[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Kim Ki-duk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyvio

[edit]

Previous content was copyvio from this page, inserted by an anon over a year ago. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Kim Ki-duks

[edit]

In linking from an article such as List of South Korean films, does anyone have an idea how we differentiate between this Kim Ki-duk, and the director of Yongary? Dekkappai 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)  Fixed[reply]

Cruelty to animal

[edit]

have there been any more documented cases of this barbaric director committing acts of animal cruelty? or were these disgusting cases of barbarism only in this one sick movie?Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See article, please.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sennen goroshi's serious POV

[edit]

have there been any more documented cases of this barbaric director committing acts of animal cruelty? or were these disgusting cases of barbarism only in this one sick movie?Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen, why are you revealing this strong hatred against the Korean director? The sentence is another evidence that you're not qualified editor to edit this page. I've never got any new or review regarding his animal cruelty. Kim's movies frequently tend to the heated subject regarding his usage of sex, violence and his typical stereotype between prostitute and virgin mary like Samarian girl. Therefore, Kim is much criticized by feminists, but not from PETA. I somewhat understand your obsession at animal related contents as you persistently putting biased wording to the dog meat section in Korean cuisine which caused you to be banned. Per your comments on talk:rape, Comfort women, User talk:Ledtim, the real hot issue on sex and violence scenes seems Ok to you. Weird indeed. Please don't push your own 'logic(?)' to Wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but while I tend to use plain terms in wikipedia articles, when in discussion pages I use terms that I would use in real life. I like to be an honest editor and "sick" "barbaric" etc are terms I consider to be quite apt when discussing this director. Do you not consider his movies to be disgusting? I thought his intention was to disgust people.Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you, or Appletrees, or I consider "sick" or "great" or "horrible" or any other fannish adjectives, have no place on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog. NPOV is official policy here. Dekkappai (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that makes sense, perhaps "controversial" would have been a better adjective. I always tried to use neutral adjectives in articles, but I tend to be a little more human when on talk pages. Thanks for the input, and with a little effort I'm sure I can use the same neutral terms when on talk pages. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the movie had made you grossly unpleasant, then go directly to the relevant article, The Isle with your "verifiable sources". To back your hypothesis, you need to describe and put down the general story of the movie along with gory details on the scene by which you're offended.
You're not in the position to analogize and evaluate the living person with just one movie which you've experienced with. The only reason you persistently put the allegation into the article because you want to denounce the director. Don't people use 'barbaric', 'discusting' or 'sick' in real life? Yes, some people like you are using, not me. And if people uses the expressions to people, those might be called offensive slurs. Please refrain from doing the behaviors. --Appletrees (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


stop complaining. I said I would use more neutral terms. What else do you want? Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that, Sennen. I can assure you that I've worked on subjects I personally am repulsed by, but I try to keep my personal view out of my work on the article. Just gather up your sources, and cite and quote from them. Chances are if you're offended by a particular subject, someone else is too-- a critic, author or whomever. Cite that source. Also, with regards to this particular director/movie, I would point out that attitudes differ between cultures and even within one country over time. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but I believe cruelty to animals was commonplace in U.S. films fairly recently. I look at the Wiki article here: Cruelty to animals, and see Kim Ki-duk mentioned in "Cruelty to animals in film making" but nothing on the history of the practise in Hollywood. Since you're interested in the subject, perhaps there's some bias to work out at that section at that article. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to be honest, i know that no matter how much i try to maintain a NPOV, some of my feelings on certain subjects are always trying to get out. i am gradually learning that my edits just get reverted when they are based on my opinion (and quite rightly so) and the more controversial edits that i make only stay when they are backed up with reliable sources. i might have to bite my tongue and stay away from the more controversial articles, unless i have something to back up what i want to say. thanks for the advice. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two good sources in the "Animal cruelty" section at this article, so I've tried starting a rewrite including the opinions of both the accusers and the director. Hopefully it's balanced. Also, hopefully, the article can be expanded soon so that this one issue doesn't seem to dominate the article. Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newly added wordings are more suitable for The Isle. Because I don't see any animal cruelty except the movie among his films. I expected to see some violence and stereotypes in his films on this article, but animal cruelty is not discussed in Kim's film. --Appletrees (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've heard people object to the sannakji scene in Oldboy... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, are you going to make animal cruelty section to the director of Oldboy like this? Besides, you seem to know Korean movies more than I do, so I don't think you confuse Kim Ki-duk with the other director--Appletrees (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Right, Oldboy is Park Chan-wook... I typed too fast...) No, I wouldn't add an animal cruelty section there. It's just one small part of a large, complex film, and the scene is already mentioned there. If it became an issue though, I'd try to help see it was balanced out. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the animal cruelty section can give a certain impression to readers. I think the section should be moved to The Isle. Actually, I could've almost lost my interest in his movies as I watched his depiction of violence and sex in Bad Guy (film), but here is no mention about that. (I have to put more info about the matter later though). This is a page for the director, so if the director presented similar styles repeatedly in several movies, none can object to remove the section. To be fair, Park Chan-wook (I don't like his films) has no animal cruelty section but Kim has. --Appletrees (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your point-- concern about undue emphasis of one aspect of the director's career. I see there's more behind this dispute than the one article also. Anyway, I hope this one dispute has been resolved. I'll try to work on this article as a whole while working on Korean film articles also. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I'm going to change the subtitle name from "Animal cruelty" to "Controversy". The animal cruelty is used in one film among his 14 works as far as I've known. The animal cruelty is one of controversial issues that Kim Ki-duk brings out to some people in the English speaking world. In Asia, the scene is not problematic as much, but I know that here is English Wikipedia, so information is inclined to them. I still think the section should be moved to the relevant movie. --Appletrees (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you about the section being more appropriate at the film article. Has someone disagreed with moving it there? I think your section change is fine. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Ki-duk. 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) 23:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Ki-duk. 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) 11:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with archiving

[edit]

Hi! I noticed that by using IABot to archive the refs used in this page, the bot tries to add a link (which can be seen here [[1]]) included in the spam blacklist and this results in the links not being archived. But the problem is that I don't know which ref has to be removed to avoid the addition of the blacklisted url. What do you suggest to do? Thanks, Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Ki-duk&oldid=1247911932"