Talk:Roh Moo-hyun

His name

68.111.94.86 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)I was reading about President Roh Moo-Hyun of South Korea lately. Let's sort this intellectual process mess out. I am not familiar with the pronounciation of the name as a whole in studying through English. I need to be educated in that manner. Regarding with the International Phonetic Alphabet system is not very easy for many to use. The fist name pronounciation is clearly stated below yet find lack of information on the middle (Moo) and last (Hyun) name pronounciation to be simple and clearly understood. Will someone aid with the proper knowledge in linguistics or Korean language complete such a request and delete what I've written afterwards. We must have full communication for those who are not on the same level. In all respecet to the culture, president himself, or any indiviual for that matter deserving would be very appreciated to have him known in the real context of his name written and spoken verbally as is in the Korean Language. Let us not make more than one name for people, Keep all universal by having others learn to use the correct verbal form of a person to show some respect for the person, especially if him or her is well known or as it is a leader of a nation.

Japanese should strive learn to say the same pronounciation of the Korean language too. I know it can be a difficult task, but if you want others to take language seriously add some effort to educate oneself. Think of NIKE and "just do it". It is not pronounced Rexus in Enlish as the car, it's Lexus." The L is not the same as the R in Japanese. I speak Japanese, German, French, Russian, and Chinese and made all effort to learn pronounciations as well as in all the other languages. This is a very important action to make. I do not waste the time making things anything more than what the already are by creating something new in place. Any piece of knowledge to use correct form for etiquett purposes and complete communication. Ganbatte ne! Thank you all of this input previously and in advance fellow thinkers. Wikipedia is the most important mass communication ever! What will the future bring! Apologize if I cause any undesireable effects as this my first posting. Micahel Carter 68.111.94.86 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Roh" is the pronounciation for Japanese. "No" is the correct pronounciation of Korean way. He is a Korean!!! not a Japanese.

Even if you are right about the last two things (I don't know Japanese, so I can't tell the first one), Roh is the official way of writing by all Korean English language media including the Korean goverment. -- IGEL 21:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee (E 이) Shin (Sin 신) Roh/Noh (No 노).. some of Korean last names that are usually not spelled the way it sounds. They do this so it actually looks like last name.. Besides.. if someone's last name was NO, it sounds negative.Danmuzi 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've learned, it is popular that North Korean pronounce (盧) as 'Roh' . and I also know South Korean call No Moo-Hyun for him. so shouldn't we write the true calling way of his name in South Korea?, as a fact, at least how to call him in South Korea--Yuan.C.Lee 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As IGEL pointed out, Roh is the official spelling of the president's name, which is displayed on the president's homepage [1] also. His name as represented by Korean pronunciation is provided under his picture already, thus I don't think there has to be a change. - noirum 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The name we use is spelled in the English alphabet with an R. An R is NOT pronounced as /n/ by any normal native speaker. BUT we give the pronunciation as /n/. Having talked to a number of Koreans about this (including a PhD in English), I found that all averred that in Korean the name is pronounced /n.../. But in English it is not only written but also pronounced /r../. (The reasons are complicated and have to do with Korean scholars' advocating avoiding pronunciations and spellings that have negative connotations and the fact that /n/ and /l/ are heard by Koreans as being very close (and even switched in some words despite the spelling) and /l/ and /r/ pretty much being allophones. So my suggestion is that we change the phonetic transcription from /n../ to /r../. This will avoid that confusion for users (except perhaps for those looking at the side-bar). kdammers. 11:24, 7 June 2007

"Roh" is right. It's his official spelling. Korean person's name spelling has various examples. (e.g.Pak or Park, Yi or Lee and so on) And "No(h)" has a negative meaning. Therefore he uses "Roh". [2]Nightshadow28 14:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey, you said (Major edit; lots of info taken from news sites, his home page, etc.). Is copyright ok? -- Taku 02:53 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I reworded and recompiled everything; it's definitely to the level a schoolteacher wouldn't call plagiarism. Information, by its nature, can't be copyrighted: the method of presenting it (wording) can be. You can check my references that I listed; there's more information there. I'm sure the copyright's okay. And anyway (off-topic:) the copyright at Transjordan is directly violated, so there's better things to go for first. -Geoffrey 00:00 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry but his name is not Roh Moo-Hyun. It's Noh. You pronounce it "no" and it is written as Noh. My pastor's name is Noh. I should know

This is a confusing issue. But in any case, we need to add some clarification on the ARTICLE page. The way it now stands, some-one not knowing any-thing about Han-geul coming to the page has every reason to be confused when all we write is"Roh Moo-hyun (IPA: [no.mu.hjʌn]) " - Even if they can understand IPA (and assuming it shows up correctly on their screen), They see the letter R, which is usually pretty straight forward in English at the beginning of a word, but then /n/. I think a lot of people will simply figure the /n/ is a typo. so, we need to clarify at the start of the article if possible - in any case in the article itself. kdammers (tildes don't work).

He is kind of Korean Andrew Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.35.211.2 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean words that began with R (ㄹ) shifted over time to become either N (ㄴ) or Nothing (ㅇ). There are very few Korean words that begin with R. As for names, Roh became No, Ra became Na, Ryoo became Yoo (although you can still find the name Ryoo today), and Ri became Yi. The American Lee/Rhee spelling is a throwback to the original spelling of the name, although you can find people named Ri in North Korea.Kkachi (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Kkachi

The confusion here is in the Roman transliteration, not in the original Korean spelling. The Hangeul character ㄴ is pronounced, and transliterated, n. Looking at the Hangeul syllable 노, one could only read it as no. Why the syllable is transliterated Roh instead is the puzzler. --98.214.20.7 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I read Korean pretty well and am familiar with the pronunciation. His name in English is spelled "Roh". This is how President Roh himself spelled his name in English. People can spell their own names however they choose. Therefore, we should respect Roh's method of spelling his own name.

However, his name is not pronounced "Roh". Nor is it pronounced "Noh". The pronunciation is actually closer to "Naw" (rhyming with "law").

I hope this helps with some of the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I don't like the picture. We don't have the other picture. Mr. Roh's own picture we need. Ryuch 11:58, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. A personal portrait is more appropriate in a personal biography-article. If we do not remove the Roh-Bush photo, at least add an individual portrait placed before the group photo. --Menchi (Talk)â 19:09, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's now June 2009, and there are still problems with the photos. Apart from the portrait at the top, every single one of them shows Roh with G.W. Bush. This seems odd, since Bush is irrelevant to this article. Furthermore, one of the photos is out of focus and obscures Roh amoung a bunch of other people including, of course, G.W. Bush. Any chance of some variety, guys?

Policy

I replaced the previous penultimate paragraph which seemed to me to lack a degree of objectivity.

The removed text was:

'As president, Roh continues the engagement policy or Sunshine policy towards North Korea started by the president before him, Kim Dae-Jung. Yet, his cabinet's recent attitude towards this policy seemed compromised due to geo-political situation of which has been highly escalated due to North Korea's nuclear programme. However, it is widely perceived that this government is not capable of tackling issues around. His support for US military forces in Korea, even after possible reunification, needs enduring scrutiny due to lack of confidence in his policy.'

TJOB 23:57, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Impeachment

Now that this article is featured in the "In the News" box on the Main Page, I've cleaned up the article vis-a-vis Roh's impeachment. One side note: he was impeached on March 12, not March 11. Although it was March 11 in the western hemisphere, it was Friday, March 12 in Korea. --Sewing 18:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Filibuster

Pro-Roh Uri Party members had blocked the speaker's podium for 3 days to prevent a vote before being hauled out by opposition lawmakers and security guards.

This sounds very much like a filibuster to me. Anyone who got more info on the specifics in this case? --Gabbe 10:26, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

A filibuster is a procedural maneuver. Physically blocking the podium using bodies and throwing chairs is not really a filibuster. The incident is aptly described. --Tlaktan 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Birthday

According to his offical homepage (http://www.knowhow.or.kr/warp/jp/president/) (both Chinese and Japanese version, I don't know Korean), his birthday, Month 8, 6th, 1946, is in lunar calendar. It is not August 6, 1946 in western calendar. - Yaohua2000 09:48, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

http://english.president.go.kr/warp/en/president/story/history/ states that his birthday is on August 6, 1946. Some other Wikipedia's give August 6 as birthday, others September 1. What is the correct one? And from the information above: how can a date of the lunar calendar be translated into a date of the western calendar? (August 6 to September 1) -- Arafi78 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was this page moved?

This page was moved from Roh Moo-hyun to Roh Muhyeon on 1 October, but I don't know why. It's neither the choosen transscription (which was Roh Moo-hyun and is used by most western media including the offical webpage) nor is it the correct revised romanization, which would be No Mu-hyeon. It's also violating the naming conventions. Muhyeon is also bad because many would read it Muh-yeon instead of Mu-hyeon. I'm in favor to move it back. -- IGEL 21:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In this page http://english.president.go.kr/warp/app/home/en_home , you can see how he does write his name in English. Romanization rule for a personal name is not a compulsory but a recommendation. In otherwise, it would be a chaos. - Cheol 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the situation is with given names, i.e. whether official publications spell all existing given names according to RR, and whether children who are issued documents for the first time must have their names revisedly romanized in them. On another note, I think I've seen Roh Moo Hyun much more often than Roh Moo-Hyun, but if the latter is the official form, so be it.

§ has also moved the Revised Romanization article. – Wikipeditor

His name

is indeed NOH (노) not ROH (로). I'm not sure how this whole name situation came about but the President and my Korean side of the family have the same last name (no relation). I get the feeling that someone misunderstood the pronounciation and it took off from there. I find it rude that no one, not even Korean translated newspapers has changed this, so it must have become universally accepted. It's kind of like how in Korea many Koreans spell Korea with a "C" instead of a "K", especially during World Cup time in 2002.

Generally it's up to the individual how they choose to spell their name. -- Visviva 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true too.

Korean words that began with R (ㄹ) shifted over time to become either N (ㄴ) or Nothing (ㅇ). There are very few Korean words that begin with R. As for names, Roh became No, Ra became Na, Ryoo became Yoo (although you can still find the name Ryoo today), and Ri became Yi. The American Lee/Rhee spelling is a throwback to the original spelling of the name, although you can find people named Ri in North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkachi (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Someone's got to do something about the introduction.

It's obviously biased, and if there wasn't something positive about him, why would he be re-instated due to popular support after his illegal impeachment by parliament? Also, don't tell me he's NOT popular even from his supporters, he has a higher approval rating than George Dubya!

Someone fix the intro please. Bias should have limited place in Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.83.251 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the intro is more or less biased and needs to be fixed, but you introduce another bias that he was impeached on a illegal basis. It's true the impeachment was heavy-handed and politically motivated, but imo it was executed in a legal manner nonetheless. - noirum 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

K that's better. Not as pro-Roh as I would've liked, but it's better than before. My only question is don't you think that in Korean national politics there is a shift from regionalist divide to an age/demographic divide? It would explain why the GNP is supported by older people and the Uri by more younger people. Also should include the Dokdo issue as that has been the main focus of Korea and Roh's Presidency recently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.77.11 (talk • contribs)

I see the Dokdo issue is an ongoing one started decades ago, not an issue that particularly gained some significance under current administration. Hence no mention. Also, I agree that Roh's victory in the presidential election indicates the trend you've suggested, but I hesitate to apply that framework to current situation where the popularity of the government hit a rock bottom. Hopefully we can sum up the situation more objectively after current uncertainties in the ruling party cleans up. - noirum 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal impeachment?

um... NOIRUM, the impreachment was ruled illegal and unconstitutional by the Korean Supreme Court, that's how he got re-instated. Hence, ILLEGAL and NO BIAS in that particular sentence that I wrote as I was supported by Legal Authority.

PS Someone fix the intro or I will.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.77.11 (talk • contribs)

The impeachment procedure was conducted in a legal manner, and the Constitutional Court did not rule all of the claims made by the opposition is without basis. I don't intend to continue this argument though, because it is out of context with the article itself. - noirum 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you should the leave the argument alone, because there is no way you can support the fact that it was legal. I'm only an Australian Law Student so I don't know about Korean Law, but in American and Commonwealth Law systems - when the courts make a decision in the main aspect of the case, minority dissent from fellow judges or claims made from the losing side are deemed null. Therefore as the Constitutional Court deemed in favour of Roh, this has created a 'precedent' and 'Legal Authority' which cannot be claimed against unless it is over-ruled by a higher legal authority. Therefore, your statement that the 'impeachment procedure was conducted in a legal manner' is still biased.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.81.211 (talk • contribs)

Korean law system is based on Continental one, although I don't know the details as I'm not a student of law. Normally they publish the final sentence, and minority dissent is attached to it (as the courts in Australia probably would). Whereas in this case, the Constitutional Court chose not to publish the dissenting opinion (probably not to cause further controversies), but specified in the main sentence that the President did violate many cases submitted for the impeachment, albeit they were minor and circumstantial. They did rule that the cases don't collectively stand, but they suggested the President to take good heed of the Court's findings so as not to get in the situation again (which the President duly ignored and declared total victory). My point is that, you can't simply call the impeachment as being illegal; if it was downright illegal, the Court would have declared no contest, and rejected the case.

But then, I'm just a layman and probably you'll get a clearer idea than I have if you can read the text of the sentence. - noirum 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

K I haven't read the text so I'm basically just drawing from my own knowledge of law - (not Korean law though). First of all 'minor and circumstantial' breaches are not a condition of contract repudiation, (I'm talking about employment contract of the President here). Therefore anyone with a job including the President's job cannot be sacked or impeached as a result of 'minor and cirucumstantial' breaches of contract terms. I also have to ask whether there was dissenting argument or they just didn't publish it? Like I said I didn't read the case - but most legal cases don't censor their own dissenting opinions just because of outside factors including something like 'its potential to cause controversy' so I'm thinking there was none. Even if there was dissenting opinion, the case is still ruled in favour of Roh and therefore of small circumstance unless the same case is contested again with different arguments at a later date (which it wasn't). Also, as Roh won the case and the Presidency back he is fully entitled to politically call his legal victory 'a full victory'. This is because suggestion by the Courts on a matter outside the perimeters of the legal case, does not have to be observed as they are not legally enforceable. As the main aspect of the case (the impeachment process) was deemed illegal, the whole aspect of the impeachment can also be deemed illegal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.72.123 (talk • contribs)

I see your point.

For your information, in the appendix the judges explained the reason they chose not to publish the dissenting opinion, citing that it is generally prohibited in the Constitutional Court to publish the details of the deliberation process, including the opinion of each judges. Although exceptions are allowed in many instances (perhaps most cases they deal with), they say, but there is no such provision pertaining to the impeachment procedure.

Personally, I oppose to the use of the word "illegal" here. It gives the impression that all of the impeachment process has been devised and executed in violation of established legal system, which is not. In fact, many pro-Roh supporters exploit this sense and often refer to the move as a "coup." "Dismissed by the Court" should be enough, and in fact that is the neutral way to refer to it. - noirum 09:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of a democratically elected leader without legal precedents and/or constitutional basis by a minority should be rightly considered as a coup. Also, although I am not aware of the exact wording of the court's decision. If they ruled that is was unconstitutional, it would = illegal. As acting against the constitution would be illegal in most countries. (Again - I am unsure about Korea)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.144.92 (talk • contribs)

Then you're surely beside the point. The Court only acted upon the provision of the constitution which gave the Court the final authority to validate the move: the sentencing declares that the Court dismisses the request for decision on the (impeachment) incident, without any comment about it being unconstitutional or illegal. (On the contrary, it was the President who violated a number of constitutional provisions, which provided the motive for the impeachment.) Also, the lawmakers themselve were fully aware of the constitutional process and acted accordingly when they voted for the impeachment. I told you before, that all the procedures were done in a legal manner, as provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. If they wern't, the participants would've been arrested for charges of treason or something.

Like I've commented before, it's true the move was harsh and heavy-handed, but it was a democratic and constitutional action nonetheless, participated by more than two-thirds of all the lawmakers as was required by the constitution. - noirum 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's it, can you provide me a link with of the court case decision? English version.

Meanwhile,

Coup = sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment that mostly replaces just the top power figures.

All of these terms apply in Roh's case. Although I haven't read the case decision myself, the Constitution Court would have a limited basis to reject the decision of the Legislative Arm of the Government if it wasn't constitutional. That is to say, that the Judicial Arm CANNOT reject most decisions made by the Legislative Arm unless IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In which case the Legislative Arm and the Executive Arm can decide to hold the referendum on the issue to change the constitution and therefore get it past the Courts. (Now this didn't happen, because the Executive Arm were mostly voted off by the Korean people in popular support of Roh). Therefore a rejection of the Courts on legislation passed by the Legislative Arm = most cases UNCONSTITUTIONAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL = ILLEGAL

I honestly don't understand which angle you are coming from, the courts are designed specifically to interpret the law and constitution of the land and/or reject legislation that is deemed unconstitutional.

As the courts rejected legislation passed by the legislative arm, it can only be assumed it was because it was unconstitutional. As no legal cases has challenged this decision, therefore the current legal status of this legislation to remove Roh remains unconstitutional and illegal. The only way this can be counted is either via. referendum and/or overthrowing of the ruling by the same or higher legal authority at a later date. (I'm assuming this court is the highest in the land). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.144.92 (talk • contribs)

I think the results of the general election effectively boycotted the move, and the Court may have sought for a reasonable solution to recognize the people's choice. The Court's decision was a kind of stop-gap: while it generally recognized the impeachment request was reasonable, it maintained that the punishment in the form of impeachment was too harsh for the nation to bear, and requested the both parties to take a moderate stance. The lawmakers have taken the toll by losing the election, while the President came victorious, only to be ridiculed and derided a year later.

I think I've fully explained my view, that the whole procedures were within the legal and constitutional provisions, while you maintained that the move was unconstitutional and illegal. According to your reasoning, any move for an impeachment that failed, be it whatsoever legal and constitutional in its execution, is illegal and unconstitutional, and could be considered as a coup. Clearly there's some gap between each person's definition of constitutionality and legality.

I don't have the English version of the decision, but I wish you read further reports and analyses on the incident to fully assess the situation. I know that's hard, for in-depth analyses on things Korean are so few and far between. - noirum 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No No No No No, I don't think you get this. In Law, there is no such thing as 'a person's definition of constitutionality and legality' - law is law handed down by the Courts.

Eg. Just because someone doesn't like Roe v. Wade, doesn't make that law void - the Courts give their interpretation of the current Constitution and Laws and we accept it, unless a ruling from a higher authority overrides the first decision. Therefore as the Courts decided for Roh and no overruling decision has been made since then, the impeachment procedures against Roh remains Uncostitutional and Illegal. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with personal opinion on whether it was unconstitutional or not - the Courts decided to reject, so it was not constitutional. FULL STOP.

Also, although I see you point about 'stop-gap' and bowing to the people's wishes after the congressional elections - it 'officially' would have no bearing in the case decision as the Judicial Arm cannot and should not be influenced by outside factors. Therefore, in the case - the only 'official' reason the impeachment process would be rejected is because it was both unconstitutional and illegal. And to rid all bias in Wikipedia, therefore the official line should be followed - not just someone's personal opinion.

Also, I can't read Korean so further analysis of the case by me is considered impossible. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.71.217 (talk • contribs)

I consulted with a law student, who replied as follows:

The National Assembly is only entitled to submit a request for the impeachment with requisites, and the Court decides to permit or dismiss the request on the ground that whether the request is reasonable or not (no discussion on constitutionality or legality on his side).

Hence, imo, the Court doesn't deal with the matter of being unconstitutional or illegal when it deliberates an impeachment request. It's more like a policy review, considering the propriety of the request and providing the final say. A policy that didn't go into effect doesn't mean it was illegal - only that it's been deemed inadequate to be executed. - noirum 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

k? 'Reasonable'? Do you think these judges huddle together and decide through their own personal opinions whether it was 'reasonable or not'? No, they use case precedents, constitutional and common law to make their decisions (unless they're incompetent). Hence, good chance it was illegal. Let's face it, if what you're saying is correct and the courts can change, on a whim, what the Korean Congress (or whatever) legislates - then we wouldn't have an efficient government - as the government would be handicapped by court decisions that weren't based in legal authority. Although I'm not 100% sure for Korea, the Courts are not the mechanisms in the government for policy review. They're mechanisms used to interpret whether policy given out by Congress to be legal/illegal, constitutional/unconstitutional. Hence, the obvious conclusion applies.

PS Policy review = done by executive, legislative arms of government. President with the veto, Congress can reject - because they represent their constituents, hence different people with different policy thoughts/ideas. Legal Review = Undergone by the Courts, will reject legislation on a legal basis. As this case was rejected, not legal.

The Constitutional Court not only deals with the matter of constitutionality, it acts as a final institution to decide the disputes between governmental agencies and local governments, which is not about deciding which party is illegal or not. Hence, not every decision made by the Court is in the realm of being legal or not. This is according to the Constitutional Court Act of the Republic of Korea. If you don't agree with it, so be it.

As I repeat time and time again, the Court didn't say that they ruled the (impeachment) request was illegal in any part of the text of the sentence, hence your claim of "illegal" impeachment is simply nonsense.

Since you're generally ignorant of South Korean law system, and don't have access to related documents, none of your claims can stand. Even in the beginning of this discussion, you incorrectly pointed out that Korean Supreme Court made the decision, not the Constitutional Court. Without my conscientious correction, this discussion wouldn't have progressed.

Case closed. noirum 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat earlier appraisal of Roh's legacy

I don't intend to write my own assessment, as my English is somewhat limited, but here's an article [3] I've encountered during a quick google search, summarizing the situation of South Korean politics in the eve of local elections. The perspective of the article is generally accurate in my opinion, although I don't agree with the article's description of Roh government as a liberal one. This could be a starting point to understand current political trend of South Korea. - noirum 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not disagree with Roh's low popularity rating currently. One must realise, that Korea has a history of bad to mediocre Presidents. The fact is, the Korean Presidential Job is one of the hardest in the world, balancing North Korean relations with American relations, and trying to stay on top with economic giant Japan and potential economic power China are just two of many issues that the President faces. For eg, if we were to conduct a list of the best Korean Presidents, Roh would be in the top two (my opinion), this is not because Roh is inadequate for the job, rather that the job seems impossible for anyone to take and manage succesfully. Therefore, a current appraisal of Roh's Presidency should be seen as premature at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.71.217 (talk • contribs)

Appraisal of Roh's legacy is not a simple matter of liberalism vs. conservatism. No one denies that Roh had entered office with liberal agenda, and has been depicted outside Korea as such. But the thing is, he so often betrayed the liberal agenda unlike his predecessor Kim Dae-jung, that most liberals don't have a faith in him anymore, except for only a handful of his hardcore followers who effectively handed a blank check to him despite all the mistakes he has committed. I urge my Australian friend to study more about current South Korean politics if you want to lay claim to support Roh. If Roh was to be considered as the second best Korean president ever, the gap dividing him from the first would be far greater than ones from the rest of them. - noirum 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out the fact that because past Presidents included Lee Syng Man, Park Chun Hee, Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo were military dictators and the ones following were mediocre. We really don't have a 'good' Korean President to compare with the others - therefore appraisal of Roh in a good or bad light would be unfair at this time.

I also think an appraisal of his administration would be premature as his administration has another year+ left in office and history has a habit of vindicating leaders that were considered mediocre in the past. ie. Harry Truman

Anyway that's the focus of my argument.

PS. I will be back after finishing horrible horrible horrible end of semester Uni tests to edit some parts of Roh's article.

I disagree with your assessment. Kim Dae-jung leaves a far better record as Korean president, both domestically and internationally. Roh Moo-Hyun will go down as the worst leader in Korean history. That's an undeniable fact. The word "incompetent" follows any description of Roh. The introduction must accurately give a summary of his presidency which has been a total failure.--222.233.205.166 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Worse than Lee Syng Man, Choi Kyu Ha, Chun Doo Hwan, Roh Tae Woo?

I sense Bias and a lack of appreciation for the Korean people's efforts in dismantaling dictatorships for hard-fought democracies. Although, I do agree that Kim Dae Jung is a better leader than Roh Moo Hyun.

K um... did you just change the introduction without consulting us first? I'm changing it back.

Seriously, I had to discuss extensively with NOIRUM to change from the biased intro before, and now you just change it on a whim? Don't be a dickhead.

K, I've replaced 'huge drop in popularity' with 'drop in popularity' - my basis for this is because George W. Bush's rating went down from near 90% to near 30% yet the terms 'huge drop in popularity' cannot be found in his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.80.136 (talk • contribs)

K, in 'Early political career' I've erased the Lee Hoi Chang supporters claiming rigged elections. Just as the other user said that the core supporters for Roh should not be included in the article (as I let it slide), so this should also not be included as this position was not adopted by Lee Hoi Chang himself but only from the hardcore fringe of his supporters who were in denial with reality. Also I believe the difference of 600 000 votes is not 'very' so that word has also been deleted.

As the person who initially put a (negative) assessment of Roh's presidency in the introduction, I'm curious to know what exactly Roh has done that's considered a success or even positive.--Sir Edgar 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the current intro, has no bias one way or the other (it certainly is not pro-Roh). No bias = win. As I live in Australia and the only news I get from Korea is from the two (very) conservative newspapers that we all know is overtly biased against the Roh government. (This would explain the low selling numbers of these newspapers). Therefore, Roh's positive aspects including a stable economic growth for the country, the continued development of Korea as a high-tech nation connected by the internet (also Roh's supporters have developed politics on the internet greatly) and the juggling of the North Korea-US alliance while not greatly succesful deserves recognition that is ignored continuosly by the mainstream media and even in this 'unbiased' article. Also, regionalism in Korea is not as fervant as before and a greater sense of Korean nationalism has been established - which must be also recognised as a step in the positive direction.

Read the current intro. It's not pro-Roh, it's far from it. So stop whining.

Due to the establishment of the fact that the impeachment procedures against Roh were illegal, (See above in 'Illegal Impeachment'). I will now go through the article putting the word illegal where there is mention of impeachment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.44.132 (talk • contribs)

I think you generally have wrong ideas about current situation of South Korea, my Australian friend.

• Conservative papers do skew and bend the facts on Roh government, but their selling numbers consistently stay on top.

• South Korea as a wired nation is a work made by Roh's predecessor Kim Dae-jung, not Roh. Surely Roh took advantage of it when he won the election.

• Located in the geopolitally strategic location with powerful neighbors, South Korea has always been a powerhouse when it comes to nationalism. Besides, promotion of nationalism by politicians hardly counts as a positive progress.

• During the campaigning period of the latest local elections, Moon Jae-in, one of the closest aides of Roh, lamented that citizens of Busan (Roh's political home) don't recognize the fact that the current regime is effectively a "Busan regime." So much for the "not-so-fervantly-regionalist-government" claim.

By the way, I think the paragraphs dealing with the impeachment is neutral enough, and putting the word "illegal" is unnecessary and potentially POV. Like I've said, "Dismissed (or "overturned" as the current article says) by the Court" is fair enough, and I'll seek to maintain that part of the neutrality.

And my Australian friend, would you please add your signature when you finish your post (it's as simple as typing four tildes) and use colons to indent the paragraph? In fact, I put the appropriate tags to differentiate your posts, and you should be thankful for that;) Learn the basics before you participate. - noirum 04:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The expression "illegal" in this case is POV. I'm still not convinced of one thing Roh has achieved.--Sir Edgar 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you see if you are intent on blaming Roh for rising housing prices, then by your theory - it's unfair as well. This is because the Korean State Bank would control interest rates and hence NOT be Roh's fault. This is just one example btw. However the article chooses to ignore this fact and list such events outside Roh's control - as being the negative effects of Roh's administration.

Also, if you think that the official line of the court decision was not 'illegal' please post up reasons in the 'illegal impeachment' discussion box, so far I seem to have had the last word - using legal authority, precedents, constitutional law and the fact that the judicial arm can only reject legislation from the legislative arm only if it goes against current law and current constitution. Therefore - actually **** it, my reasons are already posted there, if you want to talk about the issue - talk there using professional legal arguments and terms that are necessary when discussing this case. So far - the official line is 'illegal'.

'Australian Friend'

EDIT: Sorry about the 'aggro' guys, I've gots Uni works to do and less and less time to do it. :(

But I seriously think the illegal impeachment issue has been solved.

I've already provided my point about the misunderstandings the word "illegal" might bring, and that should be enough unless you intend to exploit the sense which may amount to propaganda.

By the way, apparently you haven't read my recommendation about putting the signature. noirum 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, *sigh* go talk in the 'illegal impeachment' - it's official - therefore it IS. I really don't see how you can possibly debate against the merits of that last paragraph. I'm seriously tired about debating against you on that subject - you bring nothing new to the table, and you think that an official decision is POV? Seriously.. it's over - unless you want to go up to 'illegal impeachment' and debate it again. But if you do, bring some knowledge of constitutional law please.

For eg.

'Clearly there's some gap between each person's definition of constitutionality and legality' - haha..ummm. k?

'Australian Friend' <-- isn't this good enough?

I've clearly indicated that the decision of the Court didn't suggest the (impeachment) request has been ruled illegal or unconstitutional anywhere in the text; only that it's been dismissed. Until you get access to the text of the decision, your position on the issue can be sketchy at best.

Btw, refer to Wikipedia help for info on using the signature tags correctly. noirum 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As if I can read Korean. :(

Quotes and events

This section has been created as an archive to contain quotes and events that may be used as referential items to assess Roh's legacy. Viewers are welcome to use these in revising the main article - noirum 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link [4] to a Hangyoreh article in which one of the leading figures of the Uri Party, Jang Young-dal, assessed the outcome of the local elections:

"The result of the elections comes as a stern judgment on President Roh and the ruling party. (...) It seems that (the South Korean people) has decided that the President and the ruling party are jointly responsible (...) neither the government nor the ruling party has produced satisfactory achievements in several issues including economic stability, the inter-Korea relation, and the relation with the U.S."

Meanwhile, President Roh said he accepts the result as "the trend of public sentiment"[5] without explicitly admitting that he was responsible for the defeat, while a poll conducted by MBC showed that fifty percent of the respondents agreed that the Roh's policy failures were the reason of the ruling party's heavy defeat in the local elections.[6]

Finally, this is a Hangyoreh editorial in English [7] summarizing the ruling party's defeat. - noirum 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just minor comments...

"His victory was a dramatic surprise, made possible by a last-minute betrayal by a political ally that backfired." -- In my opinion, this is an exaggeration and contains some--perhaps unconscious--bias of the writer. It was indeed one of factors that led to Roh's victory, but there were other more important reasons. I would like to change "made possible by" especially.

Notes on "Impeachment"-- It appearss to me that some people on this discussion board do not fully understand what the word 'impeachment' means. Roh, just like Bill Clinton of US, was 'impeached,' which means his power as the president was temporarily suspended and he was brought before the Supreme Court. However, he was not 'convicted,' which means the Court did not find him guilty. Thus, in strict definition, Roh's impeachment was not "illegal" or "failed," as this article says. It should say he was impeached but not convicted. --Hychu

First lady?

In the section "Personal background" his spouse Kwon Yang-sook is designated "First Lady". Is this a title that is actually used in South Korea? --Olav L 22:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More background

I would like to know more about his education/qualifactions. It is stated in the article that he completed secondary education ("high school") and studied law later in life. That is admirable, and he is doubtless an intelligent man, but does he for instance speak any foreign language? (e.g. Mandarin, Japanese, English, other?) --Olav L 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

His economic policy

Roh's economic policy is almost missing in this article. It needs very much expansion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.4.224.223 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Roh's post-Presidential plans?

There should be a section for whatever Roh's post-Presidential plans are going to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.53.21 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection?

There's a lot of vandalism here. Can we get a partial block set up? Kdammers (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Open We party?

I reverted the anon's vandalism but how did no one notice this?? The name itself sounds absurd! 71.230.65.117 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment on this myself - Can we agree to just use Uri party or "Our Open Party" throughout the document, after the first mention? I'll make the edit myself if there is no further comment in the next few days. ~~Celebith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.230 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Park Yeon-Cha Gate

Roh is currently involved in the controversy of bribery during his presidency, which is mainly caused by some head of the company, Park Yeon-Cha. Could we please update this information in the article?? P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 06:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Death

The Korean media is going crazy right now. He died by falling off a cliff. Not sure whether it's suicide or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.149.135.39 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.46.223 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting how many Koreans are expressing grief at his death, given that he was corrupt and taking bribes to make decisions that were not in the interests of the Korean people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.248.89 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A brief look into Korean modern history would shed light on your quistion. Btw, the accusation made to Roh should have been made to his wife and daughter, not to him, in the first place. In this case, the prosecution was apparently conducting an "pointed investigation". They went a great length to implicate Roh. You would be startled if you look into how this case had been played out by the prosecution. The investigation was apparently a political vendetta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Y.H. Kim (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This section contains a misleading statement "The corruption cases were said by Justice Minister Kim Kyung-han to have been formally dropped" is NOT what the source site reported. This statement makes the reader believe the charges were going to be dropped against the former president. The true quote from the source is -- "Justice Minister Kim Kyung-han said the corruption case against him would be formally closed. However, he did not say whether the former president's family would continue to be investigated.". Meaning the case was closed due to his death and not "going to be dropped" due to the court not having the evidence or etc to go on. please change this statement. Ocdave67 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)ocdave67

Made edit to page on my above statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.117.11 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

broken internal link

The link for the Unified Democratic Party in the infobox leads to an article about a party in Burkina Faso. I was going to correct it, but looking through the List of political parties in South Korea I couldn't find any by that name. --n-k, 13:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in "After the reinstatement"

Violating the NPOV principle of Wikipedia, the section is full of subjective expressions such as "ostensibly", "desultory", "so unpopular", "successfully" without reliable references. More neutral language seems desirable in the absence of them. Protez (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to dismiss this allegation as I think I've been pretty thorough about providing a large number of high quality English language references (which are now approaching 100), and I've included references from both newspapers that were critical of him (i.e. the Chosun Ilbo), as well as pro-Roh newspapers like the Hankyoreh. Probably the majority are from the mildly Pro-Roh Korea Times, which unlike the Korea Herald, provides access to its archives, and many are also from quite reliable news providers like Newsweek, Reuters, Time, and the NYT, none of which have any particularly reason to be polemical about RMH. You could have actually checked the references.

Roh was indeed very "unpopular" and a political liability to his party members at various points during his administration, which is why they had to form a new party. This and various other things about RMH, good or bad may be momentarily forgotten during the eulogies, but they are nevertheless true. Likewise, the capital relocation was ostensibly to relieve congestion in Seoul, but was also a campaign promise made to Chungcheong Do. Same with "successfully" with regard to his pushing of the FTA, which doesn't imply any endorsement, it merely states that he got it signed.Jayzames (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Roh's religion.

On Roh Moo Hun's funeral the ceremony is Buddhist of the Jogye order, remove the lapsed Catholic word on his religion it is a sign of bigotry because the reason a Catholic is always a Catholic even when he converted on other religion is absurd- please update this article for clarity and in the future it will not invite any personal attacks and unnecessary criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About the recent corruption case

In introduction, 'One year and two months after leaving office, Roh became the center of an ongoing bribery scandal. This scandal, the collapse of the "Pro-Roh faction" of politicians,[13] the collapse of the Uri Party and the defeat of its successor Democratic Party in the National Assembly, and the defeat of Roh's designated successor in the presidential elections, marked a decline in the fortunes of the 386 Generation that had brought Roh to power.[14]' is clearly wrong. I didn't read through the references 13 and 14, but, the 18th National Assembly election was held in May 2008, three months later after he left office. Neither the 17th presidential election nor the 18th National Assembly election was effected by the scandal. I'm not an English native, so reluctant to edit the main page, but I think this article is partially politically biased. The word 'corruption' might be right, but in Korea, prosecutors are criticized for their 'targeted investigation'- they depend only on Park Yeon Cha's statements, not having solid evidences. If he didn't suicide, it is pretty likely that he is turned to be legally not guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidhkgg (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that now that the funeral's over we can soon be more objective about RMH. I will quote what the Hankyoreh (who has made much political hay about Roh's death) once said about the various other figures who committed suicide during a corruption investigation.

스스로 죽을용기가 있다면 왜 꿋꿋이 살아 견뎌내지 못하느냐’는 너무나 당연한 의문을 떠올리지 않을 수 없다.죄가 없다면 살아서 끝까지 결백을 밝혀내야 하고, 만약 죄가 있다면 떳떳이 죄값을 치르고 반성하면 될 게 아니냐는 게 누구나 갖는

소박한 생각이다.

Obviously, the first doubt that comes to mind is, "if they had the courage to kill themselves, how come they didn't have the courage to stand firm and stay alive? If they really were innocent, they ought to have stayed alive to the end and cleared their names; if guilty, they ought to have reflected, done the right thing, and paid their debts to society. This is just simple common sense that anyone knows.

The only true thing you've said is "in Korea, prosecutors are being criticized for a targeted investigation." As for the rest, it's already well documented that Roh's family members destroyed evidence, and while that alone doesn't prove guilt, it's way more than enough to establish suspicion that something illegal was going on that needs to be cleared up in a trial. The "targeted investigation" has already put the close buddy of LMB under arrest, so that claim is looking shaky too. Finally, I don't know if you really got the English, but the paragraph was pointing out that the confluence of events, including the electoral defeats while Roh was in office, and finally the bribery scandal, caused a loss of political credibility for 386ers as a whole, not that the scandal caused the electoral losses. Of course Roh and the 386ers' political star was already falling well before the scandal ever broke. Jayzames (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Roh Moo-hyun obviously converted to Buddhism.

Look at his funeral rites it is Buddhist so his religion is not "Lapsed Catholic" update it please for the sake of clarity.--121.54.68.114 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Regards, AGK 12:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)