Talk:Felix Abt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

I've added the advert tag to this article because it reads like an incredibly poorly written promotional piece with very few references and even less objectivity.

Yes. Article should be removed. It's self promotion. Armagnac~dewiki (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Armagnac~dewiki - The article was clearly written by Abt, having read his "book" I can say the writing style is incoherently identical. 75.172.49.241 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

What are the POV issues?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is presented as a CV with PR-type wording peppered throughout. There are also too many primary sources (interviews, articles by Abt) or sources with minor mentions of Abt. A lot of this looks like WP:PUFF. -- GreenC 04:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think it needs some independent corroboration.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was an ironic reference to a discussion regarding Shin Dong-hyuk who has since admitted to fabricating his story. I can't see any evidence that what this article says about Abt is a fabrication. If any expressions or sources are problematic, they should be removed. I can't see the justification for tagging the article for years without identifying (and fixing) the specific problems. The tagging seems to be based on a dislike of Abt, rather than specific faults with the article, not that I'm saying the article can't be improved. I think if no specific problems are identified the tags should be removed. If specific problems are identified, they should be eliminated, and then the tags should be removed. The tags should only remain if there is dispute about the problems identified.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

I think Abt is notable. There aren't that many Western business people who have worked in North Korea and written or spoken about it. There are five article pages that link here. I don't think there's evidence that this is an autobiography. There are also many references to independent sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed the notability tag. I've also removed the autobiotag as I haven't seen any evidence to suggest he has edited this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the claim that he wrote the article! Where is the evidence??? The new criticism section is very dubious, consisting interpretations of social media posts about social media posts...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Jack. The section should be rewritten entirely, with better sources, or removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless it quacks like a promotional article. Whoever wrote it doesn't matter. It has 51 different sources for such a short article, listing every mention of him in every news news source ever made. Do we have to list four Bloomberg mentions for example? Or five references for the simple fact of being a co-founder? One is plenty. Promotional articles over-stuff references to puff up the importance of the subject. If you're concerned about AfD notability, list the extra references on the talk page. There are other promotional issues. -- GreenC 14:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article could be improved, but I think the attacks against it are disproportionate.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "self-published" tag. There are many independent sources. I've also removed the criticism based on social media postings.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Felix Abt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Please state which part of the article is under dispute for neutrality, or which sources are said to not be reliable so we can fix it if needed. Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See "POV" section above. Would you like to help go through and clean up the article with me? -- GreenC 12:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to the "POV" section, but back then you really avoided the question.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Felix Abt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section (again)[edit]

The Controversy section consists of references to a single article from Vice News:

Because of his investment strategies in North Korea, Abt has been called a "controversial figure" and a member of a "secretive group of Western investors" in North Korea. He has been called a "bottom fisherman" and "Switzerland's greatest embarrassment to humanity since [Third Reich financier] François Genoud."[50]
These North Korean investors, including Abt, use a strategy called "China Plus One" where a company "can still claim that the products were 'Made in China," says Abt, if less than 50 percent of the product is made in North Korea.[50] For example the highest-paid factory workers in North Korea earn $75/month compared to the lowest paid in China at $270/month. The product can still be labeled "Made in China", and thus exportable to countries around the world when using the "China Plus One" strategy.[50] This strategy has been criticized for exploiting laborers in North Korea who experience human rights violations.[50]

The article does not say that Abt was a member of a "secretive group of Western investors". As this page shows he is far from secretive. As far as I can see, Vice doesn't say that Abt uses the "China Plus One" strategy. As I understand it, he was producing paracetamol for the local market. The commentary about this is not directly related to Abt. But even more problematic is the statement: 'He has been called a "bottom fisherman" and "Switzerland's greatest embarrassment to humanity since [Third Reich financier] François Genoud." '. Vice News does not say who said these things. They are highly inflammatory insults, thrown out with any justification. It should be noted that Abt has strenuously objected to the Vice article, as seen as his comments in response. This is defamation and seems to me to a a violation of the WP:BLP policy. Overall this section should be removed because it is partly defamatory and partly irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, the comments are certainly politically motivated based on the desire to defame anyone who dares espouse an alternative narrative of North Korea. WP:BLP makes it quite clear that any negative assertion towards an individual must come from a wide variety of verifiable sources. I have done a quick google search on the subject in question and I found that this article was the only one making these claims. I know what it is like to have someone try and create a biography about myself on here based on negative spin and an unfair selectivity of sources. It is seldom honest and never has true regard for the facts. I opt for this section to be deleted- --TF92 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vice News is a major international reliable source. Abt is a public figure, not a 1E or low profile. The amount if criticism is small in weight compared to the rest of the page. I can't find anything in BLP that says "negative assertion towards an individual must come from a wide variety of verifiable sources". -- GreenC 15:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures states: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." It also states the article should have a conservative tone. WP:Criticism suggests that we should avoid criticism sections altogether. Here, we don't have specific allegations against Abt. We have anonymous namecalling, which is highly inflammatory and not at all conservative in tone. It is also not notable if we don't know who said it. Public figures get insulted all the time, occasionally that is reported in the media, but it's unencyclopedic to repeat insults unless they have some special significance. While Vice doesn't name the authors of these insults, it does provide links to the sources, which are blogs of less than notable North Korea watchers. The main thrust of the Vice article is about investment in North Korea, not about Abt in particular. As stated before, Abt isn't "secretive", and, as far as I can see, he has not described his products as "Made in China". Pyongsu, the pharmaceutical company that he was involved in, openly describes itself as based in the DPRK. If we include criticism of Abt, it should be particularly targetted at him, rather than criticism of other foreign investors that is assumed to apply to him. The criticism of this section is way off the mark. Abt has not been a secretive foreign investor. On the contrary, he is notable as a publicist, lobbyist, and organiser, founding a business school and a chamber of commerce.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, guess we'll have to find more sources about Abt then. Challenge accepted. I believe the claims made against Abt are significant as they go to the heart of his activities in NK - the reason for his notability - which outside commentators see as being ethically and maybe even legally problematic. The Vice article is perfectly fine you just don't like what it says :) It's targeted as him, naming him and discussing him beyond a mere mention, your setting an artificially high bar and likely would continue doing so unless it was a front page feature length piece in the New York Times and even then you'd find some reason to exclude the source. The CRIT section is fair enough it can be incorporated into his main biography not a problem. -- GreenC 19:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What claims??? I think you are misconstruing the issue. I don't object to you using Vice (or another source) if the criticism directly refers to Abt and isn't just namecalling. There has not been any automatic rejection of critical content. In fact, the Vice material has been in the article for a year. However, I don't think you should trawl the Internet for material critical of Abt. With regard to the level of sourcing, I think it depends on what you are saying. If you are saying that Abt was guilty of a crime, well, yes, I think you need some strong sources to back it up.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In his recent self-published and free e-book, North Korea: Beyond the Veil, Abt has objected to what this article said:
So according to Wikipedia as of September 25, 2017 I’m “a controversial figure,” “a member of a secretive group of Western investors in North Korea,” “a bottom fisherman” and “Switzerland’s greatest embarrassment to humanity since Third Reich financier Francois Genoud.” And, it continues, claiming I have “exploited laborers experiencing human rights violations.”
My worst trolls on the internet couldn’t have mounted such a perfidious character assassination any better than the Wikipedia editors. Those who know me better know that I treated my workers in North Korea (and anywhere else for that matter) well, paid salaries plus incentives, rice, cooking oil, kimchi, etc., enabling them to lead a decent life. They felt well-treated and liked to come to work every morning. I also met family members who looked well-fed, welldressed, healthy and contented. And some of my employees started their own business which, of course, would not have been possible if they could not have made substantial savings when they worked for me.
Also, I’m glad my workers in North Korea had a much higher purchasing power than those of Wikipedia’s source VICE News which slandered me for exploiting “abused” North Korean workers. And I feel sorry for VICE’s workers who, unlike my North Korean workers, can’t make ends meet and pay their monthly rent, see here.
So Wikipedia deemed it necessary to regurgitate and present these false claims as facts from a shoddy piece by this tabloid magazine.
In addition, VICE and Wikipedia also compare me to Genoud by calling me “Switzerland’s greatest embarrassment to humanity since [Third Reich financier] François Genoud.” Genoud was a glowing admirer and supporter of Hitler and a member of his Nazi party and later a supporter of terrorist groups. I can’t remember ever having admired any state leader during my life time, with the exception perhaps of Nelson Mandela. They took this polemical statement from political activist Joshua Stanton (which VICE calls a “North Korea expert”).
Abt goes on to say that he and Stanton have clashed online, and adds, "Unsurprisingly, the “human rights violator” claim according to such an authoritative source as Wikipedia helped trigger ad hominem attacks on social media and in book reviews by activists." It seems to me that this section was defamatory. The factual content of it was false, and the non-factual content is just extravagant insults. It should have been removed earlier. If we are going to have criticism, it has to be factually based. But we should not get into Internet feuds, or repeat inflammatory name-calling.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An SPS is even less of a reliable source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it be used as a source; I'm just noting that Abt is complaining about what Wikipedia said. We are supposed to avoid defamation. Abt clearly thinks he was defamed. And I think he's right...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to reflect what RS say (as long as we attribute controversial claims). It does not matter if Abt is complaining, we reflect what RS says, not what he wants to see.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Wikipedia reports what others said. Though note, all of that 'controversy' material was removed by an editor a few months ago, roughly coinciding with the publication of Abt's book and the above quote complaining about Wikipedia. -- GreenC 13:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should follow WP:BLP. As discussed above, the material from Vice Media has no factual basis. If Abt says it is defamatory, and it has no factual basis, we should keep it off the page. I don't think there is any connection between the publication of Abt's book and the removal of the material. The removal occurred after I raised the issue here, and I only just found out that Abt had complained about Wikipedia, but there has been contention about the section since it emerged last year.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is the only sources, it aggregates them [1] [2]. To be fair not a lot, and not the best. But hardly one source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So much of Abt's reputation is self-published (he has published multiple books) it's difficult to distinguish legitimate investigative journalism vs. copy-paste journalism as many of these sources likely are. The one source that actually took a critical view of his controversial activities has been expunged from the article; meanwhile Abt has launched a campaign against Wikipedia editors ("trolls") and Vice News. -- GreenC 15:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course also means we do have another source Abt himself. So what we have is a controversy he himself deems notable. That alone means we should at least cover this spat with Wikipedia (and the reasons why).Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vice may see fit to publish insults from social media, but it's not suitable material for an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not it is an RS, and we repeat what RS thing is worthy of commenting on. Lets look at other sources [[3]], a very brief mention of "foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric", [4]. SO it is clear he is the subject of some controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument at the time of removal was that it was a single-source. Now there are multiple sources showing controversy/criticism ie. sources say in effect he is controversial. -- GreenC 12:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument against the Vice article was not that it was a single source (though I noted that), it was that (1) some of the material was relevant to other businesspeople but not Abt, (2) the material directed at Abt was just abuse. I don't object to anyone adding criticism of Abt to the article, but it should be relevant to him and it shouldn't be abuse. It's also obvious from the sources uncovered so far that Abt's most trenchant critic is Joshua Stanton. I think we should be wary of airing a personal feud here, just as we would not include in an article on Stanton things that Abt has said about him.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do we determine what is abuse vs legitimate? Abuse is a subjective (opinion) term. Normally it would be framed, like, "According to Abt critic <name> and as reported in Vice, ..." - this would remove Wikipedia as the voice reporting what the source/critic says. -- GreenC 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Switzerland's greatest embarrassment to humanity since [Third Reich financier] François Genoud" is abuse. It is a colourful insult. It would not normally appear in Wikipedia at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actaully we do often include this kind of comment, as long as we do not state it as a fact but as an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an opinion; it's an insult. And it's defamatory.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional quotes by Stanton: “I wouldn’t piss on Felix Abt if he was on fire”, “I’m sure Abt could find another profession equally suited to his character, like selling cutlery to ISIS, or picking through the dirt at Auschwitz to scavenge for gold fillings.” Quotes by Craig Urquhart: "a criminal, a parasite transmitting diseases, a profiteer on misery using slave labor, unprincipled prick, so unutterably wretched, this inhuman monster, Package of lies and distortions," and "You have an army of critics itching to have at you".. These quotes are sourced, in the book published by Abt so I don't think it's inappropriate to reproduce them here (on this talk page) to gain a better understanding of the types of criticism he receives and how Wikipedia should deal with it in the article. -- GreenC 04:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those quotes are insults, clearly. They are not encyclopedic.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but he clearly has his critics, one claiming an "an army of critics", and that is encyclopedic. -- GreenC 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Any quote by Craig Urquhart is irrelevant. He does not represent a noteworthy source in either academia or journalism, in fact the guy is absolutely deranged and the larger excerpt as to what he sent Felix was abusive, threatening and posed questions about his mental health. The same discussion cited also reveals that Craig engaged in threatening and illegal behaviour to those whom he disagreed with- 217.196.231.122 (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

Felix Abt supports dictators in North Lorea, Iran, Syria China, Russia, Cuba and others. He denies that there is a genocide of the Uyghurs in China. He has very strong views and belittle people who do not share his views. He is very anti-imperialist, anti-American, Anti Ukraine and anti-Israel and pro Russia. and China Sunnyside321 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Felix_Abt&oldid=1204465166"