Jump to content

Talk:South Korea/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Lede

Does anyone else here feel the thrid paragraph of the lede is a bit too much? Any ideas for cleanup? I don't think we should nuke the whole paragraph, but I'm not sure what should stay and what should go (on another side, maybe the whole North/South thing is important enough to warrant a brief mention in the intro?). yandman 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; but I've been busy in the real world. *sigh* Mtd2006 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the second and third paragraphs could be reduced and combined. Apart from a short mention of history, maybe it's enough to mention the division, Korean War, "Miracle of Han River" and the chaebols.
The rest seems like fluff you would see in a travel/investment brochure, and doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia.
Baeksu (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
How's this as a second intro paragraph — something which combines most of the revisions I've seen (references omitted here). And yes, that third paragraph is a catch-all which has no single topic.

Following the consolidation of the Three Korean Kingdoms under Silla in 668, Korea was again divided during the Later Three Kingdoms period (892 - 936). The Goryeo Dynasty unified Korea in 936 until succeeded by the Joseon Dynasty in 1392. Korea remained united until the end of the Korean Empire in 1910. On 1910 August 22, Japan annexed the Korean Empire with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty, and began a 35-year period of Japanese rule. After World War II, Korea was partitioned into two political entities, North Korea and South Korea. Unresolved disputes following partition led to the Korean War (1950 - 1953) that ended with a ceasefire agreement, which remains in effect.

The "Miracle on the Han" is more economy than history. I considered an economy paragraph in the intro; I don't see much agreement among current editors. Mtd2006 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Ontario Museum

Update citation for url=http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=sg1yebpnv8

  • Old title: "Ancient Civilizations"
  • New title: "News Releases: Gallery of Korea"
  • Date: 12 December 2005

--Mtd2006 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This news release from the Royal Ontario Museum is used to support the statement that "Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world". The reference has been misused. It's an example of cherry picking (see Cherry picking below). The news release was incorrectly titled "Ancient Civilizations" in an old revision[1]. The news release is not about ancient civilizations. It's an announcement that the Royal Ontario Museum will display over 250 Korean objects in its new gallery.

An editor found the quotation, "Considered one of the oldest civilizations in the world, Korea has evolved as a distinct culture making its mark through art and technological accomplishments." The news release is an incorrect citation for the claim that "Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world". A correct reference would be a research paper that describes ancient civilizations. A museum press release doesn't do that. The statement should be removed from the introduction. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else noticed this. I tried to delete this part of the sentence, and provided a rationale for doing so, but the passage was instantly reverted by a Korean editor.

 Done --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced or controversial information

Note: restoring this section, from Archive 4, because I think it was a good idea. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you find unsourced facts that you can't verify, please comment here. List the section and quote the unsourced fact. Unsourced facts should be verified or removed, see WP:VERIFY. Please sign with ~~~~ , and thank you. Mtd2006 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Add your entry under the last |- (and above the |} ), using the following formatting:
| section where statement is located || statement || comment ~~~~ || 
|-
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Section Statement Comment Action taken?
Transportation and energy "South Korea has currently the world's fifth largest rapid transit system." This statement has a reference to Total rapid transit systems statistics by country, but that article has no reference at all. Mtd2006 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Removed rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
After division "The [2002 FIFA World Cup] marked South Korea's emergence in the world stage and provided stronger economic growth and a cultural union between South Koreans. No source. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Removed rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Education "Mathematics, science, Korean, social studies, and English are generally considered[who?] to be the most important subjects" By whom? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Removed for a couple reasons. First of all, it's not informative; it lists just about every major topic, so it's just like saying "every school subject is important." Secondly, I'm not sure how accurate it all is; it seems to just be parroting a commonly held stereotype. One source I know of, Yim, Sungwon (2007). "Globalization and Language Policy in South Korea". Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. Routledge. ISBN 0805856943. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help), focuses mainly on the subjects of English and Korean history/culture, and says little about math and science in schools. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
South Korea was the first country in the world to provide high-speed internet access to every primary, junior, and high school. Bold claim, no source. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Removed rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Intro Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Incorrect claim. Source goes to a Canadian museum brochure, which is inappropriate. I've researched this and numerous middle eastern and Asian civilizations are older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.76.26 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2009 Removed. This has been a controversial bit in the past, with some people saying the museum source was ok. I don't feel strongly either way on that, but I do believe the statement is not very relevant to this article (might be more relevant in the Korea article) and is not providing enough benefit to make it worth the controversy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Economy South Korea has been the world's second fastest growing economy for over four decades.[citation needed] No source there. I'm sure there is a source to be found somewhere in this article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed. — This historical GDP growth data doesn't support the statement. On the other hand, consider this chart! I suspect graph trouble, see GDP chart. Mtd2006 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Number and quality of sources

WP:V states that: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." [emphasis added]

The article in its current state has a lot of sourcing which, to me, is not likely to be challenged. The material which is (unnecessarily) sourced includes things like:

  • Hosting of special events
  • Universally accepted historical facts (such as Syngman Rhee was the first president in the South)
  • Korea having trade agreements with other countries

I know that having sources is valuable in general, but these things do not need to be sourced, and I'm tempted to start removing these blatantly unnecessary sources.

Another issue I have is that some of the worst peacockery in the sections dealing with the economy, military and technologies are based on sources such as the CNN, Newsweek and New York Times. I know that these are usually considered to be reliable sources, but they also have a heavy tendency to use hyperbole and exaggerations.

WP:RS has some discussion on the issues of using mainstream media sources, and I think that in particular for social and economic issues, we should probably avoid citing these sometimes sensationalist articles. Baeksu (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hoped for more discussion from frequent editors about sources and how they're used. You've identified problems that apply to the entire South Korea article. WP:V says, The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. News articles are good sources when used in context, but they're easy to cherry pick for choice sound bites.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. — Mark Twain

I submit that peacock language isn't the fault of sources like CNN, The Korea Times, Newsweek, etc., but rather how the news articles are used here in Wikipedia. News sources are incorrectly cited for individual phases or factoids rather than for the events they report — for example, see discussion T-50 Golden Eagle above. An editor cited a Korea Times article to use the out-of-context phrase, "world's only high-performance, supersonic trainer," and then interpreted "only" to mean "first." Mark Twain would be proud!
I don't think it's correct to avoid reliable sources because they're misused, but rather we should require that sources be used appropriately — not used out of context and not cherry-picked. To that end, let's consider each reference on its own merits. Yes, a quick glance reveals a large number of sources. So, do we start removing the inappropriate and excessive ones? These same references support some exceptional claims that also must go with them — see Royal Ontario Museum. I have two candidates:
  1. The citation for the Korea Time article, "US Pilots Test Fly T-50 Trainer" is unnecessary. Delete. The "ROK Air Force Equipment" reference from Global Security is sufficient for a description of South Korea's military aircraft. However, the statement "operates the ninth largest airforce in the world" is not supported by the Global Security reference, but that's another issue...
  2. Yes, the encyclopedia articles cited for Kim Il Sung and Syngman Rhee are unnecessary — the statement that they were the first presidents is apparent, uncontroversial and shouldn't be challenged. Delete.
I support the removal of unnecessary and inappropriate sources. The difficulty lies in trimming the peacock language and exceptional claims!
Mtd2006 (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Good going. Okay to {{external links}} to the Notes section? Mtd2006 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Full democracy

The article says: "South Korea is a developed country and one of the two full democracies in Asia." Whoa there. I don't question that South Korea is a full democracy, however that is defined. But there is only one other in Asia? Asia is a big place. I'm guessing the article intends Japan to be the other. How about the Phillipines? Turkey? India? Taiwan? Mongolia? etc.? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Democracy Index says that "The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and attempted to quantify this with an Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture." How about adding the phrase "according to Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2008"?Godneck (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be better. If we say as an absolute that Japan and South Korea are the only two full democracies in Asia people in the other countries might object. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I added it.Godneck (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy section

The Economy section is one of the sections with tons of problems. I'm not ready to tackle the whole thing yet, but the first paragraph is within my reach. The peacock terms are obvious and I'm about to remove them, but I'm also tempted to remove the claim that SK is "a role model for many developing countries". It has 4 sources, but I'm not convinced by them; first of all, other than the 4th (which I can't access), the rest are specific examples of some countries, and don't necessarily prove that there are "many" countries that use SK as a role model; like Mtd2006 said somewhere above, in an article of this size you're bound to be able to find dozens of sources for anything, but we need to be selective in choosing which sources are actually valuable. Furthermore, the first source is from the Seoul Times, which is an RS but is also a South Korean newspaper so I wouldn't necessarily trust it as a source about how great or not great South Korea is; the second source doesn't really single out SK as a "role model" for the African countries it's discussing, but says the role model is East Asian countries in general. Anyway, would anyone object if I were to remove that sentence about role model stuff? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor, KieferFL, deserves the credit for an extensive, December 2008, revision of the Economy section, (see Archive_4#Economy_section). The sad fact is that KieferFL's work was generally accepted in discussion, but most of the changes, including the removal of the role model statement, were reverted in early 2009 — often by the same editors who had praised KieferFL's contribution.
I don't object to removing the role model statement. One reason is the Afro News article. The article, a staff-writer editorial, was cherry picked for a speech by South Korean economist, Ji Hong Kim. In fact, the Afro News article disputes Kim's speech when the editorial says, "Historians will in no way agree with economists claiming Africa can learn from Korea. In fact, Korea is the least comparable model for Africa among Asian countries." The Afro News briefly explains that the role model issue is complicated by historical and economic conditions unique to South Korea. Mtd2006 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GDP chart

There's something disturbing about this chart. It shows an economy with continuously increasing growth. The file description says the data source is Nation Master. This GDP data for 1960, 1970, 1980, 2000, and 2006 matches the chart values. The 1990 chart value matches the data for 1989, so the chart points at the decade years are mostly accurate. The problem is the smooth line that connects them and what it implies. What happened to GDP between those years? Where's the effect of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis? Not surprisingly, there's a dip in GDP centered on the annual data for 1998, and another one is lurking at 2001.
I'll make a chart, which shows annual GDP data rather than decade values, to substitute for this one. Any comments or suggestions? I want to remove the flag (Chartjunk). Mtd2006 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OECD has data starting from 1970. Nominal GDP shows decrease only for the year 1998, other years show a growth rate between 2-20%. You can browse the OECD data here: [2].
Oh, and feel free to remove the flag.
Baeksu (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The differences are interesting. I'll make two annual charts, one for IMF GDP and one for OECD GDP. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been distracted. I've made the charts, but I want to document them properly before adding them to Wikipedia. Please bear with me. Mtd2006 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

South Korea is NOT a developed country

Hi Sir/Madam,

I just now checked with the CIA world factbook and found that South Korea is not a developed country. Visit the link https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html to see the list of developed countries (DCs).

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That page does list SK as an "advanced economy" and states that the terms are more or less synonymous (the difference appears to be that "advanced economy" is a designation used by the IMF, and "developed country" by the CIA). The WP article developed country also uses the interchangeably (and Advanced economy is a redirect to there). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The developed-economy statement is a very touchy issue for some editors. The Developed country article that Rjanag mentioned explains that the UN, the IMF, and the CIA all have lists, but they don't totally agree on membership — or even on a common definition of the term. South Korea is one of the Four Asian Tigers, one of many unofficial lists that rank South Korea's economy as developed. My preference would be to remove the statement and replace it with a more informative description of South Korea's economy... a major rewrite (see the Economy section discussion). Mtd2006 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think it's important to specify in a word or two where in the general economic breakdown SK falls. From what it sounds like, one solution would be to replace [[developed country]] with [[advanced economy]], but that difference is merely cosmetic; both links go to the same place, and the CIA glossary Svr014 linked above admits that they are more or less the same thing ("note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey"). It will also help to add a qualifier (such as "is considered" or "is listed by the CIA/IMF/whatever as") before the term, no matter what term is used. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No disagreement from me, in principle. The difficulty is finding wording that will satisfy the developed-country crowd and prevent conflict over which list to use. The UN, CIA and IMF are all reliable sources. They use varying definitions and methodology, so the lists are different. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the CIA has separate lists of advanced economies, and developed countries (DCs). SK is an advanced economy along with Singapore but NOT a developed country (DC). Check yourself on the list https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. Svr014 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter

The problem is that the CIA is not the final authority of which countries are developed or advanced. The CIA is one of several reliable sources that have analyzed data and made a list. If we accept the CIA list, can we ignore the IMF? If any source can be considered an authority on world economics, the IMF must be included. How can we objectively choose between the CIA, IMF, UN and other reliable sources that have conflicting lists? What if another editor rejects our choice? Mtd2006 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
My stance is still that there's no need to "choose" if we stick with "developed country". That's what the IMF uses, that's what the CIA admits (perhaps begrudgingly, but whatever), and that's what I think most people's intuition is anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to inform you folks that the link mentioned as a source while describing SK as a developed country is a tabloid. Tabloids are NOT credible sources and cannot be counted as authentic sources. The UN classifies only Japan as the developed country (DC) in East Asia. The IMF has the advanced economy list and we cannot combine the terms 'advanced economy' and 'developed country' at any point. The CIA so far has classified SK as an advanced economy but not a developed country. It is imperative on the part of wikipedia to give importance to credible sources before listing any country as developed, developing, or underdeveloped country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was there in 2002 and it seemed "fully developed" to me. In some ways even more so than the USA. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I am an IT specialist from South Korea. Whenever I travel America, I feel that IT environment, especially on the network status is much poorer in USA than in Korea. I don't know the exact criteria for "developed country". But what I know is that I can use more abundant internetworking in South Korea. For my job, it's the best.Godneck (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too Godneck. I was in Dae Gu for around a week. I went to an Internet cafe a couple times to e-mail, etc. The speed was much faster than anything I ever encountered in the US. Also you could buy lunch in a restaurant for around 80 cents. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I also had no fears about health, safety, crime, etc. while I was there. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
according to CIA, Developed countries are generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000 although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $10,000 and two of the excluded OPEC countries have figures of more than $10,000;[3], Now(2009) Korea is a OECD member, also Korea's GDP per capita is over $10,000 --Tnaniua (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Is developed only GDP then? I'm not saying it isn't. I don't know. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The CIA list for "developed countries" and others (former USSR/EE and LDC) follows the old groupings of First, Second and Third World countries, and is not really based on GDP. Looking at the list, you can see the absence of successful East European economies, such as Czech Republic, Hungary and Estonia, even though all of these have GDPs higher than USD 10,000 (Czech Republic has GDP per capita of USD 21,000).
I think CIAs "developed countries" shouldn't be used, as it doesn't really reflect the current situation. The IMF "advanced economies" seems like a much more relevant and useful category.
Baeksu (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"Developed country" means the most to the lay reader, so no matter what list we use I think developed/developing is the best way to present it. And, as I said above, the IMF's "advanced economy" is roughly analogous to "developed country" anyway, so I see no harm in citing IMF but using this term rather than theirs. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked with one of the former employees of the U.S. government and the CIA. The CIA has made the list of 'advanced economies' separately. It clearly includes Sigapore and South Korea as advanced economies. The CIA also made a separate list of 'developed countries' and 'less developed countries'. South Korea along with Singapore, China, India, Hong Kong are classified as less developed countries. Source courtesy of https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.

The CIA has also made a separate list of 'least developed countries'. So, I want you all to understand that South Korea is an advanced economy but not a developed country. The article also has support from the UN list of developed countries that classifies Japan as the only developed country in East Asia. Just because South Korea is in close proximity to Japan does not make her completely developed. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

-There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions. - according to UN, Lesotho is developed(Lesotho is developed and S.K. is developing? lol) By the way, Why do you think Singapore is less developed than japan? everybody knows Singapore is more developed than japan.(GDP, People quality etc.) --Tnaniua (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, of course not, "Just because South Korea is in close proximity to Japan does not make her completely developed", who said so? And the CIA list of "developed countries" has been under much dispute in the past over its relevency. You can have a read for youself on the developed countries article discussion page. It states that South Africa and Turkey are developed countries, but not South Korea or Singapore? Some serious considerations need to be made here. Pds0101 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the intro

Some good editing has taken place in the past month, and the article has generally improved, so well done to those folks who have invested their time in trying to improve this problematic article.

One area that hasn't improved much is the intro. The first paragraph is fine, the second paragraph perhaps a little heavy on the "economic miracle" thing, but from then onwards it's focused way too much on listing economic and democratic achievements. Is it really necessary to list all the organisations Korea belongs to in the intro? Once the "significant economic growth" fact is mentioned, is it really necessary to have any more sentences in the intro dealing with this?

I would suggest that these should be replaced with some general information about the environment, relationship with North Korea, population density, language and culture. Thoughts, people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC) why? no problem. and don't delete sourced material.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::As a start, I replaced the second paragraph with a brief history and removed the third paragraph (see Talk:South_Korea#Lede, above, for other comments). I suggest a third paragraph, if required, needs a topic. I agree that the intro shouldn't be a catch-all list of facts. Economy is a major section in the article, so that's possible topic. But, economy is also a subject that collects random factiods (#1 on List A, #3 on List B, "developed country", "advanced economy", etc.) Culture or environment might be good, neutral topics for the intro. Mtd2006 (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete sourced matrerial. you major deleted other user's contibutions.(don't major delete) your edit is not consensed edit. please don't acting like a you are judge or something.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree with Mtd here; this discussion has been going on for many weeks, if not months, and there is consensus that the article needs to be cleaned up. As for deleting "sourced material"...in an article of this size, whether or not information is "sourced" doesn't make much difference. This is a big topic, you could find some sort of source for just about any claim. The issue is how good the sources are, and whether or not the information is being presented properly, in a way that is neutral and doesn't give undue weight. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
well, i think it is not a proper reason for "remove". if you don't like its style, don't see its article. somebody want that informations. it is a proper sourced material", and somebody need it.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. i changed its intro. moved to new paragraph. now, no problem here. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope we get comments from other editors. Cherry Blossom OK deleted the third paragraph, but restored the second paragraph. There are problems with the second paragraph that other editors have mentioned:
  • focused way too much on listing economic and democratic achievements
  • list of organisations
  • second and third paragraphs could be reduced and combined
  • rest seems like fluff you would see in a travel/investment brochure
Mtd2006 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
i moved its paragraph. now, intro section is clear.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
i already said, you don't like its style? it is a very subjective opinion. there is no wikipedia guideline that you have right to remove sourced material. (and you ignored other user's contributions)
it seems like a you have a "envy" to s.korea.
but, i already said, it is not a proper reason for "remove".
i moved its paragraph. and its intro is clear. no problem. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't attack other editors. Mtd2006 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
i never attack other editor. Please don't remove other user's contributions without their permit. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You did attack other editors, please drop it. As for removal of other's contributions, they don't need your "permission"; you don't own your contributions, see the text below the edit window that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I really liked the first try by Mtd2006. It was very clear and concise. Baeksu (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
it is not proper material for intro section. intro sention need some brief information of current status. not history. and this article already have brief history section [4] and this [5]. it is a duplicated information. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:LEDE. The lead section is supposed to summarize all the main headers of the article; that would include History. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
He removed brief information of current status and filled hisory in intro.
According to WP:LEDE, there is no guideline that intro section must fill hisory, and there is no guideline that intro section remove current status info.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think that there should be some mention of a) economic development and b) democratization, as I feel that they are as important as history. I do agree that they should not be the main focus, though. Listing memberships in international organizations, however, is not important enough to be mentioned in the lede, unless such a membership is uniquely important for the reader to know about.
Baeksu (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE.

  • The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
  • Opening paragraph
The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity).

According to WP:LEDE, it is not porper that remove current status info, and filled history section. i already said, history section is duplicated information. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete sourced material. it is not justified that remove sourced material. if i bloicked 3rr, however, i will have right to recover its sourced material. There is absolutery no reason that remove sourced material, and filled brief history only. and not all user agree your edit. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already responded to this: the fact that the material is "sourced" doesn't mean it automatically needs to be kept. Since you obviously didn't read my messages above, I will repeat it for you here: "As for deleting "sourced material"...in an article of this size, whether or not information is "sourced" doesn't make much difference. This is a big topic, you could find some sort of source for just about any claim. The issue is how good the sources are, and whether or not the information is being presented properly, in a way that is neutral and doesn't give undue weight." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I already said, it is a very subjective opinion. there is no wikipedia guideline that you have right to remove sourced material. i think it is not a proper reason for "remove".Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Any editor has the right to remove any material that is not benefiting the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
at the same time, Any editor can recover it. there is no wikipedia guideline say it sourced and public trusted material must be delete it. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, you can't "recover" it if you're turning it into an edit war, and if four other editors are asking you not to. "Wikipedia guidelines" are not the only thing to consider; you also have to consider cooperating with other editors. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
first of all, i don't want silly chiken game, but, in this case, Mtd2006 first start it.[6] until dispute resolved, it must keep as previous version. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, four other editors have asked you not to revert the changes, it doesn't matter "who started it". You can't hinder changes forever just because you disagree with them and someone else "started it". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

nah, four other ediotr support your claim? who? no. baeksu is not support your claim. How about use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? in this case, Mtd2006 first start it today. until dispute resolved, it must keep as previous version. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Baeksu does, see right here: "I really liked the first try by Mtd2006". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
no.
he said, "I do think that there should be some mention of a) economic development and b) democratization, as I feel that they are as important as history" Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the very next sentence: "I do agree that they should not be the main focus, though.". Let's just stop trying to put words in another editor's mouth and just drop it right here. You have already said everything you can say, I have already said everything I can say, neither one of us is going to change anything by continuing to go around in circles like this, and there's no point arguing over what Baeksu thinks when Baeksu himself isn't here. Plus, with every new message we post here, we're making it even less likely that any uninvolved editor is going to want to take the time to read all of it. It's best for everyone if we both just shut up and let other editors weigh in. I'm going to bed and will not be reachable for several hours. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
you forgot one important thing, he never support its edit.
According to WP:LEDE.
  • The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
  • Opening paragraph
The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity).

According to WP:LEDE, it is not porper that remove current status info, and filled history section. i already said, history section is duplicated information.

OK. if arbitration members accept it, then i can accept its edit, too. please use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration before edit war. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not going to RfAR. That is the final stage of dispute resolution and is only used for major disputes, usually across numerous articles and involving many editors. This is a minor dispute and it only just started. The best thing to do is to be quiet and wait to see what some other editors say—and, most importantly, to stop reverting. You have reverted the article 7 times since Mtd2006's original edit; if you want anyone to weigh in on the dispute, you need to at least let the article be stable in the meantime. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
you must stop reverting, too. in this case, Mtd2006 first start it.[7] until dispute resolved, it must keep as previous version.
i already said, its material is pretty fine and all sourced material by public trusted evidence.
somebody want that informations. it is a proper sourced material", and somebody need it. so, it is not proper reason for delete. The first paragraph introduced current status, not history. Korea history also belong to North korea. so, it is not a good info for first paragraph of "south" Korea. first paragraph need brief infortmaion of current status. it is better. not history thing. this article is not a "history of Korea". this article is "south korea" you know, many tour guide site, and any foreign goverment introduce south korea as "current status". not history first. if you want history thing, go to and read korea history article. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the intro. On the contrary with some editors who are trying to delete unnecessary information, I tried to include all of the information that editors added. Many editors usually added information about history and economy. It is right that Korean history and Korean economy is a very important information. However, it is not enough. First, I added simple information like about South Korean society, language, politics, culture, and education. Second, I reverted the paragraph about South Korean economy. Third, I included all of the references that says both "South Korea is advanced economy" and "South Korea is a developed country". Fourth, I added and changed several information like foundation of South Korean government and the year of Korea's birth. I'll add references for the new unreferenced information. Godneck (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Some editor deleted my contribution because we have not reached consensus. However, deleting paragraph about economy was not by consensus. I tried to retrieve it. The problem of the intro section is that we don't have enough information including culture, society etc. Article now has only information about Korean history which has no direct relation with South Korea.(You know, South Korean government was founded in 1948.) Should we know about Chosun dynasty in the intro section?Godneck (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted my contribution with following change:
1. adding reference for the Korean birthyear
2. deleting information about Sila and Chosun dynasty.
3. deleting duplicated information about advanced economy(merging referecnes)Godneck (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One editor with just IP address reverted my contribution again. How about discussing why you think your version is more adequate for consensus. Several editors are retrieving Mtd2006's version. But, the version was also modified without consensus as you can see above discussion. Deleting one paragraph with sources without any consensus is not adequate editing. Anyway, we need discuss what the consensus on this issue is from now. What do other editors think? Don't try to edit without discussion.Godneck (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I recently received a complaint concerning the editorial dispute taking place on this article. After reviewing the situation, I'd like to share my thoughts on the article's present situation with the contributors—not by way of patronisingly saying "well done" from my comfortable 'outside-looking-in' position, but rather in the hope that they might be of future use in the editing process.

Overall, I have been struck by the willingness to cooperate on the part of almost every editor contributing to the rewrite of the lead section. Establishing comprehensive inter-editor discussion to resolve instances of disputed edits is a crucial stage of the consensus-building process; I'd encourage you all to continue your good work and to work towards sculpting—through discussion and through being bold and making changes for the others to build upon—a lead section of the solid quantity Wikipedia's readers expect from an encyclopedia.

An important component of the editing process on a collaborative encyclopedia is a willingness to be bold and make changes; an equally important component, and one which goes hand in hand with the one already mentioned, is knowing how to react to an edit one disagrees with. On an article where the editors are working against an atmosphere of mutual respect for one another, reverting a change made by another editor that you don't think is in the best interests of the article is in many cases the least difficult and most efficient response; think of it as akin to having one of those true friends who is willing to tell you their honest opinion, even when it's not what you would ideally wish to hear. The revert should be followed up by a friendly, open-minded discussion on the article talk page, discussing what points of the disputed edit each party agrees or disagrees with; hopefully, the discussion will produce a consensus on the matter—and a solution (whether it be to undo the revert, retain it, or insert a new change altogether) can be implemented accordingly.

Having said that, reverting is not an exact science; and in many cases undoing a change will not be the appropriate response. As mature and experienced editors, it will fall to you to decide whether to revert the change and open discussion, or to discuss first; for my part, I adhere to a one revert philosophy and, if an editor reverts my revert, I will not re-revert but rather will open talk page discussions. In the case of the complaint I received on my user talk page, that would have been the most professional response to the situation; it may be the case that certain editors contributing to this article ought to examine their editing habits and decide whether they are placing too much reliance on reverting and too little on consensus-building discussion.

In my review of the complaint, I noted some recent activity to the lead section on the part of editors who have not participated in talk page discussions regarding the lead section. The editors active on the most recent talk page discussion was: one anonymous editor; Cherry Blossom OK; Mtd2006; Rjanag; Baeksu; and Godneck. Neither of the editors concerned in that revert seem to have participated in the ongoing discussion, which is somewhat disappointing: making changes to the lead without participating in consensus-building serves both to disrupt the implementation of edits adjusted and perfected on the talk page, and to complicate the process of establishing consensus. I would encourage all editors who aim to contribute to the lead in the future to be invited into discussions pertaining to the lead; by doing so, you will keep complications to a minimum.

When, as I am sure you will, you reach a consensus on how the lead of the article should read, it is expected that changes to that lead be discussed: consensus can change, but until it is established as having changed, the assumption is that it remains in effect. So, looking to the future, I would encourage editors who make changes to the lead—once it has settled into the form all agree to be acceptable—to be courteously asked to present on the article talk page their case for adjusting the lead section's content; if they continue to make adjustments, a more persuasive message may be left; and, if they ignore that, administrator intervention may be solicited—from my user talk page, from the talk page of another administrator, or from the administrators' noticeboards for incidents.

I noted references on the part of one user to seeking arbitration of this dispute. Let me categorically say that that is not the thinking of a positive editor. In the first instance, suggesting an arbitration request be filed is procedurally inaccurate: arbitration is the final step in a lengthy dispute resolution process. (You guys are doing just fine as it stands.) In the second instance, arbitration is reserved for disputes that have literally descended to a stage of desperation; articles that reach arbitration have become so chronically volatile that the site's administrators find themselves unable to deal with them. (I'm the first administrator, it seems, to take an interest in this article, and so we're a very far distance from needing to think about arbitration.) Do, however, bear in mind that there are forums for seeking outside assistance: third opinions; requests for comment; informal mediation; formal mediation; the list is quite lengthy. Don't ever feel like discussions pertaining to the lead section have reached a standstill.

To pinch the already-perfected wording of others: the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. When making an edit, simply take a moment to look over it and ask yourself whether your edit is conducive of that purpose; and, if it's not, don't click "save." I hope my advice—written in probably excessive length—will offer a little guidance in reaching that goal; if there are any matters I can assist any editor with, or any points in this statement requiring clarification, then please don't hesitate to get in touch. AGK 20:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: the reason some editors/IPs were reverting without participating in the discussion, as you pointed out above, is that they were sockpuppets of an indefinitely banned user who has been warring here for months. It's no surprise that they weren't being cooperative. In any case, that user has already long since forfeited all of his rights to having a voice here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I would encourage you, if that editor attempts to disrupt this article again, either anonymously or through a registered account, to contact me or any other administrator. AGK 22:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing the Economy section in the article

I found few errors in the "Economy" section of the South Korea (SK) article. SK is Asia's fifth largest economy in terms of GDP (Nominal) Visit the link in the same sentence. The IMF ranks SK as the world's fifteenth (15th) largest economy. There are some conflicts with other rankings as well. Please edit the page. Also, SK is an advanced economy and NOT a developed country. There is still this typo in this section. Editors, please correct these mistakes on the page. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The World Factbook is not the only source out there. See the discussion above regarding developed countries. 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Arranging the current references about advanced economy and developed country.
1. BusinessPrime says that "In the early 21st century, with the original four Tigers at or near to fully developed status,..."
2. In the World Economic Outlook(not IMF, just referenced by IMF homepage) survey, Korea is in the group of advanced economy. But, in the same group, United States and Japan is also included. We can see that, in this research, the meaning of advanced economy has no difference with the economy of developed countries.
3. US Department of State is introducing Republic of Korea with following sentence. "The Republic of Korea (South Korea or ROK) is a highly developed, stable, democratic republic with powers shared between the president and the legislature."
4. Finantial times report that "South Korea has been promoted to developed-country status by FTSE Group, the global index provider, in a landmark move likely to prompt global investors to shift billions of extra dollars into the country’s stocks." in September 2008, which is the most reliable information ever dicussed on this issue.Godneck (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you want to talk high of SK. But you need to careful while giving news agencies (like BusinessPrime) as sources. These sources are not credible and cannot be regarded as authentic. Also, the category 'advanced economy' is completely different from 'developed country'. Yes, SK is an advanced economy but not a developed country. You need to show credible government sources as examples. You just mentioned about the US Department of State but did not give a link showing the wording you mentioned. Also the ranking of SK is not in accordance with the ranking mentioned in the list of Asian and Pacific Economies in the same paragraph. SK is world's fifteenth (15th) largest economy and Asia's fifth (5th) largest economy. The GDP (PPP) scale is more accurate than the GDP (Nominal). The G-20 (major economies) is created based on the GDP (PPP) scale. All economies in the G-20 like China, India, Japan are among the top 20 economies in the GDP (PPP) scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any tendency for saying that South Korea is developed country. What I am saying is that just the 4 references linked in this articles says that South Korea is developed country(3 sources) or advanced economy which has the meaning of no difference with developed country(1 source). The credible government source(US Department of State source) is linked in the article. Then, can you show the evidence for your claims?Godneck (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean no offense for anyone. Yes, it is mentioned in the U.S. Department of State that SK is a highly developed democracy. But, there are conflicting reports in other branches of the U.S. government. The IMF has a separate list and so does the CIA, and the UN. Still there are typos in this part of the section (Economy). I checked with the sources and found that SK is Asia's fifth largest economy (and NOT fourth). There is some difference in the global ranking, as well. The SK is ranked fifteenth on the global stage (and NOT thirteenth). Please correct them. Thanks for your time. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Godneck's intro

I have reverted Godneck's rewrite of the intro because it is, simply, a bad intro. There's nothing to discuss, this isn't even a matter of opinion; the rewrite is clearly far too long to be an appropriate lead section, it's poorly written (no offense intended, nothing personal; it's just bad writing), and full of blatant peacock terms and non-neutral claims. This racist bit is particularly egregious:

Koreans are also famous for their passion for children education. Especially, Korean students have superior ability in math and science.

Now, the long discussion yesterday already showed that the strongest consensus right now is for Mtd2006's two-paragraph rewrite. If anyone wants to make further changes to the intro, I suggest you raise a specific proposal here, listing what content you intend to add/remove and possibly giving a sample of what you will add, so we can discuss it. Further edits directly to the page are not helping, every little thing is turning into an edit war, and if this continues someone is going to end up locking down the article—which is beneficial to no one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I request for full protection on the article due to the ongoing edit warring. I don't know whether it would be accepted or not.--Caspian blue 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to change the sentence expression with appropriate references. (I said that I'll add references earlier.) And another fact is that I don't think we've met to the consensus in this discussion. First, two people disagree with current intro. Second, current intro only has the information about Korean history. I don't think it's adequate for article about South Korea.Godneck (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think one reason my revision has support is that I posted it for comment here, two weeks ago, on 1 May. Other editors have seen the change I suggested, and it's been available for comment; consensus has occurred. There have been many, many months of discussion about the lede, its problems and how to change it.
Although it's hard to follow in the discussion above, other editors agree with your suggestion to add other paragraphs to the introduction. Please look for these comments and others (I don't mean to neglect the many other comments about the lede). Please join the discussion. What major topics from the article need a summary in the lede?
  • "general information about the environment, relationship with North Korea, population density, language and culture" (IP 125.240.61.2)
  • "Culture or environment might be good, neutral topics" (Mtd2006)
  • "there should be some mention of a) economic development and b) democratization, as I feel that they are as important as history" (Baeksu)
I agree with Rjanag. I hope we can agree on what topics should be added to the lede. I suggest that editors post new paragraphs here in the discussion for comment before adding to the article. Mtd2006 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
So, can you explain why is the information you mentioned about Korean history in the second paragraph necessary for the intro?Godneck (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's easy to explain. I chose history because it's a major section of the South Korea article — it's the first major section, and it includes many important points about South Korea that are significant and interesting. Isn't that exactly why the history section is the first major section? Pds0101 mentioned the featured articles, Canada and Germany. I hadn't read these articles before I drafted a history paragraph, but, by coincidence, the second lede paragraph of both the Canada and Germany articles is a concise summary of the history section of their articles — for good reason: the history of a country is significant. South Korea's history is a major section of the article; it's a significant and interesting aspect of the country. For those reasons and WP:LEDE, history deserves a concise summary in the lede. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is turning out to be quite a mess. Look, FIRST OFF, if you do not like an introduction or some sort of content for whatever reason, it is not a call for you to just take the whole thing down, especially if it is an introduction to a COUNTRY. If you have an idea or you want to propose a new draft, and make changes to whatever extend, then do that first. Then as editors we can discuss, elaborate and reach a consensus. To the editor/editors who are just hacking it all down, that is really just unacceptable. Just leave it the way it is FOR NOW and if you want to put foward a completly new introduction or draft, please proceed with that before removal. Pds0101 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Now next, on this introduction, are there needs for such drastic changes? It is quite similar in terms of content and structure to those of featured country articles. The introduction just needed to be toned downed somewhat more and neutralized with better referencing/supporting sources. Myself and other editors have done quite alot of discussion and research to implement improvements to the introduction in the past. More can still be done but I disagree with the current "edits" being made. Do not forget that this is an introduction to a country. To Mtd2006, I just had a read over your introduction draft and I can see some good contributions being made, although it is quite concerning that you have crossed out "United Nations, WTO, OECD and G-20 major economies". This is a very important part to any country article introduction. I recommend you and to ALL OTHER EDITORS to refer to some featured articles such as Germany and Canada. Pds0101 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am stil not convinced why you would want to rid of the membership in international organizations. It appears that virtually all country articles have them in the introduction, featured or not. The UN and ASEAN are mentioned in the foreign relations section and the G-20 and OECD are in economy. They are important and perhaps here, it can be elaborated more in those sections. If your arguement is that the intro should relate to the article and not the country, well then, the editors here are not particularly doing a good job by leaving all these points out of the introduction, when clearly pretty much all of it is in the article anyway. Most of the points in the introdcution are facts which have been linked and referenced, not WP:NPOVor WP:PEACOCK. If that is the case to you, then we may want to tone it down, though in a way which is still informative as an INTRODUCTION and adresses the article. Baeksu's attempt is not a good introduction in my opinion, read my reasoning below. Pds0101 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Baeksu's intro

South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea (ROK) (Hangul: 대한민국, Hanja: 大韓民國, IPA: [tɛː.han.min.ɡuk̚]), listenⓘ), also known as Korea and "Land of the Morning Calm", is a country in East Asia. It is located in the southern region of the Korean Peninsula, bordered by North Korea to the north, the Sea of Japan (East Sea) to the east, the Korea Strait to the south, and the Yellow Sea to the west.[1]

Following the consolidation of the Three Korean Kingdoms under Silla in 668,[2] Korea was again divided during the Later Three Kingdoms period (892 - 936). The Goryeo Dynasty unified Korea in 936 until succeeded by the Joseon Dynasty in 1392. Korea remained united until the end of the Korean Empire in 1910. On 1910 August 22, Japan annexed the Korean Empire with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty, and began a 35-year period of Japanese rule. After World War II, Korea was partitioned into two political entities, North Korea and South Korea. Unresolved disputes following partition led to the Korean War (1950 - 1953) that ended with a ceasefire agreement.[3] There is no peace agreement between the two countries.

During the military dictatorship which started in 1960, South Korea experienced rapid industrialization, which also had a profound impact on the Korean culture and society. Internal pressures lead to the democratization movement, which was able to force adoption of direct elections in 1987. Today, South Korea is an advanced economy with a democratic political system and an open civil society.

I don't think other editors have significant issues with the first and second paragraph, though there's quite a lot of disagreement on whether that should be all we have in Ithe lede. I changed the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I think it is better to explicitly mention the lack of a peace agreement.

The added third paragraph is not polished text in any way, it's meant to give an idea of what I'd like to see included in the lede. Remember, we have the whole article to delve deeper into each topic, so we should concentrate on just giving an overview of the whole contents.

As I said before, I feel that we don't need to describe cultural issues or memberships in international organizations or groups, unless there is something exceptionally unique or notable about them. After all, almost every country has their own, distinct culture, and most are members of the UN, so that's pretty much a basic assumption that the reader has already made.

If anyone feels this is the right direction, and would like to improve the third paragraph, I would love to hear your comments. Baeksu (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely clear on your intentions but THIS IS NOT AN INTRODUCTION FOR A COUNTRY. no offence, but it is more like a partial history essay introduction in need of serious attention. "As I said before, I feel that we don't need to describe cultural issues or memberships in international organizations or groups, unless there is something exceptionally unique or notable about them." International organizations and culture should be included in a country article. WHY are you trying so hard to hack this introduction down? It just needs more references and better toning. One line in particular: leader in technologically advanced goods such as electronics, automobiles, ships, machinery, petrochemicals and robotics, needs supporting sources. But please try to visit other country articles, some good examples(featured articles) are Germany, Canada and Japan. Pds0101 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To Baeksu, Wait! There's not quite a lot of disagreement on whether that (i.e., the current introduction) should be all we have in the lede. You want more summary; recently, IP 125.240.61.2 has suggested topics as have I. Sadly, those suggestions, such as yours at Talk:South Korea#Problems with the intro, are ignored and then lost in the noise over specious arguments. Over the revision history of the article and discussion, many editors have tried to revise or suggest additions to the introduction. Mtd2006 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that Baeksu suggests for the second paragraph is a good one. It's a significant factor that affects South Korea's history, and it's also appropriate for the lede because that same issue is discussed in the history section. Mtd2006 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I support Baeksu's idea to avoid "cultural issues or memberships in international organizations or groups, unless there is something exceptionally unique or notable about them." The Canada article includes a short list of international organizations in the third lede paragraph. Although the third paragraph has no single topic from the article, it's artfully worded to include significant and important items that are further explained in the Government, Economy, and "Foreign relations and military" sections. The concise third paragraph works because the language and wording flows naturally from one topic to the next. It was carefully written by a skillful editor or editors. Mtd2006 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"cultural issues or memberships in international organizations or groups, unless there is something exceptionally unique or notable about them."

So could you please elaborate? Why must these be so "exceptional"? Did you not say that the lede should be an introduction summary to the article? Or are you meant to say there is nothing exceptional about South Korea, like Baeksu's introduction.

OK, lets have a look. Baeksu's paragraphs are honestly, strikingly bad. No offence. If he/she recogonized the importance of Korean history and its need to be progressively included in the intro, then it should have be done concisely. This very important line: "Archeological findings indicate that the Korean Peninsula was occupied by humans as early in the Lower Paleolithic period. Korea first began with the founding of Gojoseon kingdom in 2333 BCE by Dangun" SHOULD have been mentioned as this is the beginnings of Korea and is also mentioned in the article. That is one thing, then next there is a two line paragraph about South Korean history after the Korean war. So, what does this tell me about South Korea as a country and where it is at? not much, and it poorly relates to most of the things in the article itself. To Baeksu and Mtd2006, you can't be serious if that is all you are planning to have in the lead. It is not really an itroduction to a country, as a matter of fact, it can entirely fit into a history section, a very bad, partially written one too. So where is the High HDI? exports? developed country? memeberships to international organizations?? Was there an attempt to wash out this introduction dry? Because these points are "exceptional". Please compare this attempted intro with other countries. Lets try to improve this article if that is really the intention. I for one am satisfied with the very current version as it is informative, includes a broad range of points which are specifically mentioned in the article and is relatively well linked and referenced (though there are a few lousy ones, but this can be improved). It needs additional input/change where necessary, better referencing, neutralization to relate better with the overall article. Pds0101 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I have said as well, If the introductions purpose is a summary to the article, then I don't see what the big problem is about.. Honestly what is the major problem? too positive for personal liking? The introduction does relate well to the article in a structured way. Myself and other editors have used WP:LEDE as a guide. Pretty much all of these points in the intro are included in the article and are referenced. Other editors and I have worked on this version of the introduction in the past so that it would relate better to the overall article, with references in a more neutral way. The introduction before ours was overly positive and had virtually no supporting sources. So where exactly are the "old problems", "false statements" and "incorrect citations"? It can still be improved but we should be more specific here instead of thinking it has nothing to do with article or it is peacocking. From WP:LEDE:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article." Pds0101 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. It seems that I should re-evaluate my understanding of what the lede should contain. I see that I was overly eager to start from scratch, and looking at the FA country articles Pds0101 provided, I do agree that the existing lede will be fine after the issues (which plague other parts of the article as well) are addressed.
I do feel that the lede gave too much space to membership in international organizations. My feeling on discussing membership in the UN, as an isolated example, is that as almost every country is a member, we don't need to mention it. But it was more nit-picking than anything else, and I will concentrate on improving the existing material, rather than making something that would diverge from the guidelines.
Baeksu (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for considering my comments. I was just concerned that the new introduction would not follow well with the wikipedia guidelines for a lede and its relationship to the overall article. The featured Articles are good examples and I believe this current intro can still be improved, but it does serve its purpose well enough. A complete reconstruction would most likely not be needed. Though I can see the continued efforts by you and other editors here to improve the article. Keep up the good work. Pds0101 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert edits by IP block 86.148.0.0 - 86.159.255.255

Between 11 and 16 May, an editor or editors from IP block 86.148.0.0 - 86.159.255.255 have reverted large numbers of edits on four occasions. The edit comments don't mention the reverts, but each one has removed many intermediate changes. The reverts have reinstated vandalism and have restored the "500 long years" phrase.

  1. 11 May reverted to 9 May:
    12:38, 2009 May 11 86.141.230.122 (talk) (92,417 bytes) (unnecessary country comparisons, please refrain from)
    08:20, 2009 May 9 97.100.118.144 (talk) (92,417 bytes) (→Economy)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=289311266&oldid=288882027
    (19 intermediate revisions removed)
  2. 13 May reverted to 12 May:
    08:50, 2009 May 13 86.148.181.54 (talk) (93,801 bytes) ("has the smallest gap between the wealthy and impoverished" removed, extremely misleading statement and unnecessary in intro)
    09:11, 2009 May 12 86.141.230.122 (talk) (93,780 bytes) (unnecessary comparision with Kazhakstan and ECI (see linked word) removed)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=289685833&oldid=289488517
    (18 intermediate revisions removed)
  3. 15 May reverted to 14 May:
    03:48, 2009 May 15 86.148.181.54 (talk) (93,780 bytes) (STOP EDITING THE INTRO. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, AND YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE 3RR MULTIPLE TIMES.)
    10:35, 2009 May 14 86.148.181.54 (talk) (93,780 bytes) (You have violated the 3-revert rule and will be reported to Wiki Admins. The intro you are writing is extremely POV and contains unnecessary info for an iintro.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=290069812&oldid=289918673
    (18 intermediate revisions removed)
  4. 16 May reverted to 15 May:
    13:50, 2009 May 16 86.148.181.54 (talk) (93,780 bytes) (Again, there is NO CONSENSUS on the intro. Please see the talk page FIRST before EDITING.) (references removed)
    03:48, 2009 May 15 86.148.181.54 (talk) (93,780 bytes) (STOP EDITING THE INTRO. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, AND YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE 3RR MULTIPLE TIMES.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=290380819&oldid=290069812
    (11 intermediate revisions removed)

I'm uncertain what to do about this problem as the editor(s) are anonymous and WP:AGF, however, the covert reverts seem disruptive to me. Please watch for this problem because good-faith changes may disappear for no apparent reason. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reverting the sock's edits on sight. It's not really a 3rr violation if we're defending the article against a banned sockpuppet. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Well, looks like the page is fully protected now (personally, I think semi-protection would have been enough to keep the socks out, but who knows). It looks like the version that got protected, though, was the version last edited by Meandmylefthand, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. If this is the wrong one, can anyone give me a permalink to whichever recent version is closest to the one that had consensus here in the discussions with Mtd2006 and Baeksu, so I can revert it to that one rather than the sock version? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the page got fully protected with a terrible introduction. But which is the other version you are talking about here? I thought everyone was fine the version just before the currently locked one.
Woop, hold on. I changed it back to the non sockpuppet one. Pds0101 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gojoseon?

Why is the Gojoseon kingdom being left out of the lede? This is very misleding and it should be included, regardless of whether or not it makes korea one of the world's most "oldest civilizations". I am seriously hoping that none of the editors here are actually contesting the Gojoseon kingdom. This is really just fundamental history textbook knowledge. Pds0101 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely the founding of Gojoseon by Dangun is generally considered to be just a myth and not a historical fact? I mean, bears do not typically transform into humans, not matter how many days they spend in a cave, so we can quite safely assume this part of the history of Gojoseon did not actually happen.
I think the sentence needs to be rephrased in this respect.
Baeksu (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the mythical tale about Bears transforming, it does not change the fact that the Gojoseon Dynasty did exist. There is much to Korean history before the North and South states. Probably better if it was phrased as something like "In 2333 BCE, the first Korean kindgdom Gojoseon was established". But simply unwilling to include this here because of your personal doubts is probably not doing any good. Historical evidence shows that ancient kingdom was based on bronze culture which then evolved into iron culture and spawing Buyeo, Goguryeo and Samhan in different parts of the peninsula. Also Silla Goguyreo and Baekje were individually established in the 1st century BC. There is infact quite a bulk of things here. I really hope this is not a sino based view of Korea's ancient kingdoms. Please reconsider. Pds0101 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna nip this in the bud right here: instead of arguing in circles, why don't you guys provide some sources for these claims? Not websites, because I will ignore them—please provide an article or two from scholarly journals (preferably a history journal of some sort), the more recent the better. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am astonished to have found myself in trying to explain the existance of Gojoseon. This is literally in the history "stuff" which I had learned since highschool. Sorry I can't provide you with something electronic or web accessible, but this is from a Korean high school history text book called Hangukae Yeoksa (History of Korea) revised in 2002 and published by the South Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. With no surprise, the very first chapter begins with prehistoric Korea and Gojoseon.

"Dan-gun, who established the kingdom of Gojoseon in 2333 B.C." pg 16. "Gojoseon, the first kingdom in Korea, was based on the Bronze culture" pg 17. And for your transforming bears in a not so mythicial sense: "related to the rise of the tribes of Hwanung and those with the bear and tiger totems.. the hwanung tribe united with the tribe of bear totem to found Gojoseon, the first kingdom of korea" also on pg 16. Pds0101 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A high school textbook is not a scholarly work. There's a reason I asked for a peer-reviewed journal article. If you guys are going to fight about this, we need to see some real s ources, otherwise th is discussion is going to go in circles and not get anything done. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am just trying to knot the lede better with the article. I will try to go out and find some journals if I must. But another thing that has come to my attention when comparing this version to the past ones is that there has been alot of fidgeting with the Three ancient kingdoms of Korea, Goguryeo Baekje and Silla. This has always been a sensative issue between Chinese and Korean editors because there are some Chinese scholars who argue that Goguryeo was a Chinese kingdom. Chinese web encycolpedias such as Baike Baidu and hudong have completely censored Goguryeo. Nevertheless, but it is worth noting here the Three kingdoms which existed for half a Millennium than just the North South States period which was only about 200 years. Pds0101 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Image changes

Chamberikore has been changing the images in the Economy section, removing the GDP growth graph that is there and replacing it with a decoration picture. See [8][9][10][11]. He has not given any rationale or come here to post a message, as I asked at his talk page; in the meantime I have reported him for edit warring here. Is there any consensus for these image changes, or should they be reverted? This was my attempt to compromise, by including both the graph and the decoration but removing other unnecessary images (particularly the ship picture with an unsourced caption claiming, perhaps incorrectly, that "South Korea is the world's largest shipbuilder"—none of the sources in the article back up that claim). Chamberikore reverted that compromise, however. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Banpo Bridge image with fire works looks nice and matches well with the "Economy section" ("Miracle of Han River"). On the other hand, I don't think the Hyundai car image is representative or interesting. Since the section is flooded with too many images, I guess a "consensus" on this is necessary.--Caspian blue 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I tried to compromise by removing the useless car image and keeping both the bridge and the graph. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The car image should definitely go. The Banpo Bridge image is nice, but it looks like a composite/edited picture, the current caption is a little too celebratory, and I find it hard to believe it's not a commercial image.
Baeksu (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked tineye.com and couldn't find any matches online...which doesn't necessarily mean it's not copied. You do have a good point, it doesn't seem likely that this was taken by a random person. I also did a google image search (two, actually, because the first time I accidentally searched "banjo bridge fireworks") and didn't find anything there, either. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find any source images, either.
The caption is definitely wrong, though, as it refers to the Banpo Bridge, which is not shown in the picture. Banpo is a couple of bridges upstream, the fireworks are usually fired from a barge between the Wonhyo Bridge (the frontmost bridge in the image), and the railway bridge, which is partly visible in the bottom, or the Mapo Bridge, which is the next one downstream.
In the image, however, the fireworks appear to originating from the northern part of the bridge structure itself, which makes it look like a composite. I don't know if they've ever launched the fireworks from that location, though. There's some informative description of the annual fireworks here.
Baeksu (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with teh history section

This article mentions almost nothing about the period between the end of the Korean war and the onset of democracy in the 1980s. Perhaps some well-informed editor could tackle this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

More edit warring

In the latest stage of the Silla/Goryeo debates, another budding edit war has started: [12][13][14][15]. I've warned both editors and asked them to have a discussion here rather than reverting any more, so expect to see some lively discussion soon. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I've noticed some troubling edits by Milkmoney - more peacock terms, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Innovation

"South Korea is the world leader in innovation among major economies." This statement is quite misleading because the usage of the term is particular to the research it cites--it encompasses a wide variety of innovations. The article needs to define what it means by innovation or remove that statement entirely. The latter is probably more appropriate in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Establishment 2333 B.C.

This is not to offend anyone, but this [16] (or this [17]) proves nothing about 2333 B.C. It only discusses Dangun's myth is exploited for Korean's "Cultual Identity". Please provide another reliable/verifiable source. And please cite source more accurately. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If your purpose is not offend anyone, you already fail by using the offensive sentence; exploited for Korean's "Cultual[sic] Identity". You already provide the date, so what are you trying to stir up?--Caspian blue 00:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at it in a realistic fashion. Once you get into a history that goes as far back as this one, you will never find anything that would qualify as "reliable sources" in the modern sense of the word. All nations/countries that were founded before, say, the birth of Christ trace their story back to what any skeptic can contest as a "myth." Archeological evidence and radio carbon-dating can only give you approximate numbers. Nonetheless, many countries maintain these ancient claims. Well-known examples include Egypt with its Pharaos, the Great Zimbabwe in Southern Africa, and - most notably - Iceland's epic Eddas. This is precisely the reason why the footnote explicitly does and should read "according to oral tradition."
I challenge anyone who contests the given year to provide sources that prove otherwise -- in a waterproof and reliable way according to current scientific methods. Until then, we should accept modern-day Korea's assertions in a mystical and anecdotal context, just as we accept Scandinavia's Viking-stories.
Seb az86556 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So "South Korea" was founded in 2333 B.C. now? The fact is, Tangun and 2333 are national myths. 2333 is a "magic" date, and Tangun was used as a symbol to unify the Korean nation/people. As implied in [18] it is a "myth" manufactured / exploited for nationalistic purposes. As an encyclopedia we should acknowledge it as myth/literature, and that the government pushes it as a national myth, but we should not give it validity as historical fact. If we're going to do so, why not go whole-hog and validate North Korea's form of nationalism: "Pyongyang... has the longest history as the capital city in the world. People have inhabited Pyongyang... from more than a million years ago... Tangun, ancestral father of the Korean nation who was born in Pyongyang, founded Kojoson (ancient Korea), the first state of Korea, in the early 30th century BC and set up the capital here." A sentence like "Korean history begins with the founding of Gojoseon in 2333 BCE by Dangun," is the slightly milder South Korean form of nationalism, but still it's about as appropriate in an encyclopedia as quoting WWII-era "Aryan race"-poppycock as the founding of the Germanic people... Its presence in this article should make us wonder how far we should put our faith in "consensus" in some articles... no wonder some of us avoid some articles like the plague... Dekkappai (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
What you're saying sounds like if we leave that number in the infobox, Koreans will go out into the world, gassing Jew, butchering Indians, and shipping millions of Africans into slavery. Either you're overstating Korean nationalism or understating Aryanism. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he's making a valid point, even if it is overstated a little. It's hard to understand until you've actually lived in South Korea for a considerable period (as I have), but there is definitely a think called "Korean Pride" that infuses Korean attitudes to many things, including this Wikipedia article. It's one of the reasons there are so many edit wars on this page - a proud Korean sees a favourable fact in an article, cut-and-pastes it into "South Korea", and it gets attacked by foreign editors for being yet another ranking/peacock term/cherry-picked fact, and so on. It happens, and it's a problem. In terms of the 2333BC thing, I would suggest re-phrasing the sentence so that it starts "According to Korean mythology, the nation was founded in ... by..."
  1. ^ "Nature and Environment". The National Atlas of Korea. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  2. ^ "Korea's Three Kingdoms". AncientWorlds. 19 Jun 2005. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  3. ^ Walker, Jack D. "A brief account of the Korean War". Retrieved 2009-03-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Korea/Archive_6&oldid=1079710755"