Talk:List of massacres in South Korea

Untitled

Hello,

I was a Korea-era draftee, and have read several books about the war. Soldiers I met in a U. S. Army hospital were quite clear that North Korean soldiers or sympathizers concealed themselves among crowds of refugees and attacked our troops, especially with hand grenades. I think that any discussion of massacres, such as at the No Gun Ri bridge should explore this situation. That our troops were green, poorly prepared, and in a chaotic backs to the wall retreat should in some way mitigate their conduct. On the other hand, the persistent Army and Government stonewalling and lies your articles detail are disgusting to any patriotic American.

Further, it is clear that North Korean political cadres systematically executed leadership members of South Korean Society, down to village headmen and teachers at local schools. Have I missed an appropriate degree of outrage in Wikipedia articles? If so, pease direct me to the entry. 75.140.157.186 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for all you do! Rich Persoff US 56-196 - --- mimulus@charter.net

Hello,

This is not the place for you to justify your teams' atrocities (and the fact that South Korean committed far more massacres of civilians than even the North did is frightening). And have you seen that edit button? If you had valid sources - which I am guessing you do not - you can easily add information to these articles. Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. 86.155.147.174 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bobo League

This edit by Prinsgezinde is very problematic and I have reverted. The claim in the edit summary, " "At least 100,000" is absurdly vague and POV. And we don't include sources on this page, since it is a list page, and the sources are already used in the linked articles. No WP:POVFORKing.", is ridiculous. a. that this list article requires no verification is silly, esp. since this is a highly contentious matter. b. "100,000" is in fact not POV and is supported by the very source Prinsgezinde cited in Bodo League massacre, in this edit--and let it be noted that the supposed 1.2 million is cited in that book (here is is) only according to "some estimates". c. "At least 100,000" is not absurdly vague. d. This isn't POVforking, unless the Bodo League article suffered from a non-neutral POV. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It just says all the more that you open this discussion (or personal attack) on this article instead of on the article we're discussing, Bodo League Massacre. I noticed, yes, that you reverted it again, even though the rest of the list clearly has only a single other reference (your revert took the number back to three references). Read WP:POVFORK again. To place an entirely different number here (should all WP's death counts say "at least" followed by the lowest estimate?) than on the page it directly links to and, more importantly, in the sources that are provided, is definitely in violation of this rule. Can you give a reason for it? You argue against the inclusion of reliably cited estimate simply because you find it unlikely. Very well, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason not to add it.

When reliable sources disagree, the policy of keeping a neutral point of view requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any in particular. Simply present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight through coverage balanced according to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

To sum it up:

• Stand-alone lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to others, and reduces the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries.

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Prinsgezinde. The maximum number should be included. There are other sources mentioning 1.2 million.

• "Between two-hundred thousand and 1.2 million" [1]
• "At least 600 thousand, up to 1.2 million people" The Hankyoreh [2]

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, my point exactly. The sources used to verify the '100,000 claim' both directly quote the TaRC-SK, a South Korean governmental body. Its input is absolutely valid, but the chance is realistic that it might suffer from its WP:COI. Giving '100,000+' as the only estimate puts a great deal of undue weight on this source. One of the sources also tells of a possible 200,000 deaths, while still quoting the TaRC-SK. Maybe we should simply swap those two sources for the original Commission report, which is also a secondary/tertiary source. Anyway, the 1,2 million estimate is far too notable to just be brushed under the carpet. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, where to start. First of all, this nonsense about "brushed under the carpet" is repulsive, and if Prinsgezinde is going to wikilawyer around with a bunch of acronyms I got one that actually applies: WP:AGF. As for the sourcing, that some elements in a list are better sourced than others doesn't mean we should aim low: the sourcing should be as good as it can. The book now cited in the article (Mikaberidze, Alexander (2013). Atrocities, Massacres, and War Crimes: An Encyclopedia [2 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 755. ISBN 9781598849264.) is quite clear: "some estimates claim up to 1.2 million". If you're going to stick that number in it ought to come with the same disclaimer; that's what it means to cite reliable sources properly.

As for the other sources: I can't really tell what this is, but it's a website and not a book published by ABC-CLIO. The second source proposed here is this one--and this is that book's page on the website of the publisher: the book is self-published. If you want to have the higher number in there, you're going to have to cite something much better than a website and a self-published book. You are welcome to bring those sources up at WP:RSN, and I wish you luck. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)