Jump to content

Talk:South Korea/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

'millennium of relative tranquility'

hi, i would like to prevent an edit war with User:Massyparcer, so i would like some third-party mediation regarding this: " After the unification of the Three Kingdoms of Korea in 668, Korea enjoyed over a millennium of relative tranquility under dynasties lasting for centuries in which its trade, culture, literature, science and technology flourished.[13](http://www.gwangjunewsgic.com/online/behind-the-myth-the-many-invasions-of-korea/)"

the article referenced only specifically addresses five centuries of korean history with minimal overlap with the 'millennium of relative tranquility' which, according to the current edit of wikipedia, came after the unification of the three kingdoms period. Even if there indeed had been a thousand years of relative peace after 668, the article does nothing to support this claim.2602:306:CDF4:62E0:85F6:35AD:306D:66AF (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes the article makes clear that before the Japanese annexation in the early 20th century, the country has been in relative tranquility compared to other nations. Before the unificiation of the three kingdoms under a single dynasty, wars were very common but since then, the transitions between the dynasties have been very smooth. See this:

"Before 1950, Korea experienced only one conflict in its whole history as long and bloody as a great war of Europe: its resistance against the Mongol Empire from 1231-1259. And if we are being honest, having been attacked by the Mongol Empire is not a very special distinction. Literally a quarter of Earth’s population received the same treatment.

Mark Peterson therefore summarizes Korea’s history in this way: “periods of war were relatively few, and the intervening spans of peace were long. Dynasties in Korea were long-lasting and transitions between dynasties were remarkably smooth.” Massyparcer (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

ok i missed those two paragraphs, so i was wrong and the article does in passing mention the thirteenth century once. But how does this hold any water when they are making the the point that there was 'relative' peace compared to the three kingdoms era but it was interrupted by, like, the Single Most Devastating Conflict in korean history until the 1950 Korean War? the regional power struggles predating the mongol invasions were small fry compared to the later 'proto-modern' conflicts. this article is nonsensical. the writers are blinded by a eurocentric notion of warfare in which wars that occurred are Quantified in numbers, completely ignorant of the fact that east asian conflicts, while few in number, had casualty figures not matched by the west until the first world war. or perhaps they don't realize just exactly why these wars in korea, which were few in number, are central to both the nationalist and confucian historiographical narrative! It is completely ridiculous to say that it was smooth sailing after the unification of the three kingdoms when in fact the three most devastating conflicts (mongol invasions, japanese invasions, korean war) in korean history happened AFTER the unification, each by itself far more devastation than anything that happened before the year 668. "Korea enjoyed over a millennium of relative tranquility under dynasties lasting for centuries in which its trade, culture, literature, science and technology flourished.[13]" it is misleading to state this when almost nothing tangible predating the mongol invasions exists ([1]). The only reasonable point that remains is that dynastic succession was relatively stable. By no means does that imply anything after unification of 668 was 'tranquil' whether in terms relative or absolute 2602:306:CDF4:62E0:85F6:35AD:306D:66AF (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's get one thing out of the way first - This "relative tranquility" refers to Korea from after the unification in 668 to 1950 when the Korean war broke out. Thus the Korean war is excluded and irrelevant here and mentioned in a separate sentence. The only major conflicts in this period were a few Mongol invasions and a few Japanese invasions at most. That's why the authors are drawing a clear line until 1950. It isn't comparing it to the three kingdom era as you claim. Wikipedia needs sources and the authors are experts in Korean history who have sources to backup their claims. You don't. And we can't invent things out of the air or put our opinion with no sources. Look at the frequency of wars - During the Three Kingdom era, there were wars literally every year. After unification , wars were like held every 500 years or so. BIG difference. The article clearly says relative - Which indicates that the few Mongol and Japanese invasions were nothing compared to other countries at the time. Stick to the sources please instead of putting down your opinions here. Massyparcer (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
alright then, why do they single out the short period in korean history after 1950 in which there has only been *one* three-year conflict? You have to understand that the authors of the article, or rather, the purveyors of this heterodox view, have an understanding of korean history in which there were only brief and clearly insignificant interruptions until, according to this article, 1865. why exactly are the last 150 years singled out? Where is the crescendo of violence? is it because Korea as a whole was annexed for the first time in its history, or that its strife however infinitesimal and few in number were, simply more memorable because it was not too long ago? Or perhaps the level of devastation during the Korean War alone sets it apart from the likes of six mongol invasions and two japanese invasions? post-1865 clearly was an era of decline, but the number of conflicts internecine or otherwise still pale in comparison to the actual number of conflicts took place before unification in 668; and though as many as they were, they were certainly not as you say 'almost every year'. In fact there were certainly more wars between 668 and 1950 than 'every 500 years or so'--this is completely false. I fail to grasp these arbitrary lines they draw when there was no long interbellum in which korean civilization 'flourished' of the kind described--ostensibly between the years 668 and 1865 or 1950. If the metrics were consistent at all they might as well have called every year after 668 'relative tranquility' 2602:306:CDF4:62E0:310E:14B8:BA3D:1136 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The last 150 years are not singled out as you claim. They are all mentioned in a separate sentence - The annexation of Korea by Japan is mentioned right after the first sentence. This is because before 1910, it was an independent kingdom for the most part. BIG difference and a huge interruption to the peace and flourishing age I would say. The colonization and devastation in the Korean war were more significant in world history than the few Mongol invasions (which virtually every country suffered) and unsuccessful Japanese invasions in the 15th century. Before 668, we do not have clear figures for casualties but it was indeed a bloody period, there were wars far more frequently in a struggle to conquer the other kingdoms. This was true until Tongil Silla - Unified Silla period, which was a period of complete peace. The succeeding kingdom, Goryeo, was also peaceful aside from the Mongol invasions. The every 500 years claim isn't completely false - Other than the Mongol invasions and Japanese invasions which were held literally hundred years apart, they were no wars in scale compared to the Korean war. Most of Korea's greatest inventions, advancements in science, literature, culture and religion were all seen in the long peace period from unified Silla until the annexation by Japan (in which were modernization to a certain extent but this is controversial and up for a separate debate). Massyparcer (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I notice Volle's Gwangju News article begins by pointing out that the view Peterson and Lankov share is not commonly shared, so perhaps we should hesitate to assert it without any qualification or any suggestion that other interpretations exist. If we do keep the phrase, we'd need to be more clear that this peace is relative to the contemporary history of Europe, rather than that of (for example) Japan or China. Also, Volle quotes Lankov, with reference to the period 1392-1910, “The last four decades of these five centuries were turbulent indeed [for Korea]” and the article's last paragraph begins "That smoothness disappeared after 1865, of course. The next hundred years were filled with colonization, civil war and military coups...." so it doesn't seem that we can say that Peterson, Lankov or Volle speak of tranquillity up to 1950. Indeed, Lankov speaks of only 450 years, not a millennium. NebY (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure other interpretations exist and if people can bring up sources, I'm willing to consider it. However, the statement of relative peace isn't wrong compared to Japan or China - Both countries had far more wars and casualties during that period. Korea was technically a hermit kingdom for a long time with no foreign intervention or interruption, which makes it a big standout in world history. I agree there were controversial events like colonization and coups before 1950 - However, they were none in scale compared to the Korean war, which is shared by all authors of this article. Massyparcer (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Historical Images

A user(s) has repeatedly removed images from the post-War history section. One image was of the Seoul after the Korean war, another was of the April Revolution and another was of the Park Chung-hee era. None of these images strike me as particularly controversial but I'm not an expert on South Korea so please let me know if I'm missing something. If not, please stop deleting these images without discussing it. Mass removal of images is vandalism.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus for adding these controversial images and as per WP:Consensus you leave it to the stable version if there is opposition. Putting up the picture of a controversial dictator and a student riot is indeed highly controversial and strongly violates WP:POV, these are reasons sufficient to exclude them until a strong consensus for them exists. Massyparcer (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
First, please remember to approach this in good faith. Second, remember that what you think of as controversial may not appear as controversial to someone else. Third, please be specific about what you find to be controversial with the images, remember WP:I just don't like it is not how decision get make on Wikipedia. You have already described what the article describes as a "revolution" as a "riot" and said that including a picture of the person who ruled the country for 17 years is controversial. I'm not an expert on South Korea so I really don't know if you are correct or not but simply including pictures of such significant events does not seem to me to be immediately controversial. As I said originally, please let me know what about these images is controversial, perhaps we can sort this out amongst ourselves and not bring in additional parties. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

3O request

One of you recently requested a third opinion on this dispute. Unfortunately, the 3O process requires that thorough talk page discussion take place before a third opinion is given. Massyparcer, since you removed the images and Monopoly31121993 then engaged you on this talk, I suggest you clearly state your opposition to the images here, so the discussion may move forward. If, after more discussion, there is still no consensus, you are welcome to ask for a 3rd opinion again, or to try other forms of dispute resolution, such as an WP:RfC or a post to WP:DRN. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde93. unfortunately Massyparcer continues to revert all of the images without providing any discussion. How can I request a 3rd opinion again if he never engages on the talk page?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding several "reverts" on this page by Massyparcer

Could someone who watches/edits this page please explain why Massyparcer keeps on "reverting edits per WP:CONSENSUS"? The edit histories aren't clear on what is being reverted and why. On the outside, without any information regarding what "consensus" is being enforced, it essentially looks like an edit war. Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I can say that he continues to delete all historical images from the South Korean history section. He claims they are controversial but refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. Feel free to step in if you like.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
*All* pictures? Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I have only removed the recently addeed controversial pictures. Never touched anything else.
Consensus refers to the stable version that was in place for a long time before the above user showed up. I'm not edit warring and have no interest in it if you have read my edit reasons in the history page, you would know that I'm strictly following a major Wikipedia policy - WP:Consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Massyparcer: We're not debating or questioning the meaning of "consensus"; what is being discussed here is your reverts of the page without further discussing on the talk page, which is the very definition of an edit war. Even if "consensus" is in place, reverting edits and not discussing to enforce it via further consensus is essentially an edit war. Enforcing policy is not a reason to continuously revert edits without discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, if you look at the discussions above, I have been one of the main contributors to the discussion, so this claim that I'm not discussing is certainly not true. Unless we can get more than just one person interested in this issue to join the discussion, I would not call any consensus gained here valid. Massyparcer (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Massyparcer: The point of consensus is that editors agree and abide by it; if these several reverts have happened, there is obviously a lack of consensus, and thus there is no consensus to be enforced. I would recommend starting a discussion to enforce your perception of how this page should appear, rather than continuously revert edits without starting a discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaming?

I'm surprised there's nothing about gaming in here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_gaming_in_South_Korea

It's huge in Korea, even being on television, probably more notable and bigger than most the stuff in the sports section. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC) The popularity of pro-gaming is overstated, I think, among Westerners, as countries in the West generally lack a strong pro-gaming scene, and people generally like to point out what's different.

From my experiences in Korea, it's definitely not more notable or bigger than most of the stuff in the sports section. Almost everything is on TV there, so whether it's on TV or not isn't really important. Football (soccer), baseball, and the Olympics are much more notable. Basketball and golf are probably also more notable. Arumdaum (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Park's status as a dictator

"Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms."

"Almost dictatorial" implies that Park was in fact not an actual dictator, which he most certainly was. Even if there are those who want to contest it, the phrase "almost dictatorial" is definitely not impartial. Arumdaum (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

From Dictator : "Dictatorships are often characterised by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality."
Generally speaking Park_Chung-hee does fit most of those traits, including having been elected twice without any opposition. I believe the statement should however reflect the high amount of affection felt towards him by many (although certainly not all) South Koreans who regard his dictatorship as benevolent, including the evidence of the free election of his daughter Park_Geun-hye as the current President of South Korea. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How can a presidential system include a prime minister?

How can a presidential system include a prime minister, who has to be approved by the legislature, even if he is not the head of government?? I think that makes South Korea a semi-presidential not presidential republic. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

War casualties.

The article currently states "Over 1.2 million people died during the Korean war.[29]"

Wikipedia articles "korean War" and "Kim Ik Sung" both give casualties of c2.5 million. AnnaComnemna (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Academic consensus

  • Seth, Michael J. (2010). A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-7425-6717-7.
"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."--219.111.109.7 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Disclaimer: the above message was originally posted by me here. The anom user (who uses many different IPs) has reposted my message on several talk pages, all without attribution. I have absolutely no connection with the user. -Zanhe (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Population

South Korea population chart need correction. It says Chinese 1% ( Those Chinese 1% are actually Korean-Chinese Chosunjok/ 조선족). Reality they do not count as Chinese they are considered Overseas Koreans population. Reality Korean should be 99.9 percent. Chinese in Korea actually less then 100,000 people. 600,000-800,000 Thousand are Korean-Chinese from Yanbian Korean Region. Information need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straight1info1today (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

South Korea population is 53 Million. Plus Koreans in China ( Chosunjok) population living and working in South Korea is 900,000 - 1 Million. Han-Chinese, Overseas Chinese in South Korea is far fewer. 1.8 Percent is way too far fetch. Correct information is needed ASAP.

Please provide a reliable source to support your claim. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 10:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

'대한' is not mean 'Great Han'

Choe Nam-Seon, the writer/poet said on his book《조선상식문답Joseonsangsikmundap》, "···(omit)··· 대Dae, 한Han 2 syllable is Country's name, never likes 대영Daeyeong (Great Briten)'s 대Dae(Great).···(omit)···"

∴ Write 대한 to Daehan. Kangyg99 (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

I suggest the text about Jehova's Witnesses being imprisoned be changed to highlight the reason for imprisoning them. The reason is a bit unclear at the moment, especially if one does not know what the term "conscientious objector" means.

Current text: "Ironically, there are 628 Jehovah's Witnesses currently imprisoned in South Korea with the average of 40 newly imprisoned every month."

Suggested improvement: "Ironically, there are 628 Jehovah's Witnesses currently imprisoned in South Korea with the average of 40 newly imprisoned every month for refusing to perform military service." Touzen (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually the whole text around Jehovah's Witnesses is just wrong. They are not being imprisoned for their religious beliefs at all, and therefore it is not 'ironic' in any sense. They are imprisoned for not undertaking legally required military service. Their religious belief may cause them to break the law, but that is different from the state discriminating against their religion.
There is probably a valid point around the South Korean governments refusal to recognize conscientious objection, but that in itself is not a religious issue (i.e. anyone can validly claim that they are a conscientious objector, regardless of their motivation for claiming it).
I would remove all of this, or rephrase it that this aspect of Jehovah's Witnesses belief is incompatible with Korean law, but the Korean state is not suppressing Jehovah's Witnesses religious belief on purpose. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Any objections to the correction I'm suggesting above? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No objections here on modifying the text. I've got a problem with the current wording too. "Ironically" seems to be mixing apples and oranges, in the way that you noted. Also, "currently" is problematic when dealing with figures from months or years ago. Mark Froelich (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and implemented Touzen's requested change. Anyone else can feel free to modify or change it. Cara777 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Republic of Korea" VS "South Korea" as a main header

Wondering why unofficial name "South Korea" is used as a main header for the page and redirection is done from official "Republic of Korea"?

Even article text puts unofficial name first.
South Korea officially the Republic of Korea...

Here is example from USA page where official name is first at least in the text:
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America.

It applies to North Korea and China articles too. So I guess there is a rule about that. Does anybody know it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.26.2.181 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Orthographic Projection

Support for Orthographic Projection

  • The image serves its purpose as a locator map. It clearly shows S. Korea's location in the world and the close up map of the country is shown in the separate image.

Support for Red Colour Locator Map

  • Red is preferable colour to Wikipedia standard although it is not followed by most country articles.
Support. There should definitely be an enlarged image like Sri Lanka so that cities can be shown. Massyparcer (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicities of Historical Rulers?

User:Greenhorn insists that the ethnicities of the semi-mythical rulers Gija and Wiman need to be clarified in the "history" section of the article. Never mind the fact that we don't mention the ethnic backgrounds of any of the other rulers, such as those of ambiguous or mixed ethnic origin (see Balhae), are omitted (given their lack of relevance), I fail to see how such information as a whole is relevant to the formation of the article's subject, South Korea. Quite frankly, it seems as though this user is trying to push some sort of nationalist agenda in direct violation of WP:BALASPS and WP:UNDUE. WP:BALASPS states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." As such, I want to know how the ethnicities of two ancient (and arguably mythical) rulers are worthy of mention in an article explicitly about South Korea, because as far as I see, they're not.BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It has virtually nothing to do with the modern Republic of Korea. We can't jot down every minor little detail of an ancient semi-mythical kingdom ruler in any Wikipedia country article. And more importantly, User:Greenhorn is continuously violating WP:Consensus - If there's no consensus, the basic Wikipedia rule is that you leave it the way it was before the controversial editing. What's concerning is that User:Greenhorn is going around editing every major ancient Korean history article and adding any Chinese-ethnicity based information that may be controversial or unverified. I can't see this as anything but some sort of nationalist agenda. Massyparcer (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was notified that there was a sockpuppet investigation going on about this user - He appears to have been doing the same thing for the last couple of years: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787. I have opened a new one under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenhorn38. Massyparcer (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Formation Section

Listing every Korean state is inconsistent with the styles listed on comparable pages, such as China, Japan, etc. Each nation page only lists 4-5 points of the main events that transpired, such as the foundation day, independence day, foundation of the republic, etc. As such, mentioning every period in Korean history is inconsistent with the style used on every other Wikipedia article in this category, contradicting Help:Infobox.

While I'm open to discussion regarding exactly which 4-5 events should be included, I think the ones currently in place should suffice as they include: The Foundation Day, the date when the Korean peninsula became completely unified, the independence day, and the establishment of the republic, and the date when the current constitution was implemented. This makes the section consistent with those of on other Wikipedia articles. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Switzerland, Norway and Austria, listing up to 10 events seem fine and renaming the section to history seems more appropriate like Switzerland. Only major kingdoms that had significant influence in Korean history should be included. This would start with the national foundation day like Japan and Switzerland, followed by the Three Kingdoms of Korea, Balhae that succeded Goguryeo and the unitary dynasties of Goryeo, Joseon and the Korean Empire. The Japan-Korea Treaty and the formation of the First Republic should conclude it. Massyparcer (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that up. I honestly have no problem with the infobox in its current form. However, my only concern is that users will end up abusing the list and include far more kingdoms/states/periods than need to be included, hence why I wanted to keep the section as simple and concise as possible: National Foundation, Unification, Independence, Establishment of the Republic, and Current Constitution. Let me know what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We would need to keep the list this way by sticking to a consensus. It appears to me that the list is simple as it is, but if you would like to simplify it further, we could sum up Goryeo, Joseon and Korean Empire as the unitary dynastic period, since their territories were more or less similar. We could do the same with Baekjae, Goguryeo and Silla, terming them under Three Kingdoms of Korea. I would say that the "current constitution" is unnecessary since it is explained in the lead and is not the foundation of a completely new state. Massyparcer (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

BlackRanger88, you're removing the semi-historical Gija Joseon, fully historical Wiman Joseon and Four Commanderies, while restoring the 100% mythological 2333 BC date

Academic consensus

"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."--Greenhorn38 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it is more of a question of how relevant it is to the modern Republic of Korea. At the end of the day, this article is about the Republic of Korea. The National Foundation Day is an official holiday designated by the government. It is not necessarily recognition of the historical event but a widely known and accepted date in the society like Japan or Switzerland. The kingdoms you mention of course have academic recognition. They are all part of Korean history and if we could list everything, it would be nice. But unfortunately, it appears that most Wikipedia country articles restrict the events as simple as possible, keeping only major events that had significant influence on the formation of the modern country. Gija and Wiman were part of Gojoseon that is honored via the National Foundation Day in this article and the Four Commanderies of Han were not really Korean kingdoms but set up by the Chinese and ruled by them. As a a result, the kingdoms you mention are difficult to be qualified under these conditions since they are too old and minor to have had a major impact on the formation of the mdoern republic. Written records and cultural heritages from those kingdoms are insufficient. If you look at the Three Kingdoms and the cultural legacy they left behind, this becomes clearer to understand. Massyparcer (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Greenhorn38: As I've mentioned before, my main concern is to abide by the comparability guideline set forth by Help:Infobox and help Wikipedia as a whole stay uniform and infoboxes to remain concise, as intended. Please use the infoboxes of articles on other nations as a reference.

@User:Massyparcer: I agree with most of your revisions, however, I would change "Balhae" to "North and South Kingdoms" since it encompasses the affairs of the entire Korean peninsula at the time. Additionally, I would change the "Japan-Korea treaty of 1910" to "Gwangbokjeol" since most other former-colony nation articles list their Independence day in this section rather than the date of annexation/occupation. Logically as well, the independence of the state is directly related to the formation of the modern day state. BlackRanger88 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with changing Balhae to North and South Kingdoms, however there seems to be a misunderstanding about Gwangbokjeol, which you listed as 1910, when the Japan-Korea Treaty was signed. I corrected this. Massyparcer (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually just forgot to change the date corresponding with Gwangbokjeol. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Han Commanderies is confirmed in every Korean history textbook.

when you want to claim a point, the proof is necessary. Now show me that the current major korea history textbooks don't talk about Chinese commandaries, otherwise your point is worthless. Here let me simply list some of many college textbooks that do discuss the Chinese commandaries as the part of Korea history.

Kyung Moon hwang, "A History of Korea, An Episodic Narrative" 2010,

Carter J. Eckert, el., "Korea, Old and New: History" 1990,

Michael J. Seth, "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present" 2010,

Charles Roger Tennant, "A History of Korea" 1996,

Mark Peterson, "A Brief History Of Korea" 2009.

Based on all above CURRENT research, the Chinese commandary is a must to be listed in the template.

Your personal opinion regarding the commanderies contradicts the fact that they are presented in just about every English language book on Korean history. Excluding a period from Korean history simply because it violates your own sensibilities is irresponsible and violates NPOV. The history of a country has never been restricted to exactly those that it perceives compatible with its present political continuity; otherwise, why is the Japanese colonial period - which no Korean state perceives to be within the Korean continuity - included in the History of Korea? --Greenhorn38 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about being mentioned in textbooks nor about my personal views. In fact I have agreed with all of your opinions before (if you have read what I said) that they are a part of Korean history. There is no question about that. How much relevant it is to the foundation of the modern Republic of Korea - Is an entirely different issue. Quite frankly, if you look at the UNESCO Cultural Heritages or World Heritage Sites, none of it comes from that period. There's not much left if any legacy left behind from those Chinese commandaries on modern Republic of Korea. Compared to the Three Kingdoms, Goryeo or Joseon, it is barely if ever mentioned in the modern South Korean media with little awareness in Korean society itself, let alone internationally. This is not my opinion - It is what the current situation is based on multiple sources. Again, this article is about the modern Republic of Korea and as the other editor has voiced, we must keep the list simple to major periods only like every other country articles. I would also refrain from constantly reverting this and follow the WP:Consensus procedure. Massyparcer (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Therefore the source?--Greenhorn38 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The source is the lack of sources - Look at the number of sources which highlight the four Chinese kingdoms in modern South Korean media as significant or even relevant to the formation of the modern Republic. It is a testament to how little if any influence it had on the modern Republic. Massyparcer (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Greenhorn, as I said in my edit summary, the previous map that was in place was far more suitable since it depicted the boundaries of all the relevant states/kingdoms on the peninsula at the time. The Four Han Commanderies are not nearly as important to the foundation of the South Korean republic than are Goguryeo, the Samhan Confederacy and other states. In fact, the image that was used before your edit even included the boundaries of one of the Han commanderies, so nobody here is denying that the commanderies existed, it's about the relevance that specific image has to the article as a whole. You have no reason to keep pushing this edit except for nationalist ones. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BALASPS and WP:UNDUE before continuing to escalate this into an edit war. In other words, if a map were to be included in the article, it should absolutely be the one that presented all relevant states on the peninsula, not just the Han commanderies. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Having the ancient fiefdoms is inappropriate since this is about the modern South Korean state. But, if you're going to add the irrelevant ancient fiefdoms here, might as well add them to the North Korean article as well to maintain NPOV. Having them here and not on the North Korean one is blatant POV pushing. I'd do it myself, but my web browser keeps crashing every time I try to cut and paste something into Wikipedia. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Inhabited half a million years ago"

The second paragraph asserts that South Korea was inhabited "half a million years ago". This number is both imprecise and fallacious. Homo sapiens as a species is simply not that old! Would someone please fix this?

Chadpimp1 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Homo_sapiens says that 'modern humans' are between '100,000 and 200,000' years old, however Homo_erectus, and specifically Peking_Man were dated in the region 750,000 years ago. On that basis the Korean peninsular may actually have been inhabited? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You mention "in the region." Is there any evidence that Peking Man inhabited the Korean Peninsula? Mark Froelich (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Inhabited by what? Birds? Snakes? Horses? The sentence needs to be a bit more precise or it should be removed altogether. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Health section pretty biased

The Health section only lists the positives. While there surely are good things about the ROK's health industry, it neglects to mention that the country has the highest suicide rate of all OECD countries, an issue that's well documented by international news agencies from Japan to the U.K. and U.S. The health section should list the positives and negatives about the topic. The way it's written now sounds like tourist board boosterism, where there's nothing wrong and everything's all hunky-dory perfect. Also, why does the section list that "ROK is better than country XYZ" umpteenth times? This is supposed to be about the ROK, not a random arbitrarily-chosen country on the other side of the globe. Not only is this blatant boosterism, disparaging to other countries and not to mention misleading, it also makes the section hard as heck to read. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is biased. Look at the editors involved and their history for pushing nationalistic bias. I have a huge amount of respect for Korea and Koreans, and it sucks to see a few nationalistic editors give their nation such a poor image with this crap. The only question is: are these sincere edits, or are they intentionally playing the rules to include NPOV edits? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, why does the establishment section list random ancient kingdoms? This article's about the ROK, not Gojoseon. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Corea vs. Korea

It seems that the sentence at the end of the first paragraph on "Etymology," that mentions the Corea vs. Korea spelling debate, is just giving voice to an unsubstantiated myth. The first cited source mostly just reports on the existence of the myth without providing any evident for the veracity of the claim (the claim that Japan changed the spelling from Corea to Korea so that Japan would preceed Korea in an alphabetical listing of countries, that is). The second cited source (a temperamental Wayback Machine archive of a post on a now-defunct blog, added by myself some time ago) thoroughly debunks the myth. But why include myth and urban legend in the first place? It seems that the page should be a place for facts, or at least consensus expert beliefs.

TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The claim doesn't have to be true to be notable. That the existence of the myth and the fact that is is believed by many is reported by a reliable source (no less than Barbara Demick, then the Beijing South Korean bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, based in Seoul), and that another source exists that refutes it, is sufficient to make the existence of the urban legend notable. We report it as a widely held belief, not fact, and we include the source that makes the refutation. It is a fact (according to our source) that there are people who believe it, and that is the fact we are reporting. Please stop removing it. General Ization Talk 05:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also note that we give this myth exactly one sentence, so its inclusion here hardly represents undue weight. General Ization Talk 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Should the Barack Obama page be edited to include the belief that he's a Muslim? It is a fact that plenty of people believe that he's a Muslim, and this belief has been reported by reputable sources - does that make it worthy of inclusion? At what point does a ridiculous, unsubstantiated, illogical rumor cease to be notable? The mere mention of a spurious rumor risks giving it undue weight. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not only is the myth that Obama is a Muslim notable, it is so notable that it has an entire article dedicated to it (along with claims that he is the Antichrist). See Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, which is linked from Barack Obama. There are numerous other examples here of a false belief that is notable because it is widely held and discussed in reliable sources. General Ization Talk 12:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Haha, ok, you win. How about I add a second sentence regarding the debunkedness of the myth, though? That seems fair, and it relates to the second cited source. I had added such a sentence before and it ended up getting deleted at some point.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually tried to do that using the existing sources. Unfortunately, the source you provided for the debunking is in fact the least reliable of the sources, being a blog, and the others quote scholars who weigh in on both sides of the question. So the only way for you to do that is to find and cite a better source. As it stands, the best course of action is to state, as the article does, what some people believe without taking any position on the belief (but including the sources). See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. General Ization Talk 15:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The first source is new, and in Chinese, so I don't know what the heck it's about or why it's even there. And the second source quotes a scholar whose speculation comes down on one side of the issue yet provides no evidence - and admits that none exists - and quotes no source who offers any insight as to the other side of the issue. The blog post is a blog post, but it includes pictures of stamps and letters which support its contention that the myth is just that - a myth. Fair enough that the Los Angeles Times has more credibility than a blog, but the blog author carefully cites and includes historical sources for his or her assertions, unlike the one, idly speculating scholar in the Los Angeles Times article. A reading of both sources reveals the third one - blog post that it is - to contain much more rigorous research. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A machine translation of the first citation (which was already used in the same section of the article to support the second sentence) makes it very clear that there are those who subscribe to the theory that the Japanese are responsible for the change in spelling. And the fact that the blog's research was evidently more rigorous (or perhaps just that more of it was published on the blog vs. in the LAT article) does not make it more reliable for our purposes here. It is still a blog. I personally do not doubt its findings, but it does not pass muster here as a reliable source (see WP:RS). As I said, find a better source or sources, perhaps using some of those cited on the blog, and feel free to include it or them here (being careful not to get carried away on this relatively minor point within the scope of the entire article). General Ization Talk 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there is no requirement here that cited sources be in English. General Ization Talk 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is another article at a reliable source (the Chicago Tribune) on this topic. I started to add it, then decided it was mostly a rehash of the LAT article. However, it does contain a quote from one scholarly source (David Shaffer, a professor of English at Chosun University) who disputes the theory about the Japanese, which doesn't appear in Demick's article as published. I wouldn't suggest adding this citation alone, as it contains little else that is useful beyond what's in the LAT article and is only a single scholar's quoted view (not enough to say that it is "the experts' view"). But it might be useful in conjunction with other citations. General Ization Talk 17:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll stay on the lookout for other debunkings that have taken place in more official, reputable mediums, but considering how incredibly small the group of English-speaking people interested in the matter likely is, it's surprising that it was ever even reported on in an English-language newspaper at all. My best bet may be to search for Korean-language sources, but my attempts at such have been unsuccessful thus far. It's unfortunate that the reporters for the two English-language newspaper articles apparently spent such little effort finding an authoritative voice on the other side of the issue - the reporters seem to have been concerned merely with the existence of the rumor, rather than its veracity, and ultimately now, via this Wikipedia page, will have ended up spreading the rumor, as a result. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

about Dokdo / Takeshima　Comfort woman

Please see the video was created using historical primary source material. Please assess the facts and well.

North Korea should get it along with their mentor the Communist Chinese butchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.99.6 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Korea is NUMBER ONE ...fuck yeah !! (Japan boo) Korea NUMBER FUCKING ONE !!!!

It seems from the edits on this article, that the above would be quite a suitable title.

"South Korea was number one for exports of left handed scissors in Asia, from February 2006 until April 2006, beating (insert random nation) by 23.89%"

If you are Korean, please use this article to inform people about your awesome nation, in a neutral and relevant manner. All of the retarded stats, comparisons to random nations and POV terms just make this article kinda shit. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's all rather counter-productive. If you make a blatantly biased article to support your nation, one of three things will happen.
1. Readers see the obvious bias and think that people from that country are not honest.
2. Editors remove all of the positive content
3. Editors from other nations who are portrayed negatively in the article, add negative content.
Try making an honest article without the stupid agendas, and you might have a decent article about South Korea. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow. This article was a good article nominee back in 2008. Could we try to get it back to at least that level again, please? It's not hard, just consider NPOV, weight, MOS and sources and you're half way there. It really makes me frustrated when I realize that so many wikipedians are here to push their POV, rather than create an encyclopedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, I'm afraid your plea will fall on deaf ears. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 20:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420, Illegitimate Barrister, and BlackRanger88: I need you guys to verify that user User:134ricks is user User:Massyparcer. His most recent edits seems to have behaviors similar to Massyparcer which include adding texts claiming South Korea to be the "world's best in ..." in everything with no bad points to balance things out (possibly in violation of WP:BALASPS). Also, this edit he made replaces "South Korea" with "Korea" (pretty baised or one-sided considering North Korea can also be considered 'Korea'). A similar edit which Massyparcer made here. 42.61.163.50 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"You guys" (meaning all of the editors in this thread) cannot do that; that requires a checkuser's attention, and a better reason than idle curiosity. If you think that they are the same user and they have both been used to edit unconstructively, submit a request for Sockpuppet investigation. General Ization Talk 18:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I just feel his actions were familiar with Massyparcer and wanted to point it out. We will see how things go. 42.61.163.50 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sejong City

From Wikipedia page on Sejong City: "South Korea's de facto administrative capital city. In early 2007, the South Korean government created a special administrative district from parts of South Chungcheong Province and North Chungcheong Province provinces, near Daejeon, to relocate nine ministries and four national agencies from Seoul. The new capital opened on 2 July 2012 (etc)

This is not mentioned on the South Korea page, and it seems to me it should be.

76.254.28.166 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Should list UN and US military support in Koren War (1950-53)

Section: History>After the Division>3rd paragraph, it should be added that the United Nations, and primarily the United States, supported South Korea with thousands of combat troops. The way the article reads now (listing Soviet and Chinese support for North Korea) without mentioning South Korean support, seems to suggest that South Korea was fighting by itself. Of course this is misleading.

108.20.11.24 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph currently cites this PDF. If your suggested text is not supported by the reference here, please find a reliable source to back it up, and re-open here, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

High civil liberties and transparent government

Whether the South Koreans have high civil liberties and transparent government is debatable. NGOs and the U.N. have expressed concern over government restrictions on these. See here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also the report by Amnesty International is worth consideration. --Yury Bulka (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning education

A little while ago, I edited the lead section of this page to note that although South Korean students rank highly on international assessments, the rigor of the country's educational system has been criticized. A review of this page's history will show that some editors approved of this edit while others did not. I am compelled to argue in favor of the sentence being there. It is not only noteworthy, but important, for an encyclopedia to convey to readers the fact that South Korean education has polarized international opinion. This is not a case like that of Finland where the system produces high test scores and is also praised by reformers and journalists.

Many have argued that the competitiveness and fixation on standardized testing in South Korea results in an enormous deal of pressure on students, as well as a system that is an inadequate preparation for a 21st century economy – and perhaps most notably, it has even been condemned by a former South Korean hagwon teacher as an institution of "child abuse" that needs to be reformed and restructured without delay. A major principle of Wikipedia is for proportional weight to be given to all reliable viewpoints – and I feel the South Korean model has simply been criticized too many times for the lead section to simply mention of education that the country "ranks highly in" it. Therefore, the lead would to my mind be improved if it were to report something along the lines of, "Globally, it ranks highly in personal safety, job security, ease of doing business and healthcare quality, with the world's third highest health adjusted life expectancy and fourth most efficient healthcare system. It also ranks highly in international educational assessments, although the competitiveness and rigor of its educational system have led to divided international responses." AndrewOne (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Ranks highly" should be changed for exactly which rank it has. (with a source)
"divided international responses." should state exactly who responded in which way. (with a source)
otherwise the changes seem like original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Article size/History

I attempted to edit this article as in North Korea, what happened to my edit? I would have changed the size to correspond with the North Korea article. Otherwise, any suggestions? Wrestlingring (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

North Korea is a poor reference because we have much less reliable information about it. A standard solution to excessive size (yes, it is excessive) is moving up information into daughter articles, they are all clearly mentioned on top of each section. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Good thinking/point, but I think the history before 1945 should be removed or condensed. It's covered in the History of Korea article. Wrestlingring (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Most country articles have a pre-modern history section despite having a dedicated history article that already covers the content, so I politely disagree with that point. Furthermore, the actual character count is comparable to many other country articles' pre-modern history sections. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the pre-modern history content from the North Korea article, but I understand why it was done because I'm assuming that most people who visit that article are specifically interested in the actual regime. However, I think most people would agree that South Korea is treated by many people as the "default" Korea, so people who come to this article may actually be interested in reading about pre-modern history and culture, as opposed to coming here solely for information on the current government. Bamnamu (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Please change the spelling of "Choi Soon Li" to "Choi Soon Shil," the proper Romanized spelling of her name. This is at the last paragraph under the History of South Korea section. 125.178.46.55 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Aurato (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

MIM-104 Patriot vs Scud/Al Hussein SRBM Operation Desert Storm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlOi6Gl25Lg

86.164.82.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cite my edits

I have problem in citing... Please cite that part where I edited(religion) by https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentence in the intro section is misleading

"It is the world's third least ignorant country in the Index of Ignorance,[38]" Review of this source shows that it is not a scientific measure of any kind. The sentence implies facts not supported by the source. If the sentence were to be modified to be accurate (example: "A non-scientific survey found that South Koreans were able to make better estimates about their country than all but 2 of the countries surveyed") it would cease to hold the significance required to be found the intro to this article. It is my intent to remove this sentence and it's source. If an expert on Korean intelligence / lack of ignorance could provide a more suitable statistic or source, I invite and encourage them to do so.Garvin Talk 05:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Move page to simply "Korea" under WP:COMMONNAME.

Literally no-one uses the term "South Korea" , when people refer to the Republic of Korea they always say "Korea", only the Democratic Republic of Korea is called "North Korea", compare with other common name disputes like how the Republic of China is called "Taiwan", and the People's Republic of China is called "China". There's no need to call this article "South Korea", it's an awkward term only used whenever "North Korea" is mentioned, but never when the country alone is mentioned.


--42.112.158.223 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
We would need to move Korea also if we did this. What would suggest we move that to? ~ GB fan 01:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


First you say "Literally no-one uses the term..." then you contradict yourself saying "it's an awkward term only used whenever..." Think about what you are saying. Also, to speculate that it is only used whenever North Korea is mentioned is false. Look, the New York Times uses it, without mentioning North Korea. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/business/hyundai-south-korea-whistle-blower-recall.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fasia&_r=0) Look, the BBC uses it, without mentioning North Korea. (http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39986946) There is clearly a reason for an encyclopedia to distinguish. And using the term "South Korea" is already abiding by WP:COMMONNAME, as opposed to ROK. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know where you've been hearing people referring to this country as simply "Korea", but I sure ain't heard anybody do that. Mark Froelich could probably have FILLED this page with examples of "South Korea" being used without any whiff of a mention of North Korea. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Bad idea, there are currently two countries North Korea and South Korea and it would be very misleading to just name South Korea as the only "Korea." What would the nickname of North Korea be then? North Koreans will probably try to use the name "Korea" and then it would just be a mess. Right now there is still two countries: North Korea and South Korea so the articles should reflect this reality and not fiction. 27.100.20.156 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 44 external links on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Korean Sign Language

A law has been passed in 2016 declaring KSL as an official language, giving it an equal status with Korean. Source: http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%88%98%ED%99%94%EC%96%B8%EC%96%B4%EB%B2%95/(13978,20160203) Isko1901 (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Koryo is not a subject state of China

I'm a historian in Koryo university in South Korea.Sorry for nonfluent English.It is hard to say Koryo was a subject state of China.Because Koryo conduted war against China.Article was a written by view of Chinese historian.It's an outdated theory.This article may cause many misunderstandings.I think that writing koryo like a subject state of China is barely suitable for introducing Korean history.Thank you.I owe you for your services.61.84.209.166 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

GDP error

Hey dudes,

It looks like the GDP (nominal) says "1,498 trillion."

It should be "1.498 trillion" right?



Thanks! Bucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.112.114.143 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrative divisions Picture Misalignment

Under the administrative divisions, the pictures for the current president and prime minster is misaligned.

Half of the picture for Moon Jae In is covered by numbers from the population column.

Konnoke (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

Yamakoudou (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

USAgreatest (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan is an unrecognized state in UN

United states of America and United kingdom do not call Taiwan "Republic of China".USAthegreatest (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for Cuisine and Holiday sections

Cuisine section:

Request to delete the following paragraph, as it appears to have been added by Lotte, for promotional purposes. It also does not belong in the "cuisine" section

"South Korean snack companies, such as Lotte, are famous for making a wide range of Korean or other Asian-inspired snacks. One example is Pepero, a snack similar to Pocky, which originates from Japan. Pepero is manufactured by Lotte Confectionery."

Holiday section:

Pepero once again makes an appearance in the Holiday section, seemingly as a representative Korean holiday. It is not. This extra sentence could be deleted and replaced with examples of other traditional and more meaningful holidays.

"There are also unofficial holidays celebrated in Korea, such as Pepero Day, which has been criticized by many people as a marketing scam." Newclassic33 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. I have removed the content you mentioned above. In the first case, no reason was given for mentioning that one company's name, and the first sentence itself is a truism. In the second case, again, no reason was given for singling out that one day. In both cases, there were no sources. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Korea/Archive_9&oldid=1136232466"