Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New additions

The recent new additions were made in good faith, but I have reverted the biography section back to how it was. The reasons are as follows:

1. At least 3 people worked concurrently in its creation and there was some heated debate about it and compromises in content and wording. 2. The new addition has problems with grammar and appears to be a fairly rapid writing that will require a fair amount of work to re-integrate. 3. The new addition has problems with encyclopedic wording. 4. Many of the new additions are unsourced, including direct quotes.

So there is a lot of work to try and fix and integrate the new additions, and it's not clear they really add anything to the previous edition which covered it pretty well. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Comatmebro for trying to improve the article, but watch out for unbalanced soapboxing. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And Green, I forgot to mention the specific issue of the article caused all the confusion and made you think it was a personal issue (obviously, you can't read my mind, and I didn't explain properly). The main issue that this page is written like a story, not an encyclopedia article. We are not here to soapbox, but to present factual statements in a neutral manner. Now I have nothing against Shin and am sympathetic to his experiences/cause, but the style of writing used for this "article" (i.e., the way you paraphrased the content) is unacceptable/non-neutral pov. Since the source is a book and this is a recount/story from Shin, there will be problems writing in a non-story-like manner, but it's possible. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The execution of Shin's mom

Blaine Harden talks about how Shin ratted out his mother after he overhead them talking about escape. However, this directly contrasts with what Shin himself says in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znjDD8HOhuA Specifically around the 04:45 mark in the video he states "I was on my way to work when officers came in and blindfolded me and took me away... According to the officers, my mom and brother tried to escape. Until this day what they told me is all I know."

Can someone confirm that the translation on the video is correct? If it is then Shin's own words should take precedence over Harden's.[1]

Shin maintained for a long time that he had nothing to do with his mothers death, but then came forward later and said he did, as discussed in Harden's book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate what Green Cardamom just said--as Harden explains in his book, Shin initially concealed his role in his mother and brother's deaths, but later told the true story as he gained maturity and understanding of his actions and came to be consumed by guilt about it. The video contains Shin's earlier version of events, and the book contains Shin's more recent admission.QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's somewhat chilling to see the video knowing what he knew. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Shin did also say that when forced to watch the execution of his mother and brother he felt no sympathy or guilt as (1) she had done wrong and he had reported her as a good citizen should and (2) he held her responsible for his imprisonment. I agree that he is inconsistent (as many truthful people are) but it is odd that he gained a non-nc moral compass so quickly but perhaps that may just to be to satisfy those around him in his new life.

Removed "story" tag

Shin Dong-hyuk is notable as being the only known person to escape to the West from a NK camp. As such the details of his experiences in the camp, and how he escaped, are central to what make him notable - the reason people will want to read the article. Any encyclopedia article that did not contain this information would be a problem. The article focuses on those details, telling Shin's life in the camp and how he escaped, all reliably sourced. The argument that it is too much like a story and non-encyclopedic is inaccurate because anything less would be incomplete. Each sentence is factual, objective and sourced. If there are specific words or whatever then they can be addressed, but fundamentally there is nothing wrong with the type of content or how it is presented. Should this be contested (again) I will open a dispute resolution since previous talk (see Archive) was not sufficient. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The style of writing is a fundamental aspect of an article. Your choice of words has an impact on whether this article passes NPOV policy or not. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to deny that this is not written in a "story"-like manner, Green. Either you paraphrased the content from the book (and consequently retained the original story-like tone/writing style), or you are not good at writing encyclopedic articles in a factual, unemotional/npov manner. The article is not well written. It's as simple as that. And this isn't some one-off "complaint" from another editor: you don't seem to recognize the issues in this article, or admit your own issues in writing. Yes, Green, "each sentence is factual, objective and sourced," but is it good writing and neutral writing? The fact that you have the inability to properly assess and consider other's advice is quite evident in the fact that you have to resort to dispute resolution for small issues like this. Since you were the one who added this content into the article, you have to address the issues with it. I've re-added the notice because you still have not fixed the issue in the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you cannot seem to find the issues in the article, here is one. As with before, I have italicized the inappropriate story parts:

"When working at a textile factory, Shin befriended a 40 year old political prisoner from Pyongyang named Park, who was educated and had traveled outside North Korea. Park told Shin about the world, including stories about food that Shin had never experienced before, such as chicken, pork and beef. For Shin, nearly every meal had been a soupy gruel of cabbage, corn and salt, with the occasional wild-caught rat and insects. Excited by the idea of being able to eat as much food as he wanted, which Shin considered the meaning of freedom, he decided to try and escape with Park."

This needs a rewrite. Right now, it is a "in-universe/story-like/soapbox-style paragraph that is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. We are not telling a story. We are presenting the facts given by the sources according to what they say/claim. If we write it like this, it is either close-paraphrasing or synthesis of content. You should know this, Green. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have finished the rewrite. If there are any issues, let me know. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Ratings

Page Ratings as of December 4, 2012:

• Trustworthy: 3.9 (21 ratings)
• Objective: 3.4 (18 ratings)
• Complete: 3.4 (19 ratings)
• Well written: 4.7 (17 ratings)

These ratings are reset to 0 every 30 days or so (not sure when). Will revisit in a month or two to compare. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Remember, these are out of 5 stars. If they're like this, maybe this tells you something about the article? - M0rphzone (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Shin needed

We really need a photo of Shin in this article. And I know editors aren't supposed to show pov/tone, but the Internet makes it so easy for people to tune out and have disinhibition to things. Maybe a photo would help reduce disinhibition. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be very hard because of Wikimedia copyright policy. We need a non-free image, so only way would be if some editor would go on one of his lectures that he is giving from time to time in various universities and other places, make photo of him and upload it to wikipedia. Unfortunately so far no one has done so. There is also possibility of asking Harden for limited usage but I doubt that will bring any results. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What about Blaine Harden saying that Shin was a liar ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.93.36 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Harden did not say Shin was a liar, he just said that Shin excluded one important fact in his early accounts. At first Shin did not tell that he himself reported his mother and brother to the camp guards. In the book "Escape from Camp 14" and in later accounts he admitted this fact. This is explained in the article like this: "The book reveals, among other things, that Shin was the one who had reported his mother and brother, a fact that he had not included in earlier accounts." -- Gamnamu (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So Harden says that Shin has changed his story and may not be giving a reliable account.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is explained above, but I can repeat it: Harden said, Shin excluded one important fact in his early accounts and he gives a reliable account. Jack Upland twists his words and claims he may not be giving a reliable account. -- Gamnamu (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Corroboration

Has there been any attempt to corroborate Shin's story? If so, it should be included here. Some of his account lacks internal logic, e.g. the story of bribing border guards with food. Why could they not simply arrest him and seize his food?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course he was interrogated by South Korean agents for months to make sure his story added up and he wasn't a spy (as said in the article). The part about the guards is commonplace on the NK border, it's a porous border with its own systems of trade, described in the book (and other books). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That hardly inspires confidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes... because there are a TON of other people that can corroborate his story... — -dainomite   03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the main questions of Blane's book is if Shin's story is accurate, there is lots of evidence peppered throughout. I suppose a paragraph on the veracity of Shin's story wouldn't hurt but honestly it's not high on my list because since there is no known controversy. One could play sleuth with every aspect of his story, but on Wikipedia we just report what the sources say, and I'm not aware of any reliable sources that question Shin.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: No, most of his story is not corroborated. That is because it would be next to impossible to corroborate. North Korea hardly allows foreign journalists into the country, let alone to the concentration camps to interview guards and inmates. Perhaps a section on corroboration should be added to the article, though, explaining these facts and describing the interrogation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Those "facts" are not, actually. Blane interviewed former NK prison guards and inmates. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that all the supporting evidence comes from Shin or Harden. There are plenty of cases of biographical deception. We have the examples of Norma Khouri and Curveball (informant). At the very least it would be good to have some source, such as an expert on North Korea, who endorses Shin's incredible story.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Blaine's book has North Korean experts. It is footnoted with many sources. Good luck. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So it all comes back to trusting Harden (and Shin), no matter how unbelievable the story is. There is no independent verification, and little internal logic.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is independent verification, told you that multiple times. You seem unwilling or unable to verify the sources and keep spouting the same uninformed crank opinion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What sources? All the sources are from Harden or Shin. Look at the citation list.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation list has many reliable sources and not one raises doubt about Shin's story, they support it. And Blaine's book is footed to further sources. Where are the sources that say Shin's story is "unbelievable" and has "little internal logic"? I want to verify that. What is the source for that claim? You're making stuff up. People think Obama is Muslim but we don't say "Obama is not Muslim" in the Obama article because the claim has no foundation. You need to provide reliable sources that raise legitimate doubts about Shin's story, otherwise it's uninformed opinion (original research). You are free to whatever original opinion you want, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's funny when all I do is ask for some independent corroboration and NPOV on North Korea, I'm accused of making things up, having crank theories etc, and worst of all undertaking "original research".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So what is stopping you from going and finding some independent, reliable sources then? — -dainomite   05:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there don't appear to be any, of course!!! For the sake of the argument, let me outline why I consider the story to be incredible (though not necessarily false). 1. Why were his parents permitted to have sex? 2. Why was he not aborted like other babies? 3. Why was he kept alive? Children are not cost-effective as slaves in the early years. 4. Why was he kept in the camp when he could have been transferred to an "orphanage"? 5. If he was dishonest about his mother's death, how can his honesty on anything else be assumed? 6. How could they afford to maintain an electric fence when they couldn't afford to feed border guards? 7. Why was a military uniform a "passport" to travel through the country, when military service is compulsory? What did Shin do when questioned about his unit or purpose given his ignorance of the DPRK? 8. How was Shin able to trade, travel, survive, and escape better than the average North Korean given his ignorance? 9. Why would a hungry border guard let him through in exchange for food and cigarettes, when the guard could capture him, pocket the food and cigarettes, and gain a reward for capturing a traitor and prison escapee? 10. Given the long and largely unguarded border, why would he need to deal with a guard at all? 11. Finally, given that, by his own admission, he has next to no experience of North Korea, outside bizarre prison experience, how can it be established that he has ever been to North Korea, and is not an ethnic Korean from China?

I am sure that the book makes an attempt to explain some of these issues, but this is circular logic. Such an incredible story, would not be accepted so readily if it did not concern North Korea. For various reasons, there are special "DPRK Rules" which cause most people to suspend their critical judgement when assessing negative stories about the country. I fail to see why I, who unapologetically do not suspend my critical judgement, am subject to the onus of proof. I rest my case.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all: Why does a source stop being independent just because Blaine Harden refers to it as a source that can corroborate something in Shin's story? Isn't that exactly what he should do? Give you a different source that you can look at yourself and see if what he says is consistent with what that other source says?

Second: I agree that the story is incredible but it's not circular logic if claims made in the book are also explained in the book. Only some of your questions require details that only come from the book whilst many can be answered with what has been learnt from what other defectors have stated (and some common sense!). Here goes:

1. It was part of the reward system at the camp. Hard work could be rewarded with a "reward marriage". Guards that have defected have also stated this.

2. He was the result of such permitted sex and not e.g. rape by a guard.

3. You can of course question what slave labour is the most efficient but the purpose of those camps is not just slave labour - they're also punishment and deterrence. The regime considers it necessary to punish three generations of a family to root out the "seed of evil" (it is in their official ideology). Thus the system permits prisoners to reproduce like that. If Shin had stayed in the camp and had children from a similar marriage, his children might in theory have eventually been let out of the camp. Whether such prisoner releases have actually ever taken place is not known to the outside world. Furthermore, former prison guards have told about human experimentation in the labour camps and in those cases entire families have been put in gas chambers to "study" the effects on adults and children (and some guards have even been surprised how the subhumans - i.e. how they are taught to view the prisoners - try to protect their children until they all die).

4. Answered above.

5. Maybe because the truth about his mother's death made him seem like a much worse person so he hesitated to say it at first. The fact that he finally disclosed it, gives him more credibility - not less.

6. People cannot eat electricity. Furthermore electricity production and food production consume very little of the same resources and every planned economy in the world has had a bad resource allocation - shortages of some and excesses that cannot even be used of other resources. Besides, if you know physics, you should know why a high voltage fence consumes very little electricity.

7. It wasn't such a "passport". Many North Koreans wore whatever clothes they could get but it was much better and different than what he had been dressed in in the camp. He traveled with other people that didn't want anyone asking what they were doing either - i.e. black market merchants and such.

8. Like he admitted, he was incredibly lucky but he had also gotten his information from a very knowledgeable man. The fellow prisoner with whom he tried to escape (but who died on the fence) had had a relatively high status in the workers' party and he had even traveled abroad so he knew much more than the average North Korean and told Shin about the world outside the camp.

9. The guard didn't know he had escaped from a prison camp - it's not like there was a countrywide manhunt going on. He told the guard what his friend had said would be their excuse for wanting to cross the border - simply that he wanted to visit some relatives in China and then return. According to other defectors as well, such visits are common and guards can usually be bribed to allow it. A guard won't get bribes in the future from a person he kills so as long as the guard expects more bribes later, it's wiser not to kill. Especially considering that China is where North Koreans acquire goods that they cannot get at home.

10. Where have you gotten the idea that it's unguarded? Especially in places where it's possible to cross the river?

11. Why don't you just as well ask how it can be established that he didn't as a child decide to hang himself over a fire with hooks through the skin and later amputate his finger just so that he could have scars that medical professionals can examine when he wants to tell such a story? Is that a more plausible explanation? Especially when medical professionals can tell the age of scars. Furthermore, the South Korean authorities interrogate each North Korean defector for months at the "welcoming centre" because a number of ethnic Koreans from China have attempted to enter SK by pretending to be defectors since defectors get quite substantial financial assistance to start a new life in SK, which of course is also a more prosperous and free country than China. In addition to questioning they also perform DNA testing of all defectors and are thus able to compare against the DNA of ethnic Koreans from China that have attempted to "defect" but actually been caught in a lie.

Frankly, you're grasping for straws when you for some reason want to question the veracity of Shin's story even though it is evident that you're not even familiar with more typical defector stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.5.52 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of your “questions” are even answered in this article; the other answers can easily be found in the book, in Wikipedia and many other internet sources. The problem is that you do not want to believe what does not fit into your ideology. The propaganda in the DPRK it seems had some impact on your judgement. Shin’s story is corroborated as much as possible; the locations are verified, his scars are examined, his report is checked to be consistent with dozens of other reports about DPRK prison camps. And I’m sure South Korean authorities have carefully investigated his identity before giving him citizenship. What additional corroboration would you suggest? Human rights organizations are requesting access to Kaechon internment camp and I think such a direct access could provide the ultimate proof to convince even you. Why does the DPRK not allow this? Why do the authorities take every effort (complete isolation with electric fences) to hide these secret camps? Human rights organizations and the United Nations are neutral and criticize rights violations in all countries. What more “independent” sources do you expect? If you do not even believe them, then you could not claim to have a neutral point of view. While prisoners die in miserable conditions left alone by the rest of the world, you are committed to cover up human rights violations in the DPRK. You should not forget that for one prisoner who luckily escaped from the camp, hundreds of others trying to flee failed and were killed. There are no “special DPRK rules”, but some things in the DPRK, e. g. the horrors of the prison camps, are just beyond your imagination. -- Gamnamu (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

PS For all the protestions about fact-checking, Blaine Harden is clearly careless with the truth. In the book, he says DPRK's electric power was based on oil powered generators and collapsed with the fall of the USSR (p 89 as published by Mantle, London, 2012). In fact, there are coal and hydro generators, and there is enough power to run electric trains across the country and wire every village (See Barbara Demick,Nothing to Envy, Fourth Estate, Sydney, 2010, pp 64, 67). Wikipedia should not endorse badly researched diatribes like this book.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your fact checking requires fact checking. Harden says that city based oil generators went out in much of the country and that [in a different section] there is hydroelectric power, and that Camp 14 has its own coal mine and coal power plant. Do a Google Books search on "coal" and "hydroelectric". In Barbara Demick's book, she says "train traffic from [the capital] to points north was sporadic at best, since the trains relied on electricity," and she mentions in numerous places how sporadic the electric supply is. Unable to find mention about electric trains "across the country" or "wire every village", but irrelevant if the power is unreliable, which both Harden and Demick agree and is general knowledge. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so Harden's illogical as well. The point is his "facts" are simply wrong. Oil never played an important role in electric power generation. Every village got electricity in 1970 (Demick, p 64). However, Demick being an American is not permitted to travel by train in NK. But I took a train from Pyongyang to Beijing last year. There was no trouble and all the NK stations on the route were packed with North Koreans. All sources need to be treated with scepticism. At least Demick does proper research.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

i don't wanna get into this catfight, but i would agree that it is not entirely IMPOSSIBLE that he was a bored peasant in NK or even the PRC who concocted a fanciful tale. the world has known bigger hoaxes.

i will take him at his word, but a paragraph clarifying that any "corroboration" is weak at best is warranted. the guard who defected, for example, does not recall him specifically. 209.172.25.231 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to write about "weak corroboration" because there is no source that makes the allegation. There are a couple anonymous Wikipedia editors making an allegation based on their own original research. We are not the experts, we report on what the experts say. We don't critique the experts, we report on the experts. If there is an expert who alleges there is "weak corroboration" we can report on it. Otherwise it is WP:Original research and WP:NPOV. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

fair enough - but the alternative is to insert "allegedly" after each and every one of his assertions. it is NPOV in the other direction at present. 209.172.25.231 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually his account is supported by evidence, corroboration and expert opinion - see the sources. The article is peppered with "He said..", "Shin said.." it goes to great lengths to be NPOV on that point - probably too far, giving the incorrect impression that is based only on what Shin said. Since all of the sources accept his story as told, it is original research to create an artificial "corroboration controversy" on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about quoting an "expert", instead of just quoting sensationalist journalists? Is there a quote by someone like Andrei Lankov backing the Shin story?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is important to remember that Wikipedia's view of verifiability includes no original research, and so it would simply be imprudent to have the article express doubts about the veracity of Shin's story simply based on claims made here. If there are any serious reliable sources that posit such claims, they very well could be appropriate to include. Ender and Peter 05:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that say that it is true?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Jack Upland. Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds this whole thing incredible and I just read about him today. Here is a revealing quote on RT from his testimony at the UN, “Because the North Korean people cannot take to arms with guns like Libya and Syria... I personally think this is the first and last hope left,” Shin told the UN panel. I think this quote should be worked into the article, it speaks volumes to his credibility. Jgmoneill (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Invited to speak at the UN could be included in the article, it's a notable achievement. You may be misreading the quote, he is not advocating armed uprising, because he says that is impossible, rather the UN investigation ("this") is the "first and last hope left". He is speaking at the UN conference in reference to the UN. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The quote is pretty clear, he is suggesting to the UN that the only way to overthrow Kim is by sending in foreign mercenaries and disguising an invasion as a popular uprising. Unless the quote is inaccurate - it's pretty hard to misinterpret what he is saying no matter how hard you try to spin it. Jgmoneill (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source from Reuters[2]:

He said he believed the UN commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in North Korea was the only way to improve human rights in the isolated and impoverished state. “Because the North Korean people cannot stand up with guns like Libya and Syria I personally think this is the first and last hope left,” Shin said. “There is a lot for them to cover up, even though they don’t admit to anything.”

Shin is saying the UN commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in North Korea was the only way to improve human rights. No where does Shin advocate armed invasion or revolt, just the opposite saying "North Korean people cannot stand up with guns," thus the human rights commission was the last hope left. Hope you got it now. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And in fact all North Koreans are subject to compulsory military service, the Korean People's Army has a million men and women under arms, and the country is awash with weapons, so in fact a popular uprising would be more than possible. Anyone who has travelled through the DPRK as I have could tell you that. Ergo, Shin has never done this. He is assuming, as an outsider, that the KPA is separate from the population. In fact, more or less, every North Korean is either in the KPA (including reserves, militia etc), or was in the KPA, or will be in the KPA. All they need to do is turn their guns on the regime and the game is over...!!! To repeat: it is increasingly clear that Shin has never been to North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Shin has never been to North Korea". Then who is Shin really, if not who he says he is? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not comprehensible for me. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge and many other dictatorships had large armies with compulsory military service, but a popular uprising was unthinkable as I could also not imagine it for North Korea. More important factors than militarization of the country are the degree of suppression, isolation and control of the people. When people know any resistance means torture and death (even for their families), they remain silent. This view is also shared by North Korea experts like Andrei Lankov. And your conclusion "Shin could not imagine an uprising, so he has never been to North Korea" is simply nonsense. -- Gamnamu (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive808#North_Korean_denier_and_BLP -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing Detes

how about some info on that SK journalist? 60 mins interview claims that he got fired for helping shin, yet i can't google up who he was. moreover, shin says he took the name "dong-hyuk" in gratitude to same; was that, in fact, his NAME? i can't google up any journalist by that name either, even allowing for a diff surname.

also, what of that adoptive couple outside columbus, OH? i think 60 mins actually identified them by name (linda/lowell dye).

also, a lot more about the timing of park's arrival in the camp and their plan together. i think shin said it was about 9 months from start to finish. i find it amazing that they'd start talking so openly about escape given what shin had done the last time he heard of a plot!

one interesting factoid in the 60 mins interview, btw, was that shin had never heard of kim ilsung, kim jongil, or "juche" until he met this guy! definitely warrants inclusion.

btw, he stated in that interview that park was instantly electrocuted and that he, shin, climbed over the dead body, but in a different interview at some conference (found on youtube) he states, rather, "incapacitated"...even adding "i don't know. if someone discovered him in time, they might have pulled him off the wire and he's still alive back in the camp".

section should be tweaked to reflect this.

i think there's at least some possibility park was moaning "help me" when shin climbed over him, thinking "every man for himself now". 209.172.25.231 (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, holes in the story, and changing accounts. Wake up, people.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Shin Dong-hyuk (human rights activist) → Shin Dong-hyuk – I had heard of Shin Dong-hyuk (born Shin In Geun) even before reading Blaine Harden's book, and after I have begun to read it, I've become even more astonished with this guy. I think he's far more notable than the South Korean footballer or the fictional character. Therefore he deserves the primary use of the article title "Shin Dong-hyuk". JIP | Talk 17:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC) JIP | Talk 17:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree to the proposed move. When the article was created, Shin Dong-hyuk wasn't yet so well-known. But now I think a move is justified. -- Gamnamu (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 I also agree with the move proposal. — -dainomite   16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The reason I don't believe a thing on the internet

Is this going to be made into a movie? Crap, it was, some boring docu snoozer. I hoped to g%d it would have Tom Cruise starring. I do know that real life is stranger than fiction, but this article takes the cake. I am not sure how to improve this article, but I do want to echo some of the same points made above and please ask editors not to assume bad faith when people ask for corroboration and for including any sources that might question the accuracy of this "story". I think I read above about "believing propaganda" or such not which is not helpful. Anyways, good luck sorting this out and still keeping my fingers crossed for the movie, I haven't been to one in 10 years, but this would certainly make me go :). --Malerooster (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, corroboration was provided. Guess what: There are no sources that might question the accuracy of this "story". None. No sources question this story. It is accepted by everyone. Continually calling Shin a liar on this page is a violation of WP:BLP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If everyone accepts it, then I definitely don't believe it!. just kidding, and not sure if it rises to a blp violation for having questions about this story.--Malerooster (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If the questions were raised in a reliable sources elsewhere, no problem. But talk pages are not an appropriate place to say, hey, I think Shin might be a liar/alien/cia-agent, what do you think? That is an absolute BLP violation and not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. To draw an example, imagine going to Talk:George Bush and start a thread with the theme that George Bush is a closet homosexual. People would be screaming BLP in two seconds. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)