Talk:Nothing to Envy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article is Really Coming Along[edit]

The expansion of this article are coming along great. Thanks to User:DavidBoudreau for the progress. I am creating a couple sections below for discussion and suggestionsRyanx7 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Section[edit]

It would be good to find a couple of sources to support the claim the book won these awards. Ryanx7 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Thank you. I added one for each. I also added sources for the reviews, but I won't be able to get to all of them before class. hm I noticed the qualification page for B class on the quality scale requires there to be no ref tags-- I think it says that, anyway... so much for B class, I guess! I got into that habit weeks ago. DavidBoudreau (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Book Cover[edit]

A stronger fair use justification is probably needed here. I feel like sometimes we push out luck with fairuse and two covers might be pushing it too far. That said if it stays it would be better to remove the highresolution version and upload a smaller one in its place. Ryanx7 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ryanx7. I'd like to keep it for now for a couple of reasons which I think justify having it, but I certainly don't want to violate fairuse. I left a message on User:Ronhjones' talk page asking about the resizing, and he confirmed that a bot will take care of resizing my picture automatically which is helpful. I thought it would be good to have the other publication's cover too, since the two cover designs are so different, and people who would otherwise not necessarily have recognized one publication of the book as being the same book as the other, offhand (or expect to find the book by cover and not know what to look for since one is white and the other black). Also, if someone wants the second ISBN info for either publication, I included that as well near the image. I hope it provides a little more well-rounded information that is representative of the book itself. Oh, also I just remembered, I can't find it right now but but I know I came across at least one higher-quality-scaled Wikipedia article for a book that had info on its multiple publishings and I'm pretty sure some had different cover illustrations as well. Anyway are these good reasons do you think? DavidBoudreau (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

uncited opinion[edit]

I placed an essay tag on the article, to indicate that it contains uncited opinion. For example: "Demick's writing represents a well-researched body of work" " Facts are presented to portray an accurate image" ; "Facts about such contextual conditions are provided and presented in an informative and telling journalistic style. Keen insight is also provided into the personal experiences, attitudes and views about events, This is the way school book reports are written--they are supposed to contain the personal evaluation of the book by the student; it is not the way encyclopedia articles are written; see WP:Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been intentionally moving in that direction- such an academic approach provides the desired grounding of cited sources with supported facts. The line "Demick's writing represents a well-researched body of work" is factual(e.g. Notes at the end of the book starting from p.301), particularly in light of the fact that so few sources about North Korea exist in the first place, making her extensive research noteworthy and appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Demick's journalistic background and professional standards applied to the work over a number of years support this. The characters featured in the book represent a small percentage (about 6% I think?) of the total number of potential candidates interviewed, as one example of the extent to which it was researched. DavidBoudreau (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Source / Corroboration for Dogs and Doctors[edit]

I just came across this speech from Oslo Freedom Forum 2017: (youtube; can't link as youtube is apparently on wikipedia's blacklist) watch?v=kk0p0zcvlnU (skip to 8:28 or kk0p0zcvlnU?t=509 ) Another North Korean refugee (Ji Seong-ho), upon entering China, realized in a similar way as Dr. Kim that dogs in China ate better than people in North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBoudreau (talk • contribs) 08:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and Korean articles for book say it's "partially fictional"[edit]

An English translation of the Korean[1] version of this article says it is "partially fictionalized", which is in contrast to this article, which describes it as "nonfiction". Is this a problem of translation, or is one of the articles incorrect? In Korea, does changing the names of people in the book mean that it should be labeled "partially fictional"? The Chinese article seems to be the same. Sanpitch (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]