Talk:Korea

Lead
I think the current scope of the lead isn't great, and could benefit from a complete rewrite. The lead currently reads as a complete repeat of what the History of Korea article should be, when this article is really a valuable opportunity to discuss the current peninsula as a whole.

I think one possible replacement could have these four paragraphs (four because MOS:LEAD):
 * 1) Paragraph of introduction, important names, current states, etc
 * 2) Very high-level and concise overview of history, while prominently linking the history of korea article up front
 * 3) Mixed-topic paragraph about larger topics like geography, geology, geopolitics (territorial disputes, North–South relations) etc.
 * 4) Mixed-topic society things like ethnicities, language (dialects), politics, regional rivalries/conflicts, culture, economy, education

I may eventually get around to this, but it'd be great if someone is willing to help out. toobigtokale (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This issue is still standing. I put a template on the article to mark need to fix toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am working on it a bit, the problem here is that this topic is different from other countries, because there are two Koreas (so that immediately means there will be two paragraphs on just the North and the South, so that makes having 4 difficult, I will see how much more of the history can be trimmed or merged though). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll see if we can keep it around 5-6 paragraphs, because I just read through MOS:LEAD as well as length and it simply suggests that it should be 4 (it does not say it has to be four). There are multiple articles where its 5 or even 6 paragraphs instead of 4, and again reiterating the point, this is a bit of a unique article cause there are technically two governments claiming to be the legitimate Korea. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right; it will come down to taste though. There are equally valid ways to write the lead in four or more paragraphs, and this topic does justify more than four paragraphs. However, (hard to word this in a way that doesn't sound like a challenge, so I'll make it a challenge) I'm pretty sure if I spent some time writing it I could do it in four 😈 toobigtokale (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
Replace the presumably North American word 'entrees' with a more widely accepted phrase 'main courses'

Change this...

Bulgogi (roasted marinated meat, usually beef), galbi (marinated grilled short ribs), and samgyeopsal (pork belly) are popular meat entrees. Fish is also a popular commodity, as it is the traditional meat that Koreans eat. Meals are usually accompanied by a soup or stew, such as galbitang (stewed ribs) or doenjang jjigae (fermented bean paste soup). The center of the table is filled with a shared collection of sidedishes called banchan.

To this...

Bulgogi (roasted marinated meat, usually beef), galbi (marinated grilled short ribs), and samgyeopsal (pork belly) are popular meat main courses. Fish is also a popular commodity, as it is the traditional meat that Koreans eat. Meals are usually accompanied by a soup or stew, such as galbitang (stewed ribs) or doenjang jjigae (fermented bean paste soup). The center of the table is filled with a shared collection of sidedishes called banchan. 82.5.170.55 (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yue 🌙 17:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
please change north korea's korean name into 북한 211.114.121.149 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌: Koreans in the DPRK do not call their country 북한 for the same reason that Koreans in the ROK do not call their country 남조선. 북한 is irrelevant to the lead and infobox anyways, since it does not mean "Korea". Yue 🌙 04:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Name
In Korean for neutral context, Korea means "코리아". Please add this name. 113.178.51.98 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌: Please provide a reliable source to verify your claim. The claim that 코리아 is a (historically) neutral name for Korea in Korean is a myth commonly repeated by non-Koreans. Yue 🌙 08:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 코리아 is the Korean transliteration of the word Korea. 113.178.51.98 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am well aware. You still have to provide a reliable source to verify your claim that it is a neutral (and notable) name in Korean. As a Korean myself, I know that is not the case. Policies aside, what makes you think that a Korean transliteration of a foreign term derived from a corrupted transliteration of a Korean name (고려, ) would be used by Koreans? Yue 🌙 20:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition
I think the December 1991 agreement between the two Koreas should be listed in the Establishment section of the infobox because it is an important document of Korea to establish the foundation of relations between the two Koreas. Perhaps we also need to mention this document in the main section of the article. https://ko.wikisource.org/wiki/%EB%82%A8%EB%B6%81%EC%82%AC%EC%9D%B4%EC%9D%98_%ED%99%94%ED%95%B4%EC%99%80_%EB%B6%88%EA%B0%80%EC%B9%A8_%EB%B0%8F_%EA%B5%90%EB%A5%98%C2%B7%ED%98%91%EB%A0%A5%EC%97%90_%EA%B4%80%ED%95%9C_%ED%95%A9%EC%9D%98%EC%84%9C Newwikinguser (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this document is more important than the Panmunjom Declaration. Newwikinguser (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if you personally assign more importance to one event over another. What matters is do reliable sources also argue that the event you are advocating for is notable. Yue 🌙 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find a reliable source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/12/13/two-koreas-pledge-to-end-aggression/d104ab96-1a85-4024-8b61-bf9e43d779eb/ Newwikinguser (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also this: https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/ac/rls/or/2004/31012.htm Newwikinguser (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And this: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/13/world/koreas-sign-pact-renouncing-force-in-a-step-to-unity.html Newwikinguser (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those sources merely attest to the agreements existence, but where does it say that any of them that in retrospect it is a historically important event, more important than other attempts at peace and unification from then till now? You made an argument and you have yet to provide a reliable source that backs up your argument, leading me to believe that it is a personal opinion of yours. I also find it suspicious that when one specific detail, which has been repeatedly added by sockpuppets of a blocked user, was removed, your account was created not even a day later advocating a similar but alternate detail be added in its place. Yue 🌙 03:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)