Talk:Voluntary Agency Network of Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconKorea C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Earlier Discussions[edit]

This last paragraph:

  • On August 18, 2005, VANK's attempt was successful in removing Sea of Japan in Google Earth, replacing it with East Sea. Furious Japanese hackers attacked VANK's web server by posting large volumes of messages containing insults about Korea and VANK's attempts.

It needs sources and an explaination. What exaclty was changed? Did Google Earth change all the Sea of Japans to EAst Seas? Did they just change the ones in Korean contexts? What exactly was changed? Cite sources (in English) and clearer information. Masterhatch 23 August 2005

Masterbatch, I have put the sources here, and stop deleting others work just because you feel something is missing. Instead, try to contribute to the information that's already there.
So, you gave a link to a Korean website on English Wikipedia. Could you provide an English source, please?. Also, you still haven't answered my questions. Did Google Earth change all the Sea of Japans to East Seas, or just the ones in Korean contexts? You must make that clear in your edit. If it only changed the name in Korean context, that must be mentioned. If it changed all the names, that must be mentioned. Your posts must be clear and NPOV. That is why i reverted so many of them. I will give you time to make your post NPOV and clear and to cite an English source. Since you claim (at least I think this is what you are claiming) that Google Earth changed the English name, you must come up with an English source for your post. Masterhatch 23 August 2005
The answer to your question is clear as is in the paragraph. Google Earth REMOVED Sea of Japan and REPLACED it with East Sea. The Chosun-ilbo article seems to be neutral as is, web savvy people of two countries fighting each other. Again, I strongly suggest you trying to stop making arguments about lack of sources etc. If you think there is a lack of sources, why don't you look for them yourselves. Don't just delete information because you don't know about it. I suggest self-research on this matter for your own enrichment. But, I do appreciate your effort in making this article legitimate, clear, and NPOV.
Thank you. That reads much better now. I actually never doubted whether Google Earth changed the names or not. I looked for, and couldn't find where they changed the names. It was unclear if it was only in Korean contexts or all contexts. That was my biggest beef, the unclear information. Masterhatch 24 August 2005

This is source. Are YOu OK? (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not even a reliable source. So DO NOT VANDALIZE the article belonged to ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The people who atacked VANK's server were not hackers, but 2ch users.--Mochi 10:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is it was japanese group. I think they attacked VANK's server because google changed the sea of japan(일본해)to east sea(동해) Also, if someone attacks servers, they are hackin'....-BY proud KOREAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, all the sources are Korean newspapers, etc... VANK themselves are a nationalist cyber-terrorist organization who repeatedly attack sites in the US and Japan. This neutrality of this article is so completely lopsided it's increasing the tilt of the earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benher (talkcontribs) 10:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from article page[edit]

Who, and How guarantees the rightness of a South Korean "Facts" ?[edit]

VANK also actively attempts to correct misconceived historical or cultural facts, from Korean aspect, on the Internet, by sending e-mails. Especially, VANK sends e-mails to webmasters who are in charge of websites that contain, in their opinion, distorted information about Korea.

It becomes a premise of this description that the Korean "facts" are right. However, when their "facts" is wrong, they will have transmitted the wrong "facts" to the world. Therefore, this description is not neutral. "Facts" should rewrite as "Opinions".Objectman 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in their opinion... thought by koreans" is redundant, and interpretation comes from a perspective, as history can have different interpretation of facts. Yoonhan 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanksObjectman 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not satisfied with this. Even though one could argue that all historical interpretations are ultimately affected by political motivations, an encyclopedia has to reflect the general consensus where one exists. On matters such as movable type, the Sea of Japan or with the Liancourt rocks, VANK is known to support fringe ideas. It's very questionable for Wikipedia to take an extreme relativist view here, since some of their ideas are demonstrably wrong. --NoAccountYet

Neutral Point of View Disputation[edit]

First, let me go on record as NOT being a fan of VANK and their abusive, spam like activities. However, as a wikipedian, I think the language in this article can be cleaned up to a NPOV. Neutral language can still leave VANK's activities in a bad light. Here's an example of some language that I think is problematic in this article:

Seeing as how the Japanese had annexed and colonised Korea isn't it just possible that there was payback in the latter stages of WW2 against the Japanese by Koreans? Unfortunately VANK are not rational people and are incapable of writing a history worth reading in order to let people decide for themselves.

What we have is a question (not a statement of fact) followed by a possible ad hominem attack ("VANK are not rational"). Again, this is not a defense of VANK, it is an attempt to bring the article up to wikipedia NPOV standards - Quartermaster 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain how their actions are abusive and "spam-like". --DandanxD 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a stab at cleaning this up. Right now it is really just a collection of polemical points of view. It would be great if everyone who cares about this article could do some research and come up with some facts to support the numerous unsupported assertions. Alexwoods 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My POV-o-meter is reading nearly 9000 - NotKorean —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I erased almost all the existing content and replaced it with information referenced to independent sources. We're an encyclopedia; we don't exist just to repeat what they have to say about themselves on their own website. When you add facts, try to verify it with a newspaper or other non-self-published sources. Per WP:V#Sources in languages other than English, non-English sources are permitted; for the moment, I've used mostly English sources. cab 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(agree) Agreed. Citation should be objective. -- (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Article's expression is so strong POV. Wikipedia:Content forking

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for neutral point of view[edit] One Japanese POV pusher Oda Mari says, it is not a neutral edit. but, previous version is biased pov.

  • In 2008, VANK appointed as 'Cyber Diplomats' by The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.[1]
i can't find any reason that this paragraph must deleted.
  • In particular, VANK criticises major online websites, including the CIA World Factbook, for posting "mistakes or inappropriate expressions" about Korea, including geographic name.
i can't find any reason that this article is not neutral.
  • They also provide information about Goguryeo.
i can't find any reason that this article is not neutral.
  • VANK site often attacked by Japanese users many times.[2]
sourced material.
this is serious distortion. VANK did NOT claim that inventor of movable print was not Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg. there e-mail content is nothiong relation with Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg. they provide information about Jikji. this is a serious distorted pov.
  • In 2008, after Mao Asada of Japan won a come-from-behind victory against Kim Yu-Na in a figure skating GP final, there was a denial of service attack on 2channel.
Actually, VANK never attack Dos attack. so, "denial" is not a suitable expression. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several problems:

  1. You are repeatedly altering the direct quote from They refer to VANK's communications with them as "e-mail bombardment", not simply "e-mail".
  2. As I pointed out on your talk page, you deleted the information about VANK receiving funding from the S. Korean government. Information about NGO funding is quite a relevant part of any encyclopedia article, because without funding an NGO cannot operate.
  3. Third, "In 2008, after Mao Asada of Japan won a come-from-behind victory against Kim Yu-Na in a figure skating GP final, there was a denial of service attack on 2channel." This does NOT say anywhere that VANK conducted this attack. It says that the attack occurred. It does not say who conducted the attack.

Regards, cab (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok. discuss more. but, you must not whole revert by part. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
# VANK receiving funding from the S. Korean government.
VANK recieved "donate" from government. it is not a funding.
and its money is not use for member's pockets. VANK is not a part-time job or employment for goverment. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
# "service attack on 2channel" wasn't exist.
Actually, VANK members never attack 2ch, "2ch attacked by vank" is Japanese nationalist made "Fake" rumor which promote to Japanese attack to vank site. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
# is not point out that VANK is e-mail bomber. they says, it is annoying to them. but, it is not mean VANK is e-mail bomber group. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know they receive fund form South Korean government. Here is another source. See the fifth paragraph. [1] And as for their e-mail bomber, what are these pages? [2] and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is NOT an e-mail bombardment and if you can understand Korean, READ IT AGAIN. They don't "bombard" e-mails, and they are saying right thing. -by proud KOREAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Official Support for 'Cyber Diplomats' to Continue", The Chosun Ilbo, 2008-10-22, retrieved 2008-10-28
  2. ^ VANK Web Site Attacked by Japanese Net Users Koreatimes, 12-16-2008

Attack by Japanese internet users[edit]

  • The person concerned's insistence is one-sidedly described. There is a possibility of insisting on the plot theory. --大和屋敷 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed a lot of sources, because an English language translation has not been supplied. I have removed some claims from this section due to dead sources, sources not backing up the claims and a lack of English language sources. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah... don't do that. Akkies (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of reverting me, why don't you concentrate on finding some decent English language sources? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have anything to prove. You're the one who keeps removing the sourced materials. And English articles *are* cited. Akkies (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made more than one edit. You are reverting edits relating to non-English language sources. You are making reverts to sources that are fake due to the url not existing. What I left in the section, was what the English language sources confirmed. Everything else removed was due to lack of sources, or lack of English. I find your edits to be disruptive, please stop. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said tag the dead links with [dead link]. I'll get around with the translations. Akkies (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute on paragraph[edit]

A paragraph was recently the subject of an edit war, use this space to explain your reasons for the removal or inclusion of it

My reasoning for removal is its about a fairly unimportant and trivial matter (instagram comments), it has had no significant reporting or effects, its one of hundreds of petitions that VANK creates its not any more important than most in fact its even more trivial and irrelevant than the majority of other petitions that i've seen which aren't included in this article, further the section is taken directly from the "news" article with no modification which is likely a copyright violation. Daiichi1 (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure that you can remove the sourced content only just because it is 'trivial'. This paragraph is the only content in the article that presents the China-related activities of the organization; removing this paragraph will damage the neutrality of this article. By the way, you may remove any content in this article that violates the copyright law without the debate. This does not mean that you can remove the entire paragraph, but you may modify the article to evade copyright violation. Npovobsessed (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes you can remove content from articles if it is trivial, not only can you but you should. This would not damage the neutrality of anything there aren't any sides here, if you want to include one of their "china-related activities" then find something notable they have done and include it. Daiichi1 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although you can remove a sourced content just because it is trivial, it cannot be a strong reason for the edit. If you delete the only content in the article that is related to China, this sure will damage the NPOV of the article without a doubt. You may delete a sourced content, but you may not delete a sourced content in a way to damage the NPOV of the article; everyone in Wikipedia will agree that preserving NPOV of articles is exceedingly important than deleting trivial contents in articles. Waiting for you to bring a better reason to push your deletion. Npovobsessed (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what way do you think the POV will be damaged? If their activities related to china aren't important enough they aren't important enough. Daiichi1 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already explained my point regarding NPOV in the previous comment; please read it again. Furthermore, it seems like your opinion that the claim that the China-related activity of the organization is trivial is just your point-of-view (POV). As long as the activity is mentioned in one of the major newspapers in South Korea, [Korea Times], it is hard to prove that the activity is 'trivial'. Please refrain from POV pushing; POV is never constructive for Wikipedia. Npovobsessed (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im asking you to explain how you think removing this will damage the POV of the article, will you do that? Daiichi1 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the section for being a copyright violation, do not revert. You've had from April 5 to rewrite the section, more than enough time. Daiichi1 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another editor already redrafted the paragraph; I am sure that this solved your concern. Npovobsessed (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has solved some of the concern but i am still waiting for you to explain why you think the page will become biased by removing the paragraph, you haven't given any clarity in this regard. Daiichi1 (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although you can remove a sourced content just because it is trivial, it cannot be a strong reason for the edit. If you delete the only content in the article that is related to China, this sure will damage the NPOV of the article without a doubt. You may delete a sourced content, but you may not delete a sourced content in a way to damage the NPOV of the article; everyone in Wikipedia will agree that preserving NPOV of articles is exceedingly important than deleting trivial contents in articles. Waiting for you to bring a better reason to push your deletion. Npovobsessed (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You haven't elaborated at all you've just copy and pasted a previous comment. All you've said is this will damage the NPOV, I want you to explain to me why or how you think it will. I've asked you this 3 times already all have resulted in no actual answer. Daiichi1 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Let me elaborate more as you wish. The part that you are trying to delete is the only part in the article that explains one of the counter-Chinese activities that the organization has made. The rest of the article is only just related to anti-Japanese activities from the organization. If you delete the part, then the article just presents a biased image of the organization; stating that the organization is only interested in Japan-related disputes and disregards disputes involved with other countries. Although I do not like this organization, I believe it is more important to keep the neutrality of the article instead of creating a biased image against the organization. Npovobsessed (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No sentence in the article states the organization is only interested in Anti-Japan activities. Nothing in the article at all indicates this. Read up on WP:NPOV this isn't a violation of it. Daiichi1 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you still doubt that the edit that you are trying to pursue is not damaging the neutrality, the best option to resolve the dispute is to bring the case to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Npovobsessed (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The onus is on you to demonstrate how this is a NPOV breaking edit, you have not illustrated that. Daiichi1 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Daiichi1 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This seems pretty unbalanced on both sides. On one hand, the language of the criticism sometimes fails to be objective and includes opinions. On the other hand, some sections accept the groups self-promotion. For example, the "anti-racist" activities they claim seem to just indicate that they appropriated the "stop AAPI hate" movement and holocaust imagery for their political purpose? We should judge their political position based on their actual activities, and we shouldn't include stuff if it's not supported by their activities.

I don't know. They do too many things for the list to be exhaustive, but maybe we could expand the content under activities so rather than having an edit war over how we characterize the organization, everyone can just add to the activity list. It's harder to justify the deletion of activities they're documented doing, so hopefully we'd end up with a better representation of what they do and the reader can make up their mind instead of relying on descriptions.

What does everyone else think? I'm not great at formatting stuff on wikipedia, so I welcome anyone's advice here. Dplre (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]