Jump to content

Talk:South Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingj123 (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 6 February 2011 (→Map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:VA

Former good article nomineeSouth Korea 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 28, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


New problems (sigh...)

The "economy" section was looking okay there for a while, due to the efforts of one editor. Unfortuantely, the nationalists have been creeping back. The top of the section is now crammed with photos, so that the text is squeezed between the pix and the factbox. Very bad form from an editing point of view. I'm going to delete the photos this afternoon, but no doubt the sockpuppets and hyper-nationalists will be in there like a shot to revert. I'd appreciate some help from responsible editors with cleaning up the economy stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.56.99 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with regard to the pictures. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm the 'nationalist' editor who cut all the crap about Korea first in this, Korea first in that, and rebooted the whole economics subsection with brief descriptions of Korea's economic history few weeks back that was looking good to you. Why didn't you edit it when I first did it back then if you didn't like what I editions I made?

Why is Japan's economy subsection allowed to describe Japan's stock exchange as world's second largest while we are not allowed to describe Korea's shipbuilding industry as one of world's largest (both claims with pictures)? Why can Japan's economy subsection claim its automobile industry as being one of its key industrial sectors in its featured article (once again, with a picture) when Korea's is not allowed to? Why can't Korea's construction industry (with skyscrapers being one of the most easily visible man-made construction in any country, a good representation for describing a country's relative construction capability) symbolize Korea's rapid economic growth from a poor third world country who couldn't construct skyscrapers on its own, to a developed one who began exporting them?

Give objective answers to all those questions. We'll be able to facilitate a more constructive debate that way than just accusing someone of being a 'nationalist'. Ambassador (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were merely about the look of it. I think the solution you found (elimination of "fact-box") is -- while not perfect -- much better now. That being said, not every fact needs a picture; "benchmarking" the corresponding Japan-article might not always be good -- that one could hold just as much "fluff", depending who promoted it to its current status. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I preserved the pictures (they are not my original additions) to give a few isolated spaces for separate introductions of the specified sectors, so that the alternative method - making intermittent insertions of those individual pieces of information regarding those sectors within the 'history' section - will not break the flow of reading the paragraphs describing the South Korean economy's history. The pictures will provide the readers with basic (and easy-to-notice) cue about what Korea's foremost economic strength are - strong industries in automobile, construction, electronics, and shipbuilding, which supply the majority of Korea's export, an important information considering that export constitutes 40% of Korea's GDP - and the readers can pursue their continued readership over those subjects in the independent South Korean economy article as they see fit when it is finally and properly rebuilt.

As for the exporting of skyscrapers, pictures of foreign skyscrapers like Petronas Tower, Taipei 101, or Burj Khalifa (of which Korea had been the primary contractors) would have felt a lot more controversial to the readers and other editors than simply the domestic 63 building. There remains little doubt however that, having now built the three tallest skyscrapers in the world in recent decade, the outsourcing of Korea's advanced skyscraper-constructing industry to foreign countries is a key part of Korea's export strategy. Even if Korea's not one of the more high-ranking construction outsourcing members in the world (and comparison with other countries was not what I was doing when I introduced Korea's construction industry), the outsourcing element is still important to the economy of Korea itself, and therefore one worth mentioning when describing the economy of Korea. But a more extensive exhibition of those revelations can be included somewhere else than in the main Korean article. 63 building will suffice for now as a representation to briefly describe the significance of construction industry to Korea's economic history. Ambassador (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador, you seem to have misunderstood my initial statement. I complimented the editing that was done (presumably by you), but criticised the addition of several extra photos into the section which took place after the edits of the text (presumably this was not done by you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.22 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures were already there before I began editing. I just left them there because I thought it was a fine idea as featured articles like Japan and Germany that I made examples of had no qualms about posting a handful of pictures to serve as illustrations. I mostly did away with rankings and statistics and maintained the cues that will help the readers. Ambassador (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador, I'm sure that most other editors agree with me when I say that it's great that you have helped delete some of the rankings and statistics. The criticism of the photos is not a criticism of you, because you didn't put the photos there. Don't sweat it, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.22 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation required regarding Starcraft 2

I don't doubt that Starcraft 2 may become the most popular game in Korea right now, but I would like to see a source on it. There is a statement in the article that says:

"PC games are usually played in PC bangs which are basically internet cafes dedicated to online games such Aion, Lineage II, Sudden Attack, Kart Rider, Maple Story, Mabinogi, World of WarCraft, and StarCraft 2."

I have requested that the popularity of Starcraft 2 be cited. Starcraft 2 has only been out for a little less than 2 weeks now. In addition to that, Starcraft 2's lack of LAN, I believe, will hamper sales. I cannot verify this, as this is only a guess. In any case, I would like to see a source on Starcraft 2's current state in South Korea. I find it interesting that Starcraft 2 would be listed over the original.

67.166.99.19 (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SC2 was added by an IP editor 2 days ago. Feel free to revert if no one finds a source within the next week. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Considering that this the officially the Republic of Korea I think typing that into the search function should redirect it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.218.59 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already does. Maybe you misspelled it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Hanja name

Alright, who took the Chinese name out, and why? I remember maybe about three weeks ago, I searched the nation up and it was still there. South Korea still uses Chinese characters for formal usage or offered for high school and university students as an advanced curriculum, so I don't get why it was removed. The name used was 大韓民國 (Mandarin Chinese: Dahanmingguo, which sounds very close to Korean: Daehanminguk). ★Dasani★ 18:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was here. By the way, your Mandarin pinyin is a bit off, 民 is mín, not ming. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've since readded it. And if my Pinyin was off, I guess that was a typo: guo only needs one 'G'. ★Dasani★ 02:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"South Korea still uses Chinese characters for formal usage or offered for high school and university students as an advanced curriculum" <-- South Korea uses Traditional Chinese characters? This isn't entirely correct because South Korea, or South Koreans, don't use Chinese characters for formal usage. Traditional Chinese is found mostly in Korean historical texts, but Hangul is used in both formal and informal cases. Many languages are offered in university, and offering Chinese in high school isn't because Chinese is a part of culture, but becuase it is a major language, at least by population. Sorry, I didn't mean to make this a debate of some sort, but you're tone and information about the Chinese language in Korea wasn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinet (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the ROK constitution was originally written in Hanja Korean mixed script, right? (and I'm not referring to the full-Hangul versions one might find in a middle school or something, but rather the original text) And many other important documents are written likewise, right? And common characters such as 韓中日月男女高新 are used in non-tabloid newspaper headlines (e.g. 韓日 as an abbreviation for "Korea-Japan"), consumer products (e.g. I have a Nong Shim brand chip packet that I got from the oriental grocery store in front of me right now with 新 on it), and for administrative purposes (e.g. school grades 高 and 中), right? And basic knowledge is required for those pursuing a career as a lawyer, right? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's usage is almost nonexistent except for some of the stuff you've mentioned like on specialty products and describing abstract ideas on newspapers. English however is widely used in school curriculum, signs, and virtually in everyday life. And since the Korean republic isn't yet a historical relic and the people don't speak or use Chinese (and to be reflective of the hangul wikipage), I'll be removing the Chinese name after a week if there aren't any responses. --KaraKamilia (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However I think you are misinterpreting the situation. Here, "Chinese name" is being used more or less as a loaded word, and that people are assuming that 大韓民國 is at any rate less Korean than it is Chinese. "大韓民國" in this case is not a "Chinese name" as implied, but rather Hanja of the Korean name. It's usage on this article is "more Korean" than you may think, so to speak. I think editors are misinterpreting that by using Chinese characters, something is less Korean that it should be, when really, using Hanja does not make anything less Korean at all, and that the correct name should be Hanja name, not Chinese name, since "Chinese" as associated with China and the Chinese language (which might be the cause of the misinterpretation, given the connotations of "Chinese" being related to "China"). I am quite sure that you are misinterpreting this, given that you mention teaching of Chinese language education and English within the curriculum and everyday life - this was not the original point. Hanja is taught in upper school levels, not Chinese language. Han characters =/= Chinese language, and script =/= language. The Japanese language is not Chinese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Hanja is Korean exclusive, and although it has links to Chinese, Hanja is not used in Chinese. Hanja is a writing method that can be used to represent the Sino-Korean vocabulary in Korean texts. Hanja and Chinese cannot be used as synonomous terms. In Korean, 工夫 (공부, gongbu) means study, however in Chinese, 工夫 means physical effort. Similarly, the kanji 手紙 tegami means "letter" in Japanese, however in Chinese 手紙 means toilet paper. Hanja =/= Kanji =/= Chinese language. Therefore, the argument that 大韓民國 is a "Chinese word" and that it is irrelevant to Korean usage is incorrect.

Furthermore, adding the Hanja for Daehan Minguk to this article is not just something editors here have simply made up. It is quite common to have Hanja glossing for proper nouns in educational and academic texts. This can be seen in books, newspapers, and even on the Korean Wikipedia. ko:이명박 glosses his name as 李明博 in the very first paragraph. ko:대한민국 lists 大韓民國 as the second word of the article. ko:평양직할시 glosses 平壤直轄市, ko:한국어 glosses 韓國語, ko:고려 glosses 高麗 and ko:김일성 glosses 金日成. I think you should first propose to the Korean Wikipedia to stop using Hanja before bothering to have it removed here on this article. Hanja is more or less a component of the Korean written language that so far seems to be here to stay, a reality even the most right-wing of people in Korea have to deal with. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Korea

It's irritating to that this page is titled "South Korea", which is nothing more than a regional designation. Maybe a page on the unique geographical or cultural/historical happenings on the southern part of the Korean peninsula would be accurately named, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason not to redirect to Republic of Korea. China, for instance, isn't the page name for the People's Republic of China. There are plenty of other counter examples, of course, Japan being the name of the page for the State of Japan, or Zimbabwe for the Republic of Zimbabwe, or a dozen others, but these names are so close to their formal names as to only designate the form of government. Because of the DPRK and ROK's mutual use of the term 'Korea', this isn't a satisfactory alternative. "South Korea" reads increasingly anarchronistic, a vestigal designation from the Korean war when the difference between the two countries was most importantly location-geographic in the sense of military holdings, and a division which was supposed to be temporary. Does anyone have thoughts on this, or an argument why we shouldn't use a nation's preferred English designation for itself? --TheGrza 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It has been officially the Republic of Korea for a long time. Ykhwong (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Official name is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy is to use the most common name, not the official name. See: WP:COMMONNAME. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About school uniforms..

Korean school uniforms are NOT USUALLY GREY. It's true about pants for boys but girls' skirts come in a wide variety of colors, including dark blue or even red. Just wanted to point out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.75.199.245 (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...wut? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in 1948 in POV

The South Korean general election in 1948 was boycotted by most leftist parties and was filled with government coercion and terrorism, After Syngman Rhee became president in 1948, he engaged in a blantant campaign to purge all political opposition to his regime, under the guise of "removing communism" with the help of his henchman in ROK Intelligence Kim Chang-ryong. Several articles on wikipedia make it quite clear when a government is in reality democratic or not, and regardless of how you look at it, it is untrue to say that the ROK was a democracy in 1948.--99.135.149.50 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I hinted in my edit summary, I don't really have an opinion on the political issues here, but you shouldn't use misleading link piping. If you want to link to First Republic of South Korea, link there clearly; if you want to link to anti-leftist dictatorship, link there clearly. If you want to link to both, instead of fighting you can just do some simple copyediting (something like "the First Republic of South Korea, under Syngman Rhee, was established as a...".
For what it's worth, though, this change looks controversial to me. First of all, even if it was a dictatorship, saying it was "established as" one implies some overt intent, whereas from what you're trying to say it sounds more like it was a democracy in name but had dictatorial characteristics. Furthermore, unless you have sources saying this republic was officially a dictatorship, then what you're saying sounds like WP:OR: cobbling together evidence that you think makes a government seem like a dictatorship in spite of what it officially labels itself. That would be like updating the United States article to call that country a dictatorship because you don't like what its government has done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the page has been changed to better reflect the reality of the political situation in South Korea, I now have no objections, thankyou.--99.135.149.50 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was me. Sorry for the preemptive edit, but sometimes a little boldness can cut short a long debate, and it seemed worth a go. It doesn't really say anything that isn't reflected later in the article (and the accompanying history article), so I hope it isn't too controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and comments

This article is fairly well-written. I fixed some small errors and moved some pictures around. I just need to point out a few things.

1. In the "Administrative divisions" section, Incheon and Daegu should be swapped in the city table to match the map. Daejeong and Gwangju should also be swapped. I did not check the provinces.

2. In the "Foreign relations" section, I read "12 November: North Korea shows US scientist new - undeclared - uranium enrichment facility". Revise the sentence as needed. I also read "There had also been strong anti-American sentiment during certain periods, which has largely moderated in the modern day." Which periods are those?

3. In the "Military" section, the sentence "Previously, Koreans of mixed race were exempt from military duty if they 'look distinctively biracial'" needs to be reworked. I also read "1000 Korean males are selected every year to serve two years in the KATUSA Program to further augment the USFK". There is no explanation about what USFK is. The sentence "A still functioning UN Command is technically the top of the chain of command of all forces in South Korea" is not clear.

4. In the "Economy" section, the part that says "The two-day summit is expected to boost Korea's economy by 31 trillion won, or 4% of Korea's 2010 GDP, in economic effects, and create over 160,000 jobs in Korea. It may also help improve the country's sovereign credit rating" needs to be changed to past tense. The same thing should be done to "its economic growth rate will reach 6.1% in 2010".

5. In the "Education" section, I read "According to Ministry of Education, Science and Technology estimate, by that time". Something has to be fixed.

6. The chronology of events in the "Sports" section is not consistent. The dates should follow in sequence.

ICE77 (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I'm just leaving a message here to explain what's going on with the back-and-forth editing of the map at the top of this article. The map currently used is File:Locator map of South Korea2.svg; various sockpuppets of the blocked user User:Sourside21 (who is probably himself a sockpuppet of User:Rayesworied, etc.) have been replacing it with File:South Korea (orthographic projection).svg. These maps have been discussed at least three times before, all with consensus in favor of the former:

Despite this consensus, some editors have continued edit-warring over the map and insisting that no one can revert them without gaining consensus. In September 2010 Sourside21, not logged in, sneakily changed the map [2] and it went unnoticed for a few months. (The user in question e-mailed me telling me that he was the one who made that edit.) I restored the consensus version on 30 January 2010, a few days later another sock reverted (again insisting that I need consensus to revert him), after which I reverted again and protected the page. Less than 24 hours later, User:Kingj123, who in two of those previous discussions was the sole user arguing in favor of the orthographic projection map, reverted me using the same rationale as Sourside's sock puppets used. King123's account had been almost entirely inaccurateinactive since April 2010 (with just one edit in September 2010), so I find it suspicious that he suddenly reappeared only when Sourside became no longer able to edit the article using IPs. I've blocked him per WP:DUCK.

If you want to reopen the discussion about which map is appropriate to use, do it at this talk page, not through edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on the map itself for now, but point out that discussions about sockpuppetry should really be conducted in a more appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not initiating a discussion about sockpuppetry here, I'm leaving an explanation for why I blocked this user after he edited this article. But the main point of this discussion was to explain the map issues again, because frankly I'm sick of this person edit-warring over it and sick of having to point him to the discussion (which he knows exists, given that he participated in 2 or 3 iterations of it). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a typo in my first message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the outcomes of those previous discussions, for anyone who doesn't want to read the TL;DR:

rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are months old and users were tossing ideas around not making official stance. We should make a clear poll with regards to this map.Kingj123 (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:What is consensus?, and the associated policy WP:NOT#DEM, clearly states that a poll is not necessary to determine consensus, especially if consensus is already clear (as it seems to be to everyone but you). But if you want to start a straw poll you are welcome to do so, although first you should review the guidelines at WP:POLL, and you should consider opening a discussion before opening a poll (as polls without discussion are not very useful; again, see WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). rʨanaɢ (talk)

Where is the consensus in the discussion? and if there were consensus why did orthographic map remain for another year? Kingj123 (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussions to see consensus; I already summarized them for you above. If you want another editor to re-read the discussions and try to determine the consensus, you may file a request at WP:3O.
As for why the orthographic projection was at this article for several months, as I already explained above, a banned editor sneakily inserted the map in while none of the editors who participated in that discussion happened to be watching the article (as for me, I believe I was out of town at the time) and no one noticed for a while. Silence (or nobody noticing) does not equal consent. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the users may have lost interest in the subject matter or did not feel the need to change orthographic projection. Kingj123 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than speculate about what others users are thinking, how about you start a new discussion (as I already suggested), list the reasons you think the map should be changed, and notify users at the relevant WikiProjects to ask for their opinions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we should start a new discussion. FYI, User:Kmusser edited the article on September of 2009 so he has visited the article with orthographic projection image but did not change it.[3]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Korea&oldid=412408748"