Wikipedia

Talk:Four Major Rivers Project

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

Criticism

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I have tried to post constructive criticism and more information concerning this article but username Firekim has continuously deleted my posts to only post Korean government propaganda onto this article. As only a few hundred people have visited this site nearly every month I am not too concerned, but I would like to repeat that this article is NOT an accurate portrayal of the Korean 4 Major Rivers Maintenance Project and that the current article as posted by username Firekim is partial to constructionist principles promoted by the Korean government.

Yk298 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)yk298Yk298 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article is undergoing revisions between myself (yk298) and username Finekim and is not to be relied on as a trustworthy source at the moment.

I once again, publicly, invite Finekim to enter into discussion about this article instead of deleting every single criticism concerning this controversial project and posting government propaganda.

Yk298 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)yk298Yk298 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reading Finekim's preferred version, I must say it sounds more encyclopedic then the hugely POV version Yk298 prefers. Please remember this is an encyclopedia and not the place to push government propoganda or to carry out political soapboxing. Please provide references from reliable sources which allow readers to verify what is written, both about the project and the criticism that the project has attracted. There is room in the article for both Finekim's so-called propoganda and Yk298's criticism of the project, so long as both views can be backed up by references. Astronaut (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Um, what? Are we reading the same stuff here? The current version of the article really does seem to be a bunch of POV government propaganda, with no criticism whatsoever. --Kjoonlee 10:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Compare Yk298's version to Finekim's version. Yk298's version is wholly negative consisting of just criticism and saying very little about the project except for its environmental impact. Finekim's version at least tells the reader something about the project, its aims and objectives. Neither version cites any sources, reliable or not. Surely it would be better to merge Yk298's criticisms into Finekim's version to try to give a balanced view, and to find reliable sources for both the projects aims and the environmental impact.
Compare also with the Three Gorges Dam article which includes an extensive Environmental effects section and puts the environmental impact in context with the project itself. Astronaut (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consider that I'm a Korean, I say that Yk298's version is way better. The vast majority of Koreans think negatively about this project and our idiotic president. It's a Korean-related article. Let this article reflect most of the Koreans' attitude on this project. Komitsuki (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no. en.Wikipedia has a clear policy which states articles must have a neutral point of view. To quote the first paragraph of that policy:
"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
The policy cannot be waived just because The Four Major Rivers Project is controversial or because the "vast majority of Koreans think negatively about this project". I urge you to write about this project and about the controversy. Astronaut (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, yeah. But you'll lose most of the truth. Over the past 3 months there has been too many negative new articles on this River Project in South Korea. Like it or not, the NPOV is an absolute sham for this article. Komitsuki (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

As is common on Wikipedia, you guys have the cart before the horse -- neither version contains any sources. We should start first with a list if reliable sources on the subject and then begin constructing an article that assigns proper weight to each viewpoint. Let's start by listing some sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Korean version of this article has over 50 cited sources. So sad that there no native English speakers who can understand Asian languages. Komitsuki (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Be that as it may, are there any English sources we can start with? Is anyone who is capable of reading them available to provide an accurate summary of the sources? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's not too hard to find sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and I quickly found The Korean Government, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Friends of the Earth International, Korea IT Times and others. And there's also Google's language tool to help with translating (though I would be careful of any machine translation tool). As for speakers or Korean, you will find plenty listed in Category:User ko-N. Astronaut (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://m.korea.net/english/NewsFocus/Policies/view?pageIndex=51&articleId=81900. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think it's enough to move main page.

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There were some debate for non-existing view point of criticize to this project in 2010. However from that time lots of users add materials which has opposite view points at this pages. This page had been remained in NPOV, but from now on it's enough to move normal pages. Byung do jung (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to move the article to "normal pages". It is already in the main encyclopedia namespace. The debate above was a brief discussion about the article content.
Or are you asking about the tag at the top of the article - the one that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed"? If so, then you are right, the article is much more balanced that it was. There was quite some dispute over the neutrality of the article, with different parties making huge changes to the article - one so it was wholly supportive of the project with no mention of criticism, the other so it was wholly critical while saying nothing of the objectives of the project. The edit war has largely subsided for now, but there are still problems. The biggest problem, one which does affect the neutrality, is the insufficient sourcing of the project's objectives and progress, while there is plenty of sources critical of the project. It isn't helped bu the lack of sources in English (this is the English Wikipedia after all); it doesn't help wih verifiability. Astronaut (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Four Major Rivers Project. 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) 09:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Major_Rivers_Project&oldid=1201880864"