This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Robert Jenkins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
60 minutes interviewed him. From this volatile and thus useless link I found out that...
"They also assigned him a Korean Êwoman, with whom he was supposed to have sexÊ twice a month. "The leaders almost tell her when to do it, and I got in a big fight one time over it," recalls Jenkins.ÊÊ "I told [the leader], 'It's none of his business if I want sleep with her. She wants to sleep -- we sleep.' 'No -- two times a month'" He says he was severely punished for talking back. "That's the worst beating I ever got -- over that," he tells Pelley, showing a scar where he says his teeth came through his lower lip."
Also:
"When Jenkins finally stepped outside the North Korean culture after 40 years, he was most surprised to see women in the Army, limits on where you could smoke and black policemen. He had never heard of 60 MINUTES and thought Life magazine would be the place where he would tell his story."
Maybe somebody can figure out how to link to that; hopefully Google will cover it soon enough. It was titled:
U.S. ARMY DESERTER DESCRIBES 40 YEARS IN NORTH KOREA HELL
Thu Oct 20 2005 14:43:07 ET
This may do:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/20/60minutes/main959455.shtml
AlbertCahalan 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
He's only 65, yet he looks 20-25 years older.
Contrast that with Jesse Jackson, born 1941, who looks like he's still in his 40s!
So why does Charles' face look much older than he is? -- Shultz 13:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Dresnok, according to the article, was a fellow American captive. How is it that he was responsible for post-production dubbing of the propaganda film, Nameless Heroes? Needs clarity edit. Sugarbat ( talk) 04:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Jenkins is described as having a "thick North Carolina accent" (discussing his teaching English to N Koreans). Changed this to read "thick Southern US accent". This is more accurate (there is no N.Carolina accent; NC has various accents by region) and corresponds more directly to the highlighted link of Southern US English... Engr105th ( talk) 20:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"This interfered with the government's goal of teaching spies English so that they could pass as South Korean, and when the North Koreans realized this, he was fired from that job.[citation needed]". This is a very controversial and provocative claim, especially with citation. It should be removed or else strongly emphasised that it purely represents what Jenkins himself said. Bonzostar ( talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Robert Jenkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the "People from Sado, Niigata" Category really appropriate here? He wasn't born or raised there, and only lived there for the last few years of his life.-- Muzilon ( talk) 09:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The file Charles Robert Jenkins.png on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The article states that Jenkins displays the North Carolina Service Ribbon. While he may have earned it, he does not wear it in the photo accompanying the article. Additionally, he could not wear it, as National Guard awards can not be worn by a Soldier in the Regular Army - which Jenkins was a member of. (IAW Army Regulation 670-1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.113.113 ( talk) 07:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It's disputed whether Jenkins played "Dr Larson" in this film. Other sources say the actor was Charles Borromel, a British actor who bears a slight resemblance to Jenkins. Muzilon ( talk) 20:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Jenkins told his story in a 2006 documentary called Crossing the Line, possibly suggesting that the Ten Zan claim is supported there as well, but I don't have access to that documentary film to check. With several sources confirming one over the other, we could argue that to be the likely interpretation with due weight; right now, we don't, and so we present both. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
you can preview it through Google Books; I cannot, which is why I assumed good faith on the parts of those who presumably have. Okay, if the documentary isn't sanguine to this discussion, I'll relegate obtaining a copy. Fortunately, both sources in the article are sufficiently-reliable, cited, and explained in the article for readers (pending further and equal/better sources). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Charles Robert Jenkins and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Since the stronger source and the film itself do not credit Jenkins, I support moving the content to a footnote. It's probably best to use in-text attribute for all the claims. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
It's probably best to use in-text attribute for all the claims.
By which you mean, specifically calling out
Romano Kristoff,
Johannes Schönherr, and
North Korean Cinema: A History in the body of the prose, as it is now? Except if you're advocating removing references to Ten Zan from the body, isn't this moot? Also, if you're recommending hiding the Kristoff claim, wouldn't it be simpler and largely no change to the reader to simply remove it entirely? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Romano Kristoff recalled working with Jenkins on another North Korean film, Ten Zan: The Ultimate Mission (1998), though Jenkins does not appear in the credits, and film historian Johannes Schönherr credits the role to another actor.
I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed
you'd replaced the unreliable content. You also didn't address any of the points I made, so I'll try and elaborate upon them. The "according to one source" would appear to be giving undue weight (see
the neutral POV policy) to a self-published fansite where, again, the interviewee obviously doesn't remember the subject being discussed. Also, just because somebody vandalized the
Ten Zan page
doesn't mean this article should be under similar sway. (I also don't understand why the Vice citation was (a) removed once, or (b) not entirely removed from the page, if
inappropriate.) —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
16:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I think Jenkins' Vice interview is permissible hereI did, too? If I put it back, you're okay with that? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, but this isn't an article about John Nada or Romano Kristoff. Secondly, we have at least three far-superior sources (Schönherr, Ten Zan, and The Reluctant Communist) that do not mention or flatly contradict any involvment by Jenkins. Thirdly, none of this addresses Nanarland's patent overall lack of reliability and the issues of leading-questions & imprecision in the specific.We agree that one wet-noodle source—where the interviewee never even positively identifies about whom he's talking—doesn't hold a candle to the multiple other rock-solid sources. In that context, the Nanarland source is making exceptional claims, and to include them is lending undue weight. Right? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
My position remains that an endnote on both the Jenkins and Ten Zan articles is the best way to address the question. (And if we don't address it, I can foresee it will persistently crop up again on both articles in future.) I will ping User:Firefangledfeathers again. Otherwise, you're welcome to refer the matter to WP:DRN. Muzilon ( talk) 21:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
On 10 January 2023 at 08:07 UTC,
IACOBVS (
talk ·
contribs)
replaced the sourced prose of He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for 39.51 years
with He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for over 39 years
. Why is it beneficial to be accurate but less specific, when we have a source to cite for the latter, too? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
13:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
For 39 years, six months and four days(39.51 years); if you preferred a different manner of expressing the same information, why not copy the YMD data from the source and use it instead? Instead, you went for less specificity, and I just don't understand why. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
For 39 years, six months and four days, he was trapped in a bizarre Stalinist state — hungry, suffering, told by the government how to live, what to read, and even when to have sex. Never before has an American lived among the secretive North Koreans so long and escaped to tell the tale.We don't use such a tone in our encyclopedia, nor do we use phrasing which would be natural in speech ("thirty-nine and a half a years"), nor do we treat a period of someone's life as a measurement (unlike "completed in 39.51 seconds"). Instead, and especially in a brief summary such as a Wikipedia:LEAD, "over 39 years" and "nearly 40 years" are both good English and both communicate quite enough to the reader without tripping them up. NebY ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
If I may add to my initial question, while asking it again,
"On 10 January 2023 at 08:07 UTC,
IACOBVS (
talk ·
contribs)
replaced the sourced prose of He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for 39.51 years
with He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for over 39 years
. [Disregarding the common yet abnormal and unacceptable practice of decimaled spans of time for biographies,] why is it beneficial to be accurate but less specific, when we have a source to cite for the latter, too?" —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing this specific article.Yes? That's why I'm here? I don't understand why you're directing me to try and establish some sort of site-wide consensus, when I'm only asking why its desirous or necessary to have less specificity than available …here. Why is non-specificity the superior standard for readers of Charles Robert Jenkins? I would think, however its expressed, the specific amount of time somebody lived under the thumb of North Korea is salient to an article largely given to the subject; however I must be wildly off base, and I'm trying to find out why, hopefully by somebody pointing to a codified consensus therefor. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering why we desire to be imprecise in our articles when we can provide precision instead.I'll keep this article on my watchlist for the time being, in case you choose to be specific and state what text you are now proposing. NebY ( talk) 14:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A new source and accompanying prose was added by
Flowerkiller1692 (
talk ·
contribs), to which
I made some tweaks.
Being undone once, I want to explain those edits yet again. Firstly, NBC reported that it was Jenkins' intention to stay for one week (The family will spend around a week in the United States.
), not that he had done so; to say he did so
original research. Secondly, regarding the word usage of "returned" versus "visited": the former can suggest or imply an intention to stay, or that the US should be considered his home—neither of which is true, while the latter only communicates temporary travel with plans to return from whence he came [Japan], which is true. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Robert Jenkins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
60 minutes interviewed him. From this volatile and thus useless link I found out that...
"They also assigned him a Korean Êwoman, with whom he was supposed to have sexÊ twice a month. "The leaders almost tell her when to do it, and I got in a big fight one time over it," recalls Jenkins.ÊÊ "I told [the leader], 'It's none of his business if I want sleep with her. She wants to sleep -- we sleep.' 'No -- two times a month'" He says he was severely punished for talking back. "That's the worst beating I ever got -- over that," he tells Pelley, showing a scar where he says his teeth came through his lower lip."
Also:
"When Jenkins finally stepped outside the North Korean culture after 40 years, he was most surprised to see women in the Army, limits on where you could smoke and black policemen. He had never heard of 60 MINUTES and thought Life magazine would be the place where he would tell his story."
Maybe somebody can figure out how to link to that; hopefully Google will cover it soon enough. It was titled:
U.S. ARMY DESERTER DESCRIBES 40 YEARS IN NORTH KOREA HELL
Thu Oct 20 2005 14:43:07 ET
This may do:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/20/60minutes/main959455.shtml
AlbertCahalan 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
He's only 65, yet he looks 20-25 years older.
Contrast that with Jesse Jackson, born 1941, who looks like he's still in his 40s!
So why does Charles' face look much older than he is? -- Shultz 13:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Dresnok, according to the article, was a fellow American captive. How is it that he was responsible for post-production dubbing of the propaganda film, Nameless Heroes? Needs clarity edit. Sugarbat ( talk) 04:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Jenkins is described as having a "thick North Carolina accent" (discussing his teaching English to N Koreans). Changed this to read "thick Southern US accent". This is more accurate (there is no N.Carolina accent; NC has various accents by region) and corresponds more directly to the highlighted link of Southern US English... Engr105th ( talk) 20:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"This interfered with the government's goal of teaching spies English so that they could pass as South Korean, and when the North Koreans realized this, he was fired from that job.[citation needed]". This is a very controversial and provocative claim, especially with citation. It should be removed or else strongly emphasised that it purely represents what Jenkins himself said. Bonzostar ( talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Robert Jenkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the "People from Sado, Niigata" Category really appropriate here? He wasn't born or raised there, and only lived there for the last few years of his life.-- Muzilon ( talk) 09:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The file Charles Robert Jenkins.png on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The article states that Jenkins displays the North Carolina Service Ribbon. While he may have earned it, he does not wear it in the photo accompanying the article. Additionally, he could not wear it, as National Guard awards can not be worn by a Soldier in the Regular Army - which Jenkins was a member of. (IAW Army Regulation 670-1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.113.113 ( talk) 07:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It's disputed whether Jenkins played "Dr Larson" in this film. Other sources say the actor was Charles Borromel, a British actor who bears a slight resemblance to Jenkins. Muzilon ( talk) 20:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Jenkins told his story in a 2006 documentary called Crossing the Line, possibly suggesting that the Ten Zan claim is supported there as well, but I don't have access to that documentary film to check. With several sources confirming one over the other, we could argue that to be the likely interpretation with due weight; right now, we don't, and so we present both. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
you can preview it through Google Books; I cannot, which is why I assumed good faith on the parts of those who presumably have. Okay, if the documentary isn't sanguine to this discussion, I'll relegate obtaining a copy. Fortunately, both sources in the article are sufficiently-reliable, cited, and explained in the article for readers (pending further and equal/better sources). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Charles Robert Jenkins and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Since the stronger source and the film itself do not credit Jenkins, I support moving the content to a footnote. It's probably best to use in-text attribute for all the claims. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
It's probably best to use in-text attribute for all the claims.
By which you mean, specifically calling out
Romano Kristoff,
Johannes Schönherr, and
North Korean Cinema: A History in the body of the prose, as it is now? Except if you're advocating removing references to Ten Zan from the body, isn't this moot? Also, if you're recommending hiding the Kristoff claim, wouldn't it be simpler and largely no change to the reader to simply remove it entirely? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Romano Kristoff recalled working with Jenkins on another North Korean film, Ten Zan: The Ultimate Mission (1998), though Jenkins does not appear in the credits, and film historian Johannes Schönherr credits the role to another actor.
I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed
you'd replaced the unreliable content. You also didn't address any of the points I made, so I'll try and elaborate upon them. The "according to one source" would appear to be giving undue weight (see
the neutral POV policy) to a self-published fansite where, again, the interviewee obviously doesn't remember the subject being discussed. Also, just because somebody vandalized the
Ten Zan page
doesn't mean this article should be under similar sway. (I also don't understand why the Vice citation was (a) removed once, or (b) not entirely removed from the page, if
inappropriate.) —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
16:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I think Jenkins' Vice interview is permissible hereI did, too? If I put it back, you're okay with that? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, but this isn't an article about John Nada or Romano Kristoff. Secondly, we have at least three far-superior sources (Schönherr, Ten Zan, and The Reluctant Communist) that do not mention or flatly contradict any involvment by Jenkins. Thirdly, none of this addresses Nanarland's patent overall lack of reliability and the issues of leading-questions & imprecision in the specific.We agree that one wet-noodle source—where the interviewee never even positively identifies about whom he's talking—doesn't hold a candle to the multiple other rock-solid sources. In that context, the Nanarland source is making exceptional claims, and to include them is lending undue weight. Right? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
My position remains that an endnote on both the Jenkins and Ten Zan articles is the best way to address the question. (And if we don't address it, I can foresee it will persistently crop up again on both articles in future.) I will ping User:Firefangledfeathers again. Otherwise, you're welcome to refer the matter to WP:DRN. Muzilon ( talk) 21:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
On 10 January 2023 at 08:07 UTC,
IACOBVS (
talk ·
contribs)
replaced the sourced prose of He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for 39.51 years
with He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for over 39 years
. Why is it beneficial to be accurate but less specific, when we have a source to cite for the latter, too? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
13:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
For 39 years, six months and four days(39.51 years); if you preferred a different manner of expressing the same information, why not copy the YMD data from the source and use it instead? Instead, you went for less specificity, and I just don't understand why. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
For 39 years, six months and four days, he was trapped in a bizarre Stalinist state — hungry, suffering, told by the government how to live, what to read, and even when to have sex. Never before has an American lived among the secretive North Koreans so long and escaped to tell the tale.We don't use such a tone in our encyclopedia, nor do we use phrasing which would be natural in speech ("thirty-nine and a half a years"), nor do we treat a period of someone's life as a measurement (unlike "completed in 39.51 seconds"). Instead, and especially in a brief summary such as a Wikipedia:LEAD, "over 39 years" and "nearly 40 years" are both good English and both communicate quite enough to the reader without tripping them up. NebY ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
If I may add to my initial question, while asking it again,
"On 10 January 2023 at 08:07 UTC,
IACOBVS (
talk ·
contribs)
replaced the sourced prose of He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for 39.51 years
with He was instead held prisoner in North Korea for over 39 years
. [Disregarding the common yet abnormal and unacceptable practice of decimaled spans of time for biographies,] why is it beneficial to be accurate but less specific, when we have a source to cite for the latter, too?" —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing this specific article.Yes? That's why I'm here? I don't understand why you're directing me to try and establish some sort of site-wide consensus, when I'm only asking why its desirous or necessary to have less specificity than available …here. Why is non-specificity the superior standard for readers of Charles Robert Jenkins? I would think, however its expressed, the specific amount of time somebody lived under the thumb of North Korea is salient to an article largely given to the subject; however I must be wildly off base, and I'm trying to find out why, hopefully by somebody pointing to a codified consensus therefor. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering why we desire to be imprecise in our articles when we can provide precision instead.I'll keep this article on my watchlist for the time being, in case you choose to be specific and state what text you are now proposing. NebY ( talk) 14:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A new source and accompanying prose was added by
Flowerkiller1692 (
talk ·
contribs), to which
I made some tweaks.
Being undone once, I want to explain those edits yet again. Firstly, NBC reported that it was Jenkins' intention to stay for one week (The family will spend around a week in the United States.
), not that he had done so; to say he did so
original research. Secondly, regarding the word usage of "returned" versus "visited": the former can suggest or imply an intention to stay, or that the US should be considered his home—neither of which is true, while the latter only communicates temporary travel with plans to return from whence he came [Japan], which is true. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)