Jump to content

Talk:Lai Đại Hàn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 153: Line 153:
::How is it OR? I searched through their site and am unable to find out where it is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. You are free to do so yourself. Without that basic information how can they be regarded as trustworthy? I'm perfectly happy for it to go to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] for community input. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::How is it OR? I searched through their site and am unable to find out where it is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. You are free to do so yourself. Without that basic information how can they be regarded as trustworthy? I'm perfectly happy for it to go to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] for community input. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Presumably its based on this source here [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/lhrjrs9z9a/vietnam-1968], a trusted news site with their own reliable fact checkers. if some random guy on the internet with a weird agenda has the deciding factor on what institutions and organizations are deemed trustworthy, this is original research. presumable BBC News has better fact-checkers and are more reliable than some guy on the internet.[[Special:Contributions/216.209.50.103|216.209.50.103]] ([[User talk:216.209.50.103|talk]]) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Presumably its based on this source here [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/lhrjrs9z9a/vietnam-1968], a trusted news site with their own reliable fact checkers. if some random guy on the internet with a weird agenda has the deciding factor on what institutions and organizations are deemed trustworthy, this is original research. presumable BBC News has better fact-checkers and are more reliable than some guy on the internet.[[Special:Contributions/216.209.50.103|216.209.50.103]] ([[User talk:216.209.50.103|talk]]) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I find it some strange guy would both try to dispute this source and organization, including when it was reported by reputable news soruces. And claiming its disputed, when 'no sources' dispute that some children were conceived due to rape. And you proceed to call reported sexual assaults 'wartime romances', which is on another level of grossness I won't get into. I am not going to waste my time arguing this specific topic, so I won't reply anymore. [[Special:Contributions/216.209.50.103|216.209.50.103]] ([[User talk:216.209.50.103|talk]]) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I find it some strange guy would both try to dispute this source and organization, including when it was reported by reputable news sources. And claiming its disputed, when 'no sources' dispute that some children were conceived due to rape. And you proceed to call reported sexual assaults 'wartime romances', which is on another level of grossness I won't get into. I am not going to waste my time arguing this specific topic, so I won't reply anymore. [[Special:Contributions/216.209.50.103|216.209.50.103]] ([[User talk:216.209.50.103|talk]]) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:55, 27 January 2021

Serious problem with sources

As much as Hankyurae maybe attempting to do good over here? The argument that "most Lai Daihans" were born from rape is completely unsupported. Yes, there were rapes and yes we have testimonites from women but most Lai Daihans are either born from Korean workers and soldiers in which it did not involve rape. In fact, many Korean fathers went back to Vietnam to look for their children after the diplomatic ties were reestablished as they were forced to flee after the fall of Saigon and were unable to take their children with them.

The fact that this article takes hankyurae's claims as facts is in fact flawed. Hankyurae, on numerous occasions inflated facts and they were called out for it.

http://legacy.h21.hani.co.kr/h21/data/L990426/1p944q0c.html

The atrocity at the monestary 린선사 was proven to be staged by VCs. This doesn't mean that there weren't atrocities commited by Koreans, but at least it is proven that this one is not true. The fact that Hankyurae refuses to change this and the fact that this was published as fact shows that there are fallacies in Hankyurae articles.

http://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?articleId=1969112900209204005&editNo=2&printCount=1&publishDate=1969-11-29&officeId=00020&pageNo=4&printNo=14813&publishType=00020

While I believe Hankyurae can be used as a source or a reference point, I don't believe they can be taken for face value. They are facing numerous controversies in Korea as well in terms of the accuracy of their historical articles. Woo1693 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete?

why waste this article? instead of the current tit for tat bullshit, we could improve and keep it ive started with some minor issues, lets expand

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Meta puppeting Tag team edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team

Meta puppeting Tag team edit are not a tolerable.[1]



  • They are usually abandoned by their soldier-father.
According to Korean-Vietnamese fathered not by Korean soldiers but by Korean workers who stationed in Vietnam during the War would probably reach 10,000 in number.[2]


  • According to Busan Ilbo, there are 5,000 at least and 30,000 at most.
However, This Busan Ilbo says, "assumption record". they says, "추정". Accordign to Hankyoreh and maeil news, truth of Lai daihan peoples are 1000 ~1500 at most.[3][4]
라이따이한 숫자가 1000명 정도에 불과한 데다 대부분 30대 성인으로 성장해 더 이상 한국에 연연하지 않는다는 것이다.
"현재 베트남내의 라이따이한은 보도된것처럼 1만여명이 아니라 확인된 1천500여명과 미확인 숫자를 합치더라도 2천여명에 불과하며
  • Lai Daihan problem is said to be confort women
Well, in Vietnam war period, There is no comfort women exist.
Also source is unexist book.
F. Namigoe, Nikkan kyoumei 2000 nen shi [2000 year history of Japan and Korea], Meiseisha, 2002, p. 672, ISBN 9784944219117
This is unexist book. also anybody can't confirm it.[5]
  • rape
Source is unexist.
And Lai Daihan's father were probably Korean workers or soldeir who stationed in Vietnam during. probably free love and run to their country. Lai Daihan's mother was not raped. so this is not relation topic.
  • The Hankyoreh expressed it as a massacre (대량학살).
Hankyore news is so biased and unreliable media.[6] However, even hankyoreh said, Korea soldier killed 50. is it really 대량학살?----Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for poor English.


I only ask whether this article is violation or not. This is not Tag team edit.


  • 野村進によれば、これら混血児たちの父親の90%は韓国のビジネスマンであり、ベトナム人女性との間に子供をもうけた後に「母子を置き去りにして帰国してしまった」例が多いという。『コリアン世界の旅』、173頁。-- from ja:ライタイハン
According to Susumu Nomura, 90% of thoes mixed blood children's father is South Korean businessman, and many of them return home after having babies with Vietnamese women. But the babies and the women are abandoned.
from "Korian sekai no tabi (Travel of Korean World)" P173
There are not no soldier-father. And "According to Korean-Vietnamese fathered" is incorrect, "According to Park Oh-soon, Korean-Vietnamese fathered" is correct.
  • The South Korea or the Vietname government have not investigated officially about the number of Lai Daihan. The exact number of Lai Daihan is unknown. So "1000 ~1500" and "5,000 ~30,000" are assumption record.
  • This book is exist[7].
ISBN-10 4944219113[8]
ISBN-13 978-4944219117
  • Hankyore is korean news paper. So I don't know whether Hankyore is reliable or not.
I think "massacre" is not about Lai Daihan, but about Vietnam War. So I think it should be deleted.

--NAZONAZO (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If it is true that "Korea soldier killed 50," are you saying that they were able to kill only fifty enemies although South Korea sent over 350 thousand soldiers to Vietnam? Are you saying that Korean soldiers are only a pack of cowards?--Wo Ai Nee (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The hankyoreh(hani.co.kr) references itself are not qualified references. It is not admit by Korea and Vietnam both. It is a POV and lacking evidence. The original author of Hankyoreh newspaper was a 구수정(Goo soo-jung), this 'young female student' outside writer wrote her own basless, exaggerated news by her assumption. Even her was(and is) not a official writer of hankyoreh newspaper, it was a 'outside contributed' article. Generally, newpaper have no responsible for 'outside contributed' article. and newspaper is not guarantee 'external essay' is true.
  2. the hankyoreh essay itself have no evidence. There is no offical group and academic source confirmed this essay is 'true'. and The group of Vietnam soldiers officially denied Hankyoreh news, and says this news was "distorted and baseless".[9] The essay contains her own original research.
  3. The controversial and contested, non-academic sources are not regard as reliable sources. it should not be presented as simple statements of fact.
  4. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 660gd4qo (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Header and other material

1) According to WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph should ahve "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The aforementioned section also cites WP:BALASPS, which states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." In this case, the article is about Lai Dai Han people as a whole (Mixed ethnic Vietnamese-Koreans), not just those who were conceived as a result of sexual violence. As such, giving such prevalence to war rape in the header violates WP:BALASPS.

2) Secondly, in order to present the information from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), it would be reasonable to avoid insertions into the quotations selected from source materials.

Original quote: "Distasteful as it may be, the argument is also difficult to refute and it is time for Seoul to find out the truth not only about the civilian massacres that took place during the Vietnam War, but also about the extent of military authorities’ involvement with Vietnamese authorities."
Modified quote: "Distasteful as it may be, the argument is also difficult to refute ( about this rape crime ) and it is time for Seoul to find out the truth not only about the civilian massacres that took place during the Vietnam War, but also about the extent of military authorities’ involvement with Vietnamese authorities."

The term "rape crime" is not mentioned in the article, and I would avoid direct insertion into the article as it is not supported by the source content. Keep in mind that persistent misrepresentation of source material is vandalism, and will be treated as such (see Wikipedia:Vandalism). BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need a better overview and some bias problems

The overview section needs revision. The first two sentences captures the essence of the article well. However, the last sentence of the overview section is not well connected with the rest of the section. How is the fact that the Korean government has not acknowledged the reported violence during the Vietnam war has anything to do with "Lai Daihan"? This section needs more information or transition sentences. Same comment can be made regarding the entire article. The different sections are not well organized and don't flow well. It should be edited so that etymology, definitions, lives of the Lai Daihan and their mothers flow in the same section followed by historical contexts, reported violence and denial of violence.

The article seems fixated only on the Lai Daihan who are children born to mothers who are victims of rapes by Korean soldiers during the Vietnam wars. Sources suggest that there is a good portion of Lai Daihan children who are born to Korean workers in Vietnam, and their mothers are not victims of rape. There should be a section talking about that population of Lai Daihan people as well. Most sources are testimonies from Vietnamese survivors; there are limited sources coming from trustworthy Korean newsources. Some sources are only quotes without links or ISPNs. Vbaker93 (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of the Article and New Sections in the Article.

I am starting this discussion over recent changes to the article's title, as well as related content. The fact is that most media sources on the issue use the term "Lai Dai Han". To avoid confusion for readers on the topic, it is imperative that we keep the article's title consistent with this usage.

As for the new section that is being added, which discusses "prostitution facilities", it must be made clear that this is based off of the "unconfirmed reports" of one individual, as per the source. Because of this, I do not believe that this makes the topic significant enough to be included in the article. However, if other editors do believe it should be included, then it must be made clear in the article's wording that the existence of these facilities are indeed based on unconfirmed reports.

Please state opinions on either subject. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Editing

Article is largely just a political/nationalistic debate between Japanese and Korean posters at this point in order to highlight comfort women and debateo that issue, similar to pretty much every article dealing with Japan and Korea e.g.History of Japan–Korea relations, Japan–Korea disputes, etc. There are concerted groups dedicated to making these types of edits/posts/information campaigns known as Netto-uyoku in both Japan and South Korea. I'd suggest removing most irrelevant references and comparisons to comfort women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.10.234 (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the recent edits are part of a political/nationalistic debate and the criticism from Japanese sources need to be clearly identified and put in context. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the revert but kept the original links and discussion the user @JPxG: found problematic for me to remove. I originally removed them since it was editorializing the piece, e.g. a user was giving their opinion on an article.

Sources claiming majority conceived due to rape

Is there any reason to state that it's Japanese sources claiming? Not sure what the point of this talk section is, still waiting for a reason from @Mztourist: as to why he is blocking it 8ya (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources provided for the claims are Japanese sources and so it is correct to state that they are Japanese claims. Stop edit-warring this until this is resolved. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave you a non-Japanese source. Do you want me to include it in the article? That statement is about sources in general, not just the ones cited in this article. 8ya (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What source are you talking about? If all sources are Japanese, as is currently the case, then the page needs to state that. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one in the change log? And it doesn't need to do so, rather it's worded like it's only Japanese sources saying that, which has nothing to do whether or not we include sources on Wikipedia or not. 8ya (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you answer a simple question, what source are you talking about? All the current sources in the Comparisons to Comfort Women section are Japanese, which is why it states "Japanese sources claim..." Mztourist (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you read what I'm writing? Here to save you the work my friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&oldid=995487722 (s/i.e./e.g.). And sources exist even if you don't include them in the article, there's a realm outside of Wikipedia :) 8ya (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you just give a diff or state the source? I shouldn't have to read an old version of the page to try to figure out what you wrote. If there is indeed "a realm outside of Wikipedia" add them in, but I don't believe they exist. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my friend, I don't know how to quote just the change log text :) But here it is, I hope we can start talking past each other now. "The problem with the sources is that, at least from what I've found, in English speaking publications they use Lai Dan Han exclusively for the ones conceived due to rape. However the numbers given by non Japanese (e.g. https://www.laidaihanjustice.org/who-are-the-lai-dai-han/) very often surpass half with even the most generous countings of "total" Lai Dan Hai given by other sources (e.g. the Korean ones in this article)". Any objections to it? 8ya (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn how to create diffs, find the version that you want to show me in the Edit History, click on Diff and then copy url of the resulting page. I really don't understand what you are saying. In relation to laidaihanjustice.org, as noted below, it cannot be considered a WP:RS and there is no certainty that it is "non Japanese". As I have said repeatedly, if you can find and add non-Japanese RS then the word "Japanese" can be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of that source is not something I want to get into, but it should be applicable similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources (the last sentence). Note that the article states "Japanese sources claim", which indicates possible bias. And the next sentence goes on to talk about "Rape allegations". However I don't really see a need to include this source, as it adds nothing to do article, only to the wording 8ya (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All sources must be reliable, otherwise the relevant provisions of biased sources must be followed. As all the sources are Japanese it is relevant to point that out because Japanese sources are biased as they see this issue as a counterpoint to the WWII comfort women issue. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So am I understanding this right that you have nothing against it and we can finally solve this by writing "Some sources"? 8ya (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have always said that if there are RS, non-Japanese sources added in then "Japanese sources claim" can be changed to "Sources claim". However, laidaihanjustice.org is not RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand your reasoning. On one hand you want to append Japanese, because you say those sources are not trustworthy because of the nationality of the author, on the other you don't want to want to accept others because they are not trustworthy? You still haven't told me why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources doesn't apply here, as this section is about Comparisons made to Comfort women and we are talking about "claims" here. 8ya (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained myself clearly and repeatedly above. You have not offered any reliable non-Japanese sources. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't. It just feels like you are intentionally ignoring everything I am saying because you want the article to appear in a certain light 8ya (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but you seem to just want to keep arguing it, so I suggest you take it to another forum as we cannot reach agreement here. Mztourist (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justice for Lai Dai Han

I have searched online for information about Justice for Lai Dai Han and am unable to find out where it is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. Given the lack of organisational transparency any assertions made by it cannot be presumed to be reliable. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. this is original research. And this statement is highly problematic. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it OR? I searched through their site and am unable to find out where it is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. You are free to do so yourself. Without that basic information how can they be regarded as trustworthy? I'm perfectly happy for it to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for community input. Mztourist (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably its based on this source here [10], a trusted news site with their own reliable fact checkers. if some random guy on the internet with a weird agenda has the deciding factor on what institutions and organizations are deemed trustworthy, this is original research. presumable BBC News has better fact-checkers and are more reliable than some guy on the internet.216.209.50.103 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find it some strange guy would both try to dispute this source and organization, including when it was reported by reputable news sources. And claiming its disputed, when 'no sources' dispute that some children were conceived due to rape. And you proceed to call reported sexual assaults 'wartime romances', which is on another level of grossness I won't get into. I am not going to waste my time arguing this specific topic, so I won't reply anymore. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]