Talk:Korea

Currency

Lol, some funny guy changed the currency name from won to lost.--Egrian (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese name for Korea

www.daehanking.com www.universalking.pe.kr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.105.193.156 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As well as I know, "锦绣江山" generically refers to beautiful/scenic nation and does not specifically point to Korea. Quick internet search reveals the source as Dupu, a Chinese poet in Tang dynasty. 唐·杜甫《清明二首（其二）》：“秦城楼阁烟花里，汉主山河锦绣中。”

Could someone who is better at Chinese/Hanja confirm this? ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.30.28 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. "锦绣江山" is a generic phrase meaning beautiful mountains and lakes. It wasn't meant to be a name for Korea. It was meant to be a description of Korea. And I think it is a reasonable description.Marcopolo112233 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

korea is treated as land of barbarism at Tang Dynasty, and the people lived there are considered not educated, also another thing chinese can easily notice, the poet who wrote this poem has never been to korea, but this poet has been to so many place in china. so i reckon this phase is used for the description of china, not korea. also this poet is chinese, not korea, so if any korean want to object my post, plz reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Why 880611 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Korean name for Korea?

Korea original name is Chosun from ( Ko-Chosun Kingdom/ Puyo Kingdom in center of Manchuria/ North Korea). Korean word for Han-guk is modern Korean name for Korea.

Ko-Chosun: Chosun Dynasty 500 years. 1910 Korea was named Chosun. Korguryo, Koryo, Korea. Modern day Korea derived from Two Korean Kingdoms ( Korguryo Kingdom, Koryo Kingdom). Two Korea states after Korean War: North Korea: Chosun. South Korea: Hanguk ( Modern day Korean name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1net (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What is Korea called in the Korean language? The Korean page uses "한국" in Hangul, and "韓國" in Hanja, and also "조선" in Hangul and "朝鮮" in Hanja. I think the second one is "Choson" or something like that, the name in Japanese for the first one is "Kankoku" and the second one "Chōsen" (which I why I think it's Choson). moocowsrule^{(Talk to Moo)} 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary.com says the name is "Hanguk" and the other one is "Joseon". moocowsrule^{(Talk to Moo)} 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the names for Korea before the split, and for both the two names after :) - RyukWar

Koreans generally refer to Korea as Hangook (한국). Joseon is the name of a former dynasty.--119.149.173.3 (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC) korea name is '한국' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.218.56.2 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The origne of name of Korea was given by Koryea. It was known by silkload. Chosunis a name of till 19C. Before korea-war, the name of chosunwas change into hanguk.--210.218.56.2 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Koreans in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) refer to Korea as Hangook (한국). Koreans in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) refer to Korea as Chosun (조선). In the People's Republic of China (mainland China) Korea is referred to as Chaoxian (朝鮮) and in Taiwan Korea is referred to as Hanguo (韓國). South Koreans refer to North Korean as Buk (north) Han (북한) and North Koreans refer to South Korea as Nam (south) Chosun (남조선). Can it be any clearer than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinkorhon (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To Sinkorhon. No, as far as I know, what China calls Korea usually depends on the context.

In a non-political context, Chaoxian (朝鮮) refers to Korea as a whole. But in a political context, Chaoxian (朝鮮) usually only refers to North Korea. South Korea (in a political context) is usually referred to as as Nanhan (南韓) or Nanchaoxian (南朝鮮) or Han (韓) for short.

Marcopolo112233 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, Hangook (한국) is a short version of Dae-han-min-gook (대한민국), literally meaning The Great Country of the Han {this Han (韓) is different to the Han (漢)People of China} People. I would disagree that all Koreans call Korea, Hangook. The North Koreans calls Korea, Chosun (조선) and North Korea and South Korea as Pook-Chosun (북조선)and Nam-Chosun (남조선) respectively. While the South Koreans call Korea, Dae-han-min-gook (대한민국) or Hangook (한국) and North Korea and South Korea as Pook-Han(북한)and Nam-Han (남한) respectively. Hantheman (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The official name of South Korea is The Republic of Korea, Daehan Minguk (대한민국 - 大韓民國). The official name of North Korea is The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, Chosun Minjujuui Inmin Gonghwa Guk (조선민주주의인민공화국 - 朝鮮民主主義人民共和國)Sinkorhon (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

POV on North Korea

I noticed that the first paragraph is possibly POV, stating that North Korea is a member of the Axis of evil (which is the term coined by GWB and doesn't have enough significance to be mentioned) and that North Korea is a rogue state (again, this is a term applied only by the US) so I put a NPOV template on the article.Kenneth Vergil (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is not about "United States opinions of North Korea" nor about "One of the few notable things ever said by George W. Bush." Steve Dufour (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Needles Edit Warring

The edit warring on this page is ridiculous. There's no reason why by now editors shouldn't have at least tried to discuss consensus on the talk page. There's a three-revert rule for a reason, and it's been completely disregarded here. I'm nominating this page for semi-protection, and hope that consensus can be reached on what the dablink, amongst some of the other backs and forth here, should finally say. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merriam webster definition of "civilization": 1 a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development  ; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b: the culture characteristic of a particular time or place

Lots of universities have courses on "Korean civilization": http://www.indiana.edu/~korean/koreanstudies.html http://depts.washington.edu/asianll/lang_degs/prog_korean.html http://eastasianstudies.missouri.edu/courses.html http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/archive/catalog/2001_03/catalog-229.htm http://www.eastasian.ucsb.edu/content/courses_korean.html http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/ealc/undergraduate/ealc.html

I don't know what the guy's beef with Korea is, but the introduction sentence about "Korea is a civilization ... " has been stable for ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreaeditor (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no beef on whether it's a civilization or not. The problem is the sentence is grammatically incorrect: "Korea is a civilization, formerly unified nation..." Add to that, it already says that this is an article about the Korean civilization. Why add a redundancy that isn't needed and incorrect grammar at that? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is grammatically correct.

• Korea is a [1] civilization
• [Korea is a] [2] formerly unified nation, and
• [Korea is a] [3] geographic area ...

The three concepts are placed in a series, with the identical implied subject and verb. So the sentence is properly formed as "Korea is a [1] civilization, [2] formerly unified nation, and [3] geographic area ..."

The sentence at the top is a disambiguation notice about the page navigation, not a part of the topic of "Korea." The first sentence of the article about Korea (not necessarily the first printed words on the web page) should fully describe what Korea is, including the fact that it is a civilization.

Adding "civilization" is necessary to fully describe the topic, because the topic of this article includes the society and culture before and after the formerly unified nation, and also occupied geographic areas more or less than the peninsula, depending on the historical period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreaeditor (talk • contribs) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is felt that some reference to the notion of Korea as a culture is "necessary to fully describe the topic" then perhaps someone can try to find a better form of words to express it, but that is not how the word "civilization" is used in English. France is a nation, a country, a state, etc. It is even at a stretch possible to say that France is a culture, though it is more usual to refer to "French culture". However, France is not a civilization: that is not how the word is used in English. Exactly the same applies to China, Australia, Japan, Peru, etc etc. Korea is no different in this respect. At the moment I cannot think of anything better than "Korea is a culture": would that be acceptable to both sides? Or can anyone think of a better form of words? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, China says it is a civilization, and above you can see major universities have courses about "Korean civilization." I think it's a little different from France, because Korea is not a current country (there is no dispute that South Korea is completely described as a country) but a region with changing boundaries throughout a long, ancient history, with a record of early writing and cultural development. If you search for Japanese civilization or French civilization, you can see many Wikipedia articles refer to such. As for culture, there is a separate article on Korean culture, and as with China, Chinese culture is a subtopic of China, the civilization.

If you look at the history of this page, you will see that only one anonymous editor with two ip addresses has been continuously vandalizing this, olive and some other Croatia-related pages, so persistently that he has been blocked. This page, with the "civilization" introduction, has been stable and without dispute until that editor since February 2006. There is no dispute among editors, and if you would like to begin a discussion, I would suggest we try to gain consensus before changing. Thanks. Koreaeditor (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am a native English speaker with a Masters degree in linguistics, and I agree with the guy above who says the introductory sentence is both grammatically wrong and jarring to the ears of a native speaker. The reason why so few people have objected to the intro is that this is a low-traffic page which is rarely viewed. The problem, I think, is that it has been written by a Korean with English as a second language. I will re-write the intro now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.61.144 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't fix the intro because it appears to be semi-protected. Perhaps the next native English-speaker to read the article can have a crack at it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.61.144 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Update - I managed to fix the intro, although technically the Korean nation is not just two states, but also comprises those members of the Korean diaspora living in the Chinese border region. Thoughts on this?

You are correct, but note that this is not an article on the Korean nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.80.91 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Prehistory

In the prehistory section it claims that 100 000 year old human fossils were found in lava. As far as I am aware this is impossible. Looking at the provided cite it claims the discovery was made by the 'Korean Academy of Social Sciences'. I googled this and could find nothing, and the website provides no extra details on the paper that announced the discovery. Furthermore, the website seems to be some some of religious advocacy site and seems to be trying to prove a longer history of humnan existenance than is currently accepted by science.

In short, I think this sentence is highly dubious and should be removed unless someone can find a more reliable source. Ashmoo (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

are you telling me that google more reliable than Corean Academy of social sciences?? you must be kidding. google is about american information, It lacks information from other countries.

Personally, I always treat Korean "discoveries" about their pre-history with a grain of salt. There is a lot of nationalism / jingoism / political motivation involved.

Extremely one-sided

Let me get one thing straight - this article is supposed to be about 'Korea' (as a whole) not 'South Korea'. Hence, both sides should strictly have an equal amount of content and pictures.

Furthermore, the opening sounds very unprofessional.

yes I agree with you but wikipedia is one sided and extremly biased american non reliable unprofessional web source edited mostly by closed minded american people, so it doesn't have to be fair. many articles in wikipedia are jokes.

South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea, is a capitalistic, democratic developed country with memberships in the United Nations, WTO, OECD and G-20 major economies, and home to such global brands as Samsung, LG Electronics, and Hyundai.

This sounds boastful and gives the impression that it was written by some SK jingoist. The brands should not be included, since the G-20 major economies already highlights the fact that SK is economically advanced anyway. Does the opening of Japan have '...home to international companies such as 'Sony, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Lexus, Nintendo etc?" Or Italy: "...home to international brands such as Gucci, Ferrari, Lamborghini, D&G, Fendi, Versace etc?". All this sounds like outspoken conceit.

North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is a single-party communist state founded by Kim Il-sung and currently led by his son Kim-Jong-il, who has maintained relations with the People's Republic of China and Russia.

Maintained ties with PRC and Russia? This is too vague. What ties? Source? Are these 'ties' unique only to NK? The phrase needs to be re-worded. Why only pick out Russia and China? If you mean economic ties then I think you'll find SK has such ties with these countries also.

Bear in mind, there are more faults than this in the opening. The entire article is riddled with biased, distasteful views. The neutrality of this article is intensely one sided.

Couldn't agree more. The article sounds like propaganda material. So unprofessional, not worthy of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.55.147 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

--Platinum inc (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit the article with effort and time. Merely being rhetoric does not help improve the article unless you WP:EDIT and WP:SOFIXIT based on neutral point of view and reliable sources to comply with verifiability. If my memory served correct, you left similar arguments to Talk:South Korea with highly inflammatory and hyperbolic allegations in such aggressive tones (very insulting as well to the editors working on the article), and then you suddenly disappeared without any contribution to build contents for the article. As much as you've acknowledged that we're just volunteers to Wikipedia, we're not obliged to follow or to please you. I have other urgent things to do, and since you care to give your time to read Korean-related articles, you can help yourself. So please DO something yourself instead of shouting without any effort. There are only handful of editors working on Korean subjects, so I would be very glad if you're editing the article to practice your belief in neutrality. I'm looking forward to seeing your contribution to the article with the basic content policies very soon. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Going down memory lane are we? "...highly insulting?". I haven't even started the insulting, yet. Besides, if you consider my posts to be "highly insulting" then surely, you must be hyper-sensitive. Are you forgetting that the talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussing the faults on the article and how it can be improved? This is exaclty what I did. Excuse me, but are you ordering me to change the article autocratically? What are you implying? Encouraging me (and other people who read your posts) to just change articles as they wish? Without even consulting others? No wonder your beloved Korea-related articles are always showered with over-inflated pride, no modesty whatsoever. Not only that, but if I took your advice - and edited articles autocratically, I will be accused of 'vandalising' and could even get banned. Funny that, was that your snide and cunning intention, no? Furthermore, before you start pointing fingers and throwing tantrums, I was not the only one who complained about the ridiculously conceited aroma of the South Korea article. As you may have already gathered - I have "other things to do" aswell, which explains my month-late post. Thanks, and one more thing - you will find that I'm one of the less rhetoric users on Wikipedia. --Platinum inc (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No thanks for your tantrums. WP:SOFIXIT since one action is more worth than 100 words.--Caspian blue 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You tried to pin the blame for the poor quality of Korea-related articles on me; making it sound as if it were my fault that they are so poorly written. Numerous people have already mentioned on the Wikipedia talk pages that Korea-related articles are almost always written with outspoken conceit, usually by South Korean jingoists. As a result, the Korea-related articles garner a lot of criticism. Also, many users have already complained that the Korea-related articles are always getting reverted back to the super-nationalist views of some jingoistic South Koreans; when attempting to neutralise the tone of the article. Remember Caspian - No personal attacks. People don't just criticise for no reason. --Platinum inc (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When you attack me with various inappropriate language, that is no personal attack, but I "used the one same phrase, tantrums" that you used to attack me becomes as such. What an irony. Remember Platinum inc - No personal attacks. I've suggested you to fix the problems by yourself because none is obliged to do anything for you. The problems can not go away unless you or others fix them. Please do not disrupt here by engaging in personal attacks as you have done.--Caspian blue 14:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, You think that "tantrums" is "...inappropriate language"? Oh please, stop being so hyper sensitive. I did not ever say that anybody is obliged to do anything for me. Read my posts again - if you didn't already gather; I am not just speaking for myself, numerous people have already complained about the poorly written (and one-sided) articles, in addition to the frustrating revertion by SK Wikipedia jingoists. People have to 'disrupt' (or whatever you like to call it) in order to make a change - or at least try to, no? Personal attacks? I do not recall insulting you. I even re-read my posts again and they contain no insults, you can even check edit history if you think that I have manipulated these posts. On a lighter note, I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive, but I'm sick of these ridiculously biased views on Wikipedia articles, and it's merely a coincedence that most of them happen to be Korea-related ones. --Platinum inc (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of how many people whined in the past doing nothing is not my problem, but yours. Put up or fix it, that is your choice. No drama necessary.--Caspian blue 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you even care? You seem to accept the fact that the article is one-sided and yet you're doing nothing about it? Explain this please. By the way - Im in the process of editting it, however, I have a feeling that it is going to get reverted back straight away. How is the number of people that complained my problem?--Platinum inc (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

History or mythology

Is this history? "Gojoseon's founding legend describes Dangun, a descendent of heaven, as establishing the kingdom in 2333 BC." even the text as stated says its a legend. Do legends have a place in the history section? well yes.. but only when we can see their influence on the history. This is clearly not the case.

Korea has a long history. Through Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Baekje, Shilla, Goryeo, joseon Korea has a history of thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.195.74 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not enough to just say "Korea has thousands of years of history." If the information shows up in a Wikipedia article, you must back up your statements with reliable, credible sources with proper citations. I am guessing that you cannot do that with regard to a myth. That is not to say that Korea does not have a venerable history, but there is simply no archaeological evidence for the notion that a nation called "Korea" with "Koreans" extends back to 2333 BC. That is like someone demanding that the people that were living in the area of present-day Paris back in 2333 BC *were* "French" or that the people that were living around the area of present-day Dallas TX back in 2333 BC were "Americans." The peoples that lived around Dallas and Paris 5000 years ago were neither Americans nor French. They were people that belonged to scattered and disparate transient groups which had not coalesced at all into present-day ethnic groupings.

Just because people and pottery and other artifacts existed on the present-day Korean peninsula thousands of years ago does NOT mean that they were "Korean." They were people from many scattered transient groups, most likely. But no responsible historian would ever dare claim that they were "Korean." And I also think that if present day Koreans could go back to 2333 BC, and speak with one of those early humans who lived there, those early humans would probably be shocked to know that present-day Koreans consider them to be directly related. Computer1200 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

This looks as though there is a whole set of info missing. It can't possibly be meant to start "(and conurbation (population)) : Seoul". 1500 edits ago, it said "Capital Pyongyang, Seoul 37°32′N 126°59′E / 37.533°N 126.983°E (and conurbation (population)) Seoul" but that still doesn't seem right (and it displays wrongly for that data anyway). I'd try to fix it if thsi was about a country, but Korea is 2 countries and is therefore different. NEEDS FIXING. -- SGBailey (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC) population:48,289,037 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.97.65 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC) the best is to set the capital in the info box to what it was right before the country split.

Joseon section

Currently, Sennen goroshi constantly insisted with his own interpretation. I already noticed some reasons that almost history contents in this article to fill with political history, not these minor. And I also perceived why he suddenly insist it. Aocduio opposed his edits, so he chasing to this user, as if did me before. I think that is Sennen's unconditional resistance intention, not neutrality.--Historiographer (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Kapanea?

If only the naming debate was as simple as the Japanese say. Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs webpage is dated from 2004, and, not surprisingly, the Japanese say the name is agreed upon as Sea of Japan. But take a look at this -- a UNESCO agenda from 2007, where it looks like the issue is open: [1] Have fun! --S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Would like to be a fly on that wall. --Bsherr (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's called the Sea of Japan in English, which is really all that matters as far as this article is concerned. There is no body of water called the "East Sea" in English, which is why East Sea is a disambiguation page pointing to articles about seas with different names. Honestly, do the Japanese object to the English name Korea Strait? I think it's fair to have the Korea Strait and Sea of Japan - each country gets one body of water named after them. It's just a sign of an inferiority complex, the same as when the Irish get their knickers in a twist about Ireland being considered one of the British Isles. You don't hear British people griping about the body of water to the west of their island being called the Irish Sea. Pais (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea) for the best discussion (and decision) on this topic. (No need to reinvent the wheel here!)--S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So I accidentally followed the naming convention--er--I mean, I was just following the naming convention, yes? --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased Editing?

Why is the East Sea being notated as the only reference to the ocean naming system between Japan and Korea? I looked into the history of this article and some have tried to indicate that this is disputed. Why is there no mention of this dispute? Whether or not the name has historically been "East Sea" or "Sea of Japan" is not the issue. The issue is that there is debate and dispute about this - and this should be noted in the article.

The other blatant Wikipedia no-no of this article is the obvious Korean revisionist slant on the "history." There is simply no evidence to show that "Korea" goes back to 2333 BC. This should be nowhere in Wikipedia. Unless someone can come up with reliable, dependable citations referencing conclusive archaeological evidence for the claim that "Korea" history back to 2333 BC then it is required to be removed. Wikipedia articles are a place for information that is backed up by reliable sources, research, and proper citations. It is not a forum to enforce revisionist or nationalist historiographies. Computer1200 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article on the Sea of Japan naming dispute. This article isn't the place to discuss it. Pais (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

136,167 sq. miles?

The Korean Peninsula is about 85,240 square miles, give or take a few square miles, depending on your exact source. It's nowhere near 136,167 square miles like it says in the Quick Info Box. 136,167 square miles does not equal 219,140 km2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Quintapus (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I was going to fix it, but there's a comment in the existing markup that says: "Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]". WTH does that mean? –Mike Uchima (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a standard thing I think. Just change. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan

I think using Sea of Japan is fine, but it's not necessary to impose it here. Articles unrelated to the dispute should use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)," Japan-specific articles, "Sea of Japan," and Korea-specific articles, "East Sea." (Chunbum Park (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea), For all Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then I want an amendment to that convention. That vote referred to in the convention was more than 5 years ago, at the height of Dokdo naming dispute and all else. The admins were biased as well, and there were just too many anime fans, Japanophiles and Korea-bashers. We should test again what the consensus is, which by the way shouldn't be entirely dependent on the number of votes and how many users are camping out on the issue. I am here to suggest a reasonable amendment backed by reasoning that would music to your ears.

The article USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) can mention Sea of Japan. Fine.

The article Oki Islands can also mention Sea of Japan.

But it's really superfluous to say Ulleungdo is in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), which by the way would only be useful in indicating name-usage superiority if that was the case in all articles, but the naming dispute doesn't even concern that, anyways. The whole point of the naming dispute was not to decide which name was used more but whether East Sea was equally valid name as Sea of Japan.

It's really forcing it if an article relating to Korea's territorial waters has to mention Sea of Japan when there is an equally valid alternative.(Chunbum Park (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

The whole point of the dispute is that the two names are not equally valid. One is the internationally recognised name, the other has only recently emerged on the international stage. This is not the place to discuss it anyway, if you want to suggest the change you need to do it on that talkpage and probably also contact those who closed the previous discussion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can talk it here and elsewhere. When you say "not equally valid" you really mean one has numeric superiority over the other, which was not the point of the naming dispute. Any observer can note confidently the naming dispute resulted in international acceptance of the alternative. (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

I've opened the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. Feel free to join. (Chunbum Park (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Cultural and Art page : someone made a malicious revision

"Contaminated Rivers and Poor Mountains" (금수강산, 穷山恶水) and "Eastern Nation of inferior" (동방예의지국, 東方低劣之國)? Somebody made a nonsense to "Cultural and Art' part like this. I think that the one who changed this sentence can't read&write Korean language since he doesn't x changed Korean word(금수강산, 동방예의지국) but he changed English words and Chinese characters. It was originally '"Rivers and Mountains Embroidered on Silk" (금수강산, 錦繡江山) and "Eastern Nation of Decorum" (동방예의지국, 東方禮儀之國). I consider that this nonsensical rewrite of article is obviously from a malicious intent, and I think that it should be corrected again as original article.

 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)