Talk:Kim Sun-il

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Truce/RFC

Can we agree to a "Truce" so that comments can be solicited? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Further_dispute_resolution --Lukobe 17:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Link has been posted on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes

[edit] Misc comments

I believe the "He's dead" ending of the article is unnecessary and a little melodramatic. Please edit this.

Someone's taken care of it. But of course you have the power to do things like this yourself! --Lukobe 22:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No video of this one yet?

Not of the actual beheading. I posted a link to the video played on Al Jazeera. The audio is of an English-speaking newscaster. --Lukobe 18:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The video of beheading is not circulated in South Korea from "ethical reasons". I'm not sure why but it might be better if someone with a deep understanding of the Korean culture to voice his or her opinion. Revth 00:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What difference does it make if these people (or you people) are Korean, Jewish, or Hindu for that matter? These were human beings.. like you and me, that suffered a tragedy that nobody on earth could possibly ever deserve.

You're absolutely right--it makes no difference what kind of people we, or they, are--this was a terrible tragedy. I didn't bring up the ethnicity issue. --Lukobe 23:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think nationality, but not ethnicity matters in this tragedy. It's likely that he was killed for being involved in supporting US troops. Some of groups inside and around Iraq seemed to be shooting everything foreign but it's clear that his fate had been decided after a deep thinking. He spent more than 3 weeks in the captivity and there is an unconfirmed report that he may have been passed on from a less aggressive group to the last group. Revth 00:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Hypocrisy

Koreans broadcasted the earlier beheading of a U.S. civilian Nicholas Berg on a major TV channel. They started censoring because now one of their own got victimized.

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200405/200405130057.html

Under the title, Horrifying Decapitation Scene, MBC's News Desk reported the incident from the very beginning. The tape contained a U.S. civilian named Nicholas Berg, tied with a rope, sitting in front of five men wearing headscarves. The men then read aloud what seemingly sounded like a statement of reason for the execution. Berg was then slain to death immediately afterwards. MBC's News Desk failed to omit graphic details of this execution and one of the five men holding Berg's cut-off head filled the TV screen. KBS's News 9 and SBS's 8 News did not broadcast the latter part of the execution and covered the knife from being seen on screen.

Looks like the above unsigned comment was posted by 203.162.17.78.

Anyway, yes, this is hypocrisy. But what does this have to do with the discussion of this article? --Lukobe 16:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No links to execution pictures, please

As a Korean who have been mourning for Kim's death, I'm really angry to see those ogrish dot com links to execution pictures. I don't see any reasons why we should link to those disturbing pictures. Are there any historic value to those pictures? Or is that picture something so precious that we should preserve dispite its very disturbing nature? Is that what you guys call "freedom of speech" huh? I have removed links from the page. Please don't put those links. Imagine you are one of families or friends of the victim. How would you feel if you see those pictures floating around the internet only to satisfy some perverts?

You obviously didn't read my request not to remove those links without discussion on this talk page first. Please heed my advice and read the talk pages on the Nick Berg and Paul Johnson pages for some background on the issue. And then allow for some consensus to be reached on this talk page. We don't need an edit war. To answer your question, yes, of course there is historic value to those pictures. Just because something is disturbing is no reason at all to hide it.
It may not matter, but if it does, I'm part-Korean too. As an American I didn't object to the same kinds of links at Paul Johnson's page, and as a part-Jewish American I didn't object at Nick Berg. It was thought at those pages that not making these links live and including a warning was a reasonable concession. But removal altogether?
Again, please do allow a consensus to develop before you remove those links again. --Lukobe 22:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The URLs for the discussion pages of the other articles are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Marshall_Johnson%2C_Jr.#Photos and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Berg . My position is that express on the Paul Johnson page:
All due respect, I don't think "No, it's not" constitutes discussion, and certainly doesn't merit action ("Please remove them"). If anyone wants to present arguments that weren't raised during the Berg debate, please do. Otherwise we should default to the compromise position that was reached on that article. An encyclopedia should be consistent. Cribcage 00:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we really need to picture, why can't we find some from newspaper websites. Do we so desperately need the photo that we should link to websites like Ogrish.com? --202.126.109.10 22:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Consistency? No one is forced to go to those pages, and they're not even live, so you can't click on them accidentally.--Lukobe 23:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just observed that the full version of the video is added to the article, in a very consistent way, indeed. When you put up links to the page, you are not only putting up the file (pictures and wmv, in this case) that the link is targeting. When you publish a link to the website like ogrish.com, who publish disturbing execution videos for the exitement of watching it, there clearly is a connotation to the link. Although it might be the same picture as what newspapers have been reporting, it is a lot different from putting up a link to, say, bbc.co.uk. Now people is adding more links to ogrish.com, some of them not reported even by al-Jazeera. What is your response? --Chajath 23:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I didn't add the full version. I added the original links to Ogrish because that is what the Nick Berg and Paul Johnson pages did. Feel free to change the links to point to other sites. --Lukobe 23:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see someone's reverted again. I am not going to get involved in an edit war, so here I leave it. I guess we'll see what ends up happening. --Lukobe 23:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I don't want to sound like a nationalist here. I absolutely agree that this is a tragic event for all of us regardless our ethnicity. However, my opinion is that the circumstances that people live in make them see the news differently, not in terms of the way they see it but in terms of degree of seriouisness that they consider. Although I'm not in Korea right now, I was raised in Korea and I frequently access to Korean internet webpages and listen to Korean broadcasts. After Kim is executed, Korean TVs and Radios talk about the event all day, and people gather in the streets of major cities to pray for Kim. Around 3500 people were gathered in the street of Seoul. It is such a tragic event for us who speak the same language and share the same background to some extend, and who see the parents of Kim crying over the death of their only son. Korean people on the Net are really concerned about spread of the execution film. We are afraid that those film could be used by some perverts who get excited by watching people dead, which is really terrible for all of us who are mourning for this tragic event. So, when I read from the Korean newspaper yesterday that ogrish.com is hunting down the execution film in order to publish, it really made me mad. And I couldn't stand seeing ogrish.com links here in Wikipedia. Lukobe, I understand that you didn't put up orgish.com link with malicious intention, and perhaps I overreacted a bit to you. But I think it was a bit rash of you to add ogrish.com links. I think you should have been a bit more concerned about readers of Wikipedia who were really sorry about the event when you write things on the article. --Chajath 00:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The thing is, perverts will find their way to ogrish anyway. Such people are also probably not Wikipedia users. Most, if not all, people who would visit the links in this article would not be doing it for perverted reasons, but just to see for themselves the horror that these people are responsible for. It's one thing to hear what happened--it's an entirely different thing to see it for yourself. It really brings it home. (This is why I think executions shouldn't be kept behind closed doors in the United States--if people saw it for themselves, they might not so cavalierly call for the prisoners to "burn, baby, burn." But I digress).
My point is really that Wikipedia is an informational site. This is relevant information. Moreover, this is information that appears on the pages of others who have suffered the same fate. I think Wikipedia should be consistent.
I don't think hiding something will make it go away, which is why I was sad to read the stories about Koreans doing cyberattacks on ogrish, to try to bring the site down. What we really need is for none of these executions to happen again.
As for your statement that "the circumstances that people live in make them see the news differently, not in terms of the way they see it but in terms of degree of seriouisness that they consider," I think you are saying that people's nationality makes a difference in the way they see such a horrible act. Maybe some people's do. But good people everywhere should be equally horrified when they hear about this happening to a South Korean as they would be when it happens to an American, or anyone else. More than anything else, I think it may be the cultural reaction to disturbing content like this that sets people apart.

--Lukobe 04:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see another editor adding the disturbing ogrish links to the article. If you really want the links, I propose to discuss in the discussion page. I think there are two different values clashing in this issue. One is cultural relativism, and the other is informational liberalism. As far as I can see, Wikipedia is by and large a form of mass media and should obey the ethics code of mass media. None of major media has published the execution video, not even Al-Jazeera. If you want ogrish links in the article, justify here in this discussion page. --Chajath 17:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't want the links to the murder video on this site, but we need to have them for consistency in the Wikipedia. We have extensive photos of Abu Ghraib, and links to the Nick Berg videos. Either they should all stay or all go. They are all offensive to some people. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe the that hiding/censoring the links would do a greater injustice to Kim Sun-il than if the links were shown. Only after looking at the vidoes do I truly appreciate his sacrifice, and I believe that everyone who watches the videos will feel the same way. Perhaps the people who are removing the links aren't able to look at this matter objectively, and they are impulsively removing the links for personal (dare I say selfish?) reasons. Yes, it may be offensive to some people, but I think that it's the only way to truly capture the story. Moreover, I believe that labelling people who want to watch the videos as "perverts" is naive. I believe that showing the addresses (not actually linking) is perfectly acceptable. -- mbh | Talk 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[[1]] Just for the information, South Korean government is doing its best to stop the spread of video footage. I don't personally believe that a link to the video footage is needed and would not see them even if a link is there. Revth 00:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is no way we should remove the video links. Look at Goatse.cx - we have a link to the Goatse.cx man picture - We shouldn't remove it. We shouldn't bow down to the whims of the South Korean government. WhisperToMe 02:06, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hypocrisy. Koreans broadcasted the earlier beheading of a U.S. civilian Nicholas Berg on a major TV channel. They started censoring because now one of their own got victimized. They've got no right to complain. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200405/200405130057.html : "Under the title, Horrifying Decapitation Scene, MBC's News Desk reported the incident from the very beginning. The tape contained a U.S. civilian named Nicholas Berg, tied with a rope, sitting in front of five men wearing headscarves. The men then read aloud what seemingly sounded like a statement of reason for the execution. Berg was then slain to death immediately afterwards. MBC's News Desk failed to omit graphic details of this execution and one of the five men holding Berg's cut-off head filled the TV screen. KBS's News 9 and SBS's 8 News did not broadcast the latter part of the execution and covered the knife from being seen on screen." 07:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, it's 203.162.17.78 again! Didn't you just post the same thing in one of the sections above? I'll repeat what I said there: Yes, this is hypocrisy, but what does this have to do with the discussion of the article? --Lukobe 17:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

OK, now I see someone else has added the links back, and they've been removed again. I think this makes three cycles, i.e., the beginning of an edit war. And I don't think there are enough comments on this page yet. I am thinking of posting this page to "Request for comments" to get the opinion of other Wikipedians. Otherwise I don't see an end to it.

BTW, Chajath, in reference to your last point, Wikipedia is not a form of mass media, in my opinion. It is an encyclopedia, a reference source. Hence, in my view, informational liberalism wins out. There is no point in having an encyclopedia without informational liberalism, actually. --Lukobe 17:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is not correct for Wikipedia to censor links to such material - we have Abu Ghraib, Goatse.cx, Shock Site, Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, and Paul Johnson. WhisperToMe 02:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Make links to Kim Sun-il photos live or delete them

I understand why someone might object to having links to the photos here - one might question why anyone would want to access them. At the same time, having inactive links on the page seems pointless. Either make them live or get rid of them. This makes Wikipedia less consistent and makes the page look amateurish and unprofessional. --Ce garcon 07:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed over and over on the Nick Berg and Abu Ghraib Prison articles; the hard-reached community consensus was to keep the links because they have some information value but to make them non-clickable so that nobody can accidentally view a potentially disturbing image. This is how these disturbing images have been handled on pretty much every related article - I don't think there is a need to start the whole discussion again. -- Ferkelparade π 09:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was after the threat to kidnap and behead a UK serving soldier was foiled by the UK authorities a year or so ago that i did an internet search to try and understand why they hate us so much. I came across many things about Islam that shocked me, the Kim Sun-il video was one of them. Kim's plea for life and the fact his captors showed no compassion at all, shocked and scarred me. Kim will be prayed for and remembered because of this callous video post and his captors hated and despised. A link like this must never be banned but at the same time should never be stumbled across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.144.219 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

172.202.144.219 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)