Colliver55 (
talk |
contribs) |
Wondergirls (
talk |
contribs) |
||
Line 698: | Line 698: | ||
As you have removed my tag again I am getting an administrator involved. [[User:Colliver55|Colliver55]] ([[User talk:Colliver55|talk]]) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
As you have removed my tag again I am getting an administrator involved. [[User:Colliver55|Colliver55]] ([[User talk:Colliver55|talk]]) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::You are childish and immature. It looks like you have a personal/emotional issue with this article. Tagging every sentence with "citation needed". What is your problem? [[User:Wondergirls|Wondergirls]] ([[User talk:Wondergirls|talk]]) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Korea/Archive 4 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | South Korea/Archive 4 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
Korean: B; Hanja: Top |
![]() | On 14 February 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about South Korea/Archive 4. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about South Korea/Archive 4 at the Reference desk. |
This article was refactored on the 14th of October, 2005, for readability, length, and removal of out-dated discussions. To view the refactored text, go here [1]. Masterhatch 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
|
As noted below in "important points", this article reads as though it's been written by the South Korean Tourism Board.
In recent weeks many balancing sentences have been removed from the article by a vandal. They include the following:
1/ The fact that South Korea has the world's highest suicide rate.
2/ Sentences about air and water pollution (it now says there were "minor" problems "in the past" and implies that they have been fixed).
So I would like to suggest that this article be protected and re-written by an impartial editor.
At the very least, it should be flagged for failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines on impartiality.
Who agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 ( talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Scienceisyourfriend ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the person who keeps compiling the list of Korea's global rankings for various wonderful things might like to mention the following:
Suicide: Highest rate in the world.
Gender equality: 108th out of 130 nations, according to a World Economic Forum report in November, 2008.
Working hours: Highest in the world, at 48 hours a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 ( talk) 02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please insert the info about the bullet-train in the seperate section of infrastructure. See Japan wiki.
I am a Westerner living in South Korea, and I would make the following points about this article:
1/ It is not balanced. By this, I mean it has clearly been written mostly by South Koreans. Hence the over-emphasis on economic performance, which seems to take up half of the article. In Korea, there is a cultural emphasis on work and the national economy that far outstrips any other nation in the world.
2/ It is too positive. Although Korea is a nice country and Korean people are very polite and work very hard, let's not forget that the nation has a lot of problems. For example, the difficulties with North Korea, the strong cultural pressures to work long hours and conform to accepted norms, terrible air and water pollution, mind-boggling overcrowding, the immense pressure placed on students as young as 5 to pass exams and study until midnight (where is the mention of this in the "education" section?) etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.62.29 ( talk) 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. This is way too positive. Editors for this one seem very reluctant to mention any negative issue. - DHeart
I absolutely agree!! You can see that pretty much everyone in the picture is smiling and beautiful.
All pictures look like they've been taken off of official government advertisements. None of the pictures show a cloudy sky (all sunny). None of the pictures show a typical part of Korea. Pretty much all parts of of the pictures look like they have been digitally enhanced.
This article almost seems like an open advertisement of South Korea for foreign investment.
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries such as nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."
That doesn't make sense, can an admin change it back to how it was before? I believe it was something like:
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries and is the only country having nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."
It may have been slightly different that that but you get the point ;) Thanks -- Igob8a ( talk) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it's 33rd NOT 33st for per capita income. -Ed
However, the South Korea economy was awarded severely wounding for an 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
Please fix this. Should read,
However, the South Korean economy was severely wounded by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
DaronDierkes ( talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html?ex=1301634000&en=7d5fcaf014309078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss-- Sir Edgar 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a new update to this, and apparently they're still the most wired nation http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin That's only a few days old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igob8a ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
See UNCTAD's ICT report 2007-2008 and OECD Broadband Statistics 2007. S.Korea is not the Most wired country status. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9479&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downloads http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39574076_1_1_1_1,00.html -- Koreakorea1 ( talk) 10:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9479&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downloads pp.85. Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. 1st is Bermuda(36.3/100) and 2nd is Netherlands(31.7/100), 3rd is Denmark(31.6/100). Republic of Korea is 5th(29.0).
* | IMF(world/Asia) 2007 data(estimate) | WorldBank(world/Asia) 2005 data | CIA WorldFactbook2008 2007 data(estimate) |
---|---|---|---|
GDP (nominal) | 949.698 (13th/4th) [1] | 888,024 (13th/4th) [2] | no data |
PPP-based GDP | 1,250.49 (12th/4th) [3] | 1,027,400 (14th/4th) [4] | 1,206,000 (14th/4th) [5] |
[1]
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=24&pr.y=8&sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=
[2]
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
[3]
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=56&pr1.y=12&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=
[4]
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/ICP-report-prelim.pdf
[5]
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
If there is mistake, correct please. GDP and PPP-based GDP is not same.
I think the description about GDP in infobox and "3rd largest economy in asia" is inaccurate.
In infobox, value of GDP(PPP) is quoted by CIA World FactBook but rank is maybe quoted by IMF estimate. This is absurd.
-- Koreakorea1 ( talk) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Vietnam paragraph seems to be either a translation or written by someone whose English is poor. I would try to edit it, but I'm unclear as to the meaning of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwartz Farquhartz ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This page needs more pictures of places in Korea besides Seoul, and more citations on various claims made in the articles Deiaemeth ( talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of sources are being written that Korean economy and a Korean technology were cornered to China etc. For instance, " Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee warned again that the nation is sandwiched between Japan and China and things are getting worse." [3] Please explain the reason to delete this. -- 2008FromKawasaki ( talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of sources are being written that -->> One of phrases that Azukimonaka ( talk · contribs) used to use it a lot. I want to ask you, why information about serious Japanese economic bubble doesn't be mentioned at Japan at all? that is very important fact and well-known. This page should be concise and hold representative of South Korea. It is not a place to hold every POV contents. And Japanese war crimes isn't mentioned there either. Don't push your POV, or stop whatever 2channel meatpuppetry. -- Appletrees ( talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} It is the 25th of February in Korea due to the international date line. An official transfer of power has occurred from the administration of Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak hours prior. I ask an administrator make relevant changes to the article. Gryffon ( talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This article claims that "In 2004, South Korea joined the "trillion dollar club" of world economies". However, the citation does not support this claim. I've been researching the "trillion dollar club" to write an article about it, and this 2007 Forbes article lists the current members as "[India], U.S., U.K., Japan, Germany, China, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Russia." South Korea is not included — and indeed, the article notes that ""The U.K. is the only economy to stop being a trillion-dollar economy for a while after attaining the status the first time,” the report said." I assume that this must be because the article is talking only about the countries currently on the list?
Because I can find a couple articles which claim it actually did become, while I can find others stating that it is about to. So, what is right here? Did South Korea join the club, or not? Is it still in the club — the CIA factbook source indicates that it is not, as does the Forbes article. What is the accurate assessment here? -- Haemo ( talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This needs to be updated. See
here. The population has officially surpassed 50,000,000. Now get it sorted. Please.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.105.162.97 (
talk) 2008-03-05T07:50:47 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
While I appreciate the person who made the edit request was uncivil (perhaps tongue in cheek) in his/her request, I second the request. Yes UN estimates is a relibable source, but surely the South Korean Ministry of Government and Home Affairs is also a reliable source, at least for the population of its own nation. The link
here is from a South Korean government page and quotes South Korean government sources. Could it please be updated on the page? Population is not a controversial issue that needs "consensus" in order to update it, unlike the other issues why the page has been locked for editing, is it?
152.99.244.60 (
talk)
04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be confusing population with residents. The article you refere to gives the number of residents as 50,087,307 including 624,377 foreigners living in the country. The population should then be 49,462,930 as of October 2007 according to the country's own official statistics.
ToK ( talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
152.99.244.25 ( talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Since an article mentioning a press release mentioning a report is not the best of sources, I have asked Koreas statistics services for a more authoritative source than the referenced article. Normally they should be able to provide the report itself.
ToK ( talk) 08:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The information that "South Korea will be the world's 3rd richest country by 2025 with a GNP per capita of $52,000 according to Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banks.[10]" is wrong. If you check the reference [10], you see that South Korea is expected to be the 3rd richest country measured as GNP per capita among the 22 countries in Goldman Sachs' study. This is not to say that other countries not included in the report can not have a higher GNP per capita. This is almost certainly the case since measuring GDP per capita serves small and relatively rich countries like Singapore, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg very well. A better piece of information to use from the Goldman Sachs report would be that South Korea is expected to be the worlds 9th largest economy by 2025.
ToK ( talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on a watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets relevant the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.
● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring
I hope everything is clear soon. -- Appletrees ( talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some improvements in trimming down the introduction, fixing grammar problems (syntax, typos, etc.), and diversifying pictures (more pictures of Korea besides Seoul). Deiaemeth ( talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The history section of this article is a little strange. There is little information on the establishment of South Korea, or the Japanese occupation just before it.
I think the history of "Korea" before the division should only be in the separate "Korea" article, and only the history of "South Korea" should be in the "South Korea" article. The "North Korea" article does this correctly.
If you are going to combine "Korea" and "South Korea" histories in this article, you should at least add a paragraph on the end of Choson and some details of the Japanese occupation, as well as the actual founding of the Republic of Korea.
-MNadelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNadelman ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
From the (very lengthy) introduction:
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106"
This latter part of this sentence should be removed. What is being referred to here is a book whose scientific validity is in serious dispute: as far as I've understood, the claims of Dr. Lynn and Dr. Vanhanen are not taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community. They base their estimates of "national IQ" on differences in national income, causing the poorest countries to have an average "IQ" of around 60 or less (which is the equivalent of mild retardation).
It should suffice to say that South Korea is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, having a very high GDP per capita. There is no reason to translate this to some dubious concept of "national IQ" based on research of poor scientific quality. Information drawn from controversial sources should not be presented as factual, especially not in an encyclopedia. -- Anthee ( talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106" Forgive me for stating it, but including this kind of information borders on chauvinism and the only other country that would ever include this kind of information would have been Nazi Germany... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.11.4 ( talk) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A mention about starcraft is a must for any discussion about SOuth Korea.
Seriously it's the one thing they are world famous for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.239 ( talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the game Starcraft? Euge246 ( talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's obsurd... We're not mentioning a game in this article. -Steve12992
starcraft and eSports are very prominant in south korean culture. far more prominant than all of these exagerated sporting events previously mentioned. when i visited they had 2 channels that had televised starcraft matches 24-7. ur wrong steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.159.12 ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence StarCraft is a popular online game in Korea. Its fanbase exceeds five million, and has two Korean-based channels dedicated to its broadcast. Professional StarCraft player Lim Yo-Hwan (SlayerS `BoxeR`) earned over $300,000 during the peak of his career. -- It comes without citation and having moved here 2.5 months ago, I don't see it. I've seen starcraft covered occasionally on one channel, but not dedicated to it. I've seen the same channel covering other video games. Far more prominent is one channel I've seen which is seemingly a 24/7 'Go' channel. This is a fact that is often quoted around the internet whenever starcraft is mentioned in relation to korea, but I think a citation is needed.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be thoroughly referenced before it is ready for GA status. It has been tagged with a "refimprove" tag, and simply removing the tag doesn't solve the problem. Please add citations to the entire article before renominating. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of vandalism going on, particularly on the intro page. I had to restore the page because someone blanked out the last paragraph. The statistics column on the right is always vandalized and people change it to random numbers all the time. Can we do something about this and make this article semi-protected? I noticed that almost half of the edits are simply vandalism. Jenny0313 ( talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Below is a retread of a discussion between User:Richi and User:Lakshmix on this subject. We're looking to gain some consensus among editors about what to do with this text. Thoughts?
Hi. Can you show me where you're seeing it "clearly surpasses the mentioned countries by a signifcant margin by 2025"? I'm looking at the chart on page 9 that shows the four countries the same. Thanks ... richi ( hello) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need to know something that may or may not happen in 2025??? Guys - get real. Wait till 2025 and then write about it! I also think you shouldn't write only good and national-pride driven facts. Be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 ( talk) 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
'Korean farmers have a hard time finding a wife, as few women want to live in the countryside. Farmers are forced to look abroad to find their wife, most from the much poorer Southeast Asia, and increasingly Eastern Europe. For the year 2006, 41% of the marriages amongst the farmers were to foreign nationals.[74]' This part is based on an article from internet. More reliable data is needed!!! No reference to Eastern Europeans even in this article. Source needed!!! The article mentions as first: wives from China!!, but you seem to write only about SouthEast Asian wives... Very unreliable and misleading!!!!!!!!!! Who accepted it???? Please check the sources given by contributors!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 ( talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Scienceisyourfriend ( talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The Motto of Republic of Korea is not official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.83.247 ( talk) 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! As I can see that you are always adding this entry "Islam is also the fastest growing religion in country" to many Korea-related articles and its source is come from an Islamic organzation [4]...that is why mostly people highly doubt it, will the people believe it? Because according to the national estimates of South Korea has showed that Roman Catholicism and Won Buddhism are 2 fastest growing religions here. I suggest that you must never added this entry again because it violated WP:RS, NPOV. Thank for your good works. Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And if Islam is the fastest growing religion in S.Korea with only 45,000 Muslims so it can be impossible with only 6 mosques. Because don't like Buddhism, or maybe even Christianity; Muslims must go to mosques at least once a week. Now, let's do a small operation:
But remember that the largest mosque in Korea is Seoul Central Mosque can contains only less than 1000 people.
Now, that is clear. And Islam was not the fastest growing religion in South Korea. About your citation given: 100% citizens of Arab countries must be Muslims and Islam is state religion. Look again the words in your citation given is: Islam Awareness; I don't care it come from Arabia or not but I know that is an Islamic webiste. The citation given of The Korea Times (11-22-2002) has agreed that Islam is growing in South Korea but it's no way to be the fastest growing religion here. [8]
Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Korea has a history of 5,000 years and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world."
This statement lacks fundamental evidence of material and reference. People can not think this statement by his own head!!
You are right. Spain could say the same way "Spain has a history of 15,000 years and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world" as the Altamira paintings and others in Northern Spain are over 15,000 years old. And Spain has fundamental evidence!! And also from the founding of the city of Cadiz in Southern Spain 3,108 years ago. And also from hundreds of 2,000 year old buildings and bridges...something not even the so called 5,000 year old China can show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.210.74 ( talk) 03:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"...forming a unique and largely uninfluenced culture world. "
No culture can uninfluenced by other country. Old Korean culture was influenced by many countries. Budhism is a foreign one. Chinese characters are foreign one...
The secrect slaughter has been reported by AP. No one can deny. Even Korean government has been doing the investigation.
Some people deliberately delete others contribution without providing any evidence to support his edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Claiming Korean culture as uninfluenced by foreigners is nothing but ultra-nationalist crap. Kindly read Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Arts:
"A peninsula situated between China and Japan, Korea has often acted as a cultural crossroads and its arts has frequently been treated as a poor relation of that of its two great neighbours. Certainly Korean art has been decisively influenced by China" [p.251]
"China has the longest cultural tradition in the world, with a continuous history of more than 3000 years. It's arts is significant not only because of its beauty and richness, but also becasue it has been a major source of inspiration for the entire Far East--Japan, Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, and Central Asia" [p.91]
- 219.79.31.40 ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue:
If you said in this article there will be no non-neutral statement, why there is description of Gwangju Massacre? Only because the victims are not leftist? But even leftists are also Korean people.
Korean should acknowledge the influence by foreigner is the past just as now asian people acknowledge Korean has influence on other East Asian countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I check several articles of countries, such as Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, RPC, ROC, Singapore, France to see if they have international ranking. Except a brief list (just 4 entries) at the France article, there are no such section dedicated to listing rankings. This section on the article has been a tendentious target by some shameless nationalistic editors in our neighbor countries. Besides, several important rankings like GDP, are already listed or described on the infobox and main contents. The section is unnecessarily long compared to other sections. I suggest it to be taken out from the article.-- Caspian blue ( talk) 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, most of the other articles do not include national rankings. So why does the South Korea page include rankings on Ranking in the global shipbuilding industry or Mathematics, Science, Reading and Problem solving? I'm sure gender empowerment is a much more important issue than that. If you are going to throw the ranking in regard to gender empowerment out on the grounds that other rankings do not include it, we should throw out many of the other rankings too.
It is more nationalistic of you to include only rankings that Korea does well in (shipbuilding, which is an incredibly subjective, narrow, and almost random choice), and throw out rankings Korea does not do so well in (gender empowerment, which is much more critical because it is used by the UN to determine its overall Human Development Index).
Agreeing with Caspian Blue's logic, I believe that we should throw out the ranking on shipbuilding because the list of rankings has become too long and it is irrelevant compared to the other rankings (GDP, government corruption, gender empowerment), which is more important in determining the nature of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with deleting the whole ranking thing. Shipbuilding is a minor facet of the economy in general (which is reflected by GDP amongst several other indications). For example, why is shipbuilding included and not other economic indicators (such as agricultural production or commodity production? Of course the choice to include shipbuilding is subjective, it was included amongst all others only because Korea does so well in it.
You are also missing my point completely, my argument was that gender empowerment is a much more critical issue than shipbuilding. If Caspian Blue is to delete gender empowerment on the grounds that it is irrelevant because other rankings do not include it, shipbuilding would especially not stand the same trial too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Caspian Blue, I agree, let us compromise. Include shipbuilding AND gender empowerment. Also, do not revert my edits on the education ranking. I looked at the source that was provided and found that the ranking included on wikipedia was a mistake. If you disagree with my interpretations of the statistics that is presented in the source, please include it in the discussion.
Once you agree to this, I will include the shipbuilding ranking back in, unless you can come up with a better logic as to why you should delete gender empowerment within the ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you claim that you would regard a "discussion" with me, I would ask you. Why did you only restore your addition on the lower rankings and delete the two top rankings. I see your agenda with the disruptive habits again. You have no intention to regard "compromise" or "discussion" as showing yourself contradictory. Well, that is not good for you after your second block in a row from Korean related articles.-- Caspian blue ( talk)
I only deleted one ranking because you deleted one of mine. You said gender empowerment is irrelevant because the other rankings did not include it. Shipbuilding is also not included within the rankings of France; using your logic, I should be able to delete that too. Please be consistent.
I think we can all agree that gender empowerment is a much more important issue than shipbuilding. There is no reason not to include gender empowerment if we are to include shipbuilding (based on your argument of relevance). We can compromise by including both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. OK. No discussion any more. Every facet of ROK is among top three in the world. ROK is a superpower in economy, politics, military, culture, education, science, industry, agriculture, human rights, history ... Korea had been controlling most part of East Asia.
OK? Agree? Or are you kidding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has been overflowing with laundry list of random statistics and pictures. In order to help raise the standards of the article at the GA level, there has to be some major clean-ups. First of all, the article seems like it's a repository of random good facts about Korea; although random good facts may not be a bad thing in themselves, I am afraid that it may hurt the credibility of the article as a whole. Secondly, there are too many pictures in proportion to the length of the article, and some of them needs to be carefully selected and deleted from the article. Thirdly, the rank section seems too long - it should only have the most broad and general indicators (Size of the GDP, press freedom index, etc.) and many others should belong in more specialized articles regarding Korea (Economy of South Korea, Culture, etc.). These are just my two cents. Deiaemeth ( talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a lot of clean-up. There are way too many maps of Korea, and random pictures of all sorts (including one of a semi-conductor). There are also unnecessary charts.
The whole article is redundant in conjunction with the ranking list. I read all over the place that Korea is ranked the 13th largest economy in the world, the biggest shipbuilder, etc. I will cut the length of the ranking so that it excludes information that is already presented in other parts of the article (especially information regarding GDP, which can be found in the big box at the top of the article).
Also, I believe we can agree to cut out the picture of the semi-conductor. I also think the chart of the demographics is unnecessary because we can easily assume that the trend is rising. I think we should also delete the religiosity chart because the article itself already presents the percentage of religions present in Korea. I will only refrain from deleting this, though, because a similar chart exists in the article on Japan.
I also believe there are too many of Korea. The article on Japan only exists one map, the administrative one, which is the only one I think is relevant because it supplements the section on administrative divisions. Really, do we really care for a topographical map? I will only leave the historical map of Korea up, because historical geography does help supplement history.
The climate chart also seems unnecessary and lackluster. But I will leave that for others to decide .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see it on more Wikipedias, but can't find the reason why. Why is the official name in the infobox also in Chinese? -- Jeroen ( talk) 14:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Chinese script used in the infobox is a legitimate Korean script. It is called Hanja, which literally means "words/characters of the Han (Chinese)". nat.u toronto 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The Koreans (book) by Michael Breen (author) mentions Korea being a "Low-Trust Society" like Taiwan, France, and Italy. The Breen book draws from Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity by Francis Fukuyama:
In a low-trust society, where individuals are only able to organize within their own clan or family, organizations are likely to be either small, or very large (and state-operated).
I think this deserves a brief mention, especially as relating to the chaebols' role in the economy. 222.111.129.57 ( talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To user;Wondergirls.
South korea received 800 million dollars in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its colonial rule in the treaty. South Korea government spent most of its money establishing social infrastructures and corporation,founding POSCO,building Gyeongbu Expressway and the Soyang River Dam.
What is the deletion reason? [10] -- Ccpccp ( talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
2nd delete [11]-- Ccpccp ( talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It being the national flower of South-Korea, where could it be mentioned in the article? Kbarends ( talk) 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A Korean without Christian Faith is generally a good Korean. I have heard about it from a number of people especially from Chinese and Japanese. I learned that many Koreans are Christians or in favor of Christianity. I'm a deist, or maybe half an atheist. I'm very interested in the differences between Christian Koreans and non Christian Koreans. I suppose the article does not cover this significant issue. ~ Arnoldsey ( talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard any sort of comments you have mentioned, and several Christians and non-Christians live in harmony in SK. Where the blazes did you hear that? Scienceisyourfriend ( talk) 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
kidhkgg —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
Show M*A*SH be mentioned in fun and entertainment BaconBoy914 ( talk) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
just wanted to note that. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
South Korea is not the official name of the state, its Republic of Korea. While South Korea is the more common name, I think Republic of Korea should be used because its the "real" name and somehow less NPOV-ish. Same applies to North Korea. -- Fixman Praise me 20:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is in serious need of attention. The continuous and ridiculous economic miracle facts are laughable. When you look at South Korea's GNP(nominal),it is far below other major industrial nations - that is the important information. Keep rambling on about how its industries are bigger than Coca Cola and Burger King etc. put together do nothing to help the reader actually gain the information they are looking for. Colliver55 ( talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Economic development is subjective and not defined by GDP per capita alone - in other words that is not "the important information" as you say. You seem to have a lack of understanding regarding welfare economics. Life expectancy and literacy rates are just as important, if not more important than how much money you earn. Also, can I ask how you know what "the reader" actually wants to gain? is it perhaps a reader in your point of view that S Korea is "far below" "major industrial nations"? Your view is quite controversial in this respect. Next time, think about it carefully before putting a POV tag. Lakshmix ( talk) 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove my NPOV tag without discussing it first. You will get nowhere by unilateral action. Additionally even by PPP, Korea is very low in ranking in GNP. Colliver55 ( talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As you have removed my tag again I am getting an administrator involved. Colliver55 ( talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Colliver55 (
talk |
contribs) |
Wondergirls (
talk |
contribs) |
||
Line 698: | Line 698: | ||
As you have removed my tag again I am getting an administrator involved. [[User:Colliver55|Colliver55]] ([[User talk:Colliver55|talk]]) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
As you have removed my tag again I am getting an administrator involved. [[User:Colliver55|Colliver55]] ([[User talk:Colliver55|talk]]) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::You are childish and immature. It looks like you have a personal/emotional issue with this article. Tagging every sentence with "citation needed". What is your problem? [[User:Wondergirls|Wondergirls]] ([[User talk:Wondergirls|talk]]) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Korea/Archive 4 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | South Korea/Archive 4 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
Korean: B; Hanja: Top |
![]() | On 14 February 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about South Korea/Archive 4. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about South Korea/Archive 4 at the Reference desk. |
This article was refactored on the 14th of October, 2005, for readability, length, and removal of out-dated discussions. To view the refactored text, go here [1]. Masterhatch 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
|
As noted below in "important points", this article reads as though it's been written by the South Korean Tourism Board.
In recent weeks many balancing sentences have been removed from the article by a vandal. They include the following:
1/ The fact that South Korea has the world's highest suicide rate.
2/ Sentences about air and water pollution (it now says there were "minor" problems "in the past" and implies that they have been fixed).
So I would like to suggest that this article be protected and re-written by an impartial editor.
At the very least, it should be flagged for failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines on impartiality.
Who agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 ( talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Scienceisyourfriend ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the person who keeps compiling the list of Korea's global rankings for various wonderful things might like to mention the following:
Suicide: Highest rate in the world.
Gender equality: 108th out of 130 nations, according to a World Economic Forum report in November, 2008.
Working hours: Highest in the world, at 48 hours a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 ( talk) 02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please insert the info about the bullet-train in the seperate section of infrastructure. See Japan wiki.
I am a Westerner living in South Korea, and I would make the following points about this article:
1/ It is not balanced. By this, I mean it has clearly been written mostly by South Koreans. Hence the over-emphasis on economic performance, which seems to take up half of the article. In Korea, there is a cultural emphasis on work and the national economy that far outstrips any other nation in the world.
2/ It is too positive. Although Korea is a nice country and Korean people are very polite and work very hard, let's not forget that the nation has a lot of problems. For example, the difficulties with North Korea, the strong cultural pressures to work long hours and conform to accepted norms, terrible air and water pollution, mind-boggling overcrowding, the immense pressure placed on students as young as 5 to pass exams and study until midnight (where is the mention of this in the "education" section?) etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.62.29 ( talk) 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. This is way too positive. Editors for this one seem very reluctant to mention any negative issue. - DHeart
I absolutely agree!! You can see that pretty much everyone in the picture is smiling and beautiful.
All pictures look like they've been taken off of official government advertisements. None of the pictures show a cloudy sky (all sunny). None of the pictures show a typical part of Korea. Pretty much all parts of of the pictures look like they have been digitally enhanced.
This article almost seems like an open advertisement of South Korea for foreign investment.
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries such as nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."
That doesn't make sense, can an admin change it back to how it was before? I believe it was something like:
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries and is the only country having nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."
It may have been slightly different that that but you get the point ;) Thanks -- Igob8a ( talk) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it's 33rd NOT 33st for per capita income. -Ed
However, the South Korea economy was awarded severely wounding for an 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
Please fix this. Should read,
However, the South Korean economy was severely wounded by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
DaronDierkes ( talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html?ex=1301634000&en=7d5fcaf014309078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss-- Sir Edgar 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a new update to this, and apparently they're still the most wired nation http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin That's only a few days old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igob8a ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
See UNCTAD's ICT report 2007-2008 and OECD Broadband Statistics 2007. S.Korea is not the Most wired country status. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9479&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downloads http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39574076_1_1_1_1,00.html -- Koreakorea1 ( talk) 10:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9479&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downloads pp.85. Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. 1st is Bermuda(36.3/100) and 2nd is Netherlands(31.7/100), 3rd is Denmark(31.6/100). Republic of Korea is 5th(29.0).
* | IMF(world/Asia) 2007 data(estimate) | WorldBank(world/Asia) 2005 data | CIA WorldFactbook2008 2007 data(estimate) |
---|---|---|---|
GDP (nominal) | 949.698 (13th/4th) [1] | 888,024 (13th/4th) [2] | no data |
PPP-based GDP | 1,250.49 (12th/4th) [3] | 1,027,400 (14th/4th) [4] | 1,206,000 (14th/4th) [5] |
[1]
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=24&pr.y=8&sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=
[2]
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
[3]
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=56&pr1.y=12&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=
[4]
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/ICP-report-prelim.pdf
[5]
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
If there is mistake, correct please. GDP and PPP-based GDP is not same.
I think the description about GDP in infobox and "3rd largest economy in asia" is inaccurate.
In infobox, value of GDP(PPP) is quoted by CIA World FactBook but rank is maybe quoted by IMF estimate. This is absurd.
-- Koreakorea1 ( talk) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Vietnam paragraph seems to be either a translation or written by someone whose English is poor. I would try to edit it, but I'm unclear as to the meaning of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwartz Farquhartz ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This page needs more pictures of places in Korea besides Seoul, and more citations on various claims made in the articles Deiaemeth ( talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of sources are being written that Korean economy and a Korean technology were cornered to China etc. For instance, " Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee warned again that the nation is sandwiched between Japan and China and things are getting worse." [3] Please explain the reason to delete this. -- 2008FromKawasaki ( talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of sources are being written that -->> One of phrases that Azukimonaka ( talk · contribs) used to use it a lot. I want to ask you, why information about serious Japanese economic bubble doesn't be mentioned at Japan at all? that is very important fact and well-known. This page should be concise and hold representative of South Korea. It is not a place to hold every POV contents. And Japanese war crimes isn't mentioned there either. Don't push your POV, or stop whatever 2channel meatpuppetry. -- Appletrees ( talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} It is the 25th of February in Korea due to the international date line. An official transfer of power has occurred from the administration of Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak hours prior. I ask an administrator make relevant changes to the article. Gryffon ( talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This article claims that "In 2004, South Korea joined the "trillion dollar club" of world economies". However, the citation does not support this claim. I've been researching the "trillion dollar club" to write an article about it, and this 2007 Forbes article lists the current members as "[India], U.S., U.K., Japan, Germany, China, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Russia." South Korea is not included — and indeed, the article notes that ""The U.K. is the only economy to stop being a trillion-dollar economy for a while after attaining the status the first time,” the report said." I assume that this must be because the article is talking only about the countries currently on the list?
Because I can find a couple articles which claim it actually did become, while I can find others stating that it is about to. So, what is right here? Did South Korea join the club, or not? Is it still in the club — the CIA factbook source indicates that it is not, as does the Forbes article. What is the accurate assessment here? -- Haemo ( talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This needs to be updated. See
here. The population has officially surpassed 50,000,000. Now get it sorted. Please.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.105.162.97 (
talk) 2008-03-05T07:50:47 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
While I appreciate the person who made the edit request was uncivil (perhaps tongue in cheek) in his/her request, I second the request. Yes UN estimates is a relibable source, but surely the South Korean Ministry of Government and Home Affairs is also a reliable source, at least for the population of its own nation. The link
here is from a South Korean government page and quotes South Korean government sources. Could it please be updated on the page? Population is not a controversial issue that needs "consensus" in order to update it, unlike the other issues why the page has been locked for editing, is it?
152.99.244.60 (
talk)
04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be confusing population with residents. The article you refere to gives the number of residents as 50,087,307 including 624,377 foreigners living in the country. The population should then be 49,462,930 as of October 2007 according to the country's own official statistics.
ToK ( talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
152.99.244.25 ( talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Since an article mentioning a press release mentioning a report is not the best of sources, I have asked Koreas statistics services for a more authoritative source than the referenced article. Normally they should be able to provide the report itself.
ToK ( talk) 08:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The information that "South Korea will be the world's 3rd richest country by 2025 with a GNP per capita of $52,000 according to Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banks.[10]" is wrong. If you check the reference [10], you see that South Korea is expected to be the 3rd richest country measured as GNP per capita among the 22 countries in Goldman Sachs' study. This is not to say that other countries not included in the report can not have a higher GNP per capita. This is almost certainly the case since measuring GDP per capita serves small and relatively rich countries like Singapore, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg very well. A better piece of information to use from the Goldman Sachs report would be that South Korea is expected to be the worlds 9th largest economy by 2025.
ToK ( talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on a watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets relevant the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.
● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring
I hope everything is clear soon. -- Appletrees ( talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some improvements in trimming down the introduction, fixing grammar problems (syntax, typos, etc.), and diversifying pictures (more pictures of Korea besides Seoul). Deiaemeth ( talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The history section of this article is a little strange. There is little information on the establishment of South Korea, or the Japanese occupation just before it.
I think the history of "Korea" before the division should only be in the separate "Korea" article, and only the history of "South Korea" should be in the "South Korea" article. The "North Korea" article does this correctly.
If you are going to combine "Korea" and "South Korea" histories in this article, you should at least add a paragraph on the end of Choson and some details of the Japanese occupation, as well as the actual founding of the Republic of Korea.
-MNadelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNadelman ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
From the (very lengthy) introduction:
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106"
This latter part of this sentence should be removed. What is being referred to here is a book whose scientific validity is in serious dispute: as far as I've understood, the claims of Dr. Lynn and Dr. Vanhanen are not taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community. They base their estimates of "national IQ" on differences in national income, causing the poorest countries to have an average "IQ" of around 60 or less (which is the equivalent of mild retardation).
It should suffice to say that South Korea is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, having a very high GDP per capita. There is no reason to translate this to some dubious concept of "national IQ" based on research of poor scientific quality. Information drawn from controversial sources should not be presented as factual, especially not in an encyclopedia. -- Anthee ( talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106" Forgive me for stating it, but including this kind of information borders on chauvinism and the only other country that would ever include this kind of information would have been Nazi Germany... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.11.4 ( talk) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A mention about starcraft is a must for any discussion about SOuth Korea.
Seriously it's the one thing they are world famous for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.239 ( talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the game Starcraft? Euge246 ( talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's obsurd... We're not mentioning a game in this article. -Steve12992
starcraft and eSports are very prominant in south korean culture. far more prominant than all of these exagerated sporting events previously mentioned. when i visited they had 2 channels that had televised starcraft matches 24-7. ur wrong steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.159.12 ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence StarCraft is a popular online game in Korea. Its fanbase exceeds five million, and has two Korean-based channels dedicated to its broadcast. Professional StarCraft player Lim Yo-Hwan (SlayerS `BoxeR`) earned over $300,000 during the peak of his career. -- It comes without citation and having moved here 2.5 months ago, I don't see it. I've seen starcraft covered occasionally on one channel, but not dedicated to it. I've seen the same channel covering other video games. Far more prominent is one channel I've seen which is seemingly a 24/7 'Go' channel. This is a fact that is often quoted around the internet whenever starcraft is mentioned in relation to korea, but I think a citation is needed.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be thoroughly referenced before it is ready for GA status. It has been tagged with a "refimprove" tag, and simply removing the tag doesn't solve the problem. Please add citations to the entire article before renominating. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of vandalism going on, particularly on the intro page. I had to restore the page because someone blanked out the last paragraph. The statistics column on the right is always vandalized and people change it to random numbers all the time. Can we do something about this and make this article semi-protected? I noticed that almost half of the edits are simply vandalism. Jenny0313 ( talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Below is a retread of a discussion between User:Richi and User:Lakshmix on this subject. We're looking to gain some consensus among editors about what to do with this text. Thoughts?
Hi. Can you show me where you're seeing it "clearly surpasses the mentioned countries by a signifcant margin by 2025"? I'm looking at the chart on page 9 that shows the four countries the same. Thanks ... richi ( hello) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need to know something that may or may not happen in 2025??? Guys - get real. Wait till 2025 and then write about it! I also think you shouldn't write only good and national-pride driven facts. Be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 ( talk) 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
'Korean farmers have a hard time finding a wife, as few women want to live in the countryside. Farmers are forced to look abroad to find their wife, most from the much poorer Southeast Asia, and increasingly Eastern Europe. For the year 2006, 41% of the marriages amongst the farmers were to foreign nationals.[74]' This part is based on an article from internet. More reliable data is needed!!! No reference to Eastern Europeans even in this article. Source needed!!! The article mentions as first: wives from China!!, but you seem to write only about SouthEast Asian wives... Very unreliable and misleading!!!!!!!!!! Who accepted it???? Please check the sources given by contributors!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 ( talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Scienceisyourfriend ( talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The Motto of Republic of Korea is not official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.83.247 ( talk) 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! As I can see that you are always adding this entry "Islam is also the fastest growing religion in country" to many Korea-related articles and its source is come from an Islamic organzation [4]...that is why mostly people highly doubt it, will the people believe it? Because according to the national estimates of South Korea has showed that Roman Catholicism and Won Buddhism are 2 fastest growing religions here. I suggest that you must never added this entry again because it violated WP:RS, NPOV. Thank for your good works. Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And if Islam is the fastest growing religion in S.Korea with only 45,000 Muslims so it can be impossible with only 6 mosques. Because don't like Buddhism, or maybe even Christianity; Muslims must go to mosques at least once a week. Now, let's do a small operation:
But remember that the largest mosque in Korea is Seoul Central Mosque can contains only less than 1000 people.
Now, that is clear. And Islam was not the fastest growing religion in South Korea. About your citation given: 100% citizens of Arab countries must be Muslims and Islam is state religion. Look again the words in your citation given is: Islam Awareness; I don't care it come from Arabia or not but I know that is an Islamic webiste. The citation given of The Korea Times (11-22-2002) has agreed that Islam is growing in South Korea but it's no way to be the fastest growing religion here. [8]
Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Korea has a history of 5,000 years and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world."
This statement lacks fundamental evidence of material and reference. People can not think this statement by his own head!!
You are right. Spain could say the same way "Spain has a history of 15,000 years and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world" as the Altamira paintings and others in Northern Spain are over 15,000 years old. And Spain has fundamental evidence!! And also from the founding of the city of Cadiz in Southern Spain 3,108 years ago. And also from hundreds of 2,000 year old buildings and bridges...something not even the so called 5,000 year old China can show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.210.74 ( talk) 03:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"...forming a unique and largely uninfluenced culture world. "
No culture can uninfluenced by other country. Old Korean culture was influenced by many countries. Budhism is a foreign one. Chinese characters are foreign one...
The secrect slaughter has been reported by AP. No one can deny. Even Korean government has been doing the investigation.
Some people deliberately delete others contribution without providing any evidence to support his edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Claiming Korean culture as uninfluenced by foreigners is nothing but ultra-nationalist crap. Kindly read Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Arts:
"A peninsula situated between China and Japan, Korea has often acted as a cultural crossroads and its arts has frequently been treated as a poor relation of that of its two great neighbours. Certainly Korean art has been decisively influenced by China" [p.251]
"China has the longest cultural tradition in the world, with a continuous history of more than 3000 years. It's arts is significant not only because of its beauty and richness, but also becasue it has been a major source of inspiration for the entire Far East--Japan, Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, and Central Asia" [p.91]
- 219.79.31.40 ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue:
If you said in this article there will be no non-neutral statement, why there is description of Gwangju Massacre? Only because the victims are not leftist? But even leftists are also Korean people.
Korean should acknowledge the influence by foreigner is the past just as now asian people acknowledge Korean has influence on other East Asian countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I check several articles of countries, such as Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, RPC, ROC, Singapore, France to see if they have international ranking. Except a brief list (just 4 entries) at the France article, there are no such section dedicated to listing rankings. This section on the article has been a tendentious target by some shameless nationalistic editors in our neighbor countries. Besides, several important rankings like GDP, are already listed or described on the infobox and main contents. The section is unnecessarily long compared to other sections. I suggest it to be taken out from the article.-- Caspian blue ( talk) 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, most of the other articles do not include national rankings. So why does the South Korea page include rankings on Ranking in the global shipbuilding industry or Mathematics, Science, Reading and Problem solving? I'm sure gender empowerment is a much more important issue than that. If you are going to throw the ranking in regard to gender empowerment out on the grounds that other rankings do not include it, we should throw out many of the other rankings too.
It is more nationalistic of you to include only rankings that Korea does well in (shipbuilding, which is an incredibly subjective, narrow, and almost random choice), and throw out rankings Korea does not do so well in (gender empowerment, which is much more critical because it is used by the UN to determine its overall Human Development Index).
Agreeing with Caspian Blue's logic, I believe that we should throw out the ranking on shipbuilding because the list of rankings has become too long and it is irrelevant compared to the other rankings (GDP, government corruption, gender empowerment), which is more important in determining the nature of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with deleting the whole ranking thing. Shipbuilding is a minor facet of the economy in general (which is reflected by GDP amongst several other indications). For example, why is shipbuilding included and not other economic indicators (such as agricultural production or commodity production? Of course the choice to include shipbuilding is subjective, it was included amongst all others only because Korea does so well in it.
You are also missing my point completely, my argument was that gender empowerment is a much more critical issue than shipbuilding. If Caspian Blue is to delete gender empowerment on the grounds that it is irrelevant because other rankings do not include it, shipbuilding would especially not stand the same trial too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Caspian Blue, I agree, let us compromise. Include shipbuilding AND gender empowerment. Also, do not revert my edits on the education ranking. I looked at the source that was provided and found that the ranking included on wikipedia was a mistake. If you disagree with my interpretations of the statistics that is presented in the source, please include it in the discussion.
Once you agree to this, I will include the shipbuilding ranking back in, unless you can come up with a better logic as to why you should delete gender empowerment within the ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you claim that you would regard a "discussion" with me, I would ask you. Why did you only restore your addition on the lower rankings and delete the two top rankings. I see your agenda with the disruptive habits again. You have no intention to regard "compromise" or "discussion" as showing yourself contradictory. Well, that is not good for you after your second block in a row from Korean related articles.-- Caspian blue ( talk)
I only deleted one ranking because you deleted one of mine. You said gender empowerment is irrelevant because the other rankings did not include it. Shipbuilding is also not included within the rankings of France; using your logic, I should be able to delete that too. Please be consistent.
I think we can all agree that gender empowerment is a much more important issue than shipbuilding. There is no reason not to include gender empowerment if we are to include shipbuilding (based on your argument of relevance). We can compromise by including both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. OK. No discussion any more. Every facet of ROK is among top three in the world. ROK is a superpower in economy, politics, military, culture, education, science, industry, agriculture, human rights, history ... Korea had been controlling most part of East Asia.
OK? Agree? Or are you kidding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfccheng ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has been overflowing with laundry list of random statistics and pictures. In order to help raise the standards of the article at the GA level, there has to be some major clean-ups. First of all, the article seems like it's a repository of random good facts about Korea; although random good facts may not be a bad thing in themselves, I am afraid that it may hurt the credibility of the article as a whole. Secondly, there are too many pictures in proportion to the length of the article, and some of them needs to be carefully selected and deleted from the article. Thirdly, the rank section seems too long - it should only have the most broad and general indicators (Size of the GDP, press freedom index, etc.) and many others should belong in more specialized articles regarding Korea (Economy of South Korea, Culture, etc.). These are just my two cents. Deiaemeth ( talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a lot of clean-up. There are way too many maps of Korea, and random pictures of all sorts (including one of a semi-conductor). There are also unnecessary charts.
The whole article is redundant in conjunction with the ranking list. I read all over the place that Korea is ranked the 13th largest economy in the world, the biggest shipbuilder, etc. I will cut the length of the ranking so that it excludes information that is already presented in other parts of the article (especially information regarding GDP, which can be found in the big box at the top of the article).
Also, I believe we can agree to cut out the picture of the semi-conductor. I also think the chart of the demographics is unnecessary because we can easily assume that the trend is rising. I think we should also delete the religiosity chart because the article itself already presents the percentage of religions present in Korea. I will only refrain from deleting this, though, because a similar chart exists in the article on Japan.
I also believe there are too many of Korea. The article on Japan only exists one map, the administrative one, which is the only one I think is relevant because it supplements the section on administrative divisions. Really, do we really care for a topographical map? I will only leave the historical map of Korea up, because historical geography does help supplement history.
The climate chart also seems unnecessary and lackluster. But I will leave that for others to decide .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see it on more Wikipedias, but can't find the reason why. Why is the official name in the infobox also in Chinese? -- Jeroen ( talk) 14:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Chinese script used in the infobox is a legitimate Korean script. It is called Hanja, which literally means "words/characters of the Han (Chinese)". nat.u toronto 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The Koreans (book) by Michael Breen (author) mentions Korea being a "Low-Trust Society" like Taiwan, France, and Italy. The Breen book draws from Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity by Francis Fukuyama:
In a low-trust society, where individuals are only able to organize within their own clan or family, organizations are likely to be either small, or very large (and state-operated).
I think this deserves a brief mention, especially as relating to the chaebols' role in the economy. 222.111.129.57 ( talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To user;Wondergirls.
South korea received 800 million dollars in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its colonial rule in the treaty. South Korea government spent most of its money establishing social infrastructures and corporation,founding POSCO,building Gyeongbu Expressway and the Soyang River Dam.
What is the deletion reason? [10] -- Ccpccp ( talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
2nd delete [11]-- Ccpccp ( talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It being the national flower of South-Korea, where could it be mentioned in the article? Kbarends ( talk) 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A Korean without Christian Faith is generally a good Korean. I have heard about it from a number of people especially from Chinese and Japanese. I learned that many Koreans are Christians or in favor of Christianity. I'm a deist, or maybe half an atheist. I'm very interested in the differences between Christian Koreans and non Christian Koreans. I suppose the article does not cover this significant issue. ~ Arnoldsey ( talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard any sort of comments you have mentioned, and several Christians and non-Christians live in harmony in SK. Where the blazes did you hear that? Scienceisyourfriend ( talk) 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
kidhkgg —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
Show M*A*SH be mentioned in fun and entertainment BaconBoy914 ( talk) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
just wanted to note that. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
South Korea is not the official name of the state, its Republic of Korea. While South Korea is the more common name, I think Republic of Korea should be used because its the "real" name and somehow less NPOV-ish. Same applies to North Korea. -- Fixman Praise me 20:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is in serious need of attention. The continuous and ridiculous economic miracle facts are laughable. When you look at South Korea's GNP(nominal),it is far below other major industrial nations - that is the important information. Keep rambling on about how its industries are bigger than Coca Cola and Burger King etc. put together do nothing to help the reader actually gain the information they are looking for. Colliver55 ( talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Economic development is subjective and not defined by GDP per capita alone - in other words that is not "the important information" as you say. You seem to have a lack of understanding regarding welfare economics. Life expectancy and literacy rates are just as important, if not more important than how much money you earn. Also, can I ask how you know what "the reader" actually wants to gain? is it perhaps a reader in your point of view that S Korea is "far below" "major industrial nations"? Your view is quite controversial in this respect. Next time, think about it carefully before putting a POV tag. Lakshmix ( talk) 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove my NPOV tag without discussing it first. You will get nowhere by unilateral action. Additionally even by PPP, Korea is very low in ranking in GNP. Colliver55 ( talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As you have removed my tag again I am getting an administrator involved. Colliver55 ( talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)