Talk:South Korea

---

Religion

If most of the population is non-religious and only 22.8% is mainstream-Buddhism, then why is there only a picture which represents the Buddhists? Invmog (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that way before. This is how it looked back in January, when I first got involved with this ridiculous article. This is how it looked a couple months ago (little changes, other than excising some images and the inexplicable removal of some references). Since then it has obviously been screwed around with (which seems to be what happens with everything in this article...what a surprise). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where this statement comes from: "Just under half of South Koreans profess no religious beliefs." From where has this been referenced? How current is this statement? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlisak (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

orthographic projection???

current image has a low resolution.

South Korea (orthographic projection).svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingj123 (talk • contribs)

It was decided in a discussion above that we would use the locator map, not the orthographic projection. Do not change this without starting a discussion and seeking consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

a) Current map is an .svg (vector-graphic) which, by definition, doesn't have a resolution, but rather just a nominal default resoltion.

b) Current map is nominally 1,000 × 500 pixels. You were trying to replace it with a map that's nominally 541 × 541 pixels. Do the math Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if you have misunderstood, I am not talking about pixels (or size of the image) but the "map quality." the current map is just a low resolution map expanded in size (thus higher pixels). If you compare the two maps, the newer one has greater details. {{subst:uw-unsigned|Kingj123}}

I think the original image (file was overwritten, see below) is more suitable. than in terms of details (islands). The current map is skewed to the left like a Mollweide projection. --Kingj123 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, that's why there's called "locator maps." Their purpose is to simple give people an idea where in the world the country in question is. There are not supposed to show every detail. (Example: if you happen to live on the Comoros, "your" home won't really be visible on the map, either. So if you happen to live on Cheju, the locator map won't show your island.) If you would like to see a detailed map in the article, we can talk about that; but then please get one that is really detailed. Having said that, I will soon adjust the indicated borders to make them thinner. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the (file was overwritten, see below) is approperiate since the country is centered on the map, not skewing towards the right. I know it is not a big deal, and Of course, i don't expect a map that will nessesarily show every house in the country, but the more detail the map is the more accurate it is (even locator maps) so why don't we just switch back to the original one? --Kingj123 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

because it's smaller. Click on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

why does the size matter if both images are larger than the given space in the article?--Kingj123 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's why: because people who want to see more will click on the map to see it larger. In the case of the map you suggested they will get exactly the same small size they have already seen in the box since your suggested version is not larger than what's in the box. In the case of the current map, they'll get one that covers almost half a screen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, why don't we compromise with this? I agree with both points are valid, so edited the old image a bit (I want North Korea to be differentiated from other neighboring countries). I like the "shape" of Kingj123's map which does loo properly, but Seb az86556's map looks the shape of Korean peninsular distorted, but the color looks better. What do you think about this one? Since it is just for test, I guess if we settle down with this, I will ask the original creator of the map to amend the map.--Caspian blue 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Amending isn't the problem, I can do that. We're looking for an .svg. The North-Korea-in-green is... very much POV. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This one is just "test" as I stated above while the original one is SVG, and could not be lost its quality even if it is magnified. If we can reach a consensus, I was planning to ask the original creator of the map to fix any problems raised with his original SVG file. Why do you think that North Korea in light green is a very much POV? I've seen the part of North Korea on many locator maps are colored differently from China/Russia/Japan and both states officially claim to take the whole peninsular, so I don't think that is my POV. I'm getting to feel bad for the accusation.--Caspian blue 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. I changed both colors and size. (as for the light-green-thing, it wasn't an "accusation per se, and no-one is "on trial" here. I just don't think we should get into these kinds of fights.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Inserted this one. It's the exact same map that was suggested, except for color-scheme and size. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just a nitpick, would it be possible to have the colour in green rather than red? I just noticed all other geographic maps of countries are in green as well. Was there a specific reason for the red? Pds0101 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It was made red to be consistent with the category of locator maps that it goes into (somewhere on Commons; Seb az86556 probably has the link). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 SVG-transition (not all maps completed yet). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, original uploader treats the map as his own...so I uploaded the new version again separately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the locator map to the most recent and more commonly practical green-grey format. I felt that the blue gradient and red map was too exclusively visual and spectacular. Quite unusual actually. This was just a bold change I put foward. Any opinions? Pds0101 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[1]

Sorry, but I think this needs to be discussed before being changed. Through this and the other discussion linked above, I believe there was a consensus to use the red map, which is has a significantly better resolution and conforms to the standards of the "2009 SVG transition". If the thickness of the border lines is a problem, that can be easily fixed; I think Seb has already done so somewhere, but I'm not sure where that file is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see. Well I don't really have a problem with the current one as such, its just that I thought the change would make it appear more standardized. The current orthographic projection is a one of a kind. Oh well. Perhaps we can discuss this for later. Pds0101 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gini coefficients for Korea and Japan

Before the edit summaries get too stroppy, I thought I'd start a section here.

user:Tankiona is perfectly justified in citing the CIA world factbook, as it's an RS. However, (and this is the first time I've ever seen this) the world factbook is simply wrong with its figure on Japan of 38.1, particularly for 2002. Many other sources will give you gini coefficients in the 20s or low thirties for more recent figures, but wherever there is comparable data, Korea's Gini is above Japan's. For example, from the OECD Japan/Korea desk in 2007 we have this pdf on page 19, which puts Japan at 32-ish and Korea at 34-ish. The World Bank figures (unfortunately over a range of years) give Japan a gini of 24.9 in 1993, with Korea at 31.6 in 1998. There is no way that the CIA factbook can be right in Japan suddenly developing inequality to match that of the US in such a short space of time. Furthermore, there are numerous scholars who all take Japan as one of the more equal societies in the OECD. From this we read "Are there any Asian countries that are as equitable as or more equitable than Japan? There are none." here is another example, approving of HDR figures as a method of comparison. In addition, one of the latest books studying international inequality (Wilkinson, Richard; Pickett, Kate (2009). The Spirit Level. Penguin. ISBN 978-1-846-14039-6. has Japan as one of the most equal in the industrialised world.

Crucially, although the UN HDR tables admit problems in comparing the data, it is not clear at all where the CIA gets their figures from because they do not give references. They do not operate the same level of on-the-ground social and economic research as the World Bank, UN or OECD, so the numbers are derived from other sources. As their figures do not accord with any other major source, we have to presume they've made a mistake.

Tankonia refers in the edit summary to [File_talk:Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png]. If you check the sources they refer to, the OECD "2009 factbook" does not list 2009 figures (the figures are for 1994 for Japan, and 2006 for Korea). In the IMF report, Korea is listed as more unequal than Japan. (where Japan is listed 31.4, Korea is listed as 33.1) The source in the IMF is not clear, alas.

So there we are. No other organisation anywhere reproduces the CIA's figure, and no academic source I can find treats it seriously, except one that is so sloppy in its sourcing, it references it to the wrong organisation. It's clearly a mistake. Where Japan's gini is in the 30s, at the same time, Korea's is a little worse. In other sources, Japan's gini is down there with the Scandinavians. There just isn't enough to support a statement that Korea is the most equal of the developed Asian economies.

As a final comment, it doesn't help that Gini coefficients can be measured in many different ways - see page 122 here for an example of how different numbers are generated for the same country.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Gini Coefficient between 1984 to 2006. see http://www.nli-research.co.jp/report/econo_report/2007/ke0703.pdf --Tankiona (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that article, when using the same measure (called 二人以上全世帯, households of two or more people), Korea has a gini of 31.5ish (page 6), and Japan 28.5ish (average of two different (but close) measures given on page 3). As you can see on page 3, that particular measure produces a lower number in general. The sourcing for that piece (p.19) is even more varied than the UN HDR which you disparaged so greatly, although some of the figures do come from sources cited already that still show Korea as above Japan on Gini.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, see http://wwwdbtk.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/kouhyo/data-kou6/data17/H17gai.pdf in 2005, Japan had Gini Coefficient of 0.3873, compare with South Korea's 0.314 in the same period. Only the 1993 UN source shows Japan had a low level of Gini Coefficient. see http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf --Tankiona (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the whole reason people are coming these sources in the first place is an attempt to write pro-South Korea, POV mumbo-jumbo that has no place in an encyclopedia; if sources like the CIA factbook didn't give editors like Tankonia the opportunity to say "South Korea is the best!!!" then these editors would be ignoring them. The fact of the matter is that, as you say, there's no way to compare these GINIs across countries. The UN's HDI source explicitly says you can't make cross-country comparisons with it, and the CIA one uses different numbers from different years (which means any attempt to compare them and make statements such as "Korea has the smallest rich-poor gap" is bad, irresponsible science). There's no point mentioning any of this junk in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit strong. It has been noted in scholarly work that Japan has been remarkably equal while achieving spectacular economic growth. Equality in general, according to the thesis developed by Wilkinson and Pickett, correlates remarkably with social wellbeing, trust and overall life chances across different wealthy countries, so there does seem to be a certain degree of reliability in using things like gini.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying GINI is unreliable. I'm saying you can't compare statistics from 2002 to statistics from 2007 and then claim that one country is "better" than the other, and likewise you can't make that claim using statistics that admit they're not controlled across countries. Those two issues rule out use of both the CIA and UN sources in this article, at least for trying to make the nationalistic claim Tankonia is trying to make. Unless someone can find better sources that allow a real comparison, there is no point trying to say South Korea has the "smallest gap". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, to be fair, this problem wouldn't have arisen if the CIA factbook figure had been anything like correct or consistent. Gini wouldn't change that much over such a short period of time when there were no economic shocks, so if the CIA figures had been correct, there would have been some kind of basis for the statement. But we are both agreed that actually there are no grounds for the statement that Korea is the most equal of all the developed Asian countries.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that is continuously added to the article reads "South Korea has the smallest gaps between the rich and the poor..."

Regardless of the sources used, this is just plainly wrong. Gini coefficient in this context measures the distribution of household income. It doesn't say anything about personal income, wealth, or any other factor, such as quality of living, health, education, etc., all of which are also components of "gaps between the rich and the poor".

Unless proper sources are used, this comparison should not be inserted into the article at all. And even if good sources are used, please stop using that misleading interpretation of what the Gini coefficient measures. Baeksu (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures need changing "after division"

The "after division" section describes the turmoil of the Korean War and other major events. It is illustrated by two irrelevant photographs of stadiums. Can these be replaced with some images from the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a great Korean war photo here that is in the public domain. I don't know how to insert photos, so maybe another editor could do us all a favour and replace one of the stadium pix with this one:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2919551783_c183188a1f.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/imcomkorea/2919551783/&usg=__Nv9H_bM3HfE0leKfM2eRrHM-wVY=&h=408&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=1p4UbLI_imb7qM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkorean%2Bwar%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.177 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The two stadium images are not irrelevant. That part of the history section mainly describes events after the Korean war, including the 1988 Summer olympic games and the 2002 World cup, hence the two correlating pictures. I suppose another image could be added, or the 2002 world cup image could be replaced. That image you have provided does not really show anything about the Korean War, but proper copyright would need to obtained if that flickr photo is not yours. Please sign your contribution. Pds0101 (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's odd to have two stadium photos. Is the history of South Korea in the 20th century best encapsulated by two photos of stadiums? I think not. The seminal historical event of the 20th century as far as South Korea is concerned was the Korean war.

Islam 0.4% in South Korea? Bias data

Confucianism and Cheondoism are more numerous than Muslims in South Korea that is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does your truth have a source? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidential?

Surely Korea has a semi-presidential system of government since it has a prime minister as head of government?--90.208.150.105 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

change map

change map to File:South_Korea_(orthographic_projection).svg, Any comments?--220.246.168.145 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Has been discussed at Talk:South_Korea#South_Korea.27s_orthographic_projection and Talk:South_Korea#orthographic_projection.3F.3F.3F. Read that first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmetic Surgery

It seems like a bit of a miss to fail to mention the fact that S Korea probably has the highest percentage of population who have taken plastic surgery. This should be included under culture section. Why? It is significant and considerably unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.53.85.103 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? We don't just report rumors and personal impressions, and I know of several other countries that also make this claim. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems virtually impossible to obtain any source whatsoever which lists countries by their plastic surgery procedures per population. The closest thing I have found so far was a list compiled by Nationmaster [2]. But this list is probably as good as nothing because its outdated from 2002. As far as I am concerned, the Korean media has much to do with sensationalizing plastic surgery, or making it seem more common than it really is. Such a shame. But don't take it from my opinion, we need reliable sources if that is to be included. Pds0101 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There was story in the Korea Times recently which said 80 per cent of Korean women had either already had cosmetic surgery, or were considering having cosmetic surgery in the near future. You might be able to hunt that down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium on photos?

Over the past few months, several editors (myself included) have voiced concerns about the flooding of this article with useless, decorative photos. Many photos serve little purpose but to show off. In particular, the Economy, Education, and Demographics sections tend to get useless fluff photos; on the other hand, some sections lack photos (for example, the History section doesn't have any historically significant images).

I'm thinking it might be nice to set a 'rule' that people shouldn't add photos without first proposing/discussing them at the talk page. We could stick hidden comments at the top of each section. Does anyone else agree that something like this should be done? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree - esp. when the amount of images forces them to be left-right-left-right-aligned just so they won't make the page too long. Nothing against left-alignment, but when the combined height of the pictures exceeds the amount of text, something s wrong... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's currently a computer-generated image of a boat in Incheon which isn't real, and a nationalistic growth-rate graph with a Korean flag on it constructed out of only three data points. Both of these should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyper-Nationalism

There is a problem on this article. A big one. When you read this article, after having read many other articles on countries, you can't help but notice the extreme level of nationalism on this article compared to others. Yes country articles are bound to have some nationalism, but read the articles on say Australia or Canada and you'll see what I mean. There's an enormous difference. For starters those articles actually describe the country. This article is only a list of rankings for South Korea. Read the economy section for instance. South Korea is the third largest, South Korea is the fifth largest, South Korea is in the top ten, South Korea is in the top 5. Compare it to the other articles. The entire section is just a list of ranks with no description of the country whatsoever. I got almost no information about what South Korea is like as a country after reading the article. Yes country articles do include when the country happens to be the largest at something. Being the largest at something can be considered relevant, but not a continuous stream of irrelevant facts about how some construction company was the sixth largest at something in a particular year and how some subway system is the ninth largest by a certain measure according to some particular website and so on. Please can we have an article which actually just talks about South Korea, rather than being simply a rankings list you might find on the Guiness World Records website. Many of the sections have far too many pictures of irrelevant things. So much so that the text is squashed between them all and the article looks like a picture book, with a massive list of irrelevant ranks between millions of pictures. The hyper-nationalism needs to be seriously curbed if this article wants to appear anything other than seriously ridiculous. Bambuway (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and these same problems have been pointed out numerous times by numerous editors. Unfortunately, cleanup tags have been repeatedly blanked by other editors, and the article has stayed more or less the same for a very long time. I pretty much gave up on this article several months ago because I was sick of dealing with the bullshit from the ultranationalist editors who frequent this page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The false good figure is surviving[3] while the true bad figure is reverted[4]. There is no credibility in this article at all. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, typically, you have failed to provide any single source for your edit here. You replaced the cited info on the 2008's statistics with the 2009 statistics with no source. Thus, what you're claiming about the bad/good figure is just "untruth". You also removed the mention of "Japan" from the article with no rationale. Please do not mix with your agenda with the article's status quo.--Caspian blue 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that phoenix777 finally decided to heed my advice about WP:V and WP:RS.[5] Wikipedians should after all try to write about "credible" contents based on sources. --Caspian blue 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenix777. You can't hold on to out of date figures and ranks simply because you prefer them. Just another example of what this discussion is all about. Bambuway (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that "out of date" should stay, but do not support any unsourced information. So, Bambuway, be careful not to throw out your bad-faith and false accusations here. Your hyperbolic thread title actually tells everything. WP:SOFIX with reliable sources instead of complaining.--Caspian blue 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Caspian is right, Bambuway. Regardless of how old the figures are, no one should be changing them without providing a source; an article like this cannot tolerate more unsourced junk. No one is "holding onto" old figures because of preference; we just hold onto what is sourced, in favor of what is not. If someone wants to provide newer figures, they also need to provide a source. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest figures confirm that South Korea has slipped to 15th in terms of economy size. This is just one of several recent stories to confirm this. http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2916336 I will add the new figure to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.33 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We already knew Republic of Korea slipped to world's 15th largest economy behind Russia, India, Australia, Brazil, etc. many years ago. Putting that issue aside, as far as economic data are concerned I think we must wait for IMF's April 2010 edition of world economic indicators for most reliable citations. I do not find it easy to believe that CIA lists ROK's economy to have shrunk 0.8% while all other reports both domestic and international claim that ROK's economy grew 0.2~0.25%. --Ambassador (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)