Talk:2016 South Korean political scandal

Proposed merge with Choi Soon-sil

Short article containing only material pertaining to 2016 South Korean political scandal. In addition, given that it is a BLP dealing primarily with accusations of the subject, increased traffic and scrutiny should result in less chance of BLP policy violations. Melmann^(talk) 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose. The woman is at the center of the scandal. It's inappropriate for the title to have a -gate suffix so early on in the history of the event. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Note There is a merge discussion in progress on Talk:Choi Soon-sil#Proposed merge with 2016 South Korean political scandal. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The scandal itself definitely meets notability criteria and has no shortage of verifiable sources. However, I agree with the sentiment that '-gate' is too forced and is not yet the common name. Proposing move page into 2016 South Korean political scandal and changing this page to redirect instead. tonyxc600 comms logs 11:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)7

• I second this --FPSTurkey (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Choi Soon-sil gate"(최순실 게이트) are very common name in Korea. [1]. Ten thousand of news mentioned this scandal as a Choi Soon-sil gate (최순실 게이트)-10000금 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Most uses I see are coming from Korean media sources. It's premature to use it as the title unless it's a prevalent name in English-language media. — ʀoyoтϵ 20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded, moving is more appropriate (I nominated the page). — ʀoyoтϵ 20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... There needs to be a wiki page explaining clearly, in English, the current Scandal involving the Korean President and Choi Soon-sil! --86.128.39.37 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) There are ten thousand newses about "Choi Soon-sil gate"(최순실 게이트)[2].--10000금 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2016

The following is a closed 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. Melmann^(talk) 05:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Choi Soon-sil gate → 2016 South Korean political scandal – Was proposed for speedy deletion under section 2.2.8 of the speedy deletion field guide, but moving is more appropriate. It's too early to use a -gate suffix. Pending adoption of the name in English media, we should change the name. — ʀoyoтϵ 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Support. It's also more formal and correct. It also covers not only Choi Soon-Sil but everybody involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opacitatic (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I think it should be speedied. Using -gate instead of scandal should be avoided—especially for non-U.S. topics—unless there is a clear consensus in English-language media of its use. --99.8.13.120 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Support as 1) it is ongoing and could easily engulf/reveal additional people 2) the proposed name "2016 South Korean political scandal" is more clear and easy to find especially if people don't know the name of Choi Soon-sil (highly plausible). ₪RicknAsia₪

• Support To be fair, the term has been used in sources [3], [4], although it is a term used by the opposition to describe the scandal. However, considering the BLP concerns, I would say 2016 South Korean political scandal is an NPOV title and more descriptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note that more publications are now using the term "political scandal"

1. South Korean political scandal: President Park's confidante Choi Soon Sil taken into custody Straits Times
2. Woman at center of South Korean political scandal: 'I've committed wrongs for which I deserve to die' LaTimes
3. Choi Soon-sil: Woman behind South Korean political scandal says she 'deserves death' Abc.net.au
4. Prosecutors detain woman at core of South Korean political scandal Hindustan Times
5. Choi Soon-sil, at Center of Political Scandal in South Korea, Is Jailed NYTimes

Overall, "political scandal" seems to be more used. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Concensus reached. Page moved as per discussion. Please use WP:MR should you want to contest this. Melmann^(talk) 05:03, 3 November 2016 (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.

Requested move 1 November 2016

The following is a closed 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: Moved to 2016 South Korean political scandal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Choi Soon-sil gate → 2016 South Korean presidential scandal – President Park Geun-hye finds herself at the center of this scandal. The persons concerned are hardly politicians. Most of them are Blue House staff, government employees, and nongovernment people. Sawol (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I think "political scandal" is the more widely used term in English language sources. See my comment in the requested move above for the various newspapers using the term. The term "Presidential scandal" is also being used by some sources, but not as widely as the term political scandal. I would say 2016 South Korean presidential scandal is good as a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What about 2016 South Korean scandal ? I don't know of any other notable scandals this year for South Korea besides this so an adjective may not bec necessary. Ranze (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2016 (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.

Building a body

I can see plenty of references all included here to establish the notability of the incident and fend off deletionists wanting to nix it, but now I think we need to focus on what statements we can take from these references to explain the scandal. Perhaps due to the controversial nature and it involving a leader we should bring up concepts and discuss on the talk what we ought to say about them first.

Can we say anything about "The 8 Goddess"? I read something about it being 8 female billionaires and Choi being one of them but am not sure how much of that is actually supported by evidence. Ranze (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory without any evidence. --Christian140 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Information

A lot of information should be added to this from the 2016 South Korean Protest CriticalThunder (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe you mean 2016 South Korean protests right? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV?

I admit I don't know the country's politics/situation at all, but after reading the article, much of it seems to be one-sided. What do others think? Does anyone who knows the situation/story better know how to help regarding WP:NPOV (for translators: simple:WP:NPOV, ko:백:NPOV)? Zeniff (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a native Korean who knows it all, I described it very objectively. The scandal is far more serious and corrupt than the description, and more information will be added.(User:Freewillforever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewillforever (talk • contribs)

Freewillforever, I have reverted the edits per WP:BLP. Essentially, we are not supposed to say that "X has done this wrong" unless a court of law has proven the charges. The content needs to be WP:NPOV at all times. Please do not revert and edit war here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, I did not say that "X has done this wrong" and a court of law has proven the charges. Please search for more before you just undo my writing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewillforever (talk • contribs)

Really Freewillforever? You added Choi also forced Ewha Womans University to change its rules to grant special admission for her daughter Chung Yoo-ra, who is a dressage athlete. which is not only badly written, but also not supported by the citations. Please remember that when you add content, it is your job to ensure that the citations support it. Over here I do not see the citations supporting the fact. Can you show me any article where it says that the court has ruled that the above fact is true? And please sign your comments and indent them properly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 I added citation and changed the sentence. As I am not a native speaker of English, there may be grammatical mistakes or awkward expressions. Erasing is the thing anyone can do even if it's not you. Instead of simply erasing the contents I wrote, you should try to revise it and change it partially if your aim is to contribute to Wikipedia.

Freewillforever Please, sign your posts. The problem is not only that single sentence, it is a bunch of other sentences as well. I had reverted your edits per WP:BRD as we cannot have POV/BLP violating content at any given time - after my revert, you should not have added the same content (in the same form) again. This is a core policy and it is not optional. I am not erasing your content - it stays in the history and you can pull stuff out and improve it later and add it to the article. But NPOV/BLP violating stuff cannot and should not stay in the article for any length of time - it needs to be removed immediately. And more importantly, the article was brief but it was NPOV and had many more citations. Your edits removed many of those. I suggest that you self-revert you last edit and discuss the changes here after that. If you self revert, it will at least reassure me that you understand the relevant concepts of WP:BRD, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 You talk like a Wikipedia admin, yet you are not. I'm not sure what kind of sacred mission it is of yours to try to keep all the contents according to NPOV/BLP rules. I have seen numerous other Wikipedia articles that violate the Wikipedia rules that "you mentioned" more seriously but have not been revised or reverted for a long time because people did not pay any attention to. I've been a fervent reader of Wikipedia for a very long time and I believe telling the facts is very important and I believe I wrote article according to NPOV/BLP rules. I would not self-revert and all we need is citation and a revision of some sentences. Why don't you help improving the bunch of sentences instead of simply reverting it to the shorter version? If I were you, I would spend my time revising the contents instead of simply reverting it and reporting Freewillforever to the admin. You are wasting your precious time. Thank you for your time and attention anyway.

Freewillforever, your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is not helping. When you say, "I'm not sure what kind of sacred mission it is of yours to try to keep all the contents according to NPOV/BLP rules.", well, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are key policies which are not negotiable. Your responses here demonstrate a WP:IDHT attitude. Your argument "I have seen numerous other Wikipedia articles that violate the Wikipedia rules" is a WP:OSE/WP:SEWAGE argument. I still do not see any indication that you understand why NPOV, BLP and BRD is important. Also, this is the umpteenth time, please sign your posts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 Information has been added based on the Korean Wikipedia version of Choi sun-sil gate and Namuwiki, Korean version of Wikipedia. Added contents are basic translation of the contents without biased opinions. If you can read Korean or can use translator, try to look them up. The contents will and should not be revised unless Wikipedia admin finds it inappropriate.

Lemongirl942, You've stripped this article of all its substance. Not only is it completely useless in its current state, but you've also kicked out its most productive and qualified editor. From now on, please take a hands-off approach, as your defensive attitude is clearly stifling this article's development, and that's putting it mildly. I'm sure you have more productive contributions to make elsewhere.

Orphaned references in 2016 South Korean political scandal

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2016 South Korean political scandal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

• From Park Geun-hye: "South Korea's presidency 'on the brink of collapse' as scandal grows". Washington Post. 29 October 2016.
• From 2016 South Korean protests: "Thousands protest in South Korea, demand president quit over scandal". Reuters.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change in background

Hi, so I am fairly new to wikipedia editing so I wanted to ask on your opinions. President's ruling party suffered a major defeat by the two opposition parties in the midterm election. Also, the president's party has long been split into two factions even before the political scandal: Jin-Park (real-Park) and Bi-Park (non-Park). I feel that such circumstances have had considerable influence in the development leading up to response to the scandal and Impeachment. I wanted to add this to the background. What do you people think? Hejang (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Move? - it's now 2017

and the scandal continues...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

or we could change the title to 2016-2017 South Korean political scandal Freewillforever (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What if it rolls on further??? I think a more descriptive title would be better. Is there a name for it in South Korea? Choi-gate?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I can say there is a high possibility that the scandal could end in 2017. It's also called as Park-Choi Gate in Korea, but since there is a document titled 2016-2017 South Korean Protests, changing the name to 2016-2017 South Korean political scandal wouldn't be the bad idea, I guess. Freewillforever (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Although consequences (like for the 2018 olympics), prosecutions, etc. may take many years to reach a final conclusion, I think the scandal proper will end with the new election, so there's no need to stretch it past 2017. (If history is any guide, the next presidency will end in scandal too, but it will be a different scandal.)

The question is whether the events after the impeachment vote (mostly the impeachment trial and arrests) should be counted as part of "the scandal" proper or the dénouement. I think "2016-2017" has the stronger argument, but I can see the case for 2016 only. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What actually happened in 2016? Merely that the scandal first came to attention. Clearly, however, the scandal relates to activities long before 2016. I think using a date is arbitrary, misleading, and very nondescript.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)