Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee

I tagged article for tone issues. It reads too much like a narrative to me. The exact presentation of the order events presented as truth, when really they are reconstructed from interviews if anything, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's also often too detailed about some things that do not have significant impact.

t 7:40 p.m., Kim Jae-gyu told Kim Gye-won to take good care of Park, shouted to Cha, "Insolent!", and opened fire, shooting Cha in the arm. Park shouted, "What are you doing?" Kim Jae-gyu then responded, "Hey, try dying too." Kim Gye-won stood up, opened the door, and ran out. Kim Jae-gyu fired the gun twice at Park's chest from a distance of two to three meters, but the PPK jammed on a third shot. A shocked Sim Soo-bong immediately went outside, followed by Cha bleeding, where he fled to a bathroom adjacent to the dining room and said, "Why is he doing that?"

As an example, the above is too much detail for this article and reads excessively like a narrative. None of the lines of dialogue (nor many of the actions) here are significant to understanding this case. Communicating this level of detail and emotion from the people involve gives the feeling of wanting to communicate a gruesome murder mystery. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

As you are the one who has an issue here, propose alternative language. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

A lot of content cuts. Cutting bits that aren't crucial for understanding the event. The above example is not the only bit my comments apply to, it's much of that entire lengthy section. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

So propose a rewrite. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

For the entire section? grapesurgeon (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

For others reading, there's currently an ANI thread that covers this dispute. WP:ANI#Mztourist repeated insults.

Asking me to rewrite an entire lengthy section of an article on the article's talk page is a ridiculous and unfair ask. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Mztourist Do not remove tags on the article without consensus. Other people in the ANI thread even previously agreed with the tags. If you attempt to edit war this again it will be ANI again. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Who is that Lana? --~2026-25153-15 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

This page was tagged for multiple issues 6 months ago, but nothing has been done to address any of them. When I removed the tags with the explanation "assasination where events and motivations remain disputed requires inclusion of differing accounts" it was promptly reverted by the tagger User:grapesurgeon who states "i think it's still too much detail here, and the tone is often inappropriate, presenting some info as definite or true when they're really just based on testimonies". OK, that's your opinion, identify the specific tonal issues and information presented as true that are actually testimonies. Mztourist (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Shin Jae-soon went to the bathroom and opened the window to run away, but she was unable do anything because the window was multi-layered. After hearing around four gunshots, it became quiet, and she opened the bathroom door and saw people dressed in black carrying Park away. When she came out of the bathroom, she saw Cha lying down. An agent then guided Shin to the waiting room, and when she went to the attached room, Sim Soo-bong was there. The agent told them not to move in the room, so Shin sat on the floor with Sim. After a while, about seven gunshots were heard, after which the agent came in and led them to the bathroom across the street where they washed their hands and clothes. Park Seon-ho then came and guided them to the security guards' waiting room; gave them cigarettes, coffee, and juice; and told them not to go out. After a while, the agent gave them 200,000 won each and told them not to go out and talk about what happened that evening.

E.g. This kind of writign is in a significant majority of the article. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is one eyewitness account of a disputed event, so its perfectly relevant for it to be included. Are you saying that is presented as fact, other than as her statement of what occurred? Mztourist (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC) We can revise it to "Shin Jae-soon later testified that she went to the bathroom..." Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Every detail of that is necessary to know for an encyclopedia article? A book or academic article maybe, but not an encyclopedia.

And yea I don't see intext attribution that this is testimony. It just presents each of these things as having definitely happened.

I think at this rate we'll just get stuck, I don't want to drag this out. If you disagree again let's quickly go to WP:3O. Then if you're still unhappy WP:RFC. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You tagged it so you need to detail the specific concerns, not just leave it for others to figure out how to satisfy you. I have made the change to Shin Jae-soon, what else is there? Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I already told you what else. My comments given apply to much of the article. Scroll up to my reply just before yours.

You're acting as if I've done something wrong here and am being unreasonable: what I am doing is a normal part of editing Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent me as such, it's distracting and petty. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also; if you disagree with me again let's just immediately do WP:3O, it's clear both of us have our minds made up. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No you haven't said what else, you've made a number of broad criticisms, but when asked to provide specifics you don't and make comments like "You're acting as if I've done something wrong here and am being unreasonable". This page is for discussing improvements, which I am trying to do. WP:3O is a dispute resolution mechanism for content or sourcing disputes in which you would still have to set out more specific concerns than your broad criticisms. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm going to 3O, I'll ask them if they think my feedback has been sufficient. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

For context, Mztourist has previously tried pressuring me into giving exact rewrites for basically the entire article, and disallowing me to just give feedback and a template. He was asked by admins and other users to stop doing so in an ANI thread; I'm worried he has chosen to ignore them (he indicated as much in that ANI thread). If basically confirmation of that intent comes out I'll probably report to ANI again. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because we're here to improve the encyclopedia, not just tag pages, avoid discussing specifics and expect others to improve it to your satisfaction. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Leave it to 3O, not going to discuss this with you further. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

3O Response: Considering the context of the ANI dispute and previous talk page message beforehand (and this post of course), my conclusions are as follows:

-grapesurgeon has identified a legitimate problem with the article. The passages cited in this and the previous talk page message (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_Park_Chung_Hee#Tone_and_narrative_issues) are clear examples of articles that can benefit from following WP:ENCSTYLE treatments, particularly regarding the narrative-like tone, and that the text includes unnecessary details that an encyclopedia does not need (see WP:NEWSSTYLE and WP:INFORMAL for the latter claim). While it is true that grapesurgeon could've made the exact points clearer either by citing policy or approaching each and every violation and pointing it out, they don't necessarily need to do either in order for the complaint to be "valid" enough to be considered, they only merely need to explain "why" they think it's a problem. The actual steps of what exactly to do, or if the problem exists at all, come after the complaint is made. I disagree with Mztourist's initial comment that the first complaint was not specific enough, it had stated in plain English what the exact complaint was, that the style was encyclopedic and sounded like a story. A case for this argument exists at first glace, essentially. It's not obviously bad faith, it's not vandalism, and it can be tied back to policy in the sense that it complains about something that the poster feels might be wrong or needs rewording, so it passes that test and from there, discussion takes place on the specifics. Further discussion on this issue should have ideally let the tag stay on the page until a resolution could be made. How "important" the complaint is after that is irrelevant, it's assumed that the community will police itself in that regard via consensus and other immutable rules. That was not done here. There should be breathing room to at least talk about the issue itself. I don't see where this breaks rules on what is allowed on a talk page, either.

-I do not agree that the tags should've been reverted. grapesurgeon does not need to actually make a substantial edit to say that a problem exists in the first place. It's unfortunate that not everybody has the time to edit Wikipedia 24/7 and immediately hammer out problems when they see them, but it's reality. Nobody is entitled to explain beyond that. Yes, that can mean that the complaint is not subject to a follow through if it's not detailed enough, that's also perfectly fine, and editors who do such things should know that this is obviously the case if they don't watch the page after. But nowhere within either complaint is there ambiguity or obviously bad-faith reasoning that I feel explains reverting the tags as quickly as possible. No actual reasoning other than "get to editing" is done, rather than an actual critique of the complaint itself. This would be different if no explanation was done for something like large edits on the article that break several rules, but these are mere tags.

If a valid reason to remove it exists, this is not a valid one. Removing a tag should happen when resolutions to proposed discussions regarding the tagged content are finalized. I can see why the first tag might've been reverted if Mztourist did not initially see why the tag was needed, but "then do the work and rewrite it, don't just tag" as the message implies that erroneous logic was behind the reasoning, especially since the initial edit message by grapesurgeon also clearly specified the reasoning (not a blank edit).

-Mztourist does not seem to understand why policies like WP:CHOICE exist, and why the tagging system even exists at all. Tagging helps people without time or those who are uncertain build the encyclopedia when used in good faith by fostering discussion on tagged areas, even if its not "optimal". You should not expect people to write a doctoral thesis on semantics and linguistics for tags regarding the tone of an article for every edit, nor expect them to fix it themselves. Wikipedia is for volunteers.

This whole situation is an edit war that is brewing. I believe that grapesurgeon has the right to keep the tag on the page. Mztourist should attempt to disqualify grapesurgeon's edits on grounds other than what they have presented if they still wish to dispute the claims. "But they didn't edit!" is illogical reasoning and doesn't meet any formal policy that I'm aware of. Just because you don't like how somebody points out something does not mean you get to attempt censorship of discussion of it by removing tags that can potentially foster it.

As for my comments on conduct, this comment largely explains what I feel should've been done at the beginning:

I understand that while it may feel like undue criticism, the truth is that both sides have made a tempest from a teapot here. Mztourist did indeed act more emotionally and judgemental than they should've, and the speech is not highly beneficial in any sense for good nature discussion, but it did not warrant the massive slapfight it caused. I agree that grapesurgeon should follow the instructions at and the last comment below as grapesurgeon's main remedy for the use of language here instead of repeatedly complaining about it (as the sole issue alone). I don't necessarily accept that grapesurgeon should stop editing this page if the reverts are obviously unreasonable and constitute edit warring, but I personally feel that it's worth a shot if this is causing actual stress, the only remaining problems are about policing language in a way that hasn't changed significantly from the start after discussions regarding the main issue take place, or if this article just isn't important to you anymore.

Any further issues about the tags or reverts should warrant resolutions aimed at edit warring after this third opinion, ideally talking it out a bit more, then further attempts at third-party resolution if this opinion is not enough. Trying to police tone should only happen afterwards if one side seriously takes it too far (racial slurs as an example, obviously bad-faith insults with zero substantive value far beyond sarcasm) or if the fighting starts bleeding out to other pages (stalking the other users' edits and harassing them elsewhere for one)

ChimpanzeesRock (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

ChimpanzeesRock thank you for your input. As is clear from the edit summaries and above, no-one, including grapesurgeon, has done anything to address the tagged issues since they were tagged 6 months ago and so given the lack of interest I detagged which started this most recent dispute. As you can see above, I tried to understand grapesurgeon's specific concerns so they could be addressed but was met with disinterest. You say that my "initial comment that the first complaint was not specific enough, it had stated in plain English what the exact complaint was, that the style was encyclopedic and sounded like a story." Please explain how I'm supposed to address those issues without specifics? As a long-tenured editor I certainly understand WP:CHOICE, but I also believe that if you choose to tag then you should engage in improvement. Instead it seems that this page will stay tagged until someone changes it to grapesurgeon's satisfaction. Mztourist (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

"To grapesurgeon's satisfaction" is intentionally malicious framing. Multiple people in that ANI thread and ChimpanzeesRock have agreed that this article has issues. Are you going to lump them all in on that framing too? grapesurgeon (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also @ChimpanzeesRock I can take this to RFC if this gets stuck. I think the more eyes on this thread the better. grapesurgeon (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

As is clear from the edit summaries and above, no-one, including grapesurgeon, has done anything to address the tagged issues since they were tagged 6 months ago and so given the lack of interest I detagged which started this most recent dispute.

How long the tag has been in place isn't relevant. The question is if it still applies.

As a long-tenured editor I certainly understand WP:CHOICE, but I also believe that if you choose to tag then you should engage in improvement.

@Grapesurgeon has been engaging. They might not be proposing solutions, but they are pointing to the exact portions of the article that they think have a problem (providing quotes) and saying what the problem is. If you disagree with that assessment, have that conversation. But the first post in the Talk:Assassination_of_Park_Chung_Hee#Tone_and_narrative_issues section is quite detailed as to what is seen as the problem. I recommend focusing on the content here, not behavior. meamemg (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

As can be seen above, grapesurgeon commented on one paragraph, I proposed a solution and made the change. They refuse to engage in further conversation to improve the page, but have plenty of time to complain about me. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You made a change. I said much more than that; you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Also I'm pushing back against your behavior for a reason; don't tell me how to spend my time. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

meamemg said "They might not be proposing solutions, but they are pointing to the exact portions of the article that they think have a problem (providing quotes) and saying what the problem is." As can be clearly seen above, you did that for one paragraph (Shin Jae-soon's testimony) and have refused to provide any more specific comments. So what I wrote was perfectly accurate. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Reread my comments. Still excessive detail in the article. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Reread meamemg's comment and mine. Specific comments. Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Multiple users and admins have said that what I've done thus far is sufficient. But you chose to ignore all that. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is clearly not what meamemg said. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, @Mztourist should we do an RFC? You've made your mind up, so perhaps we need community consensus to settle this finally. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

How will an RFC improve this page and lead to detagging? Or is it just another forum for you to complain about me? Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't plan on participating much in the RFC. It'll be on whether the tags are appropriate. I think that's a fine scope for an RFC. Community consensus will prevent you from BLUDGEONing this issue more.

If you disagree again, will just start it, this bickering not worth it. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm here to improve the page, you clearly are not. Instead of spending time complaining about me at ANI and here you could have improved the page but you've chosen not to. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Instead of an RFC, I've filed a Dispute resolution request first. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply