Talk:Ko Un

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

Quote formatting[edit]

@Mzilikazi1939: The difference between quoting using colons and quoting using my method is that the former is only meant to be used for definition lists (the indentation is just a side effect), while the latter actually creates a proper HTML blockquote element. (you can confirm this by looking at the rendered HTML of the page) The former method creates an accessibility issue. The proper way to format block quotations is either with <blockquote> or by using a template that emits that markup like {{quote}}. (additionally, the poem tag is used to preserve linebreaks) See also an essay I've written on the subject. (I admit that saying something is "proper" is presumptuous and am open to a wording that would have conveyed the reasoning better.) We could argue all day about what is better looking, but at the end of the day that's subjective while one method is semantically incorrect, while the other is friendlier to screen readers and those that reuse Wikipedia content. (the mobile site even formats blockquotes distinctively) If you're concerned about the width of the blockquote, that can be modified using the CSS padding attribute, although I would suggest letting user agents style the text and relying on Wikipedias default stylesheet. Opencooper (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good few more points in the discussion I started on your talk page, to which I have responded. A good deal more is involved than emotionally loaded words like 'subjective', 'semantically incorrect' (aka wrong), which are on a par with 'proper'. I lift from that page the concluding sentences: "Obviously your priority in lay-out is with technical aspects; mine is with comprehension. What we need to find if possible is a compromise which delivers both." Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was referring specifically to semantic HTML. And sure, we can compromise by adjusting the padding so that it is visually indistinct from before. Can you clarify what you mean by "so that the text after it spreads across all screens rather than being cramped in a column"? On my 1280px screen on Google Chrome, this is how it looked before I edited it, and this is how it looked after I put the picture back in. (I also emulated a 1920px screen using Chrome's developer tools and still didn't see anything else difference such as text reflow) You can find a demonstration of the css in my sandbox, though hopefully the editing unfriendliness and the subtle differences will convince you that its better to defer to Wikipedia and the browser's own defaults than trying to make one element look like another. (it makes sense for blockquotes to have large margins because you're quoting another text) Opencooper (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ko Un. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ko Un. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Copied from my talk page for convenience. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not realise that we could leave messages This was because the allegation was not justified by anyone and as if the poem and the story are fictional - as we will see in the future the truth, I thought for a moment it is not a good gesture for the person to mark the scandal as if it was the truth. You know with the suicides in Korea and all that.. I was just being sensible, I suppose. Thanks anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.239.81.94 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :)
This seems to be about this edit. I think I can understand why you removed the whole "Controversy" section. This topic is hard to neutrally deal with. I have now read the three articles that are used to prove the Wikipedia section. One of them rather seems to be a commentary to me, but the other two appear to be reliable enough. The Wikipedia section should probably be written in a more neutral way, absolutely only stating proven facts. It should make clear why the accusation is "indirect". It should not use words like "many". It should make a clear explanation where the association to the metoo campaign comes from, because that seems to be relatively far-fetched to me.
Please help us to improve the section instead of deleting it. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ko_Un&diff=835098849&oldid=835093059&diffmode=source ---- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Ko's denial (see article in KT and brief mention in Paris Rev.).  Should there be?  I don't think he has been convicted in any court except the court of public opinion.  In fact, he filed a large law suit in his defense in the year of the controversy (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/culture/2022/02/142_245069.html), which he lost the next year (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20190215000632).Kdammers (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ko lost his suit and lost an appeal. https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20230113000580 Kdammers (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ko_Un&oldid=1194715299"