Jump to content

Talk:South Korea/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

Suggestions for changes in the Science and Technology main section :

Please edit

1. "South Korea leads the OECD in graduates in science and engineering." to -->"South Korea has the highest percentage of graduates in natural sciences and engineering, according to the OECD." as this is a result from a study conducted by the OECD.

2. "There is a growing trend of inventions of new types of media or apps, utilizing the 4G and 5G internet infrastructure in South Korea." to -->"Trends show that inventions of new types of media or apps that utilize the 4G and 5G infrastructure are growing in South Korea." for better sentence structure

Please delete

3. "South Korea has today the infrastructures to meet a density of population and culture that has the capability to create strong local particularity." as it is unclear whether it is the infrastructure or the density of population and culture that has the capability to create said particularity


In the Aerospace engineering sub-section, please edit

4. "South Korea has sent up 10 satellites from 1992, all using foreign rockets and overseas launch pads, notably Arirang-1 in 1999, and Arirang-2 in 2006 as part of its space partnership with Russia." to --> "Since 1992, South Korea has launched 10 satellites, all using foreign rockets and overseas launch pads -- notably Arirang-1 in 1999, and Arirang-2 in 2006 -- as part of its space partnership with Russia." for better sentence structure

5. "South Korea's efforts to build an indigenous space launch vehicle is marred because of persistent political pressure of the United States, who had for many decades hindered South Korea's indigenous rocket and missile development programs[344] in fear of their possible connection to clandestine military ballistic missile programs, which Korea many times insisted did not violate the research and development guidelines stipulated by US-Korea agreements on restriction of South Korean rocket technology research and development." to

--> As this sentence is too long, and has several grammatical errors, I suggest the option below

"South Korea's efforts to build a domestic space launch vehicle has been marred due to persistent political pressure from the United States. The U.S. has for many decades hindered South Korea's domestic rocket and missile development programs[344] fearing their possible connection to clandestine military ballistic missile activities. Korea has insisted that it did not violate the R&D guidelines stipulated by US-Korea agreements, which restricts the development of rocket technology in South Korea."

In the Robotics sub-section, please edit

6. "In 2005, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) developed the world's second walking humanoid robot, HUBO. A team in the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology developed the first Korean android, EveR-1 in May 2006.[348] EveR-1 has been succeeded by more complex models with improved movement and vision." to the suggestion below, to fix grammatical errors and for better sentence structure

--> "In 2005, the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) developed HUBO, the world's second walking humanoid robot. A team at the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology developed the first Korean android, EveR-1 in May 2006.[348] EveR-1 has since been succeeded by more complex models with improved movement and vision.

7. "Plans of creating English-teaching robot assistants to compensate for the shortage of teachers were announced in February 2010. The robots were deployed to most preschools and kindergartens by 2013.[351] Robotics has been also incorporated in the entertainment sector as well; the Korean Robot Game Festival has been held every year since 2004 to promote science and robot technology." to

--> "Plans to create English-teaching robot assistants to compensate for the shortage of teachers were announced in February 2010, with the robots being deployed to most preschools and kindergartens by 2013.[351] Robotics technology has also been incorporated in the entertainment sector as well; the Korean Robot Game Festival has been held every year since 2004 to promote science and robot technology. (grammatical errors, sentence structure)

Newclassic33 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We cannot accept original research. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please understand the true meaning of the word "sovereignty"

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Collapsed off-topic discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Many people throughout the United States have what I believe to be a French mentality with regard to the word "sovereignty". Korea has not been re-unified, and the Republic of Korea is still occupied by a foreign power (the United States). Although a UN member, many other UN members on the English Wikipedia are listed using merely the word "country" and not "sovereign state". There are U.S. citizens everywhere throughout the country that is the United States that believe that it is time for the U.S. to stop occupying other countries, e.g. Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) in East Asia; although there are serious difficulties with regard to the rivalry between the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the People's Democratic of Korea (North Korea). Thus, it is more difficult for the United States Armed Forces to leave East Asia than it is for the U.S. Armed Forces to leave Europe. It is time for all of the U.S. Armed Forces to leave Europe (I mean complete withdrawal from Europe; Europe can "defend" themselves from the so-called "Russian" threat; there is NATO, and Putin understood the reasoning for defending the ethnic Russians in Crimea because he stated that there was an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine). The U.S. troops should probably also leave the Middle East and Africa (the same goes for the French Armed Forces). I apologize for the editorializing but we still need to focus on the objective truth here. People throughout the world don't seem to care about the objective truth anymore and are instead too focused on instant gratification. The last territories that the U.S. Armed Forces should leave are probably the territories in East Asia. Again, I apologize for the editorializing. However, I want to be fully clear. I am the state (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No sources -- just POV OR. Ignoring. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
For the record, the OP is blocked indefinitely. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Major clutter midway down page at certain monitor widths

The article looks like this for me midway down the page on my 1920 pixels wide monitor. I'm not sure how to fix this myself (otherwise I would), but since 1920x1080 is a very common monitor resolution this may be worth fixing. CJK09 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

Please change the statistics under the "European Union" section of "Foreign Relations" they were a little outdated and I brought some fresh numbers from Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/South_Korea-EU_-_trade_in_goods#EU_and_South_Korea_in_world_trade)

Here are the numbers that could be replaced: South Korea is the EU's eighth largest trade partner -> now it's the tenth the EU has become South Korea's second largest export destination -> not it's the fourth EU trade with South Korea exceeded €65 billion in 2008 -> €90 billion in 2015 has enjoyed an annual average growth rate of 7.5% between 2004 and 2008. -> growth rate of 9.8% between 2003 and 2013

You can check those numbers from the link I put above.

Thank you very much and I'll come back later. 2010koala (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguity in modern names for the country/peninsula

"While South Koreans use Han (or Hanguk) to refer to the entire country, North Koreans and Koreans in China use the term Joseon as the name of the country." Does 'entire country' mean South Korea or the entire Korean Peninsula? It could be read both ways.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

clumsy statement in the lede

" The earliest neolithic Korean pottery dates to 8000 BC,[22] with three kingdoms flourishing in the 1st century BC. " - stringing two pretty unrelated statements together here. 50.111.24.41 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Please inform readers on the internet that this is a country that participates in the trade and consumption of dogs. 207.251.80.226 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Ye nah. — IVORK Discuss 22:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
And? The consumption of dog meat is perfectly normal in many cultures. Or should we also tag various countries as participating in the trade and consumption of cows and pigs because those are not considered food animals in some cultures? Meat is meat. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Emblem of the Government of the Republic of Korea.svg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.]KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.]In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

Statement about territory

In the lead there is this statement: "Officially, [South Korea's] territory consists of the whole Korean Peninsula...", but this doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. What does it mean? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Republic of Korea (commonly called South Korea) considers itself the legitimate government of the whole Korean peninsula. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea makes the same claim with respect to itself. This isn't quite spelled out in the article, but is reflected in the paragraph: "Despite the initial plan of a unified Korea in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, escalating Cold War antagonism between the Soviet Union and the United States eventually led to the establishment of separate governments, each with its own ideology, leading to the division of Korea into two political entities in 1948: North Korea and South Korea." The original plan was to have a single Korean country, but the US and the USSR each supported different political factions, which became established as governments. Each government controls only about half of the territory of Korea, but claims all of it. The common names refer to which portion they actually control. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Should be reworded to South Korea claims North Korea's territory as its own or something like that. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Error in Japan

Both Japan and the USA are listed as the second largest trading partner. By the numbers Japan is clearly third. Can someone please edit that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgpt (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

Change the color of North Korea to light green (claimed but uncontrolled) area, because the government of the Republic of Korea claims sovereignty over the entire Korean Peninsula.[1] Petiwala82 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you talking about the orthographic picture of South Korea? If so, you may edit it here. Keep in mind that for such a change, you will most likely need a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page first. Morphdogtalk 01:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.apnews.com/cb155688b0d44e29bf7b1a3fa3c4694d

Merger proposal

We don't merge talk page. talk page with no history may worth speedy delete or redirect, but not for the case Talk:Republic of Korea, which had a edit request thread that about Republic of Korea. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge Talk:Republic of Korea into Talk:South Korea/Archive 10. Because Republic of Korea is only a redirect page for South Korea for a long time; Talk:Republic of Korea really has some content; Talk:South Korea/Archive 10 is the newest archive page for Talk:South Korea, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.180
11:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

On the last paragraph of the Post-Korean War (1960-1990) section: Change "...The transition of Korean from autocracy to modern democracy was marked in..." to "...The transition of Korea from autocracy to modern democracy was marked in..." Rafaelgomesdeoliveira (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:South Korea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:South Korea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Korea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 21:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Flag anthem

I've removed the flag anthem from the infobox since it was uncited and I've never heard of the ROK having one in the past. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 06:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

Please add this information below the first paragraph of the languages tab because I completed research for my Korean class at UMUC regarding the English language boom in Korea and this information added will be used for grading my final assignment.

Among 12 researched Asian countries, Korea, which was considered the most difficult to communicate with in English, has an extensive English education history dating back to the Joseon Dynasty. During this time, Koreans received English education in public institutes, where translators were instructed for conversion of Korean into foreign languages. The Public Foreign Language School established in 1893, educated young males to perform tasks to modernize Korea. This school, unlike facilities such as Yuk Young Gong Won (1886), disregarded social statuses, welcoming more students into the institute and introducing the first Korean foreign language instructors into the field of English education (Chang, 2009).. English was also taught during the Joseon Dynasty in missionary schools, which were established to spread the word of the Christian faith to Koreans, although these schools did not equip its students with the necessary tools to read, write, comprehend and speak the language. Direct Method teaching was uncommon, as instructors were often unqualified as English teachers and the textbook was limited to the Holy Bible. Subsequently, during the Japanese Imperialism Period, Koreans were forced to prioritize the learning and speaking of Japanese. English was offered only as an elective course, though, the instructors were often Japanese, hindering proper English pronunciation. After the liberation of Korea from Japan in 1945, the first national curriculum was established in 1955, launching greater pursuit of English education and returning the nation to speaking its native tongue.

Chang, B.-M. (2009). Korea's English Education Policy Innovations to Lead the Nation into the Globalized World. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 83- 97. Retrieved from https://eric-ed-gov.ezproxy.umuc.edu


Please add this information at the end of the languages tab because I completed research for my Korean class at UMUC regarding the English language boom in Korea and this information added will be used for grading my final assignment.

The relevance of early English education and globalization were brought to the attention of South Korea during the 1986 Asian Games and Seoul Olympic Games, as many came to realize the value of the English language. English Language Education programs began focusing on ensuring competency to perform effectively as a nation in an era of globalization using proficiency-based language programs that allowed students to learn according to their own abilities and interests and driving Koreans to focus more on oral proficiency (Chang, 2009 & Park, 2009). With the new focus placed on oral expertise, there has been an “intense desire to speak native-like English” pressuring parents to take measures to ensure the best English education for their children and themselves (Park, 2009).

Chang, B.-M. (2009). Korea's English Education Policy Innovations to Lead the Nation into the Globalized World. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 83- 97. Retrieved from https://eric-ed-gov.ezproxy.umuc.edu

Park, J.-K. (2009). 'English fever' in South Korea: its history and symptoms. English Today, 25(1), 50-57. Retrieved from https://literature-proquest-com.ezproxy.umuc.edu

In addition to globalization as a driving force for the “English Boom” in Korea, English Curriculum Reforms beginning in the 1990s, with influence from the government, began to focus on the communicative competence of Korean students emphasizing fluency and comprehension through listening materials. In 1994, the university entrance examination moved away from testing grammar, towards a more communicative method. Parents redirected the focus of English education to align with exam content (Park, 2009). As a result, families began investing significant portions of household incomes on the education of children to include English camps and language training abroad. Universities began lecturing in English to help improve competence and although only few were competent enough themselves to lead a class in English, many elementary school teachers were also recommended to teach in English. Many Koreans send their children abroad for up to two years to learn English because they are dissatisfied with English education available in Korea. Conversely, more native English speakers are being employed as educators in Korea to improve the English education process. In all, Koreans have come to believe native English speakers are the best teachers of the language and to be proficient in the English language gives their children an advantage over others and is an “educational investment that promises surplus” (Han, 2007).

Han, J.-S. (2007). Children Leaving Korea. Korea Focus, 15(1), 59-61. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu

Park, J.-K. (2009). 'English fever' in South Korea: its history and symptoms. English Today,25(1), 50-57. Retrieved from https://literature-proquest-com.ezproxy.umuc.edu

Ahoward1214 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahoward1214, could you add full citations? Meaning: Add the title of work and (if the work is available online) the URL. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, and you can use VisualEditor in your sandbox. Would be best to give a citation for each sentence (or each paragraph). You can then reopen this edit request. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to use Korean sources I recommend taking a look at this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Font size for the national March

@DavisAndrew416: @Finnusertop: User:DavisAndrew416 changed:

march = [[Arirang]] "아리랑" (''[[de facto]]'')

to

march = [[Arirang]] "아리랑" {{small|(''[[de facto]]'')}}

User:Finnusertop reverted that change citing MOS:FONTSIZE. Those "Manual of Style (MOS)" guidlines say, "Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes," though "occasional exceptions may apply."

User:DavisAndrew416 reinstated the change without explaining why MOS:FONTSIZE should not be followed in this case. I wish to thank User:DavisAndrew416 for supporting Wikipedia, but I feel that this particular change should be reverted unless and until User:DavisAndrew416 provides a compelling argument for why MOS:FONTSIZE should not apply in this case. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely as it was unsourced and "Arirang" isn't even a march anyway. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Visual error on chrome browser.

On the chrome browser (it displays okay on Firefox but the other issues persist), underneath Administrative divisions, the image boxes of Moon Jae-in and Lee Nak-yeon are overran by the map, and in the source it seems that the images about Jeju Island and Cheonggyecheon river bleed over from the Environment. I'd attempt to fix it but everything looks fine to me in the code. Audiothered (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed recently, it's displaying correctly for me now. Redalert2fan (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

In the education section the 3rd and 4th paragraph's last sentence gives the same information. I recommend removing "Not having a university degree carries a major cultural stigma as those who lack a formal university education face social prejudice and are often looked down upon by others." from the 3rd paragraph completely as the content is repeated in the 4th paragraph "There is a major cultural taboo in South Korean society attached to those who have not achieved formal university education where those who don't hold university degrees face social prejudice and are often looked down by others as second-class citizens resulting in fewer opportunities for employment, improvement of one's socioeconomic position and prospects for marriage." Bodnalev (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've refactored the paragraphs to remove the duplicate info and make the flow a bit better. NiciVampireHeart 19:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of "indeed" not correct.

The second sentence of the first paragraph in the religion section starts with "Indeed". This does not seem to be the correct use of the word. That is, "Indeed" is typically for presenting information that backs up the original point, but this second sentence appears to disagree with the first sentence. I would just suggest a correction, but I honestly don't understand what the original author intended. I suggest just removing the word "Indeed" and it will read better. GnuPooh (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I altered the sentence to, hopefully, better reflect the actual results in the source, with this change. Does that seem better to you? -- Begoon 12:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"A land border with North Korea"

"and sharing a land border with North Korea"
Is it really a border, however? Neither part recognizes it as such. Maybe, choose a demarcation line instead? The North Korea article has a similar issue, albeit having amended it somewhat with a further remark,
Nevertheless, North Korea, like its southern counterpart, claims to be the legitimate government of the entire peninsula and adjacent islands.[15]--Adûnâi (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

They may not officially recognize it, but for all intents and purposes it's a border. Phrase is fine. Indeed, it's in the name "South Korea"/"North Korea". – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

164 Vietnamese students went missing in South Korea

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/12/177_280063.html what would be the appropriate articles where this should be put? I am thinking South Korea–Vietnam relations and Incheon National University, anywhere else? The reason why I think this to be a relevant topic is because of this incident, some cities (Ulsan specifically) changed their laws regarding immigration, which seriously affects international university students. Thoughts? - TXephy (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Superlatives in intro

The intro makes a number of superlative claims. Some, such as fastest internet, are objective and fine, but others, namely "most advanced democracy with the highest level of press freedom in Asia" and "world's second-best healthcare system" are subjective, and the citations are to rankings that have South Korea only one or two spots ahead of Taiwan and/or Japan, which is a very thin margin. I'd be more comfortable with these claims tempered a bit to make them more solid. Do you all agree? Sdkb (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Some years ago, this article had a similar problem of being written with a lot of superlatives, to the point that it came off as a Korean nationalist propaganda piece rather than an encyclopaedia article. Other editors worked hard to edit it into a style more suited to an encyclopaedia, so the problem is not as bad as it used to be. I'd say go ahead and make the change.
Speaking of which, I also think we should have the hanja restored. Someone removed them on the grounds that it was Chinese and Korean, but I think having he hanja is relevant for an encyclopaedia article, especially given that they still have some official recognition in South Korea. The dog2 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Republican Corea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Republican Corea. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

please Fix Wrong picture

"Elementary school students in Seoul" photo is wrong this photo is Independence Day event, not Elementary school students

http://img.seoul.co.kr//img/upload/2016/07/12/SSI_20160712181739_V.jpg https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/tistory/206FFE0A49F5D53B25 These two pictures are real

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Are you saying that the small children in the picture in the article are not actually enrolled in elementary school? --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

change electricity = 110V–50 Hz to 220V-60 Hz Heekyung Jeong (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

change to electricity = 110V–50 Hz to 220V-60 Hz

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Goldsztajn (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn look at: [1], [2]. If plug 110 volt device it fry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobaer (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Error in Religious Demographics in sidebar

I think the numbers for protestantism, Catholicism, and Christianity have been incorrectly totted up. I think 21.7% should in fact be 26.7%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLittleTramp (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Graph in "Religion" section

The graph seems to include numbers that are not in the source cited. As I don't read the language, I can't quite suss out what's going on. I can, of course, read the numbers. Can someone cure my ignorance on this one? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg Index and more

@Grandpallama, South Korea is now 2nd on the Bloomberg Innovation Index as of 2020, as it has been taken over by Germany. Here's your source by Bloomberg itself. On the topic of HDI, South Korea is also indeed the 3rd country in Asia at 0.906, after Singapore (0.935) and Japan (0.915) – (UNDP). South Korea also has a standalone article (which I had linked to) about the high suicide rates in the country, with sources such as these and these (WHO) that provides more in-depth detail which also includes the suicide rate for every country in the world. So could you please enlighten me as to what you meant by "Multiple deceptive edit summaries"? Telsho (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the wholly inappropriate addition of suicide info to the lede (as if it's lede-worthy in the first place) under the edit summary of WP:UNDUE? Or perhaps the attempt to downplay South Korean global status by rewriting text with the edit summary of "paraphrasing"? This is not the first time you have edit warred back in material on an article that was disputed, and it's not the only article where you've been trying to rewrite text with misleading edit summaries. Knock it off. You're coasting on the edge of a return to ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't threaten me with an ANI, as I haven't even gotten to your obvious WP:HOUNDING considering you've reverted another article unrelated to this which I've edited in quick succession. Talking about the suicide problem in the lead section is indeed noteworthy as many reliable sources – [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] talks about the suicide problem that's happening in the country, and the rankings show for it. No one is "downplaying" South Korea "global status" here, and that comment reeks of WP:BIAS considering it has nothing to do with all this, so where are you even going with that? The country has the highest suicide rate among the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which I had stated. It also has the highest among the G20, as stated by the World Health Organization and the World Happiness Index report. According to the OECD themselves, with more details here, its suicide rate per 100,000 people is 24.6. That is twice as high as the average among the member states and far higher than Japan's 15.2. Does that sound like WP:UNDUE to you? No one is edit warring or disputing this except just you, which is why I made this talk page section. You still haven't explained as to what you meant by "Multiple deceptive edit summaries", because it wasn't just the suicide thing that you reverted and you have yet to acknowledge it even after I had brought it up. Are you going to be specific and explain as to what my deception was when sourcing from Bloomberg, which is where the Index originated, and the HDI from the United Nations Development Programme? Telsho (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Telsho, do you need to be warned for your very uncollegial way of interacting? Mind your tone, please. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm interacting in the same tone that they have been doing against me, it's only fair. That user clearly followed me here, it isn't my first spell with them on different unrelated articles. There's something about a handful of established editors acting against newer ones like they are a bunch of pushovers. I'm still awaiting their response. Telsho (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "yes". Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll accept that. They reverted again instead of responding here though. Telsho (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
And you just now edit warred back to your problematic version, instead of waiting for consensus to play out, despite the fact that Drmies was actively admonishing you about behavior. The "tone" about which you are so upset is a direct result of you having been specifically warned by an admin about WP:ONUS, which you have chosen to ignore in favor of edit warring troublesome content back into articles after being caught sneaking it in through questionable edit summaries. Your revert here was an obvious retaliation because you're angry I have participated in the SPI discussion about you. Grandpallama (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You still haven't responded as to why you reverted, and now calling it a "problematic version", which you had done before responding on the talk page, so who's the one edit warring again? If you actually want to discuss the article at hand, stop sidetracking the discussion. Telsho (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Stats and random polls should not be used in the lead of country articles. For an example see Canada... this will demonstrate what to say without referring to polls or stats. Also not a good idea to imply suicide is the most drastic National concern... its just one of many problems including only one realted to Health.--Moxy 🍁 02:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Canada's lead looks more cleaner and easier on readers, I'm not surprised its a featured article. South Korea's seemed bloated in comparison, which is why it isn't even considered a good article, and there were a lot of sentences that should have been removed long ago as some of them definitely bordered on WP:PUFFERY. I could compromise not having suicide on the lead but there should be a subsection about it at the very least. So far, there's barely any mention getting into detail about the high suicide rate but a single sentence hidden within the demographics section. I would attempt to do it but Grandpallama might revert it again and say that I'm trying to "downplay South Korean global status" so I appreciate your edit on the lead section. Telsho (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
A proper health secton that talks about the major causes of deaths and health problems alongside mention of increase in suicide rates would be fine. Buthe not sure we need a suicide advocacy section here WP:Advocacy. Source for health info http://www.cdway.com.tw/gov/mhw2/book108/book01e/index2.html ...--Moxy 🍁 04:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'll see what I can come up with within a few days or so. Telsho (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why these are being added to the article again. Would be somewhat OK if the cherry picked polls and ranks were in the article, but the lead is not the place for these things especially ones that would need sources. Lead is an overview that should not need sources because it's so generic in its presentation. Have lots of ranking still that should be moved to appreciate sections.--Moxy 🍁 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

--Moxy 🍁 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be only one user that's doing this, who is most likely affiliated with the Korea Tourism Organization. I'm currently dealing with similar problems on Korean cuisine. Telsho (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems like you are the only one who is trying to revert this away from the consensus version that's been sticking around for years. Unless you get clear consensus here (and users have already rejected your controversial lead edit), that section will remain the way it was for years, which is the consensus version as per WP:Consensus. And your recent revert had no explanation whatsoever.Raulbeans (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Again junk added back to lead....will give it a few days see if anyone also thinks it's not lead worthy.--Moxy 🍁 23:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Raulbeans: Your recent revert had no explainations whatsoever – Buddy, I've tried to put it through your thick skull multiple times on the edit summary and the talk page which you've been ignoring on purpose, so why would I want to parrot myself again? No idea as to why you are so hell-bent on removing the lead paragraph, constantly add cherry-picked stats (especially the Bloomberg Index for some reason) as well as puffery junk on the lead and mysteriously remove comparisons. Read WP:ONUS and WP:MOS. It's definitely not lead worthy and it's no wonder why this article isn't even listed as good. Telsho (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Danloud: Am I mistaken or is your edit not related to the discussion here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Raulbeans: Why on earth did you remove the article's first para? That made absolutely no sense, and is blatant WP:VANDALISM. Danloud (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Suggested change: In the first paragraph, change "25 million people, over half of the country's population of more than 51 million people" to "25 million people, around half of the country's population of more than 51 million people". Lugel (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. This talk page edit was my tenth edit, so I was then able to edit the article myself. - Lugel (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

add information about the name "Daehan" or "大韓" as the name of the modern state was selected by the Joseon's last king and Korean Empire's only empire Gojong in 1897 when he declared the Korean Empire(in korean:Daehan jeguk). 180.66.76.15 (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Information on climate change

I came here to see how this article mentions climate change, after having done a bit of tidying up of climate change in South Korea. I am glad to see that it does mention something about climate change and gives a link, however this sentence needs updating, correcting and an up to date reference: "South-Korea was in 2017 the world's 7th largest emitter of carbon emmsions And the 5th largest emitter per capita. " It's currently in the section on "environment". I don't have a suitable reference at my fingertips but it should be easy to find the figure for 2021 or 2020. Probably best to quote it as total and per person. EMsmile (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong name on the google search page

220.116.33.113 (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Hi Wikipedia contributors,

I noticed a small error on the name of Republic of Korea on the google search page. When I search "Republic of Korea", the headline of Wikipedia shows "Republic of South Korea", which is inaccurate.

https://www.google.com/search?q=republic+of+korea&rlz=1C1GCEA_enKR943KR943&ei=XU_JYJnzJqzA3LUPhsimqAQ&oq=republic+of+korea&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwguEEMQkwIyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOggILhCRAhCTAjoFCAAQkQI6AgguOgQILhBDUI-XAVi9pwFgpagBaABwAngAgAHmAYgBtRaSAQYwLjE2LjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjZlZr6-5rxAhUsILcAHQakCUUQ4dUDCA4&uact=5

 Note: See the lead section, South Korea,[b] officially the Republic of Korea (ROK),[c] is a country..... Official name of South Korea is Republic of Korea. However, it's not related to Wikipedia. Dinesh | Talk 17:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Korean entertainment industry funded by the government?

@Incegnetty: @Notfrompedro: @Otterslort:

This article claims that Korean pop culture is supported by government funding with this [1] article as evidence. The article claims:

"In the late '90s, when Asia went through a huge financial crisis, South Korea's leaders decided to use music to improve its image and build its cultural influence. So the country's government poured millions of dollars into forming a Ministry of Culture with a specific department devoted to K-pop."

First of all, the claim of this article that says that the Ministry of Culture was formed in the late 90s' with millions of dollars is simply false. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism was founded in 2008, way after the financial crisis in the 90s. This itself is enough to discredit the credibility of this article.

Second, even if this excerpt above is true (which is not), all it is saying is that the government provided funding to form a MINISTRY that oversees areas of culture, sports, and tourism. This does not mean that the government provides funding for kpop, kdramas. The entertainment industry in Korea is privatized as you can see from the three largest entertainment companies YG SM and JYP which are all public companies in the stock market.

Finally, the article claims:

"This included doing things like building massive, multi-million dollar concert auditoriums, refining hologram technology, and even helping regulate noeraebangs — karaoke bars — to protect the interests of K-pop stars."

And does not provide a single specific event where the government has built these venues just for the sake of "funding" Korea's pop culture. There is no evidence anywhere that these venues being built was to protect the interest of K-pop stars. In fact, most of the kpop concerts in Korea are done in large stadiums such as Gocheok Sky Dome which were clearly not built by the government to protect, nor "fund," kpop but for primary purposes of having sports venues.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Korean pop culture is "supported by government funding" and this entire phrase needs to be deleted.

Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As a third party, I've restored the article prior to your highly disruptive edit warring. First and foremost, I'm fairly confident in the National Public Radio's (NPR) reliability. All you're doing is copy-pasting parts of the article itself and crying foul as to how "it's not true". The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism was founded in 2008, yes, but you conveniently left out the fact that it was a result of a merger between 3 preceding agencies, which had included the Ministry of Culture mentioned in the article. And guess what? that itself is enough to discredit the credibility of assuming good faith with you by anyone else. Otterslort (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Otterslort (talk)

@Otterslort:

Even if it is credible, all the article is claiming is that the funding has gone to the Ministry, which simply oversees culture within the country. You still cannot provide a single excerpt or evidence about funding, which is an act of "financing" going directly into Korea's privatized entertainment industry. I also noted a high correlation between your activities and Incegnetty's activities - one that is extremely biased toward Taiwan and is committed to making edits that portray South Korea in a negative light through falsely citing articles without evidence and misrepresenting what the article is saying. Your actions include removing a list of large companies in South Korea and replacing it with a link that talks about economic inequality in Korea in Economy of South Korea article. If you had done just the latter, it is just adding additional information, which is not a problem, but removing completely fine and fair information and replacing it with another thing that shows your political POV just proves that you clearly do not wish to practice any good faith about anything Korea-related.
Again, provide a single excerpt from the NPR article that shows how the Korean government directly finances Korea's entertainment industry. If you fail to do so, I will report this to the dispute resolution board.
If you need help, the following includes everything that the article talks about anything government-related

... In the late '90s, when Asia went through a huge financial crisis, South Korea's leaders decided to use music to improve its image and build its cultural influence. So the country's government poured millions of dollars into forming a Ministry of Culture with a specific department devoted to K-pop.

It turns out that the Korean government treats its K-pop industry the way that the American government treats its automobile and banking industry, meaning that these are industries that have to be protected," Hong says.

This included doing things like building massive, multi-million dollar concert auditoriums, refining hologram technology, and even helping regulate noeraebangs — karaoke bars — to protect the interests of K-pop stars.

"They wanted Korea of the 21st century to be like America of the 20th century where America was just considered so universally cool that anything made in America would automatically be bought."

And while Nickelodeon's Make It Pop may be a sign of that buy-in, Hong says its music and dancing are not quite as polished as authentic K-pop. But Yang still believes Make It Pop can make it big, especially with a generation of tweens that's racially diverse and globally connected. ... Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you read Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, you'll see that the 2008 founding date refers to the current incarnation of it; "culture ministries" have existed in various guises or sub-organizations in the government since 1948. NPR is considered to be a solid reliable source, so simply dismissing it's claims because you don't like them isn't going to be much traction here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie (talk)

YES, THE ARTICLE STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED FUNDS TO FORM A MINISTRY, IT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IS SUPPORTED BY GOVERNMENT FUNDS
Yes, the article makes claims, and it claims that the government funded the Ministry of Culture. A government funding a ministry of culture to oversee a country's entertainment industry is not the same as the government supporting a country's entire entertainment industry through funding. Note that the meaning of funding is "is the act of providing resources to finance a need, program, or project." The phrase of contention says: "the country has been renowned for its globally influential pop culture supported by government funding" which can be directly translated to "Korea's pop culture is provided finances from the government to finance and support itself."
The year that the Ministry founded, the money the government gave to the ministry has nothing to do with this point of contention. We are arguing about whether the article claims that the South Korean government funds, or finances, South Korea's entertainment industry. If you read the article, it does NOT say that anywhere.

All the article says is:

1. "The country's government poured millions of dollars into forming a Ministry of Culture with a specific department devoted to K-pop." - All Ministries and Departments of any country are funded by the government. This does not mean that the entertainment industry is "supported by government funds." So having a Ministry of Transportation that oversees a country's transportation means that the whole transportation industry in a country is "supported by government funding?" Absolutely not.

2. "It turns out that the Korean government treats its K-pop industry the way that the American government treats its automobile and banking industry, meaning that these are industries that have to be protected." - A government protecting a particular industry does not mean the government FUNDS or provides FINANCES to the industry. If so, you can make a claim that U.S.'s automobile and banking industries are funded by the government, which is clearly not true.

3. "This included doing things like building massive, multi-million dollar concert auditoriums, refining hologram technology, and even helping regulate noeraebangs — karaoke bars — to protect the interests of K-pop stars." - First, the hologram technology investment was not done simply to "protect the interests of kpop stars." Yes, that could be the outcome of investing in the technology, but per an official of Korea Intellectual Property office, the investment was made so that the technology can be utilized across such industries as architecture, education, medical services and games" [2] - Karaoke bars in Korea are all privatized. This isn't even a point of contention or proof a government funding to Korea's pop industry. Karaoke - Building million-dollar concert auditoriums also does not mean that the government provides funds to South Korea's entertainment industry. So is the government building a football stadiums to improve its sport culture and performance is the same thing as it providing funds to the country's professional football teams so they can finance themselves?

PLEASE READ: I am NOT claiming that the article is false. I am claiming that the content of this article has been misrepresented by the editors. The only "funding" the article speaks of is the government funding a ministry. A ministry funded by the government that oversees a country's cultural aspect is NOT the same as the "a pop culture supported by government funding" Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Free free to suggest a wording change; e.g., "please change the sentence that reads X to the following: Y. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: Yes, absolutely.
Please change that sentence that reads "Since the 21st century, the country has been renowned for its globally influential pop culture supported by government funding, particularly in music (K-pop), TV dramas and cinema, a phenomenon referred to as the Korean Wave." to "Since the 21st century, the country has been renowned for its globally influential pop culture, particularly in music (K-pop), TV dramas and cinema, a phenomenon referred to as the Korean Wave."
Please also note that this was the way this sentence was presented for a very long time until the edit was made by Incegnetty without any proper explanation or discussion. The edit summary read "condense and trim excessive citations" which was clearly not the purpose of this edit as shown here Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I looked at the diffs. Incenetty's edit summary reflects their edit. The Korean wave sentence was unnecessarily excessively cited. The NPR source accurately reflects the South Korean's government involvement in wishing to turn K-pop into an international phenomenon to improve the country's soft power. Your requests are much more than just a wording change. The current version is fine. Otterslort (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Otterslort: the South Korean's government involvement in wishing to turn K-pop into an international phenomenon to improve the country's soft power. does not equal South Korea's government provides funds to support its pop culture Also, none of the citations that were trimmed contained any information about government funding. This was clearly an inappropriate edit without proper reasoning. The person trimmed citations and added this controversial new information without reaching any consensus or explaining in the edit summaries. @Ohnoitsjamie:, please look at this.

The NPR article states the following

"It turns out that the Korean government treats its K-pop industry the way that the American government treats its automobile and banking industry, meaning that these are industries that have to be protected," Hong says.

This included doing things like building massive, multi-million dollar concert auditoriums, refining hologram technology, and even helping regulate noeraebangs — karaoke bars — to protect the interests of K-pop stars.

Government investment in auditoriums, technology, and regulating karaoke bars is "pop culture supported by government funding" as stated in this Wikipedia article. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/04/13/399414351/how-the-south-korean-government-made-k-pop-a-thing
  2. ^ https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Sci-Tech/view?articleId=142954
Notfrompedro @Notfrompedro: See JYP Entertainment] YG Entertainment SM Entertainment and Hybe Corporation, the largest entertainment companies in Korea. None of them are funded by the government. Also, note, you can't conclude an entire pop culture is supported by government funding just because a government would build concert venues. Some of the largest auditoriums in the United States, such as Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, Shoreline Amphitheatre, and Saratoga Performing Arts Center have all been built by the government. Is it appropriate to claim that the U.S. culture is "supported by government funding" on the United States introduction page? I don't think so.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


@Qwertyasdf0192363: I answered your question repeatedly. You seem to think that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't apply to you and you can keep dragging this out even though absolutely no other editor agrees with you. See WP:BLUDGEON as noted above. Stop harassing editors on their own talk pages. This is the place for this discussion and if people are tired of explaining the same thing to you repeatedly then the problem is that you keep saying I don't hear that. Wikipedia works on consensus which you don't have to change the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" Literally the only "argument" provided on this talk page is from you, which I have already rebutted.
"Government investment in auditoriums, technology, and regulating karaoke bars is "pop culture supported by government funding" as stated in this Wikipedia article."
What year the Ministry was formed and the credibility of the article is not the source of contention. This is about the miscitation and misrepresentation of an article to fit a certain group of people's tastes. If you are going to debate, then answer how government investment in auditoriums, holograms, and regulating karaoke means a pop culture is supported by government funding, when literally most of the auditoriums in major countries are built by the government as well. You are the one who keeps stubbornly repeating your single sentence with no reasoning without incorporating any of the rebuttals even provided all the evidence. All @Ohnoitsjamie: has said is to argue this on the talk page and that what the article is saying is credible, which I agree. @Otterslort:'s argument how this addition of the phrase of legitimate has already been debunked from this. I am sorry to tell you but "no other editors" have provided any rebuttals or argument on this page except for you claiming
'Government investment in auditoriums, technology, and regulating karaoke bars is "pop culture supported by government funding" as stated in this Wikipedia article. '
Now prove how this means a government funds a country's pop culture just because it would build auditoriums, which happens everywhere around the world. You are being provided the exact way to rebut me to provide a well-sourced rebuttal which is the function of a talk page, which you are refusing to do so. That is not what a talk page is for.
Wikipedia works on consensus. Sure! [10] This government funding edit was provided by editors who who clearly have anti-Korean bias (evidence) deceptively added this phrase under the edit summary of "trimming citations", @Incegnetty:, @Otterslort:. This itself is enough to get the edit reverted.
I don't hear that is for you. Not me. You provided an argument. I rebutted it. Now you are just slapping conduct shortcuts saying I don't hear that.

Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qwertyasdf0192363: I guess you should take a moment to read the entire section again as three other editors have chimed in to disagree with you so it isn't just me. Consensus is against you. Please drop the stick. It has been explained to you multiple times that the articles (which are reliable sources) show that the Korean government has invested in infrastructure specifically and explicitly to promote the country's pop culture. The fact that you continue ignoring this and arguing means you are either not discussing this in good faith or we have a competence issue. Either way it is time for you to stop. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Notfrompedro: I accept the consensus and your argument that any investment made by the government in the auditorium, technology, or regulating karaoke bars, or any investments in regards to culture means that an entire country's pop culture should be described as "supported by government funds" I drop my argument and accept your viewpoints.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

out-of-date warning

Is the out-of-date information warning from March 2012, under the Military section still relevant? Some2Guy (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because in 10 years no one has updated that section. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bblsiz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hongik Ingan

Does anybody have a source which states that "Hongik Ingan" is the unofficial or de facto national motto of the Republic of Korea? The source given only gives the English translation, and the article for Hongik Ingan itself does not cite a reliable source that mentions this detail. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Request to add Politics of South Korea under the section South Korea#Government.223.25.74.34 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation Needed on General Statement

Does anyone know if there's a primary source that can be cited to support this statement under Modern South Korean History Before The War? This quoted statement just feels too broad of an overstatement to not have any cited sources at all.

"Both leaders began an authoritarian repression of their political opponents inside their region, seeking for a unification of Korea under their control. While South Korea's request for military support was denied by the United States, North Korea's military was heavily reinforced by the Soviet Union." Hakomashi (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The passage is not an overstatement or an erroneous generalisation. Political repression and a push for unification by Syngman Rhee in the ROK (First Republic) and Kim Il-sung in the DPRK are well-documented. I have added citations to the first sentence but have yet to for the second both sentences. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hakomashi (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

Missing unofficial national motto. Should be included somewhere. 168.99.13.163 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I removed the motto Hongik Ingan a few weeks ago. Do you have a source that states it is a widely used national motto? CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Nationalist Korea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nationalist Korea and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Nationalist Korea until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Protest Republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Protest Republic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Protest Republic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

I want to change South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea is a country in East Asia. To South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea is a country in east Asia. (Directions are not proper nouns) 我的兄弟姐妹太多了他們都很煩人 (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not a direction, but a part of a region name. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Naktong River

Naktong River is the longest river in South Korea with length of 325 miles (523 km) . Need to add this in geography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepesh7409 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Climate

I would strongly disagree with the comment: "South Korea tends to have a humid continental climate and a humid subtropical climate, "

South Korea tends to be humid only in the summer. During most of the year, it is relatively dry. The winters are so dry in Seoul that my skin cracks. I currently live in Wisconsin, and I would have to say that January in Seoul is not much warmer that January in Madison, Wisconsin.

Most data on South Korean climate indicates that the climate in Korea is temperate.

Even with climate change, with increased temperature and precipitation, South Korea's climate cannot be classified as "humid" or "subtropical."
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000043141.54763.f8.pdf

The mean temperature of Seoul, Korea was 11.3 degrees C in 2020.
The mean temperature of Chicago and New York City were 12 degree C in 2020.

The annual rainfall of Korea is ~1000 mm.
The annual rain fall of New York State is ~1200mm.

Hmmm... does that mean Chicago and New York City are humid continental to subtropical climates???

Even Southernmost Jeju Island is no where near as hot and warm as Florida, which is considered subtropical.

Within Korea, Gangwondo Province gets extremely cold and dry in the winter, similar to Wisconsin. If you would have to put a climate range, I would say temperate to continental, with perhaps Jeju Island bordering on subtropical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copepod2021 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Copepod2021: "Humid" is a technical term in the Köppen climate classification system, which I think just means that the climate is not arid or semi-arid desert. It does not mean the winters are not dry (that's actually a specific subtype). I think this refer to the amount of water available for or actually formed into precipitation, rather than to how the air is experienced by human skin. Indoor air can be quite dry in the winter even when outside the relative humidity is 100% and it's snowing, because of the much lower water-carrying capacity of below-freezing air compared to room temperature.
Different scientists seem to classify parts of South Korea differently (e.g. File:Koppen-Geiger Map D present.svg vs File:Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Map.png; maybe due to different time periods being measured?) but Seoul and Gangwondo seem to be either Dwa or Dfa. Dwa is continental with dry winter and hot summer; parts of North Dakota and Minnesota are classified this way. Dfa is continental with no dry season and hot summers; Chicago and New York City are classified this way. It looks like Busan and Jeju Island are on the cool edge of Cfa, which is subtropical with no dry season and hot summer. That makes them similar in classification to Washington, D.C. Northern Florida is toward the warmer edge of the same subtropical zone as D.C., but Miami in southern Florida is classified as tropical. All of the "C" Köppen classifications are considerate "temperate", including both "subtropical" and "Mediterranean" types. If we go by latitude alone rather than Köppen assignments based on actual measurements, both D.C. and Busan appear to be on the boundary between the northern "temperate" and "subtropical" zones. (See Temperate climate.)
I added a link to Köppen climate classification from the article, and mentioned that's the system where these terms come from. Hopefully that clears things up? -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Significance of Itaewon Incident in part of history section

I am removing this part as it's significance is very low compared to other parts. Why is the 1995 mall incident not included? You can revert my edit but give a reason if so. Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

" In 2021, the fertility rate stood at just 0.81 children per woman."

Can we just round that up to one? Suggesting a woman had a percentage of a child sounds equal parts creepy and stupid. 24.69.97.22 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

Please use the term "east sea" instead of "Sea of Japan"
It is called the East sea (동해) 75.2.217.189 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

what is the famous places in korea

What is the famous places in korea 196.115.149.251 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What kind of places would you like to know about? There are many types of notable places in my opinion.--とんずらする豚 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

Please change to Yoon Suk Yeol, which has been moved since 8 May 2023. 112.204.206.165 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Yoon Suk Yeol" -- Shouldn't it be changed to "Yoon Suk-yeol"?

Current romanization of his name is inconsistent with the South Korean romanization convention for names. 172.117.162.40 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The change was the result of a move discussion. Yue🌙 03:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Sejong-si?

Several sources including some linked to the government and also Wikipedia suggests Sejong-si to be the de facto Capital of South Korea.

I suggest to write both the de jure, and de facto capitals in the Capital section. Considering both cities houses important administrative offices.

https://www.sejong.go.kr/eng/sub02_010101.do;jsessionid=F6C67571CAB958AE177B5AEFB610E902.portal2 GucciNuzayer (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You can add Sejong City or Sejong-si as the de facto administrative capital of South Korea while Seoul is the de jure capital of South Korea in my opinion.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
That's an advertising piece. A number of high-quality independent sources would help bolster WP:DUE. CMD (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The source(s) should also describe Sejong as the "de facto capital". This should not be a designation made unilaterally by editor(s) based on their interpretation(s) of the source(s), as it would be original research. Yue🌙 01:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 1 July 2023

A protected redirect, Republic of Korea, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[South Korea]]
{{rcat shell|
{{R from official name}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[South Korea]]

{{Rcat shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from official name}}
{{R mentioned in hatnote}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done DanCherek (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
To editor DanCherek: thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Please update the information about Aerospace engineering.

The current document on aerospace is too old. Recent information such as KSLV-2,3 should be updated. Win8050 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

The article has evolved using predominantly mdy date format, which is first date format selected in early June 2003 (or first month–day without year in early October 2002, which is the first date format created in the article). In principle, the reason for keeping the mdy date is that the date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of the article was the mdy format, so the article kept using the mdy dates from February 2013 to May 2021. However, a user changed the mdy to a other format for no reason, and soon after, the other user also wrote and changed whole mdy dates without consensus with false claim.

The claim is false. As mentioned before, because even at the very beginning, the article has been adopting mdy until May 2021 (and first Use mdy dates in February 2013), but this one edit just changed the whole mdy dates without consensus. I think this is can be changed without consensus, as editor was violated MOS:DATERET, so please edit to Use mdy dates and change to mdy in the article.

And if this is rejected because it requires consensus, please tell me why this requires consensus (as the previous edit violated MOS:DATERET). WAccount1234567890 (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Your rationale is valid. I see no valid reasons to do a manual revert which is seemingly done using scripts by changing from long-term mdy to dmy without double checking properly, maybe it was accidentally however the edit summary and prior revision comparison simply doesn't tally even though I would like to AGF however not for this. Please WP:BRD in new section below to gain WP:CONSENSUS to change back to dmy from mdy which was already in use since decades ago. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Korea

Why is article called “South Korea” if the official name of the country is “Republic of Korea”? MaxLeb228 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Because "South Korea" is the common name in English (and a lot of other languages). Yue🌙 19:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

East Sea

In August 1992, the government of the Republic of Korea decided on 'East Sea' as the official English name for the East Sea at the government level. 123.98.183.4 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:NC-SoJ. This topic has been argued about in hundreds of threads across Wikipedia and every time the consensus has been to use WP:COMMONNAME, which is Sea of Japan. Under COMMONNAME, you can see that it does not matter what the 'official' name is, what matters is what the majority of reliable English language sources call it, which is Sea of Japan. I mean case in point South Korea or North Korea; those articles are titled using the common names, not "Republic of Korea" or "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
Coming from a Korean, stop with the pointless nationalism. The world can easily tell what nationalism is, and it makes us look petty and childish. There are more important things to worry about. toobigtokale (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, people make requests not just on Talk:Sea of Japan but on this talk page too? Interesting. 112.207.119.204 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Change the Sea of japan to East Sea of korea

Wrong information 68.71.7.166 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:NC-SoJ. This topic has been argued about in hundreds of threads across Wikipedia and every time the consensus has been to use WP:COMMONNAME, which is Sea of Japan.
Coming from a Korean, stop with the pointless nationalism. The world can easily tell what nationalism is, and it makes us look petty and childish. There are more important things to worry about. toobigtokale (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Some Koreans say names of sea are used by viewpoints from a continent such as North Sea in Europe but, in my opinion, we should use Sea of Japan as the common name in current situation while it might be named between 29th August 1910 and 15th August 1945.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, people make requests not just on Talk:Sea of Japan but on this talk page too? Interesting. 112.207.119.204 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's everywhere, any time the term "Sea of Japan" appears in a prominent location I know there'll be a nationalistic post on the talk page toobigtokale (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

In South Korea#Post-Korean War (1960–1990) first para last sentence, pls fix ce error by changing the text

"Under Par, South Korea took an active role..."

to

"Under Park, South Korea took an active role..."

Also, pls add the 'Click here to add an edit request' thing to this page so that new editors can readily ask for an edit to be made.

Thank you. 220.235.82.123 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Typo fixed, I can't offhand find the talkpage template in question though. CMD (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I did look to see if I could find it. Odd that it's not included or linked on the WP:Edit request page. 220.235.82.123 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
So I think I've found the template. It should be added to the top of the article so that there is a button there and, afaict, it will also add a button to the talk.
Obviously I can't add this to the article myself so I'll raise a separate edit request. 220.235.82.123 (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Korea/Archive_10&oldid=1211460721"