Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean war crimes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion as copyvio. This article was cobbled together from plagiarised bits and pieces from start to finish. You could take almost any random phrase from the article and google it and they were all ripped out of the same three or four documents on the web. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proof positive of the adage that "the debate is not a vote"! Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean war crimes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seriously NPOV violating article based on the creator's political agenda and biased informations. Many of the contents in the article have nothing to do with the main topic: war crimes by Koreans. (ex: recent crimes) So in the last section, Koreans still fight in Korean war????? Besides, the creator blindly referred to his preferred version of the article and refused to discuss the main subject with people at talk. Lack of inline sources make other editors unable to confirm the contents. The title is also misleading that the war crimes occurred in Korean war. Caspian blue (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found that bogus inline sources on the President Park as below. I think there will be more such things. 

This is example of how the creator illustrates the topic. Colonial intellectuals who witnessed the stunning successes of the Japanese military in the Asian mainland sought a role for themselves within the rapidly emerging New Order in East Asia (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), Japan hoped to integrate Korea into Japan, in terms of infrastructure and bureaucracy.

No apology section is also false. Kim Dae-jung officially apologized, but the creator distorts the info. I don't see what the recent "war crime" is. The section is also false and unrelated info. Political propaganda does not meet to our policy. "Wikpedia is Encyclopedia".


 * Keep - "The article is POV" is not a reason to delete. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 22:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article in question? The current article hold only several in-line sources which turns out bogus sources (dead link/ no mention of the illustrated info) and a lot of unrelated information. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - POV violations is not a criteria for deletion. This article just needs rewording and more sourcing, the user should have tried to fixed the article before nominating it for XfD.-- S R X  22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - "The article is POV" is not a reason to delete. Please be specific in your accusations of bogus sources (all links to lead to a website and do support the article). Nature of POV is still being discussed (not everybody is on wikipedia 24/7 and can respond to your comments immediately).  Article is also being referenced as we speak.

It is also a fairly common fact that Park Chung-hee did serve in the Japanese army. Maybe you are confused with the controversy over whether he specifically served in the Gando Special Force unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.161.137 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why verifiablity is a burden of editors. You inserted at least two bogus inline-citations. That is shameful conduct of your own part. --Caspian blue (talk)
 * I added your 'bogus inline sources. One is non-exist link, the other does not say about President Park and other military people. So I highly doubt that the article is even written by sticking to sources. Besides, Logitech95, just log in. Anonymous IP user is not generally counted as a !voters.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close. NPOV and lack of inline citations are cleanup issues, not a reasons for deletion, and I do not share the nominator's opinion that the article title is misleading (which in any case is something that should be discussed at WP:RM, not here). An RFU was opened on the article talk page little more than twelve hours ago, where the article creator has not only responded but indicated a willingness to add the necessary citations. Despite all these claims of bias and POV, I do not see any supporting evidence being provided. This is basically a content dispute, and AfD isn't the venue for such a discussion. PC78 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The creator refused to discuss the concern, and blindly reverted, so I open a discussion here. Any controversial articles need more care and source, but the creator did not. Instead, his making personal attacks to opponents are a big no-no. That article holds a lot of unrelated information and falsificaton, so I nominated it.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, unless article is not confirmed, it is viewed as WP:original research. The first of No Apology section is in the criteria.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good friend100's first edits were to remove complete sections of the article, calling them "bullshit" and "completely nuts". Your first comment on the talk page was to say that you would bring the article here. That's not the best way to start a discussion, yet the creator still said that he would "take a look at the article later". As far as I can see, he has not refused to discuss anything, whereas some of your comments on the talk page are downright hostile. The article lists a number of sources and inline citations are now being added. You say the article is untrue, but where is your evidence? PC78 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wikilawyering based on a skewed ground. He made several insulting comments against me first. He continued such behaviors on other articles unlike his implying that he has not enough time to discuss. ?Therefore, his saying "talk later" is nothing but a gesture to avoid the dispute. He made hostile personal attacks, so I could not be kind. I have not say that the entire article is untrue. may untrue because the mentioned being added citations are even bogus. You seem to only look at what you want to see. So where is evidence that the article is written by really sticking sources except the spurious list of sources. I don't think you're neutral in light of our last dispute. --Caspian blue (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep artilce has major issues but that's not a reason to delete. -- neon white talk 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete because there is nothing to write about. half of these are attempts by south korean government to purge communists (as they were supposed to), and the other half were done during korean war & vietnam war because that's how they are supposed to be fought. i don't see any "war crimes" section in korean war article or vietnam war article. simply, many of these "atrocities" are not recognized by the international community as war crimes. the article even shows image of "american gi shot in the back" by a communist during korean war as a war crime - so you can see how ridiculous the article is. so, my main reason to delete this article is that the topic is insignificant. there is virtually no "war crime" committed by korean nationals in the last 3,000 years & if there was just one, it's not enough to make an article. also, many of these "atrocities" are already written in korea-related articles anyways. (i.e. gwangju massacre) (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep, but... ....damn, what a mess! Yes, it's a good topic for an encyclopedia, but I can see a lot of problems with this article.  There's this childish edit war going on, with one person adding something in, and then someone else taking it out -- we've all seen that before, where someone jealously guards an article like it was their teddy bear.  Then there are the facts that are added in with no sourcing at all-- a stat on how many Koreans were in the Japanese army, the U.S. controlling the Kwangju massacre, Korean prison guards notoriously brutal, 148 war criminals, a brainwashing czar, a massacre at Suwon, the No Gun Ri massacre... and that's just this week.  What I like least, however, is the "yellow peril" tone of the article, which, I think, implies that Korean people are more eager to kill one another than "normal".  I think that any of the folks who argue that this article's problems can be cleaned up will find it to be the Augean stables.  What's the solution?  First, stop the editing war.  Nobody's winning.  Whatever one side has deleted still exists in the history.  Then, put a freeze on changes to this article, and let the two rival groups make user space versions of what they think is the ideal article about Korean war crimes.  Eventually, perhaps, then I think something can be created from create something from the two articles that truly is non-POV and well-sourced.  Good luck.  Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, you tell us we should stop "childish" edit warring. So we stop. Then what? See history - this is sock/meat puppets vs. 5 to 6 Wikipedians. The consensus already is that most of the article is fabrication or misrepresentation. The consensus is that those be removed. And I guarantee that when all of the fabrication & misrepresentation are removed, there will be not much left for the article. Why? because there is no such issue or topic called "Korean war crimes". This is something completely new and ridiculous. Then, the topic is insignificant; therefore, the article would eventually have to be deleted. I recommend that you follow the discussion page. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
 * For example, the article lists massacres committed during Korean War - but American & UN troops committed them as well. How are they specifically "Korean"? Also, the deal with the Korean prison guards is completely ludicrous. Fine, they committed them, but how can anyone link actions made by individuals working for a foreign government to nationality or government of their origin? How are human rights violations committed by dictator governments war crimes when they were not during a war? (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Rename and refocus. The current article is a hodge-podge of disparate and unrelated events, taken out of context.  The subject matter of war crimes during the Korean War, Korean participation in the Kwantung Army, prison camps in North Korea, etc., are all encyclopedic and should be fairly described.  However, the reason they have been assembled into a single article here is clearly to advance the thesis that Koreans are especially predisposed to brutality or war crimes.  This is a commonly repeated theme of Korean-bashing in some Japanese nationalist circles, and it's really the only reason to have an article devoted to war crimes committed by members of a particular ethnic group.  On the other hand, War crimes in the Korean War is a perfectly good topic for an article.  Other parts of the current article, where well-sourced and balanced, could be put to good use by merging elsewhere and perhaps creating a few new articles.  --Amble (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Also, attempts to purge communists are human rights violations, not war crimes. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Keep. I am the original author of the topic. I consider my vote superfluous but I would like to clarify one issue that various editors have attempted to remove content.


 * The intent behind the topic is not to propose a topic of 'Korean War' crimes.


 * It is to document, in their full scope, the nature and context for, and popular and academic reactions to, 'Korean war crimes'.


 * I fully expect, in time, for various new sections to develop sufficiently for their own topics, e.g. the Korean crimes in Vietnam and as a new topic. I accept that it will take sometime to settle down within the Wikipedia. However, the topic is clearly documented by the academic sources including those given precisely as per the topic title.


 * To exclude Korea and the various Korean leaderships from the roster of atrocities committed against humanity and regional patterns would be naive. Please note that I have stated on the discussion page my POV on the talk page which if I am to be accused of one is a feminist critique of all violent masculinist cultures and not as a critic of a mythical "Korea". Where ever possible I have depended on Korean and American authors with the omission of any Japanese ones.


 * All though I fear this these points are too subtle for some contributors, I hope this makes matters clearer for others and encourages cooperation and have gone into greater depth about this POV on the talk page. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * AFD is not decided by !vote count. Closing admins reviews each argument and finally makes a decision. I don't understand what you try to say by this:"I have stated on the discussion page my POV on the talk page which if I am to be accused of one is a feminist critique of all violent masculinist cultures and not as a critic of a mythical "Korea". Where ever possible I have depended on Korean and American authors with the omission of any Japanese ones."--Caspian blue (talk)


 * Keep for now but clean-up and rename to something with a less POV name such as War Crimes committed by Koreans or similar, especially as it covers crimes committed by ethnic Koreans when Korea was part of the Japanese empire. The article is a total mess, and seems to be subject to a edit war, but it might be possible to turn it into something worthwhile. Alternetly, deletion may eventually be warranted, but only after dispute resolution is seriously tried - the RfC which was started yesterday should have been allowed to run, and it would help if the edit-warring editors took a step back and waited for comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well,3RR report here, one of the two main users violated 3RR (actually reverted 9 times) Besides, they resort to personal attacks as well as refusing to regard to consensus. In this situation, editors can not participate in anything. They insist that others just accept their point of view. Generally disputed contents are taken out or not added before discussion, and they're claiming that even bogus citations are reserved. If you have a time, please look at the 3RR report.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion is not a solution to a good article which is POV. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion is a good solution to bad article with POV. I don't really understand your rationale and standard for a good article. A article with POV could not even be a good article because it violates NPOV policy. GA criteria clearly mentions about this. If your referred "a good article" is "the article in question", the article filled with bunch of unrelated subjects are not even near to a good article. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.