Talk:Gwangju

POV discussion
There are too many north korean agents here making false claims.

24.180.28.245 stop lying
I can't believe the lies that 24.180.28.245 is posting in relation to the Gwangju Uprising. There was no communist involvement. It was a legitimate uprising against brutalities committed by the Korean government against their own people. I actually LIVED IN GWANGJU in May of 1980. Granted, I was a bit young at the time, but I and my family are not "communist sympathisers" My father and mother were Baptist missionaries to South Korea at the time. It is an absolute insult to the brave people of Gwangju to imply communist involvement in the Uprising. Even the current South Korean government has stated that the 5.18 was a result of military atrocities. The only real debate about the Gwangju Uprising is related to the number of people who died. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT COMMUNIST INVOLVEMENT. THERE WAS NONE. 24.180.28.245 should be blocked from any further edits. I will be reporting his IP to wikipedia in connection with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinfonian94 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

POV discussion
You guys need to stop this shameful editorializing and fix this city page.

The current History section content blatantly violates the NPOV requirement. Even the parts of this content which are appropriate for Wikipedia belong on the Gwangju Massacre page, certainly not the Gwangju city page. Do you guys know nothing about Wikipedia's standards, or do you just not care?

Suggest finding an appropriate revert for the History section, leaving BRIEF objective mention of the events and their importance, with the link to the separate page for these events.

J. Goard (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualty count of the Gwangju Massacre
Let's put an end to this neverending dispute. An official account will suffice. --noirum 19:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there a credible source for the "thousands" claim? If not, it doesn't belong at all, even qualified as the opinion of some. Very Verily  00:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this meaningless 200 vs. thousands edit war will ever end if this goes on like this. I do support 200 claim, but labeling it "official count" will do the job of making it a reliable statement. Leave it up to the readers to decide the validity of claims made by "some." --noirum 02:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * The radical organization the British Broadcasting Corporation ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/752055.stm ) says: "Official figures put the death toll at 200, with another 1,000 protestors injured. But according to other estimates between one and two thousand actually died."


 * So the dictatorial government which just massacred civilians said 200 were killed. Thus the BBC takes the position that it was between hundreds and thousands killed. Ruy Lopez 03:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Between one and two thousand" is not "thousands". What's wrong with stating the official estimate is the official estimate, in the absence of hard contrary data? Very Verily  08:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that the governmental investigation was conducted by the civilian government after the demise of the military dictatorship. Investigation by the military government stated only tens of people were killed in the incident. The number 207 is all the casualty that has been accounted for with full personal information. BTW, there's another category called "Other Casualties," of which meaning is not certain - possibly those who died after the incident because of gunshot wound or torturing. The count of OC is 987. Take a look at the numbers in the link I provided and have your say. --noirum 09:38, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Other Casualties" probably does not refer to deaths. Anyway, you should know "Ruy Lopez" (etc.) don't make the distinction between the military and the civilian government, or for that matter any meaningful distinctions at all. Very Verily  11:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the words "Other Casualties" in the BBC sentences I quoted. The BBC says "But according to other estimates between one and two thousand actually died".  I don't even think it's necessary to debate here whether 207 died, or 208 died, or more.  I simply want to report it here in the manner the BBC did. Ruy Lopez 21:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * proposal: If this dispute is important enough for us to argue about it, surely it's important enough to let the user know about it.  Why not a paragraph detailing the body-count controversy, with sources cited?  Wikipedia should be authoritative, but not to the point of pretending a certainty for which we have no basis.  I'd just go and make the paragraph myself, but we're in lockdown at the moment.  Not having done thorough research myself, I would start by digesting the statements made here, something like this:
 * The death toll of the 1980 Gwangju massacre has been subject to considerable dispute.  An investigation by the civilian government found that 208 civilians could be confirmed slain.    In addition they found 987 "Other Casualties," who suffered substantial injury.  However, a report by the BBC indicates that these estimates may be conservative.  Estimates prepared by organizations involved in the uprising, such as the Peace and Democracy Party, claim one to two thousand dead.  However, detailed information about the identities of the dead is not available to back up these claims.
 * How does that sound? Visviva 15:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * For your information, the Peace and Democracy Party is one of the opposition parties in the late 80s to the early 90s, a period of "quasi-democracy" of the military government, and its legacy is shared by both Millennium Democratic Party and Uri Party, the latter being the current ruling party in South Korea. In that period which saw the transition to the civil democracy, opposition often made somewhat exaggerated claims about the incident. For one thing, there haven't been any extraordinary discoveries concerning the incident for more than a decade, except for some isolated events of unearthing of the buried skulls, and no signifant claims are being made about the number of the casualties at this time. I think your effort has its merit though. noirum 19:43, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gwangju Metropolitan City → &mdash; undiscussed move Jyusin (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (And Gwangju to Gwangju (disambiguation).) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gwangju+Metropolitan+City and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gwangju show a recent move war between these 2 names. Please choose which. (I have restored page Gwangju to a disambig page.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Before anyone considers moving this page again, please review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The question is not whether there is more than one place called "Qwangju" (which is certainly the case), but which one are readers of the encyclopedia most likely to be looking for? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST)
Since the main article cannot be edited by me, I ask that whoever can edit it to please add Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) to the education section of the article. GIST is located on the north side of Gwangju and is a significant contribution to technology institutes in Korea and around the world. The mission GIST is to produce highly competent scholars and reserchers in science and technology, and to improve ongoing project and development capabilities in advanced science and technology. More information can be found at the institute's website: http://ewww.gist.ac.kr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.145.70 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some/Most of
Without quotation, "Most of commentators" means: a large majority among nobody. Without quotation, "Some commentators" means: a small minority among nobody. After some thought, both are equivalent void assertions. Pldx1 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

npov hat
The following tag was added by 58.29.64.10. But if one open the talk page, there is no discussion at all ! The whole story appears as a (poor) joke. Removing. Pldx1 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gwangju. 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6H7Jql2A9?url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3 to http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904074206/http://www.sisapress.com/news/photo/200610/41926_37953_1632.jpg to http://www.sisapress.com/news/photo/200610/41926_37953_1632.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829235704/http://english.kofice.or.kr/d40_asia/d40_asia_02_2006y.asp to http://english.kofice.or.kr/d40_asia/d40_asia_02_2006y.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704000717/http://eng.gwangju.go.kr/contents.do?S=S02&M=040311000000 to http://eng.gwangju.go.kr/contents.do?S=S02&M=040311000000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)