Talk:Eden (2012 film)

Allegations
Jeffferrell has removed some information on the grounds that they are only allegations. However, Wikipedia has no policy against acknowledging well-sourced allegations. Most articles about sufficiently notable people mention "allegations" (Somaly Mam is highly relevant). In this case, the allegation is supported by three different reputable sources, including Salon. There is no basis to remove it. KateWishing (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article says "In 2009 Kim was convicted of swindling a human trafficking survivor and activist and ordered to pay her $15,000." However this is irrelevant to what happened in relation to the Eden Story. Regarding reputation, the Eden story says Kim tricked her kidnappers, faking her co-operating with them to survive and escape. 66.55.93.235 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Eden (2012 film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810071039/http://sxsw.com/film/awards/2012-winners to http://sxsw.com/film/awards/2012-winners
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622132240/http://pac-arts.org/exhibitions/film-festival/festival-recap/ to http://pac-arts.org/exhibitions/film-festival/festival-recap/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Request
FYI someone should mention that this is based off a true story (http://iamkoream.com/tag/chong-kim/); also I'm rather surprised that Chong Kim doesn't have her own wikipedia page as one of the very few, modern, public cases of an American being sex trafficked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.2.245 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably does not have her own page and its probably not mentioned that its based on a true story because its not. Outside of the movie and interviews with Chong Kim there is absolutely nothing to substantiate any of her claims. If you can find any evidence that any of this actually happened that is not a promotion for a movie, a book or her blog then by all means add it to the article. From my point of view this story is no more based on a true story than the blair witch project.75.83.80.239 (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just watched this film last night and came to this talk page to suggest the same thing. The references in this article do mention the story, perhaps more can be found. Even if it's a hoax, such an article for Chong Kim might pass WP:GNG. I mean, there's an article on the Skunk ape which is clearly a hoax but still notable (note I am not passing judgment on whether her story is true or not, I'm just saying that notability could possibly be established). MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Here’s an article from The Stranger, where even the director backpedals from the film. It seems to me this article has been scrubbed. Arguably the most noteable fact about the movie is that the filmmakers were hoodwinked.

https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/eden-was-a-scary-movie-about-sex-trafficking-based-on-a-true-storyandmdashor-was-it/Content?oid=21234470 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:907F:E1E0:80E1:271:2EF9:BF34 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In September 2018 User:Iamchongkim cut large portions of the article [] and []. This material was well sourced and that user replaced it with unsourced, dubious material. I'm going to restore everything that has been deleted, other than changes to the plot summary or other minor edits. I'm guessing no one has done this before because this is a minor film that no one cares about, but I think its important to have the deleted info in the article because of the harm that opportunistic lies can do to real victims.--66.212.65.6 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article. Please be aware of edits by User:ShammysDad and User:Iamchongkim, but also any other edits that delete large portions of the article. They're just playing games by adding and then immediately deleting unsourced material, probably as a desperate plea for attention. I'm guessing sales are drying up in the snake oil racket. I recommend that future editors calmly ignore such editors, do not engage in conversation and be persistent in keeping this article accurate and well sourced. IMHO, they are unscrupulous con artists and should be ignored as much as possible. And honestly, this is a minor, boring film made by untalented amateurs trying to make a buck, even at the disservice and disrespect of real survivors (me too by the way).--66.212.65.6 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Watch what you say about other editors you know nothing about. It is not your business to make such unsubstantiated and malignant claims. This is not a place for playing games and if anyone was doing so, it would be you with those remarks. Say what you will about the hearsay article you take for fact, but you are not to judge my character or my intentions, as I stick to what I know to be true and what I know can be tested true. I hope we're clear on this, as I do not tolerate mudslinging. ShammysDad (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I know the topic is kind of dead here, but is there really sufficient reason to keep the little paragraph about allegations of her story being false? While four different articles are cited, they're all referencing the same source of the information: Breaking Out Corp. I've dug for more info on this because I was curious about the story, and I can't find any real information on this alleged organization or its founder - an apparent PI named James Barnes.
 * Additionally, the Breaking Out FB page (the only place I found still existing documentation of this organization) hasn't been updated since 2018 and has apparently deleted their original allegations as well as a supposed post that elaborated on the allegations. Like... is this really a sound basis to keep this paragraph in this article? 2600:6C40:1200:4E4:C643:5592:C960:531D (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)