and be sure to include any parties not in the medcab that were a part of it. I'm going to consider this a closed; please don't make any changes to the article in regards to this issue until it's resolved through whatever means are used. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there is no opposition now for adding at least OneFreeKorea to EL. Any objections? If not, I will put only it back. And I'll suggest we all use common sense. Dprkstudies (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs

Dprkstudies, do you think you could prove ownership of your blog by clearly laying out your credentials as an expert? Would that make it accepatable for inclusion? Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what by what you mean with, "prove ownership," please clarify that part. I've put as much personal information in my About page of the blog as I'm going to, more than I feel comfortable with actually. Comments in the Wiki-related post add some to that. For the record, I've never claimed to be an "expert" (only a very few people can claim this with truth, and not all that think they are) but a "specialist" with substantial experience directly related to North Korea. That specialty and experience is where I tie into the "authority" mentioned in the EL policy. Dprkstudies (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you clearly lay out your credentials in this area? Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am not too late to the discussion, I'd like to voice my support for the inclusion of DPRK Studies and One Free Korea blogs to the EL section. I am a regular reader of both blogs and can vouch that these blogs are read by people seeking reliable information on North Korea. OFK in particular posts original content obtained from government and other authoritative sources. Both blogs are critical of the North Korean regime, but that should not disqualify them. Given the nature of the regime, it would be hard to find a reliable, trustworthy source with a NPOV since it's hard to be neutral about the serious accusations of gross human rights abuses. The hagiographic treatment of its former and present leader and fantastic claims found on authoritative DPRK government websites are balanced by including ELs with critical content.

Sonagi (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)— sonagi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Korea/Archive_10&oldid=775658853"