Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 5 March 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Human rights This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Korean This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Korean military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 18, 2009 and May 18, 2011.

Tim Shorrock's Article

Having read Tim Shorrock's article a few times, I think it carries significant biases, and comes to a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions. I am not averse to citing it, but I would recommend we add some more sources to balance it out and completely rework the "Background" section into a "U.S. involvement" section, rather than having a whole section of this dedicated to one article by one author. Additionally, the way the information is presented now is very slanted:

Tim Shorrock, through his analysis of recently declassified U.S. government documents, has shown the following discoveries regarding U.S. involvement with the incident

Saying he has "shown" the following is very definitive when his article is, in fact, very controversial and not by any means authoritative. I suggest this be reworded to something like, "Freelance Journalist Tim Shorrock analyzed recently declassified U.S. government documents, and came to the following conclusions in his article '"The U.S. Role in Korea in 1979 and 1980"':"

U.S. officials in Seoul and Washington knew Chun's contingency plans included the deployment of Korean Special Warfare Command troops, trained to fight behind the lines in a war against North Korea. The Black Beret Special Forces, who were not under U.S. command, were modeled after the U.S. Green Berets and had a history of brutality dating back to their participation alongside American troops in the Vietnam War.

The first sentence is too general. Though Shorrock claims that U.S. officials knew of the deployment of South Korean SF to Gwangju, the actual quotes and documents he uses do not back up that assertion. What they show is that U.S. officials were aware that SF had been deployed and used for riot control at times in the past, that they had been used recently in Seoul (with results far better than what occurred in Gwangju), and that there was some knowledge of general movements of SF units within South Korea. DIA speculated that one unit might be used in Gwangju, because it remained outside of Seoul. However, the document clearly shows that this was speculation, albeit perhaps well-founded speculation. But it does not show that DIA or any other U.S. officials in Seoul knew that Chun would deploy that unit to Gwangju. I suggest this be reworded to something similar to, "U.S. officials in South Korea had some indication that Chun would use..." as it is currently written, it is far to definitively stated given the actual evidence Mr. Shorrock cites. The second sentence I recommend be deleted, as it is very inflammatory ("a history of brutality") and does not really add anything to the article.

On May 22, 1980, in the midst of the Gwangju uprising, the Carter administration approved further use of force to retake the city and agreed to provide short-term support to Chun if he agreed to long-term political change. At a White House meeting on that date, plans were also discussed for direct U.S. military intervention if the situation got out of hand.

The second sentence, about plans for direct U.S. military intervention, is not mentioned anywhere in the article that I can see, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest this was the case. I am going to delete that sentence, because it does not appear in the cited article, and no other evidence is presented for it. Rooster3888 07:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Don Oberdorfer and Bruce Cummings seem to suggest if not propose outright that Commander US Forces in Korea was complicit in General Chun's decision to pull frontline Korean troops from the border to aid in quelling the riot/massacre. The impression I got was that they felt Chun could not have done so without at least tacit approval. I remember hearing Shorrock at Univeristy of San Francisco, Center for the Pacific Rim in the late nineties actually propose that US Embassy Seoul was directly involved in allowing Chun to move 'combat troops' off the line to supress activities in Kwangju. The supporting documentation was to a significant extent obtained under Freedom of Information Act and as most government-produced material, dry and boring...but justified drawing the inferences Shorrock presented.

Oberdorfer also notes that the US officials were essentially rubber-stamping a fait accompli. He also says they believed that the troops being sent were not the special forces troops who had earned a nasty reputation in Vietnam.--ThreeAnswers 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oberdorfer and Cumings can suggest all they want, but they ought to have some evidence to back up their assertion. Without it, all they have is speculation. If there are better sources that support the idea that the U.S. Embassy was involved in allowing Chun to move troops, then I have no issues adding it. However, the article cited here does not present any evidence of that, and I am somewhat skeptical of Shorrock's documentation. If he does have documentation that supports it, then great. But I am very skeptical of the inferences he draws, especially given the article cited here. He cites numerous documents, but draws conclusions from them that I do not think are substantiated.Rooster3888 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This should probably be a new thread, but the 1985 Heritage Foundation article (citation number 5, presently) isn't really up to snuff. It's bizarre, reactionary, and inaccurate (there aren't many, these days, who'd associate the Chun regime with "law and order". Etc.). I suggest it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The primary evidence that the U.S. authorized deployment of the 20th Division are Ambassador Gleysteen's repeated statements that this was so. I would suspect, even, that Wickham acknowledges as much in his memoirs. Anyway, I included one such statement, along with the State Department notation that, technically, it didn't mean anything. For balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) There's not really anything superceding Shorrock's analysis, so we need to include it. (2) The U.S. may not have had any clear alternative to acquiescence (in the Chun coup), and that perhaps should be made clear. (3) However, most offensive, and telling, to Koreans, was "not that the U.S. did nothing, but" the subsequent spectacular/economic embrace of the Chun regime (first head of state invited to the Reagan White House, the notorious Import/Export loan, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Redefine?

Any objections to redefining this article to include the whole uprising, and renaming it to Gwangju People's Uprising? The deaths are important, but they aren't the only important part of this epochal protest. -- Visviva 07:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Asia-related topics calls it "Gwangju Uprising". wasn't the official name changed a few years ago, to something like Gwangju Democratization Movement? Appleby 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This really should be named to Gwangju Riot or something. Massacre gives the wrong idea. 15357 02:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely not a "riot," unless you are referring to the actions of the Korean troops sent to Gwangju to suppress with violence what began as a peaceful demonstration demanding <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">free</a></a> elections. "Massacre" is the way people in Gwangju (those who were there at the time) generally refer to this incident. The official title now is the "Gwangju Democratization Movement," though many left-leaning scholars prefer to call it the "Gwangju People's Resistance." 70.71.4.163 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Don Baker

Gwangju Massacre is not the official name used in any official document. Korean government explicitly uses "Gwangju Democratization Movement" or "5.18 Democratization movement" on official document, and UNESCO names it "May 18th Democratic Uprising" when documents and documentary regarding to this movement is registered at Memory of the World. I think the argument that Gwangju Massacre should be used as the title of this article since it's the most commonly used name is flawed since common usage can never override official usage. I think official name should be appeared first, then Gwangju Massacre be attached next to it.

"Gwangju Massacre" needs to be changed to something more neutral. This is a sensitive topic and needs to be agreed upon left-leaning liberals and conservatives alike. The official term is the "Democratization Movement" for even which, there are attempts to re-examine. The title of the article needs to be changed to what is generally accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavii (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC) --Octavii (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

--Octavii (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Also, there needs to be a section challenging the "democratization movement". Recent conservative scholars prefer to call this the "5.18 Gwangju Event/Incident" as any tangible enhancement of Korea's democracy is left to be discussed.

Film

A film was recently released in South Korea depicting the incident in question. Anyone have an IMDB link?

I've just done finding. Click this. Peterhansen2032, July 31, 2007 16:35 KST

OK, I've added a link to the official movie's website in the main article's "External Links" section. It's called "Hwaryeohan Hyuga (A Magnificent Holiday)" (2007). 75.69.117.140 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Korean television series Sandglass (Korean drama) deals with the events leading up to the massacre, and it's lasting impact on the Korean people. The imprisonment of Korean president Chun_Doo_Hwan was directly attributed to popular response to Sandglass (Korean drama). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Under this heading it states that the film May 18 says "the incident resulted in 207 deaths, 2,392 wounded, and 987 missing people, but the exact number of casualties has been subject to considerable dispute. Members of the military government were indicted with rebellion but the culprit of ordering open fire against the citizens has yet to be identified," but it's never present on the actual film as a coda (such as the statement in the beginning is physically there on screen and translated in the English subtitles), only tagged onto the end of the English subtitles with no apparent source. Are we sure this is actually part of the film and not just an overzealous fansubber? Robixsmash (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral writing

At present, the content and style of writing at a number of points in the article undermine its neutrality, specifically to advocate against the Democratization Movement. Here are just a few examples:

• The first sentence of the second paragraph ("The events of May 1980 were not a deliberate plot by the ROK government to massacre innocent civilians in South Cholla Province.") is abruptly introduced, apparently to immediately establish innocence.
• The (ungrammatical) sentence "Therefore, so called Kwangju Democratization Movement" demonstrates disagreement with the (so far) accepted label for the movement.
• Expelled student leaders and their influences in the Background section are linked to North Korean ideology without evidence, and are compared to Nazi propaganda in Europe.
• Statements such as "These claims are completely unsubstantiated. The facts of the casualty rate are clear." in the Casualties section too confidently, and emotionally, reject alternative calculations.

Some of the non-neutral writing seems to be based in external sources, and is cited appropriately. However, just because an opinion is taken from an external source does not elevate it to the status of fact--it remains an opinion, and must be treated as such. --BlueResistance 11:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Over the past several months, this article has been deformed by a series of ideological edits amounting basically to vandalism. These edits vary from the childish to the dangerously fallacious (examples given above are characteristic). They're not - (where substantiated at all) - generally substantiated by sources of any credibility (in this respect BlueResistance's point, above, is well-taken). Or they're referred to sources at variance, in fact, with claims made. Probably the best course would be to restore the article text of several months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Mudeungsan. Your revisions helped to streamline things a bit, and the Kimsoft reference helped. Unfortunately, the revision cited the content of a non-documentary movie, which cannot be used as a valid reference in a situation like this, and it removed the foreign press/Chun Doo-hwan opposition view of the casualties. Listing their view does not mean taking their side over the official position or the view of the May 18 Bereaved Family Association; it's just part of being neutral, valid, and comprehensive. In light of this, I restored part of my 14 June 2010 revision, while maintaining part of yours. --BlueResistance 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gwangju Democratization Movement → Gwangju massacre – Gwangju massacre is the most common name per the following Google book search.

• "Gwangju massacre" 342
• "Gwangju uprising" 71
• "Gwangju Democratization Movement" 57

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This article was moved from Gwangju massacre to Gwangju Democratization Movement by User:Historiographer on 26 June 2007.

• Support. "Kwangju massacre" is the common name, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - the references don't provide much evidence; also the name "massacre" removes the context of the democratisation movement part. Can you clarify why this move improves the article? JoshuSasori (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the common name and likely to remain so. The lasting significance of the incident is not so much what the rioters were able to do as the national and international revulsion that the massacre produced, which was a major factor in the eventual founding of the Sixth Republic of South Korea (one intervening republic later). Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

in culture : "In memorium Gwangju"

Commissioned for Montreal symphony Orchestra in period 1982- 1995 ?

Premiere in Salle Wilfred Pelletier under Charles Dutoit, Richard Robertson, concertmaster ??

See : Isang_Yun

G. Robert Shiplett 23:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

move request

Gwangju massacre → Gwangju Democratization Movement Gwangju massacre is more common. but the translation of 광주 민주화 운동(Korean)is Gwangju Democratization Movement and this event is closer to democratization movement--Lhs1219 (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

From 1980 till nowadays, there have been many official Korean names for this event, each of them describing mostly the ulterior motives of the successive governments. A careful description of this process could be more useful that yet another renaming of the article. In any case, the key fact is the so many people that were shot to death. Let us remember them. Pldx1 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pldx1. The article title is determined by the most common English name, "Gwangju massacre" which was adopted by the Western world. However there are many Korean names for this event. The Japanese article describes this transition of the names. Gwangju Affair (광주사태), Gwangju Uprising (광주의거), Gwangju Democratization Movement (광주 민주화 운동), Gwangju Populace Conflict (광주민중항쟁), Gwangju Democratization Conflict (（광주민주화항쟁), Gwangju Conflict (광주항쟁), and Gwangju People's Uprising (광주인민봉기) in North Korea. Unfortunately Japanese article has no source, however if there is a reliable source, this transition should be mentioned in this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Gwangju Uprising has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Gwangju massacre → Gwangju Uprising – This is the name adopted by UNESCO (May 18th Democratic Uprising), and is by far the most commonly used terminology according to Google Books - the search for "Gwangju Massacre" only yields 1,510 results, while "Gwangju Uprising" yields 26,700 hits. The term "Gwangju Massacre" (광주 학살) isn't even used that commonly in Korean, resulting in 6,420 hits on Google Books compared to 14,400 for "Gwangju Uprising" (광주 항쟁). Furthermore, the article mostly details the process of the armed conflict that erupted as a result of the massacre, large part of which were clashes between the local militia and the military regime - "Massacre" misrepresents the nature of the events that transpired. Dodam.a.ih (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, even the official Memorial Foundation founded by the survivors uses "Uprising" as the preferred term. Dodam.a.ih (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1. http://eng.518.org/ease/menu.es?mid=a50202000000

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Korea-related articles
• High-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Unassessed Human rights articles
• Unknown-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Korean military history articles
• Korean military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2011)
• Requested moves