Talk:Park Yeon-mi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Korea (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I marvel at the non-stop vandalism of this article, and even of the Talk Page, to prevent ANY mention of Ms. Park's full-time status and job as a libertarian, freedom-fighter, pro-liberty reformer, and human rights activist for North Korea. Gross incompetence and bias rules here. I love it! :-) KyZan (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)KyZan

Within this blog post is a letter sent from Yeonmi Park [1] that clearly advocates in favor of sanctions. True libertarians, by definition, support free market empowerment everywhere. That said, Park does not fit the definition of a libertarian due to her support of sanctions. (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

our interpretation of her actions (or letters she may have posted) and our definitions of political philosophies are irrelevant. If reliable sources have identified her positions as X, then we do as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure what you mean, but my logic for the inclusion of the "Sanctions Support Letter" is that; if it is good enough to submit as evidence in a court of law, then it should be good enough to submit to dispute misinformation on this Wikipedia page. MikeJB79 (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


FYI, Mike Bassett has recently been on a one man crusade against Yeon Mi Park and has taken to editing her wikipedia entry to include his conspiracy theories. While I think a criticism section is certainly warranted, I took the liberty of removing the last couple paragraphs Mike added, which were basically him repeating his criticisms in the third person. Hope that is okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section should be examined for its flagrant lies and half-truths.

>>"Michael Bassett, who spent several years stationed at the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea"

Casey Lartigue: Is this relevant? This is a page about Yeon-mi Park, not for Bassett to promote himself.

>>"- and has graduate degrees in both international communications and North Korean affairs -"

Casey Lartigue: Should Bassett upload his resume to this page?

>>"claimed that Park was an opportunist, profiteer, and a spokesperson"

Casey Lartigue: Is this appropriate for a balanced Wikipedia page?

>>" being fed a narrative"

Casey Lartigue: not appropriate.


Casey Lartigue: not a credible source, the writer has linked to his own articles.

>>"Bassett refutes that this claim further supports his, citing the fact that he published[13] a response to the harshest critics of his claims against her, and that Yeon-mi and her manager Casey Lartigue"

Casey Lartigue: What is the author's evidence that Casey Lartigue is her manager? Casey Lartigue, who is not her manager, is asking this.

>> have "hostilely stonewalled" all media that that have approached them to question the validity of his criticisms."

Casey Lartigue: In truth, his stupid charges haven't been worth responding to.

>> Additionally, Casey and Yeon-mi have combatively refused to address criticisms of their political and personal agenda's to anyone.

Casey Lartigue: Hello, Wikipedia. This page should be watched.

>>"Bassett claims that Yeon-mi treats the conflict as if it is "there for her entertainment"; citing the fact that she has never explained why she supports sanctions despite being a self-proclaimed libertarian who wants to promote freedom in North Korea."

Casey Lartigue: That is such a stupid loaded statement, it should be deleted.

>> He claims that her "human rights agenda" (as evidenced by her speech at One Young World) is a fabrication because her recommendations had nothing to do with improving conditions in North Korea, and everything to do with promoting the agenda's he accuses her of having.

Casey Lartigue: This is not appropriate as balanced criticism.

>> Lastly, Basset argues that her only true agenda is to further her celebrity status

Casey Lartigue: That's for an editorial, not for a Wiki page.

>> - which he claims she achieves through highly-orchestrated sensational, melodramatic, and emotionally-gripping performances.

Casey Lartigue: He is entitled to his own opinion, but it should be on his own Wikipedia page.

>> Hi guys I've deleted the criticism section of the article if that's okay?

Reliable Sources?[edit]

At present the article contains this: "Michael Bassett, who spent several years stationed at the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea - and has graduate degrees in both international communications and North Korean affairs - claimed that Park was an opportunist, profiteer, and a spokesperson being fed a narrative meant to bolster the case for H. R. 1771 (a law that would impose sanctions against the Kim regime)"

Do Michael's opinions meet wiki standards for reliable sources and does his opinion qualify as a "significant" minority view? "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)" PeterDaley72 (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

Given the fact that he is not a scholar of any significance, but just seems to be a guy with a personal grudge against Yeon mi Park, I would recommend taking him out. To be honest, I trimmed down the criticism page last night and now see it has turned into an incoherent, overly long screed today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from this talk about Bassett, this page could benefit from better attribution to the statements and testimony of Park. I will continue to add sources as I come across them. I have not edited a page on here before, but my experience in copy-editing led me to conclude that the person who last edited this article is not a native English speaker. Also, the header criticism of the neutrality of the page seems insensitive to the material with which we are dealing. I am not Bassett--I feel odd questioning this story in his manner, and I think that if someone is coming to this page to find out what happened to Park and her family, there is no need to numb the details of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianacohen (talkcontribs) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You're correct about the native English speaker part, although it was a good start and we appreciate their work. I've done a bit of editing, but feel free to add more as it could use more editing and sources. Just be sure to look at how other references are formatted- I went through the ones in this article and named redundant ones to make the references section look cleaner. Feel free to ask questions if need be, and on this talk page be sure to sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section has turned into an overly long, unreadable screed, much of it with information only tangentially connected to Yeon Mi Park. While I feel a brief criticism section could be warranted, most of what is there now can be deleted. Mike Bassett is not a notable North Korea scholar, and he is using this page as a platform to air his personal grievances, which is absolutely unacceptable as per wikipedia's quality standards.

Content sourced to Bassett's blogs has been removed per WP:BLPSPS. --NeilN talk to me 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've edited it as well. I've removed a lot of material that was soapboxing as well as some phrasing that could otherwise be seen as non-neutral or SPS to some degree. I've also asked for the page to be temporarily semi protected due to the IP edits. I'd protect it myself but I want to ensure that there is no potential COI here since I've done some fairly heavy editing to the page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW, thank you for stepping in here! I've given you a cookie, but I should probably give you a barnstar as well. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Korea Observer is NOT one of my blogs. It is a reputable South Korean source. I am requesting that the following be entered into Bassett criticism section following the last sentence: Bassett responded to criticisms from Yeon-mi and supporters in a publication through the Korea Observer. [2]

To refuse this edit is legal ground for censorship - as it is not soapboxing, vitriol, or subjective. It proves that I have not only been engaging, but made my best efforts to explain my criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJB79 (talkcontribs)

Oh for God's sake Mike, just because we don't feel this is an appropriate forum for your personal feelings and rants it doesn't mean anyone is "censoring" you (and it is certainly not "legal grounds" for anything). Wikipedia is for unbiased, objective information, not for everyone to get their "side" and personal views out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, would someone be so kind as to edit out the "spinstress" comment he added? That is not only biased and irrelevant but sexist. (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of you need to realize this article and talk page are not your personal playground. Go find a forum if you want to squabble with each other. MikeJB79, we're not going to detail your tit-for-tat responses. IP, "spinstress" is a criticism and not exactly supposed to be flattering to the subject. --NeilN talk to me 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I started out just trying to keep the article objective and tidy, but perhaps let my personal annoyance with what he was doing shine through (you can probably tell I don't edit very often, I only found my way here after he started bragging about defacing the article). Anyway, sorry once again, and thank you for helping to keep the article up to standard! (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not put the word "spinstress" in. It was taken from my blog. The only points I included were for the purpose of highlighting my criticisms in an objective manner, embodying them for what they really are, not the misrepresented fashion they've portrayed me. That is simply why I have requested that my actual Korea Observer, Fair Observer, or SinoNK pieces be cited, rather than anything from my blog or the blogs of others. I request that defaming portrayals of me be stricken and my criticism section (if it must remain) actually quote citations from my publications. I am not trying to turn this into a "playground" and I apologize if it has come across that way. I am merely requesting that I be represented fairly, or not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJB79 (talkcontribs)

Please do not insert your posts in the middle of others and please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end. We need to see who said what. "Spinstress" was not sourced from your blog, it was sourced from here. Defamation has to do with incorrect facts as you probably know, not fair comment and criticism. I'd be very careful using that word on Wikipedia as any hint of legal action is severely frowned upon. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger, got it. What I'm saying, is that I did not post that word here, and that John Powers did not get it from our interview. I never mentioned that word in our interview. He took it from my blog. Again, I am requesting that my criticisms be represented factually or not at all. Powers piece in the Diplomat is not considered a source of my views because he quoted nothing from our interview - which I have a transcript from because I recorded it. That said, I ask that it be stricken. Lastly, if you are unwilling to cite publications from which I am the actual author (Korea Observer, Fair Observer, or SinoNK pieces) than I request that you strike my name entirely from the criticisms section. MikeJB79 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJB79 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Previous comment mine, forgot to sign. Mike Bassett. MikeJB79 (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, your thoughts? I'm against using sources where Bassett is the author as we should have secondary sources to determine weight. Removal of the entire criticism is also unappealing as it provides a balancing viewpoint. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear administrator, if you are going to quote me then quote publications through reputable sources that have been copy-edited and peer-reviewed, such as Korea Observer, Fair Observer, or SinoNK. If you cannot honor this request then please remove me from the section. Again, I can prove that the media has quoted my blog (Peace|Wager), and everyone here agrees that my blog is not a reputable source. MikeJB79 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your request has been noted and will be discussed by other editors. --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the issue, but how is The Korean Observer peer-reviewed? It's not a scientific journal. (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

Point taken. But my request remains. Please portray my view accurately or not at all. Respectfully, MikeJB79 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So your blog isn't an accurate portrayal of your views? I understand your point about John using material from your site and not from the interview, but they are still your words, right? Regarding Wiki's standards, I would say your views (no offense) represent an insignificant minority view as opposed to the "significant" minority view required for Wiki sources. (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

My blog is a personal space where eI am sometimes being snarky, joking, cynical, or what have you. It is not a credible source. What would make you think my blog is more credible tun Korea Observer, Fair Observer, or SinoNK? Those are actually edited by people with years in journalism or academia and have advanced degrees. Again, I expect that my request to have my professional opinion as published in either of those three sources cited to accurately represent my views, or else to have my name stricken from the section. Regardless, I have friends who are journalists and are covering this story and I have copy and pasted this conversation so ultimately, the integrity of the site will be judged by the action taken by its administrators. From hereon, I am a spectator. I will enjoy watching whatever you decide to do. Respectfully, MikeJB79 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree your blog isn't a credible source. Hence, my opinion that your views are not significant enough to meet Wiki's source criteria. I actually know the owner of The Korean Observer. I'll ask him how vigorous his editing/peer-reviewing was of your article. I suspect he just published it as is, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this discussion. In the end your views are your views where ever they are expressed. However colorful and relaxed your blog posts are, you really can't argue that they aren't your views. If not yours, then who's? Rhetorical question. Sure, I can understand you wanting to sound more professional when publish elsewhere... perhaps that's what you meant? Also not relevant is discussion about what John Powers put into his article and hence which parts of that article belong here on Wiki. Your issues about that should be discussed with John and his editor. It isn't the role of Wiki to determine what should or shouldn't have appeared in a journalist's article. Also irrelevant is who you are showing this page to. The integrity of the article will be judged by Wiki editors using Wikipedia's guidelines as ... guidelines^. That's it. Again, I maintain your views are not significant enough to warrant inclusion according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Nor are mine. I wouldn't dream of adding to this page "Michael thinks Yeon-mi's tears were faked, but Peter Daley disagrees." So what? That's about as relevant to Yeon-mi's Wikipedia page as today's weather.

The vast majority of articles make no mention of your own and similiar criticisms (perhaps because, as you said, your blog isn't credible^) and Yeon-mi's accounts are entirely consistent with other accounts, articles, and books provided by other defectors.

Hi to Michael's journalist friends. Please feel free to join the discussion, and if you deem these discussions worthy of mention in future articles, please let me know. I'd be happy to contribute. And Michael, just some personal advice. Don't put material on your blog you are not prepared to stand by. Be proud and sure of every word, so that if your blog is quoted without your permission in the future, you will not be concerned in the least; rather, you will be pleased and grateful. PeterDaley72 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

I stand by my words in my blog, but I am saying that it doesn't have the credibility to meet Wiki guidelines. Further, the selectivity of what you have used in my criticisms section, is not accurately representative of my view. I would gladly provide you a more accurate representation, as I attempted to do before this page was restricted and my edits revised. My message in sum, is that I believe Yeon-mi is young and naive, and seeking fame and fortune - and that her narratives do nothing to help the 24 million still oppressed inside North Korea. Everything I've written has consistently repeated criticisms of individuals or policies that are counter-productive to achieving liberty for the oppressed in North Korea. So again, if you are not willing to represent my views accurately to a similar effect, than I request that you strike my name from the criticisms section because you are MISREPRESENTING my views. Respectfully,MikeJB79 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've made no edits to the page. The bottom line is you don't believe aspects of her story. Fair enough. I would just argue that's for your blog and is not significant enough for Wiki. Likewise Felix Abt's criticisms at present on the page appear to concern one statement that may have been misunderstood. One statement from her hours and hours of interviews. And it's a statement consistent with other testimonies. How is Feliz's skepticism Wiki-worthy? Again, the material in John's articles can be added here if editors agree it meets Wiki's guidelines. I personally don't agree, but I don't think it should be removed simply because the quotes appeared in John's article without your permission. That's between you and him. If those comments were removed from the article, that would perhaps be another matter. PeterDaley72 (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

To the Wikipedia editors, Peter Daley is a personal acquaintance of Casey Lartigues, which represents the potential for bias based on personal agenda and loyalty to his friend who he teaches refugees for. For this reason I request that his commentary be rejected from the process to decide whether or not to honor my request to either represent my view as it is, or to totally strike it from the page. In addition, any future commentators who have similar points that argue against representing my views - as I have not only published them, but specified them herein, be stricken as character assassination campaigns against me by those who do not agree or understand my point of view. Respectfully, MikeJB79 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no bias or personal agenda. I just don't think your views are Wiki-worthy. Wikipedia guidelines specify a source must at least represent a significant minority view. I just don't think the word significant applies to your views on the subject. They appear on your blog, in two pieces you wrote, and in one article that you take issue with because your blog was quoted^. I have some experience with wiki sites concerning Korean cults of personality, but not enough wiki experience to go in and make edits about this issue. Hence, I brought it up on the Talk page. That's what this page is for. I certainly haven't engaged in any character assassination here. I don't think you get to make demands about what appears here. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the way Wiki works. But it will be interesting to hear what more experienced editors have to say. PeterDaley72 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

This experienced editor thinks the current version of the article is okay but I've pinged another editor to come give her feedback. Patience is called for. Check back in a couple days. --NeilN talk to me 03:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to stop pursuing this issue until you stop MISREPRESENTING my views. I am sitting here telling you what my views are and you are trusting a biased journalist over a primary source! If you do not edit the section to represent my views as they are then I am going to request that you strike my name from the section. Again, My view is that Yeon-mi is a naive girl who is seeking fame and it is damaging to the 24 million Norht Koreans still in the country. If you publish anything else then you are MISREPRESENTING me. MikeJB79 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike Barrett wants to be free to slap conspiracy theories and disinformation on refugees pages without allowing for contextualisation or refutation. It amounts to the freedom to slander without rebuttal. That is not free speech. He wants the right to say what he wants without someone contradicting him.

In truth, every word of Mike Barrett's work shows one consistent fact: he's deeply sympathetic to the North Korean regime, his work amounts to apologies for its actions, and the most common image of him on the Internet is a photo of him gleefully embracing a North Korean soldier.

The North Korean government is known for grotesque persecution of its opponents and the murder of refugees who speak out. Here's the question: Is Mike Bassett allowed to criticize yeonmi park without owning up to the context of his remarks?

He should not be permitted to do the work of the North Korean propaganda department without at least being challenged on it. Worse, he should not be able to slander otherwise innocent North Korean refugees with fairy tales and completely unjustified criticism, without evidence of any kind whatsoever.

If yeonmi is going to be open to criticism of his sort, that criticism had to be contextualized or it amounts to giving the North Korean government a new propaganda arm and tool with which to victimize this woman further.

This is fairness and free speech: Either the full and morally dubious context of his remarks should be made clear or any reference to him or his criticism should be removed from the page.

Is it too much to to ask that the critic be able to swallow his own medicine,especially when he's on a personal propaganda campaign?

+ If Bassett has the right to throw conspiracy theories on someone's page, there needs to be a response to the author of those conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusPriscusCato (talk contribs) 05:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If Bassett wants to make comments in the full light of day, let him make them - in the full light of day, with the context of his comments fully realized. If he's unwilling to do this, and to own and sign and stand in the light of scrutiny, then he shouldn't be permitted to make such comments. It amounts to cowardly propaganda: He gets to shoot like a sniper from the sidelines, and then retreat into silent anonymity. He even denies readers the right to know why and where get gets his position. That's grossly unfair. Free speech means that he opens himself up to criticism when he criticizes. You can't have it one way without the other.MarcusPriscusCato (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi "Marcus" - as the administrator mentioned, this is not a forum for tit-for-tat. I have a blog and you can engage me there. Additionally, it is beyond obvious that you have not read anything I've ever written. Respectfully, MikeJB79 (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, none of this is Wikipedia worthy. The whole section on Criticism is little more than two relatively obscure personalities with highly politicized personal agendas attacking each other using Wikipedia as a platform, and none of it is substantive, significant, newsworthy, or informative. Who cares if someone called her names, and who cares what names she called him in response? If you leave that Criticism section in the article, Wikipedia is somehow complicit in the continuation of this overblown Facebook flame war between Mike Bassett and Casey Lartigue, and the gross exaggeration of their personal significance... Frankly, I think only those two people find this to be remotely substantive or meaningful at this point... All it really does is elevate and advertise both of their agendas far beyond their actual substance. You should delete it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The page is still problematic. As it stands now the only "reactions" are two guys who think she's a liar. One of whom just apologised and asked to work with her: The other it seems concerns a misunderstanding. Further comments from seasoned wikipedia authors appreciated. To quote from the wiki guidelines: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. PeterDaley72 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

The reactions are not poorly sourced. If you wish to add supportive reactions, please provide sources that cover these. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, will do over the weekend. What about the 'significant minority' guideline. Can those two men be considered representative of a "significant" minority when one has subsequently apologized and the accusation of the other was based on a misunderstanding? Slightly baffled and bemused^. PeterDaley72 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Peter Daley

>> Hi guys I've deleted the criticism section of the article if that's okay?

This recent article by Mary Ann Jolley, "The Strange Tale of Yeonmi Park[3]," should be included because articles from the same source (The Diplomat) were previously deemed credible enough sources for this site. (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC) (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


This in-depth analysis "Modern Warfare Korea: The Weaponization of Human Rights"MikeJB79 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "[1] (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)," has been indexed in the Library of Congress, and republished in numerous major media outlets including CounterPunch, asserts that YeonMi Park is an exorbitantly paid propagandist who is part of a larger network of NGO collaborators using her in an orchestrated campaign to induce mass hysteria in support of launching a war on the country by manipulating the global community into believing that there is a Holocaust taking place in North Korea. [2] MikeJB79 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@MikeJB79: Refugee testimony always has to be looked at critically. However, I do not consider the source to be WP:RS to include here. See WP:RSOPINION. It seems to be an opinion piece published in a journal put out by a non-profit (I have not heard about this venue or what their editorial policies are), and this is generally not reliable for facts. I do know about Counterpunch, which can publish good articles, but the quality is extremely variable, and it is generally not considered a reliable source for such facts. Whatever the truth of the matter, unless one can find mainstream sources saying this, this can't be included. Unless you demonstrate that your opinion (I assume you are Michael Bassett) is notable enough to be included here. The Diplomat article is already included here. Kingsindian  03:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian - While YOU may not find it a credible source, the Library of Congress does, and therefor so should Wikipedia. The US Library of Congress has awarded Fair Observer the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN 2372-9112). MikeJB79 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@MikeJB79: I am unsure of what giving them a classification number means, if anything - I confess myself ignorant on this issue. Doesn't the Library of Congress archive every tweet ever made? Since you have used attribution to state X, it is fine as it goes. The other Diplomat article does quote you, so it is possible that your view is notable enough to be included. However, keep in mind that there should be some sense of WP:DUE weight here. In the RfC it was accepted to only give a couple of sentences to the criticism, reflecting the general coverage. I am not sure if a whole paragraph to this would be acceptable. Kingsindian  07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@KingsIndian - If you choose to make rhetorical arguments to continue mosquito-netting all criticisms of Park then I can do the same. I will flag this for POV because your editors have slandered my expertise for a year, and proliferated the insertion of false information throughout this entire histiograghy. For example, the article by Park's ghost-writer Vollers - who is not a North Korea expert - provides no evidence to support the claim that Park "faces the wrath of the regime." It's a blatant falsification. And it even slanders me calling me a "regime sympathizer" when in fact I am more a Korean War truther. Vollers article is propaganda because North Korea never threatened Park's life anywhere ever. In fact, the regime let her escape. She paid them and they let her escape, just as she said. In the documentary released by Uriminzokkiri that Vollers based her article on, the regime did not threaten Park. They said that she's been a money-hungry opportunist since she was born, and it has neighbors and relatives providing anecdotal (perhaps propagandistic) stories to that effect. Further, the regime only threatens defectors who actually hurt their national security, such as former officials or those who testified in the COI. And for that reason, the ROK NIS provides them personal bodyguards when a clear threat has been made. Park had not been assigned one. I am known and respected as the foremost expert on Park and yet this talk page reveals a systematic attempt to marginalize my analysis, and maximize knowledge deficits by non-experts in support of providing a monopoly on the framing of her false legacy. If this continues, I will file a FOIA request against Wikipedia for internal communications related to every editor of this page, and if not provided, I will sue in court for it. MikeJB79 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@MikeJB79: Firstly, the Vollers article was added very recently, and I had no role in its inclusion. That should be reduced or removed as as well. Indeed, I had the same concerns as you: that is simply speculation on her part, and she is definitely not independent of the subject. Secondly, I was the one who added the Diplomat sources to the article questioning Park's story (or one of the people, the earlier attempt to add it was inconclusive). Thirdly, whatever claims the Vollers article makes about you, that is not included on Wikipedia, so there is no slander against you. As to marginalizing your analysis, please realize that one has to consider WP:DUE weight to all viewpoints. Your analysis is implicitly included by citing the Diplomat source, which quotes you, among others. Whether it should be given more prominence is to be be argued, not asserted. Lastly, please remember to WP:AGF, and you might want to read the essay (not policy but useful) WP:EXPERT. You get no special privileges on Wikipedia because you are an expert. You can argue your case like the rest of us. Kingsindian  17:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian - Thank you for your considerate and professional response. IF my analysis "Modern Warfare Korea: The Weaponization of Human Rights," and the update in the "reception" section is removed, then I expect a VERY detailed explanation as to why. That piece has been reviewed and vetted by numerous experts and scholars, received over 500,000 hits, and is rooted in exhaustive research and extensive scholarship. And on that note, I thank you for sharing links to guidelines and criteria, and request that you provide information on Wikepedia's hierarchical structure of knowledge governance, and the epistemological approach to how that governance makes determinations on what is constituted as "worthy knowledge" in itself. Thank you in advance, MikeJB79 (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@MikeJB79: I have for now removed both the Vollers piece and your own. The Vollers one was removed for reasons I gave earlier. Regarding yours, I do not know about your claims and I am in no position to judge. Furthermore, my judgement does not matter anyway: I am just an anonymous Wikipedia editor. What I don't see anywhere is the piece being widely quoted in reliable sources, and the fairobserver website clearly states that the piece is simply an opinion piece and does not reflect the editorial viewpoint of theirs (I do not know about this website anyway). If the piece gets widespread acceptance, then one might consider adding more detail about it in this article. Kingsindian  18:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @kingsindian. That will suffice for now. Many contrarian views are not totally proven for decades after the fact, and I suspect that could be the case with mine. There's a lot of disinformation out there, especially regarding this particular matter. Even coming from her own biographer... MikeJB79 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest addition[edit]

While the latest edit might have some good content, it has the same problems as the material Tokyogirl79 trimmed back - non-neutral wording, coatracking, and soapboxing. A condensed, properly written version may be a worthwhile addition. --NeilN talk to me 11:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I did some copyediting and did reference work in the past. I took most of the early life part out as it wasn't relevant, although some of it could be moved to other sections. I'm hoping that we can resolve some of the banner issues at the top of the article soon. Feel free to take a look and let me know what you think.
I'm also unsure what the "undue weight" banner above Travel Abroad refers to, so if you could clarify that for me, I'd appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


This article continues to be grossly incompetent and inaccurate. Park is a full time human rights activist. The article needs to mention that. Evil people with a pro-North Korea and pro-communist agenda shouldn't be allowed to censor freely -- as my mild Talk remarks were yesterday. KyZan (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)KyZan

Need some help[edit]

l need more information on how Yeonmi escaped North Korea. Two paragraphs aren't enough, so I decided to add factual and accurate information from my research about her escape. I would also like help from the editors for the article. Please do not make my hard work die in vain, trust me my research is more accurate with my recent quick fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanidentity10000 (talkcontribs)

@Koreanidentity10000: You have turned this article into a non-neutral hagiography which needs to be substantially trimmed and fixed. I will take a stab at this in a couple days. --NeilN talk to me 05:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Where is the source for the Hanja? --Christian140 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Park Ye-ju[edit]

It can be noted that, at the beginning of "Now on my Way to Meet You" 이제 만나로 갑니다 of Channel A, she used the name "Park Ye-ju" 박예주. --Christian140 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Background Discrepancies[edit]

I'm disputing and flagging the neutrality of this page due to the fact that one editor (TRPoD AKA The Red Pen of Doom) has repeatedly referred to insertions of articles that increase the accuracy of YeonMi Parks background, or dispute elements of it as "accusations." Sources such as NK News and The Diplomat are widely respected sources and actually, any analysis that holds water airtight should be taken into consideration for the accuracy of this page. This page is not a court of public opinion, it is an online dictionary and therefore should be as neutral as humanly possible and include as many sources as are available. Nobody should not be ordered to stop striving for accuracy. MikeJB79 (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The following lengthy analysis - [redacted]- posted on Scribd by Park Joo compares contradictory stories that YeonMi told about her background. The analysis concludes that those surrounding her such as Casey Lartigue, sponsoring organizations, and the media pressured Park to exaggerate and/or lie. According to this analysis YeonMi was willing to do so because she felt ostracized by other defectors who had substantially worse experiences than her in North Korea, which is why before she rose to fame she seemingly promoted a narrative of engaging North Korea, which is unpopular with most defectors.[redacted] MikeJB79 (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

blog posts are not acceptable sources for controversial claims about a living person. WP:RS / WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That was not a blog post. It was a media analysis published on Scribd that cited exact contradictory quotes from YeonMi that were published by multiple mainstream media outlets. A quote is a quote whatever the source. If it would hold up in a court of law, it should hold up on Wikipedia. The talk section of this page highlights and contradicts the monopoly on information in her actual page, and discredits Wikipedia's validity as a whole. I have screen shots from when my own personal blog was cited to lambaste me here. Suddenly now that my argument has been furthered in a water tight way, the bar is raised on sourcing? The editorial process of this page deserves the objectivity required to give Wikipedia the credibility that it strives for. Especially considering the fact that her hagiography is of utmost importance. The Scribd publication "YeonMi Park: The Defector Who Fooled The World" should stay. MikeJB79 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is like an open letter to Park Yeonmi. However, everyone could do something like this. So, I also have the opinion, it is not a proper source for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, what can be done is the same what Park Joo did in his letter. Since there are plenty of inconsistencies, they all could be shown in her biography. For example: "Park, her mother and her father, together fled to China. In other interviews/On the xyz summit, Park stated, that she and her mother crossed a frozen river and three mountains to get into the Chinese border. Park’s father stayed behind in North Korea, thinking his illness would slow them down."... Something like this. If you know what I mean. Cause then, all the original sources would be used. If think it could also be mentioned that Park has many critics and many accuse her of lying... I think Felix Abt is mentioned in many defector articles... So, there shouldn't be a problem. --Christian140 (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The China section contains claims about YeonMi's mother being raped in front of her. In this NK News piece "Why Defectors Change their Stories" another defector argues that this claim is likely a lie: MikeJB79 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We dont care that random people imply that a living person is a liar. WP:BLP Please stop pushing such accusations on the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Her neighbors question her credibility. They talk in a video released. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Article to be removed, as it's based on an arbitrary selection of one narrative version by Park Yeon-mi out of several contradictory ones[edit]

Since Park Yeon-mi gave various conflicting versions of her life story the article, based on an arbitrary selection of quotes, becomes meaningless and should be deleted, see the conflicting claims by Park Yeonmi. All her conflicting quotes together with the exact sources are listed here: Yeonmi Park: The defector who fooled the world Economia1 (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No Neutrality on North Korea[edit]

As with Shin Dong-hyuk, there seems a pretty obvious attempt by Wikipedia editors to censor anything that detracts from the credibility of these defectors and their unbelievable and inconsistent stories.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Any particular diffs that show censorship? Note that this article was created recently and has not fully matured. It already has a NPOV tag, but keep in mind that the article is about Park Yeon-mi and not about defectors in general or credibility of other defectors. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

North Korean response[edit]

The response of the North Korean side published by Uriminzokkiri is actually quite relevant: . Park Yeonmi's response is of course also relevant. I would write it by myself, but don't have much time these days. --Christian140 (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I added 4 sources (2 by media, 1 by the Korean association in Ireland and the video discussed above) t show that there are a lot of people believing that Park is lying. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's completely not what your wording indicated and your edit summary [removed] seems to suggest you are editing with an agenda. --NeilN talk to me 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN The text I wrote does not call her liar. I quotes exactly what the media wrote. [Removed]. Still the text is written in a neutral POV. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't care what you think about the subject - please stop committing WP:BLP violations. And the text you wrote makes no mention that these are North Korean government sources - hardly neutral or reliable. --NeilN talk to me 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN feel free to improve my text. There are many people complaining that the article is not neutral because the controversy section is missing and not the other way around. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hold on - you're an admin? What are you thinking? Please review your understanding of WP:BLP ASAP --NeilN talk to me 11:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NeilN You think DPRK's sources are not reliable. The video is full of testimonies of people. The documentary contains testimonies of people who lived next to Park's house. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Produced, edited, and controlled by the DPRK. If you want to add it, don't pass it off as "documentary". --NeilN talk to me 11:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NeilN government sources from any government are not reliable? I am not good in article building. This is clear. Check my edit history. If you think the word "documentary" is not correct, what is the right word? My questions are honest with no hard feelings. I always WP:AGF. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: The government in question is North Korea. They have a vested interest in discrediting Park and have little regard for accuracy - Media of North Korea. If you really want to add it in, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV needs to be used. --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if it is edited it should be mentioned. It is the official statement of the North Korean government and therefore relevant for this article.
I don't want to rewatch now, but I would have written something like: "In February 2014, the government of the DPRK released a video designating Park Yeon-mi a liar. Furthermore, the video captures critic on Park introduced by journalists like Mary Ann Jolley and Michael Bassett."
In October, her biography will be released anyways, so the whole article will need to be rewritten and probably, the controversy will get more attention in the media. --Christian140 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality / Primary sources[edit]

All the sources given in the text only quote Park's statements about her life in DPRK and how she ended up outside the country. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There are sources in media that question her credibility. DPRK also denies her story and provided evidence that Park is not telling the truth. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

All the sources are in fact primary. Since they are based on an interview given by the defector. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland I added the other side's opinion but it was reverted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Christian140 I added 4 sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[BLP redacted]

-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You must only use reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking , accuracy and editorial oversight. WP:BLP is quite clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom The Diplomat is an award-winning site and one of the top-five world news sites of 2010. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Two out of four references/links I provided and you deleted were already present in talk page since December 2014 by other editors. Still you only gave my a "final warning" and you reverted only my edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The telegraph source is in fact a primary source[edit]

The article in the Telegraph [1] is in fact an interview of Park. Nothing was double-checked. All the facts stated were given by Park herself. Thus, the title is written in first person ("How I escaped horrors of life under Kim Jong-il"). -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: That's incorrect. The piece appears in the News section and was written by Tom Phillips. The title describes her speech. --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled on this page by accident. It seems to me that the telegraph interview is indeed a primary source for the statements of bribing his way out, colon cancer and the rest. Recall that WP:PRIMARY says that a document can be a secondary source for one thing and a primary source for another. The article clearly quotes Yeon-mi as making these statements, by interspersing her comments in between. For instance: "After three years Yeonmi’s father managed to bribe his way out of jail. But by then he had been diagnosed with colon cancer. When Yeonmi saw him on his release, the once strapping figure had been transformed into a ghost of a man. ‘He had changed so much. He was so small. He spoke differently. I couldn’t believe it was my father,’ she says. " I have often seen many interviews with this style of interspersing of comments.
The article is indeed a secondary source for reports of prisoners being tortured in general in DPRK, for example the Human Rights Watch report and UN comments. But the personal experiences are based on the statements made by Yeon-mi herself. Of course, it is not easy to check these statements independently, and refugee testimony is important. But refugee testimony must be evaluated by secondary sources. This is a relatively new event, so I am not sure if such a verification exists anywhere. Perhaps a simple "Yeon-mi relates that..." should suffice. Kingsindian  17:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Diplomat is one of the top-five world news sites of 2010[edit]

The Diplomat seems to be a reliable source. Still I left a question on WP:RS if this is a reliable source. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I have no issues with The Diplomat source being used. --NeilN talk to me 14:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, WP:RSN is the better place for your question. --NeilN talk to me 14:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: I asked for help in order to write that part in NPOV. I see that instead of fixing the NPOV problem I just created a different one till one. Thanks for the advice. My text was meant to be mainly a draft where people will expand and improve. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section removed[edit]

@WikiUserPediaEditer: In your edit you say that it is already discussed on talk why this section was removed. I do not see any discussion. In fact, I only see this section, where they seem to agree that the use of The Diplomat is fine. Let me know if I have missed something. Kingsindian  20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded the section a little bit with some more references. Kingsindian  13:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Diplomat found to be non RS in this instance. The articles published were inaccurate and reflected a lack of journalistic procedure. Although The Diplomat remains RS in general, it is not in this instance.
DaltonCastle (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, I had no idea that a discussion was going on at WP:RSN. It is customary to notify people that there is a discussion going on elsewhere. I have replied there. Kingsindian  10:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There does need to be a criticism section added. The Diplomat article alone suggests that Park is entirely unreliable, and there are other such sources. (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


Did some cleanup of the page previously and was hoping someone would address if the issues were resolved. No one has yet, so I took up the gauntlet. If anyone has any more concerns I'm more than happy to improve the page more. To summarize, I made some quality improvements and removed some non-neutral content from unreliable sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: I have good faith reverted your latest edit about the criticisms. Firstly, the criticism was twofold, about inconsistencies in the story, and questioning of details by other defectors. Your edit unfortunately made nonsense of the following statement, because it now refers to inconsistencies, which has been removed. Also, the RfC is going on, let it finish before making changes. Kingsindian  15:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Should The Diplomat be included as a source?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the information already in the article from the soure is appropriate and that the source is reliable for this use. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Was wondering if someone could determine if these refs from The Diplomat are considered reliable in this regard. [3][4]


  1. ^ Modern Warfare Korea: The Weaponization of Human Rights
  2. ^
  3. ^ Jolley, Mary Ann (10 December 2014). "The Strange Tale of Yeonmi Park". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 May 2015. A 59-year-old woman from Hyesan who escaped in 2009 laughed when asked was anyone ever executed for watching an American movie 
  4. ^ Power, John (29 Oct 2014). "North Korea: Defectors and Their Skeptics". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 May 2015. 


My concern is that they publish corrections at the end of each article here effectively negating most of the claims made in the article. As such, I am wondering if so much weight should be given to these article. Thank you for your consideration and time. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC format has been corrected, so hatting superfluous comment.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@DaltonCastle: While I roughly understand your intention, I am not sure others will, and this RfC does not follow the correct format. Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues, especially point 3.
You should add a simple, short, neutral statement in the RfC header, for instance "Should The Diplomat be cited in this article for so and so claim". Be concrete, so everyone can see what you are talking about. Right now, it is very unclear as to what you want. If you have comments of your own, add them below, in its own section, (call it "Discussion" or something like that). Kingsindian  00:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If used, the content must not be given WP:UNDUE weight as such views represent a severely limited portion in the the general scope of the reception she has received. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @TheRedPenOfDoom: Does this current version give a proper weight? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      • the current two lines seem to be within the realms of appropriate to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Summoned by bot. Agree per TheRedPenOfDoom. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Support retention of current statements, if that is the question. As per TRPOD, appears to be due rather than undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Diplomat article points out some inconsistencies in Park's story. Park responds that these arise due to her imperfect English. We simply present both statements in the section and take no position on the correctness of the arguments, as WP:NPOV demands. As to the point about corrections, the publishing of corrections (there was only one correction), does not make something not WP:RS: in fact, publishing of timely corrections is one of the signs of WP:RS. There is a discussion about this here. Kingsindian  07:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rhoark from the original RSN post. While The Diplomat may in general be a reliable source, on this topic is does not seem so. Almost all of their investigation came from the Japan Times article and SBS Dateline. So overall there is very little press about the inconsistencies. I think where it stands there is too much weight given and that my previous edit had given a due weight. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: The person who wrote the Diplomat article (Mary Ann Jolley) interviewed Park for SBS Dateline. It is natural that she will use her own interview. I also do not see 2-3 sentences of criticism in an article as WP:UNDUE weight. It is not clear to me whether you are arguing on the basis of WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. The RfC question is about WP:RS. Something can be reliable but still not worth including. See WP:ONUS. Kingsindian  11:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
All Im saying is that The Diplo should not be considered a reliable source for this topic. They published glaring inconsistencies and errors. The previous version I had I believe gave proper weight to the articles considering these errors. Should we really be listing all this if its mostly, if not entirely, incorrect? DaltonCastle (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If a source is not reliable on something it should not be present at all. It's not a matter of one line or 2 lines. I have argued elsewhere about the reliability of this material and won't do it again. Kingsindian  05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Summoned by bot, but I'm unsure what I'm supposed to be commenting on. The RfC question asks whether the sources "are considered reliable in this regard". What regard is that? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: The relevant statements are in the "Reception" section. Kingsindian  09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, so the statements in question are as follows:

Some aspects of Park's story have been challenged as not credible, including by some other defectors.[1][2] Journalist Mary Ann Jolley, who interviewed Park for SBS Dateline in Australia, states that various aspects of her account were inconsistent across interviews to different media. Jolley also states that some of the details in her story were questioned by other North Korean defectors.[2] Some North Korea analysts have also challenged parts of her story.[3] Park has stated that the inconsistencies arise due to her imperfect English and mistranslations of her statements by journalists.[3]

I think it's useful to differentiate between the question of whether The Diplomat is a reliable source for the claim that some aspects of her story have been challenged as not credible, and whether it's a reliable source for the claim that her story isn't credible. It seems to me that the source is being used for the first of these two purposes, and the source clearly demonstrates that this claim is correct. It would be a different matter if we were using the source to say that her story was not credible - that would require more, very high-quality sources. I think it's also appropriate that the article as it stands points out that Park contests the claims that her story isn't credible. So, I think that the source is clearly reliable for the limited claims that are being atttibuted to it here. There could, of course, be questions around WP:UNDUE, but to assess that we would need to consider how widespread suggestions about the credibility of her story are. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Defectors speak of North Korea horrors". Japan Times. AFP-JIJI. 12 Dec 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2015. However, she faces a growing number of doubters — including other defectors in South Korea — who say her story lacks credibility. 
  2. ^ a b Jolley, Mary Ann (10 December 2014). "The Strange Tale of Yeonmi Park". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 May 2015. A 59-year-old woman from Hyesan who escaped in 2009 laughed when asked was anyone ever executed for watching an American movie 
  3. ^ a b Power, John (29 Oct 2014). "North Korea: Defectors and Their Skeptics". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 May 2015. 
  • The Diplomat as a whole isn't a non-RS, but the inconsistencies and lack of corrections in the articles at hand makes them unsuitable for Park's page. The current version gives way too much weight given the articles' inaccuracies. It needs to be trimmed down. Fraulein451 (talk)129:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, why was this closed? I think it might have been premature. The last editor to comment did not give any finite decisions. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: It was closed because the RfC expired (they run for 30 days), and it was listed at WP:ANRFC. Kingsindian  23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe we should consider reopening it then. I dont see a consensus being reached. I think in part its due to a lack of attention from admins and other editors. I noticed that was a common trend on Wikipedia the past month ha! DaltonCastle (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@DaltonCastle: I am not sure what you mean. The closer of the RfC indicated the consensus. If you disagree with the close, you can follow the steps listed here. Kingsindian  23:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We should reopen it. Donottroll (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I just read through the article again and think it is fairly comprehensive. I guess i can see this section is mostly alright given it isnt all that prominent. But my one remaining concern is the term "not credible". This seems a little aggressive, especially given that the sources note that at least some of her disputed claims were proven to be true. Could we maybe change "not credible" to "exaggerated"? This would put most of my concerns to rest. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: I am not sure I like "exaggerated". The sentence in the article simply says "some aspects are not credible". It does not say her whole story is not credible. I am pretty sure many things she says are true. Kingsindian  06:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I think it would read better if it was along the lines "some aspects were exaggerated". Because "not credible" seems very aggressive when the authors were alleging she was exaggerating claims and not completely making them up. Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@DaltonCastle: Our purpose here is to reflect the sources. The Diplomat sources are not simply talking about exaggerations, but inaccuracies, inconsistencies. Some of the parts of her stories, like people being executed for watching Hollywood movies, and her account of her detention in Mongolia are questioned by people quoted in the article. It does not matter what "reads better", it is a matter of reflecting what the source says. I am not wedded to "not credible". If you can come up with some other phrase which captures the allegations, we can discuss it. Kingsindian  10:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. And I partly agree. But I cant get behind "not credible" since it implies she was completely falsifying things, when I think the essence here is that she was exaggerating claims about how bad North Korea is. "Distorted" or "inflated" seem like viable options. "Hyperbolize" also captures the essence of it I believe. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@DaltonCastle: This is a matter of judgement, there is no right and wrong here. I don't think "inflated" or "distorted" are substantially different from "exaggerated", so I don't support them. The "credible" phrasing comes from the Japan Times source, this is why I used it. One could perhaps use "doubted", which is also used in the Japan Times source? "Some aspects of her story have been doubted...". Kingsindian  11:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that could work. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks for being so cordial! Let me know if there are any pages you would like assistance or an opinion on and Id be happy to aid you! DaltonCastle (talk)`
We can close this section now I think. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content by Donottroll[edit]

@Donottroll: The RfC result was that the material which is in the article is fine and should stay there. Why are you removing stuff? Kingsindian  21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Donottroll: The RfC stated that the way it is right now is fine. Please get consensus before trimming anything. Kingsindian  21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This is BLP, you should get consensus before adding malicious content. Donottroll (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Donottroll: There is consensus. See the RfC. This is not malicious content anyway. Kingsindian  22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Donottroll: I have no idea what you want. I try to combine sections to reduce undueness, you revert that as well. Please provide an explanation of how the section is undue, otherwise anyone can remove the tag. If you simply want to remove the Mary Ann Jolley sentence, that is not going to happen, since the RfC explicitly decided otherwise. Kingsindian  23:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I think the RfC was closed prematurely. There was no consensus yet established and the most recent editors involved on it said to trim. So I think the discussion is still open. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
See my comments above. I am not sure what you mean by prematurely. It ran the full 30 days. Kingsindian  23:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
With no consensus. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. No consensus. Donottroll (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Donottroll: I think we can actually combine these two sections. The reception is related to her activism and could even be classified as "reception to her activism". Im not saying we name it as such, Im just saying they are related and should be under one section. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I will separate out two things. Firstly, the RfC ran the full 30 days, and it was closed with consensus for the statements already present. Therefore, the claims of "premature" and "no consensus" are incorrect. If you want to challenge the closing, do so, using the page I linked to above. Meanwhile, we work with the consensus present. Secondly, I think it would be a good idea to combine the two sections "Activism" and "reception" because they are both talking about the same thing, and it will reduce the undueness. I have no idea why Donottroll reverted me. Since DaltonCastle agrees on this point, I am combining them again. Let me know if there are any issues. Kingsindian  10:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Positive and Negative Possibilities?"[edit]

The "Beliefs" section says "Park believes that there are positive and negative possibilities for North Korea to be reunified with South Korea." Can someone clarify what this means? What are "positive and negative possibilities?" Does it mean there are positive and negative aspects to reunification? Or does it mean there is a positive way to reunify and a negative way to reunify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiemonster (talkcontribs) 16:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Living in US?[edit]

According to this MAY 21, 2016 [2] source Park has " ... moved to the US to study finance and economics at Colombia University". 220 of Borg 01:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm, interesting news update. I think if there is one more source pointing to this there should be no problem adding it in. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Not to say that is some policy. It's just that I am verily unsure if is considered reliable or not. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears to be run by News Limited, so I think it is reliable. According to WP it's "... one of Australia's largest media companies", though it is/was run by Rupert Murdoch. 220 of Borg 11:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok so then under that it does appear to pass as a reliable source. (It being related to Rupert Murdoch is a nonfactor. The mere idea that that questions its reliability is reminiscent of a long standing COATRACK that Murdoch is biased but not other media moguls.) So I think we can place this in the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


I realise that Miss Park's testimony is questionable, but I have particular difficulty accepting that watching "the 1997 movie Titanic, .... caused her to realize the oppressive nature of the North Korean government". (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)