Jump to content

Talk:Syngman Rhee Line

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

Nice article! The one thing it needs now is a source--got one handy? (See WP:CITE) --Dvyost 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collect error in my English, please. Crow* 07:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete about event at August 10, 1951?

[edit]

Why??? It is truth. And the Syngman Rhee line was influenced by that event. Why is an inconvenient fact deleted in South Korea? Only Korean POV?--Celldea 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dollarfifty, I think that abolition of the MacArthur line is the factor of the Rhee line declaration. Because, South Korea is insisting that the Rhee line followed the MacArthur line. You have to write the reason if you want to deliete it.--Celldea 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The page blatantly pushes pro-Japanese point of view: for instance, the claim that Korean actions are against international law, and the rather breezy assertion that the US considered the Japanese annexation of Korea lawful. In addition, the numbers of boats seized, etc. desperately need a reference to back them up. --Reuben 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted controversial information without any references and sources... this article needs some working.

Aftemath

[edit]

'Japanese Government released 472 Korean people in Japan who had been imprisoned as important criminals from prisons in exchange for the restoration of Japanese detainees according to the demand of the South Korea Government, and Japanese Government granted the special permission of residence to the prisoners'

In this paragraph, it is vague releasing 472 Korean imprisoner who lived in Japan were result of the negotiation between Korea and Japan relationship normalization. So I believe we need to delete it because it is no releavace to the conflict directly nor aftermath of the conflict as well. --Alf 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it means release of Koreans from Omura camp, it is serious POV violation. Omura camp was for illegal immigrants from Korea (Who lived in Japan and worked in Korea and Asia for Japanese, some communist Korean. It was not a conventional crime prison.--Alf 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

Come on. Who added this section in the article, can you write in good faith? Sourcing one of the disputed parties (Shimane Prefecture) is obviously not working in a good faith. Merumerume 13:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Merumerume's edit [1], I do agree "44 deaths" seems dubious, since it were true, this Line would be more widely known (I never knew about it).
I'm going to correct the statement to "44 casualties" (deaths and injuries), as per a Michingan U. published book[2]. Unfortunately for Merumerume, the book also cites the Shimane Prefecture issued statistics as reference, so I believe this should be kept.
The Japanese article ja:李承晩ライン claims 5 deaths due to fishboat confiscation (/or while held in custody).

This article is on 2channel's watchlist

[edit]

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on the watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets related to the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

I quote a famous phrase of George Santayana for everyone who read the thread, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' I hope everything is clear soon.

P.S I hope everyone would not think that I'm spamming the same content to everywhere (the list contains much over 100 articles). I initially posted this on WP:ANI and WP:KO but only few people seem to have reached to the information. Thus, I think posting it to relevant articles is a best way to "notify" to people.--Appletrees (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to improve the English

[edit]

The English in this article is pretty lousy, I'm going to make an effort to clean it up somewhat. It seems rather NPOV to me too, but in the interest of not poking the hornet's nest, I'm going to do my best to leave the tone of the article exactly how it is. It is something that should be addressed in the future, though. Sloverlord (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syngman Rhee Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syngman_Rhee_Line&oldid=1205540473"