This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a recently-added section (below) about Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre from South Korea-United States relations because it is not relevant to the "Historical background" section of the article. As well, the event has had little impact--as of early May, 2007--on ROK-USA relations. Americans, including Korean-Americans, have typically viewed Seung-Hui Cho as an individual hello :) who acted on his own accord (see National Association of Korean Americans). Seung-Hui Cho's actions were not carried out on behalf of the South Korean government or South Korean people. Many Korean-Americans said they did not feel responsible for Seung-Hui Cho's actions--especially after Tae-Shik Lee, the South Korean ambassador to the USA, publically spoke about his personal feeling of "agony" and his "apology" on behalf of South Korea and all Koreans for Seung-Hui Cho's actions (see this Washington Post article and this bilingual Korean-English article from Naver News in South Korea).
Johngoranson 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On April 16, 2007, a South Korean gunman kills 32 people in the Virginia Tech massacre in Virginia, United States. Although South Korea is extremely upset over the fact that the shootings have been carried out by a Korean, President Roh Mu-hyun has said that he feels sorry for the shooting.
The shootings are not expected to strain relations of South Korea and the US but there have been worries that there might be revengeful acts carried out against Korean communities in the US.
Lee Myung-bak advocates a stronger alliance with the USA! Contralya ( talk) 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a picture of the US Embassy in Seoul, would it be a helpful addition to this article? Vedek Wren ( talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
First off, The Original Research and Content forking are not acceptable in wikipedia.
This questionable editor newbie account, WilliamWater is cleary throw away account for this topic. Picking up every single bad image of Korea-US relations, and making heavy POV article. Full of Its edit is heavy POV, forking and Anti-Korea POV editing.
The United States, and the Soviet Union vying for the Korean colony upon Japan's loss of the war.
the United States occupied the southern half of Korea and the Soviet Union the northern half.
"Not until the 1980s did the South Korean economy start to boom, and the U.S.-Korean relationship switch to being primarily economic. However, 30,000 American troops remain in South Korea today, their presence is controversial, for reasons of race, environmental damage, and historical role in atrocities. Trade issues such as a dispute over tainted beef are current."
660gd4qo ( talk) 18:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed these Original Research (based on own POV) descriptions. 660gd4qo ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite big headed & ignorance man. NYT is not a proven academic source. Newspaper source is just secondary source. It is not a primitive source. You have quite solution of this dispute
twigi is hybrid, not a animal. Hybrid and Animal are completely difference things. The NYT article was not 100% wrong. original meaning of twigi is "hybrid". Yes, like NYT mentioned, one of the meaning of twigi is "hybrid animal". But, twigi is also meaning "hybrid human", "hybrid of any species". NYT writer forget fact that twigi have no meaning of animal.
I already said, Twigi is not refer to "animal", it it "hybrid". NYtimes made shocking gossip. NYtimes is newspaper. Newspaper is not always credibls source. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Don't made up new definition. According to any kind of Korean dictionary [3], and korean myself. Twigi is "hybrid", not animal itself.
660gd4qo ( talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources (2nd reliable) include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
Again, Again, I tired. The Twigi is not direct meaning of animal. It is hybrid of "all species"(human, animal, etc) NO korean say, "I catch a animal" as "i catch a twigi". (nonsense word) ............enough already. 660gd4qo ( talk) 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
twigi have NO meaning of animal. 660gd4qo ( talk) 00:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please summarise the reasons (with evidence) for the two tags placed on the article. If no valid reasons are given then they will be removed. -- Snowded TALK 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
660gd4qo, this indiscrimate mass tagging is not helpful. Please desist. -- NeilN talk to me 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Now, what unsourced facts are in dispute? -- NeilN talk to me 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, if you see the WilliamWater edit, this newbie account is serious heavy POV pushing troll. Really serious POV forking edits.
I guess WilliamWater is throwaway account, He/She is a probably nationalistic mainland Chinese who dislike Korea and America. He edited several tibet independence activist article. [6] 660gd4qo ( talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I point out a number of inaccurated edits. (eg. twigi is not animal. US occupied Korea? ...etc.) It is hard to says WilliamWater version based on fact. by the same way, You can make US as dictator country by Russian newspaper. 660gd4qo ( talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave the POV tag alone until 660gd4qo gets back from his block to discuss it (with examples I hope, not opinion and not conjecture about another editor's motives) but I think the fact tag should go. -- NeilN talk to me 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
660gd4qo, I am more sympathetic to your POV than you think. You noticed that I also edited articles on Tibet. Those articles suffer from severe systemic bias not least because the anti-Chinese Tibetan community in India, by virtue of their location, speak English, and most Chinese (and Tibetans in China) don't. However, I don't speak Korean, so I am limited to English language sources, which is not as bad for this article since it is about South Korea-United States relations. If you have excellent Korean language sources that you would like to contribute, there are guidelines for it.
I don't think the issue of mixed-race people in Korea is unimportant. It's given the proper weight in
U.S.-Vietnam related articles. About the specific epithet for them, your understanding of the language is
original research. Korean-American relations before the division are worth mentioning: I cite
Sino-American relations and
Indo-American relations as examples of partitioned states whose full diplomatic histories did not disappear with regime change. Now I never thought that I would have to find citations for the most basic and uncontroversial facts of history, such as the postwar occupation of Korea. I will find them and re-add them at my leisure.
WilliamWater (
talk)
Splittist (
talk) 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the advocates of the neutrality tag have not explained why they consider the article to be POV, and the discussion now appears to be cold, I will now remove the tag. If anyone wants to replace it, please first explain what neutrality issues remain. TFD ( talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a better source on this?
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/war-games-to-check-china/211331.html The unprecedented, large-scale US-ROK joint military exercise âInvincible Spiritâ, where elements of Japanâs Self-Defence Forces participated, has seen the deployment of firepower on such a massive scale for the first time in 34 years in the region.
Hcobb ( talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/rok/2010/rok-101123-rianovosti02.htm South Korea will not seek the return of U.S. tactical nuclear missiles over fears that the move could scupper international efforts to persuade North Korea to halt its nuclear program, South Korean deputy defense minister Chang Kwang-il said on Tuesday.
The only thing in the content page's 'Economic relations' section is a link to another article. How about deleting the section and moving the link to 'See Also'? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 ( talk) 00:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South KoreaâUnited States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor under investigation for widespread POV pushing has previously added this heading with the text "The following describe incidents where South Koreans were raped, molested, or murdered by Americans" yet these are not related to the topic. These include the murder of student Hae Min Lee whilst studying in Maryland in 1999, the killing of South Korean boxer Jee Yong-ju by his South Korean neighbor in 1985, and an accusation of sexual harassment against a US based academic. The murder of Yun Geum-i by a US serviceman in 1992 does not demonstrate any point relevant to the heading. So I am deleting this section. Nickm57 ( talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor under investigation for widespread POV pushing has previously added this heading and listed abusive and derogatory terms for prostitutes with a variety of links, some to blogs and some to academic texts. None however, justify these as being significant or widespread enough to include here. So I'm deleting these. Nickm57 ( talk) 09:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This article obviously has a very long history of being subject to POV pushing, and sloppy editing. I've tried to clean this up, but it would help to have other well established and constructive editors keep an eye on it. Nickm57 ( talk) 01:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See above three sections and comments.
I side with General Lincoln and Alexkyoung's edits; I kept some of nick's edits, but overall there is a disturbing pattern of deletions and strong pro-US and anti-ROK sentiment with nick's disruptive edits; makes one suspect that he is a sockpuppet of
User:Likuu or
User:Syopsis.
Jarvis Maximus (
talk) 06:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added a section with this heading and introduced THAAD. This also means the later section on opposition to THAAD makes more sense to the reader. Nickm57 ( talk) 02:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a small problem with the placement of the citations in the first paragraph of the "Historical background" section.
I added the paragraph, taken from a reliable public-domain source, here: [7]. The citation given covers the entire paragraph. However, soon after, Alexkyoung added a couple of "citation needed" templates: [8]. Nickm57 provided a citation, but the problem now is that the original citation looks like it only covers the last sentence, rather than the whole paragraph. Since I don't have access to the cited book and don't know what it says, I'm not sure how best to deal with it. I'd rather avoid breaking up the paragraph if possible, maybe by using a WP:CITEBUNDLE. -- IamNotU ( talk) 22:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a recently-added section (below) about Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre from South Korea-United States relations because it is not relevant to the "Historical background" section of the article. As well, the event has had little impact--as of early May, 2007--on ROK-USA relations. Americans, including Korean-Americans, have typically viewed Seung-Hui Cho as an individual hello :) who acted on his own accord (see National Association of Korean Americans). Seung-Hui Cho's actions were not carried out on behalf of the South Korean government or South Korean people. Many Korean-Americans said they did not feel responsible for Seung-Hui Cho's actions--especially after Tae-Shik Lee, the South Korean ambassador to the USA, publically spoke about his personal feeling of "agony" and his "apology" on behalf of South Korea and all Koreans for Seung-Hui Cho's actions (see this Washington Post article and this bilingual Korean-English article from Naver News in South Korea).
Johngoranson 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On April 16, 2007, a South Korean gunman kills 32 people in the Virginia Tech massacre in Virginia, United States. Although South Korea is extremely upset over the fact that the shootings have been carried out by a Korean, President Roh Mu-hyun has said that he feels sorry for the shooting.
The shootings are not expected to strain relations of South Korea and the US but there have been worries that there might be revengeful acts carried out against Korean communities in the US.
Lee Myung-bak advocates a stronger alliance with the USA! Contralya ( talk) 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a picture of the US Embassy in Seoul, would it be a helpful addition to this article? Vedek Wren ( talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
First off, The Original Research and Content forking are not acceptable in wikipedia.
This questionable editor newbie account, WilliamWater is cleary throw away account for this topic. Picking up every single bad image of Korea-US relations, and making heavy POV article. Full of Its edit is heavy POV, forking and Anti-Korea POV editing.
The United States, and the Soviet Union vying for the Korean colony upon Japan's loss of the war.
the United States occupied the southern half of Korea and the Soviet Union the northern half.
"Not until the 1980s did the South Korean economy start to boom, and the U.S.-Korean relationship switch to being primarily economic. However, 30,000 American troops remain in South Korea today, their presence is controversial, for reasons of race, environmental damage, and historical role in atrocities. Trade issues such as a dispute over tainted beef are current."
660gd4qo ( talk) 18:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed these Original Research (based on own POV) descriptions. 660gd4qo ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite big headed & ignorance man. NYT is not a proven academic source. Newspaper source is just secondary source. It is not a primitive source. You have quite solution of this dispute
twigi is hybrid, not a animal. Hybrid and Animal are completely difference things. The NYT article was not 100% wrong. original meaning of twigi is "hybrid". Yes, like NYT mentioned, one of the meaning of twigi is "hybrid animal". But, twigi is also meaning "hybrid human", "hybrid of any species". NYT writer forget fact that twigi have no meaning of animal.
I already said, Twigi is not refer to "animal", it it "hybrid". NYtimes made shocking gossip. NYtimes is newspaper. Newspaper is not always credibls source. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Don't made up new definition. According to any kind of Korean dictionary [3], and korean myself. Twigi is "hybrid", not animal itself.
660gd4qo ( talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources (2nd reliable) include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
Again, Again, I tired. The Twigi is not direct meaning of animal. It is hybrid of "all species"(human, animal, etc) NO korean say, "I catch a animal" as "i catch a twigi". (nonsense word) ............enough already. 660gd4qo ( talk) 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
twigi have NO meaning of animal. 660gd4qo ( talk) 00:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please summarise the reasons (with evidence) for the two tags placed on the article. If no valid reasons are given then they will be removed. -- Snowded TALK 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
660gd4qo, this indiscrimate mass tagging is not helpful. Please desist. -- NeilN talk to me 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Now, what unsourced facts are in dispute? -- NeilN talk to me 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, if you see the WilliamWater edit, this newbie account is serious heavy POV pushing troll. Really serious POV forking edits.
I guess WilliamWater is throwaway account, He/She is a probably nationalistic mainland Chinese who dislike Korea and America. He edited several tibet independence activist article. [6] 660gd4qo ( talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I point out a number of inaccurated edits. (eg. twigi is not animal. US occupied Korea? ...etc.) It is hard to says WilliamWater version based on fact. by the same way, You can make US as dictator country by Russian newspaper. 660gd4qo ( talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave the POV tag alone until 660gd4qo gets back from his block to discuss it (with examples I hope, not opinion and not conjecture about another editor's motives) but I think the fact tag should go. -- NeilN talk to me 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
660gd4qo, I am more sympathetic to your POV than you think. You noticed that I also edited articles on Tibet. Those articles suffer from severe systemic bias not least because the anti-Chinese Tibetan community in India, by virtue of their location, speak English, and most Chinese (and Tibetans in China) don't. However, I don't speak Korean, so I am limited to English language sources, which is not as bad for this article since it is about South Korea-United States relations. If you have excellent Korean language sources that you would like to contribute, there are guidelines for it.
I don't think the issue of mixed-race people in Korea is unimportant. It's given the proper weight in
U.S.-Vietnam related articles. About the specific epithet for them, your understanding of the language is
original research. Korean-American relations before the division are worth mentioning: I cite
Sino-American relations and
Indo-American relations as examples of partitioned states whose full diplomatic histories did not disappear with regime change. Now I never thought that I would have to find citations for the most basic and uncontroversial facts of history, such as the postwar occupation of Korea. I will find them and re-add them at my leisure.
WilliamWater (
talk)
Splittist (
talk) 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the advocates of the neutrality tag have not explained why they consider the article to be POV, and the discussion now appears to be cold, I will now remove the tag. If anyone wants to replace it, please first explain what neutrality issues remain. TFD ( talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a better source on this?
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/war-games-to-check-china/211331.html The unprecedented, large-scale US-ROK joint military exercise âInvincible Spiritâ, where elements of Japanâs Self-Defence Forces participated, has seen the deployment of firepower on such a massive scale for the first time in 34 years in the region.
Hcobb ( talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/rok/2010/rok-101123-rianovosti02.htm South Korea will not seek the return of U.S. tactical nuclear missiles over fears that the move could scupper international efforts to persuade North Korea to halt its nuclear program, South Korean deputy defense minister Chang Kwang-il said on Tuesday.
The only thing in the content page's 'Economic relations' section is a link to another article. How about deleting the section and moving the link to 'See Also'? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 ( talk) 00:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South KoreaâUnited States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor under investigation for widespread POV pushing has previously added this heading with the text "The following describe incidents where South Koreans were raped, molested, or murdered by Americans" yet these are not related to the topic. These include the murder of student Hae Min Lee whilst studying in Maryland in 1999, the killing of South Korean boxer Jee Yong-ju by his South Korean neighbor in 1985, and an accusation of sexual harassment against a US based academic. The murder of Yun Geum-i by a US serviceman in 1992 does not demonstrate any point relevant to the heading. So I am deleting this section. Nickm57 ( talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor under investigation for widespread POV pushing has previously added this heading and listed abusive and derogatory terms for prostitutes with a variety of links, some to blogs and some to academic texts. None however, justify these as being significant or widespread enough to include here. So I'm deleting these. Nickm57 ( talk) 09:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This article obviously has a very long history of being subject to POV pushing, and sloppy editing. I've tried to clean this up, but it would help to have other well established and constructive editors keep an eye on it. Nickm57 ( talk) 01:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See above three sections and comments.
I side with General Lincoln and Alexkyoung's edits; I kept some of nick's edits, but overall there is a disturbing pattern of deletions and strong pro-US and anti-ROK sentiment with nick's disruptive edits; makes one suspect that he is a sockpuppet of
User:Likuu or
User:Syopsis.
Jarvis Maximus (
talk) 06:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added a section with this heading and introduced THAAD. This also means the later section on opposition to THAAD makes more sense to the reader. Nickm57 ( talk) 02:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a small problem with the placement of the citations in the first paragraph of the "Historical background" section.
I added the paragraph, taken from a reliable public-domain source, here: [7]. The citation given covers the entire paragraph. However, soon after, Alexkyoung added a couple of "citation needed" templates: [8]. Nickm57 provided a citation, but the problem now is that the original citation looks like it only covers the last sentence, rather than the whole paragraph. Since I don't have access to the cited book and don't know what it says, I'm not sure how best to deal with it. I'd rather avoid breaking up the paragraph if possible, maybe by using a WP:CITEBUNDLE. -- IamNotU ( talk) 22:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)