Talk:History of South Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea.

Community: Discussion - Notice board
Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal

This article: B quality , high priority. Working group: History.

Korea-related tasks:

Google search turns up this same text at http://www.sigmainstitute.com/koreanonline/history.shtml and http://www.korea.net/issue/sn/snsummit/snsummit_01-42.html . Both are listed as copyrighted; the first one references the second site as the source ("courtesy of...") --Brion

I've removed the text in question for the time being. 211.34.107.148, please see Wikipedia:Copyrights; we can only use material from outside sources if it's public domain or we have explicit permission from the copyright holder to use it and release it under the GFDL license. (If by chance you are the copyright holder, it's considered polite to make a note of that fact so we don't freak out. ;) --Brion 11:09 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

[edit] Figure for Gwangju massacre

Most estimates I have seen regarding the number of civillian deaths during the Gwangju massacre range from 150 to about 250... I haven`t seen any sources claiming thousands of deaths. Please cite a source for these figures. I`m not saying that it is impossible that thousands were killed, but I think you should cite a source, as the majority of pages on the internet cite a figure of around 200. --Ce garcon 07:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is senseless. A reference was provided on Talk:Gwangju showing an investigation that concluded 207 deaths. No credible source giving "thousands" exists. Shorne and Ruy Lopez both know this, they've both read that talk page, and they both know the NPOV policy; they are just trolling at this point and should be treated as vandals. Very Verily 08:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I`ve added references to both statistics. We don@t actually have to embrace one figure; we might as well refer to both statistics, and let readers make up their own mind. --Ce garcon 08:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an article about the history of South Korea, not a debate on every minor point. This issue is out of scope, and since there is no credible source which gives a figure of more than a thousand, the inclusion of it here is unwarranted. The use of "official" is also misleading, as it buries the fact that it was an after-the-fact investigation by the civilian government, not the government which carried it out. Or do you want to include the "contemporary" official figure of 30 to 40? This matter is resolved in Korea, the investigations are over, the bodies are buried, and the number of ID'd dead is 207. Very Verily 09:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, i added mention of the fact that the 207 figure is from a post-dictatorship investigation. --Ce garcon 03:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I refer you again to my point about no credible source, rather than the one point you did consider. And you are reverting dates in conformity with Wikipedia style, and erasing the segway to the later government. Very Verily 03:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez has cited a BBC article which is the source of the 1000~2000 figure. --Ce garcon 03:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He cited a BBC article which refers to this absurd figure. That's not what I'd call a "source". Very Verily 03:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The figure is still in dispute. The BBC is not the only website which mentions this figure. I see no reason not to include other estimates. --Ce garcon 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because this is an article on the history of South Korea, not the Gwangju massacre. If it were the latter listing every Joe's estimate would have it splace, but a broad history article "at least 200" will do, as that is a solid lower bound consistent with the best estimates. Very Verily 06:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added full range of death toll estimates. --Ce garcon 04:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think in this case VerilyVerily`s compromise is actually quite reasonable. --Ce garcon 08:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"A few tens" is not idiomatic English. It should be "a few dozen".

Also, the article should mention that the "full investigation" was by the government. I'll accept Ce garçon's version if this change is made. Shorne 08:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everyone satisfied now? --Ce garcon 08:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am. Shorne 08:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please restore the page. VeryVerily, as usual, is ruining it. Shorne 10:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)