Talk:South Korea

---

Opening introduction/Lead

When we first come into a wikipedia article about a country, nation or a state, we know that the lead is one of the most important sections of the page as it is opening and introduction to a user. I have seen many, so many other country articles and I have to say with absolute honesty that the lead for South Korea is probably the most strikingly bad introduction. Economic, scientific, military and educational achievements take up more than half the physical contents of the opening lead. Why is there a need to include things such as vise waiver, top scientific literacy and having a strong cultural influence? This is completely unacceptable. There are also other wealthy major economies in the world that have achieved just as much or more that Korea, but when you compare South Korea's lead to other countries, Its fair to say that it is overly positive. This article is already detailed enough and mentions all and more of what is in the introduction. It even has a ranking table in the end; Something which most country articles don't have. I am very aware of, and have for a while kept my eyes on edits made by users such as Sennen goroshi who make rather distruptive changes or cause vandalism(but not always). However, these attacks are a common occurance on country related articles, and there are also those who wish to present a more constructive and neutral point of view. I will put forward a new toned-down introduction to the article which can address as many relevant points as possible. Pds0101 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

An assessment of the Introduction

Compare the introduction to this article to the Korean-language Wikipedia. The difference is amazing! The Korean introduction has three paragraphs that briefly describe Korea: 1) the country, its capitol and its form of government, 2) the fact that Korean has grown from a war-ravaged country to a strong economy (mentioning "miracle of the Han River"), 3) and a distinction between North and South Korea. These are the essential facts that describe South Korea.

On the other hand, the English-language introduction overuses superlatives, and while factual, the overstatement of fact lessens the credibility of the article. Others who have commented make the same argument, which I'll restate: overstatement and redundant superlatives confuse the reader, and make an immediate, negative impression of Korea. Consider the difference between the Korean- and English-language introductions:

Comparison of Korean- and English-language Wikipedia

Korean wiki	English wiki
Seoul is the capitol.	Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world.
The president and the head of state, is Lee Myung-bak, the 17th president of the Republic of Korea. The prime minister is Han Seung-soo, and the chairman of the National Assembly is Kim Hyeon-goh.	Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, first inhabited as early as the Lower Paleolithic. Following the unification of the Three Korean Kingdoms under Silla in 668 AD, Korea went through the Goryeo and Joseon Dynasty as one nation until the end of the Korean Empire in 1910. After liberation and division, South Korea was established in 1948 and has since become one of the two full democracies in Asia.
...a war-ravaged county, the economy has grown to 13th-ranked GDP in the world.	Following the Korean War, the South Korean economy grew significantly, transforming the country into a major global economy. ... South Korea is a developed country. It is the second most prosperous major economy in Asia and a High-income OECD member, classified as an Advanced economy by the CIA and IMF. South Korea's exponential economic growth is called the Miracle on the Han River and earned the distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger in the world. Today, it is leading the Next Eleven nations and its economic success is a role model for many developing countries.
DPRK is North Korea... Republic of Korea is South Korea...	South Korea shares the most heavily-fortified border in the world with its only land neighbor, North Korea.
—	South Korea has a high-tech and futuristic infrastructure, and is a world leader in technologically advanced goods such as electronics, automobiles, ships, machinery, petrochemicals and robotics, headed by Samsung, LG, Hyundai-Kia and Hyundai Heavy Industries. It is a global leader in the fields of education, having the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy. South Korea was also estimated, in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, to have the second highest average national IQ.
—	Since the 21st century, South Korea's modern culture has become popular in Asia and beyond in a phenomenon known as the Korean wave.
—	South Korea has an international outlook with memberships in the United Nations, WTO, OECD and G-20 major economies. It is also a founding member of APEC and the East Asia Summit, being a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

Proposed change to the Introduction

Simply put… follow the example of the Korean-language article. Reduce the introduction to the essential facts about Korea. Eliminate overstated facts and facts that belong in the body of the article:

• second highest average national IQ, (deleted by another editor, please discuss before restoring this information)
• high-tech and futuristic,
• major global economy,
• advanced technology world leader,
• most heavily fortified border,
• world's highest…,
• global leader in…,
• modern culture [is] popular… Korean wave,
• second most prosperous major economy,
• leading the Next Eleven nations,
• role model for developing countries,
• distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger,
• one of the two full democracies in Asia, etc.

Many of these facts have a place in the body of the article, or spread out in the related main articles. But in the introduction, the concentration of non-stop superlatives is off-putting to the reader. The problem is not a POV issue in the literal sense, but rather in the tone of the text and how it's presented. Other sections of the article need the same reduction of concentrated superlatives, but trimming the introduction is the first step. Comments welcomed! --Mtd2006 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For more discussion about the intro, please read Cherry picking. --Mtd2006 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall content of the article

I agree about the introduction. Second-highest IQ is a complete nonsence, some unserious wikipedians even tried to add this variable to the country template; role model should be removed, the full democracy thing should be removed too. There could be some argue on the other points, but personally I agree on removing them too. One more thing should be noted though. North Koreans and South Koreans are not separate nations, it's a single nation divided in two different countries. Yet, when I compare the two articles, I have the feeling I am reading information about two countries which have absolutely nothing in common. South Korea is presented as something like a "legitimate" Korea, while North Korea is presented simply as an opressive and poor regime without any past. Either the "History" and "Culture" sections here should be shortened, or a similar amount of information on these sections should be added in the North Korea article. And finally - The Land of the Morning Calm thing should be cleared. Both countries are being called with this name. - Tourbillon ^A ? 11:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for changing the introduction. You're right that North and South Korea are one divided nation. Since you mentioned the North Korea article, it says that "the two nations are officially still at war with each other," and "Both nations were accepted into the United Nations in 1991." I've avoided that problem in the South Korea article when I said, "After World War II, Korea was partitioned into two political entities..."

IMHO, it's tragic that Korea is divided politically, economically and militarily. Before the mid 1940s, history and cultural heritage are common to both North and South, and the Korea article includes this common heritage.

I believe there's a simple explanation for the detail in the South Korea article and lack of detail in the North Korea article. The reason is that independent, verifiable information about the South is easy to find, while it's difficult to do the same for information concerning the North.

Regarding "Land of the Morning Calm," there's some explanation in the Names of Korea article, and the South Korea and Korea articles mention it. The North Korea article has no mention. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is not that the South Korea article is too detailed, what I want to say is that it concerns a lot more of Korea's history than the North Korea article, thus this difference in the two articles somewhat makes it look that the ROK is the legitimate successor of Korea, and the DPRK is just a mistake in Korean history, which is by any point of view, wrong. History and culture sections here should be a bit shorter, and more info in the same sections at North Korea should be added. And I suppose that a lot of reliable source on Korea's pre-WW II history are available. On my hand, I have a few 1950s DPRK books with interesting topics on Korean folklore, which, I believe, could be used as reliable sources.

By the way, would it be appropriate to copy the "Before division" section in the North Korea article ? A few changes will be made, maybe a bit more accent will be put on Goguryeo, which dominated the northern part of the peninsula. "After division" will make up for the rest of the "History" section there.- Tourbillon ^A ? 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the North Korea article in any detail. It would be better to discuss it at Talk:North Korea. However, you're right, "Before division" needs a different perspective from the South article; "After division" even more so. Shouldn't the History section of the North article draw heavily from the History of North Korea main article? I see you fixed the "nations" problem. Certainly, the North and South articles should have impartial treatment and neutral language that presents them equally. From a quick read, I think that the perception that the North is "a mistake in Korean history" lies in subtle ways in which the North article is worded. On the other hand, in many sections, the North article is superior because of its neutral language and balanced content. Mtd2006 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia's editing community and I apologize in advance if I make any mistakes or give any offense. This may be but a minor aspect of the article but I have found it strange that although South Korea is listed as a semi-presidential government, the link that directs the user to the semi presidential system article presents South Korea as, in fact, a presidential one. In addition, I must question the validity in listing South Korea as either of the two choices. I say this because presidential and semi-presidential are hardly definitive systems of government. For the sake of consistency and familiarity, I must humbly suggest it to be changed to Constitutional Republic. This would make it comprehensive and more informative than simply presidential or semi-presidential. DaShFuZe (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-wrote the intro today, changing passively-voiced sentences to the active voice, adding some details from the early to mid 20th century, toning down the worst of the superlatives, and generally tidying it up. I still think "Land of the Morning Calm" should be removed from the intro, as it has a boastful tone, Korea's not widely known by this name except among Koreans, and it's a misnomer as Korea is not a quiet country. An analogy: the article on the United States doesn't say "Also known as the Land of the Free". Some terms such as "full democracy" are also not widely used in English. The sources show that they are, in fact, terms only used by individual bodies such as The Economist magazine. I left most of these things in, as I didn't want my edits to be too controversial. Comments welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Establishment 2333 B.C.

This is not to offend anyone, but this [1] (or this [2]) proves nothing about 2333 B.C. It only discusses Dangun's myth is exploited for Korean's "Cultual Identity". Please provide another reliable/verifiable source. And please cite source more accurately. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If your purpose is not offend anyone, you already fail by using the offensive sentence; exploited for Korean's "Cultual[sic] Identity". You already provide the date, so what are you trying to stir up?--Caspian blue 00:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at it in a realistic fashion. Once you get into a history that goes as far back as this one, you will never find anything that would qualify as "reliable sources" in the modern sense of the word. All nations/countries that were founded before, say, the birth of Christ trace their story back to what any skeptic can contest as a "myth." Archeological evidence and radio carbon-dating can only give you approximate numbers. Nonetheless, many countries maintain these ancient claims. Well-known examples include Egypt with its Pharaos, the Great Zimbabwe in Southern Africa, and - most notably - Iceland's epic Eddas. This is precisely the reason why the footnote explicitly does and should read "according to oral tradition."

I challenge anyone who contests the given year to provide sources that prove otherwise -- in a waterproof and reliable way according to current scientific methods. Until then, we should accept modern-day Korea's assertions in a mystical and anecdotal context, just as we accept Scandinavia's Viking-stories.

Seb az86556 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So "South Korea" was founded in 2333 B.C. now? The fact is, Tangun and 2333 are national myths. 2333 is a "magic" date, and Tangun was used as a symbol to unify the Korean nation/people. As implied in [3] it is a "myth" manufactured / exploited for nationalistic purposes. As an encyclopedia we should acknowledge it as myth/literature, and that the government pushes it as a national myth, but we should not give it validity as historical fact. If we're going to do so, why not go whole-hog and validate North Korea's form of nationalism: "Pyongyang... has the longest history as the capital city in the world. People have inhabited Pyongyang... from more than a million years ago... Tangun, ancestral father of the Korean nation who was born in Pyongyang, founded Kojoson (ancient Korea), the first state of Korea, in the early 30th century BC and set up the capital here." A sentence like "Korean history begins with the founding of Gojoseon in 2333 BCE by Dangun," is the slightly milder South Korean form of nationalism, but still it's about as appropriate in an encyclopedia as quoting WWII-era "Aryan race"-poppycock as the founding of the Germanic people... Its presence in this article should make us wonder how far we should put our faith in "consensus" in some articles... no wonder some of us avoid some articles like the plague... Dekkappai (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds like if we leave that number in the infobox, Koreans will go out into the world, gassing Jew, butchering Indians, and shipping millions of Africans into slavery. Either you're overstating Korean nationalism or understating Aryanism. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he's making a valid point, even if it is overstated a little. It's hard to understand until you've actually lived in South Korea for a considerable period (as I have), but there is definitely a think called "Korean Pride" that infuses Korean attitudes to many things, including this Wikipedia article. It's one of the reasons there are so many edit wars on this page - a proud Korean sees a favourable fact in an article, cut-and-pastes it into "South Korea", and it gets attacked by foreign editors for being yet another ranking/peacock term/cherry-picked fact, and so on. It happens, and it's a problem. In terms of the 2333BC thing, I would suggest re-phrasing the sentence so that it starts "According to Korean mythology, the nation was founded in ... by..."

South Korea's orthographic projection

Just wondering, what are people's opinion on File:South_Korea_(orthographic_projection).svg? Sourside21 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

makes the country look very small... in general, I prefer the maps used for African countries (beige-ish land, light blue Ocean, country in red) Seb az86556 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Best thing would be to make a new map that actually gives something larger when you click on it. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but South Korea IS small. And before anyone accuses me of anything, I am Korean myself. Anyways, in my humble opinion, this map is suitable for North Korea, suitable for South Korea, and should be kept the way it is. I see no other consensus. And please stop undoing my edits unless you actually have a valid reason for doing so, :) Sourside21 (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone. At the moment, I do not exactly recall where it is, but others have voiced their opposition to the orthographic version as well. I do not really care, but be prepared to get reverted by others as well. So go ahead and change it again, but you will most likely have to check up on the article almost every day. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no care for coming to this article "almost every day", but until someone actually shows me this overwhelming consensus that I haven't seen any evidence of, I will be happy to click history -> undo on my weekly/biweekly visits to this article. Thank you! Sourside21 (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: In an effort to prevent an edit war from happening, I have started this discussion on this talk page. I suggest everyone who has anything to say about this topic participate in this discussion, as I have. Thank you. Sourside21 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional discussion: I suggest that users here arrive at a consensus that the orthographic projection is suitable for Japan, suitable for North Korea, and suitable for South Korea. Unless there are valid reasons provided to the contrary, I'd say the consensus should remain at thus. Additionally, instead of inciting a edit war by undoing my edits, please bring the discussion to this topic on this talk page. Thank you, :) Sourside21 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The projection is unsuitable for North Korea - just because it has been used there, doesn't mean it should be used for South Korea. This is consensus outside the South Korean article.09:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.148.104.47 (talk • contribs)

I would argue orthographic projections are suitable for both North Korea and South Korea, and because it is used in one, consistency should be maintained instead of simply being undone, so I would appreciate if you stopped undoing my edits. Thank you for your cooperation. Additionally, this consensus does not exist; if it does, show me. Again, thank you for your cooperation. Sourside21 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that you, 112.148.104.47, have continuously undone my edits; that last time was your 4th time. Do not continue to undo my edits until consensus has been established and shown. Thank you for your cooperation. Sourside21 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Both of you are edit warring and need to stop; no one is in the "right" here. I'm going to list a request for a third opinion at WP:3O; in the meantime, both of you would be well-off to avoid reverting each other. No one is going to die if one map or the other is up for a couple days, and after someone else comes in we can hopefully get some more discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a recent message from User:Kmusser, who says no formal guideline exists for flat/orthographic maps but recommends using the flat one (with some color changes). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. I'll try to take care of that (as SVG) in the next few days. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Kmusser that the flat map is preferable. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Color change implemented. Map now in line with User:Ramiy/Location Maps @ wikicommons. North Korea coming up in a few. available as LocationNorthKorea.svg Seb az86556 (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: LocationJapan.svg, LocationMongolia.svg Seb az86556 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Input needed on (n)pov

These two edits [4][5] look, respectively, like whitewashing sourced historical/environmental information, and adding in POV, advertisement-y language (like most of this article, the section now reads like a pro-SK propaganda brochure). I didn't want to do a wholesale revert without discussion because there is probably some salvageable information here, but I think it at least needs to be rewritten. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent over the removal of cited and uncited (negative) information because that information seem to be originally inserted long ago by a persistent POV sockpuppeter residing in Seoul. The sockpuppeter disrupted the article with the enviornment section until indefed. However, the new addition is going toward the opposite way in some way but eventually similar POV pushing with some dubious sources.--Caspian blue 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The environment section needs a complete re-write now. A sockpuppeter, milkmooney, has turned it into a one-sided propaganda piece - "Seoul's water is so clean..."!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.190 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Developed Country?

Is this article written by some nationalist blind to the truth? Is S Korea really a developed country? Most of S Korea is, shall we say, rather backward. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Developed country" is an economic term used by the CIA, UN, and other organizations, and is clearly defined. There are sources for its use in this article, and it has been discussed many times. It's not about your personal feelings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Goverment System

Written at South Korea PMO, Members of the Cabinet are collectively and individually responsible to the President only. In Semi-presidential system, as a contrast, the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence. Also, prime minister of South Korea is the principal executive assistant to the President, and he/she supervises the administrative ministries and manages the Office for Government Policy Coordination under the direction of the President. Clockoon (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Government of South Korea article does appear to say that SK's cabinet is subject to the legislature (especially in that the cabinet can be impeached by then), which apparently is a feature of semi-presidential government. But I don't know anything about SK politics so I will refrain from making comment one way or the other on this; I was just throwing that observation out there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

SK's cabinet is subject mainly to the president, partly to the legislature. If a person want to be a member of cabinet, he/she must pass the hearing of the legislature, but the final decision is only up to the president. adidas (talk)

Here is an useful article in Wikipedia. --Zepelin (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential_system#Characteristics_of_presidents

Presidents in presidential systems are always active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as Weimar Germany, South Korea or the Republic of China (on Taiwan), there is an office of prime minister or premier but, unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.

Presidential_system#Republics_with_a_presidential_system_of_government

... Seychelles, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Uganda, United States, Uruguay, Sierra Leone, Zambia

As a South Korean, it seems to be rediculous that South Korea is a Semi-presidental country. Here exists the prime minister, but he is just a 'minister' nothing more. Recently, some politicians here are talking about constitutional amendment mainly focused on changing goverment system from presidental to semi-presidental(or parlimentary). It the constitution is amended, then the new seat for vice-president will be placed same as US. see this [6] adidas (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that South Korea is probably a presidential system, not semi-presidential. The problem is that we (and also sources) cannot really tell until South Korea undergoes a form of cohabitation. I cannot find anything that suggests the Prime Minister can develop an independent power base, or has a separate sphere of influence (for example domestic politics as opposed to the President's foreign policy domain), and the title "Prime Minister" appears to be cosmetic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion

If most of the population is non-religious and only 22.8% is mainstream-Buddhism, then why is there only a picture which represents the Buddhists? Invmog (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that way before. This is how it looked back in January, when I first got involved with this ridiculous article. This is how it looked a couple months ago (little changes, other than excising some images and the inexplicable removal of some references). Since then it has obviously been screwed around with (which seems to be what happens with everything in this article...what a surprise). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

orthographic projection???

current image has a low resolution.

South Korea (orthographic projection).svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingj123 (talk • contribs)

It was decided in a discussion above that we would use the locator map, not the orthographic projection. Do not change this without starting a discussion and seeking consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

a) Current map is an .svg (vector-graphic) which, by definition, doesn't have a resolution, but rather just a nominal default resoltion.

b) Current map is nominally 1,000 × 500 pixels. You were trying to replace it with a map that's nominally 541 × 541 pixels. Do the math Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if you have misunderstood, I am not talking about pixels (or size of the image) but the "map quality." the current map is just a low resolution map expanded in size (thus higher pixels). If you compare the two maps, the newer one has greater details. {{subst:uw-unsigned|Kingj123}}

I think the original image (file was overwritten, see below) is more suitable. than in terms of details (islands). The current map is skewed to the left like a Mollweide projection. --Kingj123 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, that's why there's called "locator maps." Their purpose is to simple give people an idea where in the world the country in question is. There are not supposed to show every detail. (Example: if you happen to live on the Comoros, "your" home won't really be visible on the map, either. So if you happen to live on Cheju, the locator map won't show your island.) If you would like to see a detailed map in the article, we can talk about that; but then please get one that is really detailed. Having said that, I will soon adjust the indicated borders to make them thinner. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the (file was overwritten, see below) is approperiate since the country is centered on the map, not skewing towards the right. I know it is not a big deal, and Of course, i don't expect a map that will nessesarily show every house in the country, but the more detail the map is the more accurate it is (even locator maps) so why don't we just switch back to the original one? --Kingj123 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

because it's smaller. Click on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

why does the size matter if both images are larger than the given space in the article?--Kingj123 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's why: because people who want to see more will click on the map to see it larger. In the case of the map you suggested they will get exactly the same small size they have already seen in the box since your suggested version is not larger than what's in the box. In the case of the current map, they'll get one that covers almost half a screen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, why don't we compromise with this? I agree with both points are valid, so edited the old image a bit (I want North Korea to be differentiated from other neighboring countries). I like the "shape" of Kingj123's map which does loo properly, but Seb az86556's map looks the shape of Korean peninsular distorted, but the color looks better. What do you think about this one? Since it is just for test, I guess if we settle down with this, I will ask the original creator of the map to amend the map.--Caspian blue 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Amending isn't the problem, I can do that. We're looking for an .svg. The North-Korea-in-green is... very much POV. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This one is just "test" as I stated above while the original one is SVG, and could not be lost its quality even if it is magnified. If we can reach a consensus, I was planning to ask the original creator of the map to fix any problems raised with his original SVG file. Why do you think that North Korea in light green is a very much POV? I've seen the part of North Korea on many locator maps are colored differently from China/Russia/Japan and both states officially claim to take the whole peninsular, so I don't think that is my POV. I'm getting to feel bad for the accusation.--Caspian blue 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. I changed both colors and size. (as for the light-green-thing, it wasn't an "accusation per se, and no-one is "on trial" here. I just don't think we should get into these kinds of fights.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Inserted this one. It's the exact same map that was suggested, except for color-scheme and size. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just a nitpick, would it be possible to have the colour in green rather than red? I just noticed all other geographic maps of countries are in green as well. Was there a specific reason for the red? Pds0101 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It was made red to be consistent with the category of locator maps that it goes into (somewhere on Commons; Seb az86556 probably has the link). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 SVG-transition (not all maps completed yet). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, original uploader treats the map as his own...so I uploaded the new version again separately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gini coefficients for Korea and Japan

Before the edit summaries get too stroppy, I thought I'd start a section here.

user:Tankiona is perfectly justified in citing the CIA world factbook, as it's an RS. However, (and this is the first time I've ever seen this) the world factbook is simply wrong with its figure on Japan of 38.1, particularly for 2002. Many other sources will give you gini coefficients in the 20s or low thirties for more recent figures, but wherever there is comparable data, Korea's Gini is above Japan's. For example, from the OECD Japan/Korea desk in 2007 we have this pdf on page 19, which puts Japan at 32-ish and Korea at 34-ish. The World Bank figures (unfortunately over a range of years) give Japan a gini of 24.9 in 1993, with Korea at 31.6 in 1998. There is no way that the CIA factbook can be right in Japan suddenly developing inequality to match that of the US in such a short space of time. Furthermore, there are numerous scholars who all take Japan as one of the more equal societies in the OECD. From this we read "Are there any Asian countries that are as equitable as or more equitable than Japan? There are none." here is another example, approving of HDR figures as a method of comparison. In addition, one of the latest books studying international inequality (Wilkinson, Richard; Pickett, Kate (2009). The Spirit Level. Penguin. ISBN 978-1-846-14039-6. has Japan as one of the most equal in the industrialised world.

Crucially, although the UN HDR tables admit problems in comparing the data, it is not clear at all where the CIA gets their figures from because they do not give references. They do not operate the same level of on-the-ground social and economic research as the World Bank, UN or OECD, so the numbers are derived from other sources. As their figures do not accord with any other major source, we have to presume they've made a mistake.

Tankonia refers in the edit summary to [File_talk:Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png]. If you check the sources they refer to, the OECD "2009 factbook" does not list 2009 figures (the figures are for 1994 for Japan, and 2006 for Korea). In the IMF report, Korea is listed as more unequal than Japan. (where Japan is listed 31.4, Korea is listed as 33.1) The source in the IMF is not clear, alas.

So there we are. No other organisation anywhere reproduces the CIA's figure, and no academic source I can find treats it seriously, except one that is so sloppy in its sourcing, it references it to the wrong organisation. It's clearly a mistake. Where Japan's gini is in the 30s, at the same time, Korea's is a little worse. In other sources, Japan's gini is down there with the Scandinavians. There just isn't enough to support a statement that Korea is the most equal of the developed Asian economies.

As a final comment, it doesn't help that Gini coefficients can be measured in many different ways - see page 122 here for an example of how different numbers are generated for the same country.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Gini Coefficient between 1984 to 2006. see http://www.nli-research.co.jp/report/econo_report/2007/ke0703.pdf --Tankiona (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that article, when using the same measure (called 二人以上全世帯, households of two or more people), Korea has a gini of 31.5ish (page 6), and Japan 28.5ish (average of two different (but close) measures given on page 3). As you can see on page 3, that particular measure produces a lower number in general. The sourcing for that piece (p.19) is even more varied than the UN HDR which you disparaged so greatly, although some of the figures do come from sources cited already that still show Korea as above Japan on Gini.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the whole reason people are coming these sources in the first place is an attempt to write pro-South Korea, POV mumbo-jumbo that has no place in an encyclopedia; if sources like the CIA factbook didn't give editors like Tankonia the opportunity to say "South Korea is the best!!!" then these editors would be ignoring them. The fact of the matter is that, as you say, there's no way to compare these GINIs across countries. The UN's HDI source explicitly says you can't make cross-country comparisons with it, and the CIA one uses different numbers from different years (which means any attempt to compare them and make statements such as "Korea has the smallest rich-poor gap" is bad, irresponsible science). There's no point mentioning any of this junk in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit strong. It has been noted in scholarly work that Japan has been remarkably equal while achieving spectacular economic growth. Equality in general, according to the thesis developed by Wilkinson and Pickett, correlates remarkably with social wellbeing, trust and overall life chances across different wealthy countries, so there does seem to be a certain degree of reliability in using things like gini.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying GINI is unreliable. I'm saying you can't compare statistics from 2002 to statistics from 2007 and then claim that one country is "better" than the other, and likewise you can't make that claim using statistics that admit they're not controlled across countries. Those two issues rule out use of both the CIA and UN sources in this article, at least for trying to make the nationalistic claim Tankonia is trying to make. Unless someone can find better sources that allow a real comparison, there is no point trying to say South Korea has the "smallest gap". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, to be fair, this problem wouldn't have arisen if the CIA factbook figure had been anything like correct or consistent. Gini wouldn't change that much over such a short period of time when there were no economic shocks, so if the CIA figures had been correct, there would have been some kind of basis for the statement. But we are both agreed that actually there are no grounds for the statement that Korea is the most equal of all the developed Asian countries.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that is continuously added to the article reads "South Korea has the smallest gaps between the rich and the poor..."

Regardless of the sources used, this is just plainly wrong. Gini coefficient in this context measures the distribution of household income. It doesn't say anything about personal income, wealth, or any other factor, such as quality of living, health, education, etc., all of which are also components of "gaps between the rich and the poor".

Unless proper sources are used, this comparison should not be inserted into the article at all. And even if good sources are used, please stop using that misleading interpretation of what the Gini coefficient measures. Baeksu (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

History Section Images

Why are there 2 images of stadiums and one image of buildings in the history section?? These images do not show any history! Nikkul (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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