Talk:South Korea/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I propose flagging this article as "failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines on impartiality" or "in need of attention from an impartial editor"

As noted below in "important points", this article reads as though it's been written by the South Korean Tourism Board.

In recent weeks many balancing sentences have been removed from the article by a vandal. They include the following:

1/ The fact that South Korea has the world's highest suicide rate.

2/ Sentences about air and water pollution (it now says there were "minor" problems "in the past" and implies that they have been fixed).

So I would like to suggest that this article be protected and re-written by an impartial editor.

At the very least, it should be flagged for failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines on impartiality.

Who agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree : South Korea is quite in a good situation, but it's not all roses.

And this kind of sentence "in the world's top ten exporters" should be replaced by the actual rank, which I guess is around 9th or 10th.

It may sound stupid, but I don't understand why it should grammatically be written "Forming the G20 industrial nations and the world's top ten exporters, it is an APEC and OECD member", instead of "Forming part of the G20 industrial nations and the world's top ten exporters, it is an APEC and OECD member". I mean that Korea is only one member of these groups. Eumachia (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mentioned the fact that the age of consent with an adult is 13, did it?

I was born in Korea. How on earth did I never know this before Wikipedia?

Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who keeps compiling the list of Korea's global rankings for various wonderful things might like to mention the following:

Suicide: Highest rate in the world. Note: This claim is wrong - South Korea has the eigth highest suicide rate, which is not too far away from Japan and Belgium. See List of countries by suicide rate.

Gender equality: 108th out of 130 nations, according to a World Economic Forum report in November, 2008. Note: This claim is clearly pointing to WP:NPOV - this is a highly subjective report and only shows cultural inequality - economic and political rights are ignored and therefore very misleading. Again, South Korea is ranked above Japan and a similar ranking is visible in Western European countries.

Working hours: Highest in the world, at 48 hours a week. Note: This figure is again not far away from Japan and is only true when compared to the OECD countries - NOT "in the world", which is completely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Important Points

Please insert the info about the bullet-train in the seperate section of infrastructure. See Japan wiki.

I am a Westerner living in South Korea, and I would make the following points about this article:

1/ It is not balanced. By this, I mean it has clearly been written mostly by South Koreans. Hence the over-emphasis on economic performance, which seems to take up half of the article. In Korea, there is a cultural emphasis on work and the national economy that far outstrips any other nation in the world.

2/ It is too positive. Although Korea is a nice country and Korean people are very polite and work very hard, let's not forget that the nation has a lot of problems. For example, the difficulties with North Korea, the strong cultural pressures to work long hours and conform to accepted norms, terrible air and water pollution, mind-boggling overcrowding, the immense pressure placed on students as young as 5 to pass exams and study until midnight (where is the mention of this in the "education" section?) etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.62.29 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  I totally agree. This is way too positive. Editors for this one seem very reluctant to mention any negative issue. - DHeart

  I absolutely agree!!  You can see that pretty much everyone in the picture is smiling and beautiful.  

All pictures look like they've been taken off of official government advertisements. None of the pictures show a cloudy sky (all sunny). None of the pictures show a typical part of Korea. Pretty much all parts of of the pictures look like they have been digitally enhanced.

  This article almost seems like an open advertisement of South Korea for foreign investment.

Grammar error

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries such as nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."

That doesn't make sense, can an admin change it back to how it was before? I believe it was something like:

By the way, it's 33rd NOT 33st for per capita income. -Ed

---

However, the South Korea economy was awarded severely wounding for an 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

Please fix this. Should read,

However, the South Korean economy was severely wounded by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

DaronDierkes (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most wired country status.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html?ex=1301634000&en=7d5fcaf014309078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss--Sir Edgar 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, but see also [1] and various other reports on the 2006 Ipsos Face of the Web survey, which found that Japan is now the most "wired" (in terms of broadband connections per capita). I'm not really sure how trustworthy the Ipsos data is, but as far as I can tell they're the only people who go out collecting this kind of information. One suspects that the NYT reporter was using old information; in 2003 or 2004, nobody would have questioned the ROK's status. -- Visviva 10:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The above conversation was blanked by 64.123.114.149 on May 16 2006 and restored by Visviva 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See UNCTAD's ICT report 2007-2008 and OECD Broadband Statistics 2007. S.Korea is not the Most wired country status. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9479&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downloads http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39574076_1_1_1_1,00.html --Koreakorea1 (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The information you bring out seems to be about "broadband statics", and you didn't quote relevant information here. There is too many statics by various category, so quote it first. And you should not confuse "broadbnad" with wired nations.

P.S I feel like you're not a Korean at all per your contribution history. Koreans generally don't abbreviate country name like S.Korea. You can change your name via Wikipedia:Changing username--Appletrees (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9479&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downloads pp.85. Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. 1st is Bermuda(36.3/100) and 2nd is Netherlands(31.7/100), 3rd is Denmark(31.6/100). Republic of Korea is 5th(29.0).

P.S There is not a rule that a non-Korean person must not use the ID which contains the word Korea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvcc (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note these Japanese editor, Koreakorea1 (talk · contribs) and Cvcc (talk · contribs) are confirmed as abusive socks--Appletrees (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you miss the point. Still, many people access internet with 'non-broadband' service or dial. The most wired country doesn't mean a country with highest subscribers of broadband in the world. You better check broadband article before deleting reliable source like the New York Times citation. Unless the citation is proved wrong, Koreakorea1's removal can be considered as vandalism. I requested to show the evidence to back up your claim but you didn't. Cvcc and Koreakorea1, these two editors recently created their accounts and then equally obsess with rankings and technology of South Korea and Japan. Very interesting. Using country name is okay as long as it doesn't breach to the username policy, but it is also allowed for any user to recommend someone to change his or her name. To me, the name looks very conspicuous. I wonder why Cvcc directly responded to my opinion on the matter on behalf of Koreakorea1. The changing or removal of the sentence was only done by Koreakorea1. --Appletrees (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, 3G HSDPA

Korea is not "only" country in the world with nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB. It is not correct. For example, in Japan nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access is did by NTT East and West, NHK or other many broadcasting center offer nationwide full HDTV broadcasting by both Ground-based and Stellite based, and MobaHO! offer by DMB, and NTT Docomo and Softbank mobile offer 3G HSDPA service. --Koreakorea1 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You could've removed just "only", but you didn't. You blanked the whole sentence along with the robotics sentence. Why did you make such the disruptive edits? --Appletrees (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There were many humanoid robots in the world. EveR-1 is not world 2nd "Humanoid robot" but "android". Android and Humanoid are differrent. See the article Humanoid robot And the reason why I remove these sentences is this article is too redundant. See other Featured articles. Most of them are not so long but sophisticated. --Koreakorea1 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't also explain about your blanking. You deleted the examples of the android, EveR-1. You can also tag , but you just delete with your POV pushing. What you did to the article is disruptive enough. And stick to using one account.--Appletrees (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the technology information of South Korea. I'm dull at the info, but Koreakorea1's blnaking is very conspicuous and concerned. --Appletrees (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GDP

GDP(nominal)/PPP-based GDP (Billions USD) of South Korea

*	IMF(world/Asia) 2007 data(estimate)	WorldBank(world/Asia) 2005 data	CIA WorldFactbook2008 2007 data(estimate)
GDP (nominal)	949.698 (13th/4th)	888,024 (13th/4th)	no data
PPP-based GDP	1,250.49 (12th/4th)	1,027,400 (14th/4th)	1,206,000 (14th/4th)

[1]http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=24&pr.y=8&sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=
[2]http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
[3]http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=56&pr1.y=12&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=
[4]http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/ICP-report-prelim.pdf
[5]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

If there is mistake, correct please. GDP and PPP-based GDP is not same. I think the description about GDP in infobox and "3rd largest economy in asia" is inaccurate.
In infobox, value of GDP(PPP) is quoted by CIA World FactBook but rank is maybe quoted by IMF estimate. This is absurd.

--Koreakorea1 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note:see the other gray boxes above.

Vietnam paragraph.

The Vietnam paragraph seems to be either a translation or written by someone whose English is poor. I would try to edit it, but I'm unclear as to the meaning of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwartz Farquhartz (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture diversification and more citations

This page needs more pictures of places in Korea besides Seoul, and more citations on various claims made in the articles Deiaemeth (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. maybe pictures of Busan, Gyeongju, Daegu? We don't really have good pictures of other cities at this time. --Appletrees (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

sandwiched between Japan and China

A lot of sources are being written that Korean economy and a Korean technology were cornered to China etc. For instance, "Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee warned again that the nation is sandwiched between Japan and China and things are getting worse."[2] Please explain the reason to delete this. --2008FromKawasaki (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• _{Note: This user from 2channel was indefinitely blocked for his disruptive vandalism. --Appletrees (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)}

A lot of sources are being written that -->> One of phrases that Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) used to use it a lot. I want to ask you, why information about serious Japanese economic bubble doesn't be mentioned at Japan at all? that is very important fact and well-known. This page should be concise and hold representative of South Korea. It is not a place to hold every POV contents. And Japanese war crimes isn't mentioned there either. Don't push your POV, or stop whatever 2channel meatpuppetry. --Appletrees (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2008FromKawasaki, it is not logical and sensical that any words coming out from the mouth of CEO in a certain group are all true nothing but true. As you may be a Japanese, it is hard to understand the political situation behind the word, but when Kun-Hee Lee said the word you kept quoting, it was on the verge of presidential election, and many Koreans do believe that the word was aiming to hurt the current regime. In short, the word has nothing but a political meaning. In addition, I have no idea why another user, Koreakorea, has kept erasing the content backing up by reasonable references. People call it, vandalism, and that kinda act is not tolerable in Wikipedia, officially.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the claim that 2008FromKawaki has no intention of helping to improve Wikipedia because he is Japanese is NPOV, but I do agree that sockpuppetry from 2CH is getting out of hand. Deiaemeth (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

late comment but I get annoyed at the sort of "logic" displayed by Deiaemeth (about whom I have nothing else to complain, I think). Check that so-called "logic": "2008FromKawasaki is a Japanese and obviously has no intention of helping improve Wikipedia's articles." I agree on both statements. But I don't take it as meaning that he is an idiot because he is Japanese. I understand it as pointing at the fact that he is Japanese despite his claim of koreakorea. So the comment by Deiaemeth on is doubly wrong: it's pontifying with a hint of lecture on correctness, when it's Deiaemeth who could do with a lesson on how to not demean, here , by assuming that it's who has the other's (here 2008kawa's) stupid idiosyncrasies and ways of thought. Where hell exists, I bet the 2008kawa's still rubbing his hands with glee on that one. tsss. I bet it's NPOV to say that hell exists. You bet it's sad. Deiaemeth, you look alright, so just this: it doesn't help when you attribute one's feelings to the other. In fact it just makes me think, mmmm, must be right, then, the guy's actually throwing crap on the basis of nationalistic self-called justification. And that too I bet is exact. Sure is sad. And it sure won't stop til people can't see who's lying and ain't more careful on getting it right about who sends the bad vibes. Gotta be more discerning. Anyway. Me only came here to see if there's a place to put the fact that South Korea is thee 3rd in rank for providing U.S.A.'s chestnut imports. After Italy and China. Then I find all this fight about rankings :-DDD ... let's drop the chestnuts, hey. Me likes people who grow chestnut, South Korea's gotta be alright. So Good luck anyway. I hope you grow more productive trees (not just chestnuts). It sure beats ripping the earth's nerves to make things that dirty it and kill it and us with it. Look, Spain, they're ranked way behind you, me, the English, the U.S.A., etc. Yeah, but they're the first in happiness. Go beat that for a crown, you can keep all your stats, mates, they just look stupid beside that one... Yeah, sex equality or whatever you call it, is much more important than how much metallurgy you do. Many things are more important. Thinking otherwise is just standing upside down from life for all. And so is reproaching the 2008kawa's shit. :-( Basicdesign (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New president of South Korea

{{editprotected}} It is the 25th of February in Korea due to the international date line. An official transfer of power has occurred from the administration of Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak hours prior. I ask an administrator make relevant changes to the article. Gryffon (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, as the edit is all based on information already in the infobox, and is unrelated to the dispute. If there's any more places ion the article which need fixing, please make a more specific request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Trillion dollar club?

This article claims that "In 2004, South Korea joined the "trillion dollar club" of world economies". However, the citation does not support this claim. I've been researching the "trillion dollar club" to write an article about it, and this 2007 Forbes article lists the current members as "[India], U.S., U.K., Japan, Germany, China, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Russia." South Korea is not included — and indeed, the article notes that ""The U.K. is the only economy to stop being a trillion-dollar economy for a while after attaining the status the first time,” the report said." I assume that this must be because the article is talking only about the countries currently on the list?

Because I can find a couple articles which claim it actually did become, while I can find others stating that it is about to. So, what is right here? Did South Korea join the club, or not? Is it still in the club — the CIA factbook source indicates that it is not, as does the Forbes article. What is the accurate assessment here? --Haemo (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not even sure even if there is an actual "trillion dollar club" classification; this term is by no means an official title or qualification, but rather a term used to describe economies with GDP of a trillion dollars or more. Since the exact figure of the GDP of Korea varies (two broad distinctions in both nominal and PPP GDP, and figure varies in both accounts), it really depends on which figure and the which source you are looking at. I hope this helps. Deiaemeth (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it actually is a measure calculated by some firms around the world, and it does have a precise definition — it's GDP in current US dollars, not PPP GDP. The Forbes article I linked, above, discusses it — there's also a bunch of hits for the term when India joined, as it was judged an important milestone. I think we should omit mention of it, since the sources disagree over whether or not SK ever was a member. --Haemo (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to go ahead and remove the discussion of the trillion-dollar club from the article, since it's at best confused, and at worst false. --Haemo (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Population of South Korea

{{editprotected}} This needs to be updated. See here. The population has officially surpassed 50,000,000. Now get it sorted. Please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.105.162.97 (talk) 2008-03-05T07:50:47 (UTC)

 Not done The information in the article is not wrong; it may be out of date, but the 2007 figure is from a known reliable source (UN estimate). While the source you point out may be reliable, it may not - please establish a consensus on this page as to whether the population figure should be updated to this new figure. And in future, please try to be a little more civil. Happy‑melon 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} While I appreciate the person who made the edit request was uncivil (perhaps tongue in cheek) in his/her request, I second the request. Yes UN estimates is a relibable source, but surely the South Korean Ministry of Government and Home Affairs is also a reliable source, at least for the population of its own nation. The link here is from a South Korean government page and quotes South Korean government sources. Could it please be updated on the page? Population is not a controversial issue that needs "consensus" in order to update it, unlike the other issues why the page has been locked for editing, is it? 152.99.244.60 (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha. See? Get it sorted. Pretty please. ㅋㅋ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.105.162.97 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing population with residents. The article you refere to gives the number of residents as 50,087,307 including 624,377 foreigners living in the country. The population should then be 49,462,930 as of October 2007 according to the country's own official statistics.

ToK (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, chummy. The population is the total number of residents. Foreign residents are part of the population, just as Koreans who reside abroad are not. Please read the article again. It is by the Korean Government. The title is "Population of Korea surpasses 50-million mark." Our wikipaedia article is about the country, not the indigenous peoples. But what is actually going on here is obvious to all. I made a poor joke of my first request and the powers that be are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Simply because you don't like my tone/language, you are refusing to update an article with pertinent information. Please reconsider.

While I disown the tone and language of the poster above, I do agree that population includes (mostly registered) foreign residents. When a census is taken in a country, it includes anyone who is in the country at that time, not just those who have citizenship.

152.99.244.25 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have checked a little and you're mostly right. Most countries use the "balance method" when updating their population figures. This means they take the last census + live births - deaths + registrations for permanent residence - registrations for permanent residence (+/- changes due to administrative changes, for instance border adjustments). So it is not enough to be in the country on a temporary basis to count as part of the population. But I suspect that the figures from the Korean authorities are in line with these definitions.

Since an article mentioning a press release mentioning a report is not the best of sources, I have asked Koreas statistics services for a more authoritative source than the referenced article. Normally they should be able to provide the report itself.

ToK (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of 152.99.244.25 (talk) and I hate to offend his sensibilities, so I've amended my tone/language. Hope that's cool with y'all.

3rd richest country by 2025 - error

The information that "South Korea will be the world's 3rd richest country by 2025 with a GNP per capita of $52,000 according to Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banks.[10]" is wrong. If you check the reference [10], you see that South Korea is expected to be the 3rd richest country measured as GNP per capita among the 22 countries in Goldman Sachs' study. This is not to say that other countries not included in the report can not have a higher GNP per capita. This is almost certainly the case since measuring GDP per capita serves small and relatively rich countries like Singapore, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg very well. A better piece of information to use from the Goldman Sachs report would be that South Korea is expected to be the worlds 9th largest economy by 2025.

ToK (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

2channel's watchlist

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on a watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets relevant the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

• Relevant articles.
  • Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets (in WP:ANI archive380)
  • Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 (diff 1diff 2)
  • Special:Whatlinkshere(see the RFCU and SSP files)

• Note:
  

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement

This article needs some improvements in trimming down the introduction, fixing grammar problems (syntax, typos, etc.), and diversifying pictures (more pictures of Korea besides Seoul). Deiaemeth (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

History section

The history section of this article is a little strange. There is little information on the establishment of South Korea, or the Japanese occupation just before it.

I think the history of "Korea" before the division should only be in the separate "Korea" article, and only the history of "South Korea" should be in the "South Korea" article. The "North Korea" article does this correctly.

If you are going to combine "Korea" and "South Korea" histories in this article, you should at least add a paragraph on the end of Choson and some details of the Japanese occupation, as well as the actual founding of the Republic of Korea.

-MNadelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNadelman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "national IQ"

From the (very lengthy) introduction:

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106"

This latter part of this sentence should be removed. What is being referred to here is a book whose scientific validity is in serious dispute: as far as I've understood, the claims of Dr. Lynn and Dr. Vanhanen are not taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community. They base their estimates of "national IQ" on differences in national income, causing the poorest countries to have an average "IQ" of around 60 or less (which is the equivalent of mild retardation).

It should suffice to say that South Korea is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, having a very high GDP per capita. There is no reason to translate this to some dubious concept of "national IQ" based on research of poor scientific quality. Information drawn from controversial sources should not be presented as factual, especially not in an encyclopedia. -- Anthee (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with your sentiments, and that sentence should be removed or modified appropriately. The introduction is also getting too long with laundry lists of random figures, and there has to be some major copy-editing to make the introduction concise and and move its constituent parts into other parts of the article or different parts of the articles. Deiaemeth (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106 along with a heated focus on education, being directly linked with its strong performance in mathematics and science"

into

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, its heated focus on education being directly linked with its strong performance in mathematics and science"

until the whole introduction is revised. -- Anthee (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106" Forgive me for stating it, but including this kind of information borders on chauvinism and the only other country that would ever include this kind of information would have been Nazi Germany... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.11.4 (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The above kind of references to "national IQ" have already been deemed inappropriate for the article. This kind of provocative commenting adds nothing further to the discussion. -- Anthee (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Starcraft

A mention about starcraft is a must for any discussion about SOuth Korea.

Seriously it's the one thing they are world famous for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.239 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the game Starcraft?Euge246 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's obsurd... We're not mentioning a game in this article. -Steve12992

starcraft and eSports are very prominant in south korean culture. far more prominant than all of these exagerated sporting events previously mentioned. when i visited they had 2 channels that had televised starcraft matches 24-7. ur wrong steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.159.12 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence StarCraft is a popular online game in Korea. Its fanbase exceeds five million, and has two Korean-based channels dedicated to its broadcast. Professional StarCraft player Lim Yo-Hwan (SlayerS `BoxeR`) earned over $300,000 during the peak of his career. -- It comes without citation and having moved here 2.5 months ago, I don't see it. I've seen starcraft covered occasionally on one channel, but not dedicated to it. I've seen the same channel covering other video games. Far more prominent is one channel I've seen which is seemingly a 24/7 'Go' channel. This is a fact that is often quoted around the internet whenever starcraft is mentioned in relation to korea, but I think a citation is needed.--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Quick-Fail

This article needs to be thoroughly referenced before it is ready for GA status. It has been tagged with a "refimprove" tag, and simply removing the tag doesn't solve the problem. Please add citations to the entire article before renominating. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, indicate exact contents or lines to which you raised a question on their reliablity and consequent requirement of references. It is way too broad to remark 'thoroughly referenced' on the entire article. In addition, in my personal opinion, contents are average-well referenced compared to other articles. I think it is not fair to put the GA tag simply by one's own opinion.Patriotmissile (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who failed the GA nomination, but even I can see that this article still has massive problems with verifiability. Every section needs to be referenced. Every paragraph needs to be referenced. I've identified two sections ("Climate" and "Transportation") which have no references at all, and I could certainly go much further. The "Sports" section, for example, has only a single citation which is for the introduction and popularity of baseball in Korea; what about the rest of the section? There are several dead links which should be fixed, and the citations should to be properly and consistantly formatted. Citation #2 even references Wikipedia, which is a strict no-no. There is still a long way to go with this article. PC78 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest to correct the bibliography form of some sources. An encyclopedia article MUST have proper bibliographic and citation form. Idontknow610^TM 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a lot of vandalism going on, particularly on the intro page. I had to restore the page because someone blanked out the last paragraph. The statistics column on the right is always vandalized and people change it to random numbers all the time. Can we do something about this and make this article semi-protected? I noticed that almost half of the edits are simply vandalism.Jenny0313 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Please semi to prevent anon IPs re-introducing unsourced nonsense about national IQs and other fluff that doesn't belong in the lede ... richi (hello) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Semi-protection would be good. --Bakarocket (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

3rd highest GDP/capita by 2025

Below is a retread of a discussion between User:Richi and User:Lakshmix on this subject. We're looking to gain some consensus among editors about what to do with this text. Thoughts?

Hi. Can you show me where you're seeing it "clearly surpasses the mentioned countries by a signifcant margin by 2025"? I'm looking at the chart on page 9 that shows the four countries the same. Thanks ... richi (hello) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Korea exceeds the income per capita of UK, France and Germany by 2025, in particular Germany - it shows a difference of almost 2000-4000USD, which translates to almost 200 billion USD in economy size, equivalant to that of several developing countries' total GDP. If you don't consider this significant, you still do not have the right to modify or change this fact and show a misleading statement in the article, which is clearly not valid according to the reference. By equal or equivalant, you are directly implying that their income per capita is arithmetically the same, which it is clearly not stated in the source. Whether the figures are signifcant or not, that is irrelevant - your POV does not comply with the source and the source clearly shows that Korea has a larger income per capita than those three countries. If you consider them "tiny", this is your opinion and should not be introduced into the article to modify and change it according to your POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where you can take sources, modify it to your own will (i.e. claim that the three countries income per capita is EQUAL to the income per capita of Korea in 2025) without the authorization of the publisher, Goldman Sachs in this case, and state your own opinion in any of its articles. In other words, your claim is your POV and opinion, not a fact. This is for the benefit of all Wikipedia users and if you feel that there is any reason why you should object to this fact, please feel free to leave a comment below. Thank you.Lakshmix (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I asked. You're clearly seeing different data to those that I can see in the reference. I'm asking you to tell me where you're seeing it. Sources must be WP:V ... richi (hello) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am referring to the source published by Goldman Sachs, page 9, the 2nd bottom diagram. This is the linked PDF report that is referenced in the statement in the introduction. The data you have been referring to is precisely this. Make sure that you verify the data and check the figures carefully, in particular for Germany. As clarified previously, however "tiny" (according to your opinion stated on the article revision history) any fact or figure may be, you cannot modify it according to WP:V. Lakshmix (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, your English is better than my Hangul! That's the same chart as I'm looking at. It shows that ROK, UK, and France's estimated GDP/capita for 2025 are indistinguishable. You are correct that Germany's is lower, perhaps significantly so. The point is that these are estimates, not facts -- estimates with a 20 year horizon. It's also complicated by the fact that the US$ has fluctuated significantly differently against these currencies since 2005. It's not reasonable for an encyclopedia to be so precise, given: the nature of estimates and these other variables -- and the fact that we're talking about 20 years.

    Do you have any training in statistics? Personally I often deal with situations like this, where quantitative data are "fuzzy" due to estimates or from survey data. From careful measurement of the bar charts, we're talking about a difference of less than one percent -- there is no doubt in my mind that this is statistically insignificant, given the nature of the data.

    BTW, there's no POV here -- I could care less whether ROK's GDP/capita exceeds that of the UK. My motivation is to help clean up an article that has become badly bogged down. If we can't reach consensus, we'll have to follow WP:FUTURE and remove the text altogether.

    Thanks for your time ... richi (hello) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can speak Hangul, are you Korean? I am currently mastering in Economics and Statistics at New York University and the Economy of South Korea is my specialty along with other East Asian economies. For you, this 1% might look insignificant. And I agree the great majority do. However, as a statistician, all data, including numbers to an infinite amount of significant figures or decimal points are valid. If you ignore these figure, however small or tiny they are, there will be chaos in the statistics world. One ranking of a country can be slipped or moved up by just 1%. If you simply ignore it, it breaks down the whole theory of statistics. While I agree this report is an estimate, there is no denial in the fact that it is an official report published by Goldman Sachs and hence it must be treated as a verifiable source according to WP:V. I would like this to be respected and more importantely, the acceptance that fact is fact - no more, no less. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you. Lakshmix (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take it to Talk:South Korea and try to gain consensus ... richi (hello) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with richi that the difference is not large, however, as lakshmix states, I think the sentence should remain in the introduction as it is true by the source, even if the difference is not large. Also, it is an excellent example demonstrating South Korea's future capability in becoming a very wealthy country in the future. And this should therefore not be modified or removed. Thank you.Jenny0313 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my view, Jenny. That statement has been on the article for almost half a year and it is a true and honest statement, whatever way I try to interpret it. Richi, you cannot ignore those fine details, even if they are not significant. Goldman Sachs put South Korea ahead of others for a reason. It is designed to demonstrate its economic capabilities beyond just facts and figures. For example, if you simply ignore the fine figures of a GDP, perhaps, then a country can move up and down whole rankings as many have very close figures. And of course, they are estimates themselves, so saying that they are "estimates" and therefore should be ignored is not correct and they should definitely be included in the article.Billythekilly (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand why this would need a consensus in the first place, it is a fact from the source and well, you can't change that. I know it is incredible that S.Korea surpasses France, Germany and UK but and yes, I agree it is significant news but oh well, fact is fact and you can't mess around with it. The fact that S.Korea overtakes these countries IS the significant part, not just because they are estimates. I am sorry but I reckon this should simply stay where it is.Theoneandonlyonewill (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Will, this is exactly what I have been trying to reiterate and emphasize all the time in this discussion, the fact that you can't change facts. I personally don't mind at all whichever country has more income than the other but I have a strong defence for justice and honesty. If you just change facts because they are small or estimates than you are completely undermining the whole point of Wikipedia. Every GDP is an estimate, even the ones we find today, they are never precise. And yet every country is ranked this way, with differences as small as a couple of billion dollars (which is a very small sum in GDP terms). An Economist would take this very seriously and I agree that Goldman Sachs had a clear intention of putting S.Korea ahead of others. Think about it.Lakshmix (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No personal offence but I would like to mention that this user called richi seems to have a negative opinion about South Korea, not necessarily showing a good willness. I found it very unfair that he gave me a sock accusation without any evidence. I don't know if he/she is Japanese or from 2Channel to be biased about South Korea and in particular, many of the article he edits are negative or degrading information. Richi does not add any constructive information to his/her edits, they are just pure fact correction. As a hard evidence, I have found that he/she has deliberately put South Korea's nomimal GDP at 14th place, even though it was clearly 13th by all international sources. Appletrees gave him/her a warning in the history section, yet richi's POV just doesn't justify his will of goodness. As I repeat, this is not a personal offence to richi but I am arguing that his negative POV is influencing this discussion when he accuses everyone who writes positively (and righfully so with given references and sources like this one) about S.Korea.Billythekilly (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know!! This whole discussion should not even be here, sources and references are clear according to Wikipedia guidelines, I mean, what is there to argue about it? Richi seems to have something against people who contribute to S.Korean articles positively and is giving warnings to anyone like that without a fair reason and evidence. That is certainly against Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously, I don't want this discussion to be about richi but clearly, we can question his/her good intentions regarding Korean articles.Jenny0313 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to know something that may or may not happen in 2025??? Guys - get real. Wait till 2025 and then write about it! I also think you shouldn't write only good and national-pride driven facts. Be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but it seems to me that future events are mentioned in most every other article about nations, and national agencies, so I do not see why you're complaining only on this talkpage... Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

More reference needed!!!

'Korean farmers have a hard time finding a wife, as few women want to live in the countryside. Farmers are forced to look abroad to find their wife, most from the much poorer Southeast Asia, and increasingly Eastern Europe. For the year 2006, 41% of the marriages amongst the farmers were to foreign nationals.[74]' This part is based on an article from internet. More reliable data is needed!!! No reference to Eastern Europeans even in this article. Source needed!!! The article mentions as first: wives from China!!, but you seem to write only about SouthEast Asian wives... Very unreliable and misleading!!!!!!!!!! Who accepted it???? Please check the sources given by contributors!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the blazes is that even in the article in the first place?

Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

motto

The Motto of Republic of Korea is not official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.83.247 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not the fastest growing religion in South Korea

Hi there! As I can see that you are always adding this entry "Islam is also the fastest growing religion in country" to many Korea-related articles and its source is come from an Islamic organzation [3]...that is why mostly people highly doubt it, will the people believe it? Because according to the national estimates of South Korea has showed that Roman Catholicism and Won Buddhism are 2 fastest growing religions here. I suggest that you must never added this entry again because it violated WP:RS, NPOV. Thank for your good works. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, The source is originally Arab news, not an Islamic organization. The page in Islamawareness.net shows the article from Arab news. If otherwise, please show the census estimates, that you said, that shows that Roman Catholicism and Won instead are the 2 fastest growing religions. Still, I want to say I appreciate your concern in keeping this NPOV.Opticals (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Let's do some operetions between national census as of 1995[4] and 2005[5]:

1. Roman Catholicism: 2,950,730 (6.14%) as of 1995 ==> 5,146,000 (10.53%) = nearly double after 10 years
2. Won Buddhism: 86,923 (0.18%) as of 1995 ==> 130,000 (0.26%) = +150% after 10 years
3. Other religions (included 45,000 Muslims): 267,996 (0.55%) as of 1995 ==> 247,000 (0.5%) = declined

Other religions: Including not only 45.000 Muslims (the least in other recognized religions in South Korea), but also Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Seventh-day Adventist Church, Daesun Jinrihoe.[6]

And if Islam is the fastest growing religion in S.Korea with only 45,000 Muslims so it can be impossible with only 6 mosques. Because don't like Buddhism, or maybe even Christianity; Muslims must go to mosques at least once a week. Now, let's do a small operation:

• 45,000 Muslims : 6 mosques = 7,500 people/ mosque

But remember that the largest mosque in Korea is Seoul Central Mosque can contains only less than 1000 people.

Now, that is clear. And Islam was not the fastest growing religion in South Korea. About your citation given: 100% citizens of Arab countries must be Muslims and Islam is state religion. Look again the words in your citation given is: Islam Awareness; I don't care it come from Arabia or not but I know that is an Islamic webiste. The citation given of The Korea Times (11-22-2002) has agreed that Islam is growing in South Korea but it's no way to be the fastest growing religion here.[7]

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Angelo asked me to give my opinion on the source in question as a neutral third party. There are a couple of points. First the source from Arab news is a very old one, over 17 years old, and using it as a blanket source to state that Islam is the fastest growing religion right now doesn't make too much sense. Secondly, there is this source from 2000 that states that Christianity is the fastest growing religion. Instead of trying to make a blanket statement, I would just give the current population figures; it's the most neutral thing to do. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, Jeff3000 with your points. It is best right now if we state more neutral statements.Opticals (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

History and facts

"Korea has a history of 5,000 years and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world."

This statement lacks fundamental evidence of material and reference. People can not think this statement by his own head!!

You are right. Spain could say the same way "Spain has a history of 15,000 years and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world" as the Altamira paintings and others in Northern Spain are over 15,000 years old. And Spain has fundamental evidence!! And also from the founding of the city of Cadiz in Southern Spain 3,108 years ago. And also from hundreds of 2,000 year old buildings and bridges...something not even the so called 5,000 year old China can show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.210.74 (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"...forming a unique and largely uninfluenced culture world. "

No culture can uninfluenced by other country. Old Korean culture was influenced by many countries. Budhism is a foreign one. Chinese characters are foreign one...

The secrect slaughter has been reported by AP. No one can deny. Even Korean government has been doing the investigation.

Some people deliberately delete others contribution without providing any evidence to support his edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is copied from User talk:Historiographer

I guess Historiographer mistakenly said "negative point of view" with "neutral point of view" at his edit summary. Your insertion is not only POV-ish but also far from neutral point of view as well as violation on WP:UNDUE. No such excessive description on the lead in PRC and ROC; In the latter, I can't even find any mention of Taiwan under Japanese rule and Taiwanese unstable political status along with the culture heavily influenced by Japan. Besides, why does not the article of PRC have the famous cultural suppression, especially on media and communism? The article intends to introduce general information to summarize every relevant articles. If he did not revert you, I would have done so. I did now.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Claiming Korean culture as uninfluenced by foreigners is nothing but ultra-nationalist crap. Kindly read Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Arts:

"A peninsula situated between China and Japan, Korea has often acted as a cultural crossroads and its arts has frequently been treated as a poor relation of that of its two great neighbours. Certainly Korean art has been decisively influenced by China" [p.251]

"China has the longest cultural tradition in the world, with a continuous history of more than 3000 years. It's arts is significant not only because of its beauty and richness, but also becasue it has been a major source of inspiration for the entire Far East--Japan, Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, and Central Asia" [p.91]

- 219.79.31.40 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very nationalistic but actually not my edit. I have to revert the real crap from the article to start fresh. You did not catch other craps inserted by the other.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue: If you said in this article there will be no non-neutral statement, why there is description of Gwangju Massacre? Only because the victims are not leftist? But even leftists are also Korean people.

Korean should acknowledge the influence by foreigner is the past just as now asian people acknowledge Korean has influence on other East Asian countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

International ranking

I check several articles of countries, such as Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, RPC, ROC, Singapore, France to see if they have international ranking. Except a brief list (just 4 entries) at the France article, there are no such section dedicated to listing rankings. This section on the article has been a tendentious target by some shameless nationalistic editors in our neighbor countries. Besides, several important rankings like GDP, are already listed or described on the infobox and main contents. The section is unnecessarily long compared to other sections. I suggest it to be taken out from the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, most of the other articles do not include national rankings. So why does the South Korea page include rankings on Ranking in the global shipbuilding industry or Mathematics, Science, Reading and Problem solving? I'm sure gender empowerment is a much more important issue than that. If you are going to throw the ranking in regard to gender empowerment out on the grounds that other rankings do not include it, we should throw out many of the other rankings too.

It is more nationalistic of you to include only rankings that Korea does well in (shipbuilding, which is an incredibly subjective, narrow, and almost random choice), and throw out rankings Korea does not do so well in (gender empowerment, which is much more critical because it is used by the UN to determine its overall Human Development Index).

Agreeing with Caspian Blue's logic, I believe that we should throw out the ranking on shipbuilding because the list of rankings has become too long and it is irrelevant compared to the other rankings (GDP, government corruption, gender empowerment), which is more important in determining the nature of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How is shipbuilding "incredibly subjective"? Your just gleeful that you can take out a fact that positively represents South Korea. You might as well delete the entire section because most other articles on countries dont have them. Good friend100 (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with deleting the whole ranking thing. Shipbuilding is a minor facet of the economy in general (which is reflected by GDP amongst several other indications). For example, why is shipbuilding included and not other economic indicators (such as agricultural production or commodity production? Of course the choice to include shipbuilding is subjective, it was included amongst all others only because Korea does so well in it.

You are also missing my point completely, my argument was that gender empowerment is a much more critical issue than shipbuilding. If Caspian Blue is to delete gender empowerment on the grounds that it is irrelevant because other rankings do not include it, shipbuilding would especially not stand the same trial too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is your POV over what is important or not. I disagree, so you should seek for compromise in a constructive way. You're throwing only positive ones and adding negative ones. That editing habit is another exmaple that you have strong anti-Korean sentiment so far. What I'm suggesting is taking out the whole list, and you pretend to listen to. Besides, the French list only include selected "positive one". Your concern about gender enpowerment is contradictory since you have not improved the such article. You pick it because of its lower ranking.

Besides, please remind 3RR again. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue, I agree, let us compromise. Include shipbuilding AND gender empowerment. Also, do not revert my edits on the education ranking. I looked at the source that was provided and found that the ranking included on wikipedia was a mistake. If you disagree with my interpretations of the statistics that is presented in the source, please include it in the discussion.

Once you agree to this, I will include the shipbuilding ranking back in, unless you can come up with a better logic as to why you should delete gender empowerment within the ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech95

• Since Logitch95 is unhappy about the title, I generously redact it for him--Caspian blue (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you claim that you would regard a "discussion" with me, I would ask you. Why did you only restore your addition on the lower rankings and delete the two top rankings. I see your agenda with the disruptive habits again. You have no intention to regard "compromise" or "discussion" as showing yourself contradictory. Well, that is not good for you after your second block in a row from Korean related articles.--Caspian blue (talk)

In regard to your "compromise", well, I think we need more input from other editors since some editors think that the list is important. Recently this article has been mostly edited by a couple of editors. We will get their response soon. So be patient. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I only deleted one ranking because you deleted one of mine. You said gender empowerment is irrelevant because the other rankings did not include it. Shipbuilding is also not included within the rankings of France; using your logic, I should be able to delete that too. Please be consistent.

I think we can all agree that gender empowerment is a much more important issue than shipbuilding. There is no reason not to include gender empowerment if we are to include shipbuilding (based on your argument of relevance). We can compromise by including both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Shipranking is actually already mentioned in the article because it is one of the South Korean economic strength. So I don't really care whether it would be included or not since I want the list to be out from the article. However, I sensed your addition-removal would be the same practice on Yaksik. Basically you admit that your removal is a revenge again. Good lord. Please do not repeat the same nightmare again.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. OK. No discussion any more. Every facet of ROK is among top three in the world. ROK is a superpower in economy, politics, military, culture, education, science, industry, agriculture, human rights, history ... Korea had been controlling most part of East Asia.

OK? Agree? Or are you kidding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng (talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, did we hit a nerve? Chinese obession with Korea, what's new? I swear you people produce some of the most dedicated negative nancies in the world. Good luck trying to whitewash the world. ––Kuebie (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean-Up

This article has been overflowing with laundry list of random statistics and pictures. In order to help raise the standards of the article at the GA level, there has to be some major clean-ups. First of all, the article seems like it's a repository of random good facts about Korea; although random good facts may not be a bad thing in themselves, I am afraid that it may hurt the credibility of the article as a whole. Secondly, there are too many pictures in proportion to the length of the article, and some of them needs to be carefully selected and deleted from the article. Thirdly, the rank section seems too long - it should only have the most broad and general indicators (Size of the GDP, press freedom index, etc.) and many others should belong in more specialized articles regarding Korea (Economy of South Korea, Culture, etc.). These are just my two cents. Deiaemeth (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a lot of clean-up. There are way too many maps of Korea, and random pictures of all sorts (including one of a semi-conductor). There are also unnecessary charts.

The whole article is redundant in conjunction with the ranking list. I read all over the place that Korea is ranked the 13th largest economy in the world, the biggest shipbuilder, etc. I will cut the length of the ranking so that it excludes information that is already presented in other parts of the article (especially information regarding GDP, which can be found in the big box at the top of the article).

Also, I believe we can agree to cut out the picture of the semi-conductor. I also think the chart of the demographics is unnecessary because we can easily assume that the trend is rising. I think we should also delete the religiosity chart because the article itself already presents the percentage of religions present in Korea. I will only refrain from deleting this, though, because a similar chart exists in the article on Japan.

I also believe there are too many of Korea. The article on Japan only exists one map, the administrative one, which is the only one I think is relevant because it supplements the section on administrative divisions. Really, do we really care for a topographical map? I will only leave the historical map of Korea up, because historical geography does help supplement history.

The climate chart also seems unnecessary and lackluster. But I will leave that for others to decide .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese

I see it on more Wikipedias, but can't find the reason why. Why is the official name in the infobox also in Chinese? --Jeroen (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no answer. Does that mean it can be removed? --Jeroen (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Hanja and Hanzi. --Kjoonlee 01:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Chinese script used in the infobox is a legitimate Korean script. It is called Hanja, which literally means "words/characters of the Han (Chinese)". nat.utoronto 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but is it used officially or only in rare circumstances? If it is the latter, than I suggest to remove it. --Jeroen (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty common. --Kjoonlee 06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, really common Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Low-Trust Society"

The Koreans (book) by Michael Breen (author) mentions Korea being a "Low-Trust Society" like Taiwan, France, and Italy. The Breen book draws from Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity by Francis Fukuyama:

In a low-trust society, where individuals are only able to organize within their own clan or family, organizations are likely to be either small, or very large (and state-operated).

I think this deserves a brief mention, especially as relating to the chaebols' role in the economy. 222.111.129.57 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.. Heroeswithmetaphors[8], Anyway, if you put such phrase to Taiwan, France, and Italy as you refer, well people would regard your claim reasonable. So please do first to the mentioned articles as examples before adding the "brief" mention to the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Economic history

To user;Wondergirls.

South korea received 800 million dollars in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its colonial rule in the treaty. South Korea government spent most of its money establishing social infrastructures and corporation,founding POSCO,building Gyeongbu Expressway and the Soyang River Dam.

• Jong sik Kong Korea Was Most Efficient in Utilizing Japanese ReparationDong-a Ilbo, JANUARY 19, 2005.

What is the deletion reason? [9] --Ccpccp (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

2nd delete [10]--Ccpccp (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rose of Sharon

It being the national flower of South-Korea, where could it be mentioned in the article? Kbarends (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious issue: about Christian Korean and non Christian Korean

A Korean without Christian Faith is generally a good Korean. I have heard about it from a number of people especially from Chinese and Japanese. I learned that many Koreans are Christians or in favor of Christianity. I'm a deist, or maybe half an atheist. I'm very interested in the differences between Christian Koreans and non Christian Koreans. I suppose the article does not cover this significant issue. ~Arnoldsey (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I, one who was born in South Korea, and had lived there for a decade or so, can tell you pretty much none.

I've never heard any sort of comments you have mentioned, and several Christians and non-Christians live in harmony in SK. Where the blazes did you hear that? Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of Korean big 'churches' are actually commercialized and sometimes politically influential these days. Like, there happens that one 'inherits' a church that one's father founded. Number of people in the church is more than ten thousands... something like that. Those 'phenomena' is clearly not the way of Christians. Also those, whom I call 'pseudo-pastors', give politically disputable 'sermons'. As a result, it is actually true that there exist concerns on big churches in Korea. However, most of churches are doing okay, and it is also very generally accepted that one is not judged by one's religious belief.

kidhkgg —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

About fun and Entertainment ...

Show M*A*SH be mentioned in fun and entertainment BaconBoy914 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Many uploaded images are copyright violations

just wanted to note that. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Republic of Korea

South Korea is not the official name of the state, its Republic of Korea. While South Korea is the more common name, I think Republic of Korea should be used because its the "real" name and somehow less NPOV-ish. Same applies to North Korea. --Fixman^{Praise me} 20:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC) ____