Talk:South Korea/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Flag

Could anyone detail/explain the symbols of the Korean flag? - Olivier

According to "Flags of the World" (ISBN 0-517-07316-1), red, white, and blue are the traditional Korean flag colors at least since the 19th century. The yin-yang has "its customary Buddhist fusion-of-opposites meaning"; the white background represents purity, and the four black trigrams represent simultaneously the four seasons, the four cardinal directions, and sky/heaven, moon, earth, and sun. --Brion

The flag image isn't quite correct. The circle at the center is too big.

I can't see what this (anonymous) comment refers to... the flag looks OK to me. The red might be redder though. DiruWiki 22:11, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the circle does seem bigger than the ones i'm used to seeing when i was in korea (it's been about 10 years)... and the black lines seem too close to the center. maybe they were trying to save blue and red ink in korea? ;) all kidding aside, i'm in atlanta right now, so i'll check out what it looks like at the centennial olympics park (?) sometime this weekend and comment on it

Drunkasian 20:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia source page for the image, it looks like a contributor drew the flag him/herself using the proportions provided here, so there's at least a possibility that the drawn flag is slightly off from what it should be. As far as I can tell from a side-by-side comparison of the two pix, they look almost identical, but it looks like the Wikipedia flag is just a little bit too long proportional to its width, at least on the right-hand side. For much more interesting variations in the flag design, check here. Of course, it doesn't help that the flag's specs have been somewhat fluid over the years: the photo at the bottom of this page depicts South Korea's independence ceremony in 1948...if you look at the large flag in the background, you can see that its proportions are quite a bit different from what they are today, and tha the taegeuk (yin-yang) in has been rotated 90 degrees. --Sewing 21:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Culture

This country needs a paragraph on culture (to go with the links)... Also, let's not forget contemporary culture. I'm thinking particularly of Korean Film (there's an entry for Shiri (film)) and K-pop. Maybe something on Noraebang (Karaoke)? DiruWiki 22:11, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've just made a start... DiruWiki 22:42, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And don't forget all the other great movies coming out of Korea these days...like "Number 3" (okay, that was 6 years ago), and this year's "Tale of Two Sisters" (Janghwa Hongnyeon). --Sewing 03:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have moved the bit on contemporary culture to its own article. Maybe you want to add this there? DiruWiki 12:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Gangwon

I've reverted the spelling of Gangwon (from Gangweon). This so, because the spelling is Gangwon (강원). DiruWiki 09:14, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Notice

The duplicated notice by Sewing was moved to Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan, not to make discussion scattered over Wikipedia.

The above unsigned comment was added by Nanshu. --Sewing 16:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"chonbuk" province ?

Maybe someone from Korea can straighten me out. The province list says:

North Jeolla (Jeollabuk-do; 전라 북도; 全羅北道)

but it was my experience that it was most generally called "Chonbuk" (of course this is a contraction, and in Hangul 전북). Is "North Jeolla" an official name ?

"Jeolla Bukdo" (or "Jeollabuk-do," depending on how you punctuate it) is the province's official name in Korean. "Bukdo" means "North Province." A literal translation would be "Jeolla North Province," but that sounds awkward, thus the usual translation "North Jeolla Province," or just "North Jeolla" for short. --Sewing 17:48, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I understand the name (and the Hangul and the Hanja, actually) but I just always heard "Chonbuk" when I was actually in that province; I never heard "North Jeolla". That is why I was surprised.

I assume you mean you never heard "Jeolla Bukdo." I think no one uses the full names (like "Jeolla Namdo" or "Gyeongsang Bukdo") colloquially, but you would see it in official writing. Thus, the provincial government web site URL is http://www.provin.jeonbuk.kr/ (using the short name), but on the home page, the full name (전라 북도) is in the upper left-hand corner. --Sewing 04:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said, that I never heard the name "North Jeolla". I surely heard Chollabukdo, but more commonly Chonbuk. But I never heard the name that this article uses, "North Jeolla", and I never saw it anywhere either.

If you read this English-language 4 June 2003 article from the Chosun Ilbo: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200306/200306030029.html , you'll see they use the English term "North Jeolla." A Google search for "North Jeolla" turned up over 900 search results. The term also occurs in some English-language books and magazine articles about Korea.

--Sewing 18:54, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok, great. I was just checking that it wasn't someone's invented translation; as I mentioned, when I was in Chonbuk, I never saw the term "North Jeolla". So I learned something new here :)

The Chinese characters to "Korea" of Each of North Korea and South Korea indicates a different area to the other. At the historical viewpoint, "Chosŏn" of North Korea indicates whole Korea, but "han" ("Han") of South Korea does south parts of Korea. ("Dae" means "big" or "great". And all three "Han" were in southern Korea in the past.)

I'm not sure what this anonymous contributor suggests is true. In general use nowadays, the "Three Han" refer to the proto-states of Mahan, Jinhan, and Byeonhan, all in the southern parts of Korea, but historically the same term often meant Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla, which we now always call the "Three Kingdoms". The historical usage suggests that Han was a synonym for Korea. And when the Joseon Dynasty changed its name to Daehan Jeguk ("The Great Han Empire"), Han was certainly referring to all of Korea. --Iceager 21:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

A question about religious composition

In the article it says

Christianity (31.7%) and Buddhism (23.9%) comprise South Korea's two dominant religions.

but later we have

Other religions comprise about 9.4 percent of the population.

Now according to my math that totals 65 percent. So what about the remaining 35 percent? Cheers, Io 13:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The remaining 35% are probably atheist; I noticed that there wasn't an atheist category, so that's probably it. Either that or the Unification Church just got bigger :p FvNK 01:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, only 50.7% of the Korean population are religious. Data of 1995

Christian 26.3%   (Protestant 19.7% and Roman Catholic 6.6%)
Buddhist  23.2%
Confucian  0.5%
Wonbulgyo  0.2%
Cheondogyo 0.1%
Other      0.4%
===============
Total     50.7%

Looks to me like the figures are not correct anyway (I can't imagine "other" fluctuating from 9.4% to 0.4% in a few years... --dfrki 13:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

South Korean Education

Is there anyone knowledgable about South Korea's "Education" attributes who is willing create a new page on the subject? cf. Education in Singapore ✈ James C. 06:01, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Changed "East Sea" to "Sea of Japan"

I understand that the name "Sea of Japan" is disputed by many Koreans, at the same time, it is the most widely recognised name for the sea which seperates the Korean peninsula from the Japanese islands; for this reason, I have changed the name as it appears to "Sea of Japan". I have added a link to the page concerning the dispute over the naming of the sea so as not to ignore the fact that many Korean object to the use of the term. - --Ce garcon

I presume, Ce garcon, that you are of French descent and of French blood, by which I mean that you feel for the interests of France. If not, my apologies. Furthermore, I claim no knowledge of the geography surrounding France but that I used Google and Wikipedia articles to find all the information I needed. Finally, this is my first contribution to anything on Wikipedia, and so I don't know anything about Wikipedia customs, manners, rules of engagement, etc.

To the business at hand: given the rise of so many cultures throughout our history, it is inevitable that all geographical features have a multitude of names. The Bay of Biscay abutting the west coast of France and the Pyrenees lining the division between France and Spain are both local examples. However, there is one critical factor missing in this portrait that is the primal cause of the dispute over the naming rights of that sea: antagonism between the bordering nations. Suppose that imperialistic Spain had brutally occupied a incommensurably weaker France several decades ago, that the negative effects of the occupation reverberate throughout the French political and and social fabric, that the people of France living in French society have a lingering and pervasive discomfort regarding Spain, and that Spain still believes that the occupation was helpful to the French people.

The allegory is clear. However, I do admit that since I am of Korean descent and of Korean blood, I may have biased or misinformed views. If so, point them out to me.

Assume all of that. Assume also that before France regained its balance, Spain lobbied the international community to change the official name of the Pyrenees, a name that has been used for quite some time in the international community and for eternity in the native tongue (Pyrénées), to Pirineos de España (what really would fire up my guts is the "de España" part). And that name stuck. And when a French citizen complained, suppose somebody from South Korea told this person, "Since everybody uses the name Pirineos de España for that range of mountains over there, just stick with the program. However, I do recognize that there is a dispute over the naming rights."

Le mot juste to describe the feelings of this French man is 'indignant.'

To an outsider, this is a trivial dispute. I can tell you that I understand your feelings after reading a naming dispute over the link ~/Wesleyan_University here at Wikipedia because a university in the Phillipines has the same name as the one in here.

I know this scenario is full of holes, generalizations, etc., but I only wanted you to understand why most Koreans living in Korean society take such a vehemently active position against the name 'Sea of Japan.' If you really imagined yourself in the above scenario--being a member of a nation in a caustic relationship with another and disputing over naming rights--and you did not take offense, then I take your opinion as having no bias and I accept your judgement. However, if you indeed find that your blood rises at the thought (o, but I know that this is impossible to simulate since the French people really have no rumbling, negative feelings against Spain, at least I think so), then I've accomplished something for the day other than writing a blurb that will be read by only a few other pairs of eyes.

Japan is a powerful player in world affairs, and while it maintains its eminence, the international view will not change. And the international community doesn't care about it either: it's a freaking name for a body of water! -doesPHalt

Isn't wikipedia NPOV? If it is, why are the references to the body of water between Korea and Japan called 'East Sea'? Calling it 'East Sea' is a POV. Calling it 'Sea of Japan' is not. The official name of the body of water is 'Sea of Japan'. If you want to dispute this, there is an entire article devoted to that. if you want to dispute this, do it at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, not here. This is fact only, not point of view. I know if you click on the link 'East Sea' in this article, it takes you to the Sea of Japan page. If you enter 'East Sea' in the search it takes you to five links for East Seas around the world. I am going to change this site back to NPOV and away from POV. If you have a problem with that, take it up on the correct article at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Masterhatch

I think the best way to deal with it is to just say, "The Sea of Japan (known as the East Sea in Korea)." --Carl 02:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. Have a standard throughout wikipedia that calls it "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). Having a special name for just the korean articles is totally POV and Korea-centric. We need a vote. I have read virtually all the articles about this dispute and i am unable to find where the matter was voted on. In fact, i was unable to find where an agreement was made by all (or most) parties. Masterhatch

Please use standard internationally-recognised names for geographical locations.

There seems to be a problem on this article; Korean contributors seem to insist on using terms for geographical locations which are only used in Korea. This is confusing for most readers and is counterproductive. Let's go on the basis of using the names for geographical locations which are used in the name of Wikipedia articles. If the location also has another name, it can be put in parenthases next to the internationally recognised one: e.g.:

Sea of Japan (in Korea known also known as "East Sea")
Yellow Sea (in Korea known as the "West Sea")

...etc.

Korean contributors: Look, I know you people have a problem with the use of "Sea of Japan", but, like it or not, it is used by the vast majority of the international community. You may consider that to be incorrect, but all the same, if you went up to most English speakers in the world and asked them where the "East Sea" was, they wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what you meant. Let's stick to using the terms that more than 10% of the world uses, OK? --Ce garcon 05:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct. It is called the Sea of Japan in English. "East Sea" means nothing in English. Shorne 01:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is one more reason to call that Sea as "Sea of Japan" instead of "East Sea". By the geographical point of view, if the islands that conform Japan wouldn't exist, it wouldn't exists either that sea, because the watter at the east side of the Korean peninsula would be part of the Pacific Ocean. So that sea exists indeed thanks to Japan. I don't care who is the owner of that region and historically witch little islands belongs to witch country, but if you consider just geographical reasons, the most logical name for that sea is the Sea of Japan. --Txopi 12:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well, Koreans just don't like the idea that Japanese keeps insists on keeping that ridiculous name for the Korean's body of water. But at the same time, this is a neutral Encyclopedia.... Well, as a Korean-American, I shouldn't make any comments on this amtter since my POV would be biased. But if you ask me, Japanese are just full of bull****. They can not stand the fact that when North and South Korea joins someday, they will be defeated easily in every way possible. But that's my Korean-esque POV. Dont bash me because of it.

It has been brought to my attention that it is difficult to find where the naming dispute over the East Sea/Sea of Japan is actually being discussed. It is an ongoing dispute and it is being discussed here:

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

Thank you. Masterhatch 8 July 2005

We need to have a vote

A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. For more information, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):

Should all bodies of water on Wikipedia have the same name throughout all pages as to maintain a standard and avoid country specific POV?"

In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Enter your votes at the talk page here: Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch

Recent versions have been absurdly POV.

I reverted to a previous version of this page because all recent updates to this page have been outrageously POV. --Ce garcon 06:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why does it seem to be impossible to keep Korea-related articles NPOV?

Why is this (and other articles related to Korea) article contantly being trolled by either

1. Koreans who seem to feel the need to rename geographical features using terms only used in Korea, and who also seem to think that adding complete nonsense such as suggesting that the Japanese rule in Korea was responsible for Korea`s GDP being comparable to African countries after the Korean War (rather than what I would have imagined... the war) is a great way to inform the world about Korean history.

and

2. Japanese people who put in obviously POV crap such as: "Korean`s don`t appreciate help given to them during the period　of Japanese rule", or whatever. Even if any of the bullcrap that is generally posted on articles about Asian history was true, this is an encyclopedia, not a way to show how "evil" or "virtuous" and "victimized" anybody was. ^^;; --Ce garcon 06:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh no. Yet more trolls. --Ce garcon 02:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, why? People say that Americans are nationalistic... I don't think it compares to the behavior of koreans. These debates are absurd. ✈ James C. 20:00, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC) (I say these things as a korean-american)

Oh no... yet another edit war.

Personally, I think it is fair to say that there are complaints about human rights in South Korea (collective bargaining and freedom of speech being among what are generally considered to be among human rights). Either way, let`s discuss the issue here. What reason can be given as to why the sentence should be removed? --Ce garcon 01:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bonjour, Ce garçon. I'm afraid the person who keeps rolling back the changes is just a stubborn propagandist. For a sample of the complaints about his incessant edit wars, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2.

It is certainly fair to state that there are complaints about human rights in South Korea. Countries that go around arresting demonstrators, banning favourable comments about other governments (that of North Korea in particular), forbidding free travel, and cracking down on union activity should expect to get a bit of bad press. Incidentally, I merely copied the statement that was made on the page North Korea. Shorne 01:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting it mainly because it was simply copied from North Korea to whitewash the latter and minimize the suffering of its people. Of course, NK's human rights record is incomparably worse than SK, which is not terrible for a modern nation (cf. Germany jails Nazis). It also is unneeded; the paragraph notes a few complaints. It also does not have much to do with the section Culture. Very Verily 07:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have no grounds to impugn my motives. I demand a retraction and an apology. As for whether it is "needed" or pertinent to "Culture", shall I delete the equivalent statement from North Korea on the same grounds?

The statement is accurate and important. It will stand. Shorne 07:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... generally I agree, Shorne, but don`t you think that it is perhaps inaccurate to say that South Korea bans favorable to North Korea? Seems that South Korea has gone 360 on this issue and now supresses opinion unfavourable to North Korea; case in point: the government recently banned a Japanese comic book about the life of Kim Jong Il because they thought it would "hurt the reunification process".[1]

But to get back to the main point: I agree with Shorne in general, human rights issues deserve to be mentioned. If they are inappropriate in the "Culture" section, perhaps both the North Korea and South Korea articles could do with seperate "Human Rights" sections? Hell, maybe we could start a new trend and make this a feature of all Country articles?

VerilyVerily: I don`t want to whitewash NK human rights issues any more than you do: I don`t see how having a section about human rights in South Korea is a whitewash of North Korean human rights issues. I don`t see any point mentioning whose human rights record is "worse"; levels of "badness" are unquantifiable, cannot be measured or proven. I think reporting what Amnesty has to say about both Koreas seems NPOV to me. By the way: I am not trying to "cover up" NK human rights issues; I added an equivalent section about human rights to the North Korea article. --Ce garcon 09:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course any attempt to quantify levels of badness with respect to human rights would require consensus on the approach. Given that certain people here go around denying or suppressing facts, I cannot believe that any attempt to measure "badness" would get general approval.

You raise a good point about human rights. There are issues in every country, and it is most disgraceful for Wikipedia to mention these issues only on such pages as North Korea and Myanmar, excluding, for example, the United States of America, which has had by far the world's highest rate of imprisonment for decades. This represents a bias in Wikipedia that we should—must—correct. Shorne 16:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Levels of badness are not unquantifiable. It is obscene to suggest there's no quantifiable difference between the two nations' human rights record. I wouldn't trust AI as far as I can throw them, but perhaps they could shed light here. Very Verily 10:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

South Korea was a dictatorship until 1987, a dictatorship which allowed a massive foreign military presence within it (the USA), which continued to stay when some democratic reforms were allowed in the late 1980s after massive protest (and hundreds of civilian deaths in the 1980 protest). From 1980 until present, can anyone think of an incident where the North Korean government went out and slaughtered civilians like that? Why bother asking, I'm sure poor weather and a bad harvest in VV's fevered mind is much worse than South Korea's oppression. Ruy Lopez 11:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What year is it? Very Verily 11:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People are still being locked up under the National Security Law (whereas people can be locked up for speaking or trying to participate on political matters). People trying to organize labor unions are also locked up. Ruy Lopez 12:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People who travel to North Korea without permission from the South Korean government (and the permission almost never comes except for Panmunjom and one or two very limited tours) are also locked up. People who even read about communism are locked up. (Last year two Koreans were imprisoned without trial for downloading The Communist Manifesto off the Internet.) Until very recent years, South Korea had the world record for the longest-standing prisoner of war, Kim Sun-Myung, held in a South Korean prison for 44 years because he would not denounce North Korea. (He never did denounce it. He moved there upon his release.) Shall we continue? Shorne 16:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV: Admitting to holding the view that levels of "badness" are quantifiable is completely absurd. For example, if in high school, you believed that you were the coolest kid in your class" surely you would agree that would be merely expressing your point of view, not an objective fact (even if you personally believe it to be true). Similarly, it cannot be said objectively that "North Korea has the worst human rights record in the world" or even that "North Korea has a bad human rights record", for the simple fact that this is impossible to quantify. On the other hand, stating: "Amnesty International reports that [x] number of North Korean political prisoners are being held in concentration camps, where reports suggest that their most basic human rights are being denied" or "According to UNICEF, [x] number of North Koreans are recieving less than [x] number of calories of food a day, and are suffering from malnutrition" are good examples of NPOV statements. --Ce garcon 05:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the part about the human rights violations to "Human rights groups, like Amnesty International, allege human rights violations in South Korea.". That statement is entirely NPOV (no-one can deny Human rights groups allege South Korea of violating human rights). It's up to the reader to determin whether Amnesty is right or not. --Mixcoatl 14:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Labour Organisations in South Korea

all trade unions must be part of a government-controlled labour organisation

There is no such thing as government-controlled labour organisation in South Korea. In fact there are two independent labour organisations: Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and Federation of Korean Trade Unions, although the latter has a history of close relationship with government. Even that is past now. North Korea, maybe?

noirum 04:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Verily Verily and Shorne

What reason can you give for deciding to reopen the edit war? I added an "editing dispute" tag that allowed readers to view both versions. It seems to have been removed, so I added it again. Please stop editing the disputed portion until a resolution can be reached on the talk page --Ce garcon 10:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed it because it had been there almost two weeks with no change, and with the diff growing stale. We put it back (not you), but then Shorne removed it saying "there is no dispute", so, this solution having been rejected, I simply reverted his edit. Very Verily 10:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There has been no discussion. Leaving such tags in place for the long term is against Wikipedia's practice. If there is a serious dispute about the correct claim that there are recurring complaints of human-rights abuses in South Korea, let's hear it. Otherwise, I shall remove the tag again and restore the statement. Shorne 11:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See above. Very Verily 11:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Issue (1): There are human rights complaints (and whining) about virtually every country, including the U.S., Australia, Canada, and so on. But there is a considerable spectrum of complaints from frivolous to quite serious (contrary to Ce Garcon's relativistic take above). North Korea's record is incomparably worse than SK's, and this is the point Shorne is trying to obscure. For an addition to an article to be informative it has to say something more than the trivial, more than the bland, misleading, and uninformative "There are recurring complaints about human rights in South Korea." Such as, some specifics, which brings Issue (2): A few specifics are already mentioned, so this, even if it weren't misleading and trivial, would be redundant. Very Verily 11:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV: And who is to decide exactly what is and is not a "frivolous" complaint? --Ce garcon 05:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning. And a "frivolous" human rights complaint would be that several states require bars to close at 2 or 2:30. For example. Now stop being dense and irrelevant. Very Verily 07:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pay no attention to him, Ce garçon. He merely insists on his POV. He isn't here to contribute; he's just here to dictate. Shorne 13:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"North Korea's record is incomparably worse than SK's, and this is the point Shorne is trying to obscure." Oh it is, is it? What about the massacre at Gwangju? South Korea was mostly under the dictatorial rule of generals until 1993, and since then the system has changed very little, although the massive resistance against South Korea's tyranny has forced the government to open up the slightest bit since then. Ruy Lopez 19:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV: I don`t see what pub closing times have to do with the issue at hand. I consider the opinion of human rights organisations towards all states to be worthy of mention.--Ce garcon 06:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And no one said otherwise. You wanted an example of a frivolous human rights complaint, you got one. For more, see China's reports on human rights in the U.S. Very Verily 08:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I added specific cases of alleged human rights abuse in both the North Korea and South Korea articles, so do you consider the "there are recurring complaints about human rights in North Korea" passage also to be redundant, given that, as you say "specifics are already mentioned"? --Ce garcon 06:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that article in a while, so I don't know whether my two points apply in that context. Very Verily 08:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just shut up, you guys! Ruy Lopez, are you ready to label SK as an authotarian government? 'Cause that's not going to work. Just becuase a country's past was authotarian doesn't mean that the country still is in a dictatorship. I, for one, have seen thousands of articles criticizing the Roh administration from practically every newspaper. And every country, no matter how hard the UN tries or claims, has at least one human rights problem. Even Japan, a democracy like SK, has problems with stores or bars that refuse foreigners. The U.S. is also accused of abusing prisoners at prison facilities. Australia still has traces of segregation between Aborigines and the English. And what about SK's tyranny? As far as allSouth Koreans are concerned, there is no tyranny wreaking havoc in SK politics. And where do you get the idea that "the situation has changed very little?" Koreans now enjoy freedom of speech, press, and religion and pick their own candidates, rights which are all granted by the SK constitution. Anything more, anyone?

VerilyVerily: I know that Shorne and Ruy Lopez are communists and that their contributions to other articles have been biased towards communism and communist states. At the same time, in my opinion, you should let this one go. Seeing as there are human rights complaints about South Korea, I see no reason why you should not let this phrase stay here. The fact that Shorne and Ruy Lopez are generally biased does not mean that in this particular case, this phrase is not justified. I also feel strongly about North Korea`s human rights record. That is no reason to stop documenting human rights abuse in South Korea. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. --Ce garcon 10:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see the evidence of bias towards communism in contributions by Ruy Lopez and me. Several fellow Wikipedians have praised us for supplying balance where it is sorely needed. I admit to being "generally biased", like every other human being, but I don't admit to inserting biases into the articles here to any significant degree. Shorne 10:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VerilyVerily: Do you consider Amnesty International to be part of the "far left"? I mean, OK, maybe you want to rephrase that sentence, but that is just downright misleading. --Ce garcon 02:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protect from VeryVerily, Shorne, & Ruy Lopez

I've protected the page, due to a continuing edit war between VeryVerily, Shorne, and Ruy Lopez. ugen64 22:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki

Can somebody please add an interwiki link to chr:ᎤᎦᎾᏭ ᎢᏗᎵ ᎪᎴᎠ?

I've added it. Are you sure that it works, though? I can't read Cherokee, I'm afraid, but it seems to bring up a page that says something like "Article South Korea does not exist". Shorne 15:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't read Cherokee either, but happening to have the font installed it looks like it says "South Korea is a country in East Asia." Not a terribly informative piece of writing, but I guess it's a start. :-) -- Visviva 16:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

日本海/東海

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ce_garcon asked

Please explain your removal of the sentence relating to 日本海/東海 in the article South Korea. 感射합니다.

I moved the phrase to the bottom of the article, not deleted. The phrase was in the header of the article. I thought it's better make it short and brief summary. -- Ryuch 05:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Area

I happened to notice that the official stats provided by the South Korean NSO are somewhat out of line with the area figure now cited in the country profile. [2] Specifically, the NSO states that SK's land area as of 2003 is 99,600.87 km². It appears that the land area has risen every year, presumably due to land "reclamation." The figure on the country profile would appear to date from the 1980s. Does anyone know a reason that we should not use the NSO's 2003 figure? -- Visviva 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

Gzornenplatz, let's bury the hatchet, we smoke em' peace pipe.--Jerryseinfeld 23:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rhyme

Another day at the ROK.

Redundancy in the language section

The Korean writing system, Hangul, was invented in 1446 by King Sejong the Great to widely spread education - as Chinese characters were thought to be too difficult and time consuming for a common person to learn - through the Royal proclamation of Hunmin Jeongeum (훈민정음/訓民正音) which literally means the "proper sounds to teach the general public." [...] The Korean writing system, Hangul, was invented in 1446 by King Sejong the Great to widely spread education - as Chinese characters were thought to be too difficult and time consuming for a common person to learn - through the Royal proclamation of Hunmin Jeongeum (훈민정음/訓民正音) which literally means the "proper sounds to teach the general public." This is redundant - someone might want to reformulate those two paragraphs. Sbarthelme 09:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

duplicate

I just noticed that an edit that i did for Korea was duplicated onto this page. it is the section regarding the number of ex-pats and other foreign workers currently in korea. We don't need two pages stating the same thing. It should either be here in the south korea page or it should be in the korea page. not both. I feel that, even though i originally put it in the korea page, it should be here in the south korea page. Does anyone agree or disagree with me? Let me know your thoughts before i (or anyone else) makes the change.

(Above comment by User:Masterhatch.) -- Visviva 05:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The more detailed information should be in the country-specific article. -- Visviva 05:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion

The Religion section is currently a mess. Where do these figures come from? Why are they unreliable? -- Visviva 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think my edition is as close as it gets when it comes to statistics on religion, based on data from Korea National Statistical Office. [3] Still, if anyone can tidy up these paragraphs, that would be better. noirum 15:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Official language

I am more and more unsure about the legal status of Korean in South Korea. As far as I can determine, it has no explicit status in written law. However, during the recent controversy surrounding President Roh Moo-hyun's proposed special law to move the capital, the argument that the prominent national symbols—Seoul being the capital, the national anthem, Korean as the "official" language—are included in the unwritten "Customary Constitution" (관습헌법) was used by the Constitutional Court of South Korea to overrule the proposed special law as being unconstitutional. Naturally, this raised a whole political debate about the validity of the "Customary Constitution" argument, and if we merely follow the Court's decision and say that Korean is the official language of South Korea, we may risk choosing a side in an ugly battle. How should we deal with this situation? --Iceager 01:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have been reminded that earlier this year (2005) the "Basic Law on national language" (국어기본법) was passed, and although I haven't been able to find its content anywhere, according to the press reports at the time it specified Korean as the official language and Hangul as the official script. I completely forgot about this. Never mind then... --Iceager 01:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Map of provinces

The current (10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)) map of the provinces is misleading: the cities are all over the place (just about in the right province), and some major cities are even left out. Kokiri 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A less artistic and more informative map would be nice. -- Visviva 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Economy

How could South Korea enter the 'trillion dollar club of world economies' in 2004 if its GDP in this year is 720,772 million dollars? (List of countries by GDP (nominal))

The same happens with the data on the top of the page:

GDP - Total (2005 est.)- $1.099 trillion in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) using data from 2005 its $0.72 trillion. You use purchasing power parity values, which I think is not the right way. At least you have to mention it!

GDP/head - $22,543 in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) its 14,784!

You really should say if you use PPP or nominal values. As for example in People's Republic of China.

... as nobody answered, I felt free to change the above mentioned points.

"Kukhae"?

Masterhatch recently changed the romanized spelling "gukhoe" to "kukhae." The former reflects the Revised Romanization of Korean; the latter, supposedly, McCune-Reischauer Romanization. (The M-R spelling should, in fact, be "kukhoe.") In doing this, he cited the Korean Naming Conventions. Nothing I can see in the edit history or recent discussion of the naming conventions, however, indicates agreement to a change in preference from the Revised system to M-R. I don't necessarily have a problem with such a change, but as things currently stand, as far as I can tell, the practice is still to favour the Revised system, at least for articles on South Korean topics. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#Romanization">here</a>.) This is different altogether from KittySaturn's recommendation of the practice to follow for already existing McCune-Reischauer spellings (as in the name tables): standardizing such spellings is not the same as introducing them where they did not occur before. Again, I am not necessarily questioning such a change in practice, but trying to point out that such a change does not appear to have yet been agreed upon. -Sewing - talk 23:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have been clearer on my edit. When I cited the Korean naming convention, I wasn't referring to the spelling, I was referring to the use of East Sea and Sea of Japan. An IP address had changed the spelling of Kukhae and the sea's name order. I had just changed it back to before that IP's edit. Sorry about the confusion. Anyways, I will be more careful in the future. Masterhatch 02:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

rok

why is the title of this article south korea rather than republic of korea? if their official name is the republic of korea.

isn't this a valid point? does anyone object?Appleby 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

actually, i see that germany, russia, mexico, etc are all under the common names, not official gov't names. but these examples refer to a historic/geographic entity and the current polity together. korea/south korea is a bit different, since south korea refers to the modern polity only so there's more of a reason to use the official name, kinda like the separate entries for historic china/prc, where the latter is under the official name.Appleby 03:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather see it under ROK, but Wiki seems to have a policy of using the most common English name for articles. Sometimes, though, using "official" names is better. An example of an article using the official, not the most common, name is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. The most common name for that team is Anaheim Mighty Ducks, but as you can see, the official one is being used. So far, no one has actually objected to the "move" that you have suggested, so if you want, I suggest you try moving the page and see what kind of response you get. Who knows, you might get a backlash or you might get support. But this does draw a question into play that must be answered before a move takes place. In other articles related to the Koreas (we would have to move North Korea if we were to move south Korea), do we leave the links at South Korea and North Korea or do we go around changing the links to Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Just some food for thought. Masterhatch 04:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an old discussion on the name of this article: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Republic of Korea vs. slang/inaccurate South Korea. According to that discussion, South Korea is used because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Masterhatch 04:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reference. looks like there was never much of a discussion. & my suggestion (& the anonymous original suggestion) was about the title of the article. the body should use the familiar name first, then a parenthetical to the official or alternate names, then subsequently familiar name. i think this would be consistent with wiki style policy.

titling an article with the most common name may make sense in a physical encyclopedia, cuz it's annoying to pull out the "S" volume, flip to "south korea" then be referred to "republic of korea" & have to pull a different volume & flip through again. as annoying as it is, that's what encyclopedias do, to be professional & accurate. but with referral webpages, there is absolutely no inconvenience or confusion, you type south korea, you get the page about south korea, it is identified with the precise, proper, official title & you go on reading the text with the familiar shorthand name.

as i said, this argument seems particularly strong with south korea, which specifically refers to the current political state that is completely identified with the official name. germany & mexico, on the other hand, refers not only to the polity identified with the current official name, but a more comprehensive historical/geographic/ethnographic/cultural entity, so that "germany" or "mexico" is probably more appropriate. for the rok, this latter info is found in the article "korea". this is the same rationale for separate china and prc articles.

having said all that, i don't feel too strongly about it, current state isn't really "wrong" but does look unprofessional & somewhat illogical. i'd be interested in hearing more pro/con arguments, but frankly don't really feel like doing the move myself at this point.Appleby 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

If no one objects, within the next day or two I will refactor this page. I don't think it needs to be archived, just refactored for readability and length.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→