Talk:Lee Soon-ok

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


A comment[edit]

"Ms. Lee has been partially disabled due to the physical torture she claims she was subjected" [1], with edit summary "if a terrorist said they were tortured by the US, it would not state it factually ". Well, she was in fact disabled, and yes, as a result of torture (according to doctors).Biophys (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On claim published in the Guardian, 10/15, that Lee made up her story.[edit]

I removed a recently-added section called "Criticism," which may be viewed here:

[2]

This section/edit doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards on Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons. In a nutshell, that emphasizes being careful and cautious in publishing claims, even positive ones, about living people. In this case, accusations are being published about someone with no substantial evidence offered in proof of them. Nothing is offered but the say-so of the article's author and someone who is claimed to be a former director of a North Korean Defectors Association.

What's published here in this article published in turn on the Guardian's site doesn't meet BLP standards. And actually, from what appears, it shouldn't have met the Guardian's standards, either, but that isn't the responsibility of Wikipedia.

Some things wrong with this article:

First and foremost, with respect to Soon Ok Lee, it makes accusations against her without evidence, and even without contacting her for comment on the accusations. So it's not an accusation against Lee that Wikipedia can simply repeat here.

It makes other accusations and assertions as well on similarly scant evidence, especially verifiable evidence. It is written by one person who says he has interviewed North Koreans and the article is based on his view/opinion/experience. No different or countering views are included, or even supporting statements from others with some expert authority who might confirm the author's assertions. The author simply treats as fact his own claim that "North Korean defectors' stories often fall apart," and that the reason for this is money paid for interviews with them. No sufficient proof is ever actually offered for these conclusions, though.

It also presents a few quotes from a few people which fit the author's "conclusions." But almost no information is available on these people and their claims.

The suspect quality of this article is further apparent in its use of a supposed quote by former prison guard Ahn Myung-chol. The article leaves the impression that he's saying North Korean defectors, including himself, are simply making up the stories of atrocities to provide people with the shocking stories they want and expect, but there is no evidence that he has retracted his own story. I found a news story from a month before this one, in which he publicly spoke out against North Korea and referred to his life as a prison camp guard. He is also interviewed in a news story last month but I can find no record that he has retracted any part of his story.

The material in this one article, which doesn't seem to be have been written in a balanced, well-researched, and ethically and legally responsible manner, also has to be weighed against all the evidence thus far for the truth of North Korean defectors' stories, including Lee's. To begin with, North Korea is a country that's admitted kidnapping Japanese citizens, and which has denied having any prison camps, among many other documented human rights' abuses. And while not every claim made by a defector can be verified, that doesn't make them untrue, and a great many are consistent and have evidence to back them up. The accumulated mountain of evidence has convinced many people in the West of the truth of the defectors' claims of atrocious human rights abuses, and a single, poorly-written article with no real evidence appearing in the Guardian is nowhere near sufficient evidence of some pattern of inaccurate claims made by North Korean defectors. At this point, this article's claims are a fringe theory, if even that.

I will say this. There is dispute over the very definition of political prisoner, as Wikipedia talks about. Soon Ok Lee fits some definitions of one, but not others. To make her situation more clear, I think a little information should be added on her story of how she became imprisoned. That is an oversight in the article. I was going to add some information on it the other day but couldn't quickly find a source. I'll look soon. Psalm84 (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Psalm84 (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just an attempt to remove any criticism (and starting an edit war). --Babel fish (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take the time to read the Wikipedia:Biography of Living Persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources? Something is not substantiated just because it appears in the Guardian. This isn't a rumor sheet. And don't just accuse me of things, either. Respond on this matter by talking about how this information meets Wikipedia standards, including on Biography of Living Persons, and Verifiability:Exceptional Claims, which includes this: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources..." At this point, your whole proposed section on "criticism" is composed of a single Guardian article that is not well-sourced or rigorously backed up with evidence.Psalm84 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Soon-ok. 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) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Edits which included a gossipy-opinion article published by NK News and republished at The Guardian[edit]

First, below on the Talk page is an old explanation for why contributions based on the Guardian article now being cited the edit I removed still isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Much of what was explained several years back still applies, and the new contribution didn't solve those problems. And despite adding a "second" source, it's not a second source. It's a second source referencing the first.

This edit still has no place in Wikipedia for several reasons. Overall, it completely violates numerous rules, including WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:FRINGE.

1. From WP:BLP

Note this first:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

"This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

My comment: While re-published at the Guardian, the original publisher in NK News, and this is the opinion of merely one writer. She offers mere opinions of a few people, and not actual evidence. She also doesn't attempt to contact any of the people she writes about, and she doesn't offer possible alternate opinions. This piece is really rumor mongering.

2. WP:BLPBALANCE

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

My comment: That entire contribution relies on one writer and ONE article, and the author has written what is clearly an opinion article, and as I said above, she doesn't attempt to talk to the people involved. In her short mention of Lee, she offers no hard evidence to counter Lee's story. And Lee herself says she was charged with economic crimes. That's not her point. She's never disputed that. She says she was falsely accused and then tortured and threatened until she confessed.

3. WP:BLPGOSSIP

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."

4. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

5. WP:FRINGE

"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

This is also a major issue. The edit made from the Guardian/NK News is fringe. There isn't a body of secondary sources that supports it, even as a legitimate minority view.

In the above, I bolded various sentences for emphasis. Psalm84 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, these sentences, even if they didn't have other problems, have the following problems too:
"Chang In-suk, former head of the North Korean Defectors’ Association in Seoul, has questioned Lee’s accounts. Chang stated he knew first hand that Lee had never been a political prisoner. Other North Korean defectors have also testified that she was instead an economic criminal."
Again, Lee says herself she was charged with economic crimes. And the article only refers to some anonymous comments by alleged North Korean defectors claiming to have doubts about Lee's story. They give no further details or evidence, and that does not fit the English definition of "testimony." That's an alleged opinion held by nameless, numberless anonymous parties whom the author says are other defectors. Psalm84 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article refers to "anonymous comments by alleged North Korean defectors". I would support adding "anonymous" to the article text to make this clearer. These "alleged opinions" are published in the cited supporting sources, and the sentences included in the article make clear that these are opinions. So there aren't any problems with those sentences in the article; they accurately reflect the cited sources and this is not a reason for deletion.
The only possible reason for deletion comes back to the central point you raised of whether the sources are reliable. If they are, then these opinions included in the sources are worth in including, and if they are not reliable, then they are not worth including. I'll respond in another reply to that part. Fiwec81618 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psalm84 Most of what you raised in your five points boils down to the reliability of the cited sources. But first I'll respond to some tangential points raised in those: 1. WP:BLP The question is whether the information under discussion is poorly sourced or not. I'll leave that for the next paragraph. 2. WP:BLPBALANCE The sentences under discussion simply described what the parties described in the sources say, so I don't see a problem with the tone. Regarding "small minorities"—What is the small minority here, in what sense is it small, and to what majority is it being compared? And regarding "biased"—there is a clear difference between disagreement and bias. Clearly it is common and appropriate for biographical articles include information that in some cases may be viewed as not reflecting positively on an individual. Not all such information or sources stating such are "biased". 3. WP:BLPGOSSIP One is a question of reliability, which I will address later. Chang In-Suk, one of the people described in the source as questioning some of Lee's accounts, is not anonymous. Supporting information from anonymous sources is included, but the text you quoted says "Be wary of relying on sources...that attribute material to anonymous sources", not "do not use". In this case they accompany the position of Chang (and more on this below). 4. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE Again this boils down to the reliability of the sources cited here. 5. WP:FRINGE In what sense is the information described fringe? In fact the only scholarly work cited in this article quoted individuals questioning Lee's accounts.
Now regarding the reliability of the sources provided. When you performed your latest deletion, you may have missed the third source that I added, from Maeil Business Newspaper, a mainstream newspaper in South Korea. It contains much of the same information as the other two sources, and further emphasizes that the material you deleted is in fact well-sourced to reliable secondary sources.
Regarding another source, the paper "Manufacturing Contempt: State-Linked Populism in South Korea" (in fact the only scholarly source cited in the article), it is indeed another source. The authors (academic political scientists) have reviewed the information they concluded and made the determination that it is of sufficient notability to include in their peer reviewed work. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and in particular the quote "Material such as an article...that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources..." This article is indeed such a work, and is published in the peer-reviewed journal Global Society (journal). Yes, this article cites the Guardian article. The point is that this reliable secondary source has judged that the information there is of suitable factual and notable quality, which is the whole point of WP:RS emphasis on secondary sources. As it relates to this article the Guardian account can be viewed as a primary source which has been judged suitable by the academics writing the scholarly article.
Finally, regarding the Guardian article. I don't see why you claim it is an opinion article. There is an Opinion section on the Guardian; this article is in the News section. "Gossipy" is also a subjective judgment of one editor that, besides by The Guardian's status as a WP:RSP is undermined by (1) the peer-reviewed scholarly work above which cites the information in question as factual (2) Reporting from the South Korean newspaper described above. I don't see any potential problem with the author either. She is also an academic, a senior lecturer in Korean Studies at the Asia Institute, University of Melbourne.[1]
In summary the objections to the content under discussion are unfounded. The objections mostly boil down to reliability of the sources, but their reliability is clear, as I have described above. Unfounded claims that the content is "fringe", "minority", "biased", or "gossipy" are just stated as objections, but unsupported. I certainly think there are positive receptions of Lee's accounts as well and support adding them (I just added one prior to the last deletion of content), but I strongly disagree with removing potentially negative receptions from reliable sources such as those under discussion here. Fiwec81618 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The objections are not unfounded. The material in question doesn't meet Wikipedia standards in a multitude of ways, as I've already outlined. Your responses in no way showed otherwise.
1. For the most part, your responses didn't specifically or in detail respond on the issues of WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:FRINGE, but glossed over the issues contained in these guidelines. Wikipedia isn't an opinion forum. It's an encyclopedia that has certain standards that need to be met.
2. You didn't acknowledge the issues involved in WP:BLP. Do you agree with Wikipedia's concerns about the high standards that have to be met in Biographies of Living Persons? Even on this Talk Page, there's the following notice:
"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."\
WP:BLP -- THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!
A few anonymous people mentioned in a couple of news stories supposedly expressing doubt over Lee's story is not suitable evidence against any part of her story. There has to be much, much, much stronger evidence than that.
On the claim that she was an economic prisoner, again, her account makes the situation clear. The statement from the former head of the defectors association is extremely vague and doesn't actually contradict her claim. She describes being accused of economic crimes. The former association head has no information to show that she wasn't falsely accused. He doesn't provide any information on her case or her trial. And if you read the article on Kaechon concentration camp, it says this:
"The prisoners, around 4000 men and 2000 women (in 1992), are political prisoners mixed with common criminals."
That is consistent with Lee's account. Western democracies also see a middle area between "political prisoner" and "common criminals" in in countries like North Korea because many prisoners in North Korea are in prison for "crimes" that don't exist in democracies where people have their human rights acknowledged. In her book, Lee mentions some people being in prison with her for "crimes" like leaving their village without permission, or engaging in the "capitalist" practice of selling goods in order to survive. Democracies regard laws like that as "political," because they're the product of North Korea's political system.
3. Again, the edit counts as WP:FRINGE. The summary of what's in these sources is, first, one article, from one writer who gives her opinion (as the headline sub-title says, she "argues": "Cash incentives and the western media’s endless appetite for shocking stories encourage refugees to exaggerate, Jiyoung Song argues." That's opinion. She doesn't talk to the people involved, She doesn't even quote from the defectors mentioned in the story. As I wrote in another section here on this topic (On claim published in the Guardian, 10/15, that Lee made up her story), she seemed to misrepresent the words of Ahn Myung-chol because he was still speaking out against North Korea:
"The suspect quality of this article is further apparent in its use of a supposed quote by former prison guard Ahn Myung-chol. The article leaves the impression that he's saying North Korean defectors, including himself, are simply making up the stories of atrocities to provide people with the shocking stories they want and expect, but there is no evidence that he has retracted his own story. I found a news story from a month before this one, in which he publicly spoke out against North Korea and referred to his life as a prison camp guard. He is also interviewed in a news story last month but I can find no record that he has retracted any part of his story."
But we don't know exactly what she is claiming he said, because she doesn't quote him, provide context for what he supposedly said, cite where she got his supposed quote, or interview him herself.
"But many refugees say they feel pressured for defector stories. Ahn Myung-chol, a former prison guard at Camp 22, said people liked shocking stories and these so-called “defector-activists” were merely responding to this desire. Chong Kwang-il, a former prisoner at Camp 15, said the fame brought by media exposure trapped them, forcing them to reproduce a certain narrative."
Without providing a few detailed, non-manipulated quotes (meaning they're not twisted out of their context) from Ahn and Chong, she has failed to support this sentence WITH EVIDENCE: "But many refugees say they feel pressured for defector stories."
She also doesn't speak to any experts on North Korea defectors who have studied them. She just does not provide hard, detailed, solid evidence except on the man born in the concentration camp, and mostly she speculates negatively about his motives. She's free to do that, but she doesn't provide hard evidence. There could be other reasons for some inconsistencies in a North Korean defector's story. She didn't talk to any experts to see, or really do any research beyond her own experiences interviewing them.
On the other newspaper source, again it's one supposed defector, speaking anonymously, and only offering a very vague opinion of doubt. No other background is given.
So there's a lack of direct witnesses and solid, detailed evidence (not a few very, very vague doubts). There's also a lack of experts and officials showing a pattern of doubting Lee's story. There isn't any of that.
On the journal, I looked at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, too. It also mentions a number of cautions when using journals as even they can be less than reliable for different reasons. But beyond that, your edit that I removed only cites the Guardian/NK News article. What is IN that article concerning the Guardian article? Do you have access to it, since it's not open access to public? Doesn't it talk about Soon Ok Lee's story, and if so, what does it say? IF you have access to the story, then some of its contents should be relayed in the edit, and not just the source cited. Or were you citing the journal to try to bolster the credibility of the Guardian/NK News article?
"No Original Research" (WP:ORIGINAL) looks like it may come to play in here as well. Wikipedia only reflects established views outside the encyclopedia. Your edit overstates what's in the sources cited to make it seem like there is credible, significant, and well-established doubt about Lee's story, and there isn't.
And too, Lee's story is consistent with the stories of many other defectors, and what's known and well-established about the unjust, inhumane brutality of North Korea's government.
The type of evidence needed to include doubts about Lee's story is similar to what exists for mentioning alleged inconsistencies in Shin Dong-hyuk's story. LOTS of SOLID evidence.
And notice in this page on Shin Dong-hyuk, under "Revision in 2015," Shin was able to give a response to the accusations against him.
VERY IMPORTANT: The NK News author did not get a comment from Lee, nor did she mention if she tried. Nor is there a source offered that does that. The overall sourcing for your edit is poor DUE TO THE CONTENT in the sources, which is very weak and insufficient by Wikipedia standards, and the edit violates numerous policies and guidelines. Psalm84 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I will add this too about the claim that Lee was "an economic prisoner." She begins her US Senate testimony this way:
"I was a normal gullible North Korean citizen, loyal to Leader and Party, and believed that North Korea was a people's paradise. I was the Director of the Government Supply Office for party cadres for 14 years when I was arrested in 1984 under the false charge of embezzlement of state property. I was subjected to severe torture during a 14 month preliminary investigation until I was forced to admit to the false charges against me," [the text says "her" not "me," but that's an obvious mistranslation]. [3]
So it was never any secret that Lee was "an economic prisoner." She also said she was "an economic prisoner" in her book, written in the late 1990s, before she testified to Congress. But she also claims to have been falsely accused of those economic crimes and tortured until she confessed to them. She goes into great length to explain about all this in her book. And there has been no evidence provided to dispute that, much less an opportunity for her to comment on this non-existent evidence. Psalm84 (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our posts are quite lengthy (your concerns and my responses), but the main issue really appears to be the reliability of the sources. Hopefully as we continue the discussion will become more focused. I now understand one of your points on The Guardian article (as mentioned in point 3. below), but unlike in previous edits over half year ago (with which I was uninvolved), where this was the only source cited for the material, there are now two other/separate reliable secondary sources which contain the same material. So the material is still well-sourced.
1. I responded to all five issues you raised. If there is something specific you feel hasn't been answered I am happy to clarify.
2. Yes, I agree with WP:BLP. I haven't said otherwise.
Regarding "A few anonymous people mentioned in a couple of news stories supposedly expressing doubt over Lee's story is not suitable evidence against any part of her story. There has to be much, much, much stronger evidence than that." We have academic sources publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, a mainstream South Korean newspaper, and an academic writing for NK News/The Guardian (weakest of the three), which have all judged what both the head of the North Korean defector's association and the unnamed defectors stated to be significant and factual. The point of WP:RS and WP:RSP is to clarify what sources can be relied on for factual reporting on editorial discretion on what information of note. The first two reliable sources have judged the information to be so. You may not agree based on your analysis of the NK News piece, but given the existence of the first two reliable sources which think otherwise, this is not significant to the question of verifiability/notability of the material under discussion.
Regarding "The statement from the former head of the defectors association is extremely vague and doesn't actually contradict her claim. She describes being accused of economic crimes." On the contrary, "he knew first hand that Lee had never been a political prisoner" is a statement by Chang that clearly contradicts part of her claims. Regarding " The former association head has no information to show that she wasn't falsely accused." It's the job of the editors of the reliable sources to make the editorial judgment of Chang's statements. Clearly they have determined it to be significant. What's stated in the sources is what was paraphrased in the text that was deleted. I don't know why Kaechon concentration camp is discussed here unless it's WP:OR to attack the statements by Chang, once again contained in the reliable sources.
3. You haven't answered my question from before. Exactly what is the WP:FRINGE position here, and what is the mainstream position? Are you saying that it is fringe to question the factuality of Lee's accounts? You haven't given any sourced information to support such a claim. On the contrary, once again we have two (third/NK News is debatable on its own, as you have pointed out) WP:RS sources which point to individuals questioning Lee's accounts. If something is fringe here, it is your apparent position that skeptics of Lee are unreliable. Regarding your pointing out of "argues" to say this is an opinion piece—after searching for use of similar verbiage on The Guardian (eg. [2][3]), I now agree. So if The Guardian/NK News piece was the only source cited, then I agree that inclusion/not of the material would be dependent on scrutiny and evaluation by editors of that piece. But, the scholarly source has judged the material from the piece to be factual and notable, and the SK newspaper has also reported on this information as part of the main material of its news item. So your specific criticisms of portions of the NK News/The Guardian piece is moot, since the same material is contained in the scholarly paper and the SK newspaper, both of which are RS.
On the SK newspaper source, there isn't a question that it's a reliable secondary source, as a large mainstream newspaper in SK News. So while it's fair to argue that elements of the NK News opinion piece may not be worthy of inclusion because it is an opinion piece and not a WP:RS, that strategy doesn't work here.
Regarding "your edit that I removed only cites the Guardian/NK News." That's not true, as we can both see from the article's edit history. The scholarly piece was cited also. I do have access to it, and here is the relevant text from that piece: "Mainstream media and academics, based in South Korea and other countries, have actively investigated and sometimes debunked the claims of defector-activists. Lee Soon-ok was “later found not to be a political prisoner but a petty economic criminal, a fact of which other North Korean defectors [testified]." It cites Song's piece in The Guardian for this passage. Note that the authors have evaluated Song to be a mainstream academic in an area relevant to this material, and moreover that her material is factual and significant enough to include. (There is also an earlier mention of Lee in this paper which the piece quotes testimony given by Lee to the US Senate.) You make a good point about including the relevant material from this source in the citation. I am happy to reinstate the material under discussion, adding the relevant quote from this paper. If you would like to see this source for yourself and have some proposed method, I am happy to share it.
The scholarly piece stands on its own as a RS. In fact it is a stronger RS than The Guardian piece because it is a research paper published by academics in a well-recognized, peer-reviewed journal. It is not there for the purpose of supporting The Guardian piece, although it does strengthen the perceived quality of The Guardian piece because it gives an RS evaluation that Song's work is a mainstream source that has indeed established potential issues regarding Lee's claims.
Do you have specific concerns about the journal in which this work appeared? Global Society (journal) is a peer-reviewed journal published by a reputable publisher, and its editorial board[4] consists of academics from well-known institutions around the world.
My edits merely stated what's contained in the sources. Regarding "Your edit overstates what's in the sources cited to make it seem like there is credible, significant, and well-established doubt about Lee's story, and there isn't." Contrary to your claim, as you can see from the quoted text from the above scholarly article as well as the SK News article, there is indeed significant (based on WP:RS) doubt about Lee's story. That's what the reliable sources say. You may think otherwise, but that's in contradiction with the reliable sources.
"And too, Lee's story is consistent with the stories of many other defectors, and what's known and well-established about the unjust, inhumane brutality of North Korea's government." That may very well be, but this article is not about the actions of NK's government, but specifically about Lee and her accounts. That NK is doing things similar to what Lee describes does not automatically imply that Lee has accurately described all of her own personal experiences.
"The type of evidence needed to include doubts about Lee's story is similar to what exists for mentioning alleged inconsistencies in Shin Dong-hyuk's story. LOTS of SOLID evidence." We have solid evidence as judged by the reliable sources.
"Shin was able to give a response to the accusations against him". Shin and you do not think the quality of Song's The Guardian piece is high. As I have explained above, these are potentially strong points if that was the only source cited here. But in this case it was not. There is a separate SK news report that says essentially the same thing, and a scholarly peer-reviewed piece that has judged that there are credible and significant criticisms of Lee's accounts. The evaluations of the authors of the second piece as a quality reliable secondary source hold vastly more weight than the evaluations of Shin or a Wikipedia editor, me, you, or otherwise.
"So it was never any secret that Lee was "an economic prisoner." " The point is that the critical statements say that she was an economic criminal and not a "political prisoner", which means these accusations assert that instead of being held for political reasons, she was actually held for being guilty of economic crimes. So there is certainly a difference between Lee's claims and those of others.
"And there has been no evidence provided to dispute that". That's not true. The reliable sources have provided evidence in the form of statements from a prominent member of the NK defector community in addition to other members of the NK defector community. It is certainly not definitive proof, and neither the RS nor the text under discussion make such a claim, but reliable sources have judged this evidence to be factually quoted and significant enough to be a focus of reporting.
"...much less an opportunity for her to comment" There is no Wikipedia convention which requires that all material on an individual's Wikipedia page must have been presented to that individual for comment. Fiwec81618 (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, below are two major points where your proposed edit fails (there are many more as well--your arguments on other things aren't sufficient, either, but since in these two main points the edit fails, I may not cover them all here, as I've gone over them before as well):
1. "There is no Wikipedia convention which requires that all material on an individual's Wikipedia page must have been presented to that individual for comment."
It's implied. We're to make sure that source material itself meets objective quality standards. It's proper, ethical journalism to seek out comment from news subjects who are accused of something. From Code of ethics in media:
Society of Professional Journalists' version
The Society of Professional Journalists created a code of ethics that are in effect today. The main mantra of the code is "Seek truth and report it."[1] The code also states that: "Journalists should be honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information. Journalists should:
"Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."
2. "So it was never any secret that Lee was "an economic prisoner." " The point is that the critical statements say that she was an economic criminal and not a "political prisoner", which means these accusations assert that instead of being held for political reasons, she was actually held for being guilty of economic crimes. So there is certainly a difference between Lee's claims and those of others."
Lee's Wikipedia article NEVER refers to her as a "political prisoner!"
But, if it did, it would not be wholly inappropriate because there is international debate over the definition of "political prisoner."
Maybe some of the South Korean media merely mischaracterized Lee's Senate testimony. But we don't know that since we're given so little to go on, and authoritative sources haven't investigated the matter.
AND, the article also says that she was convicted of economic crimes.
"Regarding "your edit that I removed only cites the Guardian/NK News." That's not true, as we can both see from the article's edit history."
That was a muddling of what I meant to say on my part. I was talking about the journal article in the edit I removed. I wrote this:
"On the journal, I looked at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, too. It also mentions a number of cautions when using journals as even they can be less than reliable for different reasons. But beyond that, your edit that I removed only cites the Guardian/NK News article. What is IN that article concerning the Guardian article?"
So, I meant to write that *the journal article* (in the edit I removed) cites only the Guardian/NK News article. And since you've revealed what's in it now, it apparently only quotes from it in passing as well on Lee Soon Ok and offers no further information.
"Exactly what is the WP:FRINGE position here, and what is the mainstream position?"
I addressed why it's fringe, but I shouldn't have had to explain why. It should be obvious on the face to any Wikipedia editor that, all in all, the material doesn't carry the weight it needs to merit inclusion--and that's all the more so given that the article is [WP:BLP.] There isn't even a substantial minority opinion that questions Lee's story. Just one brief, superficial comment from Chang that doesn't offer hard evidence of anything. That's why doubt about her story doesn't appear anywhere else.
Again, Shin's case is useful for comparison. There's a significant body of work out there in RS that Wikipedia can tap without it being WP:OR to include information on questions about Shin's story.
Instead, apparently the SAME SOURCE is just being used in all three articles in your edit, and it's like an outlier in RS about Lee. Song seems to have taken Chang's comments from that one old news article from many years before (she doesn't mention her source for Chang's comments, as she should have. For example, "In 2003, Chang told Maeil Business Newspaper that...").
If that one article had actually triggered some sort of investigation or controversy or scandal, comparable to Shin's, then that would be different.F For example, if doubt about Lee's story had "gone viral" to some extent among RS after Chang's comments. That way, different people (perhaps politicians) would have brought up more evidence (say, if South Korea had complained to the U.S. that the story wasn't true) and then journalists would have followed up. That would merit inclusion.
What's more, it's always been within the power of the North Korean government, whom Lee accused or wrongdoing, to put out their own statement about her accusations and the case against her. To my knowledge, they haven't. But if the North Korean government did put out some statement on Lee, that would certainly merit inclusion in the article.
Again, from WP:BLPBALANCE:
"Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."
What's in your edit is the very definition of a "small minority"--and a very, very small minority at that. There are billions of people in the world, and hundreds of millions in the U.S. and the Koreas. There are an untold number of newspapers, news web sites, and journals. And it's been years for people to do more work on Lee's story if her story troubled many people. Yet, compared to all that, there is next to nothing on any "doubts" about Lee's story. On the other hand, the doubts about Shin's story "made waves" in RS. There was a chain reaction that set off more and more coverage in RS. And so Wikipedia can record those waves and that chain reaction that occurred in RS.
"Are you saying that it is fringe to question the factuality of Lee's accounts?"
Of course not. But Wikipedia is for accurately covering a subject as it appears in RS, and not "questioning" anything or anyone per se. If there was a sufficient level of coverage in RS (as quality generally improves with the more people and RS that speak out on a matter) then I would not oppose it at all. If North Korea spoke out and RS covered it, I'd be the first to add whatever it had to say. As long as an edit fairly and accurate and proportionately reflects what's in RS, then it should be in Wikipedia. If there was significant doubt about Lee's story, along with hard evidence to back it up, that actually appeared in RS, then no doubt a few newspapers would ask Lee for comment, and then her response would be included in the RS. If she commented, then Wikipedia should include that. If not, then Wikipedia could say something like, "Lee has refused to comment on the allegations that there are inaccuracies in her story." That sort of thing would be proper for Wikipedia.
"And too, Lee's story is consistent with the stories of many other defectors, and what's known and well-established about the unjust, inhumane brutality of North Korea's government." That may very well be, but this article is not about the actions of NK's government, but specifically about Lee and her accounts."
The article presents Lee's story AS Lee's story. And it IS about the actions of NK's government AND Lee and her accounts. It's incredible that you would say otherwise. That's why Lee appeared before the US Congress, as recorded in RS. Psalm84 (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It's implied. We're to make sure that source material itself meets objective quality standards. It's proper, ethical journalism to seek out comment from news subjects who are accused of something." No; we are not journalists, and we are not editing or publishing a newspaper. We describe what is written in RS. Why should your vote to exclude material outweigh multiple secondary RS describing the material as significant? The Wikipedia page you linked is not a page about Wikipedia policies and norms, but about journalists, and it isn't relevant here. If we instead refer to Wikipedia policy as at WP:BLP, it says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
Lee's Wikipedia article NEVER refers to her as a "political prisoner!" This point isn't as important as the others, but clearly the people quoted are not commenting on Lee's Wikipedia article, but on other accounts of Lee which have described her as a political prisoner, and apparently saying Lee was guilty of a crime though Lee says she was innocent. Given the documentation in multiple RS, there's no reason to exclude the fact that these people clearly have doubts about certain descriptions in her accounts.
And since you've revealed what's in it now, it apparently only quotes from it in passing as well on Lee Soon Ok and offers no further information. Not exactly. A good secondary RS, from WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper...Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." It doesn't need to reveal "new information" in the form of new quotes or documents. This paper is reviewing existing research (eg. Song's), and as mentioned before, it makes the assessment "Mainstream media and academics, based in South Korea and other countries, have actively investigated and sometimes debunked the claims of defector-activists." This is especially relevant since it is reporting from its review of existing research that mainstream research has cast significant doubts upon parts of Lee's accounts. All you are saying is that you disagree with the RS, and therefore it shouldn't be included. We have two reputable academic RS that fall under the type described by the above quotation (see below) in addition to sources of other kinds.
I addressed why it's fringe, but I shouldn't have had to explain why. It should be obvious on the face to any Wikipedia editor that, all in all, the material doesn't carry the weight it needs to merit inclusion--and that's all the more so given that the article is [WP:BLP.] There isn't even a substantial minority opinion that questions Lee's story. Just one brief, superficial comment from Chang that doesn't offer hard evidence of anything. That's why doubt about her story doesn't appear anywhere else. It seems to me like you are indeed saying something like "it is fringe to question the factuality of Lee's accounts." (Later you say "Of course not", but then I am really at a loss in trying to figure out what you are calling a fringe theory. It really would be helpful if you could state clearly in one sentence what you are calling a "fringe theory", since this is now the third time of asking.) In any case, we can check from Wikipedia policy and our RS that questions and doubts about the factuality of portions of Lee's accounts are clearly not a "fringe theory": From WP:FRINGE, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." That there are significant doubts about parts of Lee's accounts is not fringe, but in fact might even be described as mainstream (in contradiction with what you claim without evidence), as is clear from these quotations from secondary RS below. You have not presented any RS dismissing what the multiple secondary RS say below or supporting your claim that these descriptions reflect a 'small minority'.
Sources and quotes on doubts about portions of Lee's accounts
  • Published academic RS sources (peer-reviewed journal/academic press book collection)
    • "Manufacturing Contempt: State-Linked Populism in South Korea," doi:10.1007/s12115-019-00404-2.
      Mainstream media and academics, based in South Korea and other countries, have actively investigated and sometimes debunked the claims of defector-activists. Lee Soon-ok was “later found not to be a political prisoner but a petty economic criminal, a fact of which other North Korean defectors [testified].
    • "Celebrity Defectors Representations of North Korea in Euro-American and South Korean Intimate Publics", p. 537, Chapter 16 in Decoding the Sino-North Korean Borderlands published by Amsterdam University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1g13jn6
      It is worth noting that Lee and her son were granted political asylum in the United States after providing key witness testimony. Both Lee Soon Ok and Kang Chol-Hwan’s testimonies have been called into question by South Korean researchers. The work of Jiyoung Song (2015) is noteworthy.
  • News article
    • Report from Maeil Business Newspaper, a mainstream South Korean newspaper (machine translation from https://papago.naver.com/, more details/quotes not included here)
      As Lee's testimony became known at home and abroad through the media, there has been controversy among North Korean defectors over the authenticity of Lee's remarks so far, as well as Lee's status and whether [s]he actually lived in a political prison camp.
Of course we also have the work of Song herself [4], prominently cited by the first two RS above (though not described as the sole source of research in the second RS). While I agree that, to be careful it may be safer to treat her work as a primary source, she is not just anyone, but a scholar in the field [5], and described in the first RS as a mainstream academic.
Again, from WP:BLPBALANCE...What's in your edit is the very definition of a "small minority"--and a very, very small minority at that. There are billions of people in the world, and hundreds of millions in the U.S. and the Koreas. There are an untold number of newspapers, news web sites, and journals. See above for multiple RS and their description of the situation. Their evaluation differs from yours. In contrast, you have presented no RS to support your evaluation. Regarding the second sentence, not everyone, people or media, knows who Lee is, and it is likely quite a small proportion of the world's total population. An even smaller proportion have written about her, especially in RS. So it isn't relevant to compare 'all people in the world' to 'people writing about Lee'.
If there was a sufficient level of coverage in RS (as quality generally improves with the more people and RS that speak out on a matter) then I would not oppose it at all. There are six sources (not all secondary) currently cited in the Wikipedia article. Above there are three secondary RS, plus a fourth source from Song's work (which we can regard as primary to be safe), which all say that there is significant doubt about parts of Lee's accounts. So this standard of "sufficient level of coverage" appears unreasonably formulated and selectively applied in order to exclude this material.
That sort of thing would be proper for Wikipedia. What you described above this sentence is your opinion, not an established Wikipedia policy or norm. And you are using your opinion to justify excluding information presented in several secondary RS. Your requirement that the subject of the article must have had an opportunity to comment is an arbitrary one and not in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Repeating a quote from WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
The article presents Lee's story AS Lee's story. And it IS about the actions of NK's government AND Lee and her accounts. It's incredible that you would say otherwise. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. My meaning is that this article is not about North Korea's abuses as a broad whole, but specifically about those abuses presented in Lee's accounts about her treatment by North Korea's government (and related accounts/aspects). So it is certainly relevant and important to include material described in multiple RS about questions about her accounts, which are one of the main points of the article.
Finally, I suspect we may be at an impasse regarding the central question of whether or not to include the content under discussion (statements/research by others which say that parts of Lee's accounts are not factual) and the significance/appropriateness of the RS cited here which describes such content. We can certainly discuss more if needed but I suggest we seek a third opinion as described at WP:3O. Fiwec81618 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time at the moment to reply to all your comments, but for the moment, I'll say that this statement of yours, on Song's NK News article (as well as the others that are news articles or depend on them) demonstrates to me a strong indifference to Wikipedia standards and values:
""It's implied. We're to make sure that source material itself meets objective quality standards. It's proper, ethical journalism to seek out comment from news subjects who are accused of something." No; we are not journalists, and we are not editing or publishing a newspaper. We describe what is written in RS. Why should your vote to exclude material outweigh multiple secondary RS describing the material as significant? The Wikipedia page you linked is not a page about Wikipedia policies and norms, but about journalists, and it isn't relevant here. If we instead refer to Wikipedia policy as at WP:BLP, it says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
I SHOULD NOT have to argue with you that basic journalistic standards need to be taken into account when considering the inclusion of material from newspapers in an article. That should be self-evident and readily acknowledged. Given how much you invoke policy and guidelines, it's clear that you're capable of understanding them all. Yet you display a profound indifference to all of those policies and guidelines (such as WP:BLP) that stand in the way of adding the edit you desire to add, which is based, on the whole, on poor research lacking evidence. Similarly, the glaring holes in the evidence that you present you seem utterly to ignore or to be indifferent to, too. Such as:
"It is worth noting that Lee and her son were granted political asylum in the United States after providing key witness testimony. Both Lee Soon Ok and Kang Chol-Hwan’s testimonies have been called into question by South Korean researchers. The work of Jiyoung Song (2015) is noteworthy."
Superficial, with nothing to back up any of it. Where is the evidence in RS that there is significant doubt about Kang Chol-Hwan's testimony? I took a quick look, and found nothing. That's just some assertion, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that nameless "South Korean researchers" have raised doubts about Kang (the author of Aquariums of Pyongyang). It seems like nothing more than a smear campaign at the fringes. And again, Song's shoddy NK News article, a journalistic failure, shows up as the seminal source.
""Lee's Wikipedia article NEVER refers to her as a "political prisoner!" This point isn't as important as the others, but clearly the people quoted are not commenting on Lee's Wikipedia article, but on other accounts of Lee which have described her as a political prisoner, and apparently saying Lee was guilty of a crime though Lee says she was innocent. Given the documentation in multiple RS, there's no reason to exclude the fact that these people clearly have doubts about certain descriptions in her accounts."
That is terribly twisting the whole issue. Of course it matters that Wikipedia doesn't call Lee a political prisoner. Your own proposed edit said THIS:
"Chang In-suk, former head of the North Korean Defectors’ Association in Seoul, has questioned Lee’s accounts. Chang stated he knew first hand that Lee had never been a political prisoner."
What's more, I believe that Lee's article used to identify her as a "political prisoner." It might even have been myself who wrote it that way. I think I identified her that way because there is different ways of using that term. Yet, when someone raised that issue, I supported rewriting the lede to remove "political prisoner." I believe I even did the rewrite. I had no problem with the lede changing to remove that label.
As Lee's story has been presented in RS accurately, it doesn't matter if some unnamed sources have called her that. THAT really is a journalism matter, if newspapers have used that label, although "political prisoner" isn't entirely inaccurate, as I mentioned. It's problem just not as helpful as calling her a defector and explaining what she went through.
I also notice that below Song's article as it appears on Policy Forum (source noted in the journal article) that someone left a comment pointing out the following:
"You say Kwon Hyuk (former security officer in North Korea’s prison camp 22) “disappeared from public life” immediately following the BBC’s 2004 documentary. But Kwon has done extensive interviews as recent as 2013 with German director Marc Wiese (as reported by the Guardian):
[6]
"Mr. Hyuk also spoke at length in 2008 at a conference in Japan organized by a very respected and credible NGO on this issue:

[7]"

So Song writes that Kwon disappeared from view after 2004 although he was in a BBC documentary in 2013, just two years before the NK News article. Yet Song couldn't discover that? That's terribly flawed research, and given all the other shortcomings in her article, is suggestive of a strong bias.
If you have the advanced writing and researching skills to work on Wikipedia, then you shouldn't be putting forward things with such holes in them, like research asserting without supporting evidence that Kang's story too has been questioned by "South Korean researchers". I took a quick look on the subject and didn't immediately see anything like, including in his Wikipedia article. You shouldn't be making other editors do what should be your basic responsibility to begin with. We each have a responsibility to examine the quality of the material that we are considering adding to an article. But again and again here, quality of the source material doesn't seem to be an issue of any concern for you. In a number of ways, you've dismissed that whole issue.
I can't recall ever similarly questioning another editor's "good faith" as I am here because everyone is human and has a viewpoint, and people do tend to write about what they care about, so strong disagreements aren't uncommon and are to be expected. But I don't recall a situation where my concerns ever rose to this level.
And I have been considering a third option as well.Psalm84 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
""Lee's Wikipedia article NEVER refers to her as a "political prisoner!" This point isn't as important as the others, but clearly the people quoted are not commenting on Lee's Wikipedia article, but on other accounts of Lee which have described her as a political prisoner, and apparently saying Lee was guilty of a crime though Lee says she was innocent. Given the documentation in multiple RS, there's no reason to exclude the fact that these people clearly have doubts about certain descriptions in her accounts."
This is one of the most troubling aspects of your proposed edit and how you defend it. Given the evidence we have, which is actually a lack of evidence, Wikipedia has no business including what would be a smear of Lee. Your sources haven't included any hard evidence whatsoever. None of them have demonstrated that they were involved in her criminal case.
Wikipedia presents that she was convicted of an economic crime. Anyone who wants to doubt that can.
The one party that, without presenting evidence, can make a statement about Lee, yet it would merit inclusion in the article, is the North Korean government itself. Have they issued any statements on Lee? A North Korean comment asserting that Lee was actually guilty of an economic crime would merit inclusion because Lee accuses the government of wrongdoing, and Lee and North Korea are the two main parties here. Psalm84 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are both just repeating ourselves at this point. My position (in short) is that we ought to follow written Wikipedia guidelines and policies—in this case, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (from WP:PUBLICFIGURE) As the multiple secondary RS provided above show, the allegations and research which accuse Lee of having inaccurately described some of her experiences clearly meet these criteria: they are noteworthy (see RS, and in particular Bregman in the Amsterdam University Press book specifically describes Song's research on this as "notable"), relevant (relevant enough for multiple RS to mention, especially since Lee's notability largely derives from her accounts of North Korea), and well-documented (see multiple RS above). And once again Wikipedia policy explicitly tells us these sources are reliable: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (from WP:SCHOLARSHIP). So the situation is quite unambiguous here.
I am open to alternative wording that may potentially more clearly reflect the secondary sources, but I get the impression you are insisting on excluding all mention of doubts about parts of Lee's accounts, even though they appear in multiple RS. To support this you assert a number of things regarding how Wikipedia should be edited and how sources should be evaluated which appear to be based on your own philosophy, but are unsupported by Wikipedia policy. For instance, your statement that I demonstrate a "strong indifference to Wikipedia standards and values" is quite ironic given that in the very next paragraph you quote me explicitly quoting from WP:BLP a relevant policy supporting inclusion, while in contrast you keep name-dropping WP:BLP and "journalistic standards" without being able to point to any specifically pertinent policies in WP. You also keep trying to argue against what multiple secondary RS say based on your personal evaluation of primary sources, without providing any RS yourself. All you've provided is a web comment and associated links (pertaining to a potential error of omission regarding a person who is not Lee) left under a version of Song's work, from which you derive a personal conclusion that we must throw out Song's research on Lee. Firstly, the two academic (and peer-reviewed) secondary RS above disagree with your conclusion. Secondly, our multiple secondary RS describing doubts raised about Lee's accounts do not solely refer to Song's work, but taken as a whole have unambiguously mentioned multiple sources of information from which the RS draw their conclusions. As can be seen from your comments arguing against material in secondary RS such as "assertion, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that nameless 'South Korean researchers' have raised doubts" and "On the other newspaper source, again it's one supposed defector", your argument relies on questioning not only the credibility of Song, but also the credibility of the multiple other scholarly authors of two peer-reviewed works published by well-known academic presses, as well as the credibility of a major mainstream South Korean newspaper. That is a really extraordinary position and I have not seen anything close to the serious amount of justification that would be needed to support it.
I think it's best for us to seek a third opinion per WP:3O. To do this we need "a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two". I propose the following: "Whether or not to include material describing some skeptical responses to Lee Soon-ok's accounts of her time in North Korea." Let me know if you agree with requesting a third opinion and if you prefer a different wording for the description. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting together what I'm saying about this issue. It'll be another several days. I'll get back to you about everything else then. Psalm84 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psalm84, just wanted to check in to see if you'd had a chance to put together what you wanted to say. Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618, yes, I've been working on it, an hour or two at a time. It's been a more time-consuming endeavor than I thought it would be initially. But don't worry, I should be done with it pretty soon, sometime during this week, I'd estimate. Psalm84 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psalm84, how is the writing? Are you open to seeking a third opinion as described at WP:3O? Or, an alternative is to post about this at WP:RSN. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618, it's coming along. I've spent a great many hours so far on this discussion, including what I've already written on the Talk page and what I'm currently working on. I'm working awhile on it on most days to complete it soon, but I have many other things to do as well, and I want to do this right rather doing a halfway job. Psalm84 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psalm84 Ok, thanks. In the meantime I may also ask for feedback at WP:RSN Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618, Well, I'm nearly there. I'm just refining things a bit more. There are a lot of difficulties to iron out in this case given all the distance in time, place and language. I should be done within the next 24 hours, though. So if you'd hold off until then so we can go from there, I'd appreciate it. Psalm84 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618 Something came up so I wasn't able to finish. But I'll make the best effort I can to do so in the next 12 hours. I should find the time. Just doing some finishing touches. I'll get back to you then on my progress. Psalm84 (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618 Almost done. Should just be a couple more hours at most. Psalm84 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618 Okay, it's more or less complete. I'm ready to discuss the next steps. Psalm84 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psalm84 Alright. So would you agree for us to seek a third opinion following the procedure outlined in WP:3O? I've copied below what I wrote in a previous post regarding this:
To do this we need "a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two". I propose the following: "Whether or not to include material describing some skeptical responses to Lee Soon-ok's accounts of her time in North Korea." Let me know if you agree with requesting a third opinion and if you prefer a different wording for this description. Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618 I don't think the third opinion is the right way to go. And rather than the Reliable Sources noticeboard, I see this even more as an issue of it being a Biography of a Living Person. So that's where I think it would be best that I post what I've written. Psalm84 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine with me. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted it. And I'll post a notice here about it, too. Psalm84 (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Jiyoung Song". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
  2. ^ "Leyonhjelm argues comments about Sarah Hanson-Young would boost her re-election chances".
  3. ^ "Mayors need some real clout".
  4. ^ "Global Society: Editorial Board".

RfC: Doubts about some of Lee's accounts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the below discussion is hat there is consensus' for adding comments about how sources have doubted claims made by Lee. However, there is some doubts over the exact wording used. Implementation of this phrasing should be brief, but also accurate and accredited to specific sources that are reliable. There has been minor suggestions that the RfC was poorly written, however, there was overwhelming support of the proposal for addition. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include a description of doubts some people have about some of Lee's accounts of North Korean prison camps, such as:

The authenticity of some of Lee's accounts of North Korean prison camps have been questioned by some South Korean researchers and North Korean defectors.

—Fiwec81618 (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (doubts)[edit]

  • Support inclusion, because these doubts are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it".) Lee Soon-ok's notability comes from her accounts of experiences in North Korean prison camps, so it is noteworthy and relevant if there are well-documented and well-sourced records of doubts about some of her accounts. And indeed we have records of doubts by significant individuals (scholars and North Korean defectors prominent in the community) which are well-documented in many quality RS as listed below (three English language academic sources and four mainstream South Korean press sources; the English-language sources are sufficient for sourcing, but the Korean-language ones are listed to give a more complete picture of sources).
Academic and mainstream press sources
  • Published academic RS sources (peer-reviewed journal/book published by well-known academic press, English language)
    • "Manufacturing Contempt: State-Linked Populism in South Korea," published in Global Society (journal) (2019), doi:10.1007/s12115-019-00404-2.
      Mainstream media and academics, based in South Korea and other countries, have actively investigated and sometimes debunked the claims of defector-activists. Lee Soon-ok was “later found not to be a political prisoner but a petty economic criminal, a fact of which other North Korean defectors [testified]."
    • "Celebrity Defectors Representations of North Korea in Euro-American and South Korean Intimate Publics", p. 537, Chapter 16 in Decoding the Sino-North Korean Borderlands published by Amsterdam University Press (2021), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1g13jn6
      It is worth noting that Lee and her son were granted political asylum in the United States after providing key witness testimony. Both Lee Soon Ok and Kang Chol-Hwan’s testimonies have been called into question by South Korean researchers. The work of Jiyoung Song (2015) is noteworthy.
    • Politics in North and South Korea, Chapter 9, "North Korean human rights" published by Routledge (2018)
      Many of the defectors are associated with conservative political forces and NGOs in South Korea and the United States. They usually prefer more hostile approaches toward North Korea and tend to dramatize and even exaggerate their experiences to generate global attention and put pressure on North Korea so that the regime might collapse or be replaced. For example, Lee Soon-ok, who defected from North Korea in 1994, claimed that she was in a prison camp for political prisoners. She testified before the US Senate on her experiences and published her story...Later, some defectors claimed that many of her testimonies were exaggerated or fabricated, and that she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses.
  • Mainstream news articles (Korean-language)
    • Report from Maeil Business Newspaper (16 September 2004), South Korea's main daily business newspaper (machine translation from https://papago.naver.com/, more details/quotes not included here)
      As Lee's testimony became known at home and abroad through the media, there has been controversy among North Korean defectors over the authenticity of Lee's remarks so far, as well as Lee's status and whether [s]he actually lived in a political prison camp.
    • Report from Hankook Ilbo (7 February 2015), a Korean-language daily newspaper in Seoul, South Korea (machine translation from https://papago.naver.com/) Note: possible inaccuracy on Camp number where Lee was.
      In the past, North Korean defector Lee Soon-ok also testified in the U.S. Congress that North Korea killed Christians by pouring iron, saying he was a political offender from the 14th generation, but later it turned out to be false testimony.
    • Report from Korea Economic Daily (2 April 2006), the second largest business newspaper in South Korea (machine translation from https://papago.naver.com/)
      Jeong Jang-jang, a researcher at Sejong Institute, said on the 2nd in the November issue of the policy report "Situation and Policy" published by Sejong Institute, "It is necessary to fundamentally review the investigation based on the North Korean Human Rights Act." Researcher Chung claimed, "To justify the need for the law, we cited the results of the U.S. Congress, and much of them were based on uncertain information or exaggerated introduction of North Korean human rights." He said, "After the inter-Korean summit, I encountered a number of cases of North Korean defectors in China after they were forcibly repatriated due to leniency and loose control," adding, "North Korean authorities are known to impose harsh punishment if they are forcibly repatriated." He pointed out that some North Korean defectors make exaggerated remarks to inflate their ransom, adding, "The testimony of Lee Soon-ok, who immigrated to the U.S. after defecting to the U.S., biological experiments on Christians iron injection murder are unrealistic enough to raise doubts among North Korean defectors.
    • Report from The Chosun Ilbo (16 September 2004), a leading daily newspaper in South Korea and the oldest daily newspaper in the country (machine translation from https://papago.naver.com/, more details/quotes not included here) Note: from Yonhap News Agency, possibly also the source for the Maeil Business Newspaper report
      The controversial part of the report is the North Korean defector Lee Soon-ok (60. female).U.S. resident) who testified before the U.S. Congress last year about the murder of a Christian and a biological experiment. As Lee's testimony became known at home and abroad through the media, controversy arose among North Korean defectors over the authenticity of Lee's remarks, his status, and whether he actually lived in a prison camp for political prisoners. Han (39), a North Korean defector, said, "I admit that North Korean human rights are poor, but I can't accept it from the perspective of North Korean defectors," adding, "The U.S. government's inclusion in the report without going through confirmation procedures is very careless." Jang In-sook, chairman of the North Korean Refugee Association, who had a deep relationship with Lee, said, "Lee worked at a brothel camp, an economic prison, not a political prison camp, for about eight years," adding, "When I heard Lee's testimony, I got goosebumps because it was too different from the truth." Chairman Jang explained, "Lee is making too exaggerated remarks to raise his ransom," adding, "Even if it is a political prison camp, there is no case of killing people so brutally."
To describe the context of discussion before this RfC, this topic has been discussed at length on this Talk page and in a section at the BLP Noticeboard. In the latter discussion Morbidthoughts suggested an RfC be made here. These discussions originally arose out of the edits [8][9], in which Psalm84, saying the material was poorly sourced, removed content I had previously added on doubts about some of Lee's accounts of North Korean camps. In the first edit I had used the first scholarly source listed above along with a (syndicated?) piece by a Korean studies scholar published in The Guardian, and in the second edit I had further added the first South Korean press source listed above. Fiwec81618 (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiwec81618 What source(s) does the Routledge article cite for its claims about Lee? Psalm84 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three sentences related to Lee that I quoted above (starting with "For example, Lee..."), the first two are followed by some additional details of her accounts that I didn't include above (eg. beatings, torture, "pouring molten iron"), in the middle of which there are three inline footnotes to an NBC News piece about Lee, Lee's 2002 U.S. Senate testimony, and a 2004 U.S. State Department report on North Korea. If anyone is interested I can add in these details above. For the third sentence (starting with "Later, some defectors...") I don't see an inline footnote. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please move all discussion to the appropriate section. I created the discussion header so that this back and forth did not clutter the survey. Psalm84, you do not have to respond to every vote per WP:BLUDGEON and Fiwec81618 you do not have to respond to every comment. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. There's definitely enough reputable source coverage of doubts cast upon the testimonies to warrant a mention on this page. No reason not to include, even if the ultimate sourcing of some of the comments is murky and anonymous. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiwec81618 @PraiseVivec @Emir of Wikipedia @ScottishFinnishRadish @Robert McClenon
    The following passage from the Routledge article makes a blatantly false claim*. Show me otherwise. Lee Soon Ok has always said she was in prison for "economic and social offenses rather than political offenses". That information was not something later revealed by North Korean defectors, as the Routledge article claims:
    For example, Lee Soon-ok, who defected from North Korea in 1994, claimed that she was in a prison camp for political prisoners. She testified before the US Senate on her experiences and published her story...Later, some defectors claimed that many of her testimonies were exaggerated or fabricated, and that she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses." [emphasis mine]
    Evidence that Lee explained in her US Senate testimony and in her published story (a book) that her offenses were economic crimes:
    From Lee's testimony:
    I was the Director of the Government Supply Office for party cadres for 14 years when I was arrested in 1984 under the false charge of embezzlement of state property. I was subjected to severe torture during a 14 month preliminary investigation until I was forced to admit to the false charges against her (sic). Eventually, I received a term of 13 years in prison at a kangaroo court.
    And from her book [10] (Chapter 2, pg. 14):
    The security bureau chief asked to have two jackets made out of the fabric while everyone else received only one. Without raising my voice, I explained to him that I could not give him more than his share. Suddenly, he turned around and spit out, "All right, Soon Ok. You will regret this," and he left my office.
    A few months after he got mad at me, I was arrested secretly and accused of two counts: violating the commercial policies of the Party and taking bribes. It didn't make any sense to me-- I was as pure as snow. I had never committed either violation...
    *That passage makes more than one false claim, but one thing at a time. Psalm84 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, the RFC description itself isn't neutral. And the proposed edit is a travesty truth-wise. There was blatantly false information on Lee that appeared in a South Korean news article back in 2004, and in recent years that false information has been finding its way into pro-North Korean material. The academic sources named here all seem to have such a bias and to merely repeat that initial false reporting from the 2004 news article. And these sources tellingly don't discuss Lee's case at any length or present any real evidence to back up their claims (because they don't have any), but only mention her in short, vague descriptions invoking weasel words, as does the proposed edit:
A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Examples include the phrases "some people say", "most people think", and "researchers believe." Psalm84 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion, as we should not engage in censorship but, I do have to admit this is a bad RfC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback; in order for me to try to do a better job of writing RfCs in the future, I'd like to ask: Do you disagree with the format of this RfC, or have concerns about the neutrality/construction of the question? Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. Decently sourced, specific wording could be adjusted or attributed to address any WP:WEASEL concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
  • Support inclusion, but not at the length of the BLP noticeboard discussion, which is too long, didn't finish reading. Be concise. Balance demands a short discussion of doubts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
  • Support inclusion, to exclude is censorship. As above a short-discussion of doubts for balance and specific wording to avoid weasel words is sufficient. tofubird | ✉ 22:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @tofubird @PraiseVivec @Emir of Wikipedia @ScottishFinnishRadish -- There are very serious problems with all of these sources, which are very strongly related to each other, meaning that deficiencies in one also show up in the others. It isn't censorship if the material in a source doesn't meet standards for quality:
    "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, (BPBALANCE). Psalm84 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. I think including can be more profit than not to be included... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment. I recommend to anyone interested in this RFC to review the evidence carefully rather than coming to hasty conclusions. There's a lot of it, but it's every editor's duty to sufficiently examine the material and the issues involved with disputed material-- but working with it is also our privilege and joy, that we are able to work on a project like this. Many people in this world don't have such an opportunity.
For starters, it's important to recognize that there's considerable debate over the definition of political prisoner, as explained here: Political prisoner, definitions. Even more helpful, however, is this short article from Radio Free Europe: "Explainer: What Defines A Political Prisoner?".
Second, it's also important to understand the two different prison systems in North Korea: the kyo-hwa-so and the kwan-li-so. This is a chart from Nkhiddengulag.org which briefly explains them: "Kwan-li-so vs. Kyo-hwa-so". Lee was in Kaechon #1, a kyo-hwa-so.
Also, look very closely at the Routledge article above. Then compare it to Lee's long-established story (starting with her 1999 book), and you can clearly see the assertions in the Routledge article are untrue. Lee has never claimed to have been the type of political prisoner who was imprisoned for her beliefs or for a political offense like protesting (but as I mentioned, there is considerable debate about what the term means, and that's important to understand, too). She has always said she was imprisoned for economic crimes, but she claims that she was actually innocent and was coerced into confessing after holding out for over a year.
At the moment I don't have time to get into all the issues, but as I mentioned, the proposed edit is now very vaguely-worded and employs weasel words because a previously proposed edit was too obviously false on its face. It claimed that Lee Soon Ok hadn't revealed that she was convicted of economic crimes in North Korea, but it's indisputable that she has always admitted that. Her 1999 book discusses her criminal case in great detail.
Despite the appearance of a number of different sources, too, they all most likely depend on the demonstrably false comment made by one single defector which appeared in a South Korean news article in 2004 (the Chosun Ilbo/Maeil Business News text). This comment is the driving force behind the claim that Lee's story is somehow doubtful or has been "debunked". Apparently the South Korean news agency didn't catch that false statement, and later it grew some legs. But all the other sources put forward ostensibly depend very heavily on that one false comment. There's no other substantial "proof" put forward. Anonymous comments made on a message board by people who have names like Jinri, Little Bird and Long Awaited Fan aren't credible, and they provide no material evidence anyway. The journal articles and the book, both of which allude to the false comment on Lee, also have problems. The journal articles have a distinct pro-North Korean bias, and I'll go back and review the book material, but I believe it does as well if I recall correctly.
For example, from the Routledge source:
Many of the defectors are associated with conservative political forces and NGOs in South Korea and the United States. They usually prefer more hostile approaches toward North Korea and tend to dramatize and even exaggerate their experiences to generate global attention and put pressure on North Korea so that the regime might collapse or be replaced. For example, Lee Soon-ok, who defected from North Korea in 1994, claimed that she was in a prison camp for political prisoners...Later, some defectors claimed that many of her testimonies were exaggerated or fabricated, and that she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses. (italics mine)
The parts that I placed in italics are the same false statements from the 2004 news article, merely regurgitated once again. Lee has ALWAYS maintained that she was in the Kaechon concentration camp, which is "Kyo-hwa-so (Reeducation camp) No. 1. It is not to be confused with [nearby] Kaechon internment camp (Kwan-li-so Nr. 14)." Yet, that's just what the Hankook Ilbo did. And, intentional or not, that statement in the Routledge article is also blatantly false. The article authors seem to have a noticeable bias, as I mentioned, being apparently biased against conservatives and for North Korea and/or communism.
What's more, ALL THE SOURCES here have no evidence to back them up. The "Manufacturing Contempt" article falsely claims that Lee's story has been "debunked." It hasn't. If it has been, then where and how? As I said, these sources just employ weasel words. The two journal articles and the book excerpt only briefly discuss Lee's case using those weasel words apparently because they can't discuss it further without resorting to obvious falsehoods and invention.
User:Fiwec81618's caveat to his or her description of the Hankook Ilbo story also leaves out a lot of context: "Note: possible inaccuracy on Camp number where Lee was." That may sound like a trivial point, but again, it's actually the core issue -- and one that I pointed out to User:Fiwec81618. In a better machine translation, the article either says that Lee was in Camp #14 or that she claimed to be (the uncertainty being one of the difficulties in relying on machine translations, which we should not be doing). But Lee was in #1, which is a different type of camp, and has always said that she was. The article blames Lee for its own mistake, and that falsehood and the false accusation against Lee are repeated in the Routledge article. Psalm84 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is in large part based on original speculation, interpretation, and commentary (not sourced to RS) in an attempt to nullify all reporting on doubts of Lee's accounts which are sourced to the body of RS listed under "Academic and mainstream press sources". For example,
  • in recent years that false information has been finding its way into pro-North Korean material
  • academic sources named here all seem to have such a bias and to merely repeat that initial false reporting
  • they all most likely depend on the demonstrably false comment made by one single defector
  • The two journal articles and the book excerpt only briefly discuss Lee's case using those weasel words apparently because they can't discuss it further without resorting to obvious falsehoods and invention.
This falls far short of suitable cause to justify simply discarding what multiple RS are telling us.
You claim that this sentence from the Routledge book is not true: For example, Lee Soon-ok, who defected from North Korea in 1994, claimed that she was in a prison camp for political prisoners. That claim doesn't square with the following sentence from Lee Soon-ok's 2002 U.S. Senate testimony: I was a prisoner at one of these political prisons.
As mentioned for instance in the Radio Free Europe explainer you linked, one (of many) criteria for a political prisoner is that the detention is the result of judicial proceedings that are clearly unfair and connected with the political motives of authorities, which is roughly fit by what's currently in Lee's Wikipedia article: she was falsely accused of dishonesty in her job. She believes she was one of the victims of a power struggle between the Workers' Party and the public security bureau police. There may be differing interpretations, but I don't see that it's "blatantly false" for other North Korean defectors to respond to this while viewing it as a claim that she was a political prisoner.
Your assertion that a previously proposed edit was too obviously false on its face (diff to edit linked in my first survey comment) is also not accurate. The previous edit accurately reflects the cited sources but I have suggested the current, shortened wording so that we can settle the main topic of this RfC before worrying about translations of smaller details which appear in the Korean-language sources but not the briefer English-language ones.
— Fiwec81618 (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. "This falls far short of suitable cause to justify simply discarding what multiple RS are telling us."
That would be true if what you cherry-picked was all that I've said. But I've pointed to a great many specific problems with your proposed edits, which you don't mention here.
2. "You claim that this sentence from the Routledge book is not true: 'For example, Lee Soon-ok, who defected from North Korea in 1994, claimed that she was in a prison camp for political prisoners.' That claim doesn't square with the following sentence from Lee Soon-ok's 2002 U.S. Senate testimony: 'I was a prisoner at one of these political prisons.'"
Yes, what the Routledge article says about Lee is, in fact, blatantly untrue.
THE FACT is that Lee Soon Ok has always been clear on what crimes she was accused of and what prison she was in -- absolutely, positively, 100% crystal clear.
You cherry pick that one statement from her Senate testimony, ignoring all the context, including that she also said what's below in that very same Senate testimony. It's absolutely clear that she's talking about being accused of economic crimes:
I was a normal gullible North Korean citizen, loyal to Leader and Party, and believed that North Korea was a people's paradise. I was the Director of the Government Supply Office for party cadres for 14 years when I was arrested in 1984 under the false charge of embezzlement of state property. I was subjected to severe torture during a 14 month preliminary investigation until I was forced to admit to the false charges against her (sic). Eventually, I received a term of 13 years in prison at a kangaroo court. I had served 5 years and two months in prison when I was released in 1992 under a surprise amnesty.
This statement of hers during her testimony, "I was a prisoner at one of these political prisons," is simply not a lie, and nothing was being hidden or misrepresented. 1. Lee didn't speak English, so someone else translated that for her. 2. From a human rights perspective, which the U.S. Congress and the testifying witnesses were taking, both types of prisons are virtually indistinguishable. 3. Under some "political prisoner" definitions, Lee qualifies as one, and has sometimes been described as one by experts and professionals, but when she's been put in that category, she's still never misrepresented what "type" of political prisoner she was or what prison she was in.
3. The North Korean defectors quoted in the Chosun Ilbo/Maeil Business article weren't directly reacting to Lee's 2002 Senate testimony, but to the U.S. State Department's 2004 Religious Freedom Report, which refers to Lee's 2002 testimony. The Religious Freedom Report doesn't even mention her remark about being a prisoner, however. Lee's testimony was apparently misconstrued in that 2004 South Korean news story, and so the defectors who reacted to it might have been sincere, but they were also mistaken about Lee having lied. Their sincerity does not outweigh the fact that they were mistaken.
4. This is the rest of the Routledge passage, as you quoted it:
"She testified before the US Senate on her experiences and published her story...Later, some defectors claimed that many of her testimonies were exaggerated or fabricated, and that she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses."
That account alters the true chronology of events. Lee published her story and then testified before the U.S. Senate. Her book, Eyes of the Tailless Animals, was published in Korean in 1996 and in an English translation in 1999. Then, on June 21, 2002, she testified before the U.S. Congress.
In her book [11], Lee wrote the following about her criminal case (Chapter 2, pg. 14):
The security bureau chief asked to have two jackets made out of the fabric while everyone else received only one. Without raising my voice, I explained to him that I could not give him more than his share. Suddenly, he turned around and spit out, "All right, Soon Ok. You will regret this," and he left my office.
A few months after he got mad at me, I was arrested secretly and accused of two counts: violating the commercial policies of the Party and taking bribes. It didn't make any sense to me-- I was as pure as snow. I had never committed either violation. It was all the security bureau chief's cunning scheme for revenge. The security bureau chief didn't have a permit from the Communist Party to arrest me. The deed was done through the public security bureau independent of the Communist Party.
To make things worse, my arrest became part of a conflict between the Public Security Bureau and the Noh-dong Party. Each group was trying to determine who was the most powerful. Obviously, when the Party found out about my situation, they insisted that I be released. However, because the security bureau had already reported the arrest to the highest ranking officers, they would have had to admit that I had done nothing wrong--which would have made them lose face.
Again, that's from 1996/1999.
In 2002, Lee testified before the Senate.
And then in 2004, the U.S. State Department released its Religious Freedom Report which included a portion of Lee's testimony. In response, the South Korean news article appeared on September 16, 2004, which includes this passage:
Jang In-sook, chairman of the North Korean Refugee Association, who had a deep relationship with Lee, said, "Lee worked at a brothel camp, an economic prison, not a political prison camp, for about eight years...
This is the origin of the supposed "debunking" of Lee's story mentioned in the Routledge article. But there is no "revelation" here. It is simply NOT true that Lee claimed to be a political prisoner when testifying before Congress in 2002, and then "later, some defectors claimed that...she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses."
To summarize:
1996 and 1999 - Lee's book is published in Korean and in English. She describes being accused of economic crimes.
2002 - Lee testifies before the U.S. Senate. She describes being accused of economic crimes.
2004 - A portion of Lee's testimony is included in U.S. Religious Freedom Report.
2004 - A South Korean news article appears in reaction to Lee's testimony in the U.S. report. The news article includes the supposed "revelation" that Lee had not actually been a political prisoner, but had been imprisoned for economic crimes.
But it is thoroughly disproven that there was any such "revelation" at that time! The North Korean defectors probably weren't aware that Lee had always said she was imprisoned for "economic offenses."
5. And as we've previously discussed, The Chosun Ilbo/Maeil Business article, including Chang's statement, was later picked up by researcher Jiyoung Song. In 2015, Song wrote an article that is the basis for at least two of the academic sources you cite (and was the chief source of your original proposed edit as well--see the related Talk section, "Re Edits which included a gossipy-opinion article published by NK News and republished at The Guardian").
Song is directly mentioned in "Celebrity Defectors," and her article is cited as a source in "Manufacturing Contempt," using the following quote which was taken from blog (2015):
They (sic) are numerous other stories told by North Koreans that are later found unreliable even by North Korean standards. Lee Soon Ok offered testimonies for the US House of Representatives in 2004 about torture and burning Christians to death in hot iron liquid in a North Korean political prison, the account of which was recorded in the US Religious Freedom Report. Lee was, however, later found not (sic) a political prisoner but a petty economic criminal, the fact of which other North Koreans counter-testinomied (sic).[3] (italics mine)
And footnote "3" refers to Chang In Suk's remarks in the 2004 Chosun Ilbo/Maeil Business article:
[3] Chang In Suk, then Head of the North Korean Defectors’ Association in Seoul, knew Lee Soon Ok and revealed that Lee was not a political prisoner. In an interview with the author in January 2015 in London, Choi Sung Chol, Head of the UK One Korea Association who is from the same North Korean city, Chong Chin, also witness that Lee was not a political prisoner but served a forced labour term for her forgery. Many former North Korean netizens in Seoul (www.nknet.org) and whom author has met or interviewed all agreed Lee’s accounts were fake to attract the US State Department and the foreign media.
On this Talk Page and at the BLP discussion board, I've discussed the deficiencies in Song's work at length.
On the claims about Lee in the Routledge article, what, if anything, does it the article cite as its source(s)?
6. The phrases "some defectors" and "many of her testimonies" in the Routledge article are also weasel words if they simply refer back to that one 2004 Chosun Ilbo/Maeil Business news story. Psalm84 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Psalm84 - The closer will take strength of arguments into account in closing the RFC. This is not the same as length of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon @Fiwec81618 @Tofubird -- When there are contentious issues involved, the main point of an RFC is discussion of those issues. Responsible voting on a contentious issue should rightfully mean looking into it, should it not? So since you voted, how about at least giving your respective opinions on a short passage from one of the above sources (Routledge). That doesn't involve very much investigation.
The Routledge article says that Lee claimed to have been a political prisoner while testifying to the Senate and in her book, but "later", North Korean defectors revealed that she'd actually been convicted of economic crimes. Above, I provided evidence that Lee said in both her testimony and in her book that she'd been imprisoned for economic crimes. So, that fact was not revealed "later" by North Korean defectors, and the Routledge claim, that the defectors caught Lee in a lie, is patently false. BLP Balance says the following:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. [Emphasis mine]
The material in the Routledge article fails on all three points of being "presented responsibly, conservatively and in a disinterested tone." It's not responsible to repeat a claim from elsewhere that is obviously false.
What's more, the BLP Balance makes clear that material should not be automatically accepted just because it appears in a reliable source:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Psalm84 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to be WP:!TRUTHFINDERS.
The dispute in question is including a POV that disputes the authenticity of Lee's accounts, i.e.: The authenticity of some of Lee's accounts of North Korean prison camps have been questioned by some South Korean researchers and North Korean defectors.
Secondly, even if we assume that the authors of the academic journals and mainstream news articles are biased, that still doesn't warrant their exclusion. If anything, WP:BIASEDSOURCES shows that non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about different viewpoints on the subject. One is free to find sources in defense of Lee's accounts as long as WP:SYNTH is avoided.
Thirdly, the sources in question also meet the normal requirements for reliable sources: editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. If we are going to deny sources like Global Society (journal), Amsterdam University Press, Routledge, and mainstream new sources, then we are not going to have an encyclopedia.
Finally, the presentation of the material as responsible, conservative, and disinterested is up to the chosen phrasing of editors. The suggested phrasing simply presents that Lee's accounts has been questioned, not that it's false. In-text attribution could be a compromise, but I believe that it's inappropriate as its a simple fact that several sources have questioned Lee's accounts. Interested readers can click on the references to find out the publishing journals and articles.
tofubird | ✉ 19:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tofubird "One is free to find sources in defense of Lee's accounts as long as WP:SYNTH is avoided."
That's not an accurate picture of the situation, however.
The article was already based on reliable sources, a fact that's been almost entirely disregarded in this discussion. And the proposed RS contradict the RS already in the article:
The proposed RS say that defectors revealed in 2004 that Lee had been in prison for economic crimes. The other RS, which date from before 2004, clearly demonstrate that Lee has always said that she was in prison for economic crimes.
"If we are going to deny sources like Global Society (journal), Amsterdam University Press, Routledge, and mainstream new sources, then we are not going to have an encyclopedia."
Those sources aren't being denied across the board.
But with two sets of conflicting RS, one set must be denied. Lee's own book, her Senate testimony, her story as related in The Hidden Gulag, and the 2003 interview she gave to NBC News all debunk the chief claim in the proposed RS: "Later, some defectors claimed that many of her testimonies were exaggerated or fabricated, and that she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses" (Routledge).
So far, there's no credible way to reconcile those two contradictory sets of RS without resorting to WP:SYNTH.
"We are not here to be WP:!TRUTHFINDERS."
There's another side to that, though, according to many passages in different policies, guidelines, and essays. Here are several from Verifiable but not false:
"In reality, truth is very important in Wikipedia, and editors must be sure an article is true, in many ways."
"If five reliable sources repeat an incorrect fact, then that does not justify repeating a known falsehood."
"Note that a major goal is to avoid 'known falsehoods', and this goal often requires expertise in the topic of the article."
"We should consider if the text is true enough to be in Wikipedia, based on common-sense notions of the truth, and true balance, of current information as viewed by people educated about a topic."
"If anything, WP:BIASEDSOURCES shows that non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about different viewpoints on the subject."
The text says "(s)ometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." [emphasis mine]
"The suggested phrasing simply presents that Lee's accounts has been questioned, not that it's false. In-text attribution could be a compromise, but I believe that it's inappropriate as its a simple fact that several sources have questioned Lee's accounts."
The sources say directly or indirectly that Lee's story is false, in whole or in part, and any phrasing should accurately represent what's in the sources. The current proposed edit is at the vague, weasel-word level. A summary of the doubts should include pertinent specifics in order to be accurate and to give the reader some sense of what's allegedly behind those doubts.
And these sources are not as independent, numerous and factually solid as they seem.
What specific evidence is offered in the proposed RS to doubt Lee's story?
There is no credible evidence for doubting Lee's story offered in any of the proposed RS. If anyone doubts that, then please point it out.
(In contrast, in the case of Shin Dong-hyuk, the doubts consist of specifics claims and facts which are included in RS and summarized in the article.)
In Lee's case, almost all of the "evidence" in the RS comes from:
- One South Korean news story from 2004 (published in two slightly different forms).
The only specific "evidence" in the story is the mistaken statement by Chang In-suk, head of the North Korean Defectors Association, which has been debunked by numerous RS. This is Chang's comment as reported in Maeil Business, machine translated quite imprecisely by Google:
Pointed out Jang In-suk, president of the North Korean Defectors Association, who had a close relationship with Lee, said, "Lee is a political prisoner. He said, "I was engaged in sewing labor for about 8 years at the Gaecheon concentration camp, which is an economic prison camp, not a cow ." [Note that in the Chosun Ilbo version, Chang says that Lee was engaged in sewing labor...]
- A second piece of evidence appears in the footnote of a blog article [12] by Jiyoung Song. Her work is the cited source on Lee in at least two of the three proposed academic sources and is likely to be the source for the third, too. Song writes that defector Choi Sung Chol is certain Lee is lying on the basis of them being from the same North Korean city. Song also repeats Chang's mistaken comment:
...Lee Soon Ok offered testimonies for the US House of Representatives in 2004 [actually, in 2002] about torture and burning Christians to death in hot iron liquid in a North Korean political prison, the account of which was recorded in the US Religious Freedom Report. Lee was, however, later found not a political prisoner but a petty economic criminal, the fact of which other North Koreans counter-testinomied.[3]
[3] Chang In Suk, then Head of the North Korean Defectors’ Association in Seoul, knew Lee Soon Ok and revealed that Lee was not a political prisoner. In an interview with the author in January 2015 in London, Choi Sung Chol, Head of the UK One Korea Association who is from the same North Korean city, Chong Chin, also witness that Lee was not a political prisoner but served a forced labour term for her forgery. Many former North Korean netizens in Seoul (www.nknet.org) and whom author has met or interviewed all agreed Lee’s accounts were fake to attract the US State Department and the foreign media.
- That's it for specific evidence. If you want to count comments by defectors who provide no relevant evidence, but who are merely giving emotional, non-expert opinions, then there are seven in the 2004 South Korean news article. Six made anonymous comments online, and there's one named defector.
The article has numerous journalistic shortcomings. It's not balanced or rigorously researched -- it merely presents defector statements as-is without any context, analysis or scrutiny. And the journalist never attempted to contact either Lee or the U.S. State Department for comment (the State Department is accused by some of the defectors of recklessly repeating Lee's claims).
- So, on the proposed RS news stories:
2 stories (Chosun Ilbo and Maeil Business) are the same article of dubious quality.
1 story (Hankook Ilbo) incorrectly claims that Lee was in prison camp #14 (a political prison) instead of #1 (a reeducation prison). It's well established in RS that Lee has always said she was in #1. That inaccuracy isn't trivial, either, but is central to the claim that Lee lied about being in a political prison.
1 story (Korea Economic Daily, 2006) claims that Lee's story and the U.S. Religious Freedom Report itself are doubtful but provide no specific evidence. It's likely that the 2004 news article is the basis for it. It speaks about reevaluating the North Korean Human Rights Law because it was based on the report. That was not a mainstream view in the U.S.:
"Experts suggested that the recently enacted US North Korean Human Rights Act did not properly reflect the human rights situation in North Korea because it was enacted based on exaggerated testimonies of some defectors."
- And on the 3 academic articles:
All mention Lee in very brief, vague terms, essentially just repeating or alluding to Chang In-suk's comment. There's no solid academic or journalistic article on doubts about Lee's story -- or even a section of an article.
At least 2 of the 3 mentions depend on Jiyoung Song's articles ("Manufacturing Contempt" and "Celebrity Defectors"), which have numerous issues of their own.
"Manufacturing Contempt" falsely says Lee's story has been "debunked." If so, where's the evidence for that?
"Celebrity Defectors" claims that "(b)oth Lee Soon Ok and Kang Chol-Hwan’s testimonies have been called into question by South Korean researchers. The work of Jiyoung Song (2015) is noteworthy." No specific evidence is provided to justify those doubts about Lee or Kang Chol-hwan.
The Routledge article repeats Chang's false claim, and according to Fiwec81618, doesn't cite any sources for that part of the article. Psalm84 (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But with two sets of conflicting RS, one set must be denied. Lee's own book, her Senate testimony, her story as related in The Hidden Gulag, and the 2003 interview she gave to NBC News all debunk the chief claim in the proposed RS: "Later, some defectors claimed that many of her testimonies were exaggerated or fabricated, and that she had been in prison for economic and social offenses rather than political offenses" (Routledge).So far, there's no credible way to reconcile those two contradictory sets of RS without resorting to WP:SYNTH.
That's not how this works at all. You don't deny an RS because it conflicts with another RS. You simply mention both and give them each due weight. See WP:BALANCE.
As you say, this is a minority viewpoint that has been mentioned by several RSs, with many others contradicting them. Given that the rest of the article treats Lee's account as true, there is no fear of creating a false balance with the suggested one sentence phrase: The authenticity of some of Lee's accounts of North Korean prison camps have been questioned by some South Korean researchers and North Korean defectors.
Let's not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources, and avoid tedentious editing and POV pushing. tofubird | ✉ 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tofubird Adhominem personal attacks, including false accusations of tendentious editing and POV pushing, need to be avoided. Rather, stick to the issues.
"You don't deny an RS because it conflicts with another RS. You simply mention both and give them each due weight. See WP:BALANCE."
That's true when the conflict is reported upon in RS itself, and the source or sources then analyzes the conflict, and then Wikipedia merely reports what RS say on the conflict.
And that's what should have happened in these academic articles. Investigating a glaring factual contradiction is one of the most basic, common sense tasks of journalism and scholarly writing, yet the RS in question completely failed to do that basic task.
You recently wrote this to me: "One is free to find sources in defense of Lee's accounts as long as WP:SYNTH is avoided."
Exactly! Wikipedia editors have also been free to find sources that dispute Lee's account, and are still free to, but WP:SYNTH has to be avoided -- and properly avoided. Not merely by trying to conceal information within a weasel-word sentence that's intentionally vague. That would be dishonest and disingenuous. There should be no problem with including specific information from source material, and it should be in there to inform readers on the evidence for doubts about Lee's story.
But there is no credible evidence in any of those RS of inconsistencies in Lee's account. Not one thing has been named. And that is a legitimate concern. Wikipedia has excluded many sources for not being reliable, and issues cautions to try to make sure what goes into articles is reliable. Psalm84 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on this RFC: As the other editor in the dispute over this issue, I'm noting here, as I did below, that this RFC title and question are not stated in a neutral manner. What's more, the format that was selected seems the least appropriate under the circumstances.

Unlike two other alternative formats which encourage discussion, the present RFC format "encourages respondents to 'vote' without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises." That's troubling given that it's a contentious issue. The present format is suggested "if you expect a lot of responses," which wouldn't be expected on a very low-volume page like this one. These are 3 of 4 formats listed on the RFC page:

  • Most popular: The most popular option is a single section containing all information and responses of any kind.
This format is simple and easy to set up, is suitable for most RfCs, and it encourages discussion and compromise as a means of finding consensus. Consider this strongly if you are asking an open-ended question and/or when you expect a typical number of responses.
  • Separate votes from discussion: If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, although that doesn't always result in good outcomes.
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.
  • Pro and con: For a question that has a "yes" or "no" answer, and people known to support each of the sides, then this side-by-side approach can offer a balanced view. This format is good for writing a neutral question on a contentious or complex issue by presenting both sides.
This format is not as good as simplest, most popular format for questions that require collaboration, such as developing ideas about how to re-write substantial parts of an article. This format works best when the "pro" and "con" comments are limited to short "headline" length summaries of the main points for and against the proposal. If you need to explain your reasons in detail, or if you have a reason that other people don't necessarily agree with, then add them underneath the table, as part of your own signed comment. Psalm84 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was moved from the beginning of the RFC to the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a request for a close from an uninvolved editor at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment. —Fiwec81618 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Soon-ok&oldid=1208130943"