Talk:2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea

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

maximum sentence[edit]

I thought the maximum sentence was 10 years, as reported by many reporters on CNN and Fox. How oculd these reporters get a 12 year sentence?--Edp318 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they were mistaken; I imagine North Korean law is not exactly widely known. And/or, North Korean law is malleable to political considerations. I'd wager the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.84.199 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Euna Lee and Laura Ling into this article?[edit]

Their own articles have only existed since this became news and could fail WP:N based on WP:BLP1E. Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The articles need to be merged with redirect placed in their articles to this page.--RossF18 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
disagree, while the articles were recently created, they were notable prior to this event and therefore do not fail BLP1E riffic (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest moving this article to Euna Lee and Laura Ling and dropped into Category:Multiple people. But first the two individual articles should be merged into this one. Tyuia (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er..., I guess that category's been deleted and moved to Category:Biographies of multiple people. Tyuia (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Lee and Ling affair? Neutralitytalk 01:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion should take place in one spot, not two. Is there information about these people which could fill an article, that doesn't just involve this one event? Dream Focus 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Laura Ling article with this and re-title it as a dual biography (e.g. Laura Ling and Euna Lee or vive-versa) since the two are linked by this diplomatic row. And cease referring to their imprisonment without stating the political nature of their trial and sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.9.247 (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am against merging the biographies into the main article. The article is about the EVENT and there should be articles about the persons as well. They may become notable themselves. In any case additional biographical information is required. Olegwiki (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. They may become Wikipedia-notable by themselves later, but for now 1E applies. Merge. Townlake (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What side of the border were they caught on[edit]

I added a bit to the arrest section, about the doubts they were in North Korean when arrested. They had no reason to cross the river to get the footage they needed. North Korean border guards have been video taped crossing over previously without problems, and some are involved in the trafficking the reporters were investigating. And when warned to stop, why didn't they? If they were in North Korea, they would've, but since they were in China, they felt safe. Their Chinese translator was not arrested, he still in China. If they were in North Korea at the time, they would've arrested him as well for illegal entry. Dream Focus 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible and quite likely for the Chinese translator to have the permission to cross the border as a "merchant" and be legally allowed (in the North Korean law, rule, or order) to be near and cross the border. Then it wouldn't exactly be wrong (even if it wouldn't make any sense) for the North Korean government to just claim that American reporters just followed the Chinese "merchant" without him allowing them to be his company and legally not charge him with anything. North Korean government doesn't care about the legal process anyway and will officially create the fact as they see fit. This is technically not "illegal", since it's a government doing it.--Revth (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite likely that the Chinese translator is legally allowed to enter North Korea, since it's very easy for Chinese to acquire North Korea tourist visa. And it's also quite likely for the journalists to just follow the translator to enter North Korean border, after all, it's not uncommon for journalists to trespass restricted areas to get their reports, and shooting over a river may not get much footage they need. 222.131.112.81 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The water flow shifts over the much-winding river bed in such a way that the DPRK is not always on what someone would see as "the other side." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in view of Ling's sister's admission, I think we are OK in saying they crossed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought it up because some sources do carry this, that there is more to closely skirting the northeastern DPRK border than "following the river," one need not go over a bridge or breach a fence to wind up straying across the border. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I despise that term "straying across the border", like they were children or sheep. We have, now, multiple admissions that they entered North Korea. We don't need to report conditions that may or may not apply to the specific point at which they entered North Korea.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were like children or sheep, I think you read far too much into my words. One can cross an international border on foot by mistake, I've done it myself (winding up on the other side of a frontier many yards sooner than I thought would happen, landmarks not giving cues as one thought they would). The truth is, we do not "know" if they crossed the border, or if it happened by mistake, or whatever, but so far as the article text follows WP:V, which is not truth, the article will be helpful to readers as a handy echo of what sources say about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not offend the Wikipedia administrators from North Korea[edit]

These two people's lives are at stake. Don't make the North Koreans or the Dear Leader mad by writing nasty stuff. User F203 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "nasty stuff" are you referring to? Unnecessary nastiness is obviously not needed, but if by "nasty stuff" you mean the critique of the North Korean government, then failure to critique would only serve to show that imprisonment works as a valid foreign policy and would jeopardize many more lives.--RossF18 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every government can (and most likely do) arrest people not allowed in their territory, North Korean government is no exception. I don't see how that fact can "jeopardize many more lives". If you are a foreigner who enters US territory without the government's permission, you will also be arrested. And I guess everyone should already know that if you are entering North Korean and shooting footages without the government's permission, you are jeopardizing your own lives. And those two journalists should also know that before they went to the border. One can criticize the North Korean government for a lot of things, but one surely cannot criticize it for arresting someone who enters its territory without permission. 222.131.112.81 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we write in a factual, neutral standpoint. It's not yet clear what happened. Was the government crazy and kidnapped them? What if you were walking on the sidewalk and a homeowner grabbed you and pushed you into her house?

Or did they sneak over the border and were reporting in a slanted fashion? What if some reporter entered your property and was filming your pets and dry rot under your house?

We do not know if Hillary Clinton is just admitting something to get them out or if she knows that they did cross the border.

One thing that they have not been charged with is espionage. User F203 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Ling's sister's statement that her sister has now indicated they all crossed into North Korea, I removed the word "apparently" from the lede, because I do not know of anyone who takes any other position other than they crossed into North Korea.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Sentence?[edit]

Does anyone have idea what the typical sentence is for this kind of thing? These two are not the first, just the most recent, to be accused of wandering across the border. I'm curious to see if their sentences match the norm or a trend. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precise Location?[edit]

The map is somewhat helpful, but do we know the precise location where they crossed the border? Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are still dealing with the 'official truth' here. And that doesn't neccessarily means that it is the truth. Both women might just as well be US spies. Am I really the only one asking this question?--Sonyes (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more background[edit]

More published background. Editors may find bits of background here which they can pull for the article, but be wary of putting sweeping conclusions into the narrative voice along with WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will see more of that, especially now that the media doesn't have to worry about "endangering lives" by reporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mail on Sunday?[edit]

I'd really prefer to see a better source than the Mail on Sunday, which blends news and comment. While Lang's Chinese ancestry, is, I suppose, not contentions, perhaps a better source should be found for that and for anything more conroversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken re. this and the Clinton joke too. However, the issue of whether she should be called Chinese American or Taiwanese American was actually a point of contention a couple of weeks ago. The complication: it's not simply a matter of where her parents are from, as many people with ancestors from Taiwan still call themselves Chinese American (e.g. Jerry Yang), due to the ambiguity of the term "Taiwanese people". The typical standard in these disputes is that the person's self-identification trumps whatever a third party might label them as. Cheers, cab (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did the other sources describe her as Taiwanese?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They called her Chinese, but didn't indicate what their basis was for using that term. So the reason I inserted the Mail on Sunday source was because it specifically stated she identified herself as Chinese American. cab (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What additionally bothered me about that, is that you inserted it as a named ref, which indicated to me you were planning to use that article fairly wholesale. It is an interesting article, a bit iconoclastic, but I don't think we should be using it. As for your specific point, how is what she calls herself superior to a third party calling her? Seems to me it is open to just as many disputes along the lines you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. In practise, a consensus has formed around this issue among the people who pay attention to it that self-identification is the best way to distinguish between "Chinese American" and "Taiwanese American". These quotes (pages 118 and 126) may help to illuminate the issues involved. Anyway I inserted the Mail on Sunday source as a named ref in case there ended up being consensus to add the Clinton joke back to the section below, it would save time later. I was in no way "planning to use that article fairly wholesale". cab (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I would have less objection to adding the Clinton joke if it could be shown that the unnamed source was someone who had actual knowledge of the dangers, if any, that they faced in North Korea. Say, a US State Department official.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where they were when captured[edit]

According to the article that Ling and Lee wrote for LA Times, they were actually crossing the river when North Korean soldiers started pursuing them:

Feeling nervous about where we were, we quickly turned back toward China. Midway across the ice, we heard yelling. We looked back and saw two North Korean soldiers with rifles running toward us. Instinctively, we ran.[1]

I'm not sure if the current wording is clear on this, as it may be an important distinction to make on whether or not North Korean soldiers started pursuing them only after they were back on Chinese soil, or if the soldiers started to pursue them while they were crossing the river, and continued to pursue them after they've stepped back on Chinese soil. (Or so claimed Ling and Lee.) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick to the fact that we know. They crossed the border. The new story should be put at the end, under new developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_imprisonment_of_American_journalists_by_North_Korea&oldid=1196553853"