Talk:South Korea/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about South Korea. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Input needed on (n)pov

These two edits [1][2] look, respectively, like whitewashing sourced historical/environmental information, and adding in POV, advertisement-y language (like most of this article, the section now reads like a pro-SK propaganda brochure). I didn't want to do a wholesale revert without discussion because there is probably some salvageable information here, but I think it at least needs to be rewritten. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Developed Country?

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

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

Opening introduction/Lead

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

An assessment of the Introduction

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

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

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

Proposed change to the Introduction

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

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

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

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

Overall content of the article

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

Tourbillon ^A ? 11:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Korea's orthographic projection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goverment System

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

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

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

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

Presidential_system#Characteristics_of_presidents

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

Presidential_system#Republics_with_a_presidential_system_of_government

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

As a South Korean, it seems to be rediculous that South Korea is a Semi-presidental country. Here exists the prime minister, but he is just a 'minister' nothing more. Recently, some politicians here are talking about constitutional amendment mainly focused on changing goverment system from presidental to semi-presidental(or parlimentary). It the constitution is amended, then the new seat for vice-president will be placed same as US. see this [3] adidas (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

History Section Images

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

Religion

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

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

I was wondering where this statement comes from: "Just under half of South Koreans profess no religious beliefs." From where has this been referenced? How current is this statement? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlisak (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

orthographic projection???

current image has a low resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I changed the locator map to the most recent and more commonly practical green-grey format. I felt that the blue gradient and red map was too exclusively visual and spectacular. Quite unusual actually. This was just a bold change I put foward. Any opinions? Pds0101 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[4]

Sorry, but I think this needs to be discussed before being changed. Through this and the other discussion linked above, I believe there was a consensus to use the red map, which is has a significantly better resolution and conforms to the standards of the "2009 SVG transition". If the thickness of the border lines is a problem, that can be easily fixed; I think Seb has already done so somewhere, but I'm not sure where that file is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see. Well I don't really have a problem with the current one as such, its just that I thought the change would make it appear more standardized. The current orthographic projection is a one of a kind. Oh well. Perhaps we can discuss this for later. Pds0101 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gini coefficients for Korea and Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny, see http://wwwdbtk.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/kouhyo/data-kou6/data17/H17gai.pdf in 2005, Japan had Gini Coefficient of 0.3873, compare with South Korea's 0.314 in the same period. Only the 1993 UN source shows Japan had a low level of Gini Coefficient. see http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf --Tankiona (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam 0.4% in South Korea? Bias data

Confucianism and Cheondoism are more numerous than Muslims in South Korea that is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does your truth have a source? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures need changing "after division"

The "after division" section describes the turmoil of the Korean War and other major events. It is illustrated by two irrelevant photographs of stadiums. Can these be replaced with some images from the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a great Korean war photo here that is in the public domain. I don't know how to insert photos, so maybe another editor could do us all a favour and replace one of the stadium pix with this one:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2919551783_c183188a1f.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/imcomkorea/2919551783/&usg=__Nv9H_bM3HfE0leKfM2eRrHM-wVY=&h=408&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=1p4UbLI_imb7qM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkorean%2Bwar%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.177 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The two stadium images are not irrelevant. That part of the history section mainly describes events after the Korean war, including the 1988 Summer olympic games and the 2002 World cup, hence the two correlating pictures. I suppose another image could be added, or the 2002 world cup image could be replaced. That image you have provided does not really show anything about the Korean War, but proper copyright would need to obtained if that flickr photo is not yours. Please sign your contribution. Pds0101 (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's odd to have two stadium photos. Is the history of South Korea in the 20th century best encapsulated by two photos of stadiums? I think not. The seminal historical event of the 20th century as far as South Korea is concerned was the Korean war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.94 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Presidential?

Surely Korea has a semi-presidential system of government since it has a prime minister as head of government?--90.208.150.105 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

change map

change map to File:South_Korea_(orthographic_projection).svg, Any comments?--220.246.168.145 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Has been discussed at Talk:South_Korea#South_Korea.27s_orthographic_projection and Talk:South_Korea#orthographic_projection.3F.3F.3F. Read that first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Democracy?

Quote: it has since developed into a successful liberal democracy. Today, the CIA World Factbook describes South Korea's democracy as a "fully functioning modern democracy." Close Quote. This is nonsense. Voting is not a sufficient condition to establish democratic rule. Korea continues as a feudal, authoritarian state, regardless of how many elections are held. This article, about a major country in Asia, isn't worth the paper it's printed on. FixMacs (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a personal opinion. You might want to look at WP:POV. However, if you are sure this is true and verifiable, find a source and add it to the article. If you feel that it isn't worth the paper it is printed on than be WP:BOLD and fix it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"feudal, authoritarian state"? This is not a North Korea article. South Korea is a fully functioning democracy as according to the global democracy index. If you have any objections, I suggest you find some sources, otherwise you can take your personal perceptions somewhere else. Pds0101 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend this as defending the article, since I agree the article does have a lot of problem...but FixMacs, this article is not printed on paper. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Orthographic projection

Yes, I am aware that there was a discussion months ago, but nothing is set in stone. Here are reasons why it should be changed.

1) The current map is not standard, many maps now use Orthographic projection. No such maps resemble features in the current map. It is important to have a sense of uniformity.

2) Orthographic projection shows South Korea's geographic locale in Asia against the current map which focuses on the tiny region. South Korea is indeed tiny. Nevertheless, it is clearly shown in orthographic projection. Anyone who can read the text on Wikipedia can see South Korea on the orthographic map.

3) The current image is quite inconvinient since it requires two separate maps, one is the close up and the second is the small mini sized world map on the bottom left corner (with little circle within it). It is much simpler to put a bigger map and it is convinient for viewers to see.

--Kingj123 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Last iteration of this discussion, where consensus was not to use orthographic projections, was Talk:South_Korea/Archive_7#orthographic_projection???. Kingj, if you really think "many" articles use orthographic projections, please provide some examples. Most articles in the encyclopedia do not use them, as a quick glance at WP:WPMAPS will show. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See [5]. Well, I agree that there are many countries that do not follow the same suit, more maps are being converted however. The argument still stands as "No such maps resemble features in the current map."

That random Commons link doesn't prove anything, except that some maps exist. It doesn't prove anything about how they're being used on Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain "No such maps resemble features in the current map." -- what do you mean? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The current map is simply not standard. The shading of the waters for example is not used in any other maps. And i do not see WHY orthographic projection is nessesarily a bad idea.

I cannot list EVERY country with orthographic projection, there are simply too many, check out china, us, japan, russia, iran, brazil, mexico, every single country in Europe (the countries are shaded green and grey) except vatican city, canada, and much much more.--Kingj123 (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

if the shaded water is your issue, we can change that. I still don't see why making Korea look like fly's poop-dropping on a huge globe is of any benefit... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

and change Korea to green and rest to grey. It would be appreciated if you can do that too.--Kingj123 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... we have that one already (File:Locator map of South Korea.svg), but people complained about that one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Complaining that the country is shaded green? or other reasons? I think there were other problems with that one not centered correctly...Well I am complaining about this one so --Kingj123 (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one complaining. Last time I took the time to seek an outside opinion, and the editor who commented (a member of WikiProject Maps) said that the orthographic map was not as good in this case. You have never taken the time to seek an outside opinion in this discussion, and are just being a broken record (repeating yourself over and over again). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you flattening my complaint just because I am the only one? In fact, no formal vote has been done plus, there was no consensus if you see the talk page more carefully. I have gave up on orthographic map didn't I. I have just suggested shading Korea green like other countries mentioned, I mean how could that be a problem for anyone? you? --Kingj123 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I will change the map since no one is replying.--Kingj123 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People have replied and objected to your change; you can't go ahead with it just because you're willing to keep doing it longer than anyone else. If you want to change consensus, consider asking for a third opinion or posting a message at WikiProject Maps. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no one objected so far. You too.

Why can't Korea be shaded green and others shaded in grey? Should Korea be associated with colour red unlike other nations such as Etria, US, China, Japan, all of Europe, Australia, all of south east asia which are coloured in green ... ?
The body of water should be in uniform colour.

"if the shaded water is your issue, we can change that." Choyoo

Please take time to ANSWER the question not repeating yourself that you have answered already (I assume that you cannot respond). Kingj123 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this thread about the orthographic projection, or about changing the color of the map? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I dropped my support for Orthographic projection, since for several users South Korea appeared to be tiny. Anyways, I think it would be appropriate to change the colour of the map.--Kingj123 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is no one responding?? I will have to change the map if no one responds.--Kingj123 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current color scheme for countries. I did not checked all other country articles, but green–grey is not universal among FA-Class country articles. On the other hand, I support making the body of water in uniform color. --Kusunose 06:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, majority of the colours are grey and green. Yes there are no universal consensus of colouring the countries on the map, however, only African countries and Israel are coloured red with other countries within their maps in beige colours. Canada, Peru, Belgium, Germany, Belarus, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Australia and Japan are coloured in grey-green. I am not saying that the red-coloured countries are necessarily inferior and that Korea should not be associated with them, but simply I think grey-green appears to be standard for many notable countries around the world, Asia (China, Japan, all Southeast Asia, South Asia, Middle East) Australias (Australia, New Zealand, most of island nations), Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Chile and more), North America, Entire Europe, Russia... everywhere except Africa (I think African maps should be changed too, but that's separate issue) and other small examples elsewhere. Even North Korea is coloured in green-grey and it seems too odd that south is shaded in red. It used to be green-grey but it was changed.

I mean it is not a big deal, but why are some users strongly object to my changes and insist on red colour?

Anyways, according to the users. The current map does not work and it should be changed due to the water shading.--Kingj123 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Locator map of South Korea.svg 300px

Water shading is easy enough to change. Leave a message with User:Seb az86556 and he should be able to make a new map without shading.

Also, please indent your posts properly to make the thread easier to read. See the tutorial for further explanation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

... and turn the map grey-green, the way it used to be and the way most countries use them.--Kingj123 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, no one other than you has said it should be grey-green. It was made red at the specific request of a member of WikiProject Maps. There is no reason to change the color if you simply keep insisting on a "consensus" of one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free to be changed by any user if there is no constructive objection and this is reinforced by the founder's vision "of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people", it is not controversial. It is simply ridiculous for some ambiguous member that you know have ordered South Korea to be coloured in red permanently and object to every other colour besides red (I am not decorating the map with polka dots or anything, just plain standard grey-green). There is no reason to change it to red in the first place.You need to provide me name of the user, date and justification or else what you have just written above is meaningless. --Kingj123 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I provided that over a week ago when I provided a link to the previous iteration of this discussion, which you clearly have not read. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also your arguments are fallacious since you are insisting on popular ideas without a formal poll (Argumentum ad populum) and also making conclusions on the basis that no one supports my opinion (the fact that no one supports my opinion does not necessarily mean that every user opposes my stance) (Argument from ignorance)--Kingj123 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I urge more users to participate and I am open to any constructive objection to my arguments. --Kingj123 (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did read but the thing I didn't get is that you were the only one who insisted on the red colouring in the link you have gave me. Seriously, I don't know what your motivation is, but you are concerned with the colour green-grey. Why are you concerned? Why don't we go with the standard and change it back it used to be? You are dragging this conversation as if you don't have much to say. If you cannot present concrete argument in support for red, I will change the map the way it used to be. You seem to really like colour red but it doesn't worth fighting over. --Kingj123 (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't read it carefully. The user who suggested the color change was Kmusser. [6] rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the link you have given to me Talk:South_Korea/Archive_7#orthographic_projection??? there are less users supporting red if not alone.--Kingj123 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you a direct diff. Can you read that? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know to what you are referring to. I get that [7], but I don't see why that argument does no refer to China, Japan, US, Entire European Countries and many more. Is there something wrong with South Korea that it should be discriminated against?

Simply said, we want to keep it grey-green since it is standard. Why green? I am not sure, if Japan, China, US, India, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Greece, Iran, Russia, Taiwan (ROC), Malasia, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand,Soviet Union, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.... and a lot of countries are coloured in red I have no say, in fact I would endorse red. But right now your argument that South Korea should be coloured in red is clearly not supported, and you are helplessly quoting people on your side (1 person so far). As I have repeated myself, please state the reason why South Korea must be coloured in red while all of its neighbours, Russia, China, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan are all in green-grey version. --Kingj123 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The red/beige would be the WP:Maps standard, that said that standard hasn't been adopted by WP:Countries and in terms of article usage the red/beige series and green/grey series are about even, so use whichever you'd like. Kmusser (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It seems like both ways work, I'd prefer green-grey in accordance to its neighbours and the usage by most notable nations around the world. --Kingj123 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The previous green-grey map was removed for specific reasons (described in the discussion above; I think it was something to do with the map's resolution). If you want a green-grey map added, you are welcome to get a new one made (by asking User:Seb az86556, who is experienced with .SVGs, or by posting a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. But you should not edit-war to put in a map that has already been rejected for other reasons. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolution doesn't have a whole lot of meaning when you're talking about SVG as it's a vector format, that's part of the whole point of converting stuff to SVG. Kmusser (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I fully respect your concern, and I will ask Seb az86556 for replacement of previous green-grey if needed. But I don't think it is necessary to put the old red-beige water gradient map as substitute. --Kingj123 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingj123 contacted me to make changes to the map. Is this now consensus? Not to be lazy, but I don't wanna have to change this thing over and over again. Please comment before I get busy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

yes.Kingj123 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

use of the word Takeshima in the article

I think that either we should use both the Korean and Japanese name for this disputed territory, or we should stick to just the English name. Either choice is fine by me. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion?カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I do, I just didn't want to comment before that edit-war-thing is resolved. I tend to agree with you (> English only) ~~(I could probably dig up something from "naming conventions")~~, as long we find a way to link to the article on the dispute - I'm just not sure where that could be done w/o breaking the prose. (I can promise you, though, that whatever the outcome of this may be, it probably won't last long...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(hm... naming conventions seems to apply to titles only)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) also deals with usage in the article contents. Only place it talks about foreign language names or local names in the context of article text is its general guidelines section, for the lead section in the article of topic in question (#2). For the contents in general (#3), it talks nothing about foreign language names. --Kusunose 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think English only is fine, or both (something like: "the Liancourt Rocks (known as Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese)"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If we go for both, then stating it once should be sufficient... somebody was actually trying to be pointy and add the phrase after every instance it pops up in the text. That gets tiresome... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care which is used, but I do agree that if both names are mentioned - they should be mentioned only once. I see using the Korean name only is a sneaky way of getting around the rules that have been set on the actual Liancourt article. I do think that the Japan article should match the Korea article and have exactly the same naming. I will give this a little more time, to see if there are any different opinions and give the blocked editor time to get off his block and comment before I change the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sennen goroshi. Either choice is fair and NPoV and is fine with me too. Oda Mari (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Use Liancourts, and then other disputed names in () brackets, in order of native name. So then, on the South Korea article, we have "Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima)" and on the Japan article we have "Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo)". It is only fair that both sides are represented equally. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Benlisquare - it seems petty but the order of the names need to reflect the article in question, otherwise we are just going to have editors changing the order to reflect their own agendas. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I've seen it happen all the time. For instance, I've had IP editors change the ordering of "Chinese, Japanese, Korean"; "Korean, Chinese, Japanese"; "Japanese, Korean, Chinese"; etc. all the time on East Asian age reckoning and a whole heap of other articles. Seems pointless, but strangely enough it happens. I mean, is it really that big a deal? The funny side of nationalism... :O -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#general guidelines specifies the order of foreign language name, alphabetical order or local official name first(As an exception to alphabetical order). However, if an alphabetical order is adopted, Korean will accuse Japanese imperialism forced to change Corea to Korea??[8] It is better not to dare to adopt an alphabetical order in this case. As for mentioning once, "The lead" should be read "The first occurrence of the word" in that guideline. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording "Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean)", though I would italicize Dokdo. The topic here is South Korea so giving the local name used in the country makes sense. As for the Japanese name, not; adding it just for the sake of equality, to put it strongly, violates WP:UNDUE. The use of the Korean name here, in my opinion, is just to be informative, not to advance the Korean point of view it is their territory. If I were to choose, I'd rather remove it than to add the Japanese name. Those names are available in the linked article so removing them does not hurt this article much. Inserting the local names, on the other hand, breaks the prose, especially when it becomes long. --Kusunose 14:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima. Dokdo is Dokdo which Korea rules over. I do not agree it is a disputing territory, it's just Japanese argument. --Cheol (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Did we finish this talk? someone made a change which I suppose we are talking about. You have to discuss at first. --Cheol (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Cheol, just because you consider Takeshima to be Korean does not make it relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned - it is disputed. If just giving an opinion was grounds for changing an article, I would change every reference of Liancourt or Dokdo to Takeshima, as I consider it to be Japanese territory that is currently illegally occupied by Korea - but that opinion, just like yours, is irrelevant. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about South Korea, not to spread your claims, but to describe Korea. We don't need to mention every claim here. I think you could change the name of Dokdo into Takeshima when the claiming government send her troops there. It seems not possible. --Cheol (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kusunose, I would agree with you that a local name and the English name should normally be enough, however the Japanese name could be considered as for many people Takeshima is Japanese and the dispute is enough to make it relevant. An easy solution is to have neither the Japanese nor the korean name. Also the inclusion of the korean name without the Japanese name is being used by some editors as a way to push their POV regarding ownership of Takeshima. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheol, strange you should say that it does not seem possible for Japanese troops to come to Takeshima, Japanese troops have already shown their capability to take over the entire korean nation, so a few rocks wouldn't prove hard for them. Either way, I have had enough of your pro-korean whining, when I see a comment that is relevant to Wikipedia procedures, I will comment again. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sennen, I mentioned the ground which is the fact that Korea governs the islets. To judge whether it is legal or illegal is not your job. The name, Liancourt Rocks, it is adopted not because it's a disputed territory, but because it's a well known name for english speaking people. Do not spread your claims in this article, this is not a battle field. --Cheol (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheol, this is not constructive. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue over whether a well-documented dispute exists. You appear to be POV-pushing. There is already a strong consensus that this dispute exists and will be mentioned in the article; if you think there is no such dispute, then you should deal with that in other avenues. Specifically, you should start a separate discussion about removing mention of it from the article entirely, and you should take Liancourt Rocks dispute to WP:AfD. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I accept I mentioned some of my own opinion. But all comments are not related to my POV. This is an article for Korea, not for Japan, so we don't need to mention it by Japanese word. That's what I mostly wanted to talk. --Cheol (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dokdo, Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima all work since they at least refer to the same islets. However, I think Liancourt Rocks is the most appropriate name in English Wikipedia simply because it is an English name. We use local names when there are no English substitutes (Honshu and Kyushu have no English names so we adopt the local names). Question of who controls there and to whom the islet belongs to is a whole different story which readers can find out if they bother. --Kingj123 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium on photos?

Over the past few months, several editors (myself included) have voiced concerns about the flooding of this article with useless, decorative photos. Many photos serve little purpose but to show off. In particular, the Economy, Education, and Demographics sections tend to get useless fluff photos; on the other hand, some sections lack photos (for example, the History section doesn't have any historically significant images).

I'm thinking it might be nice to set a 'rule' that people shouldn't add photos without first proposing/discussing them at the talk page. We could stick hidden comments at the top of each section. Does anyone else agree that something like this should be done? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree - esp. when the amount of images forces them to be left-right-left-right-aligned just so they won't make the page too long. Nothing against left-alignment, but when the combined height of the pictures exceeds the amount of text, something s wrong... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's currently a computer-generated image of a boat in Incheon which isn't real, and a nationalistic growth-rate graph with a Korean flag on it constructed out of only three data points. Both of these should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some consensus on at least deleting one of the stadium photos? Two pictures of stadiums hardly encapsulate Korean history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyper-Nationalism

There is a problem on this article. A big one. When you read this article, after having read many other articles on countries, you can't help but notice the extreme level of nationalism on this article compared to others. Yes country articles are bound to have some nationalism, but read the articles on say Australia or Canada and you'll see what I mean. There's an enormous difference. For starters those articles actually describe the country. This article is only a list of rankings for South Korea. Read the economy section for instance. South Korea is the third largest, South Korea is the fifth largest, South Korea is in the top ten, South Korea is in the top 5. Compare it to the other articles. The entire section is just a list of ranks with no description of the country whatsoever. I got almost no information about what South Korea is like as a country after reading the article. Yes country articles do include when the country happens to be the largest at something. Being the largest at something can be considered relevant, but not a continuous stream of irrelevant facts about how some construction company was the sixth largest at something in a particular year and how some subway system is the ninth largest by a certain measure according to some particular website and so on. Please can we have an article which actually just talks about South Korea, rather than being simply a rankings list you might find on the Guiness World Records website. Many of the sections have far too many pictures of irrelevant things. So much so that the text is squashed between them all and the article looks like a picture book, with a massive list of irrelevant ranks between millions of pictures. The hyper-nationalism needs to be seriously curbed if this article wants to appear anything other than seriously ridiculous. Bambuway (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and these same problems have been pointed out numerous times by numerous editors. Unfortunately, cleanup tags have been repeatedly blanked by other editors, and the article has stayed more or less the same for a very long time. I pretty much gave up on this article several months ago because I was sick of dealing with the bullshit from the ultranationalist editors who frequent this page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The false good figure is surviving[9] while the true bad figure is reverted[10]. There is no credibility in this article at all. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, typically, you have failed to provide any single source for your edit here. You replaced the cited info on the 2008's statistics with the 2009 statistics with no source. Thus, what you're claiming about the bad/good figure is just "untruth". You also removed the mention of "Japan" from the article with no rationale. Please do not mix with your agenda with the article's status quo.--Caspian blue 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that phoenix777 finally decided to heed my advice about WP:V and WP:RS.[11] Wikipedians should after all try to write about "credible" contents based on sources. --Caspian blue 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenix777. You can't hold on to out of date figures and ranks simply because you prefer them. Just another example of what this discussion is all about. Bambuway (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that "out of date" should stay, but do not support any unsourced information. So, Bambuway, be careful not to throw out your bad-faith and false accusations here. Your hyperbolic thread title actually tells everything. WP:SOFIX with reliable sources instead of complaining.--Caspian blue 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Caspian is right, Bambuway. Regardless of how old the figures are, no one should be changing them without providing a source; an article like this cannot tolerate more unsourced junk. No one is "holding onto" old figures because of preference; we just hold onto what is sourced, in favor of what is not. If someone wants to provide newer figures, they also need to provide a source. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest figures confirm that South Korea has slipped to 15th in terms of economy size. This is just one of several recent stories to confirm this. http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2916336 I will add the new figure to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.33 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We already knew Republic of Korea slipped to world's 15th largest economy behind Russia, India, Australia, Brazil, etc. many years ago. Putting that issue aside, as far as economic data are concerned I think we must wait for IMF's April 2010 edition of world economic indicators for most reliable citations. I do not find it easy to believe that CIA lists ROK's economy to have shrunk 0.8% while all other reports both domestic and international claim that ROK's economy grew 0.2~0.25%. --Ambassador (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bambuway's assessment that excessive use of statistics and rankings impacts the readability of the article. Perhaps some of the details would be better relegated to footnotes? Wikipedia:Footnotes states that footnotes are appropriate for "information [that] would be distracting if written out in the main article" -- perhaps that applies here. Daram.G (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are talking about a ranking list, there was previously a ranking list before, but it was deemed to be "excessive" and removed for the same reason. Myself and other editors continuously tried to revert vandalizms in the past involving both inclusion of irrelevant unsourced information as well as unexplained removal of information, but these "nationalistic" editors keep coming back. Keeping things neutral, sourced and straight to the point is just impossible on this page. I am quite sick of it actually. couldn't agree with Rjanag anymore.Pds0101 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of calling it 'hyper nationalism', how about calling it the 'truth' :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.40.52 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". It is, rather, "the selective cherry-picked truth, the selective cherry-picked truth as it appeals to a nationalistic Korean, and nothing but the selective cherry-picked truth

It seems kind of ironic coming from the person who asserted that "As a Korean, you must know that Korea has the world's highest rate of cosmetic surgery. There is no controversy about this" without providing any evidence. I think the problem is that it seems only people from the two extremes have any interest in editing the article. It would be wonderful if more detached editors would be willing to work on this page. 71.112.238.76 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have an interest in editing the article, and have in fact made numerous edits to remove peacock terms, cherry-picked facts and nationalistic waffle. Most of them have been reverted by hyper-nationalistic Korean editors. Like most of the other neutral editors who have been involved with this page, I'm frankly sick of the whole thing. As for cosmetic surgery, I haven't added anything to the article about that and if I did then I would source it with an article like one of these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4229995.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1435547.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Except the source doesn't support your claim. That's why I said your spiel about truth and cherry-picking was ironic since you seem to be the flip side of the people you despise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.238.76 (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles do state that Koreans are generally obsessed by their appearance, and that they place a relatively large amount of importance on plastic surgery. Nevertheless, it's probably not worth more than a sentence or two in the article.Newzild (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See.. I don't think the importance of appearance is strictly a Korean thing. The BBC article is a nice outlook into a foreign society but kind of weird trying to stress that into the article don't you think? An example of "cherry-picking". And it still doesn't support your claim of "world's highest rate of cosmestic surgery". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.238.76 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that the importance of appearance is not strictly a Korean thing. However, the articles state that appearance is relatively more important to Koreans than it is to people who live in most "Western" nations. I have lived in Korea for nearly four years and I agree with the articles. I'm frequently amazed by the Korean attitude to appearance. However, it's probably not worth mentioning in the South Korea article - it's more appropriate for the article on Korean culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, nobody at this stage has added anything about cosmetic surgery to the article, and nobody is suggesting that it should be added, so that part of the debate is not important. I'm sure that we can all agree that the article needs work to improve it from a C-Class article. At this stage, I think the Economy section is the most desperately in need of an edit. I would suggest that it be re-written to give 1) A history of the Korean economy since the war, and 2) An overview of the economy in terms of major goods and services, markets, etc. I'm sure we can all agree that the current list of companies, achievements, rankings, etc, is the type of stuff that's keeping this article in the C-Class.Newzild (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this an advertisement?

Just asking because every two sentences I read that South Korea is the best at this and that, or that it is the 6th ranked and 2nd ranked at this or whatever. I'm not sure. It also seems like a picture book. I was planning on making a short project on South Korea, but I'm not sure I can say that I will use this page as a source. It has alot of good information, however, its far too biased and even nationalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.101.64 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use this article as a source for your project. It is overrun by nationalist editors and most serious editors have long since given up on it.

In fact, you should be cautious about using Wikipedia for any project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Economics section which is indeed poor. I think there are some users (presumably Koreans) who are simply obsessed with the rank. Also, the image to the right File:South Korea's GDP (nominal) growth from 1960 to 2007 shows South Korean flag and superficial graph of south Korea's economy shooting up. Seriously, South Korea economy suffered downfall during Asian financial crisis and various hiccups from time to time which are clearly not reflected in this simple exponential graph.

South Korea economy section should start like "South Korea's strength lies in electronics manufacture, ship building..." or "South Korea is main exporter of electronics..." instead of "South Korea is number 3 at electronics, number 1 in ship building, and by the way we are also number one in ..." and so on. This will definitely make the article sound much more professional. To all "nationalists" out there, ranks do not make South Korea appeal to the world, it sounds too shallow as though the whole country is obsessed with trivial ranks. I mean it is good to be number one, but the section really needs to be packaged and weeded so that accomplishments are presented in more professional matter. --Kingj123 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think these comments capture perfectly the problems with this article, and the reason that it is the only Wikipedia page about a major nation that is rated only "C-Class". It really is quite embarrassing. The economy section and the nationalistic graph are the most obvious embarrassments, but really I think the Korean editors who have devoted themselves to protecting this page in a nationalistic fashion need to step back, take a deep breath, and let the article assume a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed "[Ulsan...] would be the world's third wealthiest economy if ranked". The per cap income is similar to Norway's (in the reference), and Norway is indeed ranked 3rd in some lists. However there are three problems

on other lists it would be different, ranking 2nd to 5th
Ulan is not a country it is a city, many cities would rank highly if they and they alone were countries,
Wealth is not measured by GDP per cap.

A valid (but not very interesting) statement might be "- an income comparing favourably with most national averages." Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

There was a description "With a GDP per capita of $32,171 in 2008, Seoul has a living standard comparable to France and Italy." I updated it with the more recent source to " Bahrain and Taiwan.". Then it was immediately removed saying "It is 2010."[12], although 2008 data is the most recent source. There was exactly the same discussion in the article "Seoul". See "Talk:Seoul#Questioning of Living Standard Comparison". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not the official name?

I find it odd that the article is not titled Republic of Korea instead of South Korea, same gores for North Korea article, when the two China's, Congos, Irelands and Macedonias articles are using their official names why not these?119.155.46.217 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan, even using Made in Taiwan for its products, so why is it titled Republic of China.119.155.49.91 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because its status is disputed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

it's because of WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB. Taiwan alone is ambiguous with the island but South Korea is not ambiguous with other topics. --Kusunose 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The nation's status is not disputed at all in the international community. "South Korea" is more commonly known name, and the official name, the "Republic of Korea" and its abbreviation "ROK" are redirected to this article. Besides, the lead sentence shows the official name of the nation. Hkwon (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cosmetic Surgery

It seems like a bit of a miss to fail to mention the fact that S Korea probably has the highest percentage of population who have taken plastic surgery. This should be included under culture section. Why? It is significant and considerably unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.53.85.103 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? We don't just report rumors and personal impressions, and I know of several other countries that also make this claim. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems virtually impossible to obtain any source whatsoever which lists countries by their plastic surgery procedures per population. The closest thing I have found so far was a list compiled by Nationmaster [13]. But this list is probably as good as nothing because its outdated from 2002. As far as I am concerned, the Korean media has much to do with sensationalizing plastic surgery, or making it seem more common than it really is. Such a shame. But don't take it from my opinion, we need reliable sources if that is to be included. Pds0101 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There was story in the Korea Times recently which said 80 per cent of Korean women had either already had cosmetic surgery, or were considering having cosmetic surgery in the near future. You might be able to hunt that down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

After a lengthy search, there is no such article in the Korea Times that verifies your statistic. Its is rather better not to include specious claims or rumors in the article. Pds0101 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The story has probably dropped off google because it was too old. This happens after about six weeks or so. It is rather better not to be rude on the talk page, accusing people of making "specious claims" and spreading rumour. As a Korean, you must know that Korea has the world's highest rate of cosmetic surgery. There is no controversy about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good one: "By conservative estimates, 50% of South Korean women in their 20s have had some form of cosmetic surgery. And in a recent poll, 70% of men said they would also consider surgical improvements." http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:995StDh-AqEJ:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4229995.stm+korea+%22cosmetic+surgery%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.61.144 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't prove that they have the "highest percentage", it only says that they have a high percentage in one slice of the demographic. It's interesting, but far from being what you said at the top of this discussion. Furthermore, it's not as reliable as an academic article would be. It may still be worth mentioning briefly (something like a short sentence in the "Culture" section saying "plastic surgery is becoming popular" or something like that) but it's nothing to make a big deal over if this is the only source you have. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything "at the top of this discussion". I am merely a contributor to this discussion, which was started by someone else. Note that it is not necessary for sources and links to be "academic". This article was written by the BBC, which is certainly among the most reliable and prestigious news organisations in the world. Actually, I agree with you - it's worth a sentence, perhaps in the Culture section, but nothing more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.61.144 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

... Plastic surgery? Oh what a lame topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.40.52 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a lame topic for most people, but you really have to live in South Korea to understand just why it is so relevant. An enormous percentage of Korean women have plastic surgery to attract wealthy husbands or obtain good jobs. Most Korean women have at least had eyelid surgery. It's quite a normal part of life here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something. To me all Koreans look alike, or at least have a strong family resemblance. In the USA Jewish women are famous for wanting to look like Northern Europeans. What do Korean women want to look like? To me they look fine the way they are. Borock (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if 100% of South Korean women wants plastic surgery. If anyone can show that the percentage of South Korean women who want plastic surgery is No.1 in the world (compared to women in other countries, surveyed in the same year) or similarly significant enough to be marked as a national information according to a reliable source, include it in the article. If not, leave this article alone and create a new article named "Wish for plastic surgery in the world by South Korean women" or something like that and quote that non-comparative statistics there. Hkwon (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To Borock: Tread carefully with what you say. Your ungrounded statement that "all Koreans look alike" and your similar statement about Jewish women could be easily perceived as a racist expression. I assume a good faith from you, but remember that there are Wikipedia users who are Koreans and Jewish who might be insulted from what you said. Hkwon (talk)

Thanks for the advice. I certainly didn't intend anything negative by what I said, but you are right that we need to be careful not to offend anyone. However, I am still curious. Do Korean people do plastic surgery just to look cuter or do they want to look less Korean? Borock (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Both, in a way. The artificial standards of beauty that get promoted in popular media are in many ways based on Caucasian looks. Big smiles with wide mouths, etc. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a fair comment. Most Korean women in their 20s and 30s have had cosmetic surgery on their eyelids to make their eyes open wider and also to give them what they call a "double eyelid". It's also extremely common for South Koreans to have collagen injections (especially in the cheeks and lips), skin-peeling therapy, liposuction, hair implants, and what have you. Looks are more important in Korean society than they are in most Western societies for complicated reasons stemming from their Confucian status culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been here for a while and I have to say, this is getting ridiculous. Where are all these wild claims coming from? I don't believe that you know every single south korean female in their 20s and 30s to make such an absurd estimation. I for one don't know a single korean woman who has done surgery in real life. But regardless of what we think, this is no place for rumors. If you want to make a point, then give a credible source.Pds0101 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. I'm pretty sure wikipedia is not a forum. Maybe you guys should actually discuss how to improve the article instead of making sweeping generalizations and trying to present it as fact. Thanks. Akkies (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

pds0101 - if you don't know a single Korean woman who has had surgery, then you don't live in Korea. I do live in Korea (I'm gyopo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.244 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few links that may be of interest to some editors. Now, although these aren't reliable sources, they do document plastic surgery in South Korea, meaning that it does exist, that it does have a significant place in South Korea, and that it is a controversial topic. It does not list figures though. However, this does debunk claims by some who deny that cosmetic surgery has a significant role in youth, along with their culture, attitudes and behaviour in Korea.

Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)