Talk:Otto Warmbier/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gratton goes missing

I don't this should be in the article. We discussed this previously under "Confessions". Essentially, Isaac Stone Fish in Politico notes that Gratton's disappearance during New Year's Eve celebrations coincided with the theft that Warmbier was convicted of. However, Stone Fish makes no suggestion about what underlies this coincidence. Personally, I think the most likely explanation is purely the consumption of alcohol and the festive mood that was prevailing at the time. No doubt many incidents happen on NYE round the world; they're not all connected. We seem to be inviting the reader to join the dots, and I don't think that's a good idea. It could lead to a range of false conclusions. Until we get a concrete explanation linking Gratton's experience with Warmbier, I think we should treat it as basically irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph. It's also veering into WP:BLP issues - there seems to be an underlying innuendo that Gratton may have conspired with Warmbier to distract the tour guides at the time of the theft of the banner, when there is no proof of that.--Muzilon (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a possible interpretation I hadn't thought of. (And which I think has no foundation in the known facts!) Clearly we shouldn't have something which seems like an innuendo but is interpreted by every reader differently. And it does have BLP implications.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was my first inference on reading the Politico article, which plays up the contradictory testimonies of the tour group members.--Muzilon (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it seems open to a range of interpretations. As I read the account, Gratton's disappearance was accidental, and it commenced hours before the theft of the poster. Another reason why we shouldn't include it is that Gratton doesn't seem to have given his side of the story. The facts as described by Stone Fish are obviously secondhand, and don't make much sense to me. We are told that he was gone for hours and had to catch "several taxis" to get back to the hotel. How far did he walk? Kim Il Sung Square is quite close to the hotel, and the hotel is easily visible on the skyline, being the second highest building in Pyongyang. It would seem hard to get lost. It also seems strange there was no attempt to find him if he was missing that long. I wonder if the incident is being exaggerated. As Stone Fish says, a tourist going missing in North Korea is almost unheard of.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So what are your qualifications to second guess Fish, pray tell? I interpreted the article as suggesting that Warmbier's tour group was getting special attention from the authorities. The poster incident made everyone forget Gratton. The guy responsible for Gratton wandering off had been in a tight spot. Arresting Warmbier got him off the hook. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

We have one hearsay source saying that Gratton gave the NK tour guides the slip at about the same time Warmbier is accused of grabbing the banner. Fish says this "raises questions about whether those two events are related" but it's "impossible to draw conclusions", which is not terribly helpful here. WP:STICKTOSOURCE says "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source." Since Fish himself says it's "impossible to draw conclusions," I'd suggest we follow the "avoid" option at this point.--Muzilon (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe the information should be included since Danny Gratton is cited as a source for other parts of the story. He also put himself forward as a kind of character witness for Warmbier, essentially saying that his impression was that Warmbier was a nice guy and wouldn't steal. However Gratton excised his midnight stroll through Pyongyang from his story, presumably because all tourists to NK are instructed not to go anywhere on their own and this part of the tale makes him look like someone who ignored the rules or is at least a bit stupid. If, as Isaac Stone Fish writes, Gratton was AWOL for several hours after midnight, there is definitely an overlap between his disappearance and the theft, since the video of the theft is time stamped 01:58. I don't see Gratton's disappearance and Warmbier's arrest as being related in the least, nor does his disappearance suggest a 'conspiracy' with Warmbier as speculated above, however it is relevant to his own account and the overall narrative since his selective recollection of events makes one wonder how reliable he is as a witness. Gratton has complained that the tour company never contacted him in the aftermath, yet the tour company was likely furious with for triggering massive stress through his disappearance. In passing, for all we know, the NK authorities might have been lighter on Warmbier had Gratton not first disappeared, and they came crashing down on Warmbier doubly since they had had enough of tourists disobeying the rules. Either way, without the paragraph, Gratton's testimony becomes a kind of gospel, yet it seems to me that his credibility is less than 100% and indeed it cannot be ruled out that he came forward to the media at least in part to have a moment in the spotlight. BTW Jack Upland Kim Il-sung Square is about 5km from the hotel - perhaps not so easy to find by foot in the dark, winter, and drunk in a foreign city.

Well, that certainly has BLP issues. In my opinion, Gratton can hardly be a character witness since he spent only a couple of days with Warmbier, but we only cite him twice, and don't rely on him as an authority for anything. No one is suggesting his account is "gospel". This isn't a court case, and we don't need to test his credibility. You have given yet another interpretation of the disappearance, and this underlines why we shouldn't include it. The relevance is dubious but including it clearly invites speculation. And, yes, he hasn't given his own account of what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Role of Joseph Yun

Under "Release" we have the sentence "A week before Warmbier's release, his parents were told by North Korean officials that their son had contracted food-borne botulism sometime after his trial..." This phrasing implies that Warmbier's parents had first-hand interactions with NK officials, which doesn't seem to be the case. CNN and NYT indicate that the NK officials first announced Warmbier's comatose condition to U.S. State official Joseph Yun at a meeting in New York on 6 June. Presumably it was Yun's office who relayed this news to the Warmbier family. Yun was also the official who flew to Pyongyang to secure Warmbier's release, and yet the article makes no mention of him. --Muzilon (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've tweaked that section.--Muzilon (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Posters

The new paragraph under "Arrest and conviction" seems basically irrelevant. It is about North Korea picture posters, whereas this case involves a banner of text. The Dutch collector that was arrested was on his 24th trip, and he was not arrested for stealing posters.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Different sources call it a "poster," or "sign." It's also seen in the CCTV video to be the shape and size of a typical movie or music poster that are seen on the walls of kid's rooms. It's apparently printed on paper, since Warmbier (supposedly) is shown removing it off the wall. It wasn't framed, just mounted somehow. So calling it a "banner" seems to be giving it more value, while calling it a "sign" is less accurate. The David Heather book, North Korean Posters, states the value of the older collectible ones was because they were rarer. NK today has an entire complex (ie. factory) of a 1,000 artists who paint posters, many which are bought and exhibited by collectors. Are they commodities, similar to other paintings? --Light show (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I didn't dispute the use of the term "poster". My issue was with the paragraph you inserted, which is basically irrelevant. (By the way, the poster was framed, and the art factory is the Mansudae Art Studio, which I have been to. But this too is irrelevant.) With regard to the value of the poster on the world market, I would say it is very low, particularly considering it is text with no picture. Posters are readily available to tourists, are mass produced, and, as you have shown, can easily be bought without going to North Korea. Simply because Warmbier was convicted of stealing a poster doesn't mean we need a paragraph about North Korean posters in general.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of that paragraph is about another person convicted in NK for a poster-related crime, with a similar penalty first imposed, and with another forced confession. He was a collector, as was David Heather, who described the assembly-line production of posters. And implying that they are not worth much, are commonly sold there, and sometimes exhibited elsewhere, may be very relevant to those who are curious why Warmbier lost his life over trying to take one (assuming that CCTV image was actually him.) -Light show (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Half of the paragraph is about the Dutch collector, who was not accused of stealing a poster. In fact, he had bought many posters over many trips. There is no doubt that North Korean propaganda, regardless of the value to international collectors, is important to the North Korean government. What you are adding is basically irrelevant original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

And we now have "banner or poster or sign" peppered throughout the article. Can't we pick one term and stick with it?--Muzilon (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Stick with poster. That's what most sources use. But that's a separate issue to the one I was raising.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Which part is the "original research"? I'll fix it. --Light show (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all original research. None of the sources you use make a connection to Warmbier.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

None of it is original research, since all the facts are cited. As for being relevant to Warmbier, his notability was caused by his alleged removing a NK poster from a wall. I'd guess that a small minority of Westerners have ever seen a NK propaganda poster, live or in print. Or any propaganda poster from any country, for that matter. It's logical to have at least a paragraph describing what they are, how they're made, and their apparent value or importance. Mentioning others who were collectors helps present those facts. --Light show (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Light show it's ridiculous to say as you do that the 'poster' is "the shape and size of a typical movie or music poster that are seen on the walls of kid's rooms". Have you even watched the video ? If so, I cannot imagine how you reach the conclusion that a horizontal banner with an aspect ratio of 1:2 and bearing a slogan with red lettering saying "Let us arm ourselves with Kim Jong-Il's patriotism" is typical of any kid's room. The term 'poster' evokes images of an image in landscape format, which would indeed be typical of a child's room. Moreover, calling it 'banner' by no means gives it "more value", because in North Korea such things have immense value since the leaders, dead and living, are revered there as demigods. Part of the reason Warmbier was treated so harshly was because he unwittingly went for a banner bearing an exhortation to Kim Jong-il. 'Banner' is clearly the more appropriate term, and the other sources that have used 'poster' simply haven't given sufficient thought to the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.168.175 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The flexible poster-size object he so easily took off the wall looks nothing like the approximately 7' x 1' solid framed red banner shown in the photo. Nor can we tell who the person is. --Light show (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at the first few seconds of the video it is clear that the figure removes an elongated object that was hanging horizontally. The dimensions of that object do not correspond to those of a standard poster. Whether or not it is actually Warmbier is beside the point, since the discussion is about what the North Koreans claim was removed from the wall; you can be sure they wouldn't call it a poster. In passing, only a complete idiot would steal a poster there since they can be purchased for peanuts in any number of shops one visits during a Pyongyang tour - also at one of the hotel shops. The object as presented by the North Koreans is manifestly a banner, but it seems to me that people and parts of the media prefer to call it a poster simply because it makes the charge look particularly ridiculous, whereas 'banner' would give it a more serious air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.168.175 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Light show, can you at least edit the text to remove the suggestion that the Dutch collector was "arrested for taking North Korean posters". He was buying posters, but the source does not imply that was the reason for his arrest. It says: "But on his 24th and final trip to the country in 2010, something aroused their suspicions and he was arrested on charges of espionage... He was never given the reason for his arrest but now views it as 'a piece of over-imagination in the Korean secret police'." Clearly North Korea had no problem with him taking multiple posters during many trips, because he paid for them.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Jewish

Is it certain that Otto Warmbier is Jewish? The reference by Dolsten in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency says that he went on a Birthright Israel trip to Israel in 2014 and then became active in Hillel International. It also says that he celebrated Shabbat and that he led a Passover seder. Other articles that I found make similar statements, but they all seem to be from the same source of information. I recognize that Birthright Israel trips are supposed to be open only to Jews from age 18 to 26, and that Hillel is an organization for Jewish college students, and Shabbat and seders are Jewish religious events. But notably absent from the article and any other news item that I could find is a statement that Warmbier was Jewish or that either of his parents are. The cited article even stated that Rabbi [Jake] Rubin, the source of the information, "did not answer a question about Warmbier’s Jewish background."

Is it possible that Warmbier was a Christian Zionist but not Jewish? Or he was considering converting to Judiasm? Or is acceptance by Birthright Israel for a trip acceptable Wikipedia criteria for being Jewish?

Or have I simply missed something?

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Ira Leviton: He's Jewish by all accounts on his mother's side. Here's his maternal grandfather's obituary from Cincinnati Enquirer, 1992. This was two years before he was born, so he's not listed as a grandchild, but it says Cynthia (Garber) and Fred Warmbier (his parents). Garber is a fairly common Jewish name. Otto's maternal grandparents were Charles and Frieda Garber. Charles' parents were Nathan Garber and Fanny Schwartz Garber, immigrants from Russia/Poland. That is original research of course so I didn't put down that he's of Russian-Jewish descent. I don't know about Fred Warmbier, he could come from a Christian family, but it's very solid Otto is Jewish on his mother's side, which would confirm he's halachically Jewish, and that Otto chose to embrace that faith. It's possible Otto was also Christian in his beliefs but we can't speculate without solid sources. The Rabbi maybe didn't answer the question bc he didn't hear it or didn't think it was appropriate. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimandia:—Мандичка Thank you for clarifying. That's very convincing, especially because it says "Shiva will be observed..." As you mention, it's original research, but in the coming days I expect we'll see a better source that can be incorporated into the article. Thank you again.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. They're having the funeral today, so we will probably get confirmation if he is buried at a Jewish cemetery. The fact that his parents refused an autopsy is also consistent with Jewish beliefs. I think the confusion could arise from him going to North Korea on the same tour as a church group, and the North Koreans claiming he was stealing the propaganda poster for somebody's church (which makes no sense any way you look at it). —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

He's Jewish. The Forward published an article today stating that he was Jewish but his parents decided to not mention it because they thought it might hurt the negotiations with the North Koreans. See: http://forward.com/fast-forward/375363/otto-warmbiers-parents-kept-his-jewishness-a-secret-to-not-embarrass-north QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

See also: [1]. It really hasn't been confirmed. The details are sketchy. I don't see how it would "embarrass" the North Korean government to reveal his Jewish faith. In his press conference, when he's discussing the church, he described himself as a "non-believer". He wasn't claiming, or being coerced into claiming, that he was a Methodist. The reference to the church doesn't seem relevant to the question of whether he was Jewish. Furthermore, it doesn't seem that his funeral or his burial was Jewish.[2]--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As Israel–North Korea relations are not exactly warm, it might have antagonised (rather than embarrassed) NK even more to learn that Warmbier had a Jewish heritage and had gone on a pilgrimage to Israel. We already have the likes of Gilad Atzmon asking "Was Warmbier an Israeli Spy?"--Muzilon (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the USA is North Korea's Enemy Number 1.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuking the U.S. seems to be the focus of Kim Jong-un's foreign policy. But his father and grandfather were anti-Japanese first. The top NK movie of all time is The Flower Girl, an anti-Japanese opus. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's well-known that N. Korea is not fond of the USA and Japan. What's not as well-known is that NK has no love for Israel either.--Muzilon (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

North Korea takes a common left-wing anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian position. That doesn't make it anti-Jewish. This position is also less important than its hostility to US imperialism. None of that explains why his parents would think that saying Warmbier was Jewish would harm negotiations with North Korea. This idea seems to be based on a misunderstanding that the case against Warmbier claimed he was a Methodist (see sources above). For some reason, people want to draft him as a Jew. He is currently in the category "American Jews". However, we have no source which says that he or his family said that he is a Jew. Yes, he was a Hillel member and went to birthright trip to Israel, and that should be in the article, but going further, and categorising him as Jewish, I think that is wrong. It is really original research and runs the risk of creating an article about Otto Warmbier that no one who knows him would recognise. There also does seem to me much point in this in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the "official" reason given for the initial silence about his Jewish heritage does not make much sense. However, if the actual (unstated) reason was "We kept quiet about his Jewish background and his pilgrimage to Israel because that would have made the N. Koreans distrust him even more," that does make some sense. Muzilon (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all speculative. How important was his Jewish heritage over the course of his life (apart from his trip to Israel etc)? Why was there silence? (Was there silence?) The problem with relying on Jewish publications as sources is that they tend to play up the Jewish angle. Have general media sources discussed this? It really runs the risk of sliding into undue weight and original research...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The family pulled the plug.

Doctors speculated that the cause of death could have been a blood clot, pneumonia, sepsis or kidney failure.[51] --- If they did not know he had sepsis or kidney failure, it was because he was not receiving any medical care. The family likely did not want him to be monitored and let his heart stop. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Or the docs aren't certain because he could well have had many things wrong and died suddenly before they had time to identify the biggest threat or whilst they were trying to work out his brain damage/get medical records from NK. They can't be certain which of possibly many conditions was the dominant cause of death until an autopsy. Your assertion that "the family pulled the plug" is pure speculation and horribly insensitive. 86.156.212.54 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@AGrandeFan: Remember Wikipedia:Original research isn't allowed. Keep in mind such an accusation may be defamatory towards the living relatives, which would make it a WP:BLP violation. I don't believe such speculation should be allowed in the article at this time. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@AGrandeFan: This is complete nonsense. Warmbier was breathing on his own, as the doctors confirmed. He was not brain dead. He had massive brain damage but his brainstem was still functioning, controlling his heart, lungs etc. The only way the parents could have "pulled the plug" would be by getting a court order that allowed them to remove his feeding tube, and then it would have taken him at least 10 days to die of starvation. For Terri Schiavo, her tube was removed on March 18, 2005, she died on March 31, 2005. More likely he suffered some complication (such as kidney failure as has been suggested) and the North Koreans sent him home so they could claim he didn't die on their watch. His death was probably not a surprise. His parents declined an autopsy (probably for religious reasons), and this was allowed, which means he died of natural causes and it was not induced in any way. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Normally people are simply let go by the family and the doctors in silence. The removal of a feeding tube or just the trip back home could be the cause of organ failure with this case since he spent most of his time in that state on North Korean soil and there were minimal medical records of that time. It's true that his release could have been to avoid his actual death on North Korean soil. If you only have your brain stem working then you are essentially not really "alive" anymore. Only very few and mostly young people can sometimes recover from that state but not after this much time had passed. For example, dying cancer patients are put on opioid pumps for pain and if the cancer doesn't kill them, the opioids will. Maybe he was given an opioid pump for "pain". You could already call that a mercy killing but it is what normally happens with loving family members. Just to point out that cases like Schiavo's are not the norm and she had been stabilized in that state for years. Also, Warmbier's parents may have had many reasons to decline an autopsy considering the high levels of news coverage of this case. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:75D1:2704:9276:D260 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we don't know, and maybe we will never know. Speculation is the enemy. Fact-based editing is the enema.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Note section

I'm having a hard time articulating the value of the note concerning Warmbier's Grandfather to the user who keeps removing it. I'm certain it's to provide more of an explanation about the Grandfather and the Note being at the end is an automatic format thing. Am I right? Crboyer (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the note. The note he had a grandfather that died two years before Otto was born is mentioned why? I think Crboyer that we are on the same side. We both are concerned North Korea would try and influence this wiki article. Also I have a hard time articulating that the use of the word Jewish is problematic. This could play unfornutatly into prejudices. Sensitive to words appearing out of nowhere tagged to the end of an article raises questions about its purpose when this word has different meanings to different audiences. Thus the requirement to justify when asked to. What is the need to mention this about his grandfather being Jewish? Not getting why it needs to be included in the final comments of the article? --Editor1425172824437699411 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does the video stop after the picture falls off the wall?

He never tried to steal it that's why. North Korea would not allow it to be shown he walked away from the picture. No theft here. This aspect of the tragedy deserves mention in the article. Feel readers reading the article actually think he stole it. He didn't. At worst he removed a picture from a wall and placed it against the wall. The truth is it fell off the wall when he was very drunk and stumbled into it though. --Editor1425172824437699411 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

See previous discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Witness that poster not damaged and left right below where it hung, in North Korea's own words

Tells readers immediately the back ground to what happened. Needs to be in article. Point of view not to include.

'But when I returned, I thought someone had deliberately taken the slogan down, so I mobilised security to prevent damage to it and reported it to the authorities.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3497017/The-worst-mistake-life-caught-film-Moment-American-student-21-steals-propaganda-poster-bearing-Kim-Jong-Il-North-Korean-hotel-earning-15-years-hard-labor.html

Also, North Korea's position that the poster was too big to carry was why it was left behind. Clearly in the video the picture does not match this description. Would be very easy to walk away with. Point of view to not place this North Korea position in article. Readers have a right to see this, or the article runs the risk of having readers think he stole it. Place this in the article and no reader is going to think he stole it. Go with the truth, therefore needs to be in the article. too big to carry, so left behind --Editor1425172824437699411 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Placed quote of the staff employee into article. --Editor1425172824437699411 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That flexible poster-size object someone easily peeled off the wall looks nothing like the approximately 8' x 1' solid framed red banner shown in the photo. That framed banner, larger than typical storefront signs, would have had to be unscrewed, carried by a few people, then crated and shipped by freighter. --Light show (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

teeth

why would his father say his lower teeth had been rearranged if that were not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4700:EBA0:39BA:B98D:AB36:76CA (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has an article about the problems with Eyewitness testimony. --Muzilon (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Transcript of confession?

Is there a transcript of Otto Warmbier's press conference/confession online somewhere? I can't seem to find one from a "reliable source".--Muzilon (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen a transcript but I know for sure there's full video (unedited, uncut) of Warmbier's press conference on YouTube. 2.216.158.249 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. Seems surprising that there is no official written transcript of it online.--Muzilon (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the media had BLP-type concerns...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I found an anonymous transcript on Pastebin.com, but I'm sure that doesn't meet WP:RELIABLE. --Muzilon (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What portion are you trying to cite?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A matter that was briefly raised earlier on this Talk page but has since been archived. The media claimed the N. Korean story of Warmbier stealing the poster under instructions from a Methodist church was false because "Warmbier was Jewish, not a Methodist," and that "his family had to keep quiet about his Jewish background because it would have antagonised the NK regime to publicly disprove his involvement with a Methodist church." But the media explanation doesn't quite jell, because Warmbier did not claim to be a Methodist: he stated in his confession that "since I am a non-believer, the church thought it could deny its involvement if my crime would become public news." However, without a reliable source it would be tricky to explain all this in the article.--Muzilon (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than say "the media", perhaps you could be specific. The entry at present attributes the silence-about-Judaism so as not to contradict the Methodist church connection to The Times of Israel. Were there other reports, or do others all trace back to that one?

The whole silence bit rings false because OW's connection to the Methodists was clearly financial, a used car worth 10K. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Times of Israel quotes Mickey Bergman, who was indeed a negotiator involved in the Warmbier case. I'm sure this is a reliable first-hand source and Bergman told the paper this in good faith. What we don't have is a journalist or some other reliable source saying "Did Bergman actually pay attention to Warmbier's confession? He never claimed to be an actual member of the Methodist church and said he stole the poster in exchange for a car." (Not that this makes much sense either, why would a church offer someone a $10,000 car in exchange for a tatty NK poster?) --Muzilon (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

See: The Tablet, where it discusses the Jewish/Methodist business and says: "Given this, it still remains unclear as to what repercussions, or what consequences, would have occurred should Warmbier’s Jewish faith been public knowledge, or why keeping this under wraps represents a form of a negotiation tactic."

It's interesting that a Catholic publication would bring a little skepticism to this subject.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(I think Tablet is Jewish.) Yes, the media hasn't dug into the details of the confession. (1) As previously discussed, I think his Jewish background is being overplayed and is partly based on original research. No, the explanation about silence on his Jewish background doesn't make sense. There appears to be an attempt by various Jewish publications and by editors to claim him as Jewish. I understand the thinking behind this, but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. The family has not proclaimed themselves Jewish, and there is no explanation for this.(2) On the broader issue, I think there are serious BLP issues with the confession that we should stay away from unless reliable sources discuss them. I don't want to spell out these issues because that would itself be a BLP policy violation.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I had it confused with a different Tablet I cite all the time: http://www.thetablet.co.uk

I don't think we need to deal with the "confession" or BLP issues at all. Just point out that Bergman's explanation for keeping OW's Judaism under wraps has been questioned. And we could start by naming Bergman instead of that fudgy Times of Israel reports phrasing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe the nonsensical confession rates a mention, but it would obviously be inadvisable for the article to name certain parties whom Warmbier identified in his confession. I've tweaked the wording so that the business of keeping quiet about Warmbier's Jewish identity is directly attributed to Bergman. And to avoid debate over whether Warmbier was Jewish or not, I simply used the phrase his Jewish heritage, which I hope covers all bases.--Muzilon (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the media really hasn't done a good job of reporting the story. There is very little coverage of the events leading up to the incident, with many reports failing to note that it occurred on NYE. There is very little coverage of the confession or the trial, including of the evidence used at the trial (as previously discussed). I think we have to be careful about using primary sources in this context, because we don't want to open the floodgates for every amateur detective...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will write an e-book about the case, as has happened with other Americans arrested in N. Korea. Although since Warmbier is deceased and Western journalists are not exactly allowed free rein in N. Korea, research could be tricky.--Muzilon (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when have such minor obstacles prevented your historians?82.30.110.20 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Change in title

Why not leave it as "Otto Warmbier"? He was arrested, put on trial, imprisoned, released, and died. You can't put all that in a title.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point. The WP articles about other Americans imprisoned by North Korea just have their names as the article title.--Muzilon (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The ed17 has moved the article without any discussion. He points to WP:ONEEVENT, but that doesn't mandate a particular form of title. In fact, it gives examples of "one event" people who do have articles under their names like Rodney King. I'm not sure the Warmbier case is one event, anyway. The article was created when he was detained. That was one event in itself. Months later he was released in a coma, and he died on his return to the USA. It seems like a series of events to me. In any case, I object to "Arrest and death". The "arrest" was when he was stopped from leaving. It doesn't cover everything else that happened. "Arrest and death" sounds like he was killed while under arrest. "Detention and death" would be better. But that too sounds unnatural. "Otto Warmbier" is the natural way of talking about the case. Related to this is the issue of "pseudo-biography" — WP:PSEUDO — but I don't think this is a problem here, apart for some unnecessary detail about his family. We need some brief background who he was, about his trip to North Korea, and then the events that unfolded leading to his death. An account of his brief life is dominated by these events, so there is no difference between a biography and an account of what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's been a small revert war over the article title. Maybe we need a WP:RfC?--Muzilon (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E are very clear here, especially the latter, which applies to those who have recently died:

"We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

Jack Upland, WP:PSEUDO says "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." The arrest and subsequent death are essentially one (lengthy) event IMHO, so I don't think I need to say more than that? :-)

Last, there's a lot of precedent with these sorts of article titles. I wouldn't mind a move to "Death of Otto Warmbier" either. See, for examples, the death articles listed at Template:Black Lives Matter. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a full and balanced biography. The issue here is not the content; it's the title. This was an article long before Warmbier's death. He was notable before he died. This is not like those "death articles" where the article consists of the death, which unfolded in a matter of minutes, and then there is an aftermath. This article is not about Warmbier's death. We don't know what caused his death, and it is unclear how he came to be in a coma. Some have suggested his flight home killed him. We don't know what part his imprisonment played. We shouldn't imply that the story is all about his death. I would strongly oppose moving to "Death of Otto Warmbier". Furthermore, it's very POV to call the article "Arrest and death..." or "Death..." because it ignores the pivotal event when Warmbier broke into a staff-only area and stole a poster. We shouldn't be telling readers what the most important part of the story is. We shouldn't try to frame the narrative. There was a series of events, some of which we don't understand, which was precipitated by Warmbier's burglary. This leads me to say it wasn't "one event" as none of this was planned, and there doesn't seem any clear connection between his imprisonment and his illness. As I think this discussion shows, it is hard to neatly categorise what happened without being highly selective and possibly biased. And I don't think that Warmbier fits the bill of a "low-profile individual". Obviously he's dead, but his parents were in the audience for the State of the Union address. He is still a notable person. He's not just someone who was involved in that event, who now has been forgotten, which I think is the intent of the policy. None of the policies you've cited say this can't be called "Otto Warmbier".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

He's only notable for his arrest and subsequent death, and not for anything else, so I support the present title (Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier). --Tataral (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's simply false. While it is a colloquial misnomer or misconception to use "arrest" to refer to the whole judicial process, it is unencyclopedic to do it here. He was arrested (after committing a crime), charged, tried, sentenced, and imprisoned. You simply can't describe that as an "arrest". There are few article entitled the "Arrest of..." because the arrest in itself usually isn't very important. If we are going to have an event-based title (which I oppose), it has to be a logical one.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do with the likes of John Short and Aijalon Gomes, who are notable only for being arrested in NK? Change the titles of their articles to "Detention of Aijalon Gomes" or similar?--Muzilon (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The CCTV footage

"The face of the person removing the banner is not visible during the video clip."

^ That's true, but CNN's coverage of the trial briefly shows additional CCTV footage exhibited in court, purportedly Warmbier walking down the hotel corridor just before (or after?) the attempted removal of the banner. It's still pretty fuzzy, but if you look at the 0:09 mark, you do see the face of a man wearing a blue sweater. Has there been any media commentary about this?--Muzilon (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. This states that the footage showed Warmbier entering the staff-only area.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So it appears that there was more video footage released, but I haven't been able to find it in full. As well as this, the sources cited in this article do not say that the face wasn't visible or that the figure was "unrecognizable". I don't think the article should editorialise like that, especially since there appears to be more footage.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This footage of the trial also shows a face.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the text to remove the questionable editorial comments, and have moved the text so that it is in chronological order.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In the footage is a couple of still images of what looks like Otto but it doesn't show him do the act he was accused of or which floor he is supposedly on. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:75D1:2704:9276:D260 (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have access to all the footage?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The information we have seems to be incomplete. This says, "Warmbier can be seen snooping around". This states that he can be seen entering the restricted area (echoing the Reuters article cited above). Some copies of the clip don't show a timestamp (see the discussion in the RfC), but this does, and it also shows images in a sequence which indicate that the still images of Warmbier were taken in the same corridor as the clip of the theft.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, it seems that the KCNA released footage of the trial, which included stills of the CCTV footage showing Warmbier's face, and these were used by CNN, the Guardian, and Reuters on 17 March. Apparently, KCNA released the clip of the poster being taken down on 18 March. While the release of the clip on 18 March was newsworthy at the time, I'm not sure that it's notable in retrospect, as it appears just to be extended coverage of the trial. We already say that CCTV footage was used in the trial, and there's no reason to treat the 18 March release as separate. And, since all we have are brief excerpts from KCNA reports, we have no basis for making sweeping judgements about what was on the footage.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The video is a huge deal not for what it shows, BUT for what it does not. Us viewers are being denied access to the full video.

The lack of video evidence is the story. North Korea will not release the video showing Otto is innocent. Obviously if he had walked out with the poster, North Korea would shown this entire video then. My take is the video is edited as North Korea did not want to show him leaving the poster as this would not be theft then. The video is incomplete on purpose. This is a restricted area a drunk person entered and had no idea what was in there, yet he's going to steal something, he doesn't take. Clearly the person in the picture can handle the picture, yet North Korea then claims it was too large to handle. No one watching the video would think the person had a hard time moving the picture and was too big to move. The video and the failure of North Korea to show the entire incident is part of the story. I support that the video deserves more coverage in the article. --Editor1425172824437699411 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

As previously discussed, generally speaking it is sufficient to show that he moved the poster to claim that he committed theft. And, as discussed above, there is more video than the short clip released on 18 March. I would be happy to see more information on the video, provided it is properly sourced. However, there seems to be an over-concentration on the video, which is only part of the evidence. And, more importantly, it is pointless and inappropriate to rerun the trial here. I know that many editors hide a barrister's wig or sleuth's deerstalker in their knapsack, but our job here is to record what happened, not to prove his innocence. Much of what you say is purely speculative, inferring from what's not shown in the clip. That wouldn't get you far in court, and it certainly has no place here. But if there's extra information, sure, add it in.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

In North Korea, is merely *moving* an object sufficient to prove theft? I doubt that this is the case in the West/UK/America - and it makes no real sense unless you can prove there was *intent* to steal.

ASavantDude (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, they need to prove intent. And they have a confession.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I hear ISIS and Al Qaeda have had plenty of 'confessions' as well. Realnb (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I understood the point just fine. North Korea doesn't have a confession. They have an alleged confession. No responsible or intellectually honest person would ever say that in reference to a videotaped 'confession' from a prisoner of a terrorist group. They would know to use the word 'alleged' because they know that these groups are notorious for lying and propagandizing. The same is true of the North Korean regime. It's alleged not because we don't know whether he said it or not, but because we have no way of verifying whether it was issued under his own free will. North Korea needs proof as much as a lynch-mob needed proof to hang someone. Realnb (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

New information further disproving the torture narrative

Please read this extensively well researched insider report from GQ which establishes the following:

https://www.gq.com/story/otto-warmbier-north-korea-american-hostage-true-story

• Parents requested feeding tube removed upon learning of his condition, death was on their request
• No experts believed the "torture" claims, it was a political narrative pushed by the administration
• US diplomats witnessed that Warmbier was given good care in North Korea (although this could still be propaganda)
• non-invasive Internal scans done after his death found there were no fractures which indicated beating
• The cause of the injury still remains a mystery, but the torture narrative was simply political + reaction of a grieving parent

--217.196.231.122 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The GQ article reiterates that whatever caused Warmbier's medical condition, apparently happened the day after his sentencing in March 2016, although the first brain scan provided by NK was dated April 2016. I wonder if the lede sentence, "Approximately one month after his sentencing, Warmbier suffered severe neurological injury from an unknown cause," should be changed to "Shortly after his sentencing..." --Muzilon (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, you're full of shit. The article you're linking to admits itself that no one outside of North Korea really knows what happened. Either put that information in neutrally, or don't do it at all. Wikipedia isn't a place for your propaganda. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you are by ignoring details of autopsy done in America by American doctors so look who's talking about neutrality when labeling American news outlets and information it received from US official as propaganda. 77.217.158.216 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Telling someone they're "full of sh*t" is hardly WP:CIVIL. Really, the only "new" information I got from the GQ article was all the behind-the-scenes details of what happened when Representative Yun's delegation flew into Pyongyang, which I don't think has been made public previously. It had already been widely reported that Dr. Sammarco, the Ohio coroner, had publicly contradicted the parents' claims of torture and "rearranged" teeth. She also said that Otto's feeding tube had been removed at the parents' request.--Muzilon (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the attempted suicide theory is worth noting, because it fits the information we have, including the North Korean statement that he had a sleeping pill overdose. The torture narrative never had much credibility. It was basically just an assumption. There's never been an evidence that the North Korean government was lying.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A botched suicide attempt is possible, although the GQ article wasn't the first to suggest that possibility either.[3] --Muzilon (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Autopsy

Why didn't they want an autopsy done? Would an autopsy have determined the cause of the brain damage? -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.121.215 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

1. We don't know. I've never seen this explained. 2. Possibly.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Electrocution?

I have removed this:

An expert witness stated in court papers that Warmbier's injuries suggested he may have been exposed to electrocution.

This is an accurate quotation of the source, but electrocution generally means execution or death by electric shock. I think we need a better explanation of what was being suggested.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the opinion of Robert M. Collins of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, whose declaration is quoted in the judge's decision. Collins suggests that Warmbier may have suffered torture via electric shock at the hands of his NK jailers. Muzilon (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Collins suggests a range of possible tortures, including waterboarding, confinement in a box, and teeth-pulling. Collins is a retired US army officer, formerly stationed in Korea. He doesn't seem to have medical expertise and apparently didn't examine the body. His claim about misaligned teeth was not supported by the coroner. He didn't say that Warmbier's injuries suggest electric shock torture; rather he said that North Koreans could have tortured Warmbier without leaving much evidence. I think we should have more about the US court case, but it has to be accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it tells "electrocution". My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Criticism of Warmbier

There appears to have been a minor edit war concerning the criticism of Warmbier's actions that came from some American academics, journalists, and TV personalities. One editor elaborated on the Katherine Dettwyler affair, and then another editor came along and deleted it altogether. Personally I think the controversy is not WP:UNDUE and have restored the single sentence "Others criticized Warmbier". Comments welcome.--Muzilon (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I originally expanded on Katherine Dettwyler since her reaction to the death of the subject comprises half of her lede, and the original two sources referring to "others" only mentioned the single professor's criticism. 9³ (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I added another WaPo citation which discussed the criticism from Larry Wilmore and a few (fairly obscure) journalists. IMO they probably don't need to be mentioned by name in the main body of the article, but interested readers can check the footnotes.--Muzilon (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: another editor added a whole subsection about Larry Wilmore's criticism, but without any mention of Wilmore's subsequent apology. I think this raises issues of WP:PROPORTION, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:ONEWAY. I have deleted the paragraph and added Wilmore to the "See Also" section, which is where Katherine Dettwyler is also listed.--Muzilon (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: you don't think any of this warrants a mention in the main body of the article at all? Muzilon (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Muzilon, I have not seen the intricate details and withhold myself from subscribing to a definitive take on the locus But, prima facie, the criticism seem to be from nut-jobs, who were widely rebutted (and thus proved to be invalid). The particular phrase, which I removed was too simplistic and did not paint such a sketch. Feel free to reinsert; iff you can express the exact spirits of the cited pieces. ∯WBG^converse 14:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It would appear that the critiques were not just from WP:FRINGE sources. As this NR article says: "...There was a mocking story in Salon (since deleted), and there were multiple mocking tweets (of course). And these outlets, while undeniably leftist, are hardly fringe. Larry Wilmore is a much-celebrated, mainstream liberal comic. The Huffington Post is one of the most trafficked websites in America. Citing these outlets is hardly like pulling up an obscure online pamphlet from a five-person revolutionary cell in Brooklyn." Muzilon (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree: this nonsense obviously should not be mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether we think it's "nonsense" or not, the controversy does appear to have been the subject of WP:SIGCOV. However, I don't have strong feelings as to whether it should be mentioned within the main body of the article or not. For the record, there are pertinent links in the See Also section to Katherine Dettwyler and Larry Wilmore, who were probably the most notable critics. Muzilon (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked these pages. The latter retracted and apologized. The former - what the "criticism" was about? She criticized him for ... being a young male US student (???), which effectively get her fired. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The various criticisms centered on four points: (1) Warmbier travelled to North Korea against the travel advisory issued by his own government (even Larry Wilmore still says he thinks people shouldn't travel there); (2) Warmbier was unwise to break the law by taking down the banner (assuming he was guilty of that); (3) more tenuously, some (like Wilmore) argued that Warmbier thought he had "Frat Boy Privilege" in taking the banner; (4) Dettwyler, HuffPost and Affinity (rather unfortunately, IMO) tried to put a racial spin on the incident by arguing that Warmbier was a "spoiled white male." Muzilon (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but, as stated before, the point is not whether the criticism is valid, but whether it is notable. I think it is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not think this is something notable. Anything about racial spin belongs to pages about the "spinners". Point (1) of the "criticism" might be noted. Points (2) and (3) I think should not be included, because he possibly did not take any poster and whole thing was fabricated. Hence, again, this tells more about people who criticized W., i.e. this belongs to their pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The subheading now called simply "Death" was formerly called "Death and Public Reactions" until someone changed it (without a very specific reason) in November 2018. As I said after the last edit-war back in June 2018, I see no need to name the critics or elaborate on their specific critiques within the main body of the article, and thought it would suffice to have a brief sentence ("Others criticized Warmbier") with two WaPo references that reviewed the criticisms. Nobody objected to that sentence until this week, when Winged Blades of Godric decided to remove it. Muzilon (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Public reactions are now included in section "Aftermath", which is fine. Speaking about the edit by WBG [4], I agree with his edit 100%. Seriously, one should hate Otto Warmbier to include this bull..., right after text about his death. WBG removed it. Good call! My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I don't "hate" Otto Warmbier and have no love for North Korea, so please Assume Good Faith. Muzilon (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not tell anything about you, just explained the edit by WBG. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should include the criticism, regardless of anyone's opinion. It is notable; it has been reported. I don't think there's anything to debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, how about something even-handed such as "The media reported on a range of varied reactions to his death from across the U.S. political spectrum" [5], or something like that. Muzilon (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's so vague it's not worth having.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:WHATEVER. By way of comparison see 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea#Reactions. The two journalists were also criticised for their actions by some sources, and this is mentioned within the article. Muzilon (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. There is nothing really to tell. Point (1) above might be included, although certainly not in the section about his death, but to "Aftermath". My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't seem to be making much progress, so let's try an RfC. See below. Muzilon (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Second floor vs. fifth floor of hotel (again)

A minor detail, but certain editors keep changing the scene of the alleged theft of the propaganda banner from the second floor to the fifth floor of the Yanggakdo Hotel. Although it has been widely reported that the hotel has a "secret" 5th floor where guests are not allowed to venture (and many people assumed this is where Warmbier had trespassed), Warmbier clearly stated in his confession that he took the banner from a staff-only area of the 2nd floor of the hotel. (See the 25-minute mark of his confession on YouTube, and also this unofficial transcript.) CNN reported the same thing. See also this discussion in the Talk page archives. Accordingly, I have reverted the sentence to refer to the second floor again. --Muzilon (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the 5th floor is a staff only floor; it's where they sleep. But, no, that's not where Warmbier took the banner from. Unfortunately the initial assumption was that he was on the 5th floor, and this has persisted.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the same error has been perpetuated in WP's Yanggakdo Hotel article, and have corrected it there too. Muzilon (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That was forced "confession". He said whatever they asked him to say. Frankly, the assumptions of guilt or crime on his part are preposterous. They just wanted to arrest an American at the airport. That could be just easily someone else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, his "confession" clearly referred to the second floor and made no mention of the fifth floor of the hotel. As I said, this is a minor detail and has nothing to do with whether Warmbier was framed or not. See WP:VNT. Muzilon (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We should get the details right, and that's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

TNA (probably not considered WP:RELIABLE) was one of the few sources to comment on the discrepancy in the reporting. Muzilon (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have been thinking about the BLP issue that was raised some time back. The policy says: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Two years will come up on 19 June. Stealing is definitely not a "particularly gruesome crime". The suicide theory mentioned above might qualify, but I think if we cover the torture theory, etc, we should be able to mention alternative theories. The policy also says: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. This is not particularly helpful in this case. BLP definitely applies to other people involved: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. But with Otto Warmbier any "extension" is running out, if he ever had one. I'm not saying this to advocate any particular change, but just to clarify the issue, just in case it comes up in future.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The botched suicide theory might rate a mention. Some people seemed to be taken aback when the GQ article proposed it in 2018, but in fact Cyril Wecht[6] and Michael Green[7] had suggested it at the time of Warmbier's death. See also the article in the Journal of Forensic Science. Muzilon (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the suicide theory does rate a mention. I will add it to the article when I get the chance, unless someone else does it first.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepted his guilt - rephrase?

"Some commentators suggested that Warmbier had been framed by the North Korean regime for removing the propaganda poster, while others accepted his guilt"

Is there a way to rephrase this, specifically the "accepted his guilt" part? The word choice seems like it's taking a side on the debate of whether he took the poster or not (and iirc it's most likely that he did, but that's not really enough for the article to take a stance on it). Sjbennington (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked that to "Some commentators suggested that Warmbier had been framed by the North Korean regime for removing the propaganda poster, while others concluded that he was guilty of doing so," which I hope is acceptable. Muzilon (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems good to me, thanks! Sjbennington (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, but "accepted" doesn't mean that. If you say you're a Nobel prize winner, and I "accept" that, that doesn't mean you actually are.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment - public reactions to detainment and death

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the biography include a wider discussion of the range of public reactions to the subject's detainment in North Korea and subsequent death? For instance, some right-leaning sources blamed the Obama administration, while some left-leaning sources blamed the subject for his own plight.[8] --Muzilon (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The page includes already a well-sourced "Aftermath" section that provides most important public reactions. No one objects. As about content from this specific source, no, it should not be included as an example of WP:Recentism and ridiculous political accusations that add nothing to the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Agree w/ My very best wishes - Clearly a fired professor from UD doesn't represent "the left". NickCT (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment: The critiques did not just come from one sacked professor.[9][10] Muzilon (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The National Review is not an RS. The WP is apparently discussing a comment made by Larry Wilmore, who is a comedian. So as far as I can tell, you're proposing that a fired UD professor and a late night comedian are a good representation of "left-leaning" sources...... really? NickCT (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Forget the "left" or "right". I have deleted those words since it seems this is a distraction. The WaPo actually refers to other sources (besides Wilmore) who were critical of Warmbier's actions.[11][12] See the discussion "Criticism of Warmbier" at the top of this Talk page if you wish to read through the discussion that led to this RfC. Muzilon (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing "left/right" was a good idea. I'm still a little concerned though, b/c it doesn't seem to me that there were "a lot" of notable sources that blamed Warmbier. I'm also concerned, b/c I don't think there were many sources that blamed Obama (outside conservative Op-ed's of course).

Isn't it true that the great majority of commentators probably lay the blame for Warmbier's death on North Korea? Why should we highlight the viewpoint of a small minority that lay the blame elsewhere? NickCT (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As Jack Upland mentioned below, the "blame" controversy attracted a great deal of coverage in reliable sources.[13] The WaPo said Warmbier "received plenty of criticism from people who felt he should have had the common sense to stay away from a hostile country entirely."[14] By way of comparison, Wikipedia's article about the two American journalists who were arrested after straying across the North Korean border in 2009 has a "Reactions" section which mentions they also received some criticism for their actions. Muzilon (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Muzilon: - I appreciate your point, but I think if you look hard at the actual people that WaPo and the Independent are pointing to, you'll find that they're essentially isolated opinions, and not the sentiment of a significant number of notable commentators/organizations. NickCT (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And what of the sources (including Warmbier's family) that pointed the finger at the tour company that took Warmbier to NK?[15][16] Should that be mentioned? Muzilon (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Without having seen the content in question, my feeling is that the Warmbier family's comments & opinions are probably much more important/notable that Larry Wilmore's or some random UD professor. I think this opinion is reflected in the fact that the family's comments seem to get more press coverage than most other commentators. So, I guess my feeling would be "yes". Comments or opinions from the Warmbier family about the incident could generally be included if they are verifiable. NickCT (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Let's be frank. According to the source, a couple of idiots said: "a 'clueless white male' who 'got what he deserved'". This is a ridiculous claim. It also can be regarded as racism, sexism, whatever. I do not see any reason why this nonsense should be included on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• @My very best wishes: - For realz. Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, anti-rationalism, apologism. NickCT (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources like that are RS, but they tell something not about Otto Warmbier, but about the "accusers" and therefore belongs to their WP pages. Speaking seriously, Otto Warmbier simply was not properly informed, he did not know how risky that was to go to North Korea and what that country is, exactly. Same with many other guys who visited dangerous countries (like Russia) and disappeared or something happened, but they just happened to be less famous than OW, and few people know about them. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your source for your suggestion that Warmbier was not "properly informed"? See Time magazine.[17]

Americans who have traveled to North Korea with Koryo or Young Pioneer vouch for the ability of both companies to prepare clients for the occupational hazards of entering the world’s most totalitarian state. Before the tourists depart for Pyongyang, they are briefed for several hours on rules and etiquette... Robert Kelly, a political scientist at Busan National University, says... "[Tour guides] tell you not to be an idiot, not to criticize the system—they’re very explicit about what you’re getting into... People know what North Korea is." This is why North Korea watchers have tended to be somewhat unsympathetic about Warmbier, or at least about his arrest. To them, it’s not an act of injustice; it's justice according to a deeply peculiar set of rules. “I genuinely think he did it,” Kelly says. “People go to North Korea and think they’re on a regular tour. They go off and do stupid stuff; they drink too much and get in trouble."

Muzilon (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be under wrong impression that OW actually tried to take the poster. Based on the details of the case, he probably he did not. They just wanted to arrest an American citizen for whatever reason. Based on the description in sources, he was picked up simply as the last person who passed through security at the airport. Yes, sure, he was told about North Korea by instructors who wanted him to go there. But it does not mean he actually understood or knew anything at all about it. One should live as a citizen of a totalitarian country to have an idea. And I doubt that OW even read the books by NK defectors. But it does not mean he "deserved it" or one should blame OW. Actually, one must blame "Young pioneers" [18] who brought him to the North Korea. They knew. That "company" is either a front organization of North Korean "secret services" or at least is a very friendly relations with them. Did he knew that? My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not impossible that Warmbier was framed by the NK government, and the article is full of words like "allegedly" and "purportedly" which leave open that possibility. Having said that, several notable commentators like Michael Kirby (who called Warmbier "foolish"),[19] Robert Kelly, and Bill Richardson,[20] seemed to accept that Warmbier did take down the banner. In any event, this RfC is not about his guilt or innocence, but about how the article should discuss public reactions to the case. It is correct that some commentators did blame the tour company, and this may well be worth a mention in the article. However, I'm not aware of any reliable sources suggesting that Young Pioneer Tours – whose staff appear to be mostly citizens of UK Commonwealth countries – are a "front" for the NK secret service. In fact the critiques portray the British manager as a bumbler who has gotten into drunken altercations with NK authorities during tours. Muzilon (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Young pioneers "travel agency". They continue offering trips like that right now. Who do you think they are in the country like that? My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

YPT is one of several Western-run travel agencies that offer tours of NK. Another is Koryo Tours. Are you suggesting all these agencies are controlled by the NK State Security Department, or just YPT? Muzilon (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that. I asked what do you think. Now, back to WP business, the source you cited (How we should remember Otto Warmbier) actually tells the following, to answer the question in its title:

A young American’s fate becomes a metaphor, a kind of symbol, of a big story about thousands of nameless statistics locked up and oppressed in North Korea. They are voiceless. But Otto Warmbier speaks of their suffering from his grave. He reminds the world of the human rights wrongs in North Korea. He joins the voices of the many witnesses who gave testimony to the UN commission.

. OK. That can be included to the page. But this is NOT criticism of Otto Warmbier. The publication is not criticism of Otto Warmbier. You cited a single word "foolish". My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to be both critical and sympathetic at the same time. Kirby, Kelly, and Richardson all basically said "Yes, we believe he was guilty of taking down the banner, but his punishment was too harsh." I mentioned them mainly as a response to your specific suggestion that Warmbier was "probably" framed by NK. Muzilon (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not about being "critical or sympathetic". It is about what was the actual significance of the case or the person - according to RS. The citation above answers this question. that source (suggested by you at the beginning of the thread) does not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we digress. The RfC asked "Should the biography include discussion of the range of public reactions in the USA to the subject's detainment in North Korea and subsequent death?" and referred specifically to the "blame" debate. (Obama? Kim Jong Un personally? North Korea in general? Young Pioneer Tours? Warmbier himself? Were they all culpable to varying degrees?) Pedantically speaking, Michael Kirby (judge), who is Australian, not American, falls outside the criteria of "public reactions in the USA", but that's a minor point. Muzilon (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a major digression. The question is: should we include a range of reactions? The alternative seems to be: no, we should only include reactions supportive of Warmbier. Am I right?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The controversial HuffPost piece on Warmbier referred to the case of American citizen Michael Fay being sentenced to corporal punishment in Singapore. At the risk of being accused of WP:OSE, Fay's WP biography also has a "Public Reaction" section which mentions that many Americans were unsupportive of Fay. Muzilon (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what's the point here. I completely agree that the opinion piece in HuffPost is controversial and should not be used on this page. Same with this source (on the top of the thread) because it tells nothing about the significance of OW. Other sources are good and exactly on the subject, like another one suggested by you, a publication by Michael Kirby (judge). It does not matter what country he was from. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If there were any public opinion surveys about OW in the US, that should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, these opinions should be discussed. They received a lot of media attention. We do not censor opinions on the grounds that they are "ridiculous" or don't represent the left. The "Aftermath" section includes reactions from the US government and the Warmbier family, and nothing else. That is not a wide range of opinions. I don't think a coherent objection to including a range of opinions has been given.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) Seems like a no-brainer. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure what suppose to be an outcome here. This page includes already public reactions in the USA (by the president etc. in Aftermath section), and no one objected that they should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have tweaked the RfC to clarify its purpose: the article currently includes only reactions from a very few sources: President Trump, Warmbier's parents, and North Korea. (And a quote from Michael Kirby has just been added.) The point of this RfC is to seek a consensus over whether a wider range of reactions and opinions should be included, particularly those unsupportive of Warmbier, because there has been edit-warring over the latter point. On a related note, we can also discuss whether the article should include criticism or "blaming" of other parties. For instance, some sources (including North Korea,[21] Warmbier's parents, and President Trump among others) blamed the Obama administration for supposed "inaction."[22] Others blamed the tour company that took Warmbier to NK.[23] I hope that clarifies the point of the RfC. Muzilon (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

ADDENDA - here is a very rough draft of a paragraph that could be included: Other public reactions were varied. Some criticized the Obama administration for alleged inaction; some criticized Young Pioneer Tours for its alleged drinking culture and for understating the risks of travelling to North Korea, particularly for American citizens. Following Warmbier's death, YPT amended its website to emphasize North Korea's strict lese majeste laws. Some criticized Warmbier for travelling to North Korea against the official travel advisory issued by the U.S. State Department. Some suggested Warmbier had been framed by the North Korean regime for taking down the propaganda banner, while other commentators accepted he had taken down the banner and criticized him for violating the law as an American visiting a hostile country. Muzilon (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should include this. I don't think the people arguing against it are serious.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, hopefully we can get some feedback on that draft paragraph. So far this RfC hasn't attracted a great deal of attention from other editors. Muzilon (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. You can just go ahead and include it right now. But this should be included to the "Aftermath" section or as a separate "Public reactions" section, not to section "Death". My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the brainstorming paragraph could be polished. (Kind of ironic that North Korea and Trump both agreed that Obama was to blame.) Yes, it's probably a good idea to have a separate subheading called "Public Reactions." Come to think of it, I seem to recall the article formerly included reactions from John McCain, Marco Rubio (who both said NK "murdered" Warmbier), Nikki Haley, and Rex Tillerson.[24]. I'm not sure why those were removed. Muzilon (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

[25] - yes, sure, that looks just fine to me as a separate "Public reactions" section. Welcome to include. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have added a "Public Reactions" section. Further discussion is welcome, of course. Muzilon (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this comment is going to be useful, but surely the blame for his death falls squarely on the North Korean police. Blaming anyone else, from Obama to the victim himself, means treating NK as a unchangeable force of nature, rather than a human government who can be blamed for its actions. The above discussion where the debate is whether OW knew about what North Korea is and what it can do in the same terms that we talk about people who die after trying to befriend bears is telling of how pervasive this angle is.

Giving too much weight to reactions that shift the blame to political opponents or whatever just gives these people more credence and legitimizes their political point-scoring. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Whether we like it or not, President Trump, Warmbier's parents, and N. Korea (among others) all accused the Obama administration of "inaction," and Obama spokespeople had to issue rebuttals, which basically said "N. Korea did the wrong thing here, but let's remember that Mr Warmbier did go to N. Korea against the official advice of the U.S. government, and we worked hard to try and bring him back." This was widely reported on in reliable sources – as was the debate over Warmbier's actions, and whether he was framed by N. Korea or not. I have attempted to give a concise summary of these controversies in the Public Reactions section without dwelling too much on them. Muzilon (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't exclude or include public reactions based on whether we agree with them. We don't actually know how Warmbier died. The coroner found no evidence of ill-treatment.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Notice to closer: this Rfc suffers from a particular kind of moving-target WP:RELTIME problem that may make your work difficult (and for that reason, I recommend a very experienced closer, or an admin). The question in the Rfc statement at the top refers to a wider discussion... of public reactions, and the problem word here, is "wider". Wider than what? Well, presumably wider than what it was when the Rfc was opened. But that was on March 13 (rev. 886912873), when the Public reactions section looked like this—which is to say, no public reactions section. But as of this edit on 24 March, 5.7kb were added to the article in a new Public reactions section, which has grown incrementally since. How voters before and after may be interpreting the Rfc question is the sticking point. (Comment to Rfc opener: please don't change the text of the opening at this point, because it would likely make a difficult close impossible.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I had amended the wording of the RfC because the few editors who bothered to respond seemed to misunderstand my intentions (e.g. the irrelevant comments about who is a "left-wing" or "right-wing" commentator). I somewhat boldly added the "Public Reactions" section after reaching what appeared to be a tentative consensus. I'm happy to let an uninvolved editor or admin close the RfC. Muzilon (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

$2 million for dead body

[26]. So, as one of cited experts tells, "First of all, it signals that American citizens are cash cows. If you can kidnap a US citizen, torture them and keep them alive, that could result in an I-owe-you from the US government that really exposes Americans to more risk abroad"... Something should be included about it I think. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they could deduct the $2 million from the $500 million that N. Korea now owes the Warmbier family after the federal court judgement... Muzilon (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Strict lèse-majesté laws

North Korea does not have "lèse-majesté laws". Young Pioneer Tours have said that's what the laws "amount" to. However, I don't think anyone else has said that, and stealing is not lèse-majesté.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I've made that sentence into an exact quote. But effectively, Warmbier drunkenly tampering with a poster bearing the name of Dear Leader was not all that different from the Swiss national who was sentenced to 10 years for drunkenly vandalising a picture of the Thai king. Admittedly, the Thai king did pardon the latter guy much quicker than the Norks pardoned Warmbier. Muzilon (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see a similarity. I was certainly told not to muck with any propaganda when I went there. I just think using the term lèse-majesté encourages readers to take that literally. I'm not even sure there is a law as such; it's just that they take it seriously.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A recent article in the Cornell International Law Journal makes a similar remark: "North Korean citizens must revere portraits, images, and representations of their leaders' visage and moniker in the manner of lese-majeste laws."[27] Muzilon (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

He did NOT do anything with this poster. That's the thing. That was fabricated. And even if that was not fabricated, it does not change anything. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In this section we are simply discussing how the article should describe YPT's response to Warmbier's death. As with the above section about the 5th/2nd floor of the hotel, this is a relatively minor detail and has nothing to do with whether Warmbier was guilty or innocent. (And as I mentioned during the RfC, while some commentators have suggested that Warmbier was "set up" by N. Korea, several experts on N. Korea believe he did take down the poster. The article presents both viewpoints, which is perfectly in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, in my opinion.) Muzilon (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Heightened tensions

From "Trial and conviction":

Bill Richardson and some news media have suggested that the harsh sentence was in response to heightened tensions between North Korea and the U.S. On March 16, 2016, the BBC reported: "North Korea has ramped up its hostile rhetoric in recent weeks, after the UN imposed some of its toughest ever sanctions. The sanctions were a response to North Korea's conducting its fourth nuclear test and launching a satellite into space, which was seen as a covert test of banned missile technology. Pyongyang has also been angered by the U.S. and South Korea's carrying out their annual military drills, which this year involve some 315,000 personnel."

I can't see that Bill Richardson says that in the source cited. (Perhaps I am missing something.) The BBC says, "The BBC's Stephen Evans in South Korea says the 15-year sentence is high compared to those given to foreigners in the past. This could be due to the particularly high tensions at the moment between North Korea and the US, he says". It appears that Stephen Evans (journalist) was stationed in Seoul for about 3 years. He's hardly an expert. And the phrase used is "could be". And one journalist is not "some news media". The following quote from the BBC is really irrelevant. It is commentary about what had happened recently, but it doesn't make a connection with Warmbier. The annual military drills clearly were not something new. I think this should be deleted unless there's something more substantial.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Young Pioneer Tours

On the subject of quoting YPT accurately, the article says "Fred Warmbier said that the China-based tour operator, Young Pioneer Tours, appealed to young Westerners with slogans such as, 'This is the trip your parents don't want you to take!', and advertised the trip as safe for U.S. citizens." This doesn't appear to be a precise quote either from Fred Warmbier or YPT. YPT's slogan is "destinations your mother would rather you stay away from." And the two citations given don't actually say that Fred Warmbier quoted (or paraphrased) YPT's slogan as 'This is the trip your parents don't want you to take!'. So, maybe this needs to be fixed too. Muzilon (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Muzilon (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wonder if we should be quoting Fred extensively here. I don't think Otto spoke to Fred about his decision to go to North Korea. I don't think we don't know if Otto saw these advertisement, let alone was drawn in by them. I think we should concentrate on what we know, not the angry comments of a grieving father.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It would appear Otto did discuss his N. Korea travel plans with his parents. Cindy Warmbier said in a TV interview that "He asked our permission to go with the tour group." GQ said his parents "weren't thrilled" about the trip, but figured "Why would you say no to a kid like this?" And when YPT came under fire after Otto's arrest, many journalists also quoted their provocative slogan about "destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from" and the fact that YPT had said being an U.S. citizen was "not a problem."[28] So, I think these facts are worth a mention, whether they are attributed to Fred Warmbier or a journalist reporting the same information. Muzilon (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That is odd, though I knew I was risking contradiction. Fred's position is rather contradictory, as he says that Otto was lured to North Korea, implicitly in rebellion against his parents, and then he and Cindy say they gave permission. I think the fact that the parents gave permission should be included in the circumstances. Quoting the slogan implies that Otto went in rebellion against his parents — though of course he was 21 or close to it. I don't think we should be misleading just because many journalists are. Overall, if something is a fact, it should be recorded as a fact, not attributed to Fred or anyone else. I think Fred's opinion of Young Pioneers is pretty irrelevant. In the sources used, he calls them Chinese, which shows out of touch he is. There seems more to this issue. It depends on how deeply we explore. But, as I said before, we should concentrate on what we know. If we don't know what drew Otto to North Korea, then less is more.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've raised the timeframe/chronology question in the past, but that was before the publication of the GQ article, which appears to imply Otto booked his N. Korea tour before leaving the USA, and with the tentative blessing of his parents. This would seem to contradict the current wording of the WP article, which implies that Otto only decided to visit N. Korea as a last-minute idea after arriving in China. I suppose, strictly speaking, the article doesn't need to mention YPT's slogan at all. However, it does link in somewhat with the subsequent mention under 'Public Reactions' of criticism of YPT and its attitude – which did not just come from Fred Warmbier.[29] And yes, YPT might be better described as "China-based" rather than "Chinese", but that's a minor point. Muzilon (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the current wording is plain wrong and not based on the sources that it cites. It says: "Warmbier's father Fred stated that his son, en route to Hong Kong to complete a study abroad program, was traveling in China at the end of 2015 when he saw a company offering trips to North Korea. He decided to book a tour because he was adventurous, according to his father." The Telegraph says: "Otto was in North Korea on a tour organised by Young Pioneer tours – a Chinese company promoting trips to the rogue state. He was en route to Hong Kong, where he was due to complete a study abroad programme as part of his course at the University of Virginia". The CNN transcript also cited in for that paragraph says: "So, Otto's a young, thrill-seeking, great kid who was going to be in that part of the world for a college experience and said, hey, I've heard some friends who have done this. I would like to do this, so we agreed to let him do that". Unfortunately, this page has had the wrong information for years. (Back in 2017, I made the comment that Young Pioneers allows last minute bookings. However, this is a matter of weeks ahead. Otto would still need to get a North Korean visa, and I don't think that would be possible in a few days.) With regard to Fred's description of Young Pioneers, I don't think that's a minor point. In the transcript he says: "The North Koreans lure Americans to travel to North Korea via tour groups run out of China who advertise slick ads on the Internet proclaiming no American ever gets detained off of our tours and this is a safe place to go". This is a xenophobic conspiracy theory.The question why Otto went to North Korea is a notable one. It seems clear that it was planned before he left the US. Fred suggests both that Otto saw Young Pioneers ads and also that he had friends that had been to North Korea. Otto could only have seen the ads if he was looking for them.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten that section. Let's hear what the multitude thinks. Muzilon (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view, definitely an improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact, in his press conference he mentioned contacting YPT and Koryo Tours in "August 2015",[30] which was well before he left the USA. Whatever the more dubious aspects of his "confession", that date may well be correct. Muzilon (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to make it up. I don't know where Wikipedia got the idea he booked the tour after he left.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a better link to the press conference footage? The press conference link which was helpfully provided by Muzilon contains a prominent "video editor trial" watermark throughout, and the footage is sped up. Where is the original video footage of the press conference with Otto's confession? A5 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@A5: Somewhat ironically (in view of complaints about censorship in N. Korea), the YT channel which hosted the original video (Stimmekoreas) was recently shut down by YouTube. I just found other copies here and here though. Muzilon (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox: "Charge: attempted theft"

Yes, he was initially arrested for supposedly trying to steal a poster, but he actually ended up being convicted of subversion under Article 60 of N. Korea's Criminal Code[31][32]. Perhaps the infobox (and article) should make this clear? Muzilon (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have both in the infobox. However, as discussed before, I think it should be "theft", not "attempted theft". See [33]. There clearly was asportation.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the article. For the time being I have tweaked the infobox to "subversion (through attempted theft)" as I have no idea whether N. Korean law distinguishes between asportation/burglary/theft/attempted theft (or whatever), and it appears the actual criminal charge was subversion rather than theft. As a sidenote, this didn't get much media attention, but there were also a few curious reports that Warmbier also got into trouble because when N. Korean authorities searched his belongings, they discovered he'd wrapped his shoes in a newspaper bearing a photo of Kim Jong Un.[34][35] Muzilon (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

When I went to North Korea we were told to be careful of pictures of the leaders. We were told about a tourist who had spilt a drink on a newspaper containing a picture of Kim Jong Un, screwed it up, and put it in the bin. She had to write a letter of apology. However, this story comes from an anti-North Korean activist and only surfaced a year later. I would be very sceptical about that because of the source. With regard to taking down the poster, that would not be called "attempted theft" in the USA. Whose language are we reflecting here?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Attempted theft" is (I hope) WP:PLAINENGLISH and MOS:COMMONALITY, since his "attempt" clearly did not succeed. (The story about wrapping his shoes in Kim Jong Un newspaper probably doesn't need to be included in the article per WP:EXCESSDETAIL.) Muzilon (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but what plain English definition are you relying on? The reason why the English common law emphasised asportation or carrying away is that it's the only way to distinguish theft from attempted theft. No one who is caught "succeeds" so no one could be charged with theft. If Warmbier had been caught with the poster under his jacket, or with it hidden in his hotel room, or in his luggage when he flew out, he would not have "succeeded", hence by your definition this would be "attempted theft". The only way it would be "theft", by your definition, he would have had to leave North Korea with the poster, which would mean that he would never have been charged with anything. Hence, it's not possible for a tourist to steal anything in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Various reliable sources (American, British, and Canadian) used the phrase "attempted theft" with regard to Warmbier's case.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] (This was presumably because of the alleged abandonment that occurred during the "attempt".) MOS:COMMONALITY says "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." Does English Common Law apply in N. Korea? I do not know. At any rate, Wikipedia says the N. Korean legal system is derived from Japanese colonial law, with Soviet influences. Muzilon (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, North Korea's English language press has not called it an "attempted theft". The crime is "subversion" or "hostile acts". No, North Korea does not use the English common law. But this is the English language Wikipedia, and we are trying to use "plain English". In no English-speaking country would what Warmbier did be legally described as "attempted theft". I think sources are evenly divided between using the word "attempted" or not. For example, these do not:[43][44][45][46][47]. The problem is "attempted theft" is not a commonly understood phrase. As I said, there is no way of knowing when "attempt" ends (unless you use the English common law definition of carrying away, or some other definition). What if he abandoned the poster in his room? Would that still be an attempt? What if he dumped it at the airport? Etc. "Abandonment" is not really relevant in the legal sense as he apparently left the poster behind because it was too heavy. First, we say it's only an allegation; then, we say that the allegation was only "attempt theft". Where does it end?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You wrote, In no English-speaking country would what Warmbier did be legally described as "attempted theft". The fact remains that several reliable sources in different Anglophone countries have used that exact phrase. It may be that they are using layperson's terms rather than legalese in explaining what led up to the subversion charge, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise what has been said in reliable sources. Yes, perhaps if Warmbier had smuggled the poster up to his hotel room or been caught with the item in his suitcase (rather than just dumping the item on the floor right underneath where it was hanging), then Anglophone news sources might have been more inclined to drop the "attempted" bit. Looking through the news sources you mentioned:

• BBC News says Warmbier was "accused of attempting to steal a propaganda sign". Isn't this just a synonym for "attempted theft"?
• MarketWatch says he was "convicted of theft of a propaganda poster". This is not strictly accurate if he was actually convicted of subversion.
• The Daily Mail is not considered a WP:RELIABLE source per this RfC. Muzilon (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The BBC article actually says both. But anyway... It would be good to say "propaganda poster" as that explains why it was seen as subversion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've tweaked the infobox to say "Subversion (through attempted theft of a propaganda poster)". Muzilon (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification about the case: "BBC News says Warmbier was "accused of attempting to steal a propaganda sign" & MarketWatch says he was "convicted of theft of a propaganda poster". It's much easier to understand the previous case. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)