User talk:Mtd2006/Draft of South Korea

Goals for revised introduction
These are my goals for revision of the introduction section of the South Korea article. The aim is to solve long-standing problems, to remove point-of-view tone, and to achieve a neutral, balanced introduction that is accepted by consensus. My hope is that neutral language will help to improve the quality rating of the article, and make the introduction less dependent on current events. Please see "An assessment of the Introduction" for details. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Use the introduction from http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/한국어 as an example of essential facts,
 * 2) Shorten the introduction to concisely describe South Korea,
 * 3) Remove overstated facts and flowery language (weasel and peacock),
 * 4) Remove cherry-picked references and statements,
 * 5) Resolve disputed material by consensus.

Status
I'm happy with the first paragraph. Another editor prefers to say "South Korea … is a country", but that conveys less information than "is a semi-presidential republic". True, the form of government is repeated in the infobox, so "country" is not a big issue. We should avoid trying to squeeze both "country" and "semi-presidential republic" into the paragraph. The first sentence is already wordy. The paragraph would be more convoluted if we try to explain the form of government in an additional sentence.

The introduction needs two or three paragraphs. At the moment, I'm undecided what to include. The second paragraph is trimmed from the original, but it's off-track. It can't decide if its topic is history, economics, form of government, foreign relations, or geography. The history of Korea is significant as is the division into North and South. Is history the right topic for the second paragraph?
 * I'm going with history for the topic of the second paragraph. The economics, form of government, foreign relations, and geography stuff goes bye-bye, or somewhere else.

The third paragraph suffers from cherry-picked factoids that are subject to current events. Two topics seem appropriate: economy or foreign relations. Which?

References problems

 * The reference to KOREA: Future is now for Korean info-tech supports the statement "South Korea has a high-tech and futuristic infrastructure." This citation is inappropriate for these reasons:
 * 1) The article is a current-events news story, not an analysis of South Korea's infrastructure,
 * 2) Specifically, the story's topic is wireless communications and broadband Internet access,
 * 3) The story states, "The country has also one of the world's most advanced broadband infrastructures,"
 * 4) The story is balanced; it describes problems: foreign exchange rates, foreign competition, reduced corporate profits, and government policies to deal with these issues.
 * The economic assessment and this news story belong in the Economy section where the positive and negative details can be properly covered. I propose removing "South Korea has a high-tech and futuristic infrastructure" from the introduction.
 * Mtd2006 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A reference to Encyclopedia Britannica, South Korea: Economic and social developments is cited to support statements that describe South Korea as an "industrial powerhouse", with an economy that grew remarkably, and among the world’s most highly industrialized nations. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) also states:
 * "In the 1950s South Korea had an underdeveloped, agrarian economy that depended heavily on foreign aid."
 * "In the late 20th century, however, economic growth slowed, and in 1997 South Korea was forced to accept a $57 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—then the largest such rescue in IMF history."
 * "… the country entered the 21st century on a relatively firm economic footing."
 * The EB article is balanced with positive and negative assessments of South Korea. The Wikipedia version has selected only the positive aspects, but that's an inappropriate use of the EB article.


 * It would be equally incorrect to use the EB article to describe South Korea as an "underdeveloped, agrarian economy," whose "economic growth [has] slowed", so much so that South Korea "was forced to accept a $57 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)." These statements focus on the negative aspects from the EB article, but are also entirely inappropriate.

Mtd2006 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose a neutral, summary statement in the introduction that describes the South Korea economy (to be determined), see An assessment of the Introduction. Details of positive and negative economic developments belong in the Economy section or the Economy of South Korea main article, where a full and balanced description is possible.

Sea of Japan (East Sea)
Per WP:NC-KO, for all Korea and South Korea articles use: "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" as the name of the body of water that bounds the east side of the Korean Peninsula. Mtd2006 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The location of South Korea in the article has been a compromise that avoids the disputed name of the body of water that separates Korea from Japan. Awkward and unreferenced descriptions such as, "it borders North Korea to the north and closely neighbors China to the west and Japan to the east", don't describe a peninsula. The words "closely neighbors" simply avoid mention of the fact that the Korean Peninsula is bordered on three sides by water.

I propose a description that uses an authoritative source, The National Atlas of Korea, and the Wikipedia naming convention for the Sea of Japan. Specifically, The National Atlas of Korea says that Korea "is connected to the Chinese mainland, with three sides surrounded by the East Sea, the South Sea, and the Yellow Sea", which I've restated to say, Korea is a peninsula. The names East Sea and South Sea are the names used in Korea. The name of the East Sea is agreed by Wikipedia naming conventions as Sea of Japan (East Sea). The name Korea Strait is clearly described and mapped. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

National Foundation Day
National Foundation Day has caused trouble. South Korea's National Foundation Day holiday is 3 October. It celebrates the founding of Korea in the year 2333 BCE. The date, 3 October, is a modern concept associated with the Gregorian Calendar. Nothing I've read says Korea was founded on a specific date; rather the traditional account relates to events in Tangun's life. A recent edit to South Korea substitutes "Founding of Gojoseon". I like it!

The Three Kingdoms
I'd like to use, but I haven't seen it. When I get a chance, I'll look for it in a library. Meanwhile, will be okay.

McCune-Reischauer and Revised Romanization for the Korean language
See Wikipedia naming conventions (Korean)

There are two typical systems used to write the Korean language using Latin alphabets (four systems are in common use for specific purposes). One is the McCune-Reischauer (M-R) system, and another is the Revised Romanization (RR) system developed by the South Korean government. No single romanization system satisfactorily represents both the pronunciation and grammar of Korean because of three characteristics of the language: sounds that cannot easily be represented by Latin letters, differences in the way Koreans and non-Koreans perceive the same sounds, and Korean orthography. M-R has a preference for phonic pronunciation of Korean words that's familiar to western readers -- spelling can be inconsistent (if one doesn't know the complex M-R transcription rules, it's not possible to reproduce the Hangul language from the M-R spelling); RR has a preference for consistent transliteration -- pronunciation can be unclear to western readers. Quoting one source, "…the controversy continues. And it will probably continue as long as humans seek a better way, because neither the Korean nor the English writing system is equipped to represent all the rules of Korean pronunciation in a way that is entirely accurate, convenient and aesthetically pleasing."

M-R was common in South Korea until RR was introduced in 2000. Now, however, RR is preferred for place names. Visitors to South Korea before 2000 may be more familiar with M-R place names or variations that omit hyphens and diacriticals. Recent visitors will be familiar with RR place names. The differences between M-R and RR occur in both consonants and vowels. M-R uses (p, t, k and ch); RR uses (b, d, g and j). M-R extensively uses diacriticals and hyphens. Until Unicode became widely available, it was difficult to accurately display these symbols. RR avoids this problem by substituting two-letter digraphs where MR uses a breve. The breve cannot be typed on an ordinary keyboard; many do not know how to produce it on a computer, and even when it's used, it won't be displayed with programs that aren't set to use compatible character-encoding.

The word 한글 itself is variously romanized as Hangul, Han'gŭl, and Hangeul (not a complete list). The dynastic name 조선 is romanized as Choson, Chosŏn, and Joseon.

I've written this vague and imprecise, hand-waving summary, without proper citations or references, because of the complexity of the problem. Editors who contribute to articles about Korea will notice conflicting references, spellings, and personal preferences of other editors.

Is there one romanization system that's "best?" The answer is subject to a wide range of interpretation. If an encyclopedia article selects the RR system, it will be inconsistent with cited materials in which M-R is common. The U.S. government uses the M-R system. The RR system's consistent spelling is preferable; the M-R system is preferable because its pronunciation is intuitive for western readers; the Yale system is used by linguists because it conveniently represents the sound of the Korean language as spoken by Koreans.

Korean romanization — advice for editors
(to be determined)

Please avoid edit-warring over romanization. There is probably no "correct" or "preferred" method.
 * for place names in South Korea, use the RR system per WP:NC-KO
 * Foreigners Confused Over Different Spelling Over Dokdo
 * cited references, especially historical or academic material may use M-R,
 * use "RR place name (M-R place name)", e.g. Busan (Pusan), if needed to avoid confusion,
 * United Nations recommendations:
 * Manual for the national standardization of geographical names,
 * Technical reference manual for the standardization of geographical names,
 * Working Group on Romanization Systems,
 * Consistent Use of Place Names,


 * other material presents unique problems
 * M-R favors intuitive pronunciation for western readers (this too is disputed),
 * RR avoids confusion caused by inconsistent spelling,
 * western academic material typically uses M-R (although there's a trend toward RR),
 * The Korea Herald and The Korea Times English editions favor RR,
 * RR in an encyclopedia article, but M-R in references is confusing,
 * modified M-R is common in many contexts, e.g., Hangul although Han'gŭl is M-R romanization


 * try parenthesis to resolve confusion between RR and M-R,
 * avoid overuse of Hangul itself as it's Greek to most readers.

Two opinion articles:
 * Use Hangeul, Not Hangul
 * Untitled Document

For anyone interested in detailed information, these references are useful.
 * The McCune-Reischauer Korean Romanization System: a history of Hangul romanization systems, the differences between systems, and the advantages and disadvantages of these systems,
 * Romanization System for Korean: detailed explanation of the McCune-Reischauer system,
 * Korean Romanization Chart: simplified comparison of romanization systems,
 * Korean Romanization: system used by U.S. government.

Mtd2006 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)