Talk:Human rights in South Korea

Korea Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

References need huge clean up for citing sources --sin-man 09:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I edited the Criminal justice system section for the following reasons:

"Many South Koreans consider the police force to be corrupt or incompetent": that's a very sweeping generalization that could be said of any country in the world. Is there a citation to this? Is this true in 2006? Is the percentage higher than in most other countries? Portrayal in a movie is not really a proper reference for this type of a claim in an encyclopedia article. Neither is a joke about a bear and a mouse. This is just silly.

"In the nation's prison's there ..." That's just redundant, because the sentence continues to quantify "prisoners of conscience." Of course prisoners of conscience are prisoners, and they are in the nation's prisons. What else would they be, and where else would they be?

The right to a jury is not provided in virtually all the countries of the world. The jury system is a feature of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, not a basic component of human rights.

Least injured person is held responsible? That's just preposterous. Is there a citation?

In pretty much all countries with a functioning criminal justice system, many crime charges will be dropped if the victim and offender reach a settlement for minor crimes. This is routine in the U.S.

Dollarfifty 07:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Many if not most South Koreans don't trust the police; they are considered incompetent and easily bribed. I will look for something citable but it will be difficult to find in English. The movie and the joke are obiously not meant as citations but as illustrations of public sentiment. An encyclopedia need not be dry and lifeless to be authoritative, and the reader interested in this subject would surely be interested in learning about them.

2. The least injured person is, indeed, held responsible. You're right that it's preposterous but, to be frank, if you knew much about the justice system here you wouldn't be questioning it. It does need a citation though. And I don't believe that the 'blood money' system is routine in the US. The payment system here is unofficial but so common that you could practically print up a price list for various crimes -- and not just minor ones, either. Vehicular manslaughter, for example.--ThreeAnswers 00:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many if not most Americans don't trust the police either. I'm sure many sources say the same for many if not most countries. To make a meaningful statement, we need international comparative studies of corruption and incompetence. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying that's a sentence that could belong to just about any country article, and not helpful to the reader.

I can assure you that the monetary settlement for criminal offenses is very routine in the U.S., and I imagine most countries. It's only logical, if you think about it. If the victim reaches a mutually agreeable settlement with the perpetrator, the prosecutor will not only lose the motivation, but also the crucial cooperative witness testimony. As a practical matter, in many cases, if the victim doesn't ask that the charges be pursued and fully cooperates, there's not likely to be a prosecution.

Again, if there's some comparative study out there, please add to the article. But the previous unsupported claims just seemed unencyclopedic. Appleby 03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military abuse

I fail to see how one incident reported over 3 years ago, with no source for any follow-up investigation, merits inclusion in this article (see WP:UNDUE), especially with a statement claiming multiple abuses that is not supported by the single source provided. I am removing the information pending the addition of other reliable sources. dfg (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a reliable source, and being 3 years old does not make it unsuitable for wikipedia. Please do not remove cited information again. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:UNDUE as I linked above ("Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.) Isolated incidents do not merit inclusion in articles of broad scope, per WP:NPOV. Furthermore, there is nothing at all in the source provided that mentions anything about any other incident. If you can provide a reliable source that reports a pattern or history of abuses, or even follows up on what the result of this particular investigation was, please do so. But until then, including a report of a single occurrence violates Wikipedia's policy of NPOV, so it stays out. dfg (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a single incident. Hmmmm isolated incidents do not warrant inclusion? Then shall we delete the 9/11 attacks article, just because it was only 4 planes? or how about the assassination of JFK? after all only one president of the USA was killed in that incident. It is correctly cited, if you think it gives undue weight, then feel free to balance the article with claims of how nice the South Korean military is. You should balance articles, not remove information. Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source details only one incident. Note that I am not denying there are human rights abuses in the SK military, but your source does not express that; find a better source (such as the Economist, hint hint) that documents a pattern or history of abuse. Your comparisons to 9/11 and JFK are strawmen; those incidents are extremely notable, covered by hundreds of reliable sources and stand on their own as articles whereas this incident has nothing close and could not. You need to examine WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE more closely to understand why isolated incidents, even if sourced, do not belong in articles of broad scope, such as this one. If you feel that this particular incident is notable, then feel free to create an article for it. My suggestion to you is to avoid the impulse to add something sensational (ooh! Koreans being forced to eat poop!) to a topic for which you have contempt, and look for a source that enhances the quality of the article. As for your suggestion on my talk page to bring in a third party, be my guest. dfg (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say that it did not take much effort to find a better source documenting human rights abuses in the SK military. I may have assumed too much good faith looking at your edits, including the last reversion which included the "smear themselves" bit which does not appear in your source. I am going to improve the article, which more broadly addresses the issue. dfg (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a total mess

With awful old sources (some well over a decade), and practices that are no longer taking places, which were out lawed 5~8 years ago, taking the majority of the article, I am really tempted to start this article from scratch using Department of State's human rights report... any comment anyone? Dakbonsa (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, Japanese music isn't banned in South Korea any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.173.251.124 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content should be removed until there is a credible source.

South Korea, like many other modern countries change its methods and laws very often. Citation from 6~8 years ago does not reflect the current system. This article is a delicate one and some of its outdated content should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.219.109.84 (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human rights in South Korea. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Human rights in South Korea. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in South Korea. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090107175420/http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid25769.asp to http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid25769.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in South Korea. 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) 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modification

To improve the article of Human Rights in South Korea:

restructuring and redefining the introductory sentence and lead section by providing definitions, current situations and linkage to the constitution.
adding additional themes of human rights (ex. equalities, freedoms, in crisis etc.)
refresh new information under the presidency of Moon
add new perspectives and fundament with other sources

Polscienceams (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]