Jump to content

Talk:Sin Chang-won

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming conventions

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean), we use Revised romanization for South Korean names unless there's an established convention or unless the person himself has a clear preference. There are a few exceptions for the family names Kim, Pak, and Lee, but not for Sin. News stories in English mostly use Sin, but this simply reflects the loose McCune-Reischauer system in use in the late 1990's, which allowed (and usually used) shi- for si-. And there's certainly nothing to suggest that the subject himself has a preference. By the way, it's certainly not the case that Sin is never used [1], [2], [3]. It's true that a lot of people do use Shin for 신, but if you think it ought to be a general exception, please take it up at the naming conventions page. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like lee and Kim, Park are not spelled as "I", "Gim", "Bak" in our naming convention (although some "use" as such), Shin is "established conventional spelling although some may use "Sin". The surname is also one of most common names in Korea, so I know how they spell their name in latin. Besides, I already raised the issue at WT:KO but only one person responded. I don't see why you disregard the conventional spelling so I request you revert your edit.--Caspian blue 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That just means that a lot of people spell it that way. It doesn't mean that this particular person does. If you feel strongly that it should be a general rule, please take it up at the naming conventions page. I won't oppose it. But for now, there's no reason why this article shouldn't follow our existing guideline. (By the way, there are Gims and Baks out there, too.) Where did you raise the issue at WP:NC-KO? It looks to me like this was discussed, and the consensus was to go with Sin, not Shin. --Amble (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. See this google hits.496 for "Shin Chang-won" and 29 for "Sin Chang-won" along with news resut 12 for "Shin Chang-won" There is even no news hit on "Sin Chang-won". Besides, I clearly said above, Bak and Gim are used above regardless of our naming convention. You're also wrong on the general consensus on Shin.--Caspian blue 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a convention for this. The alternative convention, which you are suggesting, was considered, and not adopted. If you would like to change that, please take it up there. Thank you. --Amble (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood

[edit]

While I have never heard of this person before the hook was posted and have no opinion about him of any sort, there are sources cited for the "Robin Hood" nickname but no sources cited for strong phrases such as "This characterization was strongly rejected by authorities and others." with peacock words like "strongly". These statements in a biography must be cited or removed. - Dravecky (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That description is NOT done by me, but by Amble. Also this quote on the matter has been on your talk age already.[4].

The South Korean police is authorities and others would be netizens according to the article.--Caspian blue 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "others," I had in mind the author of the editorial at Chosun.com. The discussion participants on Chollian are another example, and I'm sure we can find more if desired. --Amble (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good, but we need a news article or other reliable source for this to stand. The cite for the statement is an opinion column, not a news article, and thus cannot be a reliable source for anything other than the author's opinion. Also, "authorities and others" should be replaced in the article with specific examples of those who states this. "South Korean police" is specific enough but "netizens" means little other than "some people with a blog or on a forum". The specifics should be in the article, not just on a talk page, and properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are all valid criticisms. For full detail I think we have to turn to Korean sources. I have added one with a specific statement by a police spokesman. Perhaps Caspian blue can check my translation / understanding:
"국내 언론은 신창원의 범죄행각을 잘 알고 있어 의적이라고 생각하진 않지만, 외신들이 상황을 잘 몰라 이런 기사를 쓴 것으로 보인다"며 "대응자료를 만들어 외국 언론사 국내 지사 에 보낼 계획"이라고 말했다."
"The Korean media were very familiar with Sin Chang-won's criminal journey, and did not think of him as a 'noble thief'; however, it appears that the foreign press wrote these articles without knowing the circumstances well. There are plans to prepare a rebuttal and send it to the Korean offices of foreign media outlets."
Thanks. --Amble (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Korean ability seems perfect. With the source, I really do think that the DYK hook should not have the mention of "a Robin Hood figure"--Caspian blue 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (To be honest, I had to look up quite a few words). Did you see the alternative hook I proposed at Template_talk:Did_you_know? I still think that "Robin Hood figure" was justified, given that the DYK hook aims to present some interesting highlights rather to draw interest, rather than presenting a complete and balanced picture; but I have no problem going with an alternate version. --Amble (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Casanova and Prison Break

[edit]

Here is sources for the characterization of him as a Casanova.[5]. Sources for the comparison with Prison Break are these.[6][7] Although two of them are Korean sources, but all are reliable news sources.--Caspian blue 04:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Prison Break references. I haven't put in the Washington Times ref. with the Casanova comment, because I can't see the whole article myself to find out where they got it from and why (it's subscription-only). Thanks. --Amble (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sin Chang-won. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sin Chang-won. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sin_Chang-won&oldid=1201383914"