Talk:Lee Myung-bak/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

IF SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SOME INTERESTS ABOUT KOREAN POLITICS...

many contents related to politics in KOREAN WIKI (ko.wikipedia.org) is crucially biased.

ALMOST ALL THE CONTENTS IN KOREAN WIKI ABOUT POLITICS OF KOREA SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED.

because the goverment employed administors of Korea and order them to delete or modify all the contents

against policy of Goverment rulled by Dictator President Lee Myung Bak. and administor of KOREAN WIKI (ko.wikipedia.org)

ban all accounts (without any explanation) creating threads that could involve some facts that may be

disadvantageous to goverment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plu98 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

I am rather concerned the page is becoming rather blatantly biased, and even passing off falsehood as facts, and still does not contain a tag about questionable neutrality. The section of Yong San does not mention that the protesters were fortified behind steel sheets, hurling molotovs, resulting in the death of a police officer. The fire was proved in court to be started by their own molotovs and petroleum. Here's a link to a news article on the matter: http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/448251.html Its in Korean, sorry;; 110.76.68.206 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Critisim Section

I am removing the critisim section because it is very biased

Rileyread 13:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also well-sourced. Please do not remove text without giving a reason based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture issues

Is there a reason the current picture of Lee Myung-bak is out of scale?--77.20.240.17 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have a formal(or better) picture of him? --Joseph2625 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "Image:Lee Myung-bak inauguration (1).jpg"
This is a better picture.

61.82.124.147 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind.. Current one looks the best..24.71.249.70 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Canal

There are 2 sections of canal in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.47.112.117 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Non-neutral Section

I am removing the section titled "Public Opinion" due to multiple statements with obvious bias and ad hominem attacks that have no references, evidence, or relevance to the overall article. Information regarding public opinion is certainly a critical topic for an article on an influential politician, but it should contain verifiable, objective information. Fbwls (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Irrelevant Section

I am removing the section titled "Statements on homosexuality" due to lack of relevance to the overall article, domestic politics, and Lee Myung-bak's overall impact and significance, both domestic and international. Although a politician's statements regarding homosexuality and gay/lesbian rights may be significant in some countries, the issue is rarely reported in the domestic press due to the conservative nature of South Korean society, and any expert would agree it is not anything close to a significant factor in S. Korean elections. Thus the section appears to be a mere insertion of an individual's personal agenda regarding the issue. Although it is certainly an important issue in a place such as the US, it does not merit specification of the gay/lesbian rights stance of every individual with a Wikipedia article. Otherwise we would need to specify the stance of EVERY individual's stance of other issues that other individuals consider important, such as global warming, whaling, animal rights, abortion, and whether Pluto is really a planet or not. Obviously this goes well beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article. Fbwls (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove Hyphenations

removing inappropriate hyphenation

there are repeated error of hyphenatic anglicized korean transliterations --Imagemonth (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved back again. The name is hyphenated in many reliable sources (such as the BBC) and is consistent with Korean naming conventions. PC78 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The "hyphenation" of inappropriate Korean nomenclature is a substance of infinite confusion and unreliability. It is punctuation of sentences and names. --Imagemonth (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We have to stick to Korean naming conventions on Wikipedia. Feel free to use whatever punctuation you want on your personal blog or Cyworld or Naver page. 61.82.124.147 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Continued Deletion of) Criticism Section

Lee is a very public figure. Public figures attract criticism. Criticism is an important aspect of the biography of any active public figure. Cf. Criticism of George W. Bush

That said, apparently "Criticism" is too strong a word for some editors. I will therefore create a "Controversies" section. (No, "Criticism" is better.)Trachys (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I intend to use some or all of the following sources. Editors may of course choose to respond with their own sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/world/asia/12canal.html?ref=asia http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JB01Dg01.html https://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=970fac0c1223ec77b17cef60090ade06 http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708210018.html http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/241894.html http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=15854&topicID=43

Trachys (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/05/137_23934.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.130.222.212 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


This section of the article is very biased, and has only two sources, one of which is from the Buddhist Channel, which one might expect to be somewhat biased on the issue...

The general article itself is in need of some stylistic editing as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.5 (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section needed work, but with it gone the article reads like it was written by Lee's press secretary. Replace the section with sources you'd prefer to use, or I'm putting the original back in.Trachys (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lee is indeed a very public figure, and documentation of criticism would be considered by many to be a critical part of an encyclopedic article on such a person. However, I don't think it's fair to assume that those removing the section think "Criticism" is too strong of a word; many of us simply believe it is hopelessly beyond repair and needs to be deleted and replaced with a completely rewritten section. For example, the public opinion section, particularly in its form previous to the most recent changes, smacked of subjective, undocumented, individual opinion; i.e. it sounded like a personal rant from someone who disagreed with his policies. The sentence "It is shameful hypocrisy for a representative of nation to have committed"--included in previous versions--is a prime example. Who would consider this appropriate to an encyclopedia entry? The "public opinion" section is still hopelessly beyond repair and hence will be deleted. For example, "He is known as a 'rat' due to his appearance (which unfortunately has a notable resemblance to the creature)"--this sentence is completely unnecessary and inappropriate for an encyclopedia article due to its conveyance of obvious political bias of the writer, even if it attempts to refer to others' opinions by sticking "he is known as" at the front of the sentence (with absolutely no reference, I might add). So rather than assuming others are deleting the section because they have a political preference, take it as a hint that the tone, content, and writing are substandardFbwls (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to remove the subsection called "Criticism" (until a few minutes ago, "Critism") under the G20 Seoul Meeting Section: it's very poorly written and entirely unreferenced. That being said, I believe a similar subsection would be a good thing, there certainly seems to be real issues, but not like this. Hazlzz (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mayor of Seoul" section

This seems to contain an error:

"The site was a natural stream in pre-industrial times; Lee had been personally responsible for the constructing a highway over the stream, which caused environmental damage."

The highway was built in 1968, three years after Lee had joined Hyundai and 24 years before he entered politics. It's possible, but seems unlikely that he was personally responsible for the highway. Could this be checked out? If it's true, an elaboration might be nice, as in "...in his capacity at Hyundai, he had been personally responsible..."---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy56 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I have added the neutrality message. The reason is that while I don't have a problem with the "criticisms" section, a lot of it is written in a first person-ish form. The tone is dripping with bias plus there are no citations or even "citation needed" signs. I can understand many people feel strongly about this, but I think there can be a compromise where people can still have all the criticisms but they just word it differently so it fits with Wiki's guidelines, just the subsitution of "accused of" instead of "is" would be a big difference. I really don't have the stomach for edit wars so I won't be checking up on this, do what you will but hopefully this will spur some discussion. Jenny Ice Cream (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

→I agree. some issues like U.S. Beef imports and protests against it, and some more other issues are only based on the government's view. Since the views are very diffrent between the protestors and the government, I think the article should contain more of the opposite views. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Shinchinman (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)unsigned]] comment added by 24.166.156.123 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough to simply attach "accused of" to a sentence that appears to have originally been written out of personal bias or political preferences. The writer is merely assigning his like or dislike of Lee Myung-bak, as this case may be, to another person, thus projecting their own bias onto unnamed subjects. Although this is particularly bad when no references are used, it's very easy to find internet references that support any opinion, no matter how extreme it may be. Bottom line--don't edit or write an article about a politician if you really like or really dislike the individual.Fbwls (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional writing

The third paragraph in "Early life and education" seems unprofessional. "By the time he'd left elementary school, he'd done every job possible," is an example. Also, I have not read his book, but if anyone has, shortly stating the various jobs he undertook in one sentence would be appropriate. DnL7up (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

formerly known as

can someone point out how putting his previous name is a BLP violation?

It is relevant, it is notable - at the moment I consider the removal of his previous name to be vandalism, and I shall act accordingly unless someone can explain how it violates BLP.

Melon..and CB please explain your actions. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have contact Caspian Blue twice in regards to this talk page - however he just removes my talk message and complains about something - therefore I will leave this topic here and if there have been no constructive responses, then I will assume as per wikipedia silence that consensus has been reached. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Do not worry, I would raise "broader opinion" from people. Consensus is not accumulated by you. Retract the absurd allegation of vandalism.--Caspian blue 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides, I don't see why I have to explain the reason to you again after the last year discussion. Browse the history of the archived discussion of the talk page. You must explain that where his "Japanese name" used in 3 years are "known as such".--Caspian blue 07:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah CB, I will retract the vandalism comment - when either 1. Hell freezes over. 2. Pigs fly. 3. You retract the vast number of vandalism accusations you have made against me in 1. edit summaries 2. ANI boards. 3. talk pages. [1] That seems fair doesn't it? Oh and feel free to look through your edit history, paying close attention to the summaries and see how many times you have accused me of vandalism [2]
If you are unwilling to do that, then lets stick to the issues with this article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, your above English does not sound "civil". Indeed, you have vandalised the articles and you "merely" reverted articles as you admitted earlier. I wish you stop chasing me. I said do not call me "CB". Well, you know what? Your name, kancho is "ttongchim" in Korean. (find the meaning :)) Since you do not regard my previous ask, the Korean name could be good for me to break the ice whenever taking with you. Think about it. :)--Caspian blue 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah CB, I like that - a bit of informal banter might make interaction between the both of us a bit easier. 똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Okie, Ttongchim.--Caspian blue 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That is better isn't it Mr CeeBee - notice the way in which I tend not to care about such things, that is why wikipedia is easy for me to deal with - I edit, I don't care, if I have any element of stress I close my browser and do something else. Life is much easier when you differentiate between what matters and what does not. It is hard to be antagonistic towards someone who makes you laugh. 똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Mr., why don't keep focus on the main subject. I expect you present very good rationales for where and when his Japanese name which only used in 3 years of his life are previously known" to the public.--Caspian blue 08:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
there are citations in the article, if you care to look for them.똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Caspian blue that wording such as "previously known" and "formerly known" is inappropriate. It is known that he had a Japanese name, supported by citations. However, (publicly) known by that name in the past is a different thing and there are no citations that support this. I propose wording "Lee Myung-bak (/ˈliː ˈmjʊŋˌbæk/ or Korean [i.mjʌŋ.bak̚], born Akihiro Tsukiyama on 19 December 1941-) is ...", which is in line with MOS:BIO . --Kusunose 08:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Kusunose, I changed the article to state "Lee Myung-bak (/ˈliː ˈmjʊŋˌbæk/ or Korean [i.mjʌŋ.bak̚], born Akihiro Tsukiyama on 19 December 1941-) is ..." however Melonbarmonster has reverted it with the summary POV vandalism reverted - it seems quite simple, but when editors are throwing around comments such as the above edit summary with no good reason, this is likely to become annoying. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
So Sennen goroshi, you admit you can not prove your claim at all. I understand that's why you constantly removed my requests on your talk page. Since articles of people with a different name do not use bold text on alternative or born name, I do not see why the birth name briefly used in 3 years should be in bold text. Also, his birth name is not important enough to be mentioned in the lead since it is already mentioned in the next thread.--Caspian blue 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed your messages from my talk for two reasons - 1. as you have demonstrated editors have the right to remove whatever they want from their talk pages. 2. As I stated in my edit summary I did not like your tone. If the issue is something as simple as a name being in bold, then we have no problems, it is hardly a big deal. His birth name should be mentioned in the lead, as it is for every other wikipedia article. Why should this article be the exception? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
My tone is so fine compared to your own offensive tone and gaming. You still fail to provide any single source for your persistent POV pushing; that is very disruptive. You also falsely blamed that my removal of your original research is vandalism. So you're proving your own fault. Give examples to prove your claim: find article of people who used only their another name for 2 or 3 years with bold text. Let's see, we can expect your effort on this.--Caspian blue 09:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian, don't be a dick - you want a source, there was one on the article before I edited it - when people questioned my use of his birth name on the article, I added the source directly after his name - on the subject of bold text, WHO CARES !?!?! have it in bold text, pink text or whatever shade makes you happy. Do not expect me to waste my time trawling through wikipedia searching for some obscure match of bold text and someone who had a name for three years. Stop wasting my time. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sennen, please please don't be a dick. Show example to prove that my claim is "exception". Also it is so regretful to see that you have failed to prove any single source for "formerly known as" and "also known as". You're the one has wasted my one year to deal with you. I wish you behave better next year or just lose your interest here.--Caspian blue 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say this - I CHANGED IT FROM FORMERLY KNOWN AS TO STANDARD WIKIPEDIA FORMAT - IE. NAME born BIRTHNAME plus DATE... That is what I changed it to, and that is what is being reverted. I wish it to have standard wikipedia format, I don't care about formerly known as, neither do I care about someone whining about the use of bold text. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Please kindly refrain from using the caps. Even if you don't care about your edit, I and other people care about your erroneous edits. Hmm.. Wikipedia standard format is not made by you.--Caspian blue 12:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you don't like my use of CAPS, but after trying to explain a couple of simple points to you over and over again, it seemed to me that I might have to do something to make it sink in. We are not here to conduct a trial regarding my previous edits - if you think my actions were unacceptable, then file an ANI report against me, otherwise stop wasting my time. Let me spell it out ONE MORE TIME..I don't really care about the use of bold or not. Neither do I think it is worth wasting time over terms such as "previously known as" or "formerly known as" unless of course you are suggesting that we use one or both of those terms - I don't wish to use them, I have made it pretty obvious which format I wish to use, if you are unwilling to discuss the format that I am currently proposing, then I consider this to be 1. a waste of time 2. closed. Either discuss my current proposal, make a new proposal or leave this article and talk page alone. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: isn't it WP:BLP violation to include the Japanese name of Lee Myung-bak that only used for 3 years in the intro?

I believe Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has kept violating WP:BLP policy as inserting "original research" without any source regarding his Japanese name and its common usage to the article of Lee Myung-bak[3][4][5], the president of South Korea. FYI, the president was born in Japan during the Japanese colonial period and left for Korea with their family at his age of three when Korea was liberated in 1945. Almost every Koreans during the time had Japanese style name and then restored/changed into a Korean traditional style except Zainichi Koreans (permanent Korean residents in Japan). Lee Myeong-bak is neither living in Japan nor a permanent resident carrying with "an alien card". Both in Korea and Japan, he is not called as such except making absurd attacks like "Oh, the Korean president is made by Japan" from anti-Korean sites, etc.

Sennen goroshi inserted this passage like "also known as Akihiro Tsukiyama" and "formerly known as Akihiro Tsukiyama" to the intro of the article. He also falsely accused me of doing vandalism[[6]][7] due to removing the claim without sources. Therefore, broader opinion would be necessary, thanks.--Caspian blue 08:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that stating a well known previously used name is certainly not original research. For many married women or celebrities who are now known by another name, wikipedia states their original name without editors being accused of original research or there being any BLP issues - why would there being any issues with the use of his previous name on this article? The name is stated later on in the article with a citation - however following the standard set by many other articles (including featured articles) the lead should be (current name) born (original name) on (date) I really can not think of a single reason as to why this article should be the exception. 똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
His name as per his birth certificate is included, as on most other wikipedia articles - there is also a supporting citation. 똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As no one has given any reason as why his former name should not be given in the same way as other wikipedia articles, I consider this issue to be over, the former name will be given until such time as someone gives a valid reason as to why it should be excluded. 똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done (note the sarcasm) to the editor who reverted the article without contributing to the current discussion here or on the BLP noticeboard. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there an English-language source for the name? I looked at the source that Sennen goroshi provided before someone reverted and it was in Korean. See WP:NONENG. Graymornings(talk) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Mr Lee's Japanese birth name is included in the intro section on Japanese wikipedia without any controversy. I wonder why its inclusion is so controversial on English wikipedia?--Machengze (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi's block

I saw this RFC, came here and wrote all of the following, then went to Sennen goroshi's Contributions and found out he has been blocked. My immediate reaction is that the blocking administrator has not paid the blindest bit of notice to the fact Caspian had made an RFC based on an erroneous assumptions, that all of Sennen's edits here had been restoring material that belonged in the article, and that Caspian's reversions had been deleting material that belonged in the article, all shown below. Caspian was not blocked.

Opinion on the RFC

Recommendation

  • I suggest that the facts (following "FYI") within the statement "the president was born in Japan during the Japanese colonial period and left for Korea with their family at his age of three when Korea was liberated in 1945. Almost every Koreans during the time had Japanese style name and then restored/changed into a Korean traditional style except Zainichi Koreans (permanent Korean residents in Japan). Lee Myeong-bak is neither living in Japan nor a permanent resident carrying with "an alien card"." be added to the article.
  • A cite for the birth date and place should be found as soon as possible.
  • The birth facts cannot be deleted; they are of primary importance in all WP bios.
  • If either of the birth facts is moved, it should be moved to the Early life... section.
  • I do not recommend that the birth name be moved. I can't quite put my finger on it, but moving the birth name doesn't bother me as much as the place. I think it is because you can change your name easily by deed poll or just calling yourself that, but moving to another country may just be impossible. You're much more stuck with your country than you are your name; it is a more fundamental part of the controversy than the name is. Note that covering up the fact that he is something is just as much a violation of BLP as stating the fact could be.
  • I do not recommend that the birth place be moved. This is distinct from the birth name as above.

Note
Birth date and name are considered even by legal and government institutions, who reference only the most important facts about a person, as being the primary notation of a person's identity

RFC comments by Caspian blue: "reason=I believe any libelous claim without any source should not be included in the lead !! time=08:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}}

I believe {{User|Sennen goroshi}} has kept violating [[WP:BLP]] policy as inserting "original research" without any source regarding his Japanese name and its common usage to the article of [[Lee Myung-bak]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Myung-bak&diff=260041328&oldid=259157454][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Myung-bak&diff=260134657&oldid=260093878][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Myung-bak&diff=260437001&oldid=260422412], the president of [[South Korea]]. FYI, the president was born in Japan during the [[Korea under Japanese rule|Japanese colonial period]] and left for Korea with their family at his age of three when Korea was liberated in 1945. Almost every Koreans during the time had Japanese style name and then restored/changed into a Korean traditional style except [[Zainichi Koreans]] (permanent Korean residents in Japan). Lee Myeong-bak is neither living in Japan nor a permanent resident carrying with "an alien card". Both in Korea and Japan, he is not called as such except making absurd attacks like "Oh, the Korean president is made by Japan" from anti-Korean sites, etc."

Conceded by Anarchangel

  • "reason=I believe any -refuted assertion replaced- without any source(emphasis added) should not be included in the lead !!"

"without any source" :
I have not seen a cite for the birth name nor have I seen one for the birth date nor have I seen one for the birth place. This a matter of urgency. The cites should be found, and used. On the other hand, this does not validate the other assertions made here, nor does it exclude the material completely, as there can be no reasonable assumption of these facts being faked; they are still verifiable, they just aren't currently verified.

Verifiable facts can never be Original Research. Therefore, birth date and place are not Original Research.

Refuted Caspian blue: "reason=I believe any libelous claim..." This is not libel.

It is your perception that these facts can be interpreted in a way that reflects negatively on the president. This is speculation. It is your perception that facts that reflect negatively on the president must be removed. This is not so; verifiable facts are never WP:BLP violations. Only their presentation. Facts in themselves can not be misleading; the presentation of the facts is neutral and placed well in the article.

Section following the RFC: PDS: Including the name and birthdate is misleading because it makes it appear that the subject is Japanese. See above "Facts in themselves can not be misleading...etc"
Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

changed

  • I have put the cited facts regarding his birth name back into the lead.
  • I have not used terms such as "previously known as" or "formerly known as"
  • I have not used bold text (for some strange reason, bold text offended one editor)
  • I have followed wikipedia MOS.
  • I have put a message on the BLP notice board, asking if anyone thought there were BLP issues.

Honestly, if anyone still wants to change it, I would imagine the only reason could be to be disruptive - therefore any changes without good reason will be considered vandalism, and dealt with accordingly.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? I am still convinced that there are no reasons why his birth name should not be used, but I am aware that other editors do not share my opinion. I have seen no convincing arguments to persuade me that my version is not suitable. I do not wish to edit war over this, however neither do I wish to allow what I consider to be a substandard version of the article stand, just to get an easy life. Any suggestions are welcome. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yet again an editor reverts me with a "POV" comment, I am curious as to their reasoning behind such a comment, I will invite them to contribute to this talk page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that after making the last edit, I left a message on the talk page of another editor inviting him to contribute to this talk page, he responded by deleted the message from his talk page, seemingly refusing to enter into any discussion with the edit summary "As long as you have insulted me like "whining" and "screaming", any conversation would be gravely offensive to me" when he reverted me on this article he used the summary "I already said I have perceived your disruptive intention since your original research was pointed out. Bear in mind of 3RR" - these reversions seem to have motivation based on the editors involved, rather than on actual content. Despite of this I am still hoping that everyone involved can discuss this. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Sennen goroshi, you really need to get over yourself. What is your purpose of trying to include that into the lead of this article? And don't tell me anything about wiki "standard". To a non korean user clearly it would appear as though Lee Myung Bak is a Japanese. Perhaps this is your intention. I have seen some of your edits on other Korean related articles and I can understand that you wish to make thing more neutral. You have made some good edits too, but this is getting ridiculous, and quite dissapointing from a personal view. I suggest you refrain yourself from making further edits to this page. Pds0101 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I struck the more unhelpful and borderline WP:PA of the comments.
I have restored the birth name and birthplace.
I will continue to do so, pending, of course, further discussion; there is at the present time a fundamental reason for inclusion and no compelling reason against.
The reverts are clear examples of contentious editing being used ad nauseum to bully a good edit out of the article.
The talk page is a clear example of erroneous arguments being used ad nauseum to bully the other editor into submission. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still unable to see any reason why a place of birth or birth name should be excluded from an article, if people reading the place of birth or birth name are narrow minded enough to make assumptions regarding nationality, then that is their problem and certainly not mine. Wikipedia is not a place where information is given in order to promote a point of view, it is here for facts - the name and place of birth are relevant, notable, cited facts. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeating Sections

Sections detailing criticism of the education policy and the canal are being repeated. Whole paragraphs are being repeated as well. Why would readers want to read two paragraphs that are exactly the same? Someone should rectify this for better reading. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.226.7 (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Questioning the reliability of Robert Koehler's bio on Lee as a reliable source

I'm going to try to verify the reliability of sources for this article. The first questionable source that catches my eye is Robert Koehler's bio on Lee.

While it may offer a lively account of Mr. Lee's life, I don't think that it is something that should be considered reliable source. The publisher isn't well established, it isn't an academic journal, or for that matter an in-depth research piece. In fact, if you follow the references throughout the text, the "biography" seems to rely on Lee's recollections of his own life as the primary source, lifted from his Korean autobiography. At best, they are anecdotal, at worst, they seem as though they've taken a page from a bad Korean drama. Take for example:

During the Korean War, Lee's family lived in poverty. This provided Lee with a contrast from his time in Japan, where his father could afford to send money home and was able to bring Lee's cousins to Japan to study.[4] Like many other children during the war, Lee sold matches and rice rolls outside military bases. He formed a cartel with other students, demonstrating his budding leadership abilities.[4]

In Korea in the 1950s, secondary education was reserved for the privileged. Lee's elder brother was considered the hope of the family, and Lee did not expect to attend high school. However, his teacher suggested allowing Lee to attend Dongji Commercial High School in Pohang, with a full scholarship. The school offered night classes, allowing him to work during the day and study at night. It is rumored that he had many problematic affairs there, constantly causing trouble to the very teacher who was his benefactor. [4]

I've seen this story of Lee's regurgitated by numerous newspapers, but where are they getting this drivel from? I bet one person copied it from Lee's autobiography, then after numerous journalists repeated this process, it finally made it's way into the wiki article. The reason it's getting pushed into wikipedia is because people aren't doing their research. I recall seeing a copy of Lee's military rejection papers with his family's assets at the time, and the numbers there seemed to suggest anything but the poverty he so fondly recalls.

At the very least, I'd recommend we excise these pieces of fluff from the article. Let's focus more on cold hard facts and decide whether or not to include the fluffy bits after historians have done their work when Lee passes away.

I'm going to invoke Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS). But before I'd like to canvass opinions on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toesti (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He died?

It says he died June 22 2009 in the infobox lol 83.108.225.137 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is just some vandal's wishful thinking. I reverted the edit. Instead, Roh Moo-hyun, former president died today.--Caspian blue 02:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On candlelight vigils

In the Lee Myung-bak#US Beef Imports section, following is merely an accusation from the government and some right-wing media, not a fact. 

Their organizational skills and money helped fuel the public demonstrations

There is no evidence showing that left-wing organizations or labor unions funded the candlelignt vigils. The right-wing media also accused them (labor unions per se) of master-minding the protests: also a groundless accusation.

I am deeply concerned that this article is largely based on the government's point of view and articles from some "right-wing government friendly" media, which are notorious in Korea for framing events and issues to make the government look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Y.H. Kim (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


The nice thing about wikepedia is that you can actually edit things out. You might want to share what you think is bad so we can work together to make the article better. As is, the article is bad. --211.208.179.57 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Current picture 28/06/2009

The current picture for Lee Myung-Bak is of Mus musculus, a house mouse. Can someone who knows how to do these things correct this? Joekiki (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

POV and Disputed Tag

First, the POV tag. The reason is that the article does not mention any criticisms of the Cheonggyecheon restoration. There were plenty of criticisms about how he was not restoring it but rather just creating a man-made channel, pressing ahead without truly restoring it. Comparisons were made about other restoration cases.

Second, the disputed tag. “Since the resumption of U.S. beef imports, more people are buying U.S. beef and now it has the second largest market share in Korea, after Australian beef.“ That part is manifestly untrue or disputed. If you doubt me, just look at the Austrailian Stock & Land journal which dismisses these claims. Here's a link to a Korean journal which basically copies the Stock & Land journal.[8] In fact the whole US Beef Imports article is a load of POV.

A final note: someone really should POV this entire article as they're mostly citing Chosun or Dong-A or JoongAng only. That's like citing only Fox News about George W. Bush. --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 11:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


IF SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SOME INTERESTS ABOUT KOREAN POLITICS...

many contents related to politics in KOREAN WIKI (ko.wikipedia.org) is crucially biased. ALMOST ALL THE CONTENTS IN KOREAN WIKI ABOUT POLITICS OF KOREA SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED. because the goverment employed administors of Korea and order them to delete or modify all the contents against policy of Goverment rulled by Dictator President Lee Myung Bak. and administor of KOREAN WIKI (ko.wikipedia.org) ban all accounts (without any explanation) creating threads that could involve some facts that may be disadvantageous to goverment.

-- Unsigned comment by User:Plu98 on October 24, 2010 User talk:Plu98

-- Verified the unsigned comment by PBJT (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Massacre" and Internet freedom

  • Seeing weakly substantiated, highly POV (and badly worded) sections. My gut says they should be deleted, but I want some opinion from others before going ahead. Humorahead01 (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You think South Korea is democratic country? it is autocratic state. your images of South Korea may emerge from "World Cup 2002", "Seoul Olymphic 1988" ... "G20 conventions". But Against your expectation, the leader of South Korea is cruel dictator. Images of South Korea are "Created" by goverment. Even the "Korean version of WikiPedia"(ko.wikipedia.org) is now assumed to be controlled by Goverment. Plu98 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plu98 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, if you say so. That aside, don't edit other people's comments by adding your personal quips ("not really"). Clearly it is not the most spectacular piece of English literature. I, however, am not touching that section with a 10-foot pole to even fix the grammatical and spelling errors for its controversial nature. Humorahead01 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you don't understand how South Korean politics is screwed up. Anyway, I'm trying to fix the criticism section one by one if I have the right time and mind. Komitsuki (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I put a relevant English-language source. But yeah, it is appropriately a massacre to most of South Koreans. Komitsuki (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I also made the subsection title less controversial and POV. It should be stayed. This is a proof that South Korea has a crazy democratically-elected dictator like Saddam Hussein. Komitsuki (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fraudulent Election Section

I just deleted the "Fraudulent Election" Section as the section was unformatted and contained no citations. The writing seemed extremely one sided - probably the work of a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.251.47 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There are over 20 reasonable Korean language citations about the fraudulent election section in the Korean version of Wikipedia. Well, we can rebuild this sooner or later. It is to stablize the Korean politics by killing the Grand National Party of South Korea. Komitsuki (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
First of all I put a BBC News article vis-a-vis his presidential campaign. This is a small start to organize his infos. Komitsuki (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=100&oid=003&aid=0003273549

You may see what happend in July 3rd, 2010. I recommend you copy that article, and use translator (For example tranlate.google.com) to read in English. and I recovered that section with citation. Plu98 (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What I was able to gather from the link you cited is that this one old lady reports that her ballot was already filled out. Does that about summarize it? The translation is very imperfect. Also, how credibly a source is this? Naver News is basically the S. Korean equivalent of Google News, right? So we're looking at Newsis - I've been searching a bit, couldn't really find anything to make me feel like they are very big. Of course, I could be entirely wrong, I've only been searching in English.
That's the problem. Don't search it in English. Search it in Korean. Komitsuki (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As you say in the section, there are basically no news reports talking about this "fraudulent election". You claim it's because the gov't puts the media down, but that doesn't make it any easier to document. I'm editing your section, taking out the most POV and OR bits, I'll leave the rest for now. Does that sound okay for now? Hazlzz (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Another article : http://www.newsis.com/ar_detail/view.html?ar_id=NISX20100602_0005341152&cID=10301&pID=10300

Finding that the evidence of concealing the truth is related with goverment should be difficult. Because public could not know even whether or not election commision officers plotting fruldent elections was punished. Plu98 (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just came back to this page after a few days... The "fraudulent elections" section still doesn't seem entirely right. Just a question to the resident Korean editors, exactly how credible a source is Newsis? I just feel uncomfortable with that serious an accusation being charged against a president based on two internet articles. Hazlzz (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Newsis is relatively credible. It follows a system similar to Reuters and AP. Listen, that Rat (Lee Mhyung-bak's nickname given by the Korean public) has been a controversial guy during his career as the mayor of Seoul and right now as the president. You just don't hear this fact in the Western media. Systematic censorship in the Western world? You bet. Komitsuki (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The nickname section

I think it is too biased, using words like 'his face being bizzarre' and 'resembling a mouse', also 'torturing citizens'. I do agree that his face- slightly DOES resembles a mouse- these are not appropriate words to be put in Wikipedia. And he did NOT TORTURE citizens. Can somebody completely erase that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.156.53 (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I deleted it myself. Since it did not have any supported source I believe this is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.156.53 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I now cited a reference (http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201010311029311&code=910100) and restored that section. according to that article, his face resembles "Mouse". and Don't you know what happend to Mr.Kim Jong Ik? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plu98 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A very thoroughly written article, actually. Although he is sometimes depicted as the "Asian Marylin Manson". For some left-wing Protestant Christians in South Korea, Lee Myung-bak is considered as an anti-Christ (no, I'm not joking). Strange, isn't it? Komitsuki (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Myung-bak/Archive_2&oldid=1146553688"