Talk:Hostage diplomacy

North Korea

 * North Korea has made wide use of hostage diplomacy as a tool against the USA, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia and various European nations. Those held hostage are often tourists or exchange students who are either charged with minor offenses or espionage.

The sources given don't support this. There have been very few tourists or exchange students detained in North Korea. The Malaysians were aid workers and diplomats, and they weren't detained. The concept of "hostage diplomacy" is purely speculative, and there are no examples of detainees being used as bargaining chips.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources do in fact support that... As for "there are no examples of detainees being used as bargaining chips” besides for the examples given in the two sources you already mentioned theres the feature piece in GQ you appear to have missed as well as the NBC article you are ignoring. There is nothing speculative about North Korea’s practice of hostage diplomacy or the concept in general, per the Diplomat piece "All these incidents show that the Pyongyang regime is highly skillful at hostage diplomacy." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't ignore other articles. I looked at the footnotes provided. That is the point of footnotes. I see no evidence to support the claim that, "Those held hostage are often tourists or exchange students". List of foreign nationals detained in North Korea doesn't support that claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we cant use List of foreign nationals detained in North Korea as a source but I note that if we did almost every single person mentioned on that page was either a student or a tourist when they were detained... If the Diplomat and SCMP (really AFP but published by SCMP) articles aren't enough for you I can move some of the sources around. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Malaysians were absolutely used as bargaining chips, the North Korean official news agency literally admitted they were prohibited from leaving the country until North Korea received a favourable outcome for its own citizens. If that isn’t being used as a bargaining chip then I don’t know what is?82.34.69.170 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The term being used is "hostage", not bargaining chip. The Malaysians were not detained.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * i was referring to your earlier assertion where you specifically said there were “no examples of detainees being used as bargaining chips”, and the Malaysian’s were temporarily prohibited from leaving North Korea, effectively detaining them within the country.82.34.69.170 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, they were not detained because they were able to do everything they'd been doing previously.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they were now no longer able to leave North Korea and return to their own country (which is a direct contravention of the Vienna convention) in a deliberate attempt to coerce a favourable outcome from the Malaysian government. Trying to say that this isn’t an example of hostage diplomacy because they were not literally held inside a prison cell is just semantics.2A00:23C8:2688:A401:91:847B:7006:D352 (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
It can be argued that USA is itself engaged in hostage diplomacy by instigating Meng Wanzhou's arrest in furtherance of it's conflict with China and Huawei. "But given the broader alarm over Huawei, it risks being interpreted as the use of American power to pursue political and economic ends rather than straightforward law enforcement." Source: FT Op-Ed

--Kiibaati (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It is somewhat arbitrary to decide what constitutes as a case of hostage diplomacy unless the hostage taking nation as explicitly admitted that the person taken hostage is innocent, or there is clear evidence that the person taken hostage did not commit a crime and was detained for diplomatic reasons. So I think the wording for the examples should be chosen more carefully.

One of the sources (Ong, Lynette. "China Is Shooting Itself in the Foot Over Huawei". foreignpolicy.com. Foreign Policy. ) is an opinion piece, and another source concerns remarks by Trudeau, who is obviously a party in the topic, as it concerns Canadian citizens. As such, 'widely believed' is not correct based on those sources.

I also notice that the only the opinion piece above mentions the two Canadians explicity, whereas the other source simply notes "Following Huawei exectuive, Meng Wanzhou’s arrest in December, at least 13 Canadians have been detained in China, with most of them deported." .

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Nothing arbitrary about it, if a WP:RS describes something as “Hostage Diplomacy” it goes here. Also you might have noticed that Hostage Diplomacy is not attributed to Trudeau but to an academic “The case appears to reinforce the message … China views the holding of human hostages as an acceptable way to conduct diplomacy,” Clarke wrote before the retrial on Monday.” Clarke being a subject matter expert. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not a neutral or accurate article.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What aspect of the article is inaccurate? 82.34.69.170 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Horse Eye Jack. Provide a source for every person you added here, or else I would remove everyone without a reliable source. And the consensus is that The Telegraph is "biased or opinionated for politics" not just "British politics". Consider replacing it with a more reliable source like Reuters of AP. I bet they don't use this tone. Pahlevun (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you actually questioning whether its appropriate to say Iran uses hostage diplomacy in Wikipedia’s voice? The Iran hostage crisis is probably the most famous incident of hostage diplomacy in modern history. You are mischaracterizing the consensus, don’t do it again. Consensus is that The Telegraph is generally reliable, the second part is explicitly *not* consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am actually questioning original research to include every foreigner arrested in Iran tagged as a hostage without a reliable source that exactly mentions that certain person. Write your articles with reliable sources and no one would object that, and remember that you don't own them. Provide a source for everyone, and a better source to write that in Wikipedia tone. Pahlevun (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph piece names all those people, does it not? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See for yourself, there are names here not mentioned by your source. A simple google search shows that merely all of the sources that say such are either op-ed or use quotes; no source other than the one cited in the article was found to use this decisive tone. Reliable sources tend to use words such as "hostage" with cautious. The Telegraph is opinionated on this matter, and I ask for better and more sources. Pahlevun (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which names are mentioned on the wikipedia page but not in the article? I also ask for better and more sources (such should be perennial), but we already have a WP:RS so we have as much as we need to include it on the page. A source can be biased or opinionated but still be reliable, I also note that there is no consensus that The Telegraph "is opinionated” let alone "opinionated on this matter." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That burden lies with yourself, though it seems that you are not interested. I am not reverting you just to avoid an edit war. I did not say that The Telegraph cannot be used, I am asking for more/better sources for further verification, because I did not find another; and it seems this it is not a trend among reliable sources to categorize these people into this category. This is an exceptional claim which requires multiple high-quality sources. That calls the alarm for in-text attribution. Pahlevun (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell all the people sourced to the Telegraph article are mentioned in it. Do you disagree? This isn’t an extraordinary claim according to the definition you linked. I’ve already put another WP:RS into the section to support the larger assertion that Iran engages in hostage diplomacy. What more do you need? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We need neutrality. Hostage diplomacy is like gaslighting, Russophobia, and the deep state. Sources differ as to whether particular incidents should be classed under these rubrics.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality in this context means including *all* incidents referred to as hostage diplomacy by WP:RS. We don’t pass judgement on issues like this, we leave it up to WP:RS. If another WP:RS says that an incident *isn’t* hostage diplomacy and another does then obviously we need to note both viewpoints, I haven't seen any cases like that though. Have you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fallacy. Most sources do not use the term horse-arse diplomacy. It is not likely that a reputable source would bother denying an incident was hostage diplomacy if the claim was not common. We should acknowledge that different sources have different interpretations of the same incident. Some might say hostage diplomacy. Others opine the Panama syndrome. Still others say the Nova Scotia shuffle. Some say the Playfair gambit. Suffice it say there is no consensus among sources as to why these incidents happened. Perhaps they happened by happenstance. This article is POV-pushing. It is saying that hostage diplomacy happens around the world in multiple occasions. Most sources do not say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:CIVIL, no need to be profane. I’m not aware of the Nova Scotia shuffle or the Playfair gambit, Panama syndrome does appear to be a thing but I’m not sure how it applies to diplomacy. Can you please define all these terms you’ve used? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Horse Eye Jack, Definition of those terms are irrelevant to our discussion here. What Jack Upland said is fair enough. Take somebody who is charged with espionage, it is a fact that country X convicts that person as a spy. It is also a fact that country Y alleges that person is being held hostage. But writing the latter in Wikipedia tone when it is not a widely-used term or in scholarly context; is equal to giving credibility to a pretty subjective concept. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist: US arrests Masoud Soleimani, Iran calls him a hostage. Unless it is not subject to what I wrote, one reliable source, say The Telegraph, is not enough to write that in Wikipedia tone, because you have only one source for an exceptional claim. The Telegraph tagges Zaghari-Ratcliffe as a hostage, Iran denies it, UK denies it, but you still want it like a fact in the article, because you have one source for an exceptional claim. Pahlevun (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither the British foreign ministry nor the Iranian one are WP:RS, The Telegraph (“UK denies it") does not themselves say what you’ve said was said there. Mehr News Agency isn't a reliable source either. Its not an exceptional claim, its well within Iran’s historic pattern of behavior (as demonstrated in many many WP:RS both media and academic). That Iran was engaging in extraterrestrial diplomacy with Pluto would be an exceptional claim. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I say Mehr News is reliable or what? Did you get my point? I asked you to provide "many many WP:RS both media and academic" for your claim, you did not. Please do. Pahlevun (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Go on JSTOR and type in “Iran Hostage Diplomacy” and do some reading, we already have a WP:RS and thats enough for our purposes here. If you want to start a separate discussion on whether Iran engages in hostage diplomacy *at all* you may do so (I note that such a claim is also sourced to The Times in the body), but don’t hijack this section. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't go to JSTOR or anywhere else, the responsibility for providing references is for you because you want it added, and I'm waiting for you to show academic sources. Pahlevun (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its sourced to a WP:RS which is green on the perennial sources page, the burden is on you to challenge it. Perhaps you should make a post on the reliable sources noticeboard if you really believe they aren’t reliable? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for your "many many WP:RS both media and academic". I said one single source is not enough. Pahlevun (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, I know what you said... But what you have to say is just your opinion and it clashes with policies and guidelines related to sourcing. Please make a post at Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you wish to challenge the source or wish to make the case for more sources being needed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are omitting to stand by your own words about "many many WP:RS both media and academic". For your information,While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted. So far, three users have argued against your liberal usage of Wikipedia tone to write this article, and believe there is POV here. I agree with Jack Upland about the fact that most sources do not use this language, due to the above-mentioned reasons, and it is evident the material you added is being challenged by more users than you. Since WP:ONUS is a policy, I am still waiting for you to provide more quality sources that you claim are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read The Times piece yet? Again the appropriate forum for this discussion is Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see substantial POV issues with this article. The idea behind "hostage diplomacy" can be traced back to the Eastern Zhou period in ancient China, in which vassal states would exchange hostages for diplomatic purposes. Such a hostage was known as "質子", who was usually a prince of the ruling house. Normchou  💬 23:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Historical Sources
This article takes about the "ancient world" and proceeds only to talk about ancient China and briefly about ancient Rome, skipping over ancient Greece entirely where there's a very complete system happening as one of the most famous hostage prince is Philip II of Macedon (this is mentioned in Philip II's article) which indicate the system is concurrent with Zhou. Furthermore, the article is very incomplete regarding the later practice across the world, including the Russian Empire (the catonists) and arguably also the fate of Pocahontas. 174.62.110.117 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)