Talk:South Korea/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Culture Section

Here's what this article has taught me about Korean culture: it spans from the first K-pop band in the 90s to today's most recent cellphones & online games. Are there really no noteworthy Korean poets, writers, philosophers, musicians, artists, etc.? Wallers (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You raise a great point: most of this section (and indeed the article) focuses on the last 30 years of Korean history. Nonetheless, it's important to remember that the article as well as the respective sections of the article are meant to be summaries or overviews. As such, they can't really be exhaustive lists of people, places and events.

I think that you have some good examples above, but I also think they would belong better on the main Culture of Korea page. If you're worried about the brief summary paragraphs on the in the Culture section, then why not offer some changes or additions? Although the page is protected now, if you make some proposals we should be abel to get them in the article. RlndGunslinger (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I insert a table and missing signature of Kingj123 (talk · contribs) to reduce the unnecessary lengthy space. The previous version can be seen in this diff--Caspian blue 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

I have never thought that any of the claims were incorrect, I just don't see a lot of them as being relevant. I suggest that all leading terms are removed - world leaders in blah blah..they have no place in this article. This article needs to be assumed to be neutral when someone reads it - at times it has been pathetically over-positive and anyone reading it would know straight away that it was written by a Korean who wants to portray their nation in the best way possible. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine. I understand why you might have thought that way. But back to your point, Well I don't think it would hurt if them term "world leader" was used at least somewhere in the article when necessary, as it is used in other country articles too. But these kinds of overly positive words do occur perhaps too often. I have tried to some make changes to the introduction several times already to tone things down (at least this is a start), but it seems making any edits to this page is virtually impossible. When you compare South Korea's lead to other major countries, it is the only one that comes to my mind as strikingly bad. Pds0101 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I just thought I'd drop in with some comments.

First, do not use Wikipedia as a citation. I can see that with the comment It is a global leader in the fields of education. I would only give factual references as to where it comes in league tables and the like. "A global leader" is a subjective term depending on how you define it, so I would not use it unless someone like the OECD do in recent publications.

Second, more generally I do not see proper citations that accompany "world leader" throughout the article. Remember that if this article is to get FA status it needs to be properly citated. I promise you the article could fail on this point alone so you might as well try to avoid such subjective terms to begin with. It adds nothing to the article, other than to make some South Koreans proud. I hope you'd all agree that's not what the article should be about.

Third, I feel the tone of the article is like a promotional campaign for why South Korea is generally "great". Some of the citations are clearly not appropriate. You can't say Frequently described as a technology superpower and use a US-Korean student conference as a citation.

Fourth, keep the image captions simple and don't put contentious statements in there without a proper citation. Comments like EveR-2 is a highly sophisticated android capable of expressing human emotions naturally. and Albert HUBO is one of the most advanced humanoid robots in the world. are subjective and may even be controversial. Just say what the image is and leave it at that - unless say it won a very prestiguous international award. For example Kim Yu-Na is a world leading figure skater and one of the most recognized athletes in South Korea. should be changed to Kim Yu-Na is a medal-winning ice figure-skater. It's factual and simple.

Fifth, I think the article could do with a link to an article on racism/racial issues in South Korea if there is one under the demographics section. If not you could use Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

Sixth, the citations need formatting and there need to be a lot more of them. John Smith's (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, I hope to see that at least some of your points will be implemented. Pds0101 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to chime in with Sennen Goroshi and John Smith--esp. the captions for the pictures really make this look like a brochure from the Korean chamber of commerce; they are decidedly unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the overuse of superlatives and overstated facts that occur throughout the article. In the intro alone there are plenty to remove. If we agree, how do we start and how do we convince with those who disagree? --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

About cited superlatives… many references use them. A web page about a new aircraft will say it's the most advanced in the world. Another about shipbuilding will have plenty of data to support a claim of long-term success. But part of editing for an encyclopedia is reducing extraordinary claims to ordinary fact. Is it necessary to repeat every best, greatest, most advanced, highest, etc., that we find in references? When we cite references, people can read them. Korea's accomplishments are significant. It should be easy to say so without overstatement. --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced and weasel tags

I agree with these tags for this article. See "An assessment of the Introduction" for my reasons. Lets not attack the editor... Please discuss the article. --Mtd2006 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. The manner in which the editor has placed the tags is not very constructive, but his concern with the article's pov is well-placed. Personally, I have looked through some areas and haven't even known where to start; cleaning up the article is probably going to be a pretty massive task. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

An example of unbalanced and weasel words

I looked at the Military section because it's an interest of mine. The opening paragraph says (my emphasis),

A major military power in the world, South Korea possesses the world's sixth largest number of active troops, the world's second largest number of reserve troops and one of the ten largest defence budgets in the world. The South Korean army has 2,300 tanks in operation, consisting of technologically advanced models such as the K1A1 and the new K2 Black Panther. The South Korean navy has the world's sixth largest fleet of destroyers and is one of the five navies in the world to operate an Aegis guided missile enabled destroyer, the King Sejong the Great class destroyer.

Not one of these extraordinary claims are supported by the citations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One document cited for these claims was published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It's an academic analysis of military forces in Asia. A quote from the analysis puts the comparison of spending by North and South Korea in proper perspective:

Figures 5 and 6 show that South Korea greatly outspends North Korea, but that

North Korea has increased its military spending more quickly. North Korean expenditures are low, however, because state determination of prices and the ability to enforce very low manpower costs. Its expenditures would be

significantly higher if measured in comparable prices.

The claim that South Korea has the sixth largest number of active troops is not supported by the CSIS citation. The table on page 35 shows figures for Australia, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; the rest of the world is not included. South Korea (678,700) is ranked fourth, exceeded by China (2,255,000), India (1,325,000), and North Korea (1,106,000). That does not mean South Korea has the fourth largest number of troops in the world. Instead, the citation has been incorrectly quoted.

The CSIS article does not mention Korea's K1A1 or K2 Black Panther tanks. It compares South Korea's tanks to other nations' tank forces only by number and type. The one verifiable fact from the CSIS article (Figure 7: Asian Military Forces in 2006: Part 1, p. 24) is that South Korea has 2,330 main battle tanks; versus China (7,580), India (3,978), North Korea (3,500), Pakistan (2,461), et al.

The next citation, dated May 2007, is an article summary (not a quotation) of another article that is no longer available online. This is the entire text:

The same day that North Korea again test-fired several short-range missiles, South Korea launched the first of three new Aegis destroyers equipped with advanced air and sea weaponry. President Roh Moo-Hyun, speaking at the launch of the one-billion-dollar 7,600 ton KDX-III destroyer, said “We cannot sit idle in the face of a continuing arms race in the Northeast Asian region." The destroyer, named the King Sejong, was built with stealth technology, making detection more difficult. South Korea becomes the fifth country after the United States, Spain, Norway and Japan to have the Aegis integrated weapons control system. The South Korean ship will be deployed operationally in 2009. A second Aegis destroyer will be launched in 2010, and the third in 2012.

The citation says nothing about the size of the South Korean destroyer force relative to the the rest of the world. It does not say South Korea operates an Aegis-equipped destroyer, only that one ship was launched in 2007. "It has also the world's largest fleet of frigates, the sixth largest of corvettes and the fourth largest of submarines in operation," has no citation.

The third citation is a table of South Korea's Air Force equipment. The table does not compare Korea's air forces to the rest of the world. The paragraph states that Korea operates "advanced American fighters such as the F-15K, KF-16 and advanced indigenous models such as the T-50 Golden Eagle." This is overstatement of the capability of the T-50. The T-50 is a trainer — it has no fighter capability. According to the table, the TA-50 version, a combat capable trainer, will be available in 2015.

You only exemplified a couple of sentences in the military section, and now you are claiming that entire South Korea article is bluffed. That's what people say exaggeration. I guess you have to consider what kinda tags you can use properly first.68.40.179.217 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no such claim. The article is not "bluffed". It contains overstated facts like those in my example. I agree with the unbalanced and weasel words tags, and I've tried to explain my reasons. Please comment about the content of the article and avoid remarks about other editors. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be a question, "why is the entire article tagged unbalanced and weasel words?" I didn't tag the article, but I agree the tags are needed. Please read this discussion and the archives Talk:South_Korea/Archive_1, Talk:South_Korea/Archive_2, and Talk:South_Korea/Archive_3. Look for "POV" and "disrupt" in the archives. The problem of POV is a recurring one. The article is rated as Top-importance by the WP:WikiProject Korea, but remains at C on the quality scale. South Korea was twice nominated for good article, but failed both times. The same quality problems have remained for two years.

No wonder why this article has fallen to the C grade article. How could possibly this artcle maintain 'good quality' (to which standard?) against so many those biased attacks? Those kinda crooked chauvinisitic attacks really make Wikipedia's neutralism in peril.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The standard is WP:WikiProject Korea rating of articles. The good article rating process is explained at the top of the discussion page. Let's discuss the article and avoid remarks about editors. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One alternative to the article tags is tagging each questionable item within the article. That's been tried before, and it doesn't work. When there are too many tags within the article text, the tags themselves become disruptive. Tag-wars are edit-wars in disguise.

My purpose in support of the tags on the entire article is to encourage discussion. If I had no experience with Korea or Korean culture, I'd have a negative impression from reading South Korea. South Korea deserves a better article! --Mtd2006 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply to convene discussion, you said you put tags. That's really something I don't think you are supposed to do. Yes, it deserves a better article. The real problem is people have different views upon the standard of better article. As everybody knows, we are not all angels, so some people are willing to abuse the freedom of this editing or tags as a weapon for meeting his/her chauvinisitic partiotism.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are published standards for this article. Please read about the article quality scale. --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. Now you are claiming that the South Korea article is full of unbalanced and weasel words. Then my suggestion is you to make a desirable draft for correcting those words you indicated. About the tags, as I know puttung those kinda tags cannot be used as a weapon and also determined by individual judgement. I will ask this article to be protected from this absurd situation. Before you bring the draft and reasonable numbers of consentment on putting the tags, the tags should be removed until then.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of tags is to alert editors that the article needs improvement and invites new editors to join a discussion. Please read WP:Tag First and WP:RESPTAG. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you identify problems in an article but don't have the time to fix those problems, at least take the time to choose the most relevant and specific tags, and consider leaving some explanation on the talk page so that others can understand what the problem is and determine if they can do anything to fix it. — quoting WP:RESPTAG

In addition, I think it is not reasonable and justifiable that putting the tags to entire article, simply because someone has tried to put the tags on certain sections of the article, but claimed it was in vain. This kinda act really makes all those efforts by many users in vain. Please consider it.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The tags are not the issue (or they shouldn't be) and they are not a weapon. We should discuss the article, not the tags! Tags are not a criticism of the subject of the document. They indicate the document needs work. If the tags are removed, it indicates the article is fine as it stands. Dead lock. Nothing will change. It's pointless to make changes that are immediately reverted because there's no consensus on the problem. That's where this article has been for two years. Yes, the whole document needs scrutiny, some areas more, some areas less.

The purpose of the tags is to engage a discussion. We remove the tags; the discussion ends; dead lock; nothing happens.

I haven't edited the document because I've seen how contentious the process has become. I commented on the problem before tags were added — I did not add them. Anyone is free to tag an article that they feel has problems. It's wrong to remove a tag unless the problem is addressed. The problem is not the tags or who added them. The problem is why they were added and the reason is that the article needs work. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging issues

This back-and-forth tagging really needs to stop. Personally, I agree with Mtd2006 that the article has issues that need addressed...but right now I'm trying to speak as an impartial observer, because no matter whether or not the tags belong there, edit warring over them is even worse. Here's my suggestion for how we can find a happy medium until the article is cleaned up:

Identify the most problematic subsections of the article and tag those. As Mtd2006 pointed out, over-tagging can harm readability and be bad for the article... but at the same time, this article has certain subsections that are fine and factual (such as the ones about climate, administrative divisions, and other boring stuff), and having all-encompassing tags that cover the whole article seems to offend some people. So I think tagging the three or four most problematic subsections will keep people from being offended (since it avoids saying "this entire article is bad"), and it will be more constructive because it will show people more specifically what needs to be edited.

My suggestions for what needs to be tagged:

1. Military (This is a short enough section that the problematic peacock bits could probably be identified and edited in barely any more time than it takes to tag.)
2. Economy
3. Science and technology
4. Culture

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be more specified to the fatual revisions you are expecting on those sections you listed? As I know, most lines are underpinned by reference(s). So I wonder how you wish to be cleaned up those sections: just revising their ways of expression or consolidating with more citations?68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some parts are referenced but just much more wordy and flowery than they need to be (Mtd2006 put together a list of examples above). The other problem that comes up in some of these sections is that, even though everything is referenced, it's only really showing one side of the story; the original author of those sections may have cherry picked a lot of the references to include only the positive ones. As editors, we need to be evaluating the references and their claims, and trying to represent our best approximation of the truth, rather than just a view that happens to be supported by certain references we find. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for this approach if it works. I made my assessment to a deafening silence until another editor added tags. The tags are not the issue; their purpose is to bring editors to the discussion page to reach consensus about the article. No tags… deafening silence. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Like Rjanag, I come to this article as an impartial observer. I haven't contributed to the article. I admit to being frustrated that the edit wars continued with very few comments in the discussion… until another editor added tags. The tag/no tag problem is a repeat of previous problem in the archives. One editor, angered that he couldn't tag the article, decided to tag the text instead. This too was ineffective and ultimately disruptive. It's called WP:Tag bombing. When an new editor comes to an article, the tags indicate that discussion is needed. An editor who sees no tags rightly assumes there are no issues that need discussion, which leads to an edit war. The tags are intended to encourage discussion. There's no other purpose or intent. Can we reach consensus if we don't discuss?

To Rjanag's list, I would add the introduction. I agree about the other four sections. Based on the edit history of this article and the numerous edit blocks that have occurred, there will be little progress until editors can agree on what's wrong and what needs to be changed.

Introduction: In my attempt at an assessment, I mentioned the Korean-language version of this article. I read Korean poorly. I can make out the basic meaning, but the tone and specifics are beyond my abilities. If someone who is fluent in Korean would look at the Korean version of the introduction, I think we would have a good example to follow. What better description could there be than one written by Koreans?

Specifics:

1. Do we agree to remove superlatives, wordy and flowery language? In the first paragraph of the Military section alone, we'll lose some highly complimentary statements.
2. References — several problems, but there are plenty of good-quality references

Korean language references per Non-English sources,

I agree about cherry-picking, exceptional claims require exceptional sources,

Citations missing publisher, date, and author information — a "small" problem that makes finding replacements for dead links especially difficult

A general remark about the article itself… The basic problem is not the facts in the article or the references that are cited. The problem lies in the way the facts are presented and how the references are used. Call it what you like: POV, wordiness, etc. If you look at the history of this article, isn't that the main problem? Please don't mistake criticism of the article on South Korea with any intent to defame Korea or Koreans. My goal, and the hope of others who have tried before is to improve this article. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with this assessment. We should definitely remove superlatives unless they are really notable; South Korea is already a country, so it's not like we have anything to prove. With articles about joe schmoe garage band you often have to say it's the "most" something in order to prove notability, but that's not a concern here, so we can afford to be neutral. I have been slowly working on taking superlatives out of image captions (image captions aren't the place to impress people anyway; that stuff goes in the main text. The image caption should be describing the image.).

References are also a major problem. For the image caption about Korea Air, it said KA was the largest cargo carrier in the world, and when I checked the reference it was actually listed as the second-largest, which is a very big difference. Needless to say, I removed the reference and the statement. We are going to have a lot of work on our hands checking all these references wherever there's an extraordinary claim, but it needs to be done, because right now all references and claims are suspect.

And, of course, the incorrectly formatted citations (bare URLs, etc.) need fixed. This has always been one of my major pet peeves. In the process of checking facts we can also fix the citations as we go. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

South Gyeongsang is Richest Region in East Asia / Ulsan is Second Richest City in East Asia？

http://stats.oecd.org/OECDregionalstatistics/indexTL2.html(OECD Japan / Korea(TL2)

---

This source's GDP per capita calculation is falsed; Gyeongnam Region(pop. 7745535/GDP. 178059 Million USD)'s GDP per capita calculation result is must be around of 23,000 USD. not 36,000. in this source, Japanese Regions GDP per capita calculation also falsed. this source is not 'RELIABLE' source. so, i think this source and source-related article parts must be deleted.

AND Ulsan is Second Lichest City in E.Asia and Tokyo's GDP per capita is just 45,000 USD？ it is just ridiculous. Tokyo also Osaka GDP per capita exceed 70,000 USD in 2004 Source and Nagoya's GDP per capita in 2005 is around 5.5million yen. please LISTENING READER's OPINIONs for make GOOD ARTICLE.

GDP of Tokyo[1] Osaka[2] Nagoya[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.111.130.185 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that OECD's data is unreliable but that those claims are not actually supported by the referenced pages. The TL3 data is used for Ulsan's "the second richest city" claim. However, The TL3 obviously is not city level division but provincial and metropolitan city level division in South Korea and prefectural level division in Japan. As noted above, several cities in Japan have higher GDP per capita than Ulsan. The TL3 data also shows that Gyeongsangnam province's GDP per capita is 20,737 USD. Also note that those data cover South Korea and Japan only so cannot be used to assert their relative wealth "in East Asia". Based on this, I removed those claims. --Kusunose 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for researching that one. I restored the OECD link for GDP data. It's a better source than City Mayors. N.B. I also changed the Lichest to Richest for this section's title.

Cherry picking

Right now, the article has many instances of cherry picking. Cherry picking happens when an editor finds a source of information, but selects only the most favorable (or least favorable) facts.

This sentence is from the introduction: "Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world." The citation for this statement come from this published research paper: Which are the largest? Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly. From the title alone, I think we can see that the reference is not about which cities are largest, but rather it's about why it's so hard to know which city is first, second, or third. Here's what the reference says about Seoul's population:

Table 1. The World's Twenty Largest Urban Areas According to Eight Different Sources, p2.

Source	Rank	Population in millions
A	#2	22.9
B	#4	21.7
C	#2	20.7
D	#4	20.2
E	#7	16.9
F	#4	19.8
G	#18	9.9
H	#9	10.2

In Table 2, p6, a United Nations population estimate lists Seoul, ranked #18, with population 9.5 million.

A wiki editor cited this reference but selected only the most favorable fact. These two tables really say that Seoul's population ranks between #2 and #18, depending on how population is counted. The sentence in the introduction is incorrect according to the reference. Moreover, even if a source is found that only lists Seoul's population as #2, it should not be used to justify this factoid. The reason is explained in the conclusion, p37 (my emphasis):

This paper has made an effort to clarify the statistical portrait of the world's most populous urban areas, and to explain that differences between published lists of such areas are due primarily to differences in geographical definitions. [...]
Each type of definition has both advantages and disadvantages. In any major metropolitan area, the administrative central city is an important entity and well known locally, and statistical data for it are essential to its efficient operation. However, it rarely provides a good basis for comparisons with other large urban areas except on limited issues of municipal administration. Likewise, definitions based on administrative areas larger than the central city may be useful locally but offer little comparability with other areas and other countries.

For these reasons, I propose that the sentence, "Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world." should be revised to read, "Its capital is Seoul."

Comments always welcome.
-- Mtd2006 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Great work! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I love cookies. --Mtd2006 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle

T-50 Golden Eagle is not the world's first supersonic trainer

Editors frequently add the words "world's first" to the T-50 Golden Eagle trainer. This is untrue. I suspect there's an incorrect news release or web site that makes this claim. There are other supersonic trainers that are older than the T-50. One famous example is the SR-71B. There's a nice drawing of the SR-71B at the U.S. Air Force web site. Notice the extra instructor cockpit just above and behind the main cockpit. Please don't add "world's first" to the description of the T-50. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle is a joint venture

The main article implies that the T-50 is an aircraft model indiginous to South Korea. Actually this model is constructed jointly between Lockheed Martin and the KIA. The link I have given is Lockheed Martin's online brochure page for the T-50 from their corporate press kit section of their website. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/T-50-Brochure.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.214.225 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

World's highest scientific literacy

The introduction states that Korea has "the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy." The problem with this statement is that the references at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_mat_lit-education-scientific-literacy don't support the claim. Both table are the results of testing 15-year-old students. It's easy to miss the definition at the bottom of each page that says "mean value of performance scale 15 years old 2000". These factoids are only true for 15-year-olds in the year 2000. The phrase "having the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy" is not true according to the NationMaster web site and should be removed from the article.

If this factiod is important to the article, its correct place is in the Education section. However, you should explain that the tables from NationMaster are the result of testing 15-year-olds in 2000, because this fact is easy to miss if you read the references. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean versus Hangul

This issue has been discussed previously and the problem recurs. In English, we use "Korean" for both the spoken and written Korean languages. We have a bias in English-speaking countries and generally all counties that use the Latin alphabet; we rarely make a distinction between our language and our alphabet. The "English alphabet" is really the Latin alphabet from the middle ages; see a clever graphical illustration at Evolution of Latin Characters from Evolution of Alphabets.

Other languages have specific separate names for the spoken and written forms of language. Korean is one of these. Written Korean is called Hangul; the spoken language is called Hanguko (formally), Hangukmal (general use), or several variants used in North Korea. Another variant of written Korean is called Hanja. Because this article is about South Korea, Hangul is the best name for the written language.

Follow the link to Korean language, and the distinction is clear,

This article is mainly about the spoken Korean language. See Hangul for details on the native Korean writing system.

Although I accept that common English usage is to use "Korean" for both the spoken and written languages, our bias is incorrect. Admittedly, Hangul is an unfamiliar term to most readers. The nice thing about unfamiliar terms in Wikipedia is that they can be easily linked to an appropriate article that explains them. The label [[Korean language|Korean]], directs readers to the spoken language. But Korean language redirects readers interested in the written language the Hangul article. The [[Hangul]] label explains the unfamiliar alphabet to readers who can't read Hangul. Isn't it most appropriate to refer readers to the directly to the separate article about the Korean written language when we introduce an unfamiliar alphabet?

--Mtd2006 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue is whether we feel we're presenting a Hangul term or a Korean term. The sentence at issue is this one from the lead:

often referred to as Korea (Hangul: 대한민국)

Personally, my intuition is that this sentence is not intended to introduce the spelling of a word, but to introduce a new word (ie, saying "This is how you say "Korea" in Korean," rather than "This is how you spell tey han min guk in Hangul"). Since the word is a Korean word, not a Hangul word (Hangul is, as you said above, only a way of spelling Korean words), I feel that is the most appropriate way to introduce it. It's not a huge deal, though, and I am certainly open to other opinions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what I said, or if I did, that wasn't my intent. Hangul is the official, written Korean language, not just a way of spelling. The McCune-Reischauer system (see The McCune-Reischauer Korean Romanization System and Romanization System of Korean: McCune Reischauer (with minor modifications) BGN/PCGN 1945 Agreement) is a way of spelling. McCune-Reischauer is not a language. For more about romanization of Korean, see Korean romanization. Since this discussion began, another editor has added the Hanja version of tae-han-min-guk.

Some difficulty may be that the Hangul and Hanja follow the word "Korean". Since 대한민국 and 大韓民國 translate to "The Republic of Korea", would it be better to move them after the words "Republic of Korea"? How's this?

South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea (ROK) (Hangul: 대한민국, Hanja: 大韓民國, IPA: [tɛː.han.min.ɡuk̚]), ), often referred to as Korea, is a…

It may be that this was how the article read at one time, before the extra words, "often referred to as Korea" were added.

--Mtd2006 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

IMF versus CIA financial statistics

At various times, the infobox has cited two sources of financial statistics. One is the IMF (the International Monetary Fund) and the second is the CIA World Fact Book. Of the two sources, the IMF is an internationally recognized authority. The World Fact Book is published by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and is not internationally recognized as a source of financial data; it's not the best source we can use.

We need four statistical items of financial data for the infobox.

1. GDP (PPP)
2. GDP (PPP) per capita
3. GDP (nominal)
4. GDP (nominal) per capita

The IMF resource provides all four items from a single, consistent source. The IMF statistics are clearly marked as actual figures or staff estimates. As of February 2009, the 2007 data is the most current actual data; the IMF has not published 2008 actual figures.

The World Fact Book lists only GDP (PPP), GDP (PPP) per capita, and GDP (nominal). These statistics are labeled "(2008 est.)". The CIA resource does list actual data as of February 2009, nor does it list the 2007 actual figures.

The IMF is the single best source for the GDP statistics that are needed for the infobox. The CIA does not publish the four statistics that are required for the infobox, and its figures are estimates rather than actual data. When the IMF publishes 2008 data, the infobox should be updated with that information. Is IMF the most consistent, most accurate, internationally recognized source of this information? Is there another source?
--Mtd2006 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic group statistics from Joshua Project

What is the Joshua Project? The "Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the least followers of Jesus Christ."[4] It's not a census of the population in Korea and it's POV by its advocacy. It focuses on select groups of ethnic people based on religious preference.

The web site states:

The exactness of the above numbers can be misleading. Numbers can vary by several percentage points or more.[5]

A non-POV, census-based source is needed for ethnic statistics with accurate figures. "Numbers can vary by several percentage points or more" isn't a reliable source for statistics as precise as: 96.9% Korean, 2.01% Japanese, 0.14% American, 0.13% Other Asian, 0.03% Eurasian, 0.02% European, 0.76% unclassified. The Joshua Project statistics should be removed or another source located. Comments welcome.
--Mtd2006 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I left the editor a message a few minutes ago asking about this, at User talk:Cryingnut#Ethnic groups of South Korea. S/he said that it's from the UN census. Personally, I don't mind that it's a Christian organization (sometimes these POV organizations can still put out good information...for example, SIL International is one of the best resources on language typology, even though they are unfortunately affiliated with missionary activities...it's just something we take with a grain of salt); what really caught my eye was that it lists "American," "British," and "Deaf" as ethnic groups, which seems very strange to me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you identified the problem when you observed that "American," "British," and "Deaf" are identified as people groups by the Joshua Project. I had looked at the sources of the data[6]. The United Nations is not among them. The sources are advocacy groups. The Joshua Project is an unreliable source for ethnic group statistics. The reference states that "numbers can vary by several percentage points or more". From this source, we can conclude that 97% of the population of Korea claim Korean heritage, and 3% claim "other". Can we move these people-group statistics to the talk page until ethnic-group statistics are located? United Nations census data would be a sufficient reference. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree...I don't see UN in there, as claimed. I know Ethnologue is a decent source (although almost certainly not the one that was used for ethnic group statistics; Ethnologue is a language database), but I can't vouch for any of those others. I have removed the information:

96.9% Korean, 2.01% Japanese, 0.14% American, 0.13% Other Asian, 0.03% Eurasian, 0.02% European, 0.76% unclassified

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Foreign relations section

The section has no lead-in. This leaves the reader at a loss for context, that is, what's the importance of this section and how does South Korea present itself to the rest of the world?

I suggest a simple solution. Move the text from the Other nations sub-section to the top Foreign relations section, and eliminate the "Other nations" sub-section. The "Other nations" text nicely summarizes South Korea's place in world politics, and presents a significant fact that Ban Ki-moon serves as United Nations Secretary-General.
Mtd2006 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editorial from chosun.com does not predict collapse of economy in 2036

I removed this prediction from the Demographics section, "The latests estimates state that Korea will have an aged society by 2018, and that the economy will collapse by 2036 unless birth rates increase or immigration is substatially boosted." The cite for this statement is: Tackling Low Birthrate Requires Shift in Thinking.

There are four problems with the "collapse by 2036" statement:

1. The chosun.com article is an editorial, not research, nor news reporting,
2. Quoting the editorial, "In 2036, that ratio will change to one Korean in his productive years having to supporting one senior citizen. The economy will be unable to withstand the pressure, and the social safety system will collapse." The editorial does not say, "the economy will collapse by 2036 unless birth rates increase or immigration is substatially boosted;" specifically, the editorial predicts the social safety system will be stressed because, by 2036, one working Korean will support one senior citizen.
3. The editorial predicts future events if action is not taken or policy is not changed; the editorial doesn't claim that no action will be taken, nor that policy will not change,
4. The editorial concludes, "Korea either must change its perceptions, practices and institutional framework when it comes to marriage, family and childcare, and endure the side effects, or open its doors to immigrants and embrace multiculturalism. The country is getting closer to the day when it will have to choose between the two." The editorial asserts that South Korea must make social and economic changes, but presents two options that may or may not occur in fact.

--Mtd2006 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's great that someone has gone to so much effort to get rid of one slightly negative section of the article.

Now, if someone would just do something about the 548 jingoistic, inaccurate and cherry-picked overy-favourable sections, this article will be just fine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hanja in infobox?

Regarding this and this: is it necessary or useful to have hanja at the top of the infobox, given that it's not a widely used writing system for Korean anymore? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Restoration

Rjanag,

I had found a very interesting poll and artical regarding the restoration of the Korean Monarchy, and added that sentence under government. The sentence was

A 2006 poll conducted by the Realmeter research company revealed just under 55% of South Koreans favor restoring the Korean monarchy of the Yi Royal Family of Korea

I understand and respect that this is just one poll, but clearly it deserves a mention somewhere in the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in the article. You already inserted the same material to an article pertinent to the subject? --Caspian blue 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I did add it to the House of Yi page, and the government page, understanding that this was topical to both. Why would you say that the sentence is unwarrented for the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from Government of South Korea because South Korea is not a monarchy. If Korea was not divided into the two states, well that kind of "one time" poll may have some merit to be mentioned. Besides, your source is a "blog".--Caspian blue 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside of the merit of the insertion, Original new article and this would have a better position than linking the blog.--Caspian blue 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh! I did not realize it was a blogsite! On my screen, the link I had does not display that it is a blog. It has a logo for the JoongAng Daily, and was written by Park Sung-ha, and published in Published : October 22, 2006. But as my computer does not actually translate Korean, none of the Korean is displayed for me. Because of this I do not see anything that listed it as a blog site. Clearly, yes, blogs are not reliable sources and I apologize for linking it. Thank you for finding and linking the better source! :) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But I do not necessarily understand why it still does not warrent a mention in the artical, when it reveals more then 50% favor a restoration? Granted it is only one poll that we can find but I am not in Korea or speak Korean so can not do that research myself. Why does it matter if Korea is divided or not.... in terms of this poll and mentioning it in the artical? The poll was conducted of corse of South Koreans ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert or go on about it, but it seems to me (and I may be wrong, I'm no expert on Korea) that the poll reveals a significant and under reported interest in the Korean people of their monarchy. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Drachenfyre. This poll is interesting, but, as I explained in my edit summary for this revert, it is just one poll. First of all, a single poll can never really say anything beyond a doubt, as all polls have their shortcomings; a poll is only useful if a) you are sure it was carried out with good methodology (ie, if it's part of an article from a peer-reviewed journal, etc.); and b) you are able to put it in context, weigh how accurate it might be (with error intervals, etc.), and back it up with supporting material (similar polls, other research, etc.).

That being said, even if we did have enough reliable material to determine how valid this poll is, it's still just one little thing and not worthy of mention in this particular article. If we had an article about Popular opinion in South Korea or South Koreans' perception of government or something like that, it would make sense there; this, though, has to be a broad overview article, and doesn't have room to go into as much detail. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Prehaps a specific page Monarchism in Korea maybe? This would be simular to the Monarchism in Georgia page, and echo Spanish Monarchy and other pages.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be good, if you could find reliable sources (preferably books and journal articles, rather than polls and news articles, since the latter tend to overemphasize recent things). If you do get around to writing that, be sure to bring it to DYK, i think it would go nicely there! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is revision too slow?

Not quite as the editors schemed out a revision plan, I am wondering why the revision is so lagging. As I understood, revision would be done in a counter democrastic way by the editors, which may not need to collect opinions, and I expected this might accelerate the speed of revision, leading to remove tags in soon. However, I honestly couldn't find any significant amelioration, and the tags are still intact. If the ultimate purpose of putting tags is not permanent settlment of the tags in this article, then I hope revision process must go on faster in accordance to what editors mentioned above.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The revision happens at our leisure time; everyone on Wikipedia is doing it as a volunteer, in their free time, and there is no deadline. Please be patient.

In the meantime, people can't just remove cleanup tags by saying "no one has done the cleanup in a while." Cleanup tags should only be removed when there are no longer issues that need cleaning up; if no one has time to clean this article up until 2010 (hypothetically), the cleanup tags should stay until 2010. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it only myself who consider what you just said is so irresponsible? Seems like you guys only care about inventing a retext and putting tags in this article. I really am curious about what is the standard of electing editors. By the way, I guess you need to rethink what you believe. As I know, revision can be done not only by chosen editors, but by any users, and the tags can be removed once those revisions are assessed and proven to be allright. Let me know if I am wrong.Patriotmissile (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "irresponsible" about the fact that I have other things to do and only edit this article at my leisure. Like I said above: all Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Editors aren't "elected".

And, yes, revisions can be done by any editor, and tags can be removed once those revisions are assessed, as you said. In a controversial article like this, people can't just remove tags when they feel like it; after making revisions, they should come here and discuss why the tag should be removed, so that other editors may assess it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, I think, at least, there's a chance that the tags can be removed before 2010. The only thing I'm concerning is whether assessment will be proceeded fairly. I'm not sure if a judgement call made by editors is made unanimously or by majority, but I hope there's a system which enable us to assess the assessment made by eidtors has been made in fair and logical criteria.Patriotmissile (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2010 was only an example. The tags will be removed long before that. You just need to give us some time. User:Mtd2006 is already working on rewriting sections of the article one at a time: User:Mtd2006/Draft of South Korea. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be more tags on this article. Starting with environment ("there used to be some minor air pollution in Seoul, but the mayor has fixed it") and international relations ("North and South Korea are working towards peaceful reunification. Please just ignore the fact that they share the world's most heavily-fortified border and the North has detonated an underground nuke.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

More tagging is not a Midas's touch, and tagging shouldn't be used to express and achieve personal purposes. Heavily stacking military in DMZ doesn't mean working towards peace together is a lie. According to your idea, US and Russia, still aiming countless nukes at each other, must be in preparation of upcoming war right now. About the enviroment section, the mayor anyhow helped remove pollution in some extent by improving the Chengyechun stream.If the line is still problem, it can removed, but simply because there's just a single line needed to be improved, putting tags on entire section is just like burning whole house because there's a cockroach in it.Patriotmissile (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The environment section should give general information about the environment of South Korea, not merely a single cherry-picked fact about a single stream in Seoul. And the sentence "there used to be some minor air pollution" is completely inaccurate. Just last week, the yellow dust-storms came in from China. In regards to the relationship with North Korea, the border is the most heavily-fortified in the world, the two countries are still technically at war, and there are major problems between the two countries. But a South Korean editor has removed the mention of the fortified border and glossed over the major challenges facing the two countries. These are examples of the MAJOR PROBLEMS with this article - cherry-picking and distorted facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.76.26 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a sock puppet kept removing "most fortified border" replacing it with "S. and N. Korea are now working towards a peaceful and glorious reunification" or something like that. I kept reverting it for a long time; I don't quite remember what has become of it now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So are you urging that intermitent occurence of the yellow dust-storm from China in a short time during Spring makes South Korea is heavily polluted place? Don't you think it is a good example of showing too much over-generalization? In addition, as I told already, heavily fortified DMZ doesn't mean that South- and North Korea gave up their effort towards peace. Please answer my question above. If heavily armed forces aiming at each other is an antonym of pursuing peace in between two countries, are US and Russia technically at war rightnow and absolutely no peaceful efforts have been made in between two countries? I hate to say this, but I'm getting more worried about fairness on judgements and oblique stance of a few editors as this talk goes by. Yes, some flamboyant and subjective words are rather be removed, but by way of excuse this, please do not generalize that the entire contents are imbued with cherry-pickering. We are not at psychological warfare to keep one's self pride. Please remind that the discussion is for improvement of this article, not for witch-hunt or paving the way for only one-side track.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "urging" anything. If you haven't noticed, I have not ever added a single thing to this article; all I'm trying to do is gradually remove the stuff that doesn't belong. Your constant badgering of everyone who edits the article is not helpful and not constructive. If all you're interested in is picking a fight, I suggest you do it somewhere else.

And as for the specific issue of whether the N/S Korea border is "heavily fortified" or not, it's very simple: the statement that it is fortified was supported by a source, and the statement that they are "working towards a peaceful reunification" had no source. All I do is follow what is sourced and verifiable; to be honest, I don't really care about the N/S Korea border or anything you said above. (And, if I don't care, I am by default not in favor of either POV). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I am sorry that you think I'm just provoking war with you and other editors. However, don't you think it is a bit inappropriate and too subjective that you are saying my little efforts here are useless? Just for the case of heavily fortified border, I have enough sources enabling us to verify that South- and North Korea are working together for peace. In addition, the focus I was telling above is inadequate logical flow from heaviliy fortified border to denial on the fidelity of 'working together towards peace'. Those are the two different issues, and are not a necessary and sufficient condition for each other.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a side talk, but worthy to note. Patriotmissile, I stopped reading your complaints because purely due to the offensive subtitle that you put on. That strongly implies that editors who contribute to this article are "retarded". You'd better change the title if you get more input on your opinion.--Caspian blue 20:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think he just meant "slow" :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but that intention does not excuse the nature of the offensive language.--Caspian blue 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely have no intention to harm on any editor. I apologize for the title that can breed such misapprehension. Surely, I'm the one who deeply respect editors and their intellectual ability. By the way, I'm not just making complaints, but I'm just participating as a single user who is also eager to improve this article. Caspian blue, according to your recommendation, I changed the title. Thanks.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the understanding and willingness to cooperate altogether. I'm gonna start reading what you want to improve the article.--Caspian blue 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what concern you have, Patriotmissile, but editing Wikipedia is purely "voluntary unpaid job", so if you have a time, you can quickly remove the ugly tags as providing reliable sources and rewrite passages and remove povs.--Caspian blue 21:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice, but if I understand right a few editors mentioned that major revisions would be solely made by editors in a nondemocratic way and any revision should be settled upon by editors before removing any tags. Anyway, I'm happy to help editors improve this article, and appreciate for sharing editors' personal times to improve this article.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that only certain people have the right to edit the article. It means that if you're going to do something huge, like rewriting an entire section, it's common decency to run it by everyone at the Talk page first, since major edits are guaranteed to generate controversy. For less major things, like adding a few sources, cleaning up image captions, fixing a sentence here and there, etc., anyone can edit. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's nice that everyone's being friendly, but I still think we need to focus on the major problem that sparked this debate - cherry-picking (the one nice stream in Seoul as a representative of Korea's entire environment) and the constant removal of sourced facts (eg. most-fortified border, Koreas still technically at war) by certain editors. Unless this issue is resolved, the article will never achieve "good article" status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

XK-11

I can't understand why the picture of XK-11 that is a new crucial weaponery for South Korean Army is considered just as a equipment, but other 'equipments' are ok to be posted. In other articles, similar situations are in allowance, so please let us know why can't it be done here. I think this website is currently managed by dictatorship by the judment of a single editor in overall, resulting in being at a standstill. This definitely needs to be changed.Cinnamontrees (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article is about South Korea, not military equipments of South Korea, so your image is more fit to South Korean Army-related articles. Honestly, the image itself is in not a good quality, so I can't support your decision. Besides, do not accuse good-faith editor of practicing "dictatorship", that is a pretty bad personal attack. Please be familiar with WP:No personal attack. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Cinnaomontress: Regarding other articles, we have a guideline that the status of other articles shouldn't determine what we do in this article. We prefer to judge things on a case-by-case basis.

I would urge you to retract the rest of your comments. Making accusations against other editors and posting conspiracy theories about Wikipedia's "dictatorship" does not promote constructive editing or collaboration, so it would be better if you just focus on content. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwangyeoksi (광역시), "Metropolitan cities"

The article mentions these cities in a couple places (within the table in Administrative Divisions, and in a paragraph about public transportation), but never defines the term. There is a link to Special cities of Korea, but that article also defines it very poorly; there should be at least a sentence in the current Administrative divisions section explaining the different levels; as it is, the section is nothing more than a table, which is not very helpful for a reader who doesn't know what the divisions mean.

I don't speak Korean, but from looking at the zh-wiki article (zh:广域市]) I assume that gwangyeoksi are roughly equivalent to China's direct-controlled municipalities (ie, a city that is not really part of a province, it's so big it's just there). Is that correct? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The hanja for Gwangyeoksi (광역시) is 廣域市, so the translation as "Metropolitan City" is correct and the cities adapt the style in English. Those cities do not belong to near provinces, so the concept is similar to the Chinese example.--Caspian blue 15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. 广域市 is just 廣域市 in simplified characters, so we are thinking of the same thing. I'll try to think of a good way to introduce/explain it in the article text. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

About my edit

Hi everyone, I am new here and very interested in Korea. I don't know much about it but did want to help improve the article, so modelled it after the Japan article. I think some editors like Rjang and Caspianblue have some issues with my recent edit on the intro and Rjang advised me to talk on this page, so I am opening a new discussion. I think my edit is all sourced and I removed that bit rjang advised me to remove. Please let me know if there are further issues with the article. Thanks! 86.138.60.93 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am about to leave for a while so I won't be able to give a more in-depth response until later, but it seems to me that the main issues are 1) whether we should mention how big Seoul is, 2) the "13th-largest economy" bit, and 3) general issues about wording.

As for Seoul, I don't think it's necessary, and to be honest if I were at the FAC for Japan I would have suggested they remove that bit about Tokyo as well. In addition to being not really relevant in the intro, it's not very meaningful because there are so many different ways metropolitan areas/cities are measured, and there are numerous different places that could be "second-biggest" depending on how you count. As for the general issues about wording, I think the previous version was slightly more neutral, although even in the previous version there are things that need to be cleaned up or removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

FA articles on countries; Turkey, Canada, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel.

86.138.60.93, if you look into the articles, your edit to describe how big Seoul is undue weight.--Caspian blue 15:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I have just writtten so much and someone edited this page and it "expired" so I have to write it all again...anyway, I created a new account now. I think Japan is the most well edited article and the most similar country to Korea, so I think it is more relevant than the above countries. Having said that, I agree it is a bit overdue, and I think I will shorten it somehow...but it does deserve some mention to give readers about the relative size of it, as all capital cities in those FA articles do.

As for the 13th largest economy bit, I think its very important - every major country article has it and it shows Korea's economic position in the world and not just limited to Asia. I think every Korean know this fact and I saw it being mentioned many times in the media, so it should definitely be included.

As for the other things you mentioned Rjang, I would appreciate some specific examples. Thanks. Milkmooney (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple more suggestions, I think "country" is more appropriate than "semi-presidential republic"...it is easier to understand for the great majority and is described on the country box anyway. It also suggests that Korea has a somehow underdeveloped democracy, which is why France (also a semi-presidential republic) seems to have replaced it with country. Much simpler and easier to understand.

As for Miracle on the Han River, i think it was certainly at least a "success" and not just any economic growth - this word sufficiently neutral and conveys the meaning of the phrase. Milkmooney (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think "success" is more praise-y than "economic growth", and one of the things we have been working on for a long time is trying to cut down the "praise" tone of the article. I will try to provide some more specific examples of tone issues in the intro tonight; unfortunately, right now I'm about to head out again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on my talk page. :) Anyway, the phrase is used to describe an economic miracle and it is very difficult to describe without using any sort of praise. i am aware that this article needs toning down but I think success is a sufficiently neutral word to describe - it can't get more neutral. Economic growth actually doesnt have much substance - all countries in the wrold grow economically afterall. Milkmooney (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Science and technology

I've edited this section quite heavily in recent days. I tried to preserve all relevant information, while changing the tone to a more neutral one.

A lot of the existing references were dead or outdated, but I tried to replace them with reliable sources as best as I could.

I think the major issues with this section are now gone, so I went ahead and removed the tag (as per WP:BOLD). Baeksu (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! You've been doing an excellent job, taking on a lot of the tasks that most of us (including me) have been too scared or lazy to tackle. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Came back after two months and....

This article is still massively POV, cherry-picked, etc, etc. With the way it is written, you would think this country is a world superpower and that everybody should want to live there. Having lived there for four years (and returning soon), I can tell you that this article is crap. South Korea is a nice place, but wow! this article still needs massive revisions. It's obvious that some over-patriotic South Koreans have edited this article to suit their nationalist feelings. That's not meant to be a racist remark; it's just a practical assessment. Anyone who is non-Korean and has lived in the country would agree with my diagnosis. Anyway, on to a solution....

Seeing as this article frequently cites the CIA World Factbook, maybe the entire article should be taken from it. The "Factbook" is factual...end of story. If you look in any encyclopedia in the world, South Korea doesn't merit this type of entry, especially in comparison to other more populous and developed countries. At the least, editors should look at an article with similar intent (describing a country) and follow suit with regards to information, style, organization, and prose. There are plenty of good articles out there. THE SOLUTION IS VERY SIMPLE: MIRROR SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY CUT THE MUSTARD.

I would do it myself, but not only do I not have time to deal with butt-hurt South Korean keyboard jockeys, at the end of the day, I am also content to let them do with the article as they wish, hence making it, and them, the laughingstock of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.180.68 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not quite helpful for ameriolating this article by simply just describing your own personal feeling. In addition, personal attack is prohibited in wikipedia as I know. What if others call you as the same way you just called to South Koreans. Before you make your metaphysical judgement on this artcile, I guess it is much better and helpful you to make a detailed list of POVs and cherry-picked, and etc stuffs you mentioned to fix and improve those shortcomings. 'THE SOLUTION IS VERY SIMPLE: MIRROR SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY CUT THE MUSTARD' is what you suggested, and I wonder what exactly the mirror produces reflection, but I am kinda pessimistic about the mirror you mentioned actually has a single coherent face. Now editors are putting their efforts to improve this article, so be patient.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the first guy. Something has to be done about the over-zealous Korean editors and sockpuppets who keep reverting entries, deleting anything that could be construed as negative, and inserting cherry-picked facts. This article is, frankly, a disgrace. I feel I am qualified to comment on this as I live in South Korea and am a former editor on a large daily newspaper. THIS ARTICLE HAS MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH POV AND NEEDS THE ATTENTION OF NEUTRAL EDITORS WHO DO NOT WORK FOR THE KOREAN TOURISM BOARD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you are in the majority; there are several editors (myself included) who are slowly working on cleaning up the article and removing POV material. I while back I cleaned up the Religion section as well as I could. It's just that we are all volunteers and doing this in our free time, and personally I also have other things I work on that are more interesting to me, so it takes some time to get things done at this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, your residency in Korea and your previous career won't make one a guaranteed neutral editor. Let's say I live in US and I used to be involved in the press. Does this make myself be more neutral and knowledgable regarding US than US citizens and others? Unfortunately, it is not quite acceptable. I know you are not, but there are lots of foreigners living in South Korea, and some may have resentment towards S. Korea due to variable personal reasons, and they actually can express their personal feelings here to settle his/her negative feelings. You said you've tried to post a something negative, and seemingly Koreans kept reverting those. I wonder that if someone post a Ryan Moats case in the article for US, and claims that US is full of racism. Will you accept it? This is just a tiny little example. I've seen many absurd revisions just like the example. For instance, by showing a picture of somewhere in a slum, someone urged that this is a general street view in South Korea. People call this as a fallacy of generalization. I hope you can understand the situation what this article has been through. Surely I concur that this article needs revisions for improvement, but it's hard to understand some users just keep saying this article is full of POVs, cherry-picks, and etc, without actual contributing contructive and reasonable revisions.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, you are not the only editor working on this article. I think other editors who have more interest on this article surely can take care of this. It is not necessary to get a permission from a certain special editor to make this article a better one without tags.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Notice that none of the people commenting here are actively editing the article, and none of these comments are even about specific changes to make in the article; they're just general "is it good, is it bad, is it POV, is it NPOV". Continuing to argue is not going to get anything done. Everyone please just drop it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we do need to have this discussion because the major problem with this article is over-protective editors who are reverting constructive edits. We need to reach a consensus about how to deal with this problem. In my case, I was an active editor but have stopped editing because of the constant revisions by Korean editors who are trying to paint an idealistic portrait of their country. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to formalise a discussion based on the concerns of numerous editors who have tried to fix up this article.

As for patriotmissile's comments above, it's just as problematic to post numerous tourism-department photos into the article as it is to post a picture of a slum. Both have an EQUALLY bad effect on the quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Then what kinda pictures should be posted in an article introducing a country? As you can see in the articles of other countries in Wikipedia, pictures featuring tourist attractions and aesthetically beautiful places representing the countries are posted in those articles. You said that over-protective editors are problamatic here, but I think beyond that, the ultimate problem has arisen due to editors who are full of harmful intention on this article, leading to produce over-protective editors one after the other. I'm not sure the number of pictures here exceed the articles for other countries and if there's any number restriction. I hope the same criteria can be applied to all the article equally.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For an example of the types of pictures that should be posted, why don't you take a look at the page for the United States, a country that is much bigger and more powerful than South Korea. The US article contains about one-third as many photographs. Most of the photographs are of people or historically important events, rather than artistic photos of tourist sites. The US article doesn't read like a tourist pamphlet, and it isn't full of words like "world-leading", "first in the world", and "the world's biggest" even though it has much more claim to these titles than South Korea does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I can't really accept your idea that number or genre of pictures should be proportinal or selectable in accordance to the power (?) of a country. You made an example with the US article, and I think that's what the editors who posted those pictures decided to that way. As you may can see other articles introducing countries, inclusing England, Japan, etc, you will see the pictures with some flamboyant purpose. I guess you have to go those articles and ask them to fix it in an American way, too. I concur you that some words gone too far should be fixed in this article, but I think those kinda words are not that much frequently used here, so we can fix those soon, if we really have will to fix.Patriotmissile (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that the SK editors love their country a lot. But this wikipedia entry is a showcase of your country for people across the globe. People look at wikipedia because they are looking for a NPOV. If all they get in this entry is "raw" propaganda they will just be left with one impression: SK editors are not capable of NPOV, just propaganda. Is that the image you want to leave across the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.29.1 (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of pictures

I found that quite good portions of pictures were removed by Kusunose, mostly reasoned as their irrevancy, but I can't agree with the user's idea. Comparing to the recent difficulty on adding or replacing pictures, I'm wondering how those big changes got through without any restraint, though those removal and revision were done wothout any prior discussion. Since there was no previous arguments regarding the pictures, I'd like to restore them.Patriotmissile (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, historically important descriptions will also be restored and revised, modified by Kusunose, unless consentment upon the user's modifications, is made.Patriotmissile (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have re-removed the images in the Administrative divisions sections because they really weren't relevant. I don't have an opinion about the others. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to this edit summary: I didn't really "leave" the Seoul Grand Park picture, I have just been editing one section at a time. The fact that I didn't get around to cleaning up that section doesn't necessarily mean the picture removals at Administrative divisions need to be undone. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That question actually goes to Kusunose, not you, so you don't have to answer for it. I meant I wonder why the editor left the picture that has no big difference with others removed. Patriotmissile (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has too many pictures in general, and too many tourism department-style pictures in particular. I haven't checked which pictures were deleted, but generally it's a good idea to prune some pictures out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please specify the too many pictures with tourism-department styled pictures. I think with the same point view of yours, most pictures posted in other articles introducing other countries must also be removed.Patriotmissile (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed File:Gangnampicturefromtheoffice.jpg in the After division section[7] and three pictures in the Administrative divisions section[8].

For thehe picture of Seoul's Gangnam-gu district, there are no explanation why it is relevant to the division of Korea or to the history of South Korea in the image's caption nor in the article text. The picture is, in my opinion, just decorative. Would someone elaborate historical importance of the district in the history of South Korea?

And for the pictures in the administrative divisions sections, the Namdaemun gate, the Han River, and the Cheonjiyeon Waterfall has nothing to do with the administraiton so they also are decorative.

As for the picture of the Seoul Grand Park, I did not left it because I thought it is relevant. I just did not have time to evaluate pictures in other sections.

Lastly, I removed part of the description about the Japanese invations[9] because I felt information about army and navy strength is too detailed for a general article about South Korea. It certainly is historically important but in my opinion does not belong here. --Kusunose 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of reluctant to accept your claim that you simply had no time to remove the picture of Seoul Grand park, since all the pictures you removed were located in the exactly same spot and your removed all except that one at once. In addition, I badly like to know what is the standard of assessing too much decorative pictures in Wikipedia. I can understand that the pictures were not in a relevant section, but it is hard to understand they were too decorative to be posted. With the same token, I guess many pictures posted in the artcle regarding,for instance, Japan should be also removed. There are too many pictures depicting overlapped images and designating the same concept. May I ask the Seoul Grand Park picture was left simply because it is the most less decorative and kinda 'shabby picture compared to others removed?

In addition, I'm pretty confused why other detailed description telling historically important information, except the information you removed. Most of all, you should have convened a discussion regarding the topics first before you acted in accordance to your own opinion.Patriotmissile (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Name info in intro

The Chinese characters which make up South Korea's name mean "Great Han people's nation." They do not mean "morning calm," which is in fact a (poor) translation of the hanja for 조선, not 대한민국. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "morning calm" was an incorrect translation of 朝鲜? In any case, it's not clear in the lede and needs to be fixed...but we should probably come to an agreement here on what exactly it should be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Got bold and removed it. As a side note, from what I can tell, "land of the morning calm" (and　certainly 朝鲜) does not even refer to South Korea in particular, so even if this does deserve mention then it should be at Korea and not here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. The land of the morning calm came from 朝鲜 before the division, but is has been used to refer to South Korea too.--Caspian blue 12:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me, I just think someone needs to make an edit to explain what this is actually referring to. "The characters which make up Korea's name" is vague...a reader might think that refers to the Chinese characters 大韩民国, or 朝鲜, or to the Hangul. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I can be wrong but actual contents accounted for "the character" seem to be deleted while several editors copy-edited the whole article against the UK Ip sock. Actually, the "South Korea" in hanja is 南韓, but well, that does not even be addressed. The South Korean government has proclaimed as the true successor of Korean Empire (大韓帝國), the last monarchy of Korea, but it is a republic, so use 대한민국 (大韓民國)--Caspian blue 13:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. I guess it would be fine if we just added 南朝　to the list of names for SK in the lead sentence, and then specify that "land of the morning calm" is a reference to that, rather than to other names. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence from the intro, "The characters which make up Korea's name mean 'morning-calm', which is why Korea is sometimes identified as the 'Land of the Morning Calm'" is incorrect and ambiguous. Technically, it's wrong for both North and South Korea, because North Korea's official name is Choson Minjujuui Inmin Konghwaguk. North Korea uses Chosun as shorthand version of its official name, but this usage doesn't apply to South Korea.

The "morning calm" nickname doesn't come from North or South Korea's contemporary names as the intro implies. As Heroeswithmetaphors said, "morning calm" is a poor translation for Chosun. It comes from a mistranslation of the Hanja characters. English translators mistakenly understood the Hanja characters as Chinese rather than the Korean-language name of the Chosun Dynasty. Although they share common characters, Chinese and Hanja are not the same language. "Land of the Morning Calm" isn't of Korean origin, but rather it's derived from an English translation of the Chinese language for Hanja characters. The name Korea is also an English derivative, but not from Chosun. Korea derives from Koryeo. This further confuses the ambiguity of the phrase, "the characters which make up Korea's name."

It's correct to say, as the intro once stated, that Korea is known as the "land of the morning calm." The reason is more complicated than "The characters which make up Korea's name mean 'morning-calm.'" Rather than attempting to explain a convoluted derivation of a purely English nickname for Korea in the intro, I suggest we revert to "Korea is also known as 'The Land of the Morning Calm.'" The reasons are explained, briefly, in Names of Korea. Mtd2006 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine solution to me. It's all about summary style. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Accepted I'll replace the first paragraph of the intro with one that (hopefully) reflects a consensus. Mtd2006 (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)