Talk:Kim Young-sam

Nickname Sa-gwa

Before revision: He had the nickname Sa-gwa (사과), meaning Apple or Apology, because he had to apologize to the people several times: for the SungSoo Bridge collapse, for the sinking of a ship, for the crash of an airliner, for the behaviour of his son and after his presidency for the Asian financial crisis.

This seems to me like blatant POV. I don't remember Sa-gwa becoming a well-known nickname for Kim. Such disasters are worth mentioning, as they played a large part in hurting Kim Young-sam's government (and they were still milked by his rival Kim Dae-jung's supporters long after Kim Young-sam's presidency ended), but ascribing a little-known, obviously negative nickname in a short encyclopaedia article is dubious at best. --Iceager 09:16, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Need source

The claim that Kim Young-sam is regarded as the worst president ever needs a clear source, per the policy noted above. -- Visviva 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Young-sam. 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://web.archive.org/web/20151122124301/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/issues/2014/03/363_96977.html to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/issues/2014/03/363_96977.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122130235/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/issues/2015/11/363_104936.html to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/issues/2015/11/363_104936.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Japanese Korea" -- This issue was resolved at Talk:Kim Dae-jung#RFC: Should individuals born in Korea under Japanese rule have their birthplace as "Japanese Korea" or "Chōsen"

@CurryTime7-24: regarding your reverts (1 2 3)

Also pinging @Snow Rise: (moderator on our RfC discussion)... apparently this issue is not considered resolved yet to one party. Sorry :^(

The RfC at Talk:Kim Dae-jung#RFC: Should individuals born in Korea under Japanese rule have their birthplace as "Japanese Korea" or "Chōsen" was in fact a sweeping decision made to apply to all "birth locations and death locations in Korea under Japanese rule" as the RfC prompt suggests. The decision was made to change the infobox terminology to "Korea" from "Chōsen". Please refrain from going against this without further wide discussion as part of WP:BRD. If you have objections to "Korea" and arguments for "Japanese Korea" please present them and we can discuss.

Because this is the same discussion, can we please move it to Talk:Kim Dae-jung where all the discussions on this terminology issue can be in one place? Especially if a substantial discussion is planned to be had on this topic again? I have only posted here on CurryTime7-24's insistence. Holidayruin (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

---

CurryTime7-24, I will below rewrite a query I asked you on Talk:Kim Dae-jung that I hope you will answer:

I see your edits on Park Chung-hee, Choi Kyu-hah, Chun Doo-hwan, Roh Tae-woo, and Kim Young-sam where you edited these individuals' birth nations in their infobox as "Japanese Korea", instead of your initial implementation of the "Chōsen" wording.

Does this mean you be open to changing all of your "Chōsen" edits across Wikipedia back to "Japanese Korea", now that you believe that "Japanese Korea" is correct wording? This would be an amicable result.

Also, please consult a wider consensus from now on before you change infobox wording on this topic again. We wouldn't want another incident like this one. I would be glad to weigh in on any changes you have the idea for.

Holidayruin (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) (originally 05:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC))

That other discussion quickly degenerated into unnavigable walls of text. I'm not going to read that.

"Japanese Korea" is fine with me and at least correctly conveys that Korea was a colony rather than an independent state at the time.

Also, please cool it with the "warnings" and referring to yourself in the royal plural, guy. All I did was act in the spirit of WP:FIXIT and use the legal name of a territory when chronologically appropriate. I've made comparable edits for probably hundreds of other articles about non-Koreans with no insinuations from other editors about purported evil and devious ulterior motives on my part. I would've been happy to settle this matter, probably mostly or even entirely in your favor, a long time ago had you not behaved like the self-appointed Lord Protector of Wikipedia. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24, I believe you have already read most of the discussion at Talk:Kim Dae-jung#RFC: Should individuals born in Korea under Japanese rule have their birthplace as "Japanese Korea" or "Chōsen", You contributed about roughly 1/3 or more to the large amounts of text there, by my estimate.

Could you state for the record that you believe that "Japanese Korea" is the proper terminology, just for the sake of clarity in the future? This is to clarify after what you said earlier in the discussion:

"Japanese Korea" was never used in any official capacity, least of all by Korea's legal ruler 1910–1945.

— CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You have yet to answer my question I have asked here and at Talk:Kim Dae-jung. While I still believe "Korea" is the best terminology, "Japanese Korea" is fine with me if you would be reverting the "Chōsen" edits you made without consensus (wider consensus or administration does need to be reached again to some extent to implement "Japanese Korea", as this is not merely about me or you). For any other observers, this would be after you single-handedly changed "Japanese Korea" to "Chōsen" across every possibly Wikipedia article, and then afterwards a consensus decision was reached to undo the terminology "Chōsen" and use "Korea" (or "Japanese Korea").

Please do not sidestep this question again. Would you be willing to revert all of your "Chōsen" edits back to "Japanese Korea" across the hundreds of Wikipedia articles that you initially edited? Holidayruin (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: It has been 2½ weeks and you have still not responded to my question. Will you be willing to change your "Chōsen" edits back to "Japanese Korea"? If you don't respond by tomorrow I will go forward with changing all infobox instances of "Chōsen" to "Korea" per consensus, as I've finally got some free time to do so. Holidayruin (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Scratch that, I ran out of time again in my personal life. I should be back in about two weeks, let me know what you think by then. Holidayruin (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)