Wikipedia

Talk:Roh Moo-hyun/Archive 2

< Talk:Roh Moo-hyun
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Toobigtokale in topic Impeachment split
Archive 1Archive 2

About the recent corruption case

Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

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)

If it is true that it is well documented that Roh's family members destroyed evidence, I wonder why they were not punished for spoilation of evidence.

First of all, the rumor, clamorously spreaded by the conservative media, that Roh's wife threw away the luxury wristwatch given by Mr. Park at a levee was denied by the prosecutors themselves. It is not certain whether the wristwatch had ever reached her, never mind her husband. Secondly, the law is interested in whether you received a bribe, not in what you bought with it. Therefore, the written contract for an apartment in NY can hardly be an evidence for bribery. Although Roh's daughter stated that she had destroyed the document, its legal duplicate was intact in the hand of the owner of the apartment. I cannot imagine how the document can prove that Mr. Roh was aware of the contract unless there is his very signature on it.

Robobeg (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 


I agree with Robobeg. I propose to remove the rumor-sentences from the article. Onlyfortruth (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They were not punished for "spoilation" of evidence because in fact, the prosecutor never bothered to formally indict anybody. The only people that were actually indicted were Park Yeon-Cha and Roh's brother. Neither Roh, his wife, his son, or his daughter were ever formally charged.

As for the "rumor" about the watches, the source is the Korea Times, which is owned by the Hankook Ilbo, hardly "conservative media." If you have a reasonably reputable source (preferably in English) indicating that the watch story is a fabrication, please put it up, and if it's in Korean, please translate the relevant parts. This is after all, English Wikipedia, and we have to consider the requirements of English speakers first.

Finally, nowhere does the article suggest that Roh has ever been proven guilty. In fact, no formal proceedings ever took place in court to determine Roh's guilt or innocence, which is to be determined in an actual trial. Had that actually occurred, evidence would have been formally presented and we would have a better idea of the facts. What the article does suggest is that the fact that evidence was destroyed indicates that there is probable cause, i.e. that there is enough evidence for a trial to occur. In the US whether there is sufficient evidence for a trial is determined by a grand jury or through a preliminary hearing; as Korea lacks such institutions, whether to actually pursue a trial is left entirely to the whim of the prosecutor. The prosecutor never bothered to do so, and this is probably as good a case as any as to why Korea needs a grand jury or preliminary hearing system.

BTW, the law is indeed interested in what you bought with a bribe because purchases made with large sums of cash whose source you can't account for are inevitably going to be suspicious, at the very least to the tax authorities. If you make huge purchases on a limited income and you are audited, you are going to have to account for where the money came from.

Had Roh not committed suicide, the prosecutor would have had to prove his guilt, evidence would have to have been introduced, and judges (Korea does not have a jury system) would have to make a verdict based on the evidence. If there was a lot of exculpatory evidence, if the prosecutor's case was factually weak, and if the prosecution had made enough mistakes in evidence collection, Roh would have been found not guilty. Roh did not choose this path and committed suicide instead.

Jayzames (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, User:Onlyfortruthhas been warned five times for vandalism. I regrettably don't have enough time at the moment to fix all the incessant POV pushing and defacement, but I recommend he and the other Korean speakers that come here consult Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Fringe theories(IN ENGLISH, as the Korean versions are either nonexistent or very incomplete) if they have a genuine interest in contributing to Wikipedia beyond vandalism for the sake of political activism.Jayzames (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Please don't be a name-caller. If any, it is you, Jayzames, who are acting as a political activist. And you don't have to recommend basic principles of Wikepedia, because it is exactly because of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that I could not leave your extremely tendentious descriptions as they were. It is you who keep forgetting the neutrality principle and push your extreme political view too hard. Now I am trying to make some balance on the article. Only a person who have no sense of neutrality would regard all the alternatives to your biased view as fringe theories. (There are enough sources even in English for the facts you don't want to accept.) Please do have a good faith and cooperate to make a more balanced article. Onlyfortruth (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Nobody's been a name caller. That you have been warned by administrators for vandalism five times is not a personal attack, it is a verifiable fact; one that speaks to your credibility, and illustrates whether your intentions are legitimate or whether you intend to utilize Wikipedia for propaganda. You also don't seem to get what Wikipedia means by "neutrality," which does not mean making everybody feel equally happy if it's not based on the facts, and certainly doesn't mean removing or blocking the mention of sourced, verifiable, and relevant facts just to protect feelings. As per the guidelines, one has to "assert facts, including facts about opinions, without asserting the opinions themselves," it does not mean providing false impressions of parity for views which are not verifiable, not supported by reliable facts, or are pseudoscience.

I know this may not be the Korean way of doing things, but this isn't Korean Wikipedia. As someone who grew up in Korea, you may not be accustomed to it or understand how it works (the guidelines in Korean are admittedly very incomplete ), and that is probably why you've been cited so many times for vandalism and why these "biased" Western Wikipedia administrators don't appear to understand you. While appeals to emotion, agitprop, and appeals to patriotism are very much accepted and effective in Korean culture, don't automatically assume that the same tactics will work on Anglophones who have been trained in different ways of thinking.

For the record, I don't oppose the revision of the article to state that the watch story was a fabricated rumor IF a halfway decent source can be found.

Now back to my real job.Jayzames (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


You, Jayzames, are simply attacking a strawman. I never appealed to patriotism or any other sentiment. By the way, I never told you that I was a Korean. Rather, I suspected that you were a member of a Korean conservative political party (though I didn't take it for granted unlike you), because of such a strong prejudiced political views about what is going on in Korea. Anyway, in view of what you just said, you seem to have so strong ethnic prejudices. You reason, "You must be a Korean. Korean people are emotional. Therefore, you must oppose me because of emotions such as patriotism." This kind of reasoning is invalid universally in logic (Western or Eastern or any other way) (though it might be considered to be valid, in places where you grew up.)

I try to modify some distortions of facts which are caused by a bad shape of freedom of press in South Korea under the Lee Myung-bak government. This is a democracy issue and an issue about truths, not a patriotism issue. My only concern is to incorporate what I know to be true into articles. I wouldn't have spent much of my precious time here, if I had not found such biased descriptions almost like a political propaganda (mainly you created) in an encyclopedia that should reflect facts in a fair way.

I admit that I was warned four or five times. They happened in a row in a few hours a week ago, when I found your shockingly biased descriptions for the first time and when I didn't know the right procedure for correcting what I know to be extremely biased. Since then, I am just following the right procedure, though it takes too much time (for source research etc.) So please don't jump to the conclusion from my initial mistakes. Moreover, you were name calling me, not because you mentioned the fact, but because you framed me as a political activist, which is blatantly unfair. Onlyfortruth (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, you don't have a full grasp of "neutrality,". Verifiability is not a sufficient (though necessary) condition for neutrality. According to it,

"it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral. For example, it might be:

1) cited selectively 2) painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate 3) made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present"

When you write your sentences in the article, you violate all three of them (though you sometimes violate even verifiability). For example, you didn't want to include facts supporting opposite views and try to block them, even when those facts with reliable sources were available. That is why your descirptions are so much like a political propaganda. Onlyfortruth (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


I guessed you're Korean because your English isn't very good. You don't even seem to understand what a "straw man" is, which would involve me accusing you of holding extremist views you don't hold. All I've accused you of, and quite verifiably, is vandalizing well sourced pages for political reasons. I have speculated on why you keep getting warned, which is not quite a "straw man." As far as the appeals to patriotism I was referring to Koreans in general not you, as far as appeals to emotion, you've already resorted to glittering generalities by referring to "democracy," "truths," etc. As for me, I'm happy to announce that you will not break your losing streak of getting it all wrong all the time as I am not a citizen of Korea, do not support any political party in Korea, and voted for Obama in my home country.

In fact, none of the "biased" views you're complaining about are actually my own, since i haven't done any OR, i've used a very wide variety of reputable sources (including the WSJ, the FT, the Guardian, the BBC, the Economist, and domestic newspapers of varying persuasions), sourced every claim, and put in the majority of the some 100 or so footnotes. You've put up maybe three which I haven't gone through yet and which may or not be reliable or germane. So much for facts supporting opposing views.

BTW, you still haven't come up with any source for the claim that the watch story was a fabrication, while I've actually sourced mine. Are we supposed to believe just because you say so, like PD Notebook? That's what I mean by appeals to emotion and other shoddy tactics being widely accepted and believed in Korea.

Now back to my paying job. Jayzames (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Your thinking proceeds too heavily through racial/ethinic grouping. Consider your excuse about accusing me of appeals to patriotism: "I was referring to Koreans in general not you". Why would a fair-minded person address the Korean ethnic group in general while she or he is responding to just one particular person. Think also of your racial/ethnic generalization in "That's what I mean by appeals to emotion and other shoddy tactics being widely accepted and believed in Korea."

I supect that your biased selection of facts and tendentious descriptions of them in the article could be rooted in these racial/ethnic prejudices. You seem to have a stereo-typed thinking frame (such as "Westerners think rationally, Koreans think emotionally"). This frame clearly appear in your descriptions in the article.

Moreover, you don't seem to understand what an appeal to an emotion is. You shouldn't say that someone appeals to emotions, just because he or she refers to "democracy" or "truths." They are pretty abstract notions, but "abstact" doesn't mean "emotional". If so, mathematics or philosophy would be the most emotional branches. I mentioned "democracy" because information can be distorted in a non-democratic society. My ultimate concern is truth. Having a concern about truth is hardly an appeal to an emotion. You don't seem to understand glittering generalities, either. I didn't argue for any claim, using the attractiveness of "democracy" or "truths." I only clarified myself's concerns.

Concerning the watch story, I never said that the watch story was a fabrication. You have a great tendency to jump to a conclusion and attack a strawman. All I thought was that Robobeg gave a pretty strong argument to the effect that we can have a reasonable doubt about the story. And the burden of proof lies on the person who accuses someone of a guilt. You have to be extra carefull when you put something that defames someone in an encyclopedia. So I proposed to remove the sentences until every reasonable doubt disappears. Do you remember? All I said was, "I agree with Robobeg(s' doubts). I propose to remove the rumor-sentences from the article."

Moreover, suppose that somone really claimed that p and she or he couldn't give evidence for the truth of p yet. That wouldn't constitute an appeal to an emotion. In order to appeal to an emotion, he or she really has to use an emotion to boot his or her claim. I recommend you learn more about logical thinking.

By the way, I know an article (in Korean) concerning the watch story. According to it, prosecutors officially said that they could not confirm the story. The informer (in the prosecutor's office) to the media remains unidentifed.[1] In this case, this stroy can have no more weight than a piece of gossip news. Even the reporter who wrote the article you cited wouldn't be able to provide any verifiable source. I translate the relevant part as follows (though both of us seem to understand Korean, I translate it for other people):

검찰은 첫 보도가 나간 직후부터 “일체 확인해줄 수 없다”며 시인도 부인도 하지 않았다. From the moment right after the first broadcast news aired, the prosecutor's office have said, "We cannot confirm the news at all". They neither affirmed it nor denied it.

A newspaper article is a good verifiable source, only when the article itself has a verifiable source.

Onlyfortruth (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


The watch story is sourced, and it can even be sourced from multiple sources. If it's a rumor, likewise the claim needs a source more than an "it cannot be confirmed" from the prosecutor during the course of an investigation.

I think rational people can judge for themselves from the facts, and even from your own conduct, how commonly appeals to emotion are used in Korea, and how often they are accepted over facts.

BTW, I just saw what you did to the LMB article, talk about "shockingly biased." You made it look like it was the solely the police attacking the protesters, this video and this video clearly show otherwise.

Come to think of it you are very emotional, "shockingly" so. Even your screen name is an appeal to emotion. Jayzames (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Please learn more about logic. My screen name cannot be an appeal to emotion, because the name was not presented as an argument or persuasion. If you were right, 'Democratic Party' or 'Department of Justice' would be an appeal to emotion.

Moreover, if you were right, one would have to say that you appeal to emotion when you refer to "fact". Certainly, we don't agree what facts (or vefifiable facts) are, but you just begs the question by appealing to the big name "fact".

Certainly, you don't understand what "appeal to emotion" is. You just keep saying it. A rational person wouldn't do that. Moreover, you seem to have a strong anti-Korean sentiment and prejudice. Though I live in Korea right now, I don't easily encounter a person around here who is more emotional and irrational than you.

The watch story looks to have multiple sources. But they all come from the same source (the KBS news). And KBS has an unidentified person as a source. I have not said that the story is false. All I said is that the story does not have a verifiable source. Please stop creating a strawman.

Concerning the video clip(s), this is why I say that you keep collecting your source very selectively. Your descriptions in the article make it look like that violences are mainly from protesters. Now you only select your video clip(s) fit for your political view and sentiments. Now this video and this video clearly show how tendentious you are and will put some balance on your biased point of view (if you are rational to some degree). The incidents in my video clips (at least, the first one, to be sure) happened before the incidents in yours. By the way, the "two" video clips you have put are exactly the same to each other. So I understand that this is the way you provide the so-called "multiple sources".

Onlyfortruth (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The videos are from Associated Press, the standard source for journalism worldwide, and as reputable, professional, and objective an organization as you are likely to find. The videos are also "raw," and have not been edited or scripted to make it appear one way or another; AP wouldn't do that. The footage clearly shows a police officer beating a demonstrator, as well as injured protesters, in addition to protesters clearly engaging in violent attacks on the police. As I've been trying to get through your remarkably thick cranium, in advanced countries, we don't generally engage in the shoddy PD Notebook style journalism that is commonplace in Korea. Don't assume that AP is as unprofessional as what you're used to.

If you were a little less clueless you would have already picked up on this. But then again, this is kind of a waste of time isn't it? It's like "牛耳讀經" to the world's dumbest cow.

Anyway, this thread has gone way OTT, if you insist on continuing it please move it to a personal user talk page.

Jayzames (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I really think it is a waste of time. What Jayzames wrote clearly shows that his mind is filled with simplistic prejudices and strong emotions (especially, strong hate).

This exchange goes nowhere. Just one fact: his video clips are not raw. they have been edited. On the other hand, the second one I presented has not been edited.

I won't continue. Now I should go back to some work more constructive.

Onlyfortruth (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Try an English hakwon. You can even get a tax deduction. Jayzames (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Provided, that is, if you have an income to tax Jayzames (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Ha-Ha-Ha. You got even more emotional after your thin logic ran out. That kind of illogical and uncivilized act might work where you grew up. But not in other places.

Onlyfortruth (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I didn't imply that the entire watch story was a fabrication. There were questions about the whereabouts of the watches, but Mr. Moon, a lawyer representing Roh's family recently confirmed that they eventually had reached Mrs. Roh and she had destroyed them. However, "prosecutors had also turned up new evidence sufficient to physically detain Roh, as his family members had admitted to destroying evidence of their receipt of watches worth $100,000 each..." part of the article is simply a malicious distortion of what happened. I plan to suggest complete rewriting of "Allegations of bribery" section in a separate thread.

BTW, considering his inappropriate quote from the Hankyeoreh and other stuff he said, Jayzames apparently doesn't seem to grasp the whole picture of the bribery allegations. The main contention between Roh's family and the prosecutors is whether Mrs. Roh did it behind Mr. Roh while he wasn't aware of it in office ( as claimed by Roh's family ) or Mr. Roh did it and all his family members were just his accomplices ( as claimed by the prosecutors. ) So far, all hard evidences, including money transaction, watches, and etc., have been linked to Mrs. Roh, not Mr. Roh. The prosecutors secured enough evidence to indict her for violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Law and etc. let alone bribery. However, they kept her status as a reference witness and insisted that Mr. Roh was the suspect.

Mr. Roh had acknowledged that his wife had received $1,000,000 from Mr. Park long before he was summoned. That fact alone was enough to indict him for 'blanket bribery' in Korea if he had been aware of it in office. However, so far, the prosecutors have not found a single trace implying his involvement in or awareness of the money transaction.

Here we have arrived the famous Roh's dillema. What's the purpose of proceeding the legal suit from his point of view anyway? For him, to win in the long legal battle means that his wife needs to be punished instead. Even if he receives a verdict of legally not guilty, he will be ever blamed as a coward sacrificing his wife to avoid his own punishment. Politically speaking, he cannot clear his name unless Mr. Park changes his statements that it is Mr. Roh who asked for the bribe. Of course he had another option to undertake all the responsibility and throw himself on the mercy of the prosecution practice in Korea that only one person in a family is indicted in a single bribery case. Whichever choice he had made, his entire legacy would have become disparaged. Robobeg (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


You do know the difference between arraignment and a guilty verdict? Anyone suspected with probable cause of taking a bribe or who knew a bribe took place, including himself, his family (his brother's already in jail) is fair game for a criminal proceeding. You use the trial to find out and determine all the facts, all the facts are not presented nor determined in the arraignment. If you want to spread the blame, note that Korea does not have a grand jury system to determine whether probable cause exists; this is left entirely up to the prosecutor and subject to abuse. Since there was no trial, you can't argue the case for innocent or guilty, you can only argue whether probable cause for suspicion of a crime exists. Destruction of evidence indicates that probable cause is there, a trial would have allowed Roh to show that the prosecution was mistaken and that the probable cause did not apply to him, if he was innocent.

If he was innocent, the strength of his case would have become fairly obvious in the initial stages of the proceeding and the prosecution would have lost. If it came at the cost of putting another family member in jail, such is the cost of being a law abiding citizen and representative of the ROK.

There is no dilemma because his "reputation" or "체면" is completely irrelevant. If his wife and his wife alone did it, as a citizen subject to the law, she should face the consequences. If he has all the integrity he claimed he had, he should allow his wife or any other family member to be held accountable and come to justice under the law. The best way to clear his and his family's name would have been to be found innocent in a court of law. The purpose of proceeding with the suit therefore, is doing things according to the law and defending yourself in court and not on a mountainside, which is what someone who passed the bar exam is supposed to know and understand. His legacy being disparaged is ultimately irrelevant, it's about being accountable to the law. You don't want your legacy disparaged, you don't take bribes and you keep a close eye on your family, if someone breaks the law you should get what you deserve under the law.

BTW "sufficient to physically detain Roh," doesn't come from me, it's legitimately sourced from the (Hankook Ilbo owned) Korea Times, wherein it says "The answers are expected to provide the prosecution with sufficient reason to seek a warrant to arrest the former President to prevent further destruction of evidence." In fact most of what I've said comes from there, not me. Complain to them about "malicious distortion," don't shoot the messenger Jayzames (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is an article by Sean Hayes, esq., regarding the case for a grand jury system in Korea. Jayzames (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


You could shorten this thread if you would mend your habbit of copying-and-pasting-what-you-already-said-assuming-other-people-do-not-comprehend-that.

Although Mr. Roh died, there was no legal justification to stop the investigation under way because the briber(Mr. Park) confessed himself to be guilty and the alleged bribee or accomplices(Mrs. Roh and her family members) acknowledged most of the evidences the prosecutors had collected. However, the prosecutors declared discontinuance of investigation and indicted only Mr. Park on all charges except allegations related to Roh's family. Unless it is a worldwide practice to stop any ongoing investigation into a crime involving several people just because one of them dies, you have every right to blame the prosecutors for their sole responsibility for a serious abuse of exclusive rights to issue indictments.

As for Koreans living under the current legal system, blaming lack of a grand jury system for every social problem is not good for their mental well-being. For the present, the abuse of Anklagemonopol is complemented by the special investigation initiated by the National Assembly. Regarding the stalled investigation, all opposition parties keep demanding to appoint a special prosecutor while GNP, the majority ruling party, alone strongly oppose it, which is one of the reasons why the National Assembly has remained idle for about a month. However, the political climate is capricious in Korea and nobody seriously believes that the legal truth about the allegations is permanently sealed.

BTW, Mr. Roh did not plead his innocence on his suicide note. Therefore, the only remaining issue is whether a man has the right to choose death for preserving his dignity. This is a very controversial topic in philosopy and religion and several articles in Wikipedia are dedicated to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robobeg (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


First, I agree, why stop the investigation purely for sentimental considerations? There is no reason to stop the investigation just because one of the suspects is dead when there is suspicion of malfeasance on the part of others? You can indeed blame the prosecutors for being timid and lazy and not going after everyone they should have, but since they clearly had PC, you're making a logical leap to claim that they abused their right to indict.

In a less flawed criminal justice system (Korea's BTW is inherited from Japan), all suspects with PC (what you would call 정당한 사유), would have been formally indicted in speedy fashion and bail would have been posted if necessary, thereby providing strong disincentives to destroying evidence or running away (both of which I know from professional experience happen very often in Korea). They would then get a fair chance to defend themselves in court. A grand jury or preliminary hearing allows a third party to determine indictment and ensures that people are not indicted without PC.

And again you go with the emotional considerations, exactly what does a grand jury system have to do with the mental well being of Koreans and why is this even a consideration? Are you off your meds? Why are we supposed to prioritize the "dignity," "legacy" and reputation of a politician and his family over actual accountability to the law? In fact, why should Roh as a lawyer and a President prioritize his "dignity" over the due process of law? Roh is a Korean lawyer, presumably he can defend himself quite well.

You complained about "malicious distortion" I've shown that it's legitimately sourced. The rest of what you've come up with isn't even coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzames (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for summarizing your talking points. Otherwise, this thread lengthy enough would become tediously long by all unanswered points being reminded repeatedly. I will quote each of them whenever I prepare and post a counter-argument to it.

BTW, there must be a misunderstanding of the meaning of the sentence, "As for Koreans living under the current legal system, blaming lack of a grand jury system for every social problem is not good for their mental well-being." What I intended to say in the paragraph containing the sentence is that since introducing a new legal system would take time, let alone reaching a social consensus on it, it is no good for Koreans to blame just lack of the system for their social problems. They need to solve present problems by utilizing whatever systems they already have.

A grand jury system is nowadays seldom found outside US and has its own criticism. In most places, preliminary hearing replaces it. In Korea, the substantial judgement about the warrant of arrest and the review of legality for confinement work as ex post facto substitutes. The special investigation initiated by a parliament is generally considered an alternative to that initiated by grand juries. Robobeg (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence I said, "OR preliminary hearing," we have neither here in the ROK.

I was wondering if the apparent impossibility in parsing your arguments arises from your poor ability in the English language or just generally muddled thinking on your part. I am now leaning towards the latter.

Cheers Jayzames (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Missing 'OR preliminary hearing'... Quite surprising.

So is it your mere excuse for misinterpretation of so plainly written English sentence? Or does adding 'OR preliminary hearing' change any point of my arguments?

Now this thread seems to turn into a muddy quarrel digging into what has prompted the words. Robobeg (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

His name

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion

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.
Correct, in the same sense that we'd be expected to follow his preference if his name in Korean were /no tae oo/ (as it is), but he decreed that in English he wanted his name to be written "Hachimama" and pronounced "Snivelling Little Rat-Faced Git" (courtesy of Monty Python). —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
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)

Bearing ill will, some persons have edited the contests of this page - especially, his name -. In these contents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_name), the following things shoud be changed: Hangul 로운지 -> 노무현; Hanja 盧雲地 -> 盧武鉉; Revised Romanization No Mu-hyeon+ -> Roh Mu-hyeon+; McCune–Reischauer No Muhyŏn -> Roh Muhyŏn

As stated by above, I hope an administrator could edit his "Korean name" back to the correct one. I guess Hanja: 盧雲地, Hangul: 로운지 is a vandalism by some bigots in Japan. As "雲地" means "shit" in Japanese. For god sake please change back to Hanja: 盧武鉉, Hangul: 노무현. This is a decreased person, we should at least show some respect.

Death

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

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)
Really? His wife and kid took $6 million in bribes and Roh didn't know about it? Come on!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.143 (talk) 03:48, 20 June 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)

The statement about his death beeing a proven suicide is obviously biased. There were multiple contradictions (e.g. the present bodyguard giving several false statements). The suicide explanation is convenient for the current government but not proven! It is only difficult to find quotationsin Korean media, only a few independent websites are left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.162.8 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very disturbing that Wikipedia is helping to establish the alleged suicide as historical fact based on the word of a few members of law enforcement.
It's acceptable for the article to state what those members of law enforcement have said but it's not acceptable to state that he committed suicide as though it is a certain fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.251.4 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the way the Korean media works. Korean society is very strongly status-based, and less-experienced journalists are expected to follow directions from their more-experienced peers. What this means is that all the journalists from rival publications sit around and their discuss their stories before they are written. The senior journalits decide on the "facts" and go off and write their stories. Then the junior journalists go off to their own newspapers and write their own stories, which cannot disagree with the "facts". Doing so would cause the senior journalists to lose face. So, unlike journalists in western countries, Korean journalists do not actually go out and get their own stories, or find new angles, or do anything except write stories that are consistent with those of more established journalists. In the case of President Roh, investigators found clear evidence that his death was suicide. One piece of evidence was that his body was found with his coat pulled up over his eyes. Investigators concluded that he had been scared to jump and pulled the coat over his eyes so that he could not see the fall. However, the senior journalists chose not to report this because they did not want Roh to look like a coward. I learned this fact from an American journalist who was working with a prominent Korean newspaper (I am a journalist myself, and I was living in Korea during this time). So, the result was that the Korean public went crazy with all these rumours saying that it was not a suicide, when the journalists familiar with the story knew that it was, in fact, a suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.175.81 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Konglish Text Issue (Possible vandalism?)

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I removed the 'Konglish' text on this article and re-inserted the information about South Korea's relationship with the United States during Roh's administration. However, if someone inserted konglish text once, it could happen again. Is there a way this article can be protected to prevent a repeat occurrence?

Also, when I started searching for the South Korea-U.S. information, I found an older version of this article where someone created a "United Balls" section, followed by the phrase "I like monkey balls." Does anyone know how that got there? I'm thinking that vandalism may be involved. And003 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

it certainly does seem like this article attracts undue attention from vandals. I just stumbled upon it from recent changes and even tyring to figure out exactly what was vandalism was a bit trying. Perhaps protection isn't a bad idea. AgnosticAphid talk 01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
great minds think alike, it seems. AgnosticAphid talk 01:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

I suggest to use a photo in the following page: http://k.daum.net/qna/item/view.html?sobid=homo&itemid=25711 The photo is generally used as his photo in portal sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistysiren (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a political science professor in South Korea. In Suicide section, the alleged claim that a Russian tourist Anega Ilgay first saw the scene is incorrect. The links are fake and broken. In my search I found that Anega Ilgay is a Russian young female student in a Korean university. Because of her attractive appearance, some Koreans made internet jokes using her name and pictures. I think this internet joke landed in Roh's wikipedia. Please remove this fake claim and broken links from the site. Thank you very much. Weirdhaystack (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth is wrong?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I was looking in to the IP edit that was reverted and I have to say it looks to me like the IP was probably correct. Plenty of sources give the DOB as 6th August [3] [4] [5]. I thought there was a risk we contaminated the media with the 1 September figure but I don't actually see many RS using it. The one thing which stopped me changing the figure outright is there's a source in the early life section that's in Korean and requires subscription although if I'm not losing something in Google translation, the visible portion gives the birth year making me think it likely does not include the date. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see above there's some suggestions his date of birth was actually 6 of the 8 month in the lunar calendar (although this was the Chinese and Japanese version). A quick check confirms this would indeed be the 1st September [6]. On the other hand, it also sounds like the Korean government has stated 6th August 1946. Was this a mistake from failing to properly change the lunar calendar date to a Gregorian calendar date perhaps spread to other sources, or is the 6th date of 8th month in the lunar calendar actually the mistake from incorrectly stating the Gregorian calendar date as a lunar calendar date? Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

about Mr. Roh's family name

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

isn't his family name "Noh(노)"? It haven't to use initial law, I think. --115.22.87.221 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Roh Moo-hyun. 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 01:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Roh Moo-hyun. 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 22:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see an NPOV tag, but I don't see any discussion about it here. What's the issue? agtx 22:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC) I think there are too many issues to mention, especially related to his corruption investigation, death, and how they are described in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.130.4 (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roh Moo-hyun. 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) 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-evaluation of his whole life

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is well known that Roh Moo-Hyun, was primary political opponent of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye. They tried to forge public opinion against Roh, by illegally using National Intelligence Service of the South Korea to persecute Roh in every side that a national power could do (Although they could not directly assassinate him like attempt on the Kim Dae-jung).

For examples, it was pointed out that the intelligence service supported (including 'financial way') the radically conservative "NGO"'s like 'Korea Parent Federation' to perform violent "Political protest" against Roh, insult him in social networks. Additionally, the government applied pressure on media, making them to fire the journalists who was not supporting this plan.

I suspect that many part of the POV contents in this article, trying to omit his good achievement, and exaggerate his fault, is one of the result of this "project", trying to generate internationally hostile public opinion against him to make them in favor of the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye. As systematic vandalism of the NIS stopped with their defeat on presidential election, I suggest, it is required to re-evaluate the former president Roh's whole life. He dedicated his career as a human right lawyer, standing against tyranny and dictatorship, and he fought against the systematic corruption lurking inside the Korean bureaucracy. Current description misleads the reader to make them interpret him as a one of “childish Social Justice Warrior who fortunately got attention of a crowd”. I argue, it is unjust to let this biased description insult his whole life, and value he pursued. Parkyere (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had semi-protected the article due to a ridiculous amount of back and forth reverts by two IPs, but now it seems one of the IPs has logged into an account to continue edit-warring so I have fully protected the page. Hammer out the details here and find some sort of consensus please. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Place of Roh's suicide

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the cliff Roh threw himself is named '부엉이 바위' [pu.ʌŋ.i pɐ.wi], which can be translated as 'Owl Cliff'. Please add this on the article Nasda1322 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 22:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

President Roh did not have a bad economic performance. In fact, he had the best one. Please check the facts. He died but to the bullying by South Koreans and the media. It is unfair for this lie to spread. Firetruck707 (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he made the economy better 

Firetruck707 (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

End of term date

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The end date of Roh's term should be 24 February 2008 instead of 25 February as per convention, as the term of a South Korean president ends at midnight of the day before the inauguration. (The new president's term, according to the South Korean constitution, begins at midnight) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2076:B5:91CF:5DC9:2106:256 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Lu Wuxuan" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Lu Wuxuan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Lu Wuxuan until a consensus is reached. 747pilot (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Roh's spirituality

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Roh's religion is not agnosticism. He stated in his interview with Cardinal Stephanus Kim that he 'faintly believes' (희미하게 믿고 있습니다). So he's just a lapsed Catholic, not going to church. (1tephania (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 2 April 2010 Date added by SUM1 (talk) 7 February 2020

Agnosticism is not the same as atheism. Agnosticism is compatible with believing in some kind of god(s). Nakonana (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Impeachment split

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Saw that @Holidayruin proposed that the section for Roh's impeachment be split off in 11 Dec 2021. Wanted to create a discussion thread for it.

I oppose it because it meets neither criteria in WP:WHENSPLIT. It's also an old request, so I'll probably just remove it unless someone wants to rediscuss it. toobigtokale (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My main intention was to say that a new article should be made for the impeachment. This is an important moment in South Korean political history, and it is very common for impeachments to have their own Wikipedia article (see Impeachment of Park Geun-hye, Second impeachment of Donald Trump, Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, etc). I know it's not a large section. It just needs more work and editing.
Furthermore, the Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun already has an article on the Korean Wikipedia (ko:노무현 대통령 탄핵소추).
Holidayruin (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it’s an important topic and deserves more discussion. But it doesn’t meet the criteria for splitting. Topics that deserve their own article (again, I agree that this totally does) isn’t sufficient to merit a split toobigtokale (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Holidayruin any updates? Maybe we can/should open an official split discussion using the template to invite other opinions toobigtokale (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
If no updates, I'll go ahead and remove the template for now. It's been over a week with no response, and I think the policy falls pretty clear in this case. toobigtokale (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/351425.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roh_Moo-hyun/Archive_2&oldid=1244999207"