Talk:Charles Robert Jenkins

missing stuff
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)

Charles' aged face
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)
 * lol! Living a very hardlife in a thirdworld nation for nearly 40 years would wear you down to. Jesse Jackson's, as much as he is to be admired, can't exactly claim the same circumstances. Shadowrun 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Life in North Korea isn't easy. Clean water isn't easy to come by, food is scarce that and his heavy drinking all will age any one.FLJuJitsu 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, clean water is abundant in North Korea. There is very little industrial pollution because there is very little industry. I have stood on the banks of the Taedong River in the heart of Pyongyang and looked at stones on the bottom of the river. Water is extremely clean! I suggest Jenkins looked so haggard when he first departed North Korea due to years of smoking and drinking. He confessed that in the year immediately prior to departing for Indonesia he spent most of the time drunk on the floor of his quarters. Don’t blame the water -- clean water might be the only thing in North Korea easy to come by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear water is not the same thing as clean water. As Jenkins explained in his book, the river water was often contaminated with human waste, making it undrinkable. In any case, I don't think his appearance has anything to do with the water. Jenkins seems to be haggard because of a combination of biology and hard living&mdash;smoking and drinking in the large quantities he admits to will do that to you. Joe Dresnok, in Crossing the Line, says that when he first met Jenkins, from afar he thought he was an old man, because he looked so wrinkled. But Jenkins was 24 years old! So Jenkins likely had a tendency to wrinkle, anyway. What gets me is how old his wife looks. Japanese people are envied for so often looking younger than their age. They DID have hard living, and that very likely contributed to their aged appearances, and took a toll on their health. Abshier died at age 40 of a heart attack and Parrish died at age 52 after years of kidney problems. Dresnok has major heart and liver problems, as explained in Crossing the Line. The producer said in an interview that he didn't think he'd live much longer (but he's still alive, and now in his mid-60s). And when Jenkins went to Indonesia, the Japanese doctors were very worried about his health due to "botched" prostate surgery. Jenkins definitely looks better in the videos of him from Japan.QuizzicalBee (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How was Dresnok involved in the movie?
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)
 * I saw the documentary about Dresnok; I don't know who originally put this nonsense about Dresnok saying that Jenkins' performance in the movie was atrocious, needed dubbing, etc. Dresnok actually praises Jenkins' acting in Nameless heroes, even though he does not like the guy ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenkins' accent
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)

Controversial
"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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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 ).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620145941/http://www.dprkstudies.org:80/2007/05/12/kokuhaku-pictures/ to http://www.dprkstudies.org/2007/05/12/kokuhaku-pictures/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518113614/http://www.dprkstudies.org:80/2007/05/12/kokuhaku-pictures-2/ to http://www.dprkstudies.org/2007/05/12/kokuhaku-pictures-2/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"People from Sado, Niigata" category?
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)
 * Unless there's a contrary codified consensus, I'd say yes: he explicitly chose to live the rest of his life there. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

North Carolina Service Ribbon
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)
 * There's no reason for the article to say that, as it's not mentioned in any of the reliable sources. However, a recent expansion to the article shows he was enlisted in the Army National Guard for some years before enlisting in the active-duty US Army.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Charles Robert Jenkins.jpg

potential sources to mine

 * —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ten Zan: The Ultimate Mission
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)
 * That's the IMDb, which isn't a reliable source on the English Wikipedia. Do you have any other sources that contradict the one in the article?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Schönherr's North Korean Cinema: A History, which credits Charles Borromel (not Jenkins) as "Professor Larson". The entire film is on YouTube; the Larson character first appears at the 8-minute mark; the actor clearly isn't as jug-eared as Jenkins. Borromel's name appears in the opening credits; Jenkins' name does not. The source cited here (Nanarland.com) appears to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHED website about B-movies which features an interview with another Ten Zan actor, Romano Kristoff, who is quoted as saying "From what I can recall, [emphasis added] Charles was a very good actor and a very humble human being." It seems likely that the webmaster of Nanarland and/or Kristoff are confused as to which "Charles" appeared in the film. Muzilon (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the prose to lend equal credence to Kristoff and Schönherr per the neutral point-of-view policy. I've removed the statement that Borromel looked like Jenkins as original research, since the neither Kristoff nor Schönherr say such.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another point to note is that Jenkins in his autobiography only specifies acting in the propaganda film Unsung Heroes, not Ten Zan. It's doubtful the Italian producers of Ten Zan would have cast Jenkins, who was not a professional actor. Muzilon (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could be, and those are reasons to keep an eye out for further reliable sources that may also contradict Kristoff. Right now, though, I'd recommend we maintain the only two reliable sources we have that explicitly contradict each other in the interests of maintaining our neutrality.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But is Nanarland.com reliable? As I said, it appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Muzilon (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything an interviewee says is self-published material, and yet we have a whole template devoted to citing them. As a performer on the same film, and lacking any other reasons to dismiss him out of hand, Romano Kristoff's claims regarding the production of the film are warranted.  They might be wrong, and we're including that, but it's not our place to say he's wrong.  It's equally not our place to say that Johannes Schönherr is correct.  They strike me as equally-but-middlingly reliable when lacking a preponderance of sources either way.As for Nanarland, on the face of it, the website appears to be a reasonably reliable French-language source for films and those involved therewith.  The company does have a blog and forum on their website, which I haven't delved into, but the rest of the site&mdash;film analysis, biographies, interviews, etc.&mdash;looks well above board.  It's also been cited 50 other times on this Wikipedia (not to mention 331 citations at the French Wikipedia).  With which aspects of the site do you take issue?  I'm not a native French speaker, so if you're seeing something there that's concerning, the reliable-sources noticeboard would be the place to evaluate it.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 11:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The weight of evidence from primary and secondary sources is that it's not Jenkins, which is why I originally relegated the Ten Zan sentence to an endnote per WP:UNDUE. Out of curiosity I emailed Nanarland but never got a reply. Tagging User:Kampoui, who may know something about this matter. Muzilon (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliable evidence that's been presented here amounts to two sources: (a) North Korean Cinema: A History by Johannes Schönherr that presumably says Charles Borromel portrayed "Professor Larson", and (b) an interview with Romano Kristoff where that actor remembers working with Jenkins on the film. Nada also says that, 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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, we also have a WP:PRIMARY source: the film's credits, which list Charles Borromel, not Jenkins. Schonherr's book was published by a major publishing house, which probably gives it more gravitas than a fansite; you can preview it through Google Books (so there is no "presumably" about its references to Borromel). Reading the Nanarland interview in context, the interviewer (John Nada) is the one who actually brings up Jenkins' name, and Kristoff seizes on the given name "Charles", whom he obviously remembers little about. Crossing the Line is on YouTube (as is Ten Zan); it doesn't focus on Jenkins but on another US defector (Joe Dresnok). There is no mention of Ten Zan, just the NK propaganda films the two men appeared in. Muzilon (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do the film's credits preclude Jenkins' involvement? Your categorization of Nanarland notwithstanding, the source for Jenkins' involvement is the confirmation thereof by Romano Kristoff, about whom I'm not making any assumptions regarding obviousness.  ; 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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So Jenkins just might have acted as Borromel's uncredited stunt double? Well, I shall request a WP:THIRDOPINION. Muzilon (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is an interesting rationale! Mayhap.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main difference between my proposal and the status quo is the placement of the content in a footnote/endnote, as proposed by Muzilon. A rough mockup of what I'd support would be
 * One issue I didn't anticipate is where best to place the footnote reference mark. Maybe right after "... to sign autographs", as this puts the '88 content just before the '97 and '00? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If two of my betters agree that Kristoff isn't a sufficiently-reliable source to cite his claims in the body of the article, then I'm plainly in the wrong and it should be removed wholesale, not hidden in its own section. I've excised the inappropriate material, and apologize for questioning it in the first place.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this result. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since other editors have also argued this issue in the Ten Zan page, I think it's better if we do address the matter – but in an endnote per WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONFLICTING. Otherwise, the debate will no doubt crop up again in future. I have restored the endnote accordingly. Muzilon (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we move it to a footnote at Ten Zan? Readers there will have more context on both Kristoff and Borromel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The fansite is just a self-published source where Kristoff obviously doesn't remember the subject being discussed, and it's plainly doubtful that Jenkins would have been cast in lieu of a professional actor, especially since he doesn't discuss the production in his own autobiography; why then give any undue weight to unquestionably inaccurate claims?  Why does an edit to a completely different article, that doesn't cite any sources (reliable or not), mean we should include such manifestly inaccurate claim in this one?  (Also, do we need to remove the rest of the prose cited to the Vice source, if it's not suitible for inclusion?)  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a compromise: endnotes on both articles. (Otherwise it can go to WP:DRN.) Muzilon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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 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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To summarize: (1) I support having endnotes about the Jenkins/Ten Zan anecdote on both articles per WP:CONFLICTING; (2) I oppose including this anecdote in the main body of either article as it would give undue weight to a disputed assertion; (3) I was not responsible for adding or editing the Vice reference; (4) per WP:RSP there is "no consensus" whether Vice is reliable or not, but I think Jenkins' Vice interview is permissible here per WP:ABOUTSELF. Muzilon (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (1–2) I support removing the demonstrably plainly-unreliable fansite-cited claim to Ten Zan entirely, given it's the only source for the claim and no other reasonable sources (the autobiography, the film itself, or any others) support it. Why are we giving that source any weight at all?  (3–4)   I did, too?  If I put it back, you're okay with that?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The current version of this article already has one paragraph quoting the Vice interview – I'm not sure what other quotes may have been deleted by other editors. You appear to have withdrawn from your earlier position that the Kristoff interview in Nanarland.com is at least a somewhat reliable source. As I said, I'm happy to mention the Kristoff interview per WP:ABOUTSELF, but per WP:CONFLICTING I do believe it should be relegated to an endnote. Muzilon (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed a citation to Vice in your 21 Jan 2023 edit. It appears Conflicting sources is an essay by, but even then, it only deals with reliable sources&mdash;which doesn't apply to the fansite being discussed.  I'm happy to remove all unreliable sources IAW Verifiability, and don't really understand why you need it kept.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems I may have accidentally deleted the Vice reference while adding the endnote. Sorry about that - I have restored it. As for Nanarland.com, I'm still unclear why you've reversed your stance on its reliability. However, in any case I think we can include it per WP:ABOUTSELF, which says we may quote self-published or questionable sources for unexceptional claims about their own activities. Muzilon (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for assuming inevitable push-back re: the Vice citation. I assumed your removal was intentional and was operating from that position.The policy page at Verifiability says that, 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&mdash;where the interviewee never even positively identifies about whom he's talking&mdash;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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 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)
 * Thanks for the ping. Should be able to respond within 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why, when we're in agreement that the fansite is an obviously-unacceptable source to use, you nonetheless want to use it. In any other article, unacceptable sources are excised IAW Verifiability, Reliable sources, and Neutral point of view.  What is it about this particular site that, even though you agree it's not fit for use, you want to include anyway?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I shall refrain from commenting further until I've heard the WP:THIRDOPINION from Firefangledfeathers. Thanks for your patience, Muzilon (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to remove the Ten Zan content entirely. I think the thing that tips me over the fence is that it's really the interviewer that makes the claim about Jenkins. The only thing Kristoff says about Jenkins is "From what I can recall, Charles was a very good actor and a very humble human being." I don't think WP:CONFLICTING really applies here, since we do not believe that the sources involved are "equally reliable". I don't doubt Muzilon's point on this creating future issues, but at least we'd have this discussion to point future editors toward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to pre-empt such discussions with an endnote, but WP:WHATEVER. Muzilon (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To avoid the undue weight concerns, but to hopefully stymie any Ten Zan additions, I'll add an invisible comment. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 00:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

less specificity?
On 10 January 2023 at 08:07 UTC, replaced the sourced prose of  with. Why is it beneficial to be accurate but less specific, when we have a source to cite for the latter, too? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is non-standard in English to express time as 39.51 years. 39.51 years equals 14,421.15 days. This equals 39 years and 6 months and 0.15 days (3 hours and 36 minutes). I am not sure why anyone would want the specificity of his NK captivity as 39 years, 6 months, 3 hours, and 36 minutes. IACOBVS (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been speaking English for a long time, and expressing time in decimals has been a pretty standard feature in my experience. Does our MOS preclude doing so?  Regardless, though, I'm asking why is it beneficial to be accurate but less specific?  The cited source says  (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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 04:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Over 39 years' is ambiguous, whereas '39.51 years' seems over-precise. I see three reasonable solutions:
 * round to the nearest year: 'nearly 40 years'
 * round to the nearest 0.1 years: '39.5 years'
 * round to the nearest month: '39 years and 6 months'
 * My preference is #2. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, rounding to the tenth is probably good enough. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Expressing a period of time in a person's life in decimal years, and to the nearest 0.01 years at that, is not normal practice in English. The source's phrasing is common practice when wishing to add emphasis and drama, and the tone of that paragraph (and the entire report) is dramatic: 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 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)
 * My admittedly-amateur-yet-extensive experience with "normal practice" in the English language doesn't jive with yours. The lede, as a summary, already matches what you're saying; we're discussing the second paragraph under the header "US Army".  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about other languages, but I don't recall seeing another English Wikipedia biography which uses decimalized timeframes like "he was imprisoned for 39.5 years" (let alone 39.51). Decimalized years are used in articles dealing with statistics, demographics, and science, but not for events in an individual's life. Muzilon (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I haven't done or read any statistical analysis of language use on the English Wikipedia. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that.  I was only referring to my personal experience, which doesn't suggest that decimalized years aren't "normal practice in English."  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 03:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the MOS specifically covers this (yet), but stating Jenkins was "a prisoner for 39.5 years" does sound "unnatural" to me. In my dialect of English, at any rate. Muzilon (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds natural to me, in mine. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've raised this question at WT:MOS. Muzilon (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If I may add to my initial question, while asking it again,

"On 10 January 2023 at 08:07 UTC, replaced the sourced prose of  with .  [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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As NebY commented above, being pedantic about the timeframe in this context would sound over-precise and strike a non-encylopedic tone for the article's WP:LEAD. (Personally, I'd vote for "...nearly 40 years" or just "39 years.) Muzilon (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does precision = pedantry? Why shouldn't we be precise, when we have the specifics?  We've never been discussing the lead?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please can you be specific and state what text you are now proposing? NebY (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't proposing anything. I was wondering why we desire to be imprecise in our articles when we can provide precision instead.  This isn't an SOP I've seen on the English Wikipedia before, and it seems to be a plain disservice to readers.  Is there a policy, guideline, or MOS about which I've remained sadly unaware that prohibits or dissuades precision in such a manner?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing this specific article. The talk page for discussing the MOS on numerical values, including whether or not it's necessary for the MOS to be specific about a specific issue or whether an issue can be settled in discussion there, is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. NebY (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 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)
 * Um, okay? I don't have text I'm proposing, though; that would violate consensus.  I originally included specificity when I incorporated the 60 Minutes source into the article.  Two other edit[or]s,  and  have both obfuscated the specificity offered by the reliable source.  Consensus here is to maintain that imprecision.  I just don't understand why, when I haven't seen this elsewhere.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that you were referring to the mention of "over 39 years" in the lead. If you were referring to the similar mention in the Desertion section, then I see Dondervogel2 has changed that to " years", which I am not going to dispute. Muzilon (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (Nobody's edited the lead in a while; my original comment included a link to IACOBVS's edit of the body, which is what's been under discussion.) That's still far more specific than has been edited over before, though.  Even if you don't plan to reestablish the consensus of imprecision, will not the previous editor[s] and more return to replace the ambiguity if we/I don't understand its necessity?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur as the original editor who changed the text from the oddity of "39.51 years" to "over 39 years." I am fine with "39 1/2 years" IACOBVS (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC).

Jenkins in the US
A new source and accompanying prose was added by, 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, 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&mdash;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  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I said that he "returned to the United States for a week-long visit". Therefore we can get both sides of it. If so we can just say he "returned to the United states for a visit". Would that work? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And obviously he came from the United States; coming back after being gone for so long definitely counts as a "return" Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, linguistically it does apply here, but we want to be careful not to imply 'returning home' or 'returning to stay'. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If wordier, the latter is better for eschewing the week-long claims we can't verify with that source. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the week-long portion then Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)