Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Tumen, Jilin

Mediation Case: 2006-07-11 Tumen, Jilin
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: CES 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Tumen, Jilin


 * Who's involved?
 * User:CES
 * User:Krnc


 * What's going on?
 * There is debate as to the relevance of a passage about the influx of North Korean refugees/illegal immigrants into the Chinese border town of Tumen. Dialogue through the article or user talk pages has been unsuccessful.  Personal attacks have been made on user talk page.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * A third party view would be greatly appreciated to help decide whether this information is relevant to Wikipedia.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No, contact via WP talk pages works for me.

Mediator response
Hi, I am the BrownHornet and I have taken this case. Let's keep the discussion on this mediation page. I have a few ground rules: BrownHornet21 00:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Refrain from engaging in personal attacks;
 * Always assume everyone is acting in good faith;
 * No personal attacks are allowed;
 * Keep an open mind and a willingness to compromise to a reasonable solution;
 * Comments by any and all are welcome;
 * Did I mention that no personal attacks are allowed?;
 * Don't make assumptions about the person(s) on the other side of the coin, such as "I like your proposal, but the other side will reject it"; too often this starts going down the path to the Dark Side; and you may be surprised by what is an acceptable solution to the other side; and
 * I reserve the right to strike out personal attacks and any other general nastiness.

My initial response will be an attempt to sum up the case, as well as to invite the response of all participants to the mediation.

1. There is a dispute as to whether the following passage belongs on the Tumen, Jilin page:

Due to this proximity, many refugees escaping North Korea pass through Tumen. Tumen is also the location of a large detention center for captured illegal aliens awaiting deportation to North Korea.

2. CES' position:  "The Japanese wiki article has the same information and I can dig up other resources if there is doubt as to its factual accuracy. The North Korean and Chinese governments might wish to ignore the refugee issue but it is a serious issue that Wikipedia should not censor itself about."

3. Krnc's position:
 * (a)"Whether these North Koreans should be called refugee or illegal immigrants is a controversy";
 * (b) "If you search Tumen with Google or Yahoo, you find nothing about North Korean refugees"; and
 * (c) The article is about Tumen city, not about North Koreans. Unnecessary info shouldn't be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krnc (talk • contribs)
 * (d) This is an English Wiki not a Japanese one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krnc (talk • contribs)

So the issues, as I see it, are: 1. Whether the information meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines; and 2. If so, whether it is controversial to call these North Koreans leaving North Korea "refugees" or "illegal aliens." Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? BrownHornet21 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My initial thoughts, as a third party to this dispute:

1. Assuming it's true, I think the information about the fact that many Koreans pass through the city and that the city has a large detention center are notable. I would like to see something about this from a verifiable source, though.

2. I don't understand what's the controversy about calling these North Koreans "refugees" or "illegal immigrants" and invite an explanation from Krnc. Maybe I'm being, I dunno, near-sighted about this, but "illegal immigration" seems to describe these person's legal status in China - "immigration of people across national borders —in violation of the immigration laws of the country of destination." Likewise, "refugee" seems to fit -- "a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution"  Both seem to describe these North Koreans leaving North Korea and going into China. Or is there more to it than that? BrownHornet21 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
Here is the Mediator's Proposal:

1. I propose keeping CES' edit on the page. For the reasons stated on this page, the information meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and verifiability guidelines.

2. But, if there is an issue about calling the North Koreans "refugees" or "illegal immigrants," then perhaps we should discuss whether there is an acceptable alternative, such as. ..

"Due to this proximity, many refugees North Koreans escaping North Korea their country pass through Tumen. Tumen is also the location of a large detention center for captured illegal aliens North Koreans awaiting deportation to North Korea ."

If you agree with Proposal No. 1 and/or Proposal No. 2, please sign your name below and indicate whether you're in favor of no. 1, no. 2, or either.

1. Number 1 sounds good to me, no surprise I suppose. I don't really care either way about Number 2, to me at least the refugee/illegal immigrant phrasing is more a question of perspective than neutrality. Maybe Krnc can shed some light on this subject? CES 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2.

If you disagree with both proposals below, please sign your name below and state the reasons you disagree with the proposals.

1.

2.

Thanks and I look forward to your responses. BrownHornet21 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Due to a lack of response from Krnc, I will go ahead and close this mediation out. I presume Krnc is conceding the point (or has given up on Wikipedia altogether); but if further reverts/deletions occur by Krnc in the near future then perhaps you may want to take the dispute resolution one more step up the food chain. BrownHornet21 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion


Thanks for taking up the case, BH. When I added those lines I really had no idea it would start this type of edit conflict. To me at least, the issue seems notable ... North Korea's human rights issues receives considerable attention in the press, and the refugee situation drives much of China's geopolitical stance toward trying to maintain stability in NK. Being a border town, Tumen is right in the middle of this situation. I have seen mention of Tumen in connection to the refugee issue specifically in several newspaper articles in well known papers, and this fact is mentioned in the Japanese version of the Tumen page as well. Here are some articles I've found just from a quick Google search of "Tumen China":


 * [] New York Times
 * [] New York Times
 * [] Washington Post
 * [] Sydney Morning Herald
 * [] San Francisco Chronicle

All of the above cited info are outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krnc (talk • contribs)

User Krnc (and a couple other users who I suspect are sock puppets) began deleting the lines I inserted about the refugee situation without comment and when I asked this user to explain his actions he left an insulting if somewhat cryptic message on my talk page ("You japanese bitch. it is none of your biz.") Messages left on the Tumen talk page were deleted as well. The situation devolved into a cycle of delete-and-revert so I hoped a third party or parties could help settle the issue. CES 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the citations. I think it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore should stay in the article. Typing "tumen korean refugee" into Google turns up 24,200 hits for me.  Maybe the issue is, as Krnc said in one post,  calling them "refugees" or "illegal immigrants."  Maybe one or the other carries a negative connotation.  Hopefully we'll hear from Krnc soon and see if we can clarify and resolve the issue. BrownHornet21 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional comments, Krnc. Two new points made:

(c) "The article is about Tumen city, not about North Koreans. Unnecessary info shouldn't be added."

(d) "This is an English Wiki not a Japanese one."

My thoughts:

On (c), I typed "Tumen China" into Google, and the five highest rated links are the ones cited by CES:

1. China moves to curb crime by North Koreans; Impoverished soldiers blamed for rash of killings, robberies

2. China Ferrets Out North Korean Refugees

3. Korea Famine Sends Human Flow Into China

4. N. Koreans Fleeing Hard Lives Discover New Misery in China

5. N Korea edges open its China border as hungry months loom

The sixth link is the first to not address the issue of North Koreans coming across the border and into Tumen:

6. Tumen, Jilin China Forecast Center

Before I took this mediation, I knew relatively nothing about this part of the world. But considering that the top links all address this issue, I think this issue is a notable current event in Tumen (all links above dated from 2000 to 2005), and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Regarding (d), I'm confused. Why would this information be notable and relevant on Japanese Wikipedia but not English Wikipedia? BrownHornet21 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments echo BH's. The articles are all from the past 5 years ... I doubt much has changed between 2005 and now, but if there has been a change, documentation/citations would be appreciated.  Also, what does Japan have to do with anything?  I mentioned Japanese sources only as additional support ... if I knew Korean I'd look for Korean sources as well.  And again, these articles all link this specific city of Tumen with the refugee/immigrant issue.  In summary, I fail to see what grounds are used for calling this information "unnecessary" or "outdated". CES 02:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Krnc has not commented, so I have made the changes to Tumen suggested in this mediation. CES 23:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Krnc has not been on Wikipedia since mid-July. I'll keep the mediation open for a couple more weeks; if nothing else happens between now and then I will go ahead and close the mediation. BrownHornet21 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing - Resolved(?)
Due to a lack of response from Krnc, I will go ahead and close this mediation out. I presume Krnc is conceding the point (or has given up on Wikipedia altogether); but if further reverts/deletions occur by Krnc in the near future then perhaps you may want to take the dispute resolution one more step up the food chain. BrownHornet21 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time and your help. CES 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)