Talk:Lee Kwon-mu

Rumors needs confirmation...

These are only bits and pieces of rumors gathered off the Chinese blogs. Given WP:RS and WP:OR I can't add it to the article, but I'll put it here for reference to give out more pointers on researchs.

• Took command of NK I Corps sometime during the winter of 1950-1951 (My records indicated that he is already in command of the I Corps by January 25, 1951)
• Promoted to Chief of Staff on 1957/9
• Purged on 1959/7 along with all other former Chinese Communist members on charges of counter-revolution, then completely disappeared in public
• Possibily imprisoned for sometime

Jim101 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Good enough for B class?

We managed to trace his life from beginning to end...so is this article comprehensive enough for B class review? Jim101 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so, though the info on his background is very brief. I don't know if we'll ever be able to get the article above a B since next to nothing is known of him after the Korean War. —Ed!^(talk) 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lee? Yi?

Names as read for persons from South Korea
Hangul	이권무
Hanja	李權武
Revised Romanization	I Gwon-mu
McCune–Reischauer	Yi Kwŏnmu
Names as read for persons from North Korea
Hangul	리권무
Hanja	李權武
Revised Romanization	Ri Gwon-mu
McCune–Reischauer	Ri Kwŏnmu

This article uses the "Lee" and "Yi" romanizations for his surname, which are the South Korean readings. The same surname is rendered "Ri" in North Korea, given that in northern dialects the hanja 李 associates to the hangul 리, rather than 이 as seen in southern dialects. (Refer to North-South differences in the Korean language and Li (李)/Lee (Korean name)) Given that the subject at hand is North Korean, is the usage of "Lee" and "Yi" correct? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Lee" ad "Yi" is the two most commonly used romanization within US Army documents according to Edwards, Paul M. (2006), Korean War Almanac, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 978-0816060375, so per WP:COMMONNAMES we called him Lee Kown Mu. Jim101 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since they are US-based sources, I'd assume that they would be written by American authors, with the linguistic assistance of South Koreans, as opposed to North Koreans, and thus would use the South Korean writing style... hence why I am unsure as to whether we should use the sourced romanizations, or the orthodox romanizations. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You could explain this situation in the article, but with the absence of official North Korean documents that explain their own spelling of Lee's name, I guess US/SK POV wins by default. Jim101 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess that makes a lot of sense. The absence of official NK documents may be due to his purge (compare to how the role of Lin Biao during the civil war was significantly downplayed during the Cultural Revolution due to similar political reasons), which could be why nothing was officially written about him by NK. I guess we have no choice but to rely on what the US sources say. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)