Talk:Seoul/Archive 2

Intro
Whoa! The intro to this article is way too long! We need to integrate most of it into the actual sections. Also, this talk page needs to be archived again to remove settled issues and several-year-stale threads. 211.185.62.152 (talk) 08:02, 90 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters for Shou'er
From what I understand, 首爾 is only supposed to be the official Chinese name only while the official Korean name continues to be character-less. Since 首爾 is supposed to be Chinese and not Hanja, should both the traditional and simplified forms of the name be given? I can't see how China could adopt 首爾 as the official name when the simplified character set lacks the 爾 character. Simplified form would be 首尔.--Yuje 16:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Difficult question. The characters 首爾 were chosen by the Seoul Metropolitian Government. 尔 does not exist in Hanja, but then when people in China adopt the name designated by Seoul they have to use 尔 instead of 爾. &mdash; Instantnood 17:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the section on chinese transcription, while interesting to me personally, seems way too detailed & long, in proportion to the article. i would expect that one paragraph would be sufficient here, which is, after all, aimed at english-speaking readers. you would be hard pressed to find even a short phrase about this specific topic in any other general encyclopedia or media profile of seoul. Appleby 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * Unlike most place names in Korea, "Seoul" has no corresponding Hanja, and Chinese continued to refer to the city by its former name, name 漢城/汉城 (Hànchéng in Chinese, Hanseong in Korean). In January 2005, the Seoul Metropolitan Government requested that the Chinese name of the city be changed to 首爾/首尔, a close transliteration of Seoul in Mandarin Chinese, where 首 shǒu can also mean "first" or "capital", and Chinese communities gradually adopted this new name. This change was targetted primarily towards Chinese speakers and has no effect on the original Korean name. --Yuje 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

that sounds very good to me, thanks. how about substitute "China" or "China and other Chinese-speaking countries" or something similar for the first line's "Chinese"? Appleby 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Chinese-speaking countries" sounds good. --Yuje 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a little Google searching:

漢城: 3,950,000 首爾: 1,850,000

汉城：3,960,000 首尔：1,840,000

한성 remains far more widely used by far. --Ce garcon 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * During Joseon Dynasty, Seoul used to be called Hanyang, not Hansong. The name Seoul came after when Korean became republic and needs to be Koreanized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benonma (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Same old same old
Comment below is ex pat living in Korea that serious mental self inferior complex. I realize communicating with many ex pats living in working in Korea. Person who has serious mental and self inferior complex tend to have " over" sensitive feeling about grammar. The grammar is only way for these ex pat to overcome self inferior complex living and working in Non-English speaking countries. Person below you should feel shame. Writing typical narrow minded arrogant judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As an ex pat living in Korea I am just sick of reading bad English on web sights, advertisments etc. Could whoever is looking after this page please make sure (if it is a non national) that no Korean person has any hand in editing it. This is not a racist comment. I genuinely love Korean people and have been married to a Korean woman for 2 years. However, it drives me crazy that so many Koreans throw their crap English on to these sights, and given their whole 'pride' and 'saving face' nature, nobody bothers to do anything about this...
 * The person responsible for this page is you. And me. And the millions of other people who pass through the Wikisphere. Everyone at Wikipedia contributes by writing new articles and editing existing ones as they are able, then others (like you, and me) come along and patch things up, expand, add more. That means that every single one of the more than 1,000,000 articles here is a work in progress with as many editors. That's how it works. So, if you see some imperfect English, by all means thank the person who made the effort to contribute, and fix it yourself with the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article, or the many smaller [edit] tabs throughout the article, all of which are there so that anyone can use them. Go nuts. That's how Wiki works. Atkinson 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * couldn't agree more about the crap English. However, very few, if any, are perfect, even when speaking their native language.  I notice as a native speaker, you still wrote "web sight" instead of "website."  That's wrong, so should we ban you from editing this article?  Oh no, you're excused since you "knew better" as a native speaker.  Maybe you should appreciate the fact that Koreans are learning English and instead see how they'd react if/when you edited a Korean wiki page, doubtless containing some errors.  In that case, I'd hope Koreans would encourage you for making the effort instead of castigating you.  I would hate it if others prevented me from editing the Chinese wiki, which I do, just because my Chinese isn't perfect.  I add the pulp and the natives refine it, as I am not yet at their level.  But if I keep contributing and practicing, eventually I'll be close to perfect.  So as the person above said, just edit what you don't like, that's what wiki is all about.

More pictures and info on Seoul needed
I think this article is severely lacking in terms of pictures and information. We need more info on tourism, economy, museums, more detailed information on transportation, different areas of Seoul and some of the notable boulevards and areas (Abgujeongdong for example). I also think we need a picture of Seoul Skyline.. I've found some great ones on the web, but can't post them because of unsure copyright info. It would be really great if someone could find some pictures on Skyline of Seoul. Deiaemeth 08:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody put up some great pictures of Seoul. Good job! I would also like to see some with people though.--Sir Edgar 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

paste from snca article
Seoul National Capital Area seemed to largely duplicates this article. because much of it seems to have been lifted from here to begin with, i think we can delete it, but just in case someone wants to read it more carefully for info that can be salvaged for either Seoul or Seoul National Capital Area, i'm pasting it here. Appleby 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The SNCA has occupied a special place in Korean history. The first known capital that was located here was Wiryeseong, which was capital of the Baekje Kingdom. Following Wiryeseong's fall to an attack by the northern Goguryeo Kingdom in the 5th century, the region fell under Goguryeo jurisdiction. Then, in the 6th century, the Silla Kingdom attacked the region and held on to it until the 10th century, when regional warlords initiated a uprising that eventually led to Silla's downfall. The reason for this struggle that occurred between the three kingdoms mentioned above was also because of this region. Due to its moderate climate, fertility, and its location at the center of the Korean Peninsula, as well as the advantages to its convenient sea and land commerce, the region became famous for its high standard of living in relation with other regions and its ability to facilitate an excellent transportation system.
 * History

Following the collapse of Silla, a new royal dynasty took control in Korea. Known as the Goryeo Dynasty, the new state established its capital at Songak (modern-day Kaesong), which was the birthplace of the new dynasty's founder. During the Goryeo Dynasty's rule, Songak was renamed Gaegyeong. This new capital quickly grew as the largest city in Korea. However, with Goryeo's fall in the 14th century, its successor, the Joseon Dynasty, moved the capital to Hanyang, which had been named Namgyeong (Southern Capital) during the previous dynasty but was quickly renamed to Hanseong. During the new dynasty's rule, extensive road systems, administrative buildings, royal palaces, and new ports were built, quickly attracting wealth from all over the kingdom.

During the reign of the Korean Empire, Hanseong's public transportation was improved with the installation of streetcars and manually-drawn trolleys similar to taxis. Horse carriage systems similar to the ones in Europe were also established.

Following the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910, Hanseong was renamed Keijo (Kyeongseong) and served as colonial Korea's capital. The Joseon Colonial Commandery Headquarters were built at Keijo, and several public institutions, such Keijo Imperial University, were founded. In addition, railroads connecting Seoul to other cities were completed, leading to the construction of Seoul Station soon after. As a result, transportation in the Capital Metropolitan Area greatly improved as well. It was also during the period of Japanese rule that the port of Incheon became a major trading harbor.

Korea's liberation from Japan in 1945 resulted in the renaming of Keijo. The former colonial capital was renamed Seoul and became capital of the Republic of Korea.

During the Korean War, the SNCA became the focus of battles so destructive that most of Seoul and the surrounding regions were eradicated. Seoul was especially hit hard, since it exchanged hands nearly five times during the whole course of the war. Rebuilding was slow, due to a lack of construction materials and South Korea's poor economic state at the time.

During the latter half of the 20th century, the SNCA began to rapidly develop as South Korea's economic wealth expanded. Population booms in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s raised the population of the region to nearly four times the amount of people during the Korean War era. Foreign investment and state-supported industries took a strong foothold here. In 2001, Incheon International Airport took over all international flights to Seoul, further boosting the region's international status.

Currently, the SNCA forms South Korea's greatest industrial, commercial, financial, and residential region. Hi-tech industries, such as semi-conductor chip manufacturing, high-standard electronics production, and IT industries are especially strong here, playing a key role in South Korea's status as the world's strongest IT nation. Other factors that contribute to this region's position as a transportation and business hub for all of East Asia is finance and commerce, which are accommodated by Incheon International Airport and Seoul's downtown districts, where business is particularly vibrant. The SNCA is also the cultural hub of the Korean Peninsula. Seoul alone is the site of five grand palaces and other historical attractions. Modern landmarks, such as the COEX Convention Center, the World Trade Center, Seoul Tower, and the 63 Building are all located in Seoul. Korea's highest skyscraper, Tower G of the Tower Palace high-rise apartment complex, is also renowned throughout the country. In recent years, the South Korean government has expanded efforts aimed at dispersing the heavily concentrated population of the SNCA from Seoul to neighboring satellite cities in an effort to lower Seoul's heavy congestion levels. This has resulted in the rapid growth of cities like Seongnam, whose populations increased fivefold.
 * Present Status

sir edgar's improvements
very nice job, sir edgar, with your extensive rewriting & cleanup of the article, especially the intro. thanks for the hard work.

maybe the next step is to check the general organization of the article. WikiProject Cities doesn't seem very well developed, but they suggest this outline:


 * History
 * Geography
 * Demographics (we don't have)
 * Economy (we don't have, but we have "Transportation" which may be a subsection?)
 * Law and government (we don't have, but maybe covered by "administration" list?)
 * Education (we don't have, except for a list below, but may not need)
 * Sites of interest (we have "historic sites and tourism" list below)
 * Sports (ours is called "Recreation and sports")
 * Notable natives (we don't have, but i don't think we need)
 * External links

the chinese transcription section is a bit awkwardly placed, & i'm not sure if the list of schools is helpful. we probably don't need education & notable natives sections, since south korea is such a small country & the population is so concentrated in seoul; these topics would be covered by a Education in South Korea & List of Koreans & such. maybe the same for law & government section, except for the administrative list. Appleby 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words, Appleby. I hope to continue improving the Seoul article. I agree with you on the need for standardization of this article with other like articles on Wikipedia. I would like to see this article go in a direction of simplicity, readability, and deliverability. It should be easy to read, well-organized, and contain useful information. Hopefully, we can bring it to a quality worthy of being a Featured Article. Everyone's help is required for this task.--Sir Edgar 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea
User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian sister city
Hi, New South Wales is not a city in Australia, it is a state :)

I do not know where to find the keeper of these sister city lists, but if someone can point me in the right direction, I'll fix it up. It will probably be Sydney anyway.

Cheers. Sclozza 07:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to the Seoul government website, it is NSW and not Sydney. That's somewhat unusual, but it's not the only occasion where sisterhood relationships exist between a province or state and a large city.  Of course, the govt. website could be wrong, but I don't know how we would go about checking; the NSW website doesn't seem to mention sisterhood ties at all. -- Visviva 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seorabeol?
My understanding was always that seorabeol (or something similar) was an old name of Gyeongju, which became adopted in Old Korean as a word for "capital" and modified into "서울," and that this only became the proper name of Seoul in the 20th century. Was Seorabeol ever actually applied to Seoul as a place-name? If not, that needs to leave the list of names. -- Visviva 13:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * oops, you're right, i made that mistake, i meant to say wiryeseong. there's very detailed history (in korean) at . Appleby 16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seorabeol is atually traditional name given to Capital city, which actually means "Capital". Seoul's old name was Hanyang but due to sound like Chinese, Korean govt officially named to Seoul.

A mnemonic to write the name- "Mercedes-leftcross, O-T-2"
Mercedes leftcross, O            T             2

The first letter looks like the Mercedes-Benz symbol. The second letter looks like the left half of a crucifix. The remaining three looks respectively like an O, T, and 2 (going down, of course.) Look ---> "서울" <--- See the resemblance?

So recite "Mercedes-leftcross, O-T-2" and before you know it, you'll remember how to write down "Seoul" in the Hangeul script. --Shultz IV 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: After you download and add the Korean Language Support to your OS, select "KO" (Korean) and you should be able to type Hangeul characters. After you do this, typing "T-J-D-N-F" gives you 서울.

Here is a mapping of the keyboard letters to their hangul assignments:


 * T = ㅅ
 * J = ㅓ
 * D = ㅇ
 * N = ㅜ
 * F = ㄹ

(I wish the hangeul characters would be assigned to the keys of the letters that sound alike but strangely, this isn't the case.) --Shultz IV 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation audio file
Can somebody add a higher quality one please? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Capital Change
The SK government has made plans to move the capital to another area. We should include that in this article and the South Korea article. Arbiteroftruth 07:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The plans are pretty much in the past now (court blocked them, and they were a ploy by the ruling party to gain support in elections anyway), but since it was such a significant issue, I agree that there should be some mention that there had been plans to move the capital to the Ch'ungch'ŏng region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.254.68 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

IPA
Would someone please add the IPA transcription? --WikiMarshall 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture & Gallery
What's the difference? (Wikimachine 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

--Shultz IV 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Sorry!!
03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Since I`m a korean Living in Seoul Seoul is correct pronounciation for 서울

This article is worthless
I've been living in Seoul for the past 25 years, and this article reads like it was written (badly, I must say) by someone in the city's PR office, offering little useful information. In short, it sucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Singhahyung (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Then do something about it. Jegal 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You do know that Wikipedia is a site that anybody can edit? Perhaps you should try it.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)



no popular culture references?
like the Erasure videoclip, when they raise the olimpic symbol on the word "soul"...


 * "In Popular Culture" sections are generally frowned upon as being unfit for upper-rated articles. As such, in hopes the Seoul article might one day be promoted to FA, I'd be wise to refrain from creating such a section or otherwise integrating (in the most natural manner possible) such references in the main body of the article. -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Special City" or "Metropolitan Government"
See Talk:Administrative divisions of South Korea#"Special City" or "Metropolitan Government". ―  韓斌 / Yes0song  ( 談笑  筆跡   다지모 ) 15:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
The description of Seoul prior to 1394 is questioned. This article must be revised to conform to WP:V standards, using reputable sources.--Endroit 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias Columbia and Britannica give 1394 as the date of founding for the modern city of Seoul.--Endroit 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The earliest historical mention of Seoul and the surrounding area dates from the 1st century BC. - Encyclopedia Britannica Cydevil38 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the area existed. The disignation of Seoul as a "capital city" prior to 1394, purported in this article, is yet unverified.  And the establishment date of 1394 as a modern city is suggested in another source.--Endroit 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with Endroit. Silla's capital was Geumseong,proved by the large number of buildings/jewels. Goryeo's capital wasGaeseong. Baekje's capitl state is disputed and, if it was in Gyeonggi, it would have been in Hanam.K14 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with Baekje's capital is that, even if it likely falls within the range of modern Seoul, it is far from the "historical" Seoul (inside the "four portals"), which was what Seoul meant until mid-20th century. (Sorry, I don't have the exact date at hand.)  These two cities are quite distinct: one did not evolve into another (like, say, Rome).  Rather, what is now Seoul was established LONG after Baekje's first capital was abandoned.  Hence, saying that the history of Seoul (as a city) traces back 2000 years is highly misleading.


 * See my recent edit in the "Prehistoric and early Baekje period" section in History of Seoul. I think that article needs some clean-up, too. Yongjik 02:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * History of Seoul looks to be very cleanly written. Other articles, Hanam and Baekje, also mention Wiryeseong.  I believe the key is to treat Wiryeseong separately and mention it clearly like Yongjik did in History of Seoul.--Endroit 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seoul wasn't Capital city before Joseon Dynasty of Korea, but this large town was actually used as temporary fortress or commanding city during three kingdoms period, particularly Baekje dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benonma (talk • contribs) 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's problematic to say for certain that Seoul was the capital of Baekje. Though likely, it isn't an established fact. Nonetheless, I think there can be an agreement that Seoul is an ancient city with a history of more than 2000 years, per Encyclopedia Britannica, and was likely the capital of Baekje. Cydevil38 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not good enough, Cydevil38... That Seoul "was likely the capital of Baekje" part needs reliable sources, before you can claim it. Our personal opinions don't count.--Endroit 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear, Hear. I may be Korean, but RS need to be fulfilled. I've changed the wording so Endroit, can you review the disputes again?K14 09:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence:
 * WIRYESONG: Fortress enclosing the Paekche capital of Hansong and its Namhan castle, surrounded by a moat. The main part of the defences, known as the Mongchon fortification, are now visible in Tunchongdong in south-east Seoul and were excavated in 1985. Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary.
 * In 1984, archaeologists unearthed the Mongchontosong earthen fortification near the site of the present Olympic sports complex. The fortification provided the first solid evidence of the location of the Paekche capital known as Wiryesong. Koreana.
 * (Footnote on Wirye-song)In the area of the Olympic village in Seoul south of the Han River. The fortress has been excavated and partially restored. Myths and Legends from Korea.
 * How about this: Seoul is a city with an ancient history, going back more than 2000 years. The city was the site of two first capitals of Baekje, Wiryeseong. It was not, however, until Goryeo period that the modern city started to take form. Cydevil38 09:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fix slightly-Seoul is a city with ancient history going back to more than 2000 years. The first capital of Baekje, Wiryeseong was in the boundaries of modern Seoul but the modern city was made in the Goryeo dynasty.K14 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the following part?:
 * "the modern city was made in the Goryeo dynasty"
 * Encyclopedia Columbia says: "the modern city was established in 1394 as the capital of the Choson (or Yi) dynasty".--Endroit 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean the site of the city; the downtown area. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 06:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Korean article ko:서울의 역사 says "it is believed that Seoul (then called Namgyeong 남경, the south capital) was founded by Munjong of Goryeo, on 1068." I couldn't find a reliable(?) online source on this matter.  Could someone dig up some scholarly article or a book on Seoul's history? Yongjik 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found a book named Hanyang, Namgyeong of Goryeo: http://www.aladdin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ISBN=8979400195
 * Written by a Kim Chang-hyeon (김창현), a professor of history in Sungshin Women's University. Sounds reliable so far, doesn't it?  Unfortunately, if I ever get caught by my wife with this book at hand, she might want to know what on earth I'm doing instead of taking care of our two babies, and I might suffer a painful and dishonorable death... (shrug)  Could somebody have a look at the book? Yongjik 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me venture... how about this? ''Seoul is a city with ancient history---the area of Seoul appears in history as early as 18 BCE, when the kingdom of Baekje founded its capital, Wiryeseong, in what is now southeastern Seoul. Modern Seoul descends from a city called Namgyeong (the south capital), built during the Goryeo era, which then became the capital of the newly established Joseon dynasty on 1394. It has been the capital of Korean nations ever since.'' ......Hmm, maybe too long. Yongjik 09:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No probs with that. Try it. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 09:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yonjik's version seems fine to me. Perhaps "Korean nations" can be changed to "successive Korean nations".--Endroit 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't it be "Hanyang" rather than "Namgyeong"?--Endroit 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and inserted the following text into the article:
 * Seoul is a city with ancient history---the area of Seoul appears in history as early as 18 BCE, when the kingdom of Baekje founded its capital, Wiryeseong, in what is now southeastern Seoul. Modern Seoul descends from a city called Hanyang, built during the Goryeo era, which then became the capital of the Joseon dynasty in 1394.  Seoul has been the capital of successive Korean nations ever since.
 * I didn't have time to insert the sources, but I'll do it later if nobody else gets to it.--Endroit 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Endroit, it is Namkyeong, actually. But no probs. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it looks great. (Well, can I be any more self-indulgent? -.-) And double thanks for finding out a nice English source.  Anyway, my name is Yon g jik, but no problem. :) Yongjik 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyscrapers
I just got back from Korea--I was mostly down in Busan, actually, but did get up to Seoul for a weekend. While there I had heard that South Korea has the highest number of skyscrapers per capita. This article mentions that Seoul has the most skyscrapers in Asia, but it doesn't say how it rates world-wide. Has anyone else heard this? I've been trying to research this, but I figured I'd ask as well. --12.154.39.254 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign in before signing that last post. --Raulpascal 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, until someone can give an answer for the controversial line you raise a question, the line was substituted by other line. Hope this can be satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotmissile (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of population density wise, yes Seoul contains highest number of skycrapers per capita. If this was based just on actual numbers of skycrapers then it's incorrect. HK might have the highest numbers of skycrapers in the world, but can't justified this due to there are more pending skyscaper building projects.

I didn't justify Seoul's skyscapers by population density. In addition, I have never urged that the Seoul has the highest number of skyscrapers by adding comment on population density. I have no idea where you got that idea. I just tried to tell that the high denisity of population in Seoul enables build compact and high-rise infrastructures by synergistic effect. I don't know much about HongKong, but yeah HongKong has the same situation, as I know.Patriotmissile 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotmissile (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name conspiracy theory?
I just removed the following remark by User:Arbiteroftruth:


 * There are also speculations that this name change was made in an effort to "desinify" (ie: eliminating Chinese cultural influence) from South Korea, as it could be interpreted that the name Hancheng means "The Han City", with Han meaning "Chinese".

I can see that such a "speculation" might arise, but I don't think that is based on truth, and a mere rumor isn't appropriate for the article. At the very least, there must be a source (e.g., a Chinese news article) that claims this to be the case, and then it must be stated clearly that this is a speculation by Chinese-speaking people.

As for the rumor itself, I can't see how it can be considered "de-sinifying" when virtually all other Korean cities, rivers, mountains, provinces, and even towns bear Chinese names. The city was named after the Han river: for a start, shouldn't we be changing the "Han (漢, China)" (of the Han river) to "Han (韓, Korea)"? But we don't, because it is a historic name. After all, who would think that the Han river is named so because it is a Chinese river, when it takes 5 seconds to find a map or google it? (In my own speculation, the river is likely named so because it was an expressway to China in old days... just like a road outside Durham is named "Durham road" because it leads to Durham, but becomes the "Chapel Hill road" once it gets inside Durham... Yongjik 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was simply translating what was being written on the corresponding Chinese page. I am not pushing an agenda. Please make this clear. Arbiteroftruth 04:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, then. I apologize for overreacting.  Please don't mind, and (I forgot to say) thank you for other informations you translated.  (It's just that... such a "speculation" had better have a reference, whether it can be associated with an agenda or not.) Yongjik 04:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Seoul and Kyeongsung
--Kingj123 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)s, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference since they'll probably be based on local s

There does seem to be more than a fair share of biased entries in this article. For example, from the demographics section (I will focus on this as it appears to have at least two factual errors within as many sentences):

"Nearly all of Seoul's residents are Korean, with some small Chinese and Japanese minorities. The crime rate in Seoul is very low."

Obviously, in a city of 10-11 million inhabitants, most of whom are of "one blood" (a fairly common assertion, here in Korea), other nationalities will always be a minority. I don't quibble with that part of the statement; however, I would prefer to see some some reference to a Korean government census, or some similar sort of population sampling from a recognized authority. I know there's been at least one Korean government census since I've been here, because I was counted in it and I am not of the "one blood". So, how about all those American soldiers that seem to cause so much trouble (in Seoul and elsewhere); don't they live within the modern-day boundaries of Seoul? And, by gosh, since the declining Korean birth rate has apparently introduced difficulties in finding people willing to fill the "dirty, dangerous, difficult" jobs in the economy, why is there no discussion of the large number of non-Korean Asians (Arabs, Indians, Malays, Filipinos, et cetera) who have emigrated to Korea in the hope of a better life (at least economically) than what their own country can offer them?

And while we're at it, let's have a citation of crime statistics, also from some sort of recognized international police authority, especially if we're going to claim a low crime rate, vis-a-vis other cities in the world. After all, I daily tell myself, while shaving (and therefore beholding my glorious self in the mirror) that I am extremely handsome (and yet, somehow, reality confounds me on a more frequent basis).

To use another example, were I to post on here a short 15 minute video clip of any traffic light in the city of Seoul I could no doubt safely bet my next paycheck that it would include at least one vehicle running a red light. That is, after all, a crime. A small one, perhaps even a misdemeanor, but still a crime. Oh yeah, that reminds me, let's have a discussion of why the Korean police force (lower case "p" intentional) is the way that it is. Could it perhaps have something to do with confucianism (lower case "c" intentional) or, more importantly, the (from my perspective, fairly widespread and massive (yes, that's sort of NPOV)) Korean collaboration with the Japanese elements of law enforcement during the period when Korea belonged to (I meant was annexed by) Japan?


 * It does not seem appropriate to include a statement about the city's crime rate in the "demographics" section; and a single vague sentence at that; and in a paragraph that speaks primarily of the religions of the citizenry. Mal7798 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which leads me to my next comment. Seoul was not a particularly developed city prior to Japan's annexation. Yes, there were a few palaces and some governmental buildings, as well as clearly demarcated lines between aristocratic neighborhoods and those of the great unwashed masses, but nothing like the city we see in pictures dating from 1910 to 1945. Well, really from about 1900 or so. Undoubtedly, this will be a painful subject for the patriotic Koreans so clearly involved in editing this site, but let's all be grown men (oh yes, and women too), shall we?

I now shift to my opinion, but it seems as if the Japanese built much of the modern infrastructure for Korea, including that of Seoul, and this fact continues to go unrecognized by people who edit this site, even if there is a very reluctant admittance of this under the "Controversial statements regarding Japanese rule in Korea" that can be found in the "Korea under Japanese rule" article (itself a fairly decent example of the bias and xenophobic, chest-thumping nationalism that can be found on Wikipedia...from time to time).

So, for example, who built Seoul's City Hall and the main site of it's current government? Yes, it's still standing. The Bank of Korea (NFE about its activities required, and it's still standing)? Seoul Railroad Station and the first railroad bridge across the Han River (each admittedly greatly modified, but both still standing)? The first western (perhaps just first, given confucianist approaches to law and order) prison (admittedly not inside Seoul proper when it was built, but well inside it now)? The first major western style Hospital (still standing)?

(yeah, that last healthcare comment and its reference to "western" might give some people room to doubt my own NPOV, but having experienced both "western" and "eastern" styles of medicine in Seoul itself, you can send me to the "docs in a box" at St. Elsewhere in a heartbeat - OK, that's definitely a very personal POV - and I hope they prescribe a manufactured chemical for me, not ginseng).

And, while this isn't about Seoul in particular, who found the grotto at Seokguram? My memory is getting progressively poorer with the advancing years, but I seem to recall that it was, oh yes, a Japanese man.

As I look back at what I have written I guess what I'm trying to say is that "anonymous" was right: much of this article is BS and reads like some lower level clerk at City Hall, with a better grasp of English than his immediate supervisor, was ordered to clean it up so that the rest of the world (who might be contemplating a visit in the near future) could get the "right" picture of Seoul (and, therefore, of Korea).

And to whoever wrote that "you, me and Elvis are responsible for editing Wikipedia" (my quote, the other fellow was less funny) clearly has no conception of the difficulty involved when other (other = really stupid) people try to prevent reasonably verifiable facts from getting in the way of their version of events. Like the fellow who told me on another article how what was written was the way he had heard it from other people, therefore, it must be true (circular logic = circle jerk).

So I have given up all effort except for this subversion. I realize that my own peculiar brand of nihilism (in the sense that I just don't care anymore) doesn't settle anything, but maybe there are other people out there who understand that articles on Wikipedia must be critically assessed and that the discusssion boards often offer a perspective that could inform a critical approach to what is rapidly becoming a place for the most vociferous to offer their version of the TRUTH (as they see it, however unpalatable to the rest of us who seek some sort of objectivity).

And lest I forget, for those of you who are ready to use it against me, my name is:

Thomas Aidan Bothwell (of the Philadelphia Bothwells) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.2.112 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a 2005 cesnsus of Seoul: Korean nationals - 9,762,546 Foreingers - 57,625

Incheon: Korean nationals - 2,517,680 Foreigners - 13,600

Gyeonggi: Korean nationals - 10,341,006 Foreigners - 74,393

As for international crime statistictatistics anyways. And on the Korean law enforcement, what are you really trying to say? I don't quite understand.

About development of Seoul under Japanese colonial rule, I'd disagree that "much" of modern infrastucture was built during Japanese colonial rule. For example, one of the most important infrastructures, the Gyungbu expressway, was built in the late 60s, a decade after Japanese colonial rule. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that significant development took place in Korea, including Seoul, during Japanese colonial rule, and it's an important part of Seoul's history that shouldn't be left out. Perhaps you can reflect your concerns for this article by making edit proposals here. Cydevil38 02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody knows the TRUTH. And to come up with the truth, people need to research more indeph before giving out their own perspectives. I like truth too, if what you have said is indeed true and proven, I am happy to edit the article to include it.

I think the idea of Japanese built modern Korea is very shallow.

Infrastructure in Northern Korea was much better than in Southern Korea during Japanese occupation of Korea. Today, it is the opposite.

Before Korean War, Seoul's infrastructure was indeed built by Japanese. But, much of the Seoul was literately a waste land after bitter Korean War. Also, despite the fact that these buildings survived and still exist today, I highly doubt that these buildings are operating any longer. The City hall is recently being rebuilt, and rail road station uilt by Japanese is now a historical site with the newer one replaced it. The government building is purely built by Koreans, and the old Japanese government buildings are being demolished. The Korean imperial palace, destroyed by Japanese, are rebuilt in the central Seoul. Cheongyechon (in downtown Seoul), a stream buried under the concrete highway by Japanese, is restored by tearing off the entire highway, creating a cleaner and more environmentally friendlier downtown Seoul. Here are some other city's major infrastructures that are not uilt by Japanese:


 * Olympic Statidum Seoul
 * Subway lines
 * Jongro Tower
 * Incheon International Airport (Seoul)
 * 63 building
 * World Cup stadium Seoul
 * Hangang Park
 * Asan Hospital
 * Olympic Expressway
 * Gyobo Tower
 * Postil Tower

Enough said, I think that Japanese indeed made a strong infrastructure contribution to Seoul, however most of them are gone through Korean war and booming economy of Seoul. Kingj123 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that the Japanese buried Cheongyecheon? It was the Park Chung-hee regime that did that.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheongyechon#Restoration Kushibo 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That article. It states that 'It was covered in concrete for roads(asphalt)' there. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seoul administered directly by the national government?
The article states: "Designated the status of a Special City, Seoul is administered directly by the national government."

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true. The "special city" (특별시) and the "wide cities" (광역시) have stopped being directly administered by the national government for some time. Seoulites elect their own mayor and city council, and I believe they are the ones who handle the administration of the city. There *may* still be some restrictions, as in Washington DC, but even if there are, I'm not sure the above sentence is correct. Kushibo 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not correct at all. I'll correct it. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 05:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
The Keyngez has removed the pictures of Seoul, and replaced them with some ghetto pictures instead on purpose. Those pictures uploaded by Keyngez surely are not representative to the true sceneries of Seoul. It looks that Keyngez continuously trys to defame the Seoul thread on purpose. I have no idea where Keyngez came from, but valdalizing and defaming other countries' capitals are nothing but a disgraceful act to your country, talk  .Patriotmissile 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Vandalism. Why is my image Disgraceful? It is a part of the scenery of Seoul!!!--Keyngez 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I even have no idea where you took those ghetto pictures, and I'm not also sure if those pictures actually taken from Seoul and by yourself. I am telling you once again that your behaviours are not really helpful to your country, and actually your misdemeanors hurt your country's reputation and pride. I hope you understand that someday. By the way, I have reported you,Keyngez, to administrators already. Patriotmissile 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is,Keyngez, that only images that actually contribute to the article are needed in an article. Random snapshots of Seoul, or anything in that matter, do not really contribute to the article as there are already enough. Think WP:MOS. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 10:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I found that the Keyngez has continuously committed vandalism on the thread for Seoul in Wikipedia. Keyngez has kept removing the previously uploaded pictures without any consent and replacing them with some ghetto pictures that are not even sure they were took inside Seoul. It is so clear that he has a bad intention to harm on Seoul. I asked him to stop doing it by leaving a message to his user box, but he denied my polite requestm and left messages written in very clumsy Korean on my talk box as follows. Judging from his particular words and grammartical structure used mostly in Japan, it looks that he is plausibly Japanese:

나는 한국을 좋아합니다.그 사진은 내가 실제로 서울에서 촬영했습니다. 당신은, 쓸데 없게 깨끗한 사진으로, 한국이 깨끗이 보이도록하고 있다. 당신은, 자신의 마음에 들지 않는 사진을 자기 중심으로 제거한다. 그리고, 문서 훼손 과 마음대로 단정짓는다. 최악인 성격, 매우 초조합니다.

그것과 타인의 이용자 페이지로 당당히 코멘트하지 않게.화가 난다.--Keyngez 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

실제, 서울은 그렇게 깨끗한 도시가 아닙니다.--Keyngez 06:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, the summary of translated version of above paragraph written by Keyngez is he likes Korea, but Korea is dirty country, and you (me, patriotmissile) has uploaded beautiful pictures of Seoul, which are not true faces of Seoul. And he (Keyngez) defamed me (patriotmissile) that I have a worst personality and made him nervious.

His pictures are obviously not true faces of Seoul, and also those pictures looks unlawfully borrowed from internet, and also they are in very poor quality. I don't even know where actually those pictures were taken.Patriotmissile 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly request administrators ban Keyngez's id and password for Wikipedia. I think this guy believes that harm on Seoul and South Korea is a patriotic act to his own country.Patriotmissile 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these pictures in the article right now look that clean to "me." I don't understand the complaints here. Even in Tokyo, New York city, there are slums and many "dirty areas" but if you look at their articles they seem to be "clean." Honestly In my opinion, Seoul is infact cleaner than the pictures in this article portray. Also, many cities' highlights and iconic landmarks, which are known internationally (if they are famous and gather many tourists) are public and often cleaner than suburban slums. Kingj123 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
The Gallery right now is a collection of most pictures in the Commons. Shall we cut it down? Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 10:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We can delete some of the irrelevant photos if there are any. Kingj123 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction
I think the introduction is awfully long. It has a lot of detail that I was tuaght should go later in the paper/erticle. Like, the amount of traffic congestion. Is that really a high point that should be used to introduce this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel63 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! Drop the soap! (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese name
The section has several serious problems such as no verifiable reference and POV. The article is all about the capital of South Korea, but the section is too long and is like a city of China. I think the three or four sentence regarding changes of the Chinese name would sufficient. And I want to see more information about changes of the name, Seoul. Who excessively and unnecessarily expanded the section? --Appletrees (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a separate article for Chinese name for Seoul. Drop the soap! (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Images and needed contents
I don't think the image in the infobox is a representative of Seoul. The picture itself is good, but has not distinctive features compared to other pictures taken in other cities. And the article has too many images and less contents. And please unified the image size. --Appletrees (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriotmissile, I think your individual pictures really are great and appreciate your all efforts to take pictures and upload them. If your images are a little bit bigger than this status, I might've nominated some of your images for featured picture at commons. Believe me, I took several photography classes when I was a student. However, you put redundant and overlapped images onto the article while this article is seriously lack of texts. All most all of sections are too short even to be a good article candidate. The below are what we need to develop further.


 * The history and changes of name (except Chinese translated name)
 * Geography (no mention of nature)
 * Demographics
 * Ecomony sections
 * Culture section is just a list at this tiem.

Here has no nature, environment, government, religion, health, military (Yongsan), media, urban hub areas like Seongnam, Bundang, Ilsan, Yongin, etc. But it has just the parade of images!

And if you see other articles of metropolitan cities, you may think that this article has too much image. I think I still feel that 4 or up to 8 more image to go from the gallery. Here is not an image repository unlike commons. Besides, why do you want to insert almost same images of cityscape? They are not representatives of Seoul at all. In my eye, the images are just some either cityscape found in any country.

As for the i:mage order in the gallery, you restored your images at the top. The article starts from history to the modern times except the introductory paragraph. I think the gallery generally follow it by historical features to current status. You scattered the balance of the gallery as you ignore the natural order. I think you want to emphasize the current shape of Seoul and especially Gangnam architecture. The Samsung Life Building is featureless in informational and architectural aspect. If you want to put similar images, I suggest to find the main Samsung building near Cheonggyecheon with adding much more texts.

And you think I reverted your edit, but no. I added almost all images in the gallery much much ahead of you. What images we really need are Cheonghwadae (Blue House 청화대), Han River. We don't have any image to match to the description about miracle of Han River (Not your prior Han River image. it is good but this page need just normal sized one). Incheon International Airport (current picture is in bad quality) etc. I leave my thought, so anyone has differently or other thoughts, feel free to talk here. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about these three pictures of Seoul?


 * Also, I moved the climate chart to South Korea because it was just too big. Drop the soap! (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The main reason why samsung Head quarter is relevent... is that Samsung is a good representation of Seoul's economy and finicial hub. Also, the train operating between Gimpo and Incheon shows a blend of Airport and train accessiblities in South Korea which is really related to the articles. Old and new theory doesn't work for me... if you are concerned that there are simply too many images, build the context! We can't simply turn off the images and stop there... expand the articles and in my opinion it is not a parody of images but short and choppy text linked up! There aren't actually a lot of images but the texts are just too short! --Kingj123 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't deny the importance of Samseong unlike your chide, but does Samsung Life take an important role in developing South Korea's general economy and society? No, I don't really think so. Any picture related to Samsung should be representative. You're saying I'm simply complaint about not much texts and too many pictures, bu honestly, your excessive usages of the exclamation mark irritates me a lot more than . As for my involvement, I have a lot of tasks in my hand. And you seem to focus this article. This article has shaped not much different than it of one year ago. As for old and new theory, my job is related to image industry, and the theory works just as it is. I think you seem to work in architecture industry. I would not think you're praising for the gallery composition much. I counted how many images are used in this article and the other article with several features articles, and unsupringly your last sentence sounds untrue. I didn't say this article is parody, but parade. --Appletrees (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do images have to be iconic in this article? It just has to be typical, but not irrelevant of course. The images are typical and are much related. I am not trying to offend you in anyway; nevertheless I believe that other editors should have a voice in the article not just you. I believe these images are appropriate, and I believe there is good number of the images present but the text is too short. That is a subjective opinion not a fact; however it doesn’t mean that you should simply ignore it. Everyone has different opinions. I may be wrong, but before any consensus, you should not simply erase anything the other users have contributed to match your taste or your vision.


 * Secondly, Wikipedia is “open” which means that simply any users can contribute to the article; this is not a company with specific jobs assigned (except administrators). I can work in any criteria as long as I am not vandalizing or damaging the article in anyway. And the fact is that I work with images a lot in many articles, you should see which and how much I contributed to Wikipedia. Sorry for all this arguments, but I think we need to corporate and be welcoming to everyone, without any ignorant dismissals That’s all.

...sorry for the exclamations, I pressed the key a little too long, didn't it? I exaggerated too much, I agree. However, I was a little impatient when you were simply ignoring my argument and contribution... not just once. And also, this articles is not South Korean but Seoul. Kingj123 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What discussion related to images have we had except this one? The problem regarding the gallery raised several times if you look through the talk page. The old and new theory(?) of mine concentrates on the gallery section if you read my opinion carefrully. In my point of view, you're the one ignoring commons standards regarding inclusion of images in the article. Wikipedia is "open" to anyone: of course and too cliche, and also welcoming and encouraging professional opinions as much. As I repeatedly say, the images are too dominant in the article with much less text. And why do you ignore image sizes? Isn't it your ego to make it conspicuous among other contexts? And they don't look consistent. As you keep wrongly accusing me of ignoring others contributions, I still have offended by your reckless comments. The article is Seoul and I wrote wrong, but is used for your method to attack me, you're making another mistake and implausible rationale. I can only read your anger and blame without any constructive suggestion or opinion. --Appletrees (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reckless comments?

I am not talking about images sizes but deleting the images off where I think it is nessesary. It involves no profession here, if I think there should be an image approperiate, I put it in there. It is simple. Sure, you can change the images you like, however deleting images is like dismissing my contribution and it offends me too. I never changed image sizes, as far as I know.

Take things in positive way. I am not trying to attack you, and I was shocked by your responses. I am just proving my points, not to offend you. Seoul is a city and Korea is a nation, therefore, I think images in a smaller scale (such as samsung life) is okay for this type of article... it is not a implausible rationale. That is a point, and I thought it was obvious enough not to mention it... but sorry.

And I am not just talking about this matter at you, but to everyone.

Now, I think it doesn't worth all this argument. Sorry for that as well, and I hope you feel better. --Kingj123 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but it was me who deleted and reduced some pics. I think we can use more high-quality pics, but there were too many pics of certain topics. Too many for palaces. Airport, airport train, bus, subway station, AND ktx is too much for this Seoul overview article.

It would be great to add a variety of pics, maybe street vendors, the World Cup crowds, unique modern architecture, government buildings, festivals, etc. Personally, I would really like to see the history of the city. I mean ancient painting of the city, black & white 19th century photo, Korean War destruction, or even how it looked it the 70's, to contrast with today.

Personally, I think no picture is better than a poor quality or unimportant picture. If there is a great picture, we can keep it up there until the text is filled out, but there really aren't that many great pictures. Some of the deleted pics maybe should go into more specific topic articles. I agree. That picture is wierd. We need a better picture, or no picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonami Reactor (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the text should be improved, and many important topics are missing, but we also have trivial stuff that can be deleted, like list of bus stations. That's my opinion, though, I just hope more people contribute to make this article better! Drop the soap! (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seoul population
Seoul: compare to size of population the seoul city area is very small. In city area Seoul ranks 68th in the world. Seoul: population is 12 million. Seoul Metro population: is 25-30 million. ( Seoul, Incheon, Seoul outskirt cities in Kyungkido province). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the righthand information box, it states that Seoul's population is 22 or 23 million persons. That is incorrect. That probably refers to the population of the Seoul metro area, which includes surrounding satellite towns in Gyeonggi Province and maybe even Incheon. The population of Seoul hovers in the 10~11 million mark. Would someone with the right credentials go in and change that, as I am new to this I don't think I can. 58.226.34.203 (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities
Tehran (capital of Iran) has been Seoul's sister city since 1977. See below:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200707/200707110009.html

Can someone please add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.169.103 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

M*A*S*H
M*A*S*H??? BaconBoy914 (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Panorama
Can someone please find a good panorama picture for Seoul? Most cities have this and this type of picture is more likely to get a featured picture star. Albertgenii12 (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

POV
User Lakshmix made a series of POV edits to the lead, alongside the "KOREA IS BEST BEST BEST"-nationalism that guides far too many Korea-topics. To balance a number of highly positive (and relevant) rankings about Seould, I added a comment on the ranking of quality of living. As Seoul wasn't among the best in the world in this particular category, it was removed without any explanation and another battery of "KOREA IS BEST BEST BEST" with little relevance was added. As has been discussed under the article South Korea, an article can still be heavily biased and POV despite having sources to back up claims. For far too many Korea-related topics, some users add eveything that is positive and keep anything even slightly negative out. This is an obvious violation of WP:POV even if it is done with sources. Wikipedia articles should be balanced and informative, we're not hear to work for the tourist board of any city or country.JdeJ (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lakshmix's edit may not be neutral, but your edit is also hardly viewed as neutral. Besides, since his edit is not vandalism, your intention of attacking him "vandalism" is doubtful. You must present each case to improve the article like KieferFL did to Talk:South Korea.--Caspian blue 23:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)