Talk:Seoul

No information about music in Seoul?

While not knowledgable enough to make the edits, I know that Seoul has symphony orchestras and at least one opera company. Why doesn't this article discuss Seoul's musical institutions? 68.58.36.14 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits by Comfylaptop

Gardenfive was banned, but now our friendly sockpuppet is back. He is disrupting several pages by deleting sourced material and adding nationalistic rubbish about "landmark" buildings and "leading" businesses.

Yes, he appears to be one of these "Korea is best" people. What is the process for instituting a ban / block?

Judging by the tone and writing style, Comfylaptop is a sockpuppet of banned user Tnaniua. I hope they can shut him/her down before he/she causes too much damage.

Nationalistic edits by Gardenfive

Gardenfive (which is the name of a commercial building near my apartment in southeastern Seoul) is making disruptive edits of a nationalistic nature. Specifically, he is inserting unnecessary comparisons of SK with other countries ("ranked ahead of Italy and Japan" type comments) - the type of stuff that many of us have worked months to overcome. He is also deleting sourced material, claiming that there is a consensus when there is not. I suspect that Gardenfive is a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (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 [1] 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)

If you perceived my edit not to be neutral, would you please elaborate on the reasons. Lakshmix himself wrote that my version was NPOV and I don't see anything POV in it. Even with it, the article remains full of qualifiers about why Seoul is the "best" city in many fields. I also note he has not contributed on the talk page. But as for the suggestions for improvement, I suggest removing most of these rankings and claims whether a city (any city) is the best in the world, best in Asia, best in Europe etc. They don't add much and too many of them (and this article is full of them) only makes the article POV and peacocky, even if done with sources.JdeJ (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your accusatory tone does not help you to gain "consensus" from your disputers or editors who has been editing this article. Besides, I don't see why your edit regarding List of cities by quality of living would be addressed in the intro. If you think the article has a great problem, all you've had to do is to prevent "examples" and desirable changes" like KieferFL (talk · contribs) has done to South Korea, not just shouting "This article is full of POV".--Caspian blue 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have quite clearly stated precisely what I perceive the problem with the article to be, as is clear for everyone to read. If CaspianBlue doesn't think that the ranking of quality of living should be addressed in the intro, perhaps he would like to elaborate on why it's so important to have the ranking of information exchange in the intro? Why the ranking for cultural exchange? I would think that the average reather would find the quality of living in a city at least as relevant as the information exchange or the cultural exchange in the same city. Luckily enough, Sennen goroshi has taken the time to improve the article.JdeJ (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ (talk · contribs), good practice of retracting this outrageous personal attacks and bad faith. You're the one who wants to change the article, so precise rationales for your change would be presented here to people. You still fail to convince me that the minor economic fact should be mentioned in the intro. That may be more fit to economic section, not intro. Your rhetoric tone and personal attacks would only cause unnecessary conflicts.--Caspian blue 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought my question was rather straightforward: Why would the ranking for information exchange, cultural exchange or other rankings in the intro be more important than the ranking for quality of living? As for rhetorics and personal attacks, I can only agree with you and I recommend you to keep the same things in mind yourself.JdeJ (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it have escaped CaspianBlue's attention, but Sennen goroshi and myself have been very active on this talk page trying to argue our case, while the user(s) reverting us has not participated at all. Still CaspianBlue continues to accuse us of not arguing our case. Personally, I find that rather strange.JdeJ (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you do treat people with respect, you'd be treated as such. Why do you think that the ranking about quality of living per city is more important than those of cultural exchanges, informition exchange? That should be your answer first since you're the one insisting to add it to the intro. You may think about that why people are favorable toward KieferFL's bold edits unlike you and Sennen groshi's. (FYI, I've supported KieferFL's cleanup).--Caspian blue 09:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but could you please put that into understandable English? I honestly don't understand what you mean in your second sentence above. If you meant to ask why I think quality of living is more important than cultural exchange, then the answer is that I did not removed cultural exchange, I merely added quality of living and it was swiftly removed. And you still haven't answered my question despite me repeting it several times. So it's all fine for you to demand that I explain my edits (which I gladly do) but then you should show the same courtesy as well. Just shying away from it, saying that I have to explain everything over and over again is not proper conduct. I repeat that your concerns as a moderator seems to be more towards Korean nationalism than towards improving Wikipedia. While I have tried several times to explain my edits, all you have done is to complain without making any constructive imput at all, not even when you're explicitly asked to provide some. You are quite simply not fit to be a moderator here if that is the way you behave. JdeJ (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My role here is not a moderator, because I honestly feel annoyed at your repetitive usage of "KOREA IS BEST BEST BEST". I am very curious as to why many people have kept coming to complain about how biased the article of South Korea with similar tone with you after the article was protected. Also except a few, people just come by and say "oh, biased, biased, biased" then never come back to actually improve the article. As for the ranking that you inserted to the article, I can't find such entry from articles of other cities and think "minor fact" of economy, so should be more fit to economy section.--Caspian blue 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chaning your previous post, I now understand what you meant. And you're free to feel annoyed at whatever you want, but not to let that influece your moderating. However, I do apologise if my comment caused offense, it was not my intention, I just meant to summarise but I see your point. You will also have noticed that I used that phrase in my first edit on this page and haven't repeated it since, nor do I intend to. I agree with you, just saying that something is biased is not very helpful but I have explained in some detail what I perceive the problem to be, both here and at South Korea [2]. You will also note that I'm involved in working towards a compromise on this article here below.JdeJ (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seoul&diff=260164876&oldid=260153988

I hope everyone can agree that the article needed changes, I have removed unsourced information, leading/POV terms and items that were not notable.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good changes, thanks for taking the time to do them. The points you removed were either unsourced or not very relevant, some were neither.JdeJ (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is just great, I make an edit trying hard to be as neutral as possible, nothing negative/nothing positive - just notable and neutral facts - and some wonderful editor reverts me with the summary "you are Japanese blah blah blah" I wish people would concentrate on the edits and the articles, instead of the editors. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also in the introduction why has the term "global city" been removed and replaced with only a quality of life ranking? Major cities such as Paris or Chicago include the definition of "global cities" in their introduction and Toronto includes both "global city" and "quality of life". I definetly think this should be included.124.188.214.190 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

PS Fair enough, I kept in the part about Seoul being a global city. Please sign your contributions.JdeJ (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Some good changes have been made, however I think that perhaps too much may have been removed in some sections that leads to ambiguity. For example; In the shopping section why has the word "top" been taken out of this sentence? "Myeongdong is a shopping and entertainment area in downtown Seoul which contains some of the city's top stores and fashion boutiques." The sentence would sound as though there is no stores or fashion boutiques in Seoul.

Also, what is the reason for the removal of "Seoul has a comprehensive subway network that interlinks every district of the city with one another and the surrounding area. With more than 8 million passengers a day, Seoul has one of the busiest subway systems in the world. The Seoul Metropolitan Subway has 10 lines which serves Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi province and northern Chungnam province." Please refer to Metro systems by annual passenger rides. There is nothing POV about defining the Seoul subway system as one of the world's busiest when in fact it is. 124.188.214.190 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. You're absolutely right about the Myeongdong, the sentence gives the wrong impression if we leave out "top". I would also agree with you regarding the metro system, I see no harm in bringing it back. Thanks for your input!JdeJ (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have made a more postive contribution. Just one note though, to nitpick, I believe you had previosuly included the quality of life ranking in Seoul's introduction for the interest of keeping this article more neutral. However, now with most of the peacock/nationalistic contents removed, I'm not quite sure if 87th in world is something notable enough to mention in the introduction. I've had a thorough look through and compared Seoul's introductory section with other major cities and by the looks of it, I don't think there is anything too overly positive about it, considering now much of POV has been removed. I hope we can further discuss for the removal of that phrase. Much appreciate your contribution to neutralize POV, Seoul's introduction almost began to look South Korea's.Pds0101 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the transclusion of Template:Seoul weatherbox was removed during all the reverting back and forth, ending up with the template being deleted due to it being orphaned. If nobody has a problem with this I will reinstate it. --Joowwww (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do, I'm sure it was just a mistake by whoever it was that deleted it. I would think everybody agrees on the relevance of the weatherbox, almost all city-articles have one.JdeJ (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I was pleasantly suprised by the edits made since I removed lots of information, I assumed that it was merely going to be reverted back to its previous state, but it seems pretty good. Some of the edits I made were not due to POV, but also due to notability and lack of citations - if something is the largest or one of the largest - then a source would be nice, also if something is merely one of the largest then is it notable? I assume Tokyo, New York, London, etc all have one of the largest whatevers seeing as they are major cities - but the line for notability has to be drawn somewhere. But overall this is starting to look like a much better article - I consider the main issues now to be slight grammar changes, and lack of citations. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just read this article and it seems to have a boastful tone. I've also noticed this on the "South Korea" page. Why are there so many listings and rankings comparing Seoul to other cities/countries? I note that none of the "rankings" are unfavourable. This article gives a strong impression of having been written by Koreans with an agenda of promoting their city. Personally, I agree with the guy above that the quality-of-life rating should be included - even if just to add some much-needed balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, quality of life is included in the article. There is a consensus among non-Korean editors that it deserves to be there, because it offers a broad, general impression of Seoul's living standard in comparison with other cities, a comparison that is not conveyed by the micro-facts that permeate the article ("ranks sixth for headquartering global businesses..." that kind of thing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

How come this article, has like-50000 pictures? If someone could possibly remove some of the unnecessary images-it would greatly improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.88.152 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, too many pictures. A a good article should never have this many images. Pds0101 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing two images & further discussion is welcomed. --Hongmt (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Seoul weatherbox

Why does this template keep getting removed from the article? It's a standard template that is used on most major city articles. If someone explained their reason for removing it then that would be fine, but just undoing it without explanation is not helpful. --Joowwww (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a repository of gallery

I don't know why various IP and new users including 112.148.104.47 (talk · contribs) constantly and persistently add "duplicate images" to the article which is filled with too many images already. I once cut out the gallery section several weeks ago since Commons has the dedicated page, and many of images are duplicated. However, it was restored by IP and new users, and the section takes 1/4 of the article, that is out of MoS as well. Moreover, the article in a poor status is a good example of what editors should not do. WP:OWN for images and the article are also concerning. Moreover, 112.148.104.47 why you're repeatedly deleting my contribution of paraphasing and rewording from ugly lists? Using lists should be minimal to make the article more encyclopedic. Please "DISCUSS" when your edit is contested instead of blindly and silently reverting. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For 5 days, none has not respond to this discussion thread, so I removed the heavy gallery. Use Commons:Seoul instead. Seems like User:Ziggymaster is coming back to push his extreme POV to not only the article of South Korea but also here.--Caspian blue 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I would have thought that there would be more mention of prevailing religions, though maybe this is true for the SK article. In my experience, Christianity has been adopted in South Korea more than any Asian nation (excepting the Philippines.) I have no idea why this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tre.fire (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe, but Korea isn't a very religious country compared to some others in Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Turkey, Saudi Arabia...). Only about half of Koreans are at all religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

True, a lot of Koreans are officially 'Christian'- but not a lot of people tend to follow a religious life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.156.42 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

Mascot of Seoul City is missing. It's the Haetae. But I can't add it b/c I can't edit the thing - it's too complicated for me. --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 07:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Area???

Can anybody tell me what the godforsaken definitive area of Seoul is?!! For God's sake, the article says both 605.25km² and 605.39km². The Seoul city home page's stats[3] puts it at 605.40km². What the |-| € 1_ 1_ is the area??? --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Questioning of Living Standard Comparison

In the introduction of this article, it says:

"With a GDP per capita of $32,171 in 2008, Seoul has a living standard comparable to France and Italy."

I find it odd that the living standard of Seoul, a city, is compared to countries like France and Italy. Shouldn't the comparison be on a city-to-city level?

Also, I think the rankings and dates should be updated. Why insist on the higher ranking from 2007? It should at least be updated to 2008 or 2009.

"Seoul was Asia's most expensive city to live in 2007, and the third most expensive city worldwide."

Seoul is not one of Asia's most expensive cities any more. It is now ranked outside of the top 10, isn't it?--Sir Edgar (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You make an excellent point about the erroneous comparison. I have deleted that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Gimjang (김장)

I have rescued the article Gimjang - it started like this, and was threatened with speedy deletion. I think I have added enough to alleviate that, and I plan to add more, and submit it as a "Did you know..." - I remember eating Kimchi in Korea, and realize what an important dish it is; I think that this is a worthy article.

Any help would, of course, be appreciated.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a section for the Korea?78.181.73.88 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is here [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.73.88 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hanja in infobox

I would appreciate it if editors, mostly IP n00bs who don't read the NAME section, would quit adding the Chinese translation to the Hanja section of the infobox. AS noted in the article, the city's Hangul name has no direct Hanja equivalent, and the Chinese translations are exactly that: not native Korean. —— 华钢琴49 (TALK) 23:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hello, I was reading the introductory information for the "Seoul" article and I ran across a strange sentence:

"The city is populated by kun Song which is a very wealthy man."

It looks like an amateur edit or at the very least someone's incomplete edit of the page. Just bringing it to your attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campton5 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

There seems to be a mistake in the demographics section. Seoul's population is compared with New York the state and not the city. A more appropriate comparison would be with New York City. I haven't checked the other cities but I would think all of the cities mentioned in this reference should be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushiroda80 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why is the only pronunciation given the Korean one? In English, to the best of my knowledge, the pronunciation in English is one syllable with a long O. See, for example, American Heritage and Webster's New World Collegiate (Wiley), both at www.yourdictionary.com.Kdammers (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Could someone who knows how to insert phonetic symbols add the English pronunciation? DBlomgren (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Seoul" Etymology

As far as I can tell, the citation linking the name "Seoul" to "Seorabeol" just links to yahoo travel. Is there a source for this?

222.109.146.71 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the following lines

Tried to rewrite the sentence, but the lines seem to be "advertising" the shopping mall.

"One of the newest shopping malls in Seoul is Times Square, which also features a CGV Starium Cinema with the world's largest cinema screen as certified by Guinness World Records."

--Hongmt (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seoul is "Metropolitan Government" not "Special City"

Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#서울특별시 is not Seoul Special City, but Seoul Metropolitan Government in English and discuss this. ― Yes0song 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Street photo

Street in Seoul. (Can anyone identify it?)

It may not be of much use, but this is a picture I took in Seoul during a brief visit a few years ago, and it's unlike any of the photos currently in the article, so I thought I'd upload it. The problem is, I can't remember the name of the place. It has a hotel in it called Rees (the address of which I'm unable now to find anywhere), and if I recall correctly it's a very short walk from Changgyeonggung. Would anyone have any idea what this street is? Aridd (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)