Talk:2020 South Korean legislative election

Ideology

Party		Constituency				Proportional						Total seats	+/–
						Party-list		Proportional		Compensatory
		Votes	%	Seats	+/–	Votes	%	Seats	+/–	Seats	+/–
	parties
Ideology
	Conservative (UFP, FKP, ORP, PNP)
	Social Liberal (DPK, TCP, OD, FDP, BIP, ACSP)
	Progressive (JP, MIN, LP)
Invalid/blank votes
Total			100	253	0		100	17	–30	30	+30	300	0
Registered voters/turnout
Source:

How about we reintroduce the ideology section like we did before 2016 because, like before 2016, it has a clearly fragmented party system and also separate majority and proportional electoral lists Braganza (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@LXM Volo:, @Aréat:, @HapHaxion:, @Julio974gaming:, @Jolin254:, @Bashore101: what do you think about it? Braganza (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against a separate table that would simply show the three lines you're proposing here, which could be added in the future section about the analysis and consequences of the election. But like with any election table, I'm strongly opposed to adding such differenciation directly into it. The result table should purely be about results in a mathematic way, and not be mixed with a portrayal of who is the "true winner" based upon ideologies analysed by secondary sources. But again, I'm all for exactly this, in a separate table, in the next section.--Aréat (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Same as Aréat, it looks good but it would be better to put it in an independent table. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 14:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking over the article yeah, I think this would be inappropriate. 81.4.100.172 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

so:

===Results by Ideology===

Ideology		Constituency			Proportional				Total seats	+/–
					Party-list		Proportional	Compensatory
		Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats	Seats
	Social Liberal	14,350,083	49.92	163	10,905,414	39.08	7	13	183	+60
	Conservative	11,966,261	41.63	84	10,122,501	36.30	7	12	103	–19
	Progressive	675,510	2.35	1	3,027,840	10.85	1	4	6	0
	Others	1,343,061	4.67	5	3,885,162	13.92	1	2	8	–41
Total		29,127,637	100	253	29,126,396	100	17	30	300	0

Braganza (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I also only wanted to use parties that clearly belong to the categories of "Conservative", "(Social) Liberal" and "Progressive". And without borderline cases like the People's Party or the Greens Braganza (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Braganza: Do you happen to have a source for these numbers of seats by parallel and compensatory system? The article lack one, and they don't add up to 17 and 30, so they were removed.--Aréat (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Naver gives the total number of seats, the direct mandates and the proportional seats (and the difference is the compensating mandates) Braganza (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Most important is total number seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Fraud claims

I've removed this section as there are several issues with it. The main concern is the way it misreports Walter Mebane's paper. Mebane's paper concludes that "Probably neither model [of finding fraud] is correct" as the "fraud" benefits the DP in 9 cases, the UFP in 6 cases and an independent in another. He also states a couple of times that "The most basic caution is to keep in mind that “frauds” according to the eforensics model may or may not be results of malfeasance and bad actions."

Particularly concerning was the direct quoting from the report (starting “the frauds occurring most frequently for pre-vote units"), which was faked – the quoted text does not appear in the document.

The section starting "However, the most compelling piece of evidence was the large-scale discrepancy between the early voting and main voting results." is pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR as the only source quoted in that paragraph says nothing about fraud.

In addition, the claim that "To date, the left-wing ruling party (DPK) and the government backed mainstream South Korean media continue to vehemently deny all allegations of electoral fraud" was cited to this article, which says nothing of the sort. The use of the term "government backed mainstream South Korean media" is generally suggestive of WP:NPOV failure. Number 57 18:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a serious ongoing issue in South Korea at the moment, and fraud allegations are widespread among the conservative Korean public as of right now. The section I wrote did not definitely state that election was a fraud, it merely stated that there are allegations of fraud (which, there are). This is why this merits one section within this article.

The figures presented in this section are all facts. Wikipedia is a medium which depicts facts, so that is why I don't know why the section is even being debated for deletion here.

1. There are concerns among a large number of Koreans regarding 2020 election having a possibility of fraud - true fact

2. There are record number of pre-votes (26.69%) compared to any previous elections - true fact

3. Two largest pre-votes demographics were ages 60+ and 50~59 - true fact

4. Pre-votes had largest observe discrepancy (average 11.7%) with on election day votes compared to any previous election, with all discrepancy giving higher votes to DPK - true fact

5. Mebane et al model stated 43.1% of pre-votes being fraudulent - true fact

There are other large number of frivolous concerns and even conspiracy theories raised by some (such as counting process being fake, 63:36 patterns, QR codes being used instead of bar codes), but none of those were included in this section. I composed this section to only include actual facts with numerical data, since those are most neutral.

"Mebane's paper concludes that "Probably neither model [of finding fraud] is correct" as the "fraud" benefits the DP in 9 cases, the UFP in 6 cases and an independent in another. He also states a couple of times that "The most basic caution is to keep in mind that “frauds” according to the eforensics model may or may not be results of malfeasance and bad actions.""

>>>I never stated anywhere in the section that eforensic model is definitive evidence of fraud. It just means that the election process should be looked into further (really, it should). The paper also states at the end, "Statistical findings such as are reported here should be followed up with additional information and further investigation into what happened.". If necessary, that sentence can be added to the section.

it should also be noted that Mebane also wrote similar report regarding 2009 Iranian and 2019 Bolivian elections, and both election articles have fraud or controversy section within. I don't see why 2020 Korean election article should be given a different treatment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2009_Iranian_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Bolivian_general_election — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisuh (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Particularly concerning was the direct quoting from the report (starting “the frauds occurring most frequently for pre-vote units"), which was faked – the quoted text does not appear in the document."

>>>this statement exists in the paper. Go to page 6 of the manuscript, paragraph starting with "Figure 4". It states "Visually and by the numbers, frauds occur most frequently for pre-vote units (43.1% are fraudulent), next most frequently for for district-level, election-day, not abroad unts (3.14% fraudulent) then next most frequently postal election day units (.925% are fraudulent).". Only one word 'Occur' was changed to 'occuring' to fit the grammatical structure of the sentence where the quote was used in the section.

The section starting "However, the most compelling piece of evidence was the large-scale discrepancy between the early voting and main voting results." is pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR as the only source quoted in that paragraph says nothing about fraud.

>>>The quoted article is used as a reference for the figure 26.69% that was stated in the paragraph, and the demographic distribution of pre-voters. The very large discrepancy between prevote and main voting result is not 'original research', it was actually stated in the article that was quoted, with the title of the article itself being that the election results were reversed when pre-votes were counted. The attached figure which compares 2016 and 2020 prevote/onday vote results was included as a further supplementary source. This discrepancy is in fact the main reason suspicions were raised among Korean public, as pre-votes are much easier to manipulate than on election day votes. The pre/on day discrepancy is listed as one of primary reason for suspicion on the petitions as well.

In addition, the claim that "To date, the left-wing ruling party (DPK) and the government backed mainstream South Korean media continue to vehemently deny all allegations of electoral fraud" was cited to this article, which says nothing of the sort.

>>>I did not add that article as a reference at the end when I originally wrote the section. Some one else added that reference there later, which is misplaced. That reference should belong elsewhere (somewhere in the beginning of the section).

use of the term "government backed mainstream South Korean media" is generally suggestive of WP:NPOV failure. Number 57 18:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

>>>The statement can be edited to maintain more neutral language. However, it is true South Korean media is denying most of the allegations of fraud, if you look at JTBC, YTN, etc. While they do try to address some of the frivolous concerns such as regarding usage of QR codes, the media is completely silent regarding some serious evidences (numerous stacks of unfolded ballots (i.e. ballots that never even entered the box) all with DPK candidates marked). While youtube video is not appropriate for use as a reference, that was the reason the second video was included as a reference. (Youtube references can be removed if necessary)

With regards to the above, I'd like to note that in this talk (but not in the main article) that DPK has extremely large influence over Korean media and even the judicial system, which makes it unlikely for there to be any investigation into this issue. In fact there will be almost no possibility for such investigation once all the evidence records of the election are deleted shortly. While some congressmen such as Min Kyung-wook even requested to courts to have election districts preserve the records of the election, court only allowed some evidences including ballots and surveillance camera footages of the election to be preserved, but all evidences related to electronic voting machine, counting machine, election management system web server are to be destroyed (https://news.v.daum.net/v/20200428153108532). That is why numerous Koreans who truly cares about future of the country's democracy are desperate enough to even post petition on the White House, in hopes that pressure from foreign governments or media can allow investigation to occur before records are destroyed.

If there are concerns with specific parts of the section, it is highly welcome for other contributors to improve it. However entirely deleting it shouldn't be the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisuh (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you rewrite the statement above so that it is about the same length as mine, otherwise no-one is going to take it seriously (see WP:TLDR/WP:BLUDGEON). But let's be clear, the Mebane quote was not what is written in the document. It is a paraphrasing of part of it with numerous words changed. This is simply unacceptable and raises serious questions about the integrity of the editor adding it. Using phrases like "numerous Koreans who truly cares about future of the country's democracy" also suggests you are not approaching this from an NPOV perspective. Number 57 21:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how addressing each of the issues you raised in the beginning in an organized matter (with >>> in the front), and coming up with a proposed solution to it is considered 'bludgeoning'. I have no idea how Wikipedia editing culture works, but at least in academic peer review process, the authors are required to carefully address every issue brought forth by the reviewer in a point by point manner, or their manuscript will be rejected.

As for the saying that 'numerous words have been changed', I still have failed to find what words I significantly changed. I only changed TWO words in the three sentences I copy pasted from the manuscript: (occur -> occurring) for grammatical correctness, and (eforensics -> electoral forensics) for clarity. If that is a problem, I can put brackets around the [occurring] and [electoral forensics] to show that it is changed. These are the three sentences that I directly copy-pasted from the manuscript in the section:

1. (from page 6) "the frauds [occurring] most frequently for pre-vote units (43.1% are fraudulent), next most frequently for district-level, election-day, not abroad units (3.14% fraudulent) then next most frequently postal election day units (.925% are fraudulent)."

2. (from page 10) "The results show that for the Democratic Party of Korea focused specification over all about 1,491,548 votes are fraudulent, and of the fraudulent votes about 1,122,169 are manufactured (the remaining 369,379 are stolen—i.e. counted for the ruling party when they should have been counted for a different party).”"

3. (from page 10) " Overall, according to the [electoral forensics] model, about 10.43% of the votes for the Democratic Party candidates are fraudulent. "

While the author writes in the concluding remarks, "The most basic caution is to keep in mind that “frauds” according to the eforensics model may or may not be results of malfeasance and bad actions.", again this is for formality (like how some scientific manuscripts caution readers when reporting significant or unusual findings). However purely from the numbers and statistics he showed in results and discussions (as well as the title of the manuscript itself), it is clear the author is strongly inclining towards that the electoral data is highly abnormal at best (whether it is a fraud, or not)

Your statement is a mess and very difficult to follow due to the poor indentation, and you have changed numerous words (for example, the Mebane report does not use the word "ruling"). But anyway, the election was abnormal due to the very high number of people (over a quarter) voting in advance or by post. The Mebane paper (as he makes it clear) is not evidence of fraud. People on the losing cry fraud after every election, even in the UK, but this is usually tinfoil hattery that relies on emotive language such as that used by yourself above. Number 57 17:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. Election is not just abnormal due to high number of early votes. Election is abnormal because if you subtract early vote % - on day vote %, early votes had higher % for the DPK, and 1) This happened in every single 300 out of 300 district 2) Not only that, but by never before seen historically LARGE (11.7%) margin.

If you assume probability of early vote - on day vote difference being higher for either party to be equal, the probability of this result is less than 1 out of 2^300 (1/2*10^90, greater than the number of atoms in the universe). If that doesn't point toward possibility of fraud, I don't know what will.

Prevailing theory is (this is theory, that's why I do not post in this article. I only post facts because I am a neutral editor) a software side manipulation which gives predetermined % of votes for the DPK before counting process begins. This can explain the reason why a number of townships across the country reported the number of votes to be greater than the number of ballots distributed. Again, this never happened before in any of past elections. Also now I see that you are resorting to hurling insults, by calling 'tinfoil hattery', and dismissing facts and numbers as 'emotive'. Conservatives have lost numerous times in past elections, but there were never any fraud allegations in the past. This is the only time, just because the statistics are extremely blatant. So far, I haven't seen you attempt to provide any factual evidence (based on actual numbers) that the election was 'normal'.

It was never stated anywhere in my original edit that mebane paper was 'evidence' of fraud. Paper was only mentioned to show that it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisuh (talk • contribs) 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on editors wanting to include evidence of fraud in the article to produce reliable and mainstream sources that state or claim it. I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to say or what these graphs actually mean, but it just seems to be that this election had the same pattern than the 2016 elections, but was exaggerated by the increase in early voting compared to last time.

Ultimately when you even have UFP politicians "[calling] on far-right YouTubers to stop making such "groundless" claims of ballot rigging." and saying "When you want to talk about such rigging, you need facts and evidence, but your accounts are not enough to claim the vote was rigged," I think it has to be viewed as WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. Number 57 11:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be difficult to understand so this is an example. Town A had 50% DPK and 50% UFP on election day vote. But it had 65% DPK and 35% UFP on early vote. Early vote DPK - election day vote DPK = +15% in this case. This happened in all 300 districts. This +% was positive for all 300 districts, and was negative for 0 district. And the number was very large to be explained by any random chance. Data is openly available for anyone, even you can go download a excel spreadsheet right now to see this.

"When you want to talk about such rigging, you need facts and evidence,"??? This is the evidence https:// petitions. assembly. go . kr /api/common/fileDownload?fileInfoId=A2456575215957EDE054A0369F40E84E&fileSn=0. FYI, they refused to allow citizens to surveillance the locations where early ballots are stored, and even covered existing surveillance cameras with newspapers. Would you accept such a thing if it happened in the UK?

As a UK national who don't know much about Korean politics, it may be difficult for you to swallow how a country like South Korea can have a type of blatant election fraud that can occur only in countries like China or North Korea. But take a look at some examples of members of the DPK who have been growing in influence

Moon Jae-In - South Korean president, wrote in his autobiography that he was overcome with euphoria when the USA was defeated in the Vietnam War and Vietnam was united under a communist regime, which he viewed as triumph of justice.

Im Soo-Kyoung – A prominent congresswoman, who as a university student illegally entered North Korea to meet its founder Kim Il Sung. During the meeting, she openly worshipped Kim and referred to him as her ‘father’.

Im Jong-Suk – During the 1980s, he was a fugitive from the law for being in contact with the North Korean government which is the violation of the National Security Act (i.e. treason). He was released from prison in 1993 due to a special presidential pardon. Not surprisingly, he is the strongest proponent of a constitutional amendment to repeal the National Security Act (very law which charged him).

Lee Jung-Hee - Called her own country 'the southern regime' instead of Republic of Korea in an interview.

It is very well known that many DPK politicians were former members of the organization like JunDaeHyup or HanChongRyeon, or similar Jusapa organization, which follows North Korean Juche philosophy and communism. They are capable of doing anything the Chinese or North Koreans are capable of doing. Many experts on East Asian geopolitics such as Gordon Chang warns how extremely pro-North Korea and pro-Chinese their ideologies are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AusCIz8wx_0— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisuh (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

An attachment to an online petition is not a reliable source, and it's not entirely unexpected for early voting patters to show consistent trends in favour of one party, as this is usually linked to demographics – the kind of people who vote early may tend to vote for a certain party. I am involved in election counts in the UK and there is no citizen surveillance of where postal ballots are stored.

Also, please don't make assumptions about people's knowledge based on where they live. The final four or five paragraphs of your response are not doing you any favours in terms of trying to come across as a "neutral editor" here. And please can you learn to sign your talk page posts. Number 57 12:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Demographics have been mentioned in the section, and demographics was another strong suspicion. Early vote had much higher age 50~60, and 60+ age groups than in election vote. These are conservative age groups that strongly supports UFP. Demographics makes it even less likely, since it means all the elderly citizens all showed up to vote early for the liberals, in all 300 districts. This could be explained by demographics like you said if the demographics were reversed, but in reality it was opposite.

It depends on your definition of 'evidence', which I plentifully provided but you denied to accept. It seems that only 'evidence' you will ever accept the result that comes out of South Korean government-led sting operation probe and investigation - (but that will never happen, some UFP politicians asked the courts to preserve electronic voting machine related softwares and servers, but courts denied it and ordered them to be destroyed). FYI there UFP members including Min Kyoung-Wook, Kim So-Hyun, or Cha Myoung-jin who are all voicing suspicion on this election.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisuh (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

At the last election, the Democratic Party also did better in early voting. And this source, which you used earlier, simply suggests that older voters changed their allegiance to the Democratic Party, which is not unheard of in elections (there was a significant shift in voter demographics in the last UK election that led to the Conservative Party winning in many areas it had never done before).

The only evidence that is acceptable on Wikipedia is that published in reliable and mainstream sources. And again, please learn how to sign your talk page comments. Number 57 12:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

2009 Iranian election had same kind of controversy Korean election is having right now, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_presidential_election , even though there is no 'proof' of fraud (since there was no investigation), only controversy. But it seems that article has a section because Iran is a seemingly undemocratic western unfriendly country, while you deleted Korea's because it is a seemingly democratic western aligned country (although they may not be so in the near future). An editor censoring, deleting and trying to cover up existing election controversy like it doesn't even exist, just because a country currently appears to be western aligned, is not political neutrality that should be acceptable in Wikipedia.

If you still believe no controversy exist in Korea -

Ongoing protests in Korea (black umbrella protest, umbrella to mirror that of Hong Kong's protests against communists)

https://www.dogdrip.net/258101588

http://www.newdaily.co.kr/site/data/html/2020/05/05/2020050500041.html

Chicago Korean Times columnist raising concerns about possible electoral fraud, and possible involvement of hwawei equipment used during election. http://chicagokoreatimes.com/%EC%9D%B4-%EC%95%84%EC%B9%A8%EC%97%90%C2%B7%C2%B7%C2%B7-4-15%EB%B6%80%EC%A0%95%EC%84%A0%EA%B1%B0-%EA%B0%80%EB%8A%A5%EC%84%B1%EA%B3%BC-%EB%8C%80%EC%B1%85/

Park Sun Hyung, Seoul National University retired professor and mathematician / statistician, states early vote cannot be explained by statistics, and election committee have a duty to provide an explanation. https://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/05/04/2020050400098.html

37 districts have more votes during early votes than there are number of voters. Article also writes election committee refuses to release source code, so there is an ongoing lawsuit http://www.skyedaily.com/news/news_view.html?ID=103684

Electronic voting machines used in 2018 Iraq and 2018 Congo election (both which were found to be frauds) were made in Korea. (http://ilyo.co.kr/?ac=article_view&entry_id=316164.) "When it comes to Congo, security experts are especially concerned about the machines. While Congolese authorities have released few details about the actual systems it plans to use, prototype machines the country bought from a South Korean company, Miru Systems, presented vulnerabilities that could result in “potential threats to ballot secrecy as well as results manipulation,” according to a report issued in June by The Sentry, a watchdog group investigating corruption and mass atrocities in Africa." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2018/09/10/the-cybersecurity-202-the-u-s-is-warning-congo-that-using-electronic-voting-machines-could-backfire/5b953d2f1b326b47ec9594d2/) Made in Korea voting machines have been banned in Phillippines. (https://www.hankyung.com/society/article/2004041192018)

I normally never post in talk comments, so I do not know how to sign comments. And it seems a 'sinebot' is automatically signing for me so is that not ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisuh (talk • contribs) 13:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What we see in this Talk discussion, Willisuh, is something very very common in the Wikipedia universe. It is found on Talk page after Talk page, especially when that touches on China, Russia, key topics relating to the left in Western politics, as well as Islamic groups and their enemies, and so on. Aggressively ideological editors flood and take over such articles. So, as in this case, we see leftist editors simply deleting contrary views, or even mere mention of their existence (!!), that they themselves do not share, even if those views are, like yours, exceedingly well-supported and documented, shake entire nations, prominently shape political discourse in them (as this specific almost certainly China-related topic so understandably has done in South Korea) and ultimately determine their actions. All that is "disappeared." It is the application of leftist "cancel culture" to Wikipedia, and is very much in tune with the enemies of truth and democracy itself. In the discussion above it is evident that the supposed flaws in Willisuh's observations are often hostile inventions or excessive slurs, often attacking things that a simple alteration in a footnote or phrasing could fix without deletion of the contribution as a whole, but this is not granted. The whole contribution must disappear. The usual strategy of such critical editing is to attack every alleged flaw endlessly, using technical terms and pettifogging distinctions unfamiliar to most editors but selectively defined and controlled by the consistently predominantly-left-leaning "administrators" of Wikipedia articles, including frequently unjustified attacks on the very sources named by the contributor as being "unreliable" simply because they represent an opposing political opinion published by non-leftist parties to the dispute in their own reputable media, producing an endless edit war that finally simply drives the opposing editor off the page. We notice that there is no interest by anyone involved, either by the cancel-culture editor or evidently similarly minded bystander editors, in offering helpful advice on constructive ways to correct the supposed flaws while retaining the thrust of the non-leftist edit. No, there is just cancellation of the entire proposed contribution, along with personal slurs.

By the way, there is in fact a reputable source that confirms that there is reasonable cause to find fraudulent influence on the April 2020 election, almost certainly of Chinese origin. It is the report that came out just these past few weeks by Grant Newsham, a retired U.S. Marine Colonel and former reserve head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific, entitled "Fraud in South Korea's April 2020 Elections: It Probably Happened and is a Big Deal for the United States." (It can be downloaded as a PDF at https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2020/09/24/fraud-in-south-koreas-april-2020-election-it-probably-happened-and-is-a-big-deal-for-the-united-states/ ) It was cited by Cleo Paskal, "Did China help rig the South Korean election?" at the Indian version of The Guardian newspaper, The Sunday Guardian of Oct. 3, 2020 (https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/china-help-rig-south-korean-election). The Report by Newsham is a very detailed 19-page analysis of the evidence for such fraud, showing thorough knowledge of South Korean politics and media, and was published on September 23, 2020, as "An Occasional Paper for the Center for Security Policy," by the Center for Security Policy. This highly reputable Center, falsely termed "far-right" by its far-leftist critics, is centrist, and has been warmly endorsed by Ronald Reagan, not a "far-right" figure, and subsequent mainstream American politicians both on the center-left and on the center-right. It is simply as a matter of fact not "far-right" but stands for the freedoms undergirding mainstream American democracy, and explicitly advocates for that. "Far-right" applies to Neo-Nazis and other fascists who reject such freedoms on principle, just as "Far-Left" applies to Communists including the Chinese Communist Party and North Korea who also reject those freedoms on principle. It might be added that the Center publishes learned "Occasional Papers" on a wide variety of topics, and these papers reflect a variety of reasoned viewpoints, reflecting differing political views, that should not be attributed holus-bolus to the Center itself. They are published as serious contributions to national security-related topics, to aid wider discussion. I have no doubt that this specific Report will not agree with the editors who dominate this page, so it will not be accepted and there will continue to be a notable omission of any reference to fraud, much less China's probable dead hand in it, in the main article. I just wish to reassure Willisuh that he is not alone in his views, and deserves a better and more decent treatment.180.216.196.68 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

After last year's US presidential election controversy, I see that US election page has sections for "Election protests", "Claims of fraud", "Lawsuits", and even an entirely separate article dedicated to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. 2020 South Korean had the equivalent amount of controversy among South Koreans, if not more than 2020 US election among US nationals. Any Korean speaker living in South Korea knows this.

As for South Korea, there were election protest on Aug 15th, which was attended by more than 1 million people despite it raining and government enforced ban on protest due to COVID-19 (photo and article: https://m.newspim.com/news/view/20200815000191). The election protest resulted in sharp rise in COVID-19 infection in August~September. There were also 120 election lawsuits filed at Supreme Court. There are still lawsuits in 2021 about this election.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense events of these magnitude being simply deleted off face of wikipedia, when US election has a controversy part. 2020 South Korean election also should also a separate aftermath section as well. It should be noted that even a comparably insignificant past election controversy like 2012 NIS public opinion manipulation scandal (when there were no lawsuits and no protests) has it's own article, which makes the necessity of the section's inclusion on this article even more apparent.

Korean wikipedia also has a separate article specifically for 2020 South Korean election controversy. https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD_%EC%A0%9C21%EB%8C%80_%EA%B5%AD%ED%9A%8C%EC%9D%98%EC%9B%90_%EC%84%A0%EA%B1%B0_%EB%B6%80%EC%A0%95_%EC%84%A0%EA%B1%B0_%EC%9D%98%ED%98%B9_%EB%85%BC%EB%9E%80 Willisuh (talk • contribs) 06:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fraud claims, again

This article should have a section on the fraud allegations, which have now crossed the Pacific.

See https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/south-koreas-april-2020-elections-rigged-answer-clear-no-170944

The conclusion of the source above is that there was no fraud, but the allegations and rebuke seem notable enough to mention.

Also, don't bother reading the mess of a discussion above this one, it's just false claims and conspiracies. It did have a funny joke about Gordon Chang being an expert on Asian politics though. 119.224.86.137 (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sim Sang-jung presidential candidate portrait (2017).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Full Results

The Korean Wiki has full results of individual constituencies. (For example, Seoul's results.) https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD_%EC%A0%9C21%EB%8C%80_%EA%B5%AD%ED%9A%8C%EC%9D%98%EC%9B%90_%EC%84%A0%EA%B1%B0_%EC%84%9C%EC%9A%B8%ED%8A%B9%EB%B3%84%EC%8B%9C

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lee Hae-chan prime ministerial portriat (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lee Hae-chan prime ministerial portriat (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)