Jump to content

Talk:Gangnam District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Gangnam-gu)

Untitled

[edit]

This article needs cleanup and lots of it.

File:Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea - February 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea - February 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea - February 2009.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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: Closed, move already made Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Gangnam District, Seoul → Gangnam District – For consistency with other "Districts", "Counties" and "Cities", the same-level subdivisions of South Korea. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Sawol (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namdong also has no ambiguity. There are 3 articles called Dalseong. Dalseong means Dalseong (castle), Dalseong County, and Daegu. Please join Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#county articles in South Korea. I moved '~-gu' to '~ District' as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Administrative divisions. Sawol (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one "article called Dalseong" One other is called "Daegu" and the other does not exist. The guidelines you cite were recently unilaterally changed without discussion.[1] As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion or stated support for such mass renamings. There should be. —  AjaxSmack  21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't see any discussion nor consensus to change all the '-gu', '-do' etc to their English counterpart. I prefer to see the Gangnam artile moved back to Gangnam-gu rather then complicating the issue further, especially since the editor was mislead by another who unilaterally changed the WP:NC-KO without discussion. There should not be any further individual requests to add or change the English counterpart until a consensus reach at WP:NC-KO.--Michaela den (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. This is consistent with definitions at Administrative divisions of South Korea. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Gangnam District → Gangnam-gu – Per naming convention. Gu is not translated to 'District' in general. ChongDae (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gangnam Support for US Forces

[edit]

According to the US military (QUOTE: Gangnam has been a stalwart supporter of U.S. forces in Korea for many years), Gangnam has been a strong supporter of American forces for many years. I think this is well-sourced, important information but User:YvelinesFrance has removed it repeatedly, so lets discuss it here. -A1candidate (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a matter of neutrality per WP:POV. The quote and source is attributed to the US Army, so it is the US Army saying (or thinks) that Gangnam supports the US Army, which is different from Gangnam, Korean or anyone else thinks that Gangnam supports the US Army. A bit like a primary source asserting its' opinion, rather than neutral third-party sources stating a widely known point of view. Just because 150 or so events including high profile ones such as G-20 and nuclear summit were held within the district, it doesn't mean there are support per say. It is just a matter of location and businesses bringing revenue to the area. So stating that Gangnam support them on the basis that these events were held there is stretching it a bit. There needs to be third-party sources to support such a statement and if YvelinesFrance is right (re: protests against the military) then there will also be others that states the contrary.--Michaela den (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should at least mention that Gangnam has a not entirely insignificant US military presence. So far I cant find any article that mentions about people in Gangnam protesting against the US military. Whether Gangnam hosts these events to bring in revenue is debatable, but in my humble opinion its unfair to entirely remove the information. Even if the people of Gangnam are against the US military (if that is true at all), on an official level, the presence of US forces seem to be welcomed by the city. (Whether for revenue or otherwise) I think User:YvelinesFrance should provide a source to back up his claim -A1candidate (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The significant US military presence is in Itaewon and other bases in Seoul. I don't believe Gangnam to be anywhere near those areas. Furthermore, there were huge protests against the US military in 2002 after the deaths of two korean schoolgirls by a big american vehicle (Yangju highway incident). I believe the Gangnam area was full of protesters. In any case I don't believe this information is important not to mention the case for neutrality WP:POV. I don't think the US military's source should be used. If you have another source testifying for Gangnam's support of the US military occupation, then I will not stop its inclusion in the article. YvelinesFrance (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont remember claiming that Gangnam is near those areas you mentioned. WP:POV itself states that all viewpoints should be fairly addressed, including that of the US military, which I believe is a reliable source when it says that Gangnam has hosted 150 military events. I have yet to see an article which claims otherwise, nor have I read about US military protests which you "believe" the Gangnam area was full of. -A1candidate (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the US military is not a reliable source. It is military propaganda, something every military has done in every country since the beginning of time. And I don't see how an american military viewpoint has anything to do with an article about a district in Seoul. Keep your military viewpoints for subjects that actually have something to do with the US military. Gangnam has nothing to do with the US military. Its inclusion is ridiculous, it does not belong here. YvelinesFrance (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My statement is supported by BOTH the US Army (whose article includes a lot of information relevant to the district of Gangnam) AND the district of Gangnam itself. Your viewpoint is based on your own opinion -A1candidate (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source is meaningless and not nearly enough to support what you are stating. Just give up american military garbage does not belong here.YvelinesFrance (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source doesnt come from the US military, but from Gangnam District itself. How is that meaningless? -A1candidate (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

[edit]

Seems this had been discussed here: [4] --S. Rich (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US Military source was rejected because it was considered a self-publishing source in this context (Quote from DRN: a self-published source cannot be used if it involves claims about third parties), but now I've found that the official Gangnam website (which, in this case, is the third party itself) says the same thing here, seems that WP:ABOUTSELF no longer applies if the third party says the same thing about itself -A1candidate (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that Gangnam hosting the 2010 G-20 Seoul Summit and the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit has nothing to do with the US Military and yet User:YvelinesFrance keeps removing it -A1candidate (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information discussed in that source is extremely un-notable. Should we talk about every single activity taken in London or New York with the blessing of the local government? As for the G-20 Seoul Summit and Nuclear security summit, I'm sure there are many sources that are not the US military promoting itself with meaningless trivialities. YvelinesFrance (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information within articles is not subject to notability standards. We evaluate with an eye towards helpfulness to the reader. Also, describing US military sources as "SPS" is a misreading of SPS guidance. That specific guidance pertains to individuals. Consider -- if we said government or businesses sources were not WP:RS because they are "self published", we could not use material from the Center for Disease Control, the Census bureau, National Parks Service, etc. In this particular article, there is not reason to distrust the US military press releases. The fact that Gangnam hosts a major conference is of interest and should remain. Views to the contrary must be supported by WP:CONSENSUS.--S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the decision of the DRN the US military is not a useful source in this case. Inclusion of the US military is self promotional and without notability. Don't even try to argue that the US military can be a useful source, It's a propaganda machine of the government to further US and US military interst, not comparable at all with agencies like the CDC. YvelinesFrance (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As posted in my edit summary, there was no proper notification of a DRN discussion. The discussion was "closed" only because a less experienced editor misread guidance about SPS. Per your comments, you take a blanket view that anything from the government is propaganda. Such views are ill-founded. If you have specific information about the attitude of the Gangnam towards the US to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, your comments and editing here (and elsewhere) is WP:TENDENTIOUS.--S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again an edit regarding the US military & community support for USFK has been removed, and restored. As per the above, the DRN was not properly noticed, it was closed prematurely by an editor who misread SPS guidance, it is not the final say on such matters. No refutation of my points (above) has been made. Regarding the SPS rationale, it was misapplied. SPS refers to individuals who blog, self-publish, etc. It does not apply to the US government, or any other government agency that publishes, or corporations, or the like. Similarly, the notability of the cited source is not an issue -- we seek to evaluate the reliability of the source, and the reputation for that reliability. (Some people do not think the military has a good reputation for reliability, others think the opposite. It is simply a matter of personal opinion.) If there is dispute about the reliability of government sources, I challenge editors to bring up the issue on the WP:RSN. They will find support from those who have agendas, but little else. --S. Rich (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I invite your attention to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ in which the author referred government and corporate websites as reliable.--S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so insistent, perhaps the only solution is to once again go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and see if they change their decision on the subject matter. If not, you must concede that the sources that have been used are not admissible for this article. YvelinesFrance (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YvelinesFrance, your editing here and elsewhere has become tendentious. If the US army has announced on an official US government website that they helped organize the Seoul International Peace Marathon in October 2012, then that is a perfectly acceptable source. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before you make more irresponsible comments, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Gangnam_District. Despite this issue having already been resolved, the user Srich (who writes on his page that he is US military, which raises questions on his credibility) continues to add information with completely unreliable sources (A US military officer stating that Gangnam supports US forces despite no statistics or evidence?) Furthermore the source itself makes no claim that the US forces helped organize the marathon at all.YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Srich32977 has correctly said, official US government web pages are reliable sources for this kind of uncontroversial information. The matter was not properly resolved at WP:DRN. The correct place to ask the question is at WP:RSN. Here are links for the US government announcements.[5][ http://www.army.mil/article/88427/American_troops_participate_in_Gangnam_Marathon/] Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly ironic that the US military killing machine would host an 'international peace marathon'. Furthermore the issue was correctly resolved because this is not the US military as whole publishing this article but an individual (Walter T. Ham IV). His comments are also without sources, there is no evidence whatsoever that koreans living in the Gangnam area support the US military presence, in fact there is considerable evidence otherwise (as I've just now put in the article). YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprsingly the article is written by the press/public relations officer of the 8th army. We have no reason to speculate on what Korean citizens in the Gangnam District might think of the American Military. Using the phrase "american killing machine" on wikipedia is not a very good idea, particularly when discussing an article about an affluent suburb, which readers will expect to be neutral, informative and anodyne. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for more information on using government sources, editors are invited to look at the FAQs posted at WT:RS and WT:V.--S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that the source was written by a military PUBLIC RELATIONS officer gives us very strong reason to take the information within that military source with a grain of salt if not strong suspicion. I've also added an article by the washington post about anti-americanism, far more reliable a source than the US military public relations office. My goal here is indeed to make this article as neutral, informative and anodyne as possible, but trying to pretend that the people living in Gangnam are some kind of stalwart US ally is not only misleading but patently false. I do agree that there have been cooperations between the US forces and the Gangnam administration but this should not be in the lead and neither should it imply that Gangnam residents are approving of US military and american influence YvelinesFrance (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits imply that these protest concerts occurred in the Gangnam District, which seems false. The concerts apparently occurred in the centre of Seoul. This article is about the Gangnam District not the city centre of Seoul. Please stop inserting irrelevant information. A press officer is ofetn called a public relations officer. The information provided is not contentious. The Washington Post article is an opinion piece and is not about the Gangnam District. At the moment the prominent but unsourced statement in the lede that there is anti-Americanism in the Gangnam District is misleading. Why an article on an affluent suburb of Seoul should have such a statement in the lede is somewhat mystifying. None of the 24 other Districts or gu in Seoul has a lede containing unsourced statements of that kind. Mathsci (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the stuff into a new section. Other than syntax & NPOV, the info remains. I ask that you do take a look and revise/delete IOT clear up where the demonstrations took place. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant content, with sources, can be found in Anti-American sentiment in Korea. The US 8th army base is in a different District. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that Gangnam is a supporter of US forces nearly foremost in the article with no sources but the public relations officer of the US army is not contentious? What was mystifying was that there was what looked like promotional material about the US army in the lede without any other sources arguing that this may not (always) be the case (which I added). Anti-americanism was a major issue in Seoul, and this is true of all districts. To state that Gangnam district is somehow completely pro-american without citing any statistics is suspicious. If you are talking about the Gangnam administration then it does seem that they have promoted exchanges etc (according to an actual source), but if you are implying that all the people of Gangnam are uniformly pro-american or pro US military, this is where I have a problem. If you have actual reliable statistics showing that most people in Gangnam support the US military, then I will have no issue with the statement, but this is clearly not the case. Lastly, this information does not belong in the lede. Anyhow, it looks like the issue has been resolved. YvelinesFrance (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The US Embassy and the US Army Garrison are located in two quite different Districts from the Gangnam District. My view is that the the yearly Marathon in the Gangnam District is sourceable and should be mentioned. It can also be mentioned that in 2012 it was cohosted by the local authorities and the US Army. There does not seem to be any need to mention the anti-American demonstrations and candlelight vigils in 2002 and 2004, which took place near the US Embassy and Garrison; nor the later peasant protests about economic conditions, unless some notable incidents took place in the Gangnam District. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitable request

[edit]

Don't you think that damn video should be mentioned in the lede? 800 million people are now familiar with this region due to its influence.article traffic went from below 10/day in early august, with peaks of up to 200 and 400 in late august, then consistently over 8000 by early september. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the district, not the music video. As much as I believe that the music video should be referenced in the popular culture section, there is no reason to have it's own title in big bold letters and a link to that section, there is also already an article about the music video on Wikipedia already. The page about Japan doesn't have a "Turning Japanese" section afterall.80.195.196.170 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC) zorbon[reply]

Emphasis on video toned down. It certainly does not merit mention in the lede. Not sure what you mean about Japan page. --S. Rich (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the most popular youtube video in the world relating directly to this district does not deserve mention, but the US military which has nearly no influence in the district whatsoever, does? Ridiculous. YvelinesFrance (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YvelinesFrance, please stop soapboaxing and using this page to spout your own personal opinions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you please stop stalking my contributions.YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please restrict your comments to the editing of Gangnam District. Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Deletion?

[edit]

Nominated for Deletion? Oppa Gangnam Style! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.156.191 (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fervent anti-Americanism

[edit]

An editor, YvelinesFrance, has inserted the phrase, "however the general trend in the area seems to be of fervent anti-americanism, as displayed in the past by massive anti-american performances" into the lede of this article. According to the citation, the basis for this comment is an article in the Washington Post on "Gangnam Style" by the Korean rap artist PSY. The Washington Post article is about performances in South Korea and is not specifically about the Gangnam District. The fact that Psy's hit involves the word "Gangnam" should not be used as a pretext for unduly inserting unrelated content into this article about a suburb of Seoul. The Washington Post article does not mention the Gangnam district, so has no relevance to this particular wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The particular series of edits has been reverted. Per the edit summary, the "massive" demonstration was 10 years ago and hardly represents a "general trend". As mentioned in the comments above, the "closing" of the RS was done by editors who misread SPS guidance. (E.g., that SPS applies to other than individuals.) And editor is POV pushing to the point of vandalism.--S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psy is from the Gangnam district, his views most likely reflect that of the general area. As for the massive performances, simply because they were not done in Gangnam does not mean people in Gangnam disagree with them. The center of Seoul is where major events and concerts take place, and people from all parts of Seoul go to them. While anti-american sentiment is not as strong as it was a decade prior, this does not mean koreans are suddenly pro-american, there are actual statistics showing that most young koreans disapprove of american influence or the existence of US military camps in the country. Gangnam is a very large district, if you are claiming that most people in Gangnam fully support the US military you'll need more than one off hand remark by a US public relations officer who doesn't even endeavour to quote any statistic. YvelinesFrance (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gangnam District. 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 06:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gangnam District. 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) 19:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gangnam District. 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) 19:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gangnam_District&oldid=1201401439"