Talk:South Korea/Archive 8

Economy of South Korea
For some reason the article on the South Korean economy was removed, and instead redirected to this article. It doesn't seem like any other countries have their economy articles like that, is there a particular reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.119.200 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I belive the section "Economy" has been restored in the current version of the article. Hkwon (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing? This is not a good way of presenting this section. There should be a link to a seperate article called "economy of south korea".Pds0101 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Two nations?
It is written that "A war between the two Koreas ended in an uneasy cease-fire, and the border between the two nations is currently the most heavily-fortified in the world." Are there really two nations or just one nation and two states? Nation is defined in the Wikipedia as "A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government." Kavas (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They have two separate governments, and AFAIK the international community considers them separate nations. (This is different than, say, Hong Kong and Macau, which have their own governments but are usually considered parts of the PRC, especially by people in the PRC.) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Kosovo-Albania is another example of this situation, both of them are of Albanian Nationality.Kavas (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, one nation two states, but the word nation has come to mean state nowadays. --Shibo77 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it both governments claim to be the rightful government of all Korea. That makes it more complicated. And, I might be wrong about some of the younger people (or not), most Korean people would like to see one united Korea. Borock (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy who wrote the original sentence, and I tend to agree with Kavas that I have been a little sloppy in my choice of words. I should have used "state" or "country" instead of "nation", as a nation more accurately refers to people in a sense that crosses borders (eg: the Sioux nation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
I have noticed 14 vandalistic and/or irrelevant edits have been made by anonymous users and been reverted by registered users since June 1, 2010. I have requested for a semi-protection. Hkwon (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per my request, now the article is semi-protected till June, 15, 2010. I hope this helps to prevent anonymous users from making vandalistic edits to the article. Hkwon (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fist piece of vandalism that needs to be reverted is all that rubbish about museums that's been added to a completely inappropriate section. I'll delete it as soon as protection is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.57.62 (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Country... vs a 'state'
I'm sick of South Korea being called a 'state' on this website, and this website alone; it's not, and things would not make sense if it was. To put it briefly, South Korea is a country, and it has been for over half a century since the division. I cannot understand how some people think that it's a 'state' - it just makes no sense, can someone justify that it is a 'state'?! It's like forcing an apple to be called an orange.

I think people don't know the meaning of a 'state'- It is a constituent administrative district of a nation. Examples of some states are: California, New York, Hong Kong, New South Wales etc. Expanding on the California and New York example, they have their own laws, but are ultimately governed in Washington DC (or something like that. Sorry I'm no American... or South Korea. [I'm a New Zealander getting my point across!]). Hong Kong is ultimately governed with arrordance to Chinese laws.

"Korea" is not a country, and hasn't been for as long as you've lived. There is no 'administration' that directs both South Korea and North Korea - if there was one, then it wouldn't make sense to have a hostile division would there?! It obviously has its own separate government. In fact, there are states within South Korea, like any other country.

Sure, people from South Korea and North Korea can be called "Koreans". But the politically correct term is "South Korean" and "North Korean". (You don't refer to Canadians as Americans.)

There's lots of evidence it it is a country, and I've never encountered any that suggests otherwise... Without arrogance I am sure that all reliable sources do not deviate from my points (hence I am shocked that this wiki suggests that it's a 'state'!) Just look up on BBC Country Profile for instance, or whatever - will indicate that it is a country, and make no suggestion that it isn't.

Resources: Meaning of 'state' - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=state

Some links: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1018.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1123668.stm ...and pretty much anything else.


 * State has more than one definition. If you have a look at the link within the article, it does not lead to "State" as in a political subdivision, but rather Sovereign state. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

International rankings
I noticed an editor put a lot of work into this section. I noticed another editor removed it entirely without explanation. Would someone care to comment on the pros/cons of this content? Rklawton (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the featured country articles (ie Japan) that I've seen do not feature this section, and it may violate WP:NOT to a certain degree. However, it's not without possible merit. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The section seems to violate WP:SYN, to some extent, in addition to WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant section reads in part consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. - and this is precisely what the author has done. Synth - is when we draw our own conclusions from sourced data. I don't see any synth in these edits.  True, this detail isn't available in other articles.  However, I think it would improve Wikipedia if we were able to include this type of information.   Rklawton (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a collection of unhelpful statistics. Knowing that SK's population is whatever is helpful and encyclopedic; knowing that that number happens to be #25 in the world (or whatever) is not. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of indiscriminate information. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. But why not include the other statistics?  Rklawton (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has major problems with statistics. As noted by numerous editors, the article currently has far too many rankings and statistics in the text. Most have been cherry-picked. The economy section, in particular, has become a dumping ground for statistics and needs to be completely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New problems (sigh...)
The "economy" section was looking okay there for a while, due to the efforts of one editor. Unfortuantely, the nationalists have been creeping back. The top of the section is now crammed with photos, so that the text is squeezed between the pix and the factbox. Very bad form from an editing point of view. I'm going to delete the photos this afternoon, but no doubt the sockpuppets and hyper-nationalists will be in there like a shot to revert. I'd appreciate some help from responsible editors with cleaning up the economy stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.56.99 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with regard to the pictures. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the 'nationalist' editor who cut all the crap about Korea first in this, Korea first in that, and rebooted the whole economics subsection with brief descriptions of Korea's economic history few weeks back that was looking good to you. Why didn't you edit it when I first did it back then if you didn't like what I editions I made?

Why is Japan's economy subsection allowed to describe Japan's stock exchange as world's second largest while we are not allowed to describe Korea's shipbuilding industry as one of world's largest (both claims with pictures)? Why can Japan's economy subsection claim its automobile industry as being one of its key industrial sectors in its featured article (once again, with a picture) when Korea's is not allowed to? Why can't Korea's construction industry (with skyscrapers being one of the most easily visible man-made construction in any country, a good representation for describing a country's relative construction capability) symbolize Korea's rapid economic growth from a poor third world country who couldn't construct skyscrapers on its own, to a developed one who began exporting them?

Give objective answers to all those questions. We'll be able to facilitate a more constructive debate that way than just accusing someone of being a 'nationalist'. Ambassador (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My concerns were merely about the look of it. I think the solution you found (elimination of "fact-box") is -- while not perfect -- much better now. That being said, not every fact needs a picture; "benchmarking" the corresponding Japan-article might not always be good -- that one could hold just as much "fluff", depending who promoted it to its current status. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I preserved the pictures (they are not my original additions) to give a few isolated spaces for separate introductions of the specified sectors, so that the alternative method - making intermittent insertions of those individual pieces of information regarding those sectors within the 'history' section - will not break the flow of reading the paragraphs describing the South Korean economy's history. The pictures will provide the readers with basic (and easy-to-notice) cue about what Korea's foremost economic strength are - strong industries in automobile, construction, electronics, and shipbuilding, which supply the majority of Korea's export, an important information considering that export constitutes 40% of Korea's GDP - and the readers can pursue their continued readership over those subjects in the independent South Korean economy article as they see fit when it is finally and properly rebuilt.

As for the exporting of skyscrapers, pictures of foreign skyscrapers like Petronas Tower, Taipei 101, or Burj Khalifa (of which Korea had been the primary contractors) would have felt a lot more controversial to the readers and other editors than simply the domestic 63 building. There remains little doubt however that, having now built the three tallest skyscrapers in the world in recent decade, the outsourcing of Korea's advanced skyscraper-constructing industry to foreign countries is a key part of Korea's export strategy. Even if Korea's not one of the more high-ranking construction outsourcing members in the world (and comparison with other countries was not what I was doing when I introduced Korea's construction industry), the outsourcing element is still important to the economy of Korea itself, and therefore one worth mentioning when describing the economy of Korea. But a more extensive exhibition of those revelations can be included somewhere else than in the main Korean article. 63 building will suffice for now as a representation to briefly describe the significance of construction industry to Korea's economic history. Ambassador (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ambassador, you seem to have misunderstood my initial statement. I complimented the editing that was done (presumably by you), but criticised the addition of several extra photos into the section which took place after the edits of the text (presumably this was not done by you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.22 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The pictures were already there before I began editing. I just left them there because I thought it was a fine idea as featured articles like Japan and Germany that I made examples of had no qualms about posting a handful of pictures to serve as illustrations. I mostly did away with rankings and statistics and maintained the cues that will help the readers. Ambassador (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ambassador, I'm sure that most other editors agree with me when I say that it's great that you have helped delete some of the rankings and statistics. The criticism of the photos is not a criticism of you, because you didn't put the photos there. Don't sweat it, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.22 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation required regarding Starcraft 2
I don't doubt that Starcraft 2 may become the most popular game in Korea right now, but I would like to see a source on it. There is a statement in the article that says:

"PC games are usually played in PC bangs which are basically internet cafes dedicated to online games such Aion, Lineage II, Sudden Attack, Kart Rider, Maple Story, Mabinogi, World of WarCraft, and StarCraft 2."

I have requested that the popularity of Starcraft 2 be cited. Starcraft 2 has only been out for a little less than 2 weeks now. In addition to that, Starcraft 2's lack of LAN, I believe, will hamper sales. I cannot verify this, as this is only a guess. In any case, I would like to see a source on Starcraft 2's current state in South Korea. I find it interesting that Starcraft 2 would be listed over the original.

67.166.99.19 (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SC2 was added by an IP editor 2 days ago. Feel free to revert if no one finds a source within the next week. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
Considering that this the officially the Republic of Korea I think typing that into the search function should redirect it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.218.59 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It already does. Maybe you misspelled it. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Hanja name
Alright, who took the Chinese name out, and why? I remember maybe about three weeks ago, I searched the nation up and it was still there. South Korea still uses Chinese characters for formal usage or offered for high school and university students as an advanced curriculum, so I don't get why it was removed. The name used was 大韓民國 (Mandarin Chinese: Dahanmingguo, which sounds very close to Korean: Daehanminguk). ★ Dasani ★ 18:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was here. By the way, your Mandarin pinyin is a bit off, 民 is mín, not ming. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've since readded it. And if my Pinyin was off, I guess that was a typo: guo only needs one 'G'. ★ Dasani ★ 02:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "South Korea still uses Chinese characters for formal usage or offered for high school and university students as an advanced curriculum" <-- South Korea uses Traditional Chinese characters? This isn't entirely correct because South Korea, or South Koreans, don't use Chinese characters for formal usage. Traditional Chinese is found mostly in Korean historical texts, but Hangul is used in both formal and informal cases. Many languages are offered in university, and offering Chinese in high school isn't because Chinese is a part of culture, but becuase it is a major language, at least by population. Sorry, I didn't mean to make this a debate of some sort, but you're tone and information about the Chinese language in Korea wasn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinet (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the ROK constitution was originally written in Hanja Korean mixed script, right? (and I'm not referring to the full-Hangul versions one might find in a middle school or something, but rather the original text) And many other important documents are written likewise, right? And common characters such as 韓中日月男女高新 are used in non-tabloid newspaper headlines (e.g. 韓日 as an abbreviation for "Korea-Japan"), consumer products (e.g. I have a Nong Shim brand chip packet that I got from the oriental grocery store in front of me right now with 新 on it), and for administrative purposes (e.g. school grades 高 and 中), right? And basic knowledge is required for those pursuing a career as a lawyer, right? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's usage is almost nonexistent except for some of the stuff you've mentioned like on specialty products and describing abstract ideas on newspapers. English however is widely used in school curriculum, signs, and virtually in everyday life. And since the Korean republic isn't yet a historical relic and the people don't speak or use Chinese (and to be reflective of the hangul wikipage), I'll be removing the Chinese name after a week if there aren't any responses. --KaraKamilia (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * However I think you are misinterpreting the situation. Here, "Chinese name" is being used more or less as a loaded word, and that people are assuming that 大韓民國 is at any rate less Korean than it is Chinese. "大韓民國" in this case is not a "Chinese name" as implied, but rather Hanja of the Korean name. It's usage on this article is "more Korean" than you may think, so to speak. I think editors are misinterpreting that by using Chinese characters, something is less Korean that it should be, when really, using Hanja does not make anything less Korean at all, and that the correct name should be Hanja name, not Chinese name, since "Chinese" as associated with China and the Chinese language (which might be the cause of the misinterpretation, given the connotations of "Chinese" being related to "China"). I am quite sure that you are misinterpreting this, given that you mention teaching of Chinese language education and English within the curriculum and everyday life - this was not the original point. Hanja is taught in upper school levels, not Chinese language. Han characters =/= Chinese language, and script =/= language. The Japanese language is not Chinese. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that Chinese =/= Hanja, that in this sense the phrase "Chinese name" is incorrect, and that the section title can potentially lead to misinterpretations, I have altered the section title. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, Hanja is Korean exclusive, and although it has links to Chinese, Hanja is not used in Chinese. Hanja is a writing method that can be used to represent the Sino-Korean vocabulary in Korean texts. Hanja and Chinese cannot be used as synonomous terms. In Korean, 工夫 (공부, gongbu) means study, however in Chinese, 工夫 means physical effort. Similarly, the kanji 手紙 tegami means "letter" in Japanese, however in Chinese 手紙 means toilet paper. Hanja =/= Kanji =/= Chinese language. Therefore, the argument that 大韓民國 is a "Chinese word" and that it is irrelevant to Korean usage is incorrect.

Furthermore, adding the Hanja for Daehan Minguk to this article is not just something editors here have simply made up. It is quite common to have Hanja glossing for proper nouns in educational and academic texts. This can be seen in books, newspapers, and even on the Korean Wikipedia. ko:이명박 glosses his name as 李明博 in the very first paragraph. ko:대한민국 lists 大韓民國 as the second word of the article. ko:평양직할시 glosses 平壤直轄市, ko:한국어 glosses 韓國語, ko:고려 glosses 高麗 and ko:김일성 glosses 金日成. I think you should first propose to the Korean Wikipedia to stop using Hanja before bothering to have it removed here on this article. Hanja is more or less a component of the Korean written language that so far seems to be here to stay, a reality even the most right-wing of people in Korea have to deal with. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Korea
It's irritating to that this page is titled "South Korea", which is nothing more than a regional designation. Maybe a page on the unique geographical or cultural/historical happenings on the southern part of the Korean peninsula would be accurately named, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason not to redirect to Republic of Korea. China, for instance, isn't the page name for the People's Republic of China. There are plenty of other counter examples, of course, Japan being the name of the page for the State of Japan, or Zimbabwe for the Republic of Zimbabwe, or a dozen others, but these names are so close to their formal names as to only designate the form of government. Because of the DPRK and ROK's mutual use of the term 'Korea', this isn't a satisfactory alternative. "South Korea" reads increasingly anarchronistic, a vestigal designation from the Korean war when the difference between the two countries was most importantly location-geographic in the sense of military holdings, and a division which was supposed to be temporary. Does anyone have thoughts on this, or an argument why we shouldn't use a nation's preferred English designation for itself? --The Grza 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. It has been officially the Republic of Korea for a long time. Ykhwong (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Official name is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy is to use the most common name, not the official name. See: WP:COMMONNAME. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some articles for states use the official name, while others use the common name. It is not consistent. 71.255.82.235 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Common usage doesn't consistently use common or formal names. However, Wikipedia consistently uses the common name, whatever its form. Rklawton (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why do the articles on the states of Taiwan and China use formal names? Why is the article on the Chinese civilization titled China and not Chinese Civilization or Chinese Empire? Why is that article not merged with the article on the history of China? If the common name should be used, then the article on the state of Taiwan should be called Taiwan. The article currently called Taiwan should be merged with the History of Taiwan. The article on the state of China should be called China, and the article currently called China should be merged with the History of China. 71.255.91.96 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because China and Taiwan may refer to several topics covered on Wikipedia (see China (disambiguation) and Taiwan (disambiguation)). We must somehow disambiguate these topics using different names which would not conflict with other topics and one way of chosing an alternative title is to fallback to the official name of the topic. Note also that there is a concept of primary topic; if one topic is more likely to be sought compared to other topics, that topic may occupy non-disambiguated title. For South Korea, it does not conflict with other topics, and even if it does, this article is likely to be the primary topic (same with North Korea). --Kusunose 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Searching "China" or "Taiwan" does not lead directly to their disambiguation pages, instead leading to articles that are not likely to the primary topic. 71.251.40.223 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

About school uniforms..
Korean school uniforms are NOT USUALLY GREY. It's true about pants for boys but girls' skirts come in a wide variety of colors, including dark blue or even red. And, pants for boys are not gray nowdays... Mostly navy blue or black and sometimes gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.75.199.245 (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...wut? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Democracy in 1948 in POV
The South Korean general election in 1948 was boycotted by most leftist parties and was filled with government coercion and terrorism, After Syngman Rhee became president in 1948, he engaged in a blantant campaign to purge all political opposition to his regime, under the guise of "removing communism" with the help of his henchman in ROK Intelligence Kim Chang-ryong. Several articles on wikipedia make it quite clear when a government is in reality democratic or not, and regardless of how you look at it, it is untrue to say that the ROK was a democracy in 1948.--99.135.149.50 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I hinted in my edit summary, I don't really have an opinion on the political issues here, but you shouldn't use misleading link piping. If you want to link to First Republic of South Korea, link there clearly; if you want to link to anti-leftist dictatorship, link there clearly. If you want to link to both, instead of fighting you can just do some simple copyediting (something like "the First Republic of South Korea, under Syngman Rhee, was established as a...".
 * For what it's worth, though, this change looks controversial to me. First of all, even if it was a dictatorship, saying it was "established as" one implies some overt intent, whereas from what you're trying to say it sounds more like it was a democracy in name but had dictatorial characteristics. Furthermore, unless you have sources saying this republic was officially a dictatorship, then what you're saying sounds like WP:OR: cobbling together evidence that you think makes a government seem like a dictatorship in spite of what it officially labels itself. That would be like updating the United States article to call that country a dictatorship because you don't like what its government has done. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the page has been changed to better reflect the reality of the political situation in South Korea, I now have no objections, thankyou.--99.135.149.50 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me. Sorry for the preemptive edit, but sometimes a little boldness can cut short a long debate, and it seemed worth a go. It doesn't really say anything that isn't reflected later in the article (and the accompanying history article), so I hope it isn't too controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of artilice abotu Koera dosent have any mention to starcraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.239 (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Corrections and comments
This article is fairly well-written. I fixed some small errors and moved some pictures around. I just need to point out a few things.

1. In the "Administrative divisions" section, Incheon and Daegu should be swapped in the city table to match the map. Daejeong and Gwangju should also be swapped. I did not check the provinces.

2. In the "Foreign relations" section, I read "12 November: North Korea shows US scientist new - undeclared - uranium enrichment facility". Revise the sentence as needed. I also read "There had also been strong anti-American sentiment during certain periods, which has largely moderated in the modern day." Which periods are those?

3. In the "Military" section, the sentence "Previously, Koreans of mixed race were exempt from military duty if they 'look distinctively biracial'" needs to be reworked. I also read "1000 Korean males are selected every year to serve two years in the KATUSA Program to further augment the USFK". There is no explanation about what USFK is. The sentence "A still functioning UN Command is technically the top of the chain of command of all forces in South Korea" is not clear.

4. In the "Economy" section, the part that says "The two-day summit is expected to boost Korea's economy by 31 trillion won, or 4% of Korea's 2010 GDP, in economic effects, and create over 160,000 jobs in Korea. It may also help improve the country's sovereign credit rating" needs to be changed to past tense. The same thing should be done to "its economic growth rate will reach 6.1% in 2010".

5. In the "Education" section, I read "According to Ministry of Education, Science and Technology estimate, by that time". Something has to be fixed.

6. The chronology of events in the "Sports" section is not consistent. The dates should follow in sequence.

ICE77 (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Map
I'm just leaving a message here to explain what's going on with the back-and-forth editing of the map at the top of this article. The map currently used is File:Locator map of South Korea2.svg; various sockpuppets of the blocked user User:Sourside21 (who is probably himself a sockpuppet of User:Rayesworied, etc.) have been replacing it with File:South Korea (orthographic projection).svg. These maps have been discussed at least three times before, all with consensus in favor of the former: Despite this consensus, some editors have continued edit-warring over the map and insisting that no one can revert them without gaining consensus. In September 2010 Sourside21, not logged in, sneakily changed the map and it went unnoticed for a few months. (The user in question e-mailed me telling me that he was the one who made that edit.) I restored the consensus version on 30 January 2010, a few days later another sock reverted (again insisting that I need consensus to revert him), after which I reverted again and protected the page. Less than 24 hours later, User:Kingj123, who in two of those previous discussions was the sole user arguing in favor of the orthographic projection map, reverted me using the same rationale as Sourside's sock puppets used. King123's account had been almost entirely inaccurate inactive since April 2010 (with just one edit in September 2010), so I find it suspicious that he suddenly reappeared only when Sourside became no longer able to edit the article using IPs. I've blocked him per WP:DUCK.
 * Talk:South Korea/Archive 7
 * 
 * Talk:South Korea/Archive 7
 * Talk:South Korea/Archive 7

If you want to reopen the discussion about which map is appropriate to use, do it at this talk page, not through edit warring. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll not comment on the map itself for now, but point out that discussions about sockpuppetry should really be conducted in a more appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not initiating a discussion about sockpuppetry here, I'm leaving an explanation for why I blocked this user after he edited this article. But the main point of this discussion was to explain the map issues again, because frankly I'm sick of this person edit-warring over it and sick of having to point him to the discussion (which he knows exists, given that he participated in 2 or 3 iterations of it). <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed a typo in my first message. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A summary of the outcomes of those previous discussions, for anyone who doesn't want to read the TL;DR: <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:South Korea/Archive 7
 * User:Sourside21 suggested using the orthographic projection. User:Kmusser, User:Seb az86556, and User:Irbisgreif preferred the flat locator map.
 * Talk:South Korea/Archive 7
 * User:Kingj123 suggested using the orthographic projection, without commenting on the outcome of the previous discussion. User:Seb az86556 (comment dated 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)). User:Caspian blue proposed a different locator map (with different colors than the original one) but didn't support or oppose the orthographic projection. The rest of the discussion is about what colors the map should use.
 * Talk:South Korea/Archive 7
 * User:Kingj123 again suggested the orthographic projection (with a list of reasons); no one else agreed. Later he said he agreed not to use it (comment dated 05:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) and the rest of the discussion is about what colors the map should use.

These are months old and users were tossing ideas around not making official stance. We should make a clear poll with regards to this map.Kingj123 (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:What is consensus?, and the associated policy WP:NOT, clearly states that a poll is not necessary to determine consensus, especially if consensus is already clear (as it seems to be to everyone but you). But if you want to start a straw poll you are welcome to do so, although first you should review the guidelines at WP:POLL, and you should consider opening a discussion before opening a poll (as polls without discussion are not very useful; again, see WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk)

Where is the consensus in the discussion? and if there were consensus why did orthographic map remain for another year? Kingj123 (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the discussions to see consensus; I already summarized them for you above. If you want another editor to re-read the discussions and try to determine the consensus, you may file a request at WP:3O.
 * As for why the orthographic projection was at this article for several months, as I already explained above, a banned editor sneakily inserted the map in while none of the editors who participated in that discussion happened to be watching the article (as for me, I believe I was out of town at the time) and no one noticed for a while. Silence (or nobody noticing) does not equal consent. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps the users may have lost interest in the subject matter or did not feel the need to change orthographic projection. Kingj123 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than speculate about what others users are thinking, how about you start a new discussion (as I already suggested), list the reasons you think the map should be changed, and notify users at the relevant WikiProjects to ask for their opinions. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we should start a new discussion. FYI, User:Kmusser edited the article on September of 2009 so he has visited the article with orthographic projection image but did not change it.
 * No he didn't. Per this, the only edit he has ever made to the article was this in 2006, which is not relevant. (And, by the way, in September 2009 the current locator map was still being used,, so I don't see why September 2009 is relevant.) And, again, rather than speculating about what other users' opinion is, start a new discussion and ask them to make their opinions explicit. Just notify WikiProjects and the contributors from the past discussions. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.166.245.130, 25 February 2011
Make the refernece section with two columns. .

216.166.245.130 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference last has had two columns for a long time. The CSS that makes columns on Wikipedia doesn't work with Internet Explorer, so if that's the browser you're using then that would explain why you don't see two columns. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference last has had two columns for a long time. The CSS that makes columns on Wikipedia doesn't work with Internet Explorer, so if that's the browser you're using then that would explain why you don't see two columns. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Validity of change in South Korea's GDP PPP
I would like to state that my change from 1,457 billion to 1.457 trillion,(POINT, not comma, emphasizing that a point was used) was adequate. Are they not the same? I've noticed other countries' GDP PPP, coming from the same source, countries like Mexico here on the use Billions. However, on the Wikipedia page of the country they use trillions for the Data. Thus, can you confirm the change was valid? Mayhemunit55 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011
Bmoq (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this specifically belong at South Korea national football team? Not everything to do with "South Korea" should have a navbox, otherwise we'd have 47 navboxes at the end of each country page. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

edit-request: To add a link to the article on North Korea - South Korea relations
I just realized I forgot to add the link to my talk article (and I can't find a way to edit this post).

There is an article on North Korea - South Korea relations, but it cannot be accessed directly from the appropriate paragraph in the "Foreign relations" chapter of the article on South Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93South_Korea_relations

Darbon (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit-Request: On South Korea's climate
This page states that: "South Korea lies in a humid continental and humid subtropical climate region"

Technically, S. Korea lies in the temperate climate zone. Most geography texts refer to Korea as being in the temperate climate zone. You can also refer to this Wikipage on the temperate climate zone, which includes Korea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperateness. While the summers are hot and humid, the winters are quite cold and dry from December to February. Seoul's average temperature in January ranges between -5 to -2.3 °C. This would NOT be considered sub-tropical by any standard. In fact, at the moment of this writing, Seoul is -5°C (23°F), the same as Minneapolis. Perhaps we could list Minnesota as "subtropical," as well.

Even if you consider Jejudo, which is the southmost island and warmest region in Korea, it would be a stretch to call it subtropical, given that the winter temperature ranges between 2-8 degrees C. Perhaps Jejudo could be considered on the border of a subtropical zone, but referring to South Korea itself as lying in a "humid subtropical climate region" is misleading.

If Korea were sub-tropical, it would not be able to host the Winter Olympics. In addition, I have found that people in North America often mistake Korea for being in Southeast Asia. I think the misperception arises from people confusing the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Listing S. Korea incorrectly as subtropical would contribute to the misperception. A correction should be in order.

Separk2011 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for pointing that out. I edited the lead and the climate section. Oda Mari (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: The map "debate"
Okay, South Korea isn't part of any supranational, geo-political organisation (e.g. an EU member state or a member of ASEAN) where a colour coded map is needed. So.....

I really don't understand why an orthographic projection map has not yet been adopted - especially since (having skimmed through the argument above) it seems that only one or two users are really fussed about the issue (and the orthographic projection went unnoticed for a relatively long period of time without anyone caring). Surely it should be adopted for consistency; the North Korea article uses an orthographic projection and it's the standard map used on most sovereign states' articles (unless that state is part of a larger organisation, as noted above.)

Let's be clear that the primary purpose of the infobox map is to establish straight off where that country is in the world. It's not a topgraphical or relief map (they should be in the geography section, where you can go as detailed as you want); it really doesn't need to show every bay or islet of South Korea. The map is just meant to be a basic "reference point" for your average reader. The orthographic projection fits that purpose perfectly and doesn't leave a reader in any doubt as to where South Korea is in the world. Peter (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's time for the orthographic projection. It seems from that there was a discussion in August 2009 in which Sourside21 supported orthographic, but Seb az86556 and Irbisgreif opposed, because it made South Korea look "small". That opposition was taken as "consensus" and referenced in further discussions, the unsuccessful overturning of which was referenced as further "consensus" for the flat map. Also, the fact that a sockpuppet had been trying to insert the orthographic map was used to justify using the flat map. If anyone opposes the orthographic projection, they should state their reasons anew, and not point towards that old and unclear discussion. Quigley (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I support orthographic projection for Korea. The current locator map (the one at the lower left portion) makes Korea look even smaller than a proper orthographic projection will make it appear to be; as noted above, the orthographic projection is the most ideal and usual way to locate a country in the globe in Wikipedia, and there just isn't any need to try too hard to look for alternative ways when the simplest solution is already in sight. Desagwan (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

100%/99.9% Korean
I don't doubt it... but is this needed? The listing of ethnic composition is usually only given for countries where it's not clear. This place is called "Korea", it's clear that the people living there are Korean. Putting the 100%/99.9% into the infobox seems like ethnic boasting, "we are pure blood". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no recognized ethnic group of Korea, Korea is pretty much 99% Koreans and other 1% are just foreigners such as migrant workers to these with foreign passports. Since other country stat all have this percentage of ethnicity, why not? Please note having homogeneous population doesn't equal to "pure blood", Korea is way big for having just one family so where does this "pure blood" comes from? Danilminjok means one people not pure blood, it's foreigners trying to paint Korea as racist country by wrongly accusing Korea as "pure blood" society.--KSentry(talk) 13:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

South Korea, officially [...]
Can we change the the first paragraph of the lead section as below? If not, can I hear some good reasons why, thanks!
 * South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea (ROK, Hangul: 대한민국, Hanja: 大韓民國, , is a sovereign state in East Asia, located on the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula. It is neighbored by the People's Republic of China (Mainland China) to the west, Japan to the east, North Korea to the north, and the East China Sea and Republic of China (Taiwan) to the south. South Korea lies in the north temperate zone with a predominantly mountainous terrain. Its territory covers a total area of 99,392 square kilometers and has a population of almost 50 million. The capital and largest city is Seoul, with a population of 10,421,782.

— Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Then we change the lead of United Kingdom and France like your suggestion on this page? And there must be a lot more articles to change. If there is not a format for the first sentence of the country articles, I suggest to create one. Oda Mari (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to stick to a standard. Let's discuss this on the village pump. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  23:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a standard. The name used in the page title, or at least a variation of it, should be the subject of the opening sentence, according to WP:LEAD. Who needs IPA to pronounce "South Korea"? Let's not clutter up the opening with trivia. Kauffner (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hanja in the opening
"대한민국" gets 8,270 Korean hits on Google News, "大韓民國" get 42. So Koreans use the hanja name for South Korea about 0.5 percent of the time. Putting these characters in the opening gives the reader a misleading view of Korean usage. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why limit it to Google News though? That's like saying "democracy" gets eight hits in the American Journal of Orthopedics, whilst "acute inflammation" gets 87,978 hits. As for your line "So Koreans use the hanja name for South Korea about 0.5 percent of the time", I think you should take a look at the xkcd comic on extrapolation. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding Hanja use, it's decline is is only a recent thing. Here is a newspaper article from 1980 about the Gwangju Democratization Movement; nowadays newspapers in South Korea look nothing like that, however 1980 was only 30-so years ago. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 09:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

History book about South Korea?
Can anyone point me to a good book (in English) about the general history of South Korea?

I have a history degree but I don't know much about South Korea. So a academic introduction would be good, as long as it reads like a book and not a textbook (I heard bad things about George Buzo's book)

Just to be absolutely clear: something more detailed than Wikipedia's history of South Korea article. Thanks! Ilikeredirects (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can look at the list of external sources at History of South Korea. If that's not sufficient you can try asking at the Reference Desk; the talk page you are looking at now is only for discussing improvements to this Wikipedia article, not for looking for books. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Korean Name for Republic of Korea
I seriously question the recent addition here that claims the 韓 in 大韓民國 originates from 하나님 (Korean for God). I'm pretty sure it is actually cognate to the more well known word Khan, and is unrelated to religion.

This claim needs to be supported by some verified references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Seoul Population
I don't really get it, how is the population of Seoul supposed to be 49,708,483?? 79.44.180.185 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. That must be wrong -- it looks as if somebody has confused the population of Seoul with the population of the whole country. What is quite disturbing is that I see from the edit history that the obviously incorrect figure has been there for well over a year at least. I will try to find the correct figure. -- Alarics (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have copied (what I trust is) the correct figure in from List of cities in South Korea by population. Also updated the same figure where it occurs in the lead and in one other place in the article. Ignore my above comment about the time it took to spot this -- I didn't realise the table was in a separate template. In fact the change was made only yesterday -- looks like a piece of drive-by vandalism by an IP. -- Alarics (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

error
The first sentence of the fifth paragraph looks to be an error, it states, "South Korea is not awesome at all." (````). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.46.136 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism, looks like it has since been removed. Thanks for pointing it out. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"the only lawful government in Korea"
The lead currently states "It is described in a 1948 U.N. resolution as the only lawful government in Korea". Considering both North and South are full U.N. members, fully recognised by all states (apart from each other, and, for the North, Japan), doesn't this somewhat misrepresent the U.N.'s actual position on the peninsula? LukeSurlt c 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think the expression comes from the South Korean constitution, which states that the South is the only lawful government in the Korean peninsular. It was due to the fact that the first general election of Korea held only in the South under the supervision of U.N. representatives. (the general election was supposed to be held both in the North and South, but the North opposed to it at the last minute. And they had their own election few months later.)
 * So, I agree with you that it is a South Korean POV. PBJT (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This sentence explains the legal basis and legitimacy of the South Korean government. It is a United Nations POV: "there has been established a lawful government (the Government of the Republic of Korea) having effective control and jurisdiction over that part of Korea where the Temporary Commission was able to observe and consult and in which the great majority of the people of all Korea reside; that this Government is based on elevations which were a called expression of the free will of the electorate of that part of Korea and which were observed by the Temporary Commission; and that this is the only such Government in Korea;" s:United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_195 Kauffner (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that there is no requirement that UN members be sovereign states. Belarus and Ukraine were UN members back in the days when they were Soviet republics. There is a 1975 General Assembly resolution that calls for a peace treaty between "the real parties" in the Korean War. This was intended as an elliptical way to refer to NK and the U.S., and the lawful power to choose peace or war is the ultimate test of sovereignty. But if NK is correctly understood as a puppet regime, the phrase would refer to China and the U.S. Kauffner (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kauffner! :) I really like to call the South as "the only lawful government in Korea", but I have to disagree with you two things.
 * First, things have changed since 1951 and I'm not sure the United Nation's stance on the North has remained same. I am aware of the 1951 U.N. resolution, and that it was the rationale to call the South as "한반도의 유일한 합법 정부" or "the only lawful government in Korean peninsular". But after the historic inter-Korean summit in 2000, even South Koreans started to acknowledge the North as an independent state. The two Korea made joint declarations in 2000 and 2007 and agreed to work peacefully toward the unification.


 * Second, the North has not been a puppet state of China and it is afraid of China's growing influence. Notice that the North's official ideology is Juche or Self-reliance. Even though North Korea relies its survival on China, it has been very successful to make great/super powers to compete for influences on the North: between China and the Soviet union during the cold war, and then between China and the South in 2000s.


 * So, my point is that whether it is from the South Korean constitution or the 1951 U.N. general assembly resolution, it is a POV and should be removed from the article. PBJT (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question does nothing more than paraphrase the 1948 UN resolution. This resolution is the legal basis for the creation of the Republic of Korea, so it is relevant regardless of how things might have developed later. We obviously can't summarize the entire history of the issue in the lede. As far as the current situation goes, the National Security Act still defines NK as an "anti-state" entity. Kauffner (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I realized that I mistakenly wrote 1951 instead of 1948 in my previous comment. (Sorry about that!) As a South Korean citizen, I truly believe that Korean peninsular should be united under the SK's initiatives, and personally I don't have any problems with the expression per se. As long as a independent third party think it isn't a POV, I wouldn't object to it as well. Thank you so much for your valuable input here, Kauffner. I think you're very knowledgeable on the topic, and I enjoyed the discussions with you. :) PBJT (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While the statement may be technically correct, its positioning in the first paragraph, away from other discussions on statehood, suggests that this is the U.N.'s position on Korea. Perhaps it would be best moved to the third paragraph, which would place the statement in a more informative historical context? LukeSurlt c 11:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% that its placement as the second sentence is extremely odd. Indeed it smacks more of proving a point than anything else (I'm not suggesting it's necesarily being done deliberately by anyone, just that it reads that way). Singling out one statement from a 64 year-old UN resolution and highlighting it as one of the first things we need to know about South Korea doesn't, in my experience, reflect the priorities of most mainstream, objective coverage. It should definitely be there in the history sections, but I'm not sure it needs to be in the lead at all really.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The largest mobile manufacturer in the world
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Samsung has announced that it has become the largest mobile phone manufacurer in the world. In the first quarter of 2012. was delivered to 93 million mobile phone. Earning 4,5 billion dollars. Samsung is also the largest television manufacturer in the world.78.2.55.63 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thirteenth richest country in the world
It says early on in the article that South Korea comes fifteenth in one list of economic indicators. It was said on David Morrisey's programme "Around the World in 60 minutes" when it was on BBC Four tonight (May 2-3 2012, from 11: 10 p.m. to 12: 10 p.m.) that South Korea is the thirteenth richest country in the world (this economic growth has been due to technology, especially as here we are talking about the home of Samsung). Should this also go in the article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello ACEOREVIVED, and thanks for your comment. Although I believe BBC is a reliable source, I would like to comment two things. First, 15th largest economy measure in GDP would be better than 15th richest country. Having sizable economy doesn't necessarily mean that its citizens are rich on average. SK has comparable nominal GDP to Australia (minus a couple of hundred billions.) with more than twice of Australia's population. Second, SK ranked 15th largest economy when measured by nominal GDP and 13th largest in terms of Purchasing Power (PPP) output. I assume your BBC programme have used GDP (PPP) statistics. --- PBJT (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible BBC semantically mixed up 'richness' of the country with its size, against the backdrop of the fact that Korea is an advanced economy. In general, the Korean economy's reputation is that it's a wealthy one. So it's possible BBC meant to say Korea is a rich country which is the world's 13th largest. But the next confusion is Korea isn't even the 13th largest in either nominal GDP (14th largest) or the PPP GDP (12th largest). Maybe BBC sought the middle ground (13th) between those two figures? Anyway I don't think the Korean economy's introduction needs to be changed for the time being. Desagwan (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

¿Middle ages? really
The term middle ages is eurocentric and the usage of it outside of European context is often disregarded by most modern historians. At the top of the article/page it states that South-Korea's name is derived from Goryeo, a dynasty in the middle ages. There are plenty of other terms for Asian history that don't need such Eurocentric historiography. I suggest that it should be removed from the page--82.134.154.25 (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chai-Shin Yu's The New History of Korean Civilization (2012) has a chapter which covers Koryo entitled, "The Middle Ages of Korea". Kauffner (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

KOREA name
檀君朝鮮 [KOREA 코리아 高麗國 고려+국 KORE+A(참고, AREA)] is a country in East Asia.

Constitutional Court of KOREA = [Empire of KOREA + the Republic of KOREA (코리아 공화제 高麗國 共和制) + Democratic People's Republic of KOREA (코리아 민주주의 인민 공화제 高麗國 民主主義 人民 共和制)]

UN Resolution 46/1. Admission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea to membership in the United Nations

1) Decides to admit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to membership in the United Nations ;

2) Decides to admit the Republic of Korea to membership in the United Nations.

HISTORY : 檀君朝鮮(高離) - 北夫餘 - 高句麗,百濟,新羅,伽倻,耽羅 - 大震,新羅 - 高麗 - 檀君朝鮮(고리 - COREE - KOREA)

檀君朝鮮 - 檀君이래 藁離族(高陽氏,高辛氏)가 朝鮮을 統治 → 檀君朝鮮만을 일컬을 때 - CHAOXIAN ' CHOSUN

開天節 (檀紀 或 甲子) 활용 - BC 2333 년도

高麗 - 本貫制 실시 국가 --안성균 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

李氏朝鮮 (한국 韓國 Hanguk) (대한제국 大韓帝國 Daehan Empire 대한민국 大韓民國 Daehan Republic)

PROBLEMS
1. MAP - Sea of KOREA (East Sea) -> Not Sea of JAPAN but Sea of KOREA

2. 韓日合倂條約 is a treay Between HANGUK(大韓帝國 + 大韓民國) with NIPON(日本) -> Not KOREA but HANGUK

3. 降伏文書 一. 대본영 及 그 고급지휘관 일본 본토 及 일본근해의 島嶼, 朝鮮 북위 38도 이남의 지역 及 필리핀에 있는 日本 육해공군 及 그에 속한 군대는 미국군태평양방면 최고사령관에 항복할 것을 명하였다. [출처 : 국사편찬위원회 한국사데이터베이스 http://db.history.go.kr] --안성균 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

-> HANGUK(HANGUK 統監府 - 李氏朝鮮總督府) 日本帝國 李氏朝鮮 李王 全州 李垠 19450815, 19450909 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 안성균 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't quite understand what you are proposing or reporting. Are you implying that we should rename this article from "South Korea" to "Hanguk"? If so, see WP:USEENG, WP:COMMONNAME. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 01:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

4. There are two country (檀君朝鮮 KOREA, 李氏朝鮮 HANGUK) --14.37.5.91 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

① 檀君朝鮮 KORE is (高陽氏, 高辛氏 = 以高爲氏) 高(句)麗.

例) 檀君朝鮮, 北夫餘, 高句麗, 百濟, 新羅, 伽倻, 高麗 consist of 高麗族 (comfirmation : 山海經,史記,三國史記,三國遺史,新羅三姓淵源譜 and so on)

② 李氏朝鮮 HANGUK consist of 全州李氏 and 一部氏族


 * Please note that this is the English Wikipedia. Most of us here don't speak Korean. If you want to make a point about this article, please do so in English. -- Alarics (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Though I can somewhat understand the gist of what you're trying to say, I can confidently say that most of the people here cannot. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The population figures in the table towards the bottom of the Page are incorrect. The population of Seoul is not over 9 billion. It is in the millions, not billions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceRocksEarth (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Billions, where? Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

-

1) 檀君朝鮮(Chaoxian) 高離(Kori) - 北夫餘(Buyeo) - 高句麗(百濟,新羅) Kokure - 新羅,大震 Silla - 高麗 Kore - 檀君朝鮮 (高麗國 = Korea) (a = area)

2) 李氏朝鮮(Chaoxian) - 大韓(Daehan)

Q when it was annexed by Japan

A 1) (韓日合拼條約) The treat of (Hanguk 韓國) between (Nipan 日本)

2) 韓國及日本の 降伏文書 = Hanguk and nipan‘s Capitulation

3) [Treaty of San Francisco, Treaty of Peace with Japan, San Francisco Peace Treaty] [日本国 (にほんこく)との平和条約] (19520428)

Q After the invasion of South Korea by forces from the North on June 25, 1950, the resulting war between the two Koreas ended with an Armistice Agreement.

A 1) Syng-man Rhee established Daehanminguk. He invaded (檀君朝鮮 Korea) (19480701)

UN Resolution 112(Ⅱ). The problem of the independence of Korea] [朝鮮獨立問題]

UN Resolution 195(Ⅲ). The problem of the independence of Korea] [朝鮮獨立問題]

UN Resolution 293(IV). The problem of the independence of Korea] [朝鮮獨立問題]

2) UN recognized The government of republic of Korea and The government of Daehanminguk

3) 대한민국 대통령과 주한 미군사령관간에 체결된 과도기에 시행될 잠정적 군사안전에 관한 행정협정

Executive Agreement between the President of the Republic of Korea and the Commanding General, United States Army Forces in Korea, concerning Interim Military and Security Matters during the Transitional Period (19480824)

→ The treat of The president of Daehan Minguk, Syng-man Rhee and John Reed Hodge

→ Syng-man Rhee is not Korean but a Daehan person.

4) 韓美相互防衛條約, the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Agreement ( 19541118)

→ The treat of Daehan and US (Not ROK, but Daehanminguk)

→ therefore, (檀君朝鮮 Korea) is fighting with (Daehan and US), now. --안성균 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

參考史書 : [山海經][史記][祖堂集][三聖記][檀君世紀][揆園史話][北夫餘紀][三國史記][三國遺史][高麗史][條約文書] 等 and [(李氏)朝鮮王朝實錄]

--14.37.5.91 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say? I still don't quite understand. Have you considered going to WP:WikiProject Korea and asking for a native Korean speaker to translate for you? I mean, what is your point? Are you after something within the article to be changed, and what is it? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Five million Samsung Galaxy III a month!
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Five million Smartphones Samsung Galaxy III began to produce South Korea's Samsung, the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. Samsung for its Galaxy III, the Corea Economic Daily, has received nine million reservations. Unprecedented record!93.137.33.90 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not equate a private company with the country. If you want to update contents for Samsung Electronics, and leave your comment on the company's talk page. Wikipedia isn't a forum, and the talk page should be used to discuss on how to improve the article. Anyway, many thanks for your comments, --- PBJT (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comfort woman
"Korean women were forced to the war front to serve the Imperial Japanese Army as sexual slaves, called comfort women." This is not true. Was investigated over the years by the Japanese government, the evidence that the women forced draft has not been discovered. Asahi Shimbun reported that when a lie, I have field survey at a university in Japan and South Korea, was not found even one person. Testimony of women themselves as "former comfort women" also is the first "I am. Was sold to (Okiya say in Japan) Kenban Kisen some of Pyongyang at the age of 14 by the mother" was, forced draft to the Japanese soldiers for some reason and changed. The three rolling forward the testimony of two forced draft that can not be trusted at all. Endangered Japan (Book 2): Sex, Lies, and Comfort Women --Anonymous sensible (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Talk:Comfort women would be a more appropriate venue. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Outcome of 2012 Election?
Page needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.112.130 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

new capital
sejong have become the new capital according to nrk news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. While the government is planning Sejong City to be a special administrative district, it will technically not be the capital once the project is finished. Seoul will still be the capital of South Korea, despite media organizations, like NRK, making it seem like there will be a "new" capital. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South Korea
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Korea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes.com":<ul> <li>From Korean shamanism: Choe Sang-hun. Shamanism Enjoys Revival in Techno-Savvy South Korea. The New York Times, 2007.</li> <li>From Olympic Games: "Bar countries that ban women athletes", Ali Al-Ahmed, The New York Times, 19 May 2008 </li> <li>From Lee Myung-bak: </li> <li>From Egypt: </li> <li>From Italy: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammar fix needed
"An election was held the U.S. zone in 1948" should read "An election was held in the U.S. zone in 1948" 24.218.115.184 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please add Hanja
In the introduction there is no Hanja equivalent for the hangul characters "대한민국". Please add "大韓民國" next to it in the same set of parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansh88 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

South Korea is a member of G20.
South Korea is a member of G20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.42.197 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Music
Please put "Music of South Korea" link up in the music section. It won't hurt to have an article talking about all S. Korean music. 173.72.127.32 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Anthem
Please look at the subtitle of Anthem!

It isn't Korean but Japanese. --Ojm4343 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojm4343 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't see any Japanese. Please elaborate? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 10:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For example the first line of anthem should be "동해물과 백두산이 마르고 닳도록" but it shows "東海が乾き果て、白頭山が磨り減る時まで"--Ojm4343 (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a language selector. See pic related. So far, only Japanese and Korean subtitles have been added, and no one has yet been bothered to add anything else. Since "ja" comes before "ko" alphabetically, the player automatically selects the first one by default. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Foundation
The article describes South Korea. Does it make sense to describe the date of it's founding based on the mythological date of 2333BC? Independently from what might be celebrated today as the officially celebrated founding day, the article should state the separation date of 1948 as the birth of modern North Korea which, technically, did not exist before that date.

I agree....this article is about a nation-state and there is already an article about the geographical area.

I remember seeing this talk page a while back, and there was a lot of complaints about Korean nationalist POV. The problem is still here. Moderators - please make this article conform to standards present on other pages....if it doesn't look like the average country's page, change it to look so.31.6.62.111 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Economic hsitory
The article states that in the decades that followed the Korean War, the economy  rose  etc. This is misleading. It took some time before the economy shot up. See, "Following the Korean War South Korea remained one of the poorest countries in the world for over a decade. In 1960 its gross domestic product per capita was $79,[35] lower than most Latin American and some sub-Saharan African countries.[36] " from the article on the country's economy. Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's still "decades that followed the Korean War". I assume the sentence you're referring to is "In the decades that followed, the South Korean economy grew significantly and the country was transformed into a major economy"; that sentence does not say "immediately followed". <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion in South Korea
"Christianity is South Korea's largest religion, accounting for more than half of all South Korean religious adherents. There are approximately 13.7 million Christians"

Whilst reading the article i came across this little statement. Whilst factually accurate I can't help but feel it is bias. Christianity may be the largest religion, but the are incredibly outnumbered by atheists and other non-religious people. IN this context i don't feel that the staement has any merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.138.218 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, right next to that statement there is a graph already expressing that. Also, the sentence you mentioned explicitly says that it's referring to the proportion of Christians out of all religious adherents, not the proportion of Christians out of the entire population; therefore, the number of non-religious people is not strictly relevant. (Furthermore, I think it is iffy to refer to atheism as a "religion", just as it would be iffy to refer to not playing sports as a sport---if I were in a town where 80% of people played no sports, 15% of people played soccer, and 5% of people played baseball, I would still say soccer is the most popular sport there.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Protestantism has proportionally declined since the 1980s in favour of Roman Catholicism."

This statement references the source: for this decline, but nowhere in the source paper can I find this assertion. It only asserts that Roman Catholicism is the fastest growing religion since the late 1980s, not that Protestantism has declined. I propose we remove the sentence and replace with one about the growth of Catholicsm which more accurately represents the source. chrismdp (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups
The source for the ethnic groups in South Korea is not the number of Korean citizens who have different ethnicity, but the number of "foreign" people who might not hold Korean citizenships but live in South Korea. The information about the ethnic groups in South Korea needs to be correctly edited please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.64.190.176 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) YES, someone please edit the percentages. If 2% are Japanese, that would mean 1 million Japanese live in Korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.3.162 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not correct information. I will delete the field. You can find an article related with this, http://news1.kr/articles/771326 . --Cheol (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

South Korea is the most corrupt developed nation in Asia
So commonly known that it hardly needs a ref, but here's some more.


 * http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/7/legacy-of-corruption-still-exists-in-south-korea/
 * http://www.heritage.org/index/country/southkorea Despite the political system’s overall health, bribery, influence peddling, and extortion remain present in politics, business, and everyday life.
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/10/us-korea-nuclear-idUSBRE99905O20131010
 * http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/12/03/51/0301000000AEN20131203002700315F.html
 * http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/east-asia-the-pacific/republic-of-korea/snapshot.aspx
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/asia/lee-myung-bak-of-south-korea-apologizes-for-corruption-scandals.html?_r=0

etc. etc.

More of the WikiCoverup can be found at: Corruption in South Korea Hcobb (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If indeed the "fact" that South Korea "is the most corrupt developed nation in Asia", and it is commonly known and published on reliable sites all over, why did you not link your fact to one of those reliable sources in the first place, instead of linking to an anti-Korean site, whose aggregated stories are collected and translated by some anonymous "Ryan" and some anonymous "Nate"? That site, on its about page, has as part of its mission to air "Korea's dirty laundry... to the rest of the world." NPOV?

It seems your main point comes from a 2013 Transparency International report. (At least, that's what the anti-Korean site pointed to.) Yet in just looking at the first of your sources just listed (The Washington Times), that article doesn't even mention the 2013 report. It couldn't have. Because it was written in 2011, making different points about corruption in Korea. It clearly could not be a source for the fact you tried to put into the article.

Please don't throw together any sources your can come up with that involve keywords of "corruption" and "South Korea." If you wish to make a valid point about the problem of corruption, by all means do so. But clearly and carefully make the point, and clearly cite a reliable source. Thank you. Mark Froelich (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not about one event or one survey. Corruption has been a persistent characteristic of South Korea since its founding, and we've whitewashed it. Take for example: "The entire nation is rotten". Now that's obviously a fringe viewpoint from a person of no importance whatsoever, other than being the president of South Korea. http://www.economist.com/node/18989193 This issue gets lots of coverage in the western press, lots of coverage in the Korean press, and no coverage in Wikipedia. Why? Hcobb (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Whole Buddist community Vs each sect in Christianity - Ridiculous !!!
There may be many sects in Buddhism. But the percentage of total Buddhists is compared with each sect in Christianity. This is just to give the impression that Buddhists are majority while they are not. You should really show the graph like "Percentage of Buddhists" Vs "Percentage of Christians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.218.68.61 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Land area
The land area doesn't appear to be showing up. 68.99.224.140 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Gini Coefficient
The Gini coefficient does not agree with the number in the cited reference (CIA World Factbook). Please change the Gini from 41.9 back to 31.1. Additional request: The rank should also be changed from 51st to 109th. Thank you for handling this.

Byungkun (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ - The change was made back in August 2013 - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: Fixed the ranking. Cheers, <b style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5 </b> 05:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014
David kalyan (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sea of Japan (East Sea)
See this discussion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul  Talk   18:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Map requires updated romanization
I just noticed the map ( File:South_Korea_-_Location_Map_(2013)_-_KOR_-_UNOCHA.svg ) uses the old romanisation system for South Korea. How can we update this? Is there a process or do we just update the original SVG directly? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)