This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Occupation is currently listed as 'Sex Slave'. I don't see any evidence for that and will change it to college student as that is how he is described in the media reports I have read including ones already sourced in the article. Dethen (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Already updated. Should have been quicker. Dethen (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
This article should not exist, only if this information is in another article. So we can:
Leave the article,
Or (my option) move it to another article. Eloy (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to delete your formatting for your signature that makes it justify right, it was screwing up the section heading for the section I created below. I've never seen anyone format their signature like that, and I suggest you stop doing that in the future, it is unnecessary and can cause problems for text below your signature, causing unnecessary frustration and work for other editors to compensate for it. Moving on, I think this case is really more a matter of international relations than crime, and I think the more general Biographies of living persons - subjects notable only for one event guideline is the more pertinent one. It says:
"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
The first and second conditions are certainly met; other American students who have been convicted in North Korea usually pass into obscurity relatively quickly, like that guy who went there deliberately to get arrested a couple years ago. The persistence of coverage of these kinds of events is pretty low, this case is in the news right now, but in deciding to make or keep this article we should remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should consider how significant this guy is likely to be in a year. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why this guy needs a page this early into a brief detention? Yes, if he becomes a prisoner like other famous DPRK prisoners it would make sense, or if some elaborate swap/deal is made because of this guy and more media sources surface then sure...but I'm having a really hard time understanding why he deserves a Wikipedia page just because he was supposedly dumb enough to steal a banner and get detained temporarily by North Korea. GoldenSHK (talk)
GoldenSHK Wikipedia has objective criteria for what concepts can have articles. If you like, check Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria for the guideline on biographies. If you feel this article (or any other) does not meet notability criteria, then please either nominate it for deletion by the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or ask someone to start a deletion discussion on your behalf. Thanks for asking about Wikipedia standards. Please speak up if you see something out of order. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) Thanks for the constructive response. I just feel like it shouldn't be quite as notable as people are making it out to be but I appreciate the time you took to respond. GoldenSHK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to AFD "one eventers" before, and unfortunately it's an uphill battle. IMO there should be a single "foreign prisoners of North Korea" article and all of the individual articles should be merged into it. - Frankie1969 (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Great story, but ... IMO, OK - keep it all... 15:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please delete this after you fix it. I just want to point out that the introduction claims that DPRK authorities claim that one cause of his coma was "feminism".
LGBT?
Resolved
An LGBT-related category has been added to this article, which mentions nothing about gay/LGBT. ---Another Believer(Talk) 18:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Category has been removed. 116.89.224.150 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Sanctions against North Korea" in lede and "See also" section
I don't know why the "sanctions" part is in the lede, not in body. Also, it's in the "See also" section. If it can't be removed, at least there should be sources. --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly BS and not backed up by sources on the page. Completely ridiculous claims, feels like this article should be locked and edited only by verified people.
Yes, the cause of Warmbier's death is not known, but he certainly died in the US.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The case is not so "clear cut". Not so "black and white". Warmbier could have been murdered abroad, and still have died in the US. A death (from a murder) does not have to immediately follow from the murderous act. It's very feasible -- in fact, very likely -- that that is exactly what happened in this case. No? We often see cases where a victim is assaulted, then they go into a coma or a vegetative state or what have you, and then they die like 20 years later. And the person charged with the original assault is then charged with murder. So, my point is that a death (from a murder) does not have to immediately follow from the murderous act. And, in this case, that's probably exactly what happened. It is not NPOV. And the fact that Warmbier died on US soil is essentially irrelevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the case is not clear cut. We do not know the cause of death. Various explanations have been given and disputed. The claims of murder seem to be based an outpouring of emotion, rather than logic or evidence. The theory that Warmbier was selected at random, framed for a crime he didn't commit, and then murdered seems completely incoherent. As discussed previously, we shouldn't act as amateur detectives or lawyers and try to make a case here, however probable we think our case is. Yes, the fact that he died on US soil doesn't legally mean that he wasn't murdered in North Korea (but it's not irrelevant — for example, it could mean the case fell into an American jurisdiction...). But we are not writing a legal treatise here. Saying he was murdered "abroad" is potentially confusing to the ordinary reader. The statement — "And, in this case, that's probably exactly what happened. It is not NPOV." — speaks for itself. That is very POV. To sum up, the claim that he was murdered is emotionally charged speculation, and saying that he was murdered abroad is potentially confusing. We should allow the story to unfold and not jump in with misleading tags.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: You missed my point entirely. Both of the posts before mine stated, in short, that "he died in the USA, so he could not have been murdered abroad". I was pointing out that it is not an inconsistency to be murdered abroad and to still die on US soil. So, I believe that you missed the point that I was making. (In response to the two posts that had preceded mine.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I acknowledged your point. The main problem with the category is claiming his death was murder when this is pure speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. True. But, I did not assert that the category should -- or should not -- be affixed to the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The theory that Warmbier was selected at random, framed for a crime he didn't commit, and then murdered seems completely incoherent. -- Not to anyone remotely intelligent, intellectually honest, and informed. But this is beside the point; since it has not been established that he was murdered, it's correct to remove the page from the category. -- Jibal (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that any experts believe this theory.[1]--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Inaccurate reflection of source
The article says, about Warmbier's parents "They had previously been "urged to keep quiet" about their son's plight by officials in the Obama administration."
The source actually says "Fred Warmbier said he and his wife, Cindy, were “urged to keep quiet” about their son’s plight by the Obama administration."
They are not the same thing. Our text explicitly says something happened, when the only evidence for that is one person's claim. One person's claim does not prove it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.61.77 (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - very good point. I changed it to "according to" because there's no confirmation that that actually happened and changed it to "keep low profile" because we don't know what "keep quiet" meant. During the press conference, his dad said something about them not doing a ribbon campaign (ie tying ribbons on trees) as an example of what they meant by "keep quiet," which doesn't actually mean never discuss it with anyone (which would be inferred normally by "keep quiet"). If someone wants to rephrase no prob, as long as it is clear this is according to Warmbier's father. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Wrong country listed / doesn't match cited article
Article states:
Some news media have likewise inferred that the harsh sentence was in response to heightened tensions with the U.S. and South Korea.[35]
Referenced article states U.S. and NORTH Korea, which makes much more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrioux (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It does make sense, i.e., heightened tensions with the US and SK means between NK and the US and SK. However, you are right, SK is not mentioned in the referenced article, so I have removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Picture
The picture of Otto should be removed because it is not free use. There are quite a few pictures of him on social media. It is just an excuse to use this picture. Many people could submit their photos of Otto under GDFL.
If one said that there must be a non-free use of a photo from the trial, this would be a little stronger from the point of view of logic but using the current photo should be not allowed. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Begging people to share their photos under free CC license is not what Wikipedia does in the cases of people who have died. That same argument could be used to prevent any non-free usage for pretty much every notable person who died in the past 50 years - there's likely someone somewhere out there who took that person's photo who could decide to submit under GDFL if they felt like it. But anyway this is not the right forum to discuss whether or not the photo is allowed - you can nominate it for deletion and see how that argument goes. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Response to sanctions?
The article currently says:
The harsh sentence was probably a response to strengthened economic sanctions due to increased North Korean nuclear weapons testing.
(This is followed by a long quotation from the BBC which seems largely irrelevant.) What the BBC report actually says about the sentence is:
The BBC's Stephen Evans in South Korea says the 15-year sentence is high compared to those given to foreigners in the past. This could be due to the particularly high tensions at the moment between North Korea and the US, he says.
This is quite different. In fact, the length of the sentence was not remarkably different to that given to other foreign detainees. In any case, there doesn't seem much point in including speculation that "could be" true...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I tightened it to the key facts. --Light show (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I would remove in entirely. No doubt many people are speculating about different aspects of the case. The opinions of a BBC reporter in South Korea aren't particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
According to this BBC article, "North Korea has ramped up its hostile rhetoric in recent weeks [March 2016], after the UN imposed some of its toughest ever sanctions. The sanctions were a response to the North conducting its fourth nuclear test and launching a satellite into space, which was seen as a covert test of banned missile technology. Pyongyang has also been angered by the US and South Korea carrying out their annual military drills, which this year involve some 315,000 personnel."
President Obama Responds To Warmbier Sentencing: North Korea Hit With New Sanctions, Inquisitr.com, 16 March 2016 — "It’s not the first time in the past few weeks that North Korea has been hit with new sanctions in response to its provocative actions in the Korean peninsula. In February [2016], President Obama hit North Korea with a round of congressionally approved sanctions that severely limits the growth of the North Korean economy, a move that China criticized, stating that the sanctions could cripple North Korea’s economy." -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
What's the relevance? First, you cite events that appear to have no connection to Warmbier. Second, you cite sanctions that responded to the sentencing.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, in relation to the sanctions, according to the article cited: "But the White House maintains the new sanctions against North Korea are just about nuclear tests – it’s a coincidence that North Korea is slapped with new sanctions right after condemning a U.S. citizen to a decade and a half in a labor camp."--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 21 June 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Otto Warmbier → Death of Otto Warmbier – Moved to that title by Ohconfucius; I reverted it. I'm setting this up so it can be discussed, and a final decision can be made. —Guanaco 09:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Move to 'Death of Otto Warmbier': [reposting from above] It may seem subtle and redundant, but it's important to the way WP functions because of its policies and guidelines. I would have though it was pretty intuitive that the event (his death) ought to be the subject of the article. Before going to DPRK as a young person and returning as a vegetable, he had been an ordinary Joe – a student with no notability whatsoever, no achievements to his name to speak of. An article on the person would stand to be deleted because of WP:ONEEVENT. However, as his detention and his death are the centre of a fairly major diplomatic incident, it is undoubtedly notable, but definitely not him. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose. This makes no sense. He did not die until just a few days ago. His death is not what makes him notable, nor is it the main scope of the article. His background, visit to North Korea, arrest, trial, sentencing, attempts to free him from imprisonment and eventual release are the main point of the article. We still don't know what caused his brain damage, which we can only assume led to his death, so the fact that he died is sort of a sad footnote at this point. His parents refused to allow an autopsy, and doctors already said there was no sign of physical abuse, so it seems unlikely additional information will be revealed that will cause the section about his death to expand greatly. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Notable before he died.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Notable before he died. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. His death was after his notability, which so far hasn't been proven to contribute to it. — Wyliepedia 11:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Warmbier's life before and during his North Korean prison life were described by reliable sources before his death. Yoshiman6464♫🥚 12:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose on similar grounds - he was already notable even if he hadn't died WhisperToMe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose it is yet to be shown that his death is notable but clearly he was. It is a tragic story. His poor family.BernardZ (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, he was notable long before death. It would make no sense to pretend his death is the reason the article was created. κατάσταση 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, not only was he notable before his death (as an American detainee in North Korea), the exact nature of the cause of his death will likely never be known. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Mr. Warmbier did not gain his qualifying notability for inclusion into WP because of his death, rather his death was likely the end result of why he was notable (detention in North Korea that was covered by reputable national and international news outlets.) I see no need to change the name of the page, especially to one that excessively narrows the scope to potentially exclude information. JaxisMaximus (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Notable before death. WereWolf (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Guanaco, looks like the whole consensus is against renaming and restructuring this article. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose This is Wikipedia jargon gone haywire. Someone made a rule in Wikipedia saying "Death of ___" or "Murder of ___" to get around the technicality that a subject was known just for one thing (which can cause article deletion). Plain and simple, this is weird and would look weird to the normal world if this article is renamed. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose This suggestion is nonsensical - the page has existed for 18 months, and he died 2 days ago. 86.156.212.54 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per 86.156.212.54. I'm a WP:ONEEVENTpit bull, but Warmbier is notable for more than just his death. — AjaxSmack 22:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: Otto Warmbier was notable long before he died-- his death is merely the cherry on top of an individual who has been pivotal in the dangerous relations between the United States and North Korea. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: Otto Warmbier was definitely notable before his death. BobTheFrog! (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: Mr Warmbier was notable before his death, and secondarily it would be strange to have an article about the death of a person without having an article about said person. I oppose. Osarius - Want a chat? 07:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose notable for imprisonment not for how he died. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per all the above. Might be time for a WP:SNOW close. —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 13:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Hello again, Ohconfucius. Is adding "death of..." necessary? Why not the RM procedure instead? --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It may seem subtle and redundant, but it's important to the way WP functions because of its policies and guidelines. I would have though it was pretty obvious that the event (his death) ought to be the subject of the article. Before going to DPRK as a young person and returning as a vegetable, he had been an ordinary Joe – a student with no notability whatsoever, no achievements to his name to speak of. An article on the person would stand to be deleted because of WP:ONEEVENT. However, as the event is the centre of a fairly major diplomatic incident (death of an American subject who became brain-damaged in detention abroad), it is undoubtedly notable. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Would Warmbier still be notable if he had not died after he returned from North Korea, but recoverd from his illnesses? I would say yes, and in this case, his is not olny notable for his death and therefore the aticle name should be about him, not just about his death. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
He has been notable since his arrest. "Death of..." is too narrow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And he would have remained notable if he survived. Which means the article is about the events, with his death being one of them. --Light show (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That said, may you please, Ohconfucius, change the title back to what it was and then reinsert his bio info? Also, may you do the RM procedure please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll put it back (needs admin or page mover). Because this was kept at AfD in March 2016 and two people have objected to the move, I see a presumption for this to be kept as a biography and not a death article. Ohconfucius, you can list this at RM if you still want to move it. —Guanaco 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Didn't need page mover. Huh. Whether a redirect blocks or not seems fickle. Anyway, I'll go ahead and set up the RM. —Guanaco 08:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This should end up being a speedy close. Nobody sees the sense of why it would be Death of... His death was not what made him notable nor was it the main event that has received coverage. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Racist coverage of Otto Warmbier
Does anyone think the racist coverage Otto Warmbier initially revived should be included in the article. ? These are mainstream sources to support what I say. [2][3][4]Dwanyewest (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No. None of that is appropriate for be a biography of his life. Fairly superficial. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
There are several articles on this. I think it's relevant for an article on the coverage of his imprisonment in DPRK. Natureium (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. There are lots of conservative outlets criticizing the La Sha article and others that came out after Warmbier's death. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. There is, and will be, a lot of commentary about Warmbier. There's no reason to include it here. In this case, Warmbier is just a hook on which to hang a debate about American politics. It's a distraction from the subject of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that, in general, such debates should be included even if the pundits haven't done the debate in good faith. I notice that the articles the pundits criticized were essentially a year or more old and they only started these critiques after Warmbier died. Regardless of their motives for doing so, the debate/coverage is happening. It may good to take a sketch of all commentary about the Warmbier case and decide what to include based on the length of the coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No. Why feed the trolls that will benefit from publicity about anything they can imaginatively turn into a racial topic.--Light show (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait and see what happens. It may be insignificant if all of the coverage of "year-old articles being criticized now that Warmbier is dead" will dissipate, but if it continues it should be covered even if political pundits who had done so hadn't done the critiques in good faith. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the significance at all - what exactly is the angle? I agree with above that it's a distraction and he was being politicized like everything else is these days, but it's not actually relevant to his biography. Of course there was widespread media coverage, but these few articles were not significant enough to where they become part of the story. See Murder of Ennis Cosby for example of how the media coverage became part of the story separate from the murder and investigation. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The reality is that anything is politicized and often it is an intentional distraction. I believe Wikipedia's task is to comprehensively cover the subject, even if some aspects are being used as distractions in cheap politics. However, as per Wikipedia:Undue weight facts can be undue weight, and you don't want to disproportionately give coverage to something that's overall insignificant to the subject. If the coverage on this aspect pretty much dies down we can exclude it from the article. If it leads to implications towards the journalists who made the year-old articles, then it may be something to include. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that - if coverage after his death continues and there is a focus on this type of media coverage, then it could be relevant. But right now we have probably have 5,000 articles on him over 18 months, of which maybe a dozen were about this kind of thing? And the angle is very suspicious - it seems to be all right-wing sites criticizing "liberal" Salon and talking about random people's tweets (the most irrelevant and superficial noise in the world today) for taking down an article they regretted when more info came to light. When you think about a quality encyclopedic article about the life of Otto Warmbier, I just don't see how that is relevant. (It's relevant to the article on Salon however.) —МандичкаYO 😜 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the criticism is entirely partisan and that's a common theme in U.S. politics. Even though the motives/timing don't seem "genuine" I still think partisan-based controversies have a place in articles as long as they're clearly labeled as/understood to be such. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this kind of thing is really about the media and those sites (Salon, Huff Post, etc) because it reflects their actions, and should be on their articles. I didn't read the original articles but I'm guessing they were carelessly written by an eager blogger trying to find an angle and ended up basically libeling him. It seemed like they followed the PRK propaganda that he was actually guilty of this and was acting like an idiot over there, when it may be that it was entirely fabricated so they imprison him as a political pawn. So the focus should actually be on their irresponsible coverage, bc the conflict it created was really not anything to do with Otto himself, and this was just a few politically-driven articles that appeared as an excuse to bash "the liberal media." If people got fired over it or his family filed a defamation suit it would be significant to come back to Otto's biography, but otherwise I think it belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I think it will be quickly forgotten as they move on to the next insult war. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Heard on the streets...
Are the news reports of this young man being approached by a businessman and offered $10.000 to get some propaganda unfounded? If that is actually the case then perhaps a mention of that in the article would be appropriate to warn other young people about their behaviour in other countries. Know that they will video your every movement so don't let that greed cloud your judgment.
Did you not know that to chew gum publicly in Singapore may get you a flogging? 70.128.97.190 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)qp
Light showremoved the information relating to that with the edit summary "trimmed statements possibly made under duress, per various sources". I think that the first paragraph should be restored because as the article and sources say "It is not known whether Warmbier made the admission under duress" and to remove it assumes that it was made under duress. And whether it was or was not made under duress, the paragraph was still accurate because he did say it. I think the paragraph is important because it provides his motivation (the why) of what he did (or what they say he did). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it should be trimmed. It's an important part of the story. People could conclude there was duress based on the unlikely details of the statement. But if the statement was made under duress, that's no reason to trim it. As to the why of it, there's no real mystery. If you look on YouTube you can see many people bragging about accessing the 5th floor of the Yanggakdo Hotel.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
First of all, to OP, it's not Wikipedia's job to warn young people about dangers abroad. Yes, the statement was obviously made under duress, but some people don't get that when reading the words. Including a chunk of text or describing text from a forced confession is very misleading and is a violation of WP:BLP, which still applies to the recently deceased. It is misleading because some people aren't that sharp and think if he said it, it means it's true. Others with good knowledge of linguistics can tell that statement he read was not written by a native speaker of English. Thus, I think the confession should be included only in that light, if actual experts (if available, I haven't looked) can provide commentary on the confession. @Jack Upland: I'm not sure what you mean "as to the why of it." —МандичкаYO 😜 16:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, saying his confession was "possibly made under duress" may actually be an understatement, which would then need to be supported and explained. The "possibility" aspect would also benefit from noting similar cases.--Light show (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This article should not be censored, nor should it be written to provide the ordinary reader with a simple interpretation of events. (By "the why of it", I mean the reason that Warmbier entered the 5th floor and took the poster off the wall.)--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
On one hand this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia but on the other hand the audience for this article is ordinary people. Keep the language in the article itself the same, but if you need to add footnotes for clarity reasons, do it. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't know that he ever took the poster off the wall. Nothing about that poster story makes sense, and that video (which conveniently does not show his face or anything that would identify him) appears staged, and his supposed confession was absurd (he's involved with the CIA?!). Reliable sources cast doubts that the poster offense ever occurred in the first place. North Korea has a horrible history of abduction of foreigners and pulling these kinds of stunts for their own political gain. It seems much more likely that the whole thing was a ruse to try to use him as a bargaining chip. Very sad. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source which says that he DIDN'T take the poster off the wall? Several tourists have had the bravado to venture onto the forbidden fifth floor of the Yanggakdo Hotel. Unfortunately for Warmbier, he got caught. There is no credible reason, outside the cartoon universe, that the DPRK government would target a random American tourist. Thousands of tourists, including me, visit the country each year, quite safely. Secondly, how is this relevant to the issue under discussion? Wikipedia should not be censored. If Warmbier confessed to something, we should say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017
This edit request to Otto Warmbier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The timing of his incapacity and cause of death has not been confirmed. This page is stating as fact what the N Korean regime claim happened. It should state this. Ddbrighton (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
That all seems to be implied in the article, since doctors said they found no evidence of what North Korea claimed. Can you be more specific? --Light show (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the problem is we don't know. This article is bedevilled by the fact that some editors think that what the DPRK regime says is automatically wrong. But we don't know that. If there is no autopsy, the North Korean regime's statements seem to be the closest to the fact of what happened that we can get at the moment. All we can do is report the DPRK claims, report the American doctors' claims, report the findings of the inquest etc. Nothing is clear, and may never be.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 19:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Official DPRK reaction to Warmbier's Death
Someone please post or link. Found under "DPRK FM Spokesman Accuses U.S. of Slandering Humanitarian Measure":
The KCNA web site appears to be designed in such a way that it's not possible to link directly to this press release. (Gee, I wonder why?) You have to go to their homepage and look for the article headline under "Top News, (2017.06.23)". --Muzilon (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
These articles provide commentary on the DPRK reaction:[5][6]--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
American Jewish descent?
The two sources provided that he was Jewish descent make no mention. All it says that he was part of Hilell. His parents are not Jewish according to everything availible on the Internet, and he was actually of german descent. It is possible he converted, but there is no evidence his family is of Jewish descent. That should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.177.197 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
See above. "According to everything" on the Internet is not a very specific source. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I am not putting it on the page without a citation to back it up, like whoever is saying he is Jewish did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.177.197 (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Details about his maternal grandfather being Jewish are cited. The article doesn't claim Otto was Jewish, just that part of his family was. --Light show (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
He's Jewish on his mother's side, which makes him Jewish, not of Jewish descent. Further, it has been confirmed that he identified as Jewish by taking the Birthright trip, which is not for general tourists but specifically people who identify as Jewish (in addition to Hillel etc). Therefore, he meets the requirements to be included in the category of American Jews. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If Eve was Jewish, then we are all Jewish, because our mother's mother's ... mother was Jewish. If Eve was not Jewish, then there are no Jews. If Eve did not exist, then she couldn't have been Jewish, and therefore again, nobody's Jewish. Logics.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed for many reasons, the least of which is that "Eve" and her children were not Jewish. If you go based on the Biblical story, the Jews are the descendants of Jacob, who was born untold generations after Eve. The rest of the world was not suddenly wiped out. Therefore, we are not all descended from Jacob. The Israelites were just one of many tribes populating the world. The catalyst in the creation of the Israelites was their monotheistic covenant with God that occurred at some point; therefore, their ancestors did not become Israelites retroactively. I don't know when the rabbinical experts decided that Jewish identity was from the mother, probably 1,000 years later, but that's what they decided, which is logical, because the women raised the children. Men fathered children all over the place, including with women from other tribes, and their children would be raised in the traditions of the women of that tribe. Ignoring Biblical lore, look at Mitochondrial DNA to better understand this concept of how we are not all descended from the same female line. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Was Jacob a Jew? Was his mother Jewish? No, clearly your logic is flawed, and you are wasting other people's time.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
LOL this is not my personal theory. I'm not even Jewish and I understand this. The word "Jew" came from the Tribe of Judah, one of the 12 tribes descended from Jacob's 12 children. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the patriarchs of the Israelites or Hebrews. And stated, the identity of the Israelites was based on their covenant with God, which occurred at a specific time. The ancestors of the first Jews (Israelites) did not become retroactively Jewish. It is similar to any hereditary title. For example, jus sanguinis is a law that states citizenship comes from your parents's citizenship. Does that mean that if you have that citizenship via your parent, that all your ancestors from beginning of time had that citizenship? Of course not. More specific example: Duke of Devonshire is a noble title created in 1694 for William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire, and the title is a hereditary one passed through his legitimate male descendants. The 1st duke passed on the title to his son who became the 2nd duke, who passed it on to 3rd duke, on to 12th duke alive today. Does that mean that the father and grandfather of William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire, were ALSO the Dukes of Devonshire? No, of course not. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I don't think anyone is saying Otto Warmbier was the Duke of Devonshire, though perhaps you could research it further... This is a waste of time, and I apologise to everyone for stirring it up. But genealogical research, even if you can trace his ancestry to Jacob, is not helpful to readers and has no place in the article. If he adhered to Judaism or was culturally Jewish in some way, that would be worth noting. But you cannot claim someone as Jewish merely because they have a matrilineal ancestor who is Jewish. I'm aware that there is a Jewish tradition about this, but that's not relevant here. The question is what he himself identified with, what he believed, and what he did.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hillel member, he went to birthright trip to Israel. You have to prove you're Jewish to be accepted on this programme. It's safe to assume he was (and he himself believed he was) Jewish.2.223.138.93 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Was drinking vodka until 5am
The Independent (UK) says another person on the tour said Otto's tour group was drinking vodka until 5 am. Maybe not fit to put in BLP? Only other source that says this is Time and they quote the Independent. Raquel Baranow (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Article doesn't even say if Warmbier was with them or was drinking vodka himself. I would leave it out. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems relevant that it was early on New Year's Day when the incident occurred.[7] Warmbier said they had returned to the hotel after watching the NYE celebrations, and had gone to bar on Level 2. He then went into a staff-only area. He also said that he later claimed to be drunk and not to remember anything.[8] It is not defamatory to suggest that Warmbier had an alcohol beverage or was in a festive mood on New Year's Eve.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything in your two news links about Warmbier saying he was "too drunk to remember anything"? --Muzilon (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
He mentioned that in his press conference. I don't think we need all these details in the article, but it would be good to give some context about the incident. After all, it is pivotal to the story. I recently edited the article to say it was New Year's Day, which had been omitted.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have added some more material. After rereading the Independent article about the vodka-drinking (surely soju?), I think that article is referring to the night of 1-2 January, not the night of 31 December-1 January when the incident occurred. Hence, all that article indicates is the culture of the binge drinking and unruly behaviour in that tour group that other witnesses have mentioned.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
"Confessions" and show trials
There is a long history of prisoners in NK "confessing" to nonsensical crimes, so the tone this article takes strikes me as credulous. Here is the Washington Post: "The strange ways North Korea makes detainees confess on camera." Warmbier's roommate doesn't buy the poster theft story: "Who Killed Otto Warmbier?" According to the confession, he did it to impress the "Z Society," supposedly a CIA front. This show trial embellishment goes unmentioned. Even if the story is true, it's not like anyone cares about this silly poster. The U.S. paid Iran $1.7 billion in ransom for four Americans last year. Being American was reason enough to take him hostage. Whiff of greatness (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you be specific about the problems with the tone? With regard to the confession, and as discussed previously, all those prisoners named in the Washington Post (with the exception of Lim) clearly did the substantial act that they were accused of. Yes, I think the references to the Z Society and the church are embellishments. They were taken from the article, but (as discussed elsewhere) I think they should be returned. With regard to the roommate, Gratton, the closest statement he seems to have made is: "Even if he did take down the banner, it’s irrelevant because the consequences have been so horrendously out of proportion, he said."[9] In the article you link to says this: "'I don’t know if Otto did what he was supposed to have done, or if his detention was a result of poor tour guide guidance,' the second participant told me. 'But all of the tour guides were young people who get very drunk. It was sort of like there were few or no adults around.'"[10] I disagree with you about the "silly poster": North Koreans do care about their propaganda. With regard to a ransom, we need to have this substantiated. And it doesn't make sense: why choose Warmbier out of hundreds of American tourists???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The other people on the tour saw how nervous Warmbrier was when he took a picture of some soldiers, so they didn't believe he was capable of stealing the poster. You picked up all those details from the Politico article, but somehow missed this: Gratton and Warmbier "strolled around" Pyongyang on their own for half an hour and "the North Korean guides were panicked." That sounds to me like a reason to chose Warmbier. Also: “There has been an arrest now with almost every single Western tour agency.” So there is no basis to blame the agency. Whiff of greatness (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I saw that comment about nervousness, but not that they don't believe he could have stolen the poster. You are inferring that. Equally, I could infer that he was inclined to break the rules, and could have gained more bravado after an evening's drinking. Gratton and an unnamed American (not Warmbier) strolled around the area of Kim Il Sung Square for half an hour. Then Gratton got separated from the group and found himself in a dark street alone. Then the North Korean guides panicked. The concern was that Gratton was missing. This has nothing to do with Warmbier, except that it indicates the atmosphere of the night. With regard to the agency, you are quoting one opinion. As the article shows, other people have raised each with this particular tour in terms of binge drinking, lack of supervision by the Western tour guides, and unruly behaviour. As far as the testimony of other tourists goes, there is no basis to say that Warmbier didn't do it.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
"I could infer that he was inclined to break the rules." Oh my, lawyerly innuendo. We can all "infer" whatever we like. Who can disagree with that? But it's still relevant that neither the witness nor the author, both of whom may have a better understanding of the situation than we do, actually did make an inference of this kind. "The American" is apparently not Warmbrier, which is certainly confusing. The article stresses that to go missing in Pyongyang is a far more serious matter than to go missing elsewhere -- and not because the city is dangerous. It's an alternative explanation of why this group was singled out for scrutiny. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The other tourists spent a few days with Warmbier, and they are not really in a position to make character judgements about him. It is notable that none of them (that I've seen) says Warmbier didn't do it, provides him with an alibi, or anything like that. We don't seem to be given the full picture, as Gratton in his interview didn't mention going missing. Perhaps people will speak freely now that there no risk of harming Warmbier. I don't see anything in Isaac Stone Fish's article that says that the group was singled out because Gratton went missing. Yes, it happened on the same night as the poster theft, but that's all we know. Again, you are inferring a lot. Surely, if the North Koreans were concerned about Gratton, they would have arrested him, not Warmbier.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
On every point, you take the view most favorable to North Korea. What are you up to? Nobody ever gave poor Kim Jong-un a break, so you've taken him under your wing? Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The article has to remain verifiable and neutral. You're trying to push it towards Warmbier's total innocence but there are just no credible sources to confirm it. To be honest I still don't entirely understand what are you trying to dispute here: the theft itself or the wording of Warmbier's confession? 92.40.248.13 (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see what improvements of the article are being suggested, Whiff. You complained about the tone, but didn't explain the issue. Instead, you've talked about what other tourists said, suggesting they have confirmed Warmbier's innocence, which, as far as I know, they haven't. If there's something in the sources that you think should be in the article, go ahead and add it.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I say let the North Koreans speak for themselves. According to the KCNA report, Warmbier was, "arrested while perpetrating a hostile act against the DPRK after entering it under the guise of tourist for the purpose of bringing down the foundation of its single-minded unity at the tacit connivance of the US government and under its manipulation."[11] So it's not about a frat boy prank, and it's not about how special this poster is. The issue is whether or not Warmbier was trying to overthrow the North Korean government at the behest of the Obama administration. Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
But what is the issue, Whiff? Does the article say that Warmbier was trying to overthrow the North Korean government? What is it about the article that you object to?--Jack Upland (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
What's your point here? I do agree that North Korea's propaganda is an ugly machine not compatible with the western morality and ethics (or, perhaps, the global morality and ethics). I do agree that 15 years imprisonment is a ridiculous sentence for such a crime. I do agree that Otto's confession wasn't true-hearted: he either was forced to read whatever he was given or the confession was a part of his strategy in hopes that the court would go softer on him. However, neither point mentioned above doesn't change (so-far)-undisputed facts that (a) the theft took place; and (b) North Korea's harsh laws existed prior to Mr Warmbier's visit. 92.40.248.13 (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Whiff, I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. I believe you misunderstand the subject of this article and I suggest you "take it slow" for a while and listen to the editors Jack and 92.40.248.13 who seem to have a better grasp here. Here is the press conference, I highly suggest you watch the Q&A portion of the video. 67.233.35.234 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Botulism
Brandon Foreman, a neurointensive care specialist at the hospital, confirmed that there was no sign of a current or past case of botulism, which can cause paralysis but not a coma.[1][2]
This does not reflect what the sources cited actually say. The general medical opinion appears to be that botulism is not likely to cause a coma, but a sleeping pill could. The sources actually say the doctors aren't sure what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the claim about 'paralysis but not a coma' as it's not in the sources cited, as you say. In fact this claim comes from another source[3] in the article, so if someone wants to add back this claim it should be done in the section that this source is used in (Dr. Englander), rather than mixed in with the statement of a different doctor (Dr. Foreman).
I've been trying to read up on whether a diagnosis of botulism from a year previously is possible or not? As Foreman's words that there was 'no evidence indicating botulism' doesn't make this completely clear. Anyone know? Mabandalone (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that an autopsy is forthcoming, perhaps we should wait until we hear what the pathologist says. Raider Duck (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both your comments. However, I've just learned that there won't be an autopsy.[12]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently says: "Sometime in the month following his trial, Warmbier suffered an unknown medical crisis that caused severe brain damage... [37]" Seems that that is not so according to the cited ref. 220ofBorg 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed that. It doesn't reflect what's in the reference, and it seems to be presenting speculation as fact. All we have is the North Korean account, and we have what the American doctors have said. I think we have to live with that at the moment. Since all doctors agree that a sleeping pill could cause a coma, there doesn't seem very much reason to doubt this explanation based on the known facts. Of course, we don't know why he would have taken the sleeping pill. Perhaps this will come out at the inquest.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I found this which states that the botulism toxin doesn't stay long in the body, but they couldn't find any evidence of denervation. Again, we don't really know what that means...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The current version of the article says "It is likely that North Korean officials lied about Otto having botulism, however it is not known why" – which seems to be veering into WP:SYNTH territory.--Muzilon (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, that should go. It is a synthesis, and it isn't neutral. That can only be included if a notable person has said that.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference nbc61517 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The lede says Warmbier was "accused of stealing a propaganda poster from his hotel lobby." Later on the article says he "allegedly tried to steal a propaganda sign from a staff-only floor of the hotel." It goes on to refer to this as a "restricted area of the hotel." Is it accurate to call a restricted, staff-only floor – which, according to Wikipedia's own article on the Yanggakdo Hotel, is actually on the 5th floor – the "lobby"? --Muzilon (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Lobby has been removed. I think we should be more specific about this. It was the 5th floor. This is not accessible by the lifts. (I know I've stayed at the hotel.) It houses staff quarters, hotel security, and has some kind of mystique about it for some people. Other tourists have gained access via the fire stairs. I think it is important to clarify this, because what he was convicted of wasn't just theft, but also a break-in.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm wrong. Others have also made the mistaken assumption that it was Level 5: [13][14][15] But, in his press conference, he talks about accessing a staff only area from the "lobby" of Level 2, where he and other tourists were drinking in a bar after seeing in the new year. Hence, it was not a staff-only floor at all. And this is not what the source says. I have corrected the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Come to think of it, "...convicted of stealing a propaganda banner from his hotel" may not be strictly accurate either. If I understand the "official" version of events correctly, he didn't actually succeed in stealing the banner but just left it on the floor when he discovered it was too heavy to walk off with. Perhaps "convicted of attempting to steal" would be better? Muzilon (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about North Korean law, but technically in English law it is stealing as soon as you move it. For example, if you are caught shoplifting, you will be charged with stealing, not attempted stealing, even though you might not have got the good out of the shop. I'd imagine that most legal systems would take the same position, as there is no point in qualifying how far you moved the item or how long it was in your possession. If Warmbier had the banner in his bag at the airport, you could also say that it was an "attempt" because he hadn't got away with it. Also, Warmbier would have also been convicted of breaking and entering, as he had entered a staff-only area of the hotel, so we should really add that as well. (The actual charges laid were apparently generic, but I haven't seen them spelt out precisely.) In terms of what we say here, bearing in mind that this is not a legal treatise, I think either one would be fine. Sources seem to use both. My preference would be to say "stealing", rather than "attempted stealing", because it is more accurate and neutral. (Neutral because "attempted stealing" could be read as an attempt to minimise or excuse what he did, rather than state the facts, and we shouldn't do that.) In general, I think we should be more specific about the crime and the related allegations. This is central to his notability, and people no doubt are coming here to get a recap on what happened. But perversely the article is hazy about this, and in fact information is being taken out of the article. If there is a consensus for this, I would like to know why.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you can't be charged with shoplifting until you try to leave the shop. That's why you'll get suspicious staff hanging around the exit. Because, really, if they detain you when you're still in the shop then the excuse is simply that you were going to pay for it, unlawful detention, and slander. In Warmbier's case, what the CCTV (which could well not be him anyway) shows is someone taking a poster off the wall and placing it on the floor. To anybody logical, this does not constitute stealing. Perhaps it could count as preparing to steal something (if it were significantly difficult to move), damaging (if it indeed did that), or some form of vandalism. Your assertion that "in English law it is stealing as soon as you move it" is complete BS, and you're just made that up to support your want to criminalise Warmbier against logic and evidence (as seen throughout this page), when in reality, you'd need to displace an object from its environs significantly for it to be considered stealing - think of it logically: if a house got burglarised and only a microwave oven was stolen, but everything in the kitchen had been ransacked, the insurance company would laugh in the face of the homeowner for trying to claim that all of their cutlery was also stolen. What all articles about Warmbier's imprisonment state is that he was "convicted for crimes against North Korea". This is what the article should reflect, and then go into detail of what this charge comprises - for these (stealing, offending the leader, anything else NK made up), the language does not need to be so technical. Also, the idea of Warmbier "breaking and entering" is rarely mentioned anywhere, so while it can be discussed that this may have been something added to the charges, it should be brief and explain that this item is unclear. Realistically, the North Koreans probably include breaking and entering as a general charge of crimes against the country. Many of your comments are assuming that NK is rational and protects human rights - as much as you may have been there, please be assured that this is inaccurate. This reason is likely what causes consensus different to your own opinion. We don't know what Warmbier did or didn't do, or what happened to him; I expect most of NK don't either, nor the US government. Therefore, any sensible person would conclude to favor the more logical argument that an unreasonable and globally political country unjustly detained the citizen of a self-perceived rival and threat (and they did, because if he had done everything they say he has, it certainly isn't worth 15 years hard labor). This includes to be more ambiguous in terms of the claims of his crimes, to reflect the uncertainty and tension. 81.157.138.73 (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You, sir, are wrong. It is expected that you have some sort of legal practice or at least spend some time googling before you start throwing false accusations ("your assertion /regarding shoplifting/ ... is complete BS, and you're just made that up to support your want to criminalise Warmbier against logic and evidence"). Please have a look at the current legislation, namely Theft Act 1968. It clearly states two things: (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. And (2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property. [16]. 188.29.165.143 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Guess who's studying international law? And guess whose barrister professor told them basically word for word what I described above as the most reasonable way to interpret Burglary Law in order to not be seen as an a*hole in court. You just copied text, I got taught by professionals how to read this stuff. Sit down. The point, in any case, was that editor Jack Upland, as can be seen up and down this page, is sympathizing with NK and trying to encourage the criminalization of Warmbier for no known reason - and I'm not the only one to point it out - when even if he did move the poster, it wouldn't be a criminal offense in a decent country. Jack is trying to make the page read like he definitely did it, and that it was a heinous crime. (i'm on a different computer, the IP might be differen) 31.53.137.106 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure someone who holds International Law degree (with a little help of barrister professors) can produce a reliable source to support their so-far-unconfirmed statements. 92.40.248.216 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The English case you should look at is Wallis v Lane [1964] VR 293. But, of course, this was in North Korea, and we are not writing a legal essay.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Allegedly?
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.
On a mere counting-noses basis this is difficult to evaluate but evaluating a requested close is not a matter of just counting noses: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Although Otto Warmbier has died, that does not relieve us of the policy on Biographies of Living Persons: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends The criminal charges laid by the DPRK are certainly covered by "contentious or questionable material" and, as such, the article needs to hew closely to the core content policies. A large amount of the discussion below refers neither to policy nor sources and is not compliant with either the BLP or the core content policies. These are therefore the "irrelevant arguments" that do not affect assessment of consensus. Of the remaining !votes, it is clear that the suggestion to remove "allegedly" does not have consensus. The alternative proposal does have some support, and may be policy compliant, but comparing the use of "allegedly" to "accused of" would require a new, neutrally-worded discussion.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 04:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone deny he did it?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
No. I fact there is a video footage with him stealing the banner.--5.12.134.86 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
According to the source he has confessed and has been convicted by the supreme court. The time for presumption of innocence has passed. No one is suggesting that he didn't do it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
This is indeed reported as alleged theft by the majority of sources:[17], [18], [19]. Check yourself! 80.132.81.204 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Summary: out of 3 articles you've provided 1 confirms the crime, 2 were written before the final verdict, hence the "alleged".
1. Foxnews: "The so-called hostile act against North Korea committed by college student Warmbier, [...], was purloining a propaganda poster off the wall of the Yanggakdo Hotel in Pyongyang”.
2. CNN's article doesn't mention the final verdict. Indeed, at the time the article was written the crime hasn't been proven yet, hence the "alleged".
3. Dailymail. Again, the article seems to be written before the final verdict was announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA8A:F200:9903:E9EB:D36B:2C71 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In any case, we don't need to use a particular word because media sources use it. The use of the word "alleged" implies there is some kind of dispute as to whether the act took place. But I have not seen any source that disputes the truth of the charge.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you talking to your own sockpuppet Jack ? Anyway there is no consensus for your (strange) version here. 80.132.74.42 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:EQ, I'm nobody's puppet. You can address me as 2A02:C7D:CA8A:F200:9903:E9EB:D36B:2C71, or simply 2A02.
You didn't comment on my findings tho. None of the articles you provided support your point of view. Foxnews confirms the theft took place. CNN and Dailymail use "alleged" as both articles have been drafted before the verdict was announced. Take a look at latter articles by Dailymail: [20], [21], [22]. None of them show any sign of a doubt: "Warmbier stole a banner with a political slogan from his Pyongyang hotel". --2A02:C7D:CA8A:F200:88B6:6DEA:E4CF:81DE (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
3O Response: declined as an RFC is underay. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Request for comments dated 28 April 2017
Do we report the official North Korean propaganda, or do we stick with the majority of sources?Relisted at 06:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC) by Winged Blades Godric in light of the new proposal put forward. Initiated by 80.132.74.42 (talk) at 11:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Clarification for new participants: The RFC is asking whether the word 'Alleged' as used in the article to indicate an alleged theft be kept or not. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Survey
Please state your view with keep allegedly or remove allegedly along with a brief explanation. Do not reply to views expressed here but discuss in the threaded discussion section below.
Remove allegedly: As stated above, Warmbier has confessed, has been convicted, and no source has been provided that disputes what he did. By using the word "allegedly", we imply that there is some dispute about what he did, and that the court process is ongoing.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove allegedly. Wikipedia is not in the position to hold an investigation to establish whether or not poster was actually stolen. Since the final verdict, the majority of media articles that I've seen are quite explicit in their wordings: "Otto Warmbier stole the poster". --2A02:C7D:CA8A:F200:F4CA:500:13D5:9F71 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The two entries above are from the same person. And there certainly was and is a dispute about this fake crime, the fake video, the fake confession, and the fake trial. Jibal (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep allegedly, obviously. Admitting something while being held prisoner by North Korea is not confirmation of it happening. Neither is conviction by a court in North Korea. We can't report something as fact if we don't know it's fact. 2.102.185.65 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep allegedly. We have exactly two pieces of evidence that Warmbier stole anything:
A coerced confession obtained using torture.
Low-quality CCTV footage of somebody (whose face cannot be seen) removing the poster and placing it on the floor. Keep in mind that the alleged theft involved him removing the poster and walking off with it, NOT placing it on the floor. So our CCTV footage shows a different crime than the one alleged.
That's it. We have nothing else suggesting a crime was even committed, alone Warmbier being the guilty party. Raider Duck (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove allegedly. Wikipedia compiles information from reliable sources, and the accepted sources state that he stole the poster. Whether or not he did is not for us to determine. Natureium (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What sources state he stole the poster? Look at the discussion thread, all the sources either simply describe what he was jailed for, or cast doubt that he actually did it. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Alternative. Why not just change it to something such as "he was accused of stealing a political propaganda poster . . ."? Such language neither accepts the truth of North Korea's charge, nor implies that there is a dispute over it. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Alternative that Usernameunique proposed above; it seems like a good compromise. (Summoned by bot.)Prcc27 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Remove allegedly. [https://www.google.com/#q=otto+warmbier+poster&tbm=nws The overwhelming number of reliable news sources say he either stole the poster or tried to steal the poster. So we should say one of those. But as others explain, from a verifiability standpoint there is nothing "alleged" about it. He verifiably did it, so we can and should say he did it. (As a side note, the RfC is grossly non-neutral and misrepresents what the reliable sources say.) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Remove allegedly... We say alleged before someone is convicted. The situation: An American college student who tearfully apologized for trying to steal a political propaganda poster from his hotel in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, was sentenced on Wednesday to 15 years of prison and hard labor.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/world/asia/north-korea-otto-warmbier-sentenced.html?_r=0
Keep allegedly. The accusation of the regime and the confession are an unsufficient basis for the claim. The father said that the story about stealing a poster (for a church, in return for a used car) is nonsensical. Observers confirm that anyway the whole case was not about what Warmbier did or did not, but that the regime needed a victim to use it in its negotiations with the USA. - The article can explain what the regime said, what Warmbier said in court, and report also the father's denial. Ziko (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Support Alternative: Posted by Usernameunique above. Keeps it straight to the facts. TarkusAB 22:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep allegedly There are reliable sources which state the confession was likely coerced. The alternative proposed by Usernameunique could also work, but given the sourcing regarding likely forced confession, I think we need to stay clear of saying Warmbier stole the propaganda poster. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep allegedly Wikipedia is, in my opinion, no place for propaganda from one of the worst dictatorships in the world. North Korea is one of the worst places on earth right now concerning human rights violations. Wikipedia needs to be neutral, informative and use reliable sources. North Korea is simply not a reliable source. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:4879:6856:45E8:C189 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Strongly Support Alternative alleged is used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. Since Warmbier has been in a coma for the past year and is now deceased, we will never actually know the truth of the matter. The only thing we can say is that he was alleged to have committed the offense. That is the state until proven, which is impossible at this point, unless you accept the legitimacy of a confession under duress. So the alternative is a good compromise, stating that he was accused of stealing a political propaganda poster . . . Bobsd (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Please state your opinion in the survey section above and use this section to discuss about the matter.
I take back my words. Initially there was only one sided support but now things seem to have changed a lot. It could rather be a tough call deciding the consensus. But let's wait for some more time. By the way, I've no opinion on this topic and am only acting neutrally. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
May I kindly ask that "keep" voters support their opinions with reliable sources. The majority of sources report that the crime actually took place:
Human Rights Watch: "North Korea's sentencing of Otto Warmbier to 15 years hard labor for a college-style prank is outrageous and shocking, and should not be permitted to stand", [23];
New York Times: "It was impossible to determine whether Mr. Warmbier had been coerced into making the statements", [24];
Fox News: "North Korea is currently holding prisoner American student Otto Warmbier, sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster from his hotel in Pyongyang during an organized trip to the country in 2016", [25];
The Independent: "On Wednesday the 21-year-old student was sentenced to 15 years’ hard labour for stealing a propaganda poster from his hotel", [26].
None of those are saying the crime actually took place. That's just describing what he was jailed for. 2.102.185.65 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
What's the point of such blatant lying and trolling? None of those quotes say that the crime actually took place. -- Jibal (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
For starters, there's this from Time Magazine: "In a fanciful and apparently forced confession..." [27]
And this from CNN: "North Korea has sentenced an American student to 15 years of hard labor after accusing him of removing a political banner from a hotel." [28]
Similarly from the U of Virginia's Cavalier Daily: "...his sentencing to 15 years of hard labor for allegedly attempting to steal a political banner..." [29]
And from Bustle.com: "...when he was arrested for allegedly trying to steal a propaganda poster..." [30]
At this point, the only established fact is that the North Korean government claims Mr. Warmbier tried to steal a sign. This same government also claims that nobody in the Kim family has ever pooped, the country's populace is well-fed, and the United States is cowering before NK's superior military might. None of these other ridiculous lies is presented without dispute. And neither should this band of genocidal liars be believed about whatever Mr. Warmbier did or did not do that night. Raider Duck (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is fake news. The NK government has never claimed that Kims didn't poop (I think that comes from a misreading of the book, Aquariums of Pyongyang) etc. I don't see a source that says that Warmbier is innocent. There doesn't seem to be any alternative explanation why this particular tourist was singled out. Though there might be some disagreement about the details, and though the government stands accused of overreacting, most of the Americans arrested in North Korea did pretty much what they were accused of doing. We shouldn't do detective work, speculating about whether his confession was forced or the CCTV footage is genuine. That belongs on a conspiracy theory website.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
In fact, North Korea rarely does false accusations when detaining US nationals.
Evan Hunziker. Accused of: Illegally entering North Korea. What he really did: swam across the Yalu River from Dandong on the China–North Korea border, on a dare from a friend with whom he had been drinking.
Euna Lee. Accused of: Illegally entering North Korea. What she really did: crossed into the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from the People's Republic of China without a visa.
Laura Ling. Accused of: Illegally entering North Korea. What she really did: crossed into North Korea from the People's Republic of China without a visa.
Matthew Todd Miller. Accused of: Acts hostile to the DPRK while entering under the guise of a tourist. What he really did: Miller later revealed that he was curious about the country and simply wanted to talk to North Korean people and ask them questions beyond what he could as a tourist.
Jeffrey Edward Fowle. Accused of: Acting "contrary to the purpose of tourism" by leaving a Bible at a nightclub. What he really did: deliberately left Bible behind in the restaurant toilet at the Chongjin Sailor's Club. --2A02:C7D:CA8A:F200:795E:FD01:FE59:F613 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Who knows why Warmbier was singled out? You come off like an apologist for the North Korean government (which would make you one of the few in the western world), but the fact remains that no evidence has been presented that he committed this crime. NONE. The CCTV footage would be laughed out of any western court, as it doesn't even pass the basic test of showing the alleged perpetrator's face. Other than that, we have only the word of the North Korean authorities and an obviously out-of-it Warmbier (who couldn't even walk in and out of the room under his own power) hysterically reading a typewritten confession in front of some cameras. None of this should be taken as evidence of guilt. Therefore, the word "alleged" should remain in the article. Raider Duck (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The CCTV footage would not be laughed out of a western court. In a western court, he wouldn't get a trial if he pleaded guilty. Once he pleads guilty there is no need to provide evidence. But this is not the place to play detective or barrack-room lawyer. I still haven't seen a source that suggests he didn't do it. Therefore, the word "alleged" is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
In a western court, he wouldn't be tortured until he pled guilty. Once again: Please present even one shred of credible evidence that Mr. Warmbier did anything illegal. Until you can (and I know you can't), the word "alleged" is entirely appropriate. Raider Duck (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Are people supposed to be convinced by you bolding the word "alleged" over and over? Natureium (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course not. I bold the word because when writing technical documentation, I often bold a word indicating a menu item or button needing to be clicked. For instance, I might type: "In the Safari menu, click Preferences, then...." So I've become used to bolding a specific word I'm talking about. Raider Duck (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
According to this, Warmbier had a trial featuring evidence such as fingerprints and the testimony of his tour guide and hotel staff, as well as the CCTV footage and his confession. Of course, you can claim all this was fabricated or coerced. But personally I don't think it's credible to argue that the North Korean government orchestrated an elaborate frame-up of a young tourist over the theft of a souvenir. And, so far, no one has produced a reliable source that says this. It's clear from this discussion that those who support the word "allegedly" are not concerned with a mere word, but are trying to advance an alternative theory unsupported by sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I still haven't seen a source that suggests he didn't do it. -- Odd, because everyone else on the planet has. Therefore, the word "alleged" is misleading. -- Nothing follows from your personal ignorance. -- Jibal (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The alternative proposed by Usernameunique, saying he was "accused of..." is not very different to "alleged", but perhaps it is softer. It does suggest that he didn't do it. I think it is inappropriate to talk about someone being "accused" of a crime when he has confessed and has been convicted. If you want to avoid saying what he did, it would be better to say he "confessed to and was convicted of"...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but "confessed and has been convicted" in a country infamous for a myriad of human rights abuses including both forced confessions and false imprisonment. "Accused of..." may be a good compromise. Raider Duck (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Replacing a word with a synonym is not a compromise. And, again, your motive is clearly to suggest he didn't do it. So the "compromise" just reiterates what you have been arguing all along.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
He clearly didn't do it. -- Jibal (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
But why do you say that? And why do you think anyone who disagrees is unintelligent, dishonest, and ignorant?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Two points have recently been made in the survey above: (1) that reliable sources say that the confession was probably forced. Where are these sources? (2) that the North Korean government wanted to use Warmbier as a bargaining chip. This is pure speculation, which has not been borne out by events. It has no great relevance to the current discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
A lot of comments seem to assume that the confession is the only evidence. There is also the CCTV footage, fingerprints, and witness testimony. Sure, you can say this is fabricated, but at least face up to what you are saying. He was not convicted simply on a confession.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
PS I've just found this, in which Bill Richardson who was negotiating for Warmbier's release acknowledges that he did it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It is intellectually dishonest to believe North Korean propaganda when there are too many things that support the fact that the evidence against Warmbier is fabricated:
The footage shows an unrecognizable figure taking the "poster" and putting it on the ground. It does not show a recognizable figure or a face shot. It does not show anyone actually taking the poster anywhere. My guess is, the North Koreans made to act out the stealing didn't want to do more, lest they be sent to prison camps themselves.
The footage lacks a time stamp which is really odd for a security video. How does such a video even exist in a country that has massive power outs regularly?
The "poster" is actually shown to be this huge, wide placard which would be impossible for Warmbier to hide anywhere in his person.
The fingerprints is most likely just a lie. We have no proof they exist. In a kangaroo court situation there are no actual court proceedings but everything is pre-planned and pre-videotaped. Speeches are rehearsed beforehand and then acted out. The Soviet Union did this. (Juri Gagarin's space travel)
Otto was not detained when the alleged "crime" happened. He was only detained after he was at the airport ready to leave.
NK only released a statement that Warmbier had committed a "hostile act" three weeks after he had been detained. Why did it take so long? Probably because they hadn't decided exactly what to accuse him of yet.
It took NK more than 2 months to produce the video evidence. Makes it seem exactly that; produced afterwards.
Warmbier was most likely tortured and coerced to make a confession during which he was clearly under great stress. There was plenty of time to force him beforehand. The confession was so ridiculous and full of conspiracy that I personally think it was Warmbier's way of letting the rest of the world know that he was in fact, forced to admit guilt. Why would such a well off young man need a used car for so badly, as to risk getting caught in NK? And the way NK acts as if a propaganda poster is somehow a huge prize to be had for an American. I personally have several North Korean pins, photo books and books about the Kims and the Juche ideal my parents got as students from North Korea. There are so many printed for propaganda that they are literally worthless. Bookshops refused to take them so I had to throw many in the trash while moving. There are also accounts from Warmbier's then roommate testifying to his good character and the church and Z society mentioned in his "confession" that have said they don't even know Warmbier. First on CNN: U.S. student detained in North Korea confesses to 'hostile act', Otto Warmbier’s North Korea roommate speaks out, "Foreign detainees in North Korea have previously recanted confessions, saying they were made under pressure."
Many accounts from tourist groups in NK testify that you are under constant surveillance while there. You can not wander around or talk to the locals. The tour guides are constantly with you and you have to have permission from them to even take a photo. They tell you where to go and when.
Considering such an athletic, healthy young man somehow died soon after the kangaroo court session paints North Korea in an even more suspicious light. What exactly do they do to prisoners? Why did they keep it secret for a year?
Detaining Warmbier may have served at least two purposes: Putting on a propaganda show for the NK citizens to yet again paint the US as an evil nation. That's why all the evidence is so questionable because it is meant for a NK audience. Second, NK wanted to use Warmbier as a negotiation piece because of increased sanctions towards their country. Perhaps his death was an accident. Wikipedia has articles of Human rights in North Korea and Prisons in North Korea which articulate a number of existing prison camps and detail the many ways prisoners are tortured and mistreated. There are also similar defector accounts to this case that state that prisoners are tortured to elicit false confessions. The water torture described could easily cause an accidental drowning without leaving any physical marks. Are these Wikipedia articles also false or reliable? North Korea is a secretive dictatorship based entirely on lies about the two Kim's godliness. My question is, why would such a country tell the truth about anything? Jack, you do come across as a NK propaganda supporter. What is your motivation here? Why are you so set on defending the NK version of events when they are proven to have lied similarly in the past? As for your last sentence; negotiations are not about being honest. They are about gaining a favorable outcome. In this situation it would be smart to go along with the NK version of events to gain an actual release of a prisoner. That's just being a smart negotiator. Not honest or truthful. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:B52B:B0C7:4A2:D21 (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me just add that it doesn't really matter which western news sources use which terms about Warmbier's guilt. "Alleged", "accused" or "guilty" because ultimately all their information of this case can only come from one highly unreliable source: North Korea. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:B52B:B0C7:4A2:D21 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1. The footage is obviously evidence of what happened. I guess you could analyse the figure to see if it was Warmbier's height and build, but I haven't seen anyone do that. As discussed elsewhere, you can be charged with stealing as soon as you move something.
2. I don't think the lack of a timestamp means much. I stayed several days in the Yanggakdo Hotel, and there weren't any blackouts. In fact, I didn't see any blackouts in Pyongyang. There is sufficient power to run the Pyongyang Metro and trams and trolleybuses. The Yanggakdo is the biggest functioning building in Pyongyang, and it probably gets priority power supplies. The middle of the night would not be a peak period of power usage.
3. I guess that's why he left it there, which is what he says in the press conference. He suggested that he intended to take it out of its frame, but abandoned the idea.
4. So you think the fingerprints could be real? Yes, they could. And do you have any reason to believe that they aren't? As discussed above, in a Western legal system Warmbier would not get a trial if he confessed. What's Gagarin got to do with it?
5. So what? The North Korean government also detained Merrill Newman as he was leaving.
6. So what?
7. Again so what? In Western legal systems evidence is sometimes produced years after the event!
8. I think that the confession was embellished. He was obviously trying to curry favour with the North Korean government by suggesting he was part of a conspiracy. However, the basic facts make sense. They had just seen in the New Year, and were in a bar on Level 2, when he went off into a staff-only area and tried to carry off a propaganda banner.
9. Largely true, but so what? You can wander around the hotel without guides. Several tourists have boasted that they have got onto the "forbidden" Level 5.
10. He died a year and a half after his court appearance, and on US soil. The cause of his illness and death is unclear at the moment.
But it's really not about what you consider "most likely". The issue has changed somewhat since his death in that his family has come out and said he didn't do it, but apart from that there aren't many sources that say this. When we say "alleged" or "accused" we are suggesting that the legal process is ongoing (which is obviously false) or we are suggesting that there are serious doubts about his guilt. I don't see that in any reliable source. What I see is a few editors playing at being amateur detectives and barrack room lawyers.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
According to this and this there was a timestamp on the video.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Relist RfC?
Do we really need to relist the RfC? The RfC was launched by an IP editor who appears to have left the discussion. Yes, I launched the discussion with a short query, but never would have escalated it this far. It's clear there's no consensus, and I for one am not about to launch an edit war to remove "allegedly".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
You should remove it, your reasoning is correct. LaceyUF (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jack Upland and LaceyUF:Recruited by Legobot In my opinion, you can go ahead and close the RfC if it aligns with common sense to do so. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Botulism / botulinum ?
The reports here, and this article, talk about "botulism". Yet it's implausible that he'd still be suffering from that, or show any evidence of it. Was he tested for botulism (a recent or ongoing infection by Clostridium botulinum) or for the presence of botulinum toxin, the result of such an infection? Again, botulinum is toxic in such small doses that detecting it so late would be most difficult.
One reason for distinguishing the two is that botulinum toxin is widely available and an effective poison. Theorising a deliberate poisoning is entirely plausible, at least at a technical level. We must be careful to accurately report (and use equally accurate sources) as to just which was tested for. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
See the discussion under "Botulism" above. Apparently the US doctors were looking for signs of denervation. No one (as far as I know) has suggested a deliberate poisoning, so this is a red herring.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Any source that says "botulism can't cause a coma" is dubious. It may not do so directly, but respiratory failure certainly can. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the sources were saying that botulism is not likely to cause a coma. But the North Korean government also said he took a sleeping pill, which certainly can cause a coma. Once again, we simply don't know. Apparently, the North Korean government handed over medical records, but we don't know what's in them.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Died after 6 days in the USA
According to the article Warmbier was in this state in North Korea for 14 months. But after only 6 days in the USA he died. In the article it is said "There is no excuse for any civilized nation to have kept his condition secret, and denied him top-notch medical care for so long." So his condition should have improved after he got US medical care, but instead it obviously deteriorated. The articles should be expanded with an explanation why he died so soon in the USA. --84.57.212.198 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's a quote from his father. But, yes, we don't have an explanation of the cause of death. Perhaps that will come out in the inquest.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
One can only suppose that the medical team caring for him in NK realised that he was about to die, no matter what happened, and so allowed him to be returned to the USA - otherwise they probably would have kept him, as they had been for so long unwarranted 86.156.212.54 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, NK initiated the transfer. They probably knew his condition was worsening. According to medical opinion, a long haul flight could hurt him. As I said, perhaps this will come out in the inquest.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
His parents may have simply removed the feeding tube, letting him die peacefully at home as he was already brain dead for a long time apart from being able to breathe on his own. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:75D1:2704:9276:D260 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
We can't add the official reason "why" he finally died because it hasn't been released anywhere. His parents declined autopsy. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:75D1:2704:9276:D260 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
There still should be an inquest, I think.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Censorship: Why and what?
The images I've seen of the poster all have a censored section at the left end of it. Does anyone know why it's censored and what has been censored? --Lance E Sloan (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lsloan: They covered up the name of the Dear Leader. I'm not sure 100% why, but I think it's because he is basically God-like and is related to that. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, to not upset the North Koreans. One of their most serious crimes is to damage, steal, or otherwise soil the image or name of the leader (coincidentally, the reason for Otto's imprisonment) - to include that element of the poster within such an article would be considered as tarnishing the leader. 86.156.212.54 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Who censored it???--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Reuters seemed to be saying it was the NK state media who did the censoring. Kind of like how Orthodox Jews write "G-d" rather than "God" because the latter is considered too sacred to be written out in full. Muzilon (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that North Korean propaganda regularly spells out the name of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il (as in this poster)...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, maybe not the best analogy on my part. :) Maybe NK didn't want the Western media to know exactly which leader's name Warmbier had "defiled", for whatever reason.--Muzilon (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
church offered money?
What church? Did they? What happened with the money? I can't find anything online about this being truth or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.41.86 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This is bullshit from PRK, absolutely. They concocted this story and it makes no sense. Ask anyone involved with running a church if they would spend the equivalent of $10,000 of their budget on a North Korean propaganda poster about the Dear Leader and they will fall down laughing. Did you see the poster? It's not even some kind of attractive art, just a poster of a Korean phrase. This nonsensical story indicates PRK's lack of understanding about American culture. Nobody has come forward to verify this story, and the claim that he needed the money because his family has financial problems is also unverified and seems to be counter to the facts. His dad owns his own business that is apparently very successful and growing rapidly, and Otto had enough money to be traveling around Asia on his break, with enough money to join the tour to PRK when the opportunity came up. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the article might benefit from a section about his bizarre "confession," involving the local Methodist Church and the Z Society, which Time magazine called "fanciful" and "implausible".--Muzilon (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned, though a whole section would be excessive. As you see under "Heard on the streets...", this was deleted from the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have just carried out a major rewrite of the "Arrest and Conviction" section, which didn't seem to be in a clear chronological order. I have also added references about the unlikely aspects of the confession.--Muzilon (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
What about the reaction from the North Korean reporters? I was thinking, "When are they going to realize he is making fun of them?" I guess they've had a lot of experience when it comes to listening respectfully to preposterous stories. Whiff of greatness (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of the chronology of events, the article says "Fred Warmbier stated that his son Otto was traveling in China at the end of 2015 when he saw a company offering trips to North Korea." This seems to be at odds with Otto's "confession" that he had planned the NK trip (and the theft of the banner) well before leaving the USA. Did he book the NK trip before or after arriving in China? The media has said he was en route to Hong Kong to complete a study-abroad program.--Muzilon (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The details of the confession about planning and conspiracy seem like an embellishment. Looking at their website, Young Pioneers does seem to accept last-minute bookings. However, it is also possible that he didn't tell his parents of his plans to go to NK until he was in China. Young Pioneers are unlikely to give details of his bookings unless asked to by an inquest or other legal enquiry, so we may never know.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 19:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
3O Response: declined as an RFC is underay. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)