Talk:Gwangju Uprising

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jiahpark.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tim Shorrock's Article

Having read Tim Shorrock's article a few times, I think it carries significant biases, and comes to a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions. I am not averse to citing it, but I would recommend we add some more sources to balance it out and completely rework the "Background" section into a "U.S. involvement" section, rather than having a whole section of this dedicated to one article by one author. Additionally, the way the information is presented now is very slanted:

Tim Shorrock, through his analysis of recently declassified U.S. government documents, has shown the following discoveries regarding U.S. involvement with the incident

Saying he has "shown" the following is very definitive when his article is, in fact, very controversial and not by any means authoritative. I suggest this be reworded to something like, "Freelance Journalist Tim Shorrock analyzed recently declassified U.S. government documents, and came to the following conclusions in his article '"The U.S. Role in Korea in 1979 and 1980"':"

U.S. officials in Seoul and Washington knew Chun's contingency plans included the deployment of Korean Special Warfare Command troops, trained to fight behind the lines in a war against North Korea. The Black Beret Special Forces, who were not under U.S. command, were modeled after the U.S. Green Berets and had a history of brutality dating back to their participation alongside American troops in the Vietnam War.

The first sentence is too general. Though Shorrock claims that U.S. officials knew of the deployment of South Korean SF to Gwangju, the actual quotes and documents he uses do not back up that assertion. What they show is that U.S. officials were aware that SF had been deployed and used for riot control at times in the past, that they had been used recently in Seoul (with results far better than what occurred in Gwangju), and that there was some knowledge of general movements of SF units within South Korea. DIA speculated that one unit might be used in Gwangju, because it remained outside of Seoul. However, the document clearly shows that this was speculation, albeit perhaps well-founded speculation. But it does not show that DIA or any other U.S. officials in Seoul knew that Chun would deploy that unit to Gwangju. I suggest this be reworded to something similar to, "U.S. officials in South Korea had some indication that Chun would use..." as it is currently written, it is far to definitively stated given the actual evidence Mr. Shorrock cites. The second sentence I recommend be deleted, as it is very inflammatory ("a history of brutality") and does not really add anything to the article.

On May 22, 1980, in the midst of the Gwangju uprising, the Carter administration approved further use of force to retake the city and agreed to provide short-term support to Chun if he agreed to long-term political change. At a White House meeting on that date, plans were also discussed for direct U.S. military intervention if the situation got out of hand.

The second sentence, about plans for direct U.S. military intervention, is not mentioned anywhere in the article that I can see, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest this was the case. I am going to delete that sentence, because it does not appear in the cited article, and no other evidence is presented for it. Rooster3888 07:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Don Oberdorfer and Bruce Cummings seem to suggest if not propose outright that Commander US Forces in Korea was complicit in General Chun's decision to pull frontline Korean troops from the border to aid in quelling the riot/massacre. The impression I got was that they felt Chun could not have done so without at least tacit approval. I remember hearing Shorrock at Univeristy of San Francisco, Center for the Pacific Rim in the late nineties actually propose that US Embassy Seoul was directly involved in allowing Chun to move 'combat troops' off the line to supress activities in Kwangju. The supporting documentation was to a significant extent obtained under Freedom of Information Act and as most government-produced material, dry and boring...but justified drawing the inferences Shorrock presented.

Oberdorfer also notes that the US officials were essentially rubber-stamping a fait accompli. He also says they believed that the troops being sent were not the special forces troops who had earned a nasty reputation in Vietnam.--ThreeAnswers 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oberdorfer and Cumings can suggest all they want, but they ought to have some evidence to back up their assertion. Without it, all they have is speculation. If there are better sources that support the idea that the U.S. Embassy was involved in allowing Chun to move troops, then I have no issues adding it. However, the article cited here does not present any evidence of that, and I am somewhat skeptical of Shorrock's documentation. If he does have documentation that supports it, then great. But I am very skeptical of the inferences he draws, especially given the article cited here. He cites numerous documents, but draws conclusions from them that I do not think are substantiated.Rooster3888 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This should probably be a new thread, but the 1985 Heritage Foundation article (citation number 5, presently) isn't really up to snuff. It's bizarre, reactionary, and inaccurate (there aren't many, these days, who'd associate the Chun regime with "law and order". Etc.). I suggest it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The primary evidence that the U.S. authorized deployment of the 20th Division are Ambassador Gleysteen's repeated statements that this was so. I would suspect, even, that Wickham acknowledges as much in his memoirs. Anyway, I included one such statement, along with the State Department notation that, technically, it didn't mean anything. For balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) There's not really anything superceding Shorrock's analysis, so we need to include it. (2) The U.S. may not have had any clear alternative to acquiescence (in the Chun coup), and that perhaps should be made clear. (3) However, most offensive, and telling, to Koreans, was "not that the U.S. did nothing, but" the subsequent spectacular/economic embrace of the Chun regime (first head of state invited to the Reagan White House, the notorious Import/Export loan, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Redefine?

Any objections to redefining this article to include the whole uprising, and renaming it to Gwangju People's Uprising? The deaths are important, but they aren't the only important part of this epochal protest. -- Visviva 07:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Asia-related topics calls it "Gwangju Uprising". wasn't the official name changed a few years ago, to something like Gwangju Democratization Movement? Appleby 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This really should be named to Gwangju Riot or something. Massacre gives the wrong idea. 15357 02:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely not a "riot," unless you are referring to the actions of the Korean troops sent to Gwangju to suppress with violence what began as a peaceful demonstration demanding <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">free</a></a> elections. "Massacre" is the way people in Gwangju (those who were there at the time) generally refer to this incident. The official title now is the "Gwangju Democratization Movement," though many left-leaning scholars prefer to call it the "Gwangju People's Resistance." 70.71.4.163 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Don Baker

Gwangju Massacre is not the official name used in any official document. Korean government explicitly uses "Gwangju Democratization Movement" or "5.18 Democratization movement" on official document, and UNESCO names it "May 18th Democratic Uprising" when documents and documentary regarding to this movement is registered at Memory of the World. I think the argument that Gwangju Massacre should be used as the title of this article since it's the most commonly used name is flawed since common usage can never override official usage. I think official name should be appeared first, then Gwangju Massacre be attached next to it.

"Gwangju Massacre" needs to be changed to something more neutral. This is a sensitive topic and needs to be agreed upon left-leaning liberals and conservatives alike. The official term is the "Democratization Movement" for even which, there are attempts to re-examine. The title of the article needs to be changed to what is generally accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavii (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC) --Octavii (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

--Octavii (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Also, there needs to be a section challenging the "democratization movement". Recent conservative scholars prefer to call this the "5.18 Gwangju Event/Incident" as any tangible enhancement of Korea's democracy is left to be discussed.

Film

A film was recently released in South Korea depicting the incident in question. Anyone have an IMDB link?

I've just done finding. Click this. Peterhansen2032, July 31, 2007 16:35 KST

OK, I've added a link to the official movie's website in the main article's "External Links" section. It's called "Hwaryeohan Hyuga (A Magnificent Holiday)" (2007). 75.69.117.140 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Korean television series Sandglass (Korean drama) deals with the events leading up to the massacre, and it's lasting impact on the Korean people. The imprisonment of Korean president Chun_Doo_Hwan was directly attributed to popular response to Sandglass (Korean drama). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Under this heading it states that the film May 18 says "the incident resulted in 207 deaths, 2,392 wounded, and 987 missing people, but the exact number of casualties has been subject to considerable dispute. Members of the military government were indicted with rebellion but the culprit of ordering open fire against the citizens has yet to be identified," but it's never present on the actual film as a coda (such as the statement in the beginning is physically there on screen and translated in the English subtitles), only tagged onto the end of the English subtitles with no apparent source. Are we sure this is actually part of the film and not just an overzealous fansubber? Robixsmash (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral writing

At present, the content and style of writing at a number of points in the article undermine its neutrality, specifically to advocate against the Democratization Movement. Here are just a few examples:

• The first sentence of the second paragraph ("The events of May 1980 were not a deliberate plot by the ROK government to massacre innocent civilians in South Cholla Province.") is abruptly introduced, apparently to immediately establish innocence.
• The (ungrammatical) sentence "Therefore, so called Kwangju Democratization Movement" demonstrates disagreement with the (so far) accepted label for the movement.
• Expelled student leaders and their influences in the Background section are linked to North Korean ideology without evidence, and are compared to Nazi propaganda in Europe.
• Statements such as "These claims are completely unsubstantiated. The facts of the casualty rate are clear." in the Casualties section too confidently, and emotionally, reject alternative calculations.

Some of the non-neutral writing seems to be based in external sources, and is cited appropriately. However, just because an opinion is taken from an external source does not elevate it to the status of fact--it remains an opinion, and must be treated as such. --BlueResistance 11:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Over the past several months, this article has been deformed by a series of ideological edits amounting basically to vandalism. These edits vary from the childish to the dangerously fallacious (examples given above are characteristic). They're not - (where substantiated at all) - generally substantiated by sources of any credibility (in this respect BlueResistance's point, above, is well-taken). Or they're referred to sources at variance, in fact, with claims made. Probably the best course would be to restore the article text of several months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeungsan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Mudeungsan. Your revisions helped to streamline things a bit, and the Kimsoft reference helped. Unfortunately, the revision cited the content of a non-documentary movie, which cannot be used as a valid reference in a situation like this, and it removed the foreign press/Chun Doo-hwan opposition view of the casualties. Listing their view does not mean taking their side over the official position or the view of the May 18 Bereaved Family Association; it's just part of being neutral, valid, and comprehensive. In light of this, I restored part of my 14 June 2010 revision, while maintaining part of yours. --BlueResistance 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2012 Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Gwangju Democratization Movement → Gwangju massacre – Gwangju massacre is the most common name per the following Google book search.

• "Gwangju massacre" 342
• "Gwangju uprising" 71
• "Gwangju Democratization Movement" 57

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This article was moved from Gwangju massacre to Gwangju Democratization Movement by User:Historiographer on 26 June 2007.[1]

• Support. "Kwangju massacre" is the common name, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - the references don't provide much evidence; also the name "massacre" removes the context of the democratisation movement part. Can you clarify why this move improves the article? JoshuSasori (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the common name and likely to remain so. The lasting significance of the incident is not so much what the rioters were able to do as the national and international revulsion that the massacre produced, which was a major factor in the eventual founding of the Sixth Republic of South Korea (one intervening republic later). Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

in culture : "In memorium Gwangju"

Commissioned for Montreal symphony Orchestra in period 1982- 1995 ?

Premiere in Salle Wilfred Pelletier under Charles Dutoit, Richard Robertson, concertmaster ??

See : Isang_Yun

G. Robert Shiplett 23:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

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) 12:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A POV tag was re-added in April 2015, but there is still no discussion here.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

move request

Gwangju massacre → Gwangju Democratization Movement Gwangju massacre is more common. but the translation of 광주 민주화 운동(Korean)is Gwangju Democratization Movement and this event is closer to democratization movement--Lhs1219 (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

From 1980 till nowadays, there have been many official Korean names for this event, each of them describing mostly the ulterior motives of the successive governments. A careful description of this process could be more useful that yet another renaming of the article. In any case, the key fact is the so many people that were shot to death. Let us remember them. Pldx1 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pldx1. The article title is determined by the most common English name, "Gwangju massacre" which was adopted by the Western world. However there are many Korean names for this event. The Japanese article describes this transition of the names. Gwangju Affair (광주사태), Gwangju Uprising (광주의거), Gwangju Democratization Movement (광주 민주화 운동), Gwangju Populace Conflict (광주민중항쟁), Gwangju Democratization Conflict (（광주민주화항쟁), Gwangju Conflict (광주항쟁), and Gwangju People's Uprising (광주인민봉기) in North Korea. Unfortunately Japanese article has no source, however if there is a reliable source, this transition should be mentioned in this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Gwangju massacre → Gwangju Uprising – This is the name adopted by UNESCO (May 18th Democratic Uprising), and is by far the most commonly used terminology according to Google Books - the search for "Gwangju Massacre" only yields 1,510 results, while "Gwangju Uprising" yields 26,700 hits. The term "Gwangju Massacre" (광주 학살) isn't even used that commonly in Korean, resulting in 6,420 hits on Google Books compared to 14,400 for "Gwangju Uprising" (광주 항쟁). Furthermore, the article mostly details the process of the armed conflict that erupted as a result of the massacre, large part of which were clashes between the local militia and the military regime - "Massacre" misrepresents the nature of the events that transpired. Dodam.a.ih (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, even the official Memorial Foundation founded by the survivors uses "Uprising" as the preferred term. Dodam.a.ih (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also confer: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Gwangju+Massacre%2CGwangju+Democratization+Movement%2CGwangju+Uprising&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1980&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGwangju%20massacre%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGwangju%20Uprising%3B%2Cc0 Dodam.a.ih (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Here's another ngram that includes more terms from the previous request, and Kwangju Uprising: ngram. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

I have a question

What's the difference between "uprising" and "riot"?175.252.178.92 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming, again

1. Title is Gwangju Uprising
2. Lead was The Gwangju Massacre, alternatively called May 18 Democratic Massacre by UNESCO,[3] and also known as Gwangju Democratization Movement[4] (Hangul: 광주 민주화 운동; hanja: 光州民主化運動; RR: Gwangju Minjuhwa Undong) (as changed by 119.192.213.123)
3. Desinfobox says "Gwangju Massacre"

BUT

1. Survivors are saying: The May 18 Memorial Foundation is a non-profit organization established on August 30, 1994 by the surviving victims of The 1980 Gwangju Democratic Uprising, the victims families, and the citizens of Gwangju. The foundation aims to commemorate as well as continue the spirit and struggle and solidarity of The May 18 Uprising; to contribute to the peaceful reunification of Korea; and to work towards peace and human rights throughout the world. Thus the spirit of the May 18 is inherited and passed on, significantly influencing the progress of democracy in Korea..
2. Unesco is saying: Human Rights Documentary Heritage 1980 Archives for the May 18th Democratic Uprising against Military Regime, in Gwangju, Republic of Korea

Therefore I have reverted the "May 18 Democratic Massacre" into "May 18 Democratic Uprising" since Unesco has authority about what Unesco has said. As an additional rationale, may I add that "Democratic Massacre" is a total stupidity. Are you really implying that such a slaughter was perpetrated as an act of democracy ?

Moreover, desinfobox shouldn't be allowed to say anything about the name of the event: that information should be transcluded from the article's title. A skilled person is required !

Finally, I left the other two 'Massacre' in the lead to imply that those two are more relevant of a 'content discussion'. Beware nevertheless of the following fact: 'massacre' is implying that the victims were slaughtered like animals, while 'uprising' is implying that they were standing up for their rights, like any other decent person. Beside what sources are saying, we can also aks ourselves about what is the most decent and respectful presentation of the deceased and the survivors either?

Pldx1 (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Gwangju Democratization Movement

Gwangju Uprising seems to be what the sources call it. Jadeslair (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Merge - The existence of two almost identical articles appears to reflect a copy-and-paste that was probably done by someone who didn't know that Wikipedia doesn't use copy-and-paste. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Merged - The Korean user had the wrong idea of what the word "uprising" meant. They thought it had similar connotations to "rebellion" or "riot", which has been used by the far-right in Korea to detract from event. Maybe the article should be semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.66.66 (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gwangju Uprising. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110603040007/http://www.518.org/eng/html/main.html?TM18MF=03020000 to http://518.org/eng/html/main.html?TM18MF=03020000
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927175044/http://www.hrschool.org/doc/mainfile.php/lesson36/ to http://www.hrschool.org/doc/mainfile.php/lesson36/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070624231723/http://www.hrschool.org/doc/mainfile.php/lesson37/ to http://www.hrschool.org/doc/mainfile.php/lesson37/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070312011433/http://www.hrsolidarity.net:80/mainfile.php/1996vol06no02/117/ to http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1996vol06no02/117/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080209123735/http://www.rememberu518.co.kr:80/ to http://www.rememberu518.co.kr/

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} 20:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gwangju Uprising. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130331004754/http://seoul.usembassy.gov/backgrounder.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/backgrounder.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130331004754/http://seoul.usembassy.gov/backgrounder.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/backgrounder.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615204436/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2971803 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2971803

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) 17:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwangju Uprising. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222220549/http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/asb35.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/asb35.cfm

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) 10:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also known as the "Gwangju Massacre"

This should be stated in the beginning of the article, which currently it is not. 2601:8C:4500:4680:A0D9:DDE8:B720:E5C (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

it is not uprising, it is protest and civil movement

@Pldx1, Dodam.a.ih, and Dekimasu: in Korea, the government recognized this movement as a democratic movement and 18th of May became a national holiday of Korea. If we maintain this as "Uprising", it doesn't contain its original meaning. You guys know that Korean think uprising as riots and rebellion. And that already means it is not adoptable. 웬디러비 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest it should be called then? It was an uprising in that a section of the population rose up against the government. The name does not suggest that it was illegitimate any more than the Warsaw Uprising was. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agee. The term "uprising" in English is not pejorative.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

well, the Korean government officially calls it as "Democratic Uprising" or "Democratic Movement", so I think we should call in that name. Here is evidence

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 웬디러비 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The first line says: "The Gwangju Uprising (Korean: 광주 민주화 항쟁; Hanja: 光州民主化抗爭), alternatively called the May 18 Democratic Uprising by UNESCO,[2] and also known as May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement[3] (Korean: 5·18 광주 민주화 운동; Hanja: 五一八光州民主化運動)", which I think is more than adequate. As Jack Upland has said "uprising" is not perjorative so I see no reason to make a change.Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Revelations of U.S. foreknowledge

Existing text

    "Declassified United States Department of State documents in July 2021, requested by the South Korean government, revealed that the U.S. ambassador William H. Gleysteen was informed by the Chief Presidential Secretary Choi Kwang-soo of the plans for an army crackdown on 26 May 1980, a day before it took place.[48] The diplomatic cables showed Gleysteen expressed Washington's concerns over growing anti-American sentiment in and around the Gwangju area, amid "broadcasts" asserting that the U.S. was involved in the military crackdown."

Having followed the link provided by Citation #48, it's a news article which provides no links to the declassified documents themselves. The linked article has the following text (2 paragraphs out of 13 paragraphs total):

    In the meeting with Choi, Gleysteen also expressed Washington's concerns over growing anti-American sentiment in and around the Gwangju area, amid what he described as some "broadcasts" asserting that the U.S. was involved in the military crackdown.

    "We had told that such crude efforts to shift the blame to U.S. were unacceptable, and if continued, would necessitate a firm U.S. denial," he said.

Wiki text: Gleysteen expressed Washington's concerns over growing anti-American sentiment in and around the Gwangju area, amid "broadcasts" asserting that the U.S. was involved in the military crackdown. Cited article text with words excised from the copy/paste into the Wiki article in italics: Gleysteen also expressed Washington's concerns over growing anti-American sentiment in and around the Gwangju area, amid what he described as some "broadcasts" asserting that the U.S. was involved in the military crackdown.

My problems are that 1) when I first read this section my impression was that it lead back to the declassified documents themselves directly or indirectly, which it does not. Note: my impression; others may not share this, and I know little enough of Wikipedia's policies to know whether this is an actual problem or not. 2) 1 paragraph out of a total of 13 paragraphs is partially quoted without it being stated to be a quote; if phrased as 'Gleysteen ... expressed Washington's concerns over growing anti-American sentiment in and around the Gwangju area, amid ... "broadcasts" asserting that the U.S. was involved in the military crackdown.' it would be a direct quote. It's not 'our' summary, it's a copy/paste of the summary within the cited article without being acknowledged as such. 3) To me, the text as entered in the Wiki article gives no indication as to whether there actually was any US involvement (depending upon your personal bias, it could be read either way, which is one form of neutrality I suppose); that ambiguity of interpretation is why I followed the link in the first place. The text of the paragraph immediately following that quoted, which I included above, would seem to indicate that there wasn't any US involvement. 4) Slightly out of order, but the first sentence of the wiki text says that the US was informed "on 26 May 1980, a day before it took place". Again, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia practices as many, but my RL experience shows that if you don't specify what time zone different events occur in, the true amount of time between events can be drastically misrepresented; given the distance between South Korea and Washington, DC, not knowing what time of day within what time zone for i) the US being informed, and ii) for when the crackdown commenced, could give an inaccurate impression of how long the US Government had to react to the news. Again, time zone matters; in the US, 26 May 1980 was Monday, true, but a day celebrated in the US as Memorial Day, a Federal Holiday; all non-essential government offices would be closed. Context is crucial.

It's long enough since I was in college that I'm not sure what differences a secondary source from a tertiary source, but given that the cited source does not provide any links to the primary source it references, and the copy/pasted text was not identified in article as a quote from the declassified documents, unlike other sections of the article... I dunno. It bugged me enough that I kluged up this post.JohnBobMead (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of non-free photographs

This article has one picture of the event (and the license of that image seems dubious, as its a photo of someone else's photograph), with the rest of the pictures being of memorials constructed afterwards. Given the importance of having visual information on what occurred, and given the lack of non-free photographs of the event, I think this would be an ideal candidate for the addition of a non-free image.

Here are a few candidates I've found to get this started:

• https://res.heraldm.com/content/image/2018/02/07/20180207000458_0.jpg (Yonhap)
• https://cdn-japantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/p14-kingston-gwangju-a-20140518.jpg (AP)
• https://flexible.img.hani.co.kr/flexible/normal/520/413/imgdb/resize/test/original/2022/0510/7816521690568055.jpg (May 18 Memorial Foundation)
• https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/english_editorials/894592.html (no credit in article)
• https://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?code=710100&artid=201606201731347 (no credit in article)
• https://res.heraldm.com/content/image/2018/10/31/20181031000467_0.jpg (Yonhap)
• https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=960,quality=90,format=auto/sites/default/files/20200606_ASP002.jpg (Shutterstock)
• https://times.postech.ac.kr/news/photo/201905/20843_25747_043.jpg (mediacity)
• https://religiousleftlaw.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a69a468c970c0224df33cb9a200b-600wi (corbis)
• https://www.thenation.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=896,quality=80,format=auto/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/chonnam-university-img.jpg (May 18 Memorial Foundation)
• https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/may-21-1980-img.jpg (May 18 Memorial Foundation)
• https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/gwangju-battle-img.jpg (May 18 Memorial Foundation)
• https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/126E3/production/_104219457_gettyimages-111299474.jpg.webp (Getty images)

Freedom4U (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• May 18th Movement Archives11.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• May 18th Movement Archives11.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Hi,

This article seems like it should use the DMY date format (e.g. 1 May 1919) instead of the current MDY format (e.g. May 1, 1919). See MOS:DATETIES; for most Korea-related articles, including the article for South Korea itself, DMY is used.

Does anyone know of any reasons why MDY may be preferred here? Maybe I'm missing something. I know the event is called "5.18" (May 18), but that has more to do with Korea's use of YMD than it does MDY.

In the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and make the change to MDY because I think it may be uncontroversial. Please undo it and discuss if you disagree. toobigtokale (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)