Talk:South Korea

---

Pictures need changing "after division"

The "after division" section describes the turmoil of the Korean War and other major events. It is illustrated by two irrelevant photographs of stadiums. Can these be replaced with some images from the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a great Korean war photo here that is in the public domain. I don't know how to insert photos, so maybe another editor could do us all a favour and replace one of the stadium pix with this one:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2919551783_c183188a1f.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/imcomkorea/2919551783/&usg=__Nv9H_bM3HfE0leKfM2eRrHM-wVY=&h=408&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=1p4UbLI_imb7qM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkorean%2Bwar%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.177 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The two stadium images are not irrelevant. That part of the history section mainly describes events after the Korean war, including the 1988 Summer olympic games and the 2002 World cup, hence the two correlating pictures. I suppose another image could be added, or the 2002 world cup image could be replaced. That image you have provided does not really show anything about the Korean War, but proper copyright would need to obtained if that flickr photo is not yours. Please sign your contribution. Pds0101 (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's odd to have two stadium photos. Is the history of South Korea in the 20th century best encapsulated by two photos of stadiums? I think not. The seminal historical event of the 20th century as far as South Korea is concerned was the Korean war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.94 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Presidential?

Surely Korea has a semi-presidential system of government since it has a prime minister as head of government?--90.208.150.105 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

change map

change map to File:South_Korea_(orthographic_projection).svg, Any comments?--220.246.168.145 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Has been discussed at Talk:South_Korea#South_Korea.27s_orthographic_projection and Talk:South_Korea#orthographic_projection.3F.3F.3F. Read that first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmetic Surgery

It seems like a bit of a miss to fail to mention the fact that S Korea probably has the highest percentage of population who have taken plastic surgery. This should be included under culture section. Why? It is significant and considerably unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.53.85.103 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? We don't just report rumors and personal impressions, and I know of several other countries that also make this claim. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems virtually impossible to obtain any source whatsoever which lists countries by their plastic surgery procedures per population. The closest thing I have found so far was a list compiled by Nationmaster [1]. But this list is probably as good as nothing because its outdated from 2002. As far as I am concerned, the Korean media has much to do with sensationalizing plastic surgery, or making it seem more common than it really is. Such a shame. But don't take it from my opinion, we need reliable sources if that is to be included. Pds0101 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There was story in the Korea Times recently which said 80 per cent of Korean women had either already had cosmetic surgery, or were considering having cosmetic surgery in the near future. You might be able to hunt that down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

After a lengthy search, there is no such article in the Korea Times that verifies your statistic. Its is rather better not to include specious claims or rumors in the article. Pds0101 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The story has probably dropped off google because it was too old. This happens after about six weeks or so. It is rather better not to be rude on the talk page, accusing people of making "specious claims" and spreading rumour. As a Korean, you must know that Korea has the world's highest rate of cosmetic surgery. There is no controversy about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good one: "By conservative estimates, 50% of South Korean women in their 20s have had some form of cosmetic surgery. And in a recent poll, 70% of men said they would also consider surgical improvements." http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:995StDh-AqEJ:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4229995.stm+korea+%22cosmetic+surgery%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.61.144 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't prove that they have the "highest percentage", it only says that they have a high percentage in one slice of the demographic. It's interesting, but far from being what you said at the top of this discussion. Furthermore, it's not as reliable as an academic article would be. It may still be worth mentioning briefly (something like a short sentence in the "Culture" section saying "plastic surgery is becoming popular" or something like that) but it's nothing to make a big deal over if this is the only source you have. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything "at the top of this discussion". I am merely a contributor to this discussion, which was started by someone else. Note that it is not necessary for sources and links to be "academic". This article was written by the BBC, which is certainly among the most reliable and prestigious news organisations in the world. Actually, I agree with you - it's worth a sentence, perhaps in the Culture section, but nothing more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.61.144 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium on photos?

Over the past few months, several editors (myself included) have voiced concerns about the flooding of this article with useless, decorative photos. Many photos serve little purpose but to show off. In particular, the Economy, Education, and Demographics sections tend to get useless fluff photos; on the other hand, some sections lack photos (for example, the History section doesn't have any historically significant images).

I'm thinking it might be nice to set a 'rule' that people shouldn't add photos without first proposing/discussing them at the talk page. We could stick hidden comments at the top of each section. Does anyone else agree that something like this should be done? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree - esp. when the amount of images forces them to be left-right-left-right-aligned just so they won't make the page too long. Nothing against left-alignment, but when the combined height of the pictures exceeds the amount of text, something s wrong... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's currently a computer-generated image of a boat in Incheon which isn't real, and a nationalistic growth-rate graph with a Korean flag on it constructed out of only three data points. Both of these should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyper-Nationalism

There is a problem on this article. A big one. When you read this article, after having read many other articles on countries, you can't help but notice the extreme level of nationalism on this article compared to others. Yes country articles are bound to have some nationalism, but read the articles on say Australia or Canada and you'll see what I mean. There's an enormous difference. For starters those articles actually describe the country. This article is only a list of rankings for South Korea. Read the economy section for instance. South Korea is the third largest, South Korea is the fifth largest, South Korea is in the top ten, South Korea is in the top 5. Compare it to the other articles. The entire section is just a list of ranks with no description of the country whatsoever. I got almost no information about what South Korea is like as a country after reading the article. Yes country articles do include when the country happens to be the largest at something. Being the largest at something can be considered relevant, but not a continuous stream of irrelevant facts about how some construction company was the sixth largest at something in a particular year and how some subway system is the ninth largest by a certain measure according to some particular website and so on. Please can we have an article which actually just talks about South Korea, rather than being simply a rankings list you might find on the Guiness World Records website. Many of the sections have far too many pictures of irrelevant things. So much so that the text is squashed between them all and the article looks like a picture book, with a massive list of irrelevant ranks between millions of pictures. The hyper-nationalism needs to be seriously curbed if this article wants to appear anything other than seriously ridiculous. Bambuway (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and these same problems have been pointed out numerous times by numerous editors. Unfortunately, cleanup tags have been repeatedly blanked by other editors, and the article has stayed more or less the same for a very long time. I pretty much gave up on this article several months ago because I was sick of dealing with the bullshit from the ultranationalist editors who frequent this page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The false good figure is surviving[2] while the true bad figure is reverted[3]. There is no credibility in this article at all. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, typically, you have failed to provide any single source for your edit here. You replaced the cited info on the 2008's statistics with the 2009 statistics with no source. Thus, what you're claiming about the bad/good figure is just "untruth". You also removed the mention of "Japan" from the article with no rationale. Please do not mix with your agenda with the article's status quo.--Caspian blue 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that phoenix777 finally decided to heed my advice about WP:V and WP:RS.[4] Wikipedians should after all try to write about "credible" contents based on sources. --Caspian blue 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenix777. You can't hold on to out of date figures and ranks simply because you prefer them. Just another example of what this discussion is all about. Bambuway (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that "out of date" should stay, but do not support any unsourced information. So, Bambuway, be careful not to throw out your bad-faith and false accusations here. Your hyperbolic thread title actually tells everything. WP:SOFIX with reliable sources instead of complaining.--Caspian blue 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Caspian is right, Bambuway. Regardless of how old the figures are, no one should be changing them without providing a source; an article like this cannot tolerate more unsourced junk. No one is "holding onto" old figures because of preference; we just hold onto what is sourced, in favor of what is not. If someone wants to provide newer figures, they also need to provide a source. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest figures confirm that South Korea has slipped to 15th in terms of economy size. This is just one of several recent stories to confirm this. http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2916336 I will add the new figure to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.33 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We already knew Republic of Korea slipped to world's 15th largest economy behind Russia, India, Australia, Brazil, etc. many years ago. Putting that issue aside, as far as economic data are concerned I think we must wait for IMF's April 2010 edition of world economic indicators for most reliable citations. I do not find it easy to believe that CIA lists ROK's economy to have shrunk 0.8% while all other reports both domestic and international claim that ROK's economy grew 0.2~0.25%. --Ambassador (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bambuway's assessment that excessive use of statistics and rankings impacts the readability of the article. Perhaps some of the details would be better relegated to footnotes? Wikipedia:Footnotes states that footnotes are appropriate for "information [that] would be distracting if written out in the main article" -- perhaps that applies here. Daram.G (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are talking about a ranking list, there was previously a ranking list before, but it was deemed to be "excessive" and removed for the same reason. Myself and other editors continuously tried to revert vandalizms in the past involving both inclusion of irrelevant unsourced information as well as unexplained removal of information, but these "nationalistic" editors keep coming back. Keeping things neutral, sourced and straight to the point is just impossible on this page. I am quite sick of it actually. couldn't agree with Rjanag anymore.Pds0101 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Democracy?

Quote: it has since developed into a successful liberal democracy. Today, the CIA World Factbook describes South Korea's democracy as a "fully functioning modern democracy." Close Quote. This is nonsense. Voting is not a sufficient condition to establish democratic rule. Korea continues as a feudal, authoritarian state, regardless of how many elections are held. This article, about a major country in Asia, isn't worth the paper it's printed on. FixMacs (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a personal opinion. You might want to look at WP:POV. However, if you are sure this is true and verifiable, find a source and add it to the article. If you feel that it isn't worth the paper it is printed on than be WP:BOLD and fix it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"feudal, authoritarian state"? This is not a North Korea article. South Korea is a fully functioning democracy as according to the global democracy index. If you have any objections, I suggest you find some sources, otherwise you can take your personal perceptions somewhere else. Pds0101 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend this as defending the article, since I agree the article does have a lot of problem...but FixMacs, this article is not printed on paper. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Orthographic projection

Yes, I am aware that there was a discussion months ago, but nothing is set in stone. Here are reasons why it should be changed.

1) The current map is not standard, many maps now use Orthographic projection. No such maps resemble features in the current map. It is important to have a sense of uniformity.

2) Orthographic projection shows South Korea's geographic locale in Asia against the current map which focuses on the tiny region. South Korea is indeed tiny. Nevertheless, it is clearly shown in orthographic projection. Anyone who can read the text on Wikipedia can see South Korea on the orthographic map.

3) The current image is quite inconvinient since it requires two separate maps, one is the close up and the second is the small mini sized world map on the bottom left corner (with little circle within it). It is much simpler to put a bigger map and it is convinient for viewers to see.

--Kingj123 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Last iteration of this discussion, where consensus was not to use orthographic projections, was Talk:South_Korea/Archive_7#orthographic_projection???. Kingj, if you really think "many" articles use orthographic projections, please provide some examples. Most articles in the encyclopedia do not use them, as a quick glance at WP:WPMAPS will show. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See [5]. Well, I agree that there are many countries that do not follow the same suit, more maps are being converted however. The argument still stands as "No such maps resemble features in the current map."

That random Commons link doesn't prove anything, except that some maps exist. It doesn't prove anything about how they're being used on Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain "No such maps resemble features in the current map." -- what do you mean? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The current map is simply not standard. The shading of the waters for example is not used in any other maps. And i do not see WHY orthographic projection is nessesarily a bad idea.

I cannot list EVERY country with orthographic projection, there are simply too many, check out china, us, japan, russia, iran, brazil, mexico, every single country in Europe (the countries are shaded green and grey) except vatican city, canada, and much much more.--Kingj123 (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

if the shaded water is your issue, we can change that. I still don't see why making Korea look like fly's poop-dropping on a huge globe is of any benefit... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

and change Korea to green and rest to grey. It would be appreciated if you can do that too.--Kingj123 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... we have that one already (File:Locator map of South Korea.svg), but people complained about that one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Complaining that the country is shaded green? or other reasons? I think there were other problems with that one not centered correctly...Well I am complaining about this one so --Kingj123 (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one complaining. Last time I took the time to seek an outside opinion, and the editor who commented (a member of WikiProject Maps) said that the orthographic map was not as good in this case. You have never taken the time to seek an outside opinion in this discussion, and are just being a broken record (repeating yourself over and over again). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you flattening my complaint just because I am the only one? In fact, no formal vote has been done plus, there was no consensus if you see the talk page more carefully. I have gave up on orthographic map didn't I. I have just suggested shading Korea green like other countries mentioned, I mean how could that be a problem for anyone? you? --Kingj123 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I will change the map since no one is replying.--Kingj123 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People have replied and objected to your change; you can't go ahead with it just because you're willing to keep doing it longer than anyone else. If you want to change consensus, consider asking for a third opinion or posting a message at WikiProject Maps. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no one objected so far. You too.

• Why can't Korea be shaded green and others shaded in grey? Should Korea be associated with colour red unlike other nations such as Etria, US, China, Japan, all of Europe, Australia, all of south east asia which are coloured in green ...  ?
• The body of water should be in uniform colour.

"if the shaded water is your issue, we can change that." Choyoo

Please take time to ANSWER the question not repeating yourself that you have answered already (I assume that you cannot respond). Kingj123 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this thread about the orthographic projection, or about changing the color of the map? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I dropped my support for Orthographic projection, since for several users South Korea appeared to be tiny. Anyways, I think it would be appropriate to change the colour of the map.--Kingj123 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is no one responding?? I will have to change the map if no one responds.--Kingj123 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current color scheme for countries. I did not checked all other country articles, but green–grey is not universal among FA-Class country articles. On the other hand, I support making the body of water in uniform color. --Kusunose 06:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, majority of the colours are grey and green. Yes there are no universal consensus of colouring the countries on the map, however, only African countries and Israel are coloured red with other countries within their maps in beige colours. Canada, Peru, Belgium, Germany, Belarus, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Australia and Japan are coloured in grey-green. I am not saying that the red-coloured countries are necessarily inferior and that Korea should not be associated with them, but simply I think grey-green appears to be standard for many notable countries around the world, Asia (China, Japan, all Southeast Asia, South Asia, Middle East) Australias (Australia, New Zealand, most of island nations), Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Chile and more), North America, Entire Europe, Russia... everywhere except Africa (I think African maps should be changed too, but that's separate issue) and other small examples elsewhere. Even North Korea is coloured in green-grey and it seems too odd that south is shaded in red. It used to be green-grey but it was changed.

I mean it is not a big deal, but why are some users strongly object to my changes and insist on red colour?

Anyways, according to the users. The current map does not work and it should be changed due to the water shading.--Kingj123 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Locator map of South Korea.svg300px

Water shading is easy enough to change. Leave a message with User:Seb az86556 and he should be able to make a new map without shading.

Also, please indent your posts properly to make the thread easier to read. See the tutorial for further explanation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

... and turn the map grey-green, the way it used to be and the way most countries use them.--Kingj123 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, no one other than you has said it should be grey-green. It was made red at the specific request of a member of WikiProject Maps. There is no reason to change the color if you simply keep insisting on a "consensus" of one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free to be changed by any user if there is no constructive objection and this is reinforced by the founder's vision "of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people", it is not controversial. It is simply ridiculous for some ambiguous member that you know have ordered South Korea to be coloured in red permanently and object to every other colour besides red (I am not decorating the map with polka dots or anything, just plain standard grey-green). There is no reason to change it to red in the first place.You need to provide me name of the user, date and justification or else what you have just written above is meaningless. --Kingj123 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I provided that over a week ago when I provided a link to the previous iteration of this discussion, which you clearly have not read. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also your arguments are fallacious since you are insisting on popular ideas without a formal poll (Argumentum ad populum) and also making conclusions on the basis that no one supports my opinion (the fact that no one supports my opinion does not necessarily mean that every user opposes my stance) (Argument from ignorance)--Kingj123 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I urge more users to participate and I am open to any constructive objection to my arguments. --Kingj123 (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did read but the thing I didn't get is that you were the only one who insisted on the red colouring in the link you have gave me. Seriously, I don't know what your motivation is, but you are concerned with the colour green-grey. Why are you concerned? Why don't we go with the standard and change it back it used to be? You are dragging this conversation as if you don't have much to say. If you cannot present concrete argument in support for red, I will change the map the way it used to be. You seem to really like colour red but it doesn't worth fighting over. --Kingj123 (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't read it carefully. The user who suggested the color change was Kmusser. [6] rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the link you have given to me Talk:South_Korea/Archive_7#orthographic_projection??? there are less users supporting red if not alone.--Kingj123 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you a direct diff. Can you read that? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know to what you are referring to. I get that [7], but I don't see why that argument does no refer to China, Japan, US, Entire European Countries and many more. Is there something wrong with South Korea that it should be discriminated against?

Simply said, we want to keep it grey-green since it is standard. Why green? I am not sure, if Japan, China, US, India, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Greece, Iran, Russia, Taiwan (ROC), Malasia, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand,Soviet Union, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.... and a lot of countries are coloured in red I have no say, in fact I would endorse red. But right now your argument that South Korea should be coloured in red is clearly not supported, and you are helplessly quoting people on your side (1 person so far). As I have repeated myself, please state the reason why South Korea must be coloured in red while all of its neighbours, Russia, China, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan are all in green-grey version. --Kingj123 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The red/beige would be the WP:Maps standard, that said that standard hasn't been adopted by WP:Countries and in terms of article usage the red/beige series and green/grey series are about even, so use whichever you'd like. Kmusser (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It seems like both ways work, I'd prefer green-grey in accordance to its neighbours and the usage by most notable nations around the world. --Kingj123 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The previous green-grey map was removed for specific reasons (described in the discussion above; I think it was something to do with the map's resolution). If you want a green-grey map added, you are welcome to get a new one made (by asking User:Seb az86556, who is experienced with .SVGs, or by posting a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. But you should not edit-war to put in a map that has already been rejected for other reasons. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolution doesn't have a whole lot of meaning when you're talking about SVG as it's a vector format, that's part of the whole point of converting stuff to SVG. Kmusser (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I fully respect your concern, and I will ask Seb az86556 for replacement of previous green-grey if needed. But I don't think it is necessary to put the old red-beige water gradient map as substitute. --Kingj123 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingj123 contacted me to make changes to the map. Is this now consensus? Not to be lazy, but I don't wanna have to change this thing over and over again. Please comment before I get busy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

yes.Kingj123 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

use of the word Takeshima in the article

I think that either we should use both the Korean and Japanese name for this disputed territory, or we should stick to just the English name. Either choice is fine by me. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion?カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I do, I just didn't want to comment before that edit-war-thing is resolved. I tend to agree with you (> English only) (I could probably dig up something from "naming conventions"), as long we find a way to link to the article on the dispute - I'm just not sure where that could be done w/o breaking the prose. (I can promise you, though, that whatever the outcome of this may be, it probably won't last long...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(hm... naming conventions seems to apply to titles only)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) also deals with usage in the article contents. Only place it talks about foreign language names or local names in the context of article text is its general guidelines section, for the lead section in the article of topic in question (#2). For the contents in general (#3), it talks nothing about foreign language names. --Kusunose 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think English only is fine, or both (something like: "the Liancourt Rocks (known as Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese)"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If we go for both, then stating it once should be sufficient... somebody was actually trying to be pointy and add the phrase after every instance it pops up in the text. That gets tiresome... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care which is used, but I do agree that if both names are mentioned - they should be mentioned only once. I see using the Korean name only is a sneaky way of getting around the rules that have been set on the actual Liancourt article. I do think that the Japan article should match the Korea article and have exactly the same naming. I will give this a little more time, to see if there are any different opinions and give the blocked editor time to get off his block and comment before I change the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sennen goroshi. Either choice is fair and NPoV and is fine with me too. Oda Mari (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Use Liancourts, and then other disputed names in () brackets, in order of native name. So then, on the South Korea article, we have "Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima)" and on the Japan article we have "Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo)". It is only fair that both sides are represented equally. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Benlisquare - it seems petty but the order of the names need to reflect the article in question, otherwise we are just going to have editors changing the order to reflect their own agendas. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I've seen it happen all the time. For instance, I've had IP editors change the ordering of "Chinese, Japanese, Korean"; "Korean, Chinese, Japanese"; "Japanese, Korean, Chinese"; etc. all the time on East Asian age reckoning and a whole heap of other articles. Seems pointless, but strangely enough it happens. I mean, is it really that big a deal? The funny side of nationalism... :O -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#general guidelines specifies the order of foreign language name, alphabetical order or local official name first(As an exception to alphabetical order). However, if an alphabetical order is adopted, Korean will accuse Japanese imperialism forced to change Corea to Korea??[8] It is better not to dare to adopt an alphabetical order in this case. As for mentioning once, "The lead" should be read "The first occurrence of the word" in that guideline. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording "Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean)", though I would italicize Dokdo. The topic here is South Korea so giving the local name used in the country makes sense. As for the Japanese name, not; adding it just for the sake of equality, to put it strongly, violates WP:UNDUE. The use of the Korean name here, in my opinion, is just to be informative, not to advance the Korean point of view it is their territory. If I were to choose, I'd rather remove it than to add the Japanese name. Those names are available in the linked article so removing them does not hurt this article much. Inserting the local names, on the other hand, breaks the prose, especially when it becomes long. --Kusunose 14:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima. Dokdo is Dokdo which Korea rules over. I do not agree it is a disputing territory, it's just Japanese argument. --Cheol (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Did we finish this talk? someone made a change which I suppose we are talking about. You have to discuss at first. --Cheol (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Cheol, just because you consider Takeshima to be Korean does not make it relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned - it is disputed. If just giving an opinion was grounds for changing an article, I would change every reference of Liancourt or Dokdo to Takeshima, as I consider it to be Japanese territory that is currently illegally occupied by Korea - but that opinion, just like yours, is irrelevant. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about South Korea, not to spread your claims, but to describe Korea. We don't need to mention every claim here. I think you could change the name of Dokdo into Takeshima when the claiming government send her troops there. It seems not possible. --Cheol (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kusunose, I would agree with you that a local name and the English name should normally be enough, however the Japanese name could be considered as for many people Takeshima is Japanese and the dispute is enough to make it relevant. An easy solution is to have neither the Japanese nor the korean name. Also the inclusion of the korean name without the Japanese name is being used by some editors as a way to push their POV regarding ownership of Takeshima. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheol, strange you should say that it does not seem possible for Japanese troops to come to Takeshima, Japanese troops have already shown their capability to take over the entire korean nation, so a few rocks wouldn't prove hard for them. Either way, I have had enough of your pro-korean whining, when I see a comment that is relevant to Wikipedia procedures, I will comment again. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sennen, I mentioned the ground which is the fact that Korea governs the islets. To judge whether it is legal or illegal is not your job. The name, Liancourt Rocks, it is adopted not because it's a disputed territory, but because it's a well known name for english speaking people. Do not spread your claims in this article, this is not a battle field. --Cheol (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheol, this is not constructive. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue over whether a well-documented dispute exists. You appear to be POV-pushing. There is already a strong consensus that this dispute exists and will be mentioned in the article; if you think there is no such dispute, then you should deal with that in other avenues. Specifically, you should start a separate discussion about removing mention of it from the article entirely, and you should take Liancourt Rocks dispute to WP:AfD. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I accept I mentioned some of my own opinion. But all comments are not related to my POV. This is an article for Korea, not for Japan, so we don't need to mention it by Japanese word. That's what I mostly wanted to talk. --Cheol (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dokdo, Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima all work since they at least refer to the same islets. However, I think Liancourt Rocks is the most appropriate name in English Wikipedia simply because it is an English name. We use local names when there are no English substitutes (Honshu and Kyushu have no English names so we adopt the local names). Question of who controls there and to whom the islet belongs to is a whole different story which readers can find out if they bother. --Kingj123 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this an advertisement?

Just asking because every two sentences I read that South Korea is the best at this and that, or that it is the 6th ranked and 2nd ranked at this or whatever. I'm not sure. It also seems like a picture book. I was planning on making a short project on South Korea, but I'm not sure I can say that I will use this page as a source. It has alot of good information, however, its far too biased and even nationalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.101.64 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use this article as a source for your project. It is overrun by nationalist editors and most serious editors have long since given up on it.

In fact, you should be cautious about using Wikipedia for any project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Economics section which is indeed poor. I think there are some users (presumably Koreans) who are simply obsessed with the rank. Also, the image to the right File:South Korea's GDP (nominal) growth from 1960 to 2007 shows South Korean flag and superficial graph of south Korea's economy shooting up. Seriously, South Korea economy suffered downfall during Asian financial crisis and various hiccups from time to time which are clearly not reflected in this simple exponential graph.

South Korea economy section should start like "South Korea's strength lies in electronics manufacture, ship building..." or "South Korea is main exporter of electronics..." instead of "South Korea is number 3 at electronics, number 1 in ship building, and by the way we are also number one in ..." and so on. This will definitely make the article sound much more professional. To all "nationalists" out there, ranks do not make South Korea appeal to the world, it sounds too shallow as though the whole country is obsessed with trivial ranks. I mean it is good to be number one, but the section really needs to be packaged and weeded so that accomplishments are presented in more professional matter. --Kingj123 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)