Talk:Elections in South Korea

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Korea High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korean name

I don't understand what makes the Korean name of the National Assembly of South Korea particularly relevant here. Those who want to know the name can easily find it in that article. -- Visviva 13:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least they can after I fix that link. -- Visviva 13:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that is not a reason not to mention it here. Electionworld 22:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to put it in bold; if it is in bold, it looks like this article is more relevant to the NA than to the president. Wikipeditor 15:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2006-04-17 cleanup

(diff) I liked it better the way it was before.

When deleting information, it is always a good idea to state why you have removed it – for example, it makes a difference whether you think it is not important, or whether you can confirm it is wrong.

I particularly think it is wrong to deal with two or more contradictory sources by simply ignoring one of them; I am sure that the edit has been done in good faith, and that there is some reason for the deletion. I am by no means an expert on the topic and have obviously simply written what I've found elsewhere on the WP. If you know that one of the sources is wrong, you should

state that in your edit summary and
also correct the wrong WP article that has been used as a source.

This helps to avoid confusion. Wikipeditor 16:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the rude remark in the edit summary. However, I don't think it's appropriate to treat a Wikipedia article as a reliable source... which means we don't need to report on discrepancies between our own articles in the article text. That's really a job for the talk page. But also, the major discrepancy wasn't really a discrepancy at all; the initial election was held in May, and the presidential election in July. Thus the article seemed unnecessarily hard to understand.

I also apologize for the sloppiness of that edit; I was rather tired at the time. :-) I have gone back and trimmed everything in the 1948 presidential election that I cannot verify independently, which I'm afraid is rather a lot. We really need better sources here. -- Visviva 01:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]