Talk:South Korea/Archive 2

An event mentioned in this article is an August 15 selected anniversary.

---

This article was refactored on the 14th of October, 2005, for readability, length, and removal of out-dated discussions. To view the refactored text, go here [1]. Masterhatch 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Flag

According to "Flags of the World" (ISBN 0-517-07316-1), red, white, and blue are the traditional Korean flag colors at least since the 19th century. The yin-yang has "its customary Buddhist fusion-of-opposites meaning"; the white background represents purity, and the four black trigrams represent simultaneously the four seasons, the four cardinal directions, and sky/heaven, moon, earth, and sun. --Brion O_O

Buddhist?? As what i have learned, Yin-Yang is a Taoist term rather than Buddhist. Actually, all patterns on the South Korean flag are Taoist contents rather than Buddhist. Including the Taichi pattern (Yin-Yang) and the four Gua out of the Taoist eight Gua (Ba Gua) on the flag.

Romanization of Korean

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Romanization for all spelling enquiries about Romanising the Korean language

East Sea vs. Sea of Japan

For the usage of "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" in Korean articles see here:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Sea of Japan naming dispute

Religious composition

In the article it says

Christianity (31.7%) and Buddhism (23.9%) comprise South Korea's two dominant religions.

but later we have

Other religions comprise about 9.4 percent of the population.

Now according to my math that totals 65 percent. So what about the remaining 35 percent? Cheers, Io 13:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The remaining 35% are probably atheist; I noticed that there wasn't an atheist category, so that's probably it. Either that or the Unification Church just got bigger :p FvNK 01:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, only 50.7% of the Korean population are religious. Data of 1995

Christian 26.3%   (Protestant 19.7% and Roman Catholic 6.6%)
Buddhist  23.2%
Confucian  0.5%
Wonbulgyo  0.2%
Cheondogyo 0.1%
Other      0.4%
===============
Total     50.7%

Looks to me like the figures are not correct anyway (I can't imagine "other" fluctuating from 9.4% to 0.4% in a few years... --dfrki 13:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Religion section is currently a mess. Where do these figures come from? Why are they unreliable? -- Visviva 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think my edition is as close as it gets when it comes to statistics on religion, based on data from Korea National Statistical Office. [2] Still, if anyone can tidy up these paragraphs, that would be better. noirum 15:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Economy

I updated the South Korean GDP as per the IMF 2006 list. That list can be found at: http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/02/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2006&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=512-941-914-446-612-666-614-672-311-946-213-137-911-962-193-674-122-676-912-548-313-556-419-678-513-181-316-682-913-684-124-273-339-921-638-948-514-686-218-688-963-518-616-728-223-558-516-138-918-353-748-196-618-278-522-692-622-694-156-142-624-449-626-564-628-283-228-853-924-288-233-293-632-566-636-964-634-182-238-453-662-968-960-922-423-714-935-862-128-716-611-456-321-722-243-965-248-718-469-724-253-576-642-936-643-961-939-813-644-199-819-184-172-524-132-361-646-362-648-364-915-732-134-366-652-734-174-144-328-146-258-463-656-528-654-923-336-738-263-578-268-537-532-742-944-866-176-369-534-744-536-186-429-925-178-746-436-926-136-466-343-112-158-111-439-298-916-927-664-846-826-299-542-582-443-474-917-754-544-698&S=PPPWGT-PPPPC&CMP=0&x=78&y=11 -Doug Johnson

How could South Korea enter the 'trillion dollar club of world economies' in 2004 if its GDP in this year is 720,772 million dollars? (List of countries by GDP (nominal))

The same happens with the data on the top of the page:

GDP - Total (2005 est.)- $1.099 trillion in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) using data from 2005 its $0.72 trillion. You use purchasing power parity values, which I think is not the right way. At least you have to mention it!

GDP/head - $22,543 in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) its 14,784!

You really should say if you use PPP or nominal values. As for example in People's Republic of China.

... as nobody answered, I felt free to change the above mentioned points.

rok

why is the title of this article south korea rather than republic of korea? if their official name is the republic of korea.

isn't this a valid point? does anyone object?Appleby 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather see it under ROK, but Wiki seems to have a policy of using the most common English name for articles. Sometimes, though, using "official" names is better. An example of an article using the official, not the most common, name is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. The most common name for that team is Anaheim Mighty Ducks, but as you can see, the official one is being used. So far, no one has actually objected to the "move" that you have suggested, so if you want, I suggest you try moving the page and see what kind of response you get. Who knows, you might get a backlash or you might get support. But this does draw a question into play that must be answered before a move takes place. In other articles related to the Koreas (we would have to move North Korea if we were to move south Korea), do we leave the links at South Korea and North Korea or do we go around changing the links to Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Just some food for thought. Masterhatch 04:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an old discussion on the name of this article: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Republic of Korea vs. slang/inaccurate South Korea. According to that discussion, South Korea is used because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Masterhatch 04:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reference. looks like there was never much of a discussion. the anonymous original suggestion was about the article title; the body should use the familiar name first, then a parenthetical to the official or alternate names, then subsequently familiar name. i think this would be consistent with wiki style policy.

germany, russia, mexico, etc are all under the common names, but these refer to a historic/geographic entity and the current polity together. but "korea," the former, has its own article, and "south korea", the latter, is completely identified by "republic of korea". same reason there are the separate entries for china & prc (under official name).

with referral webpages, there is absolutely no inconvenience or confusion, you type "south korea," you get the page about south korea, it is identified with the proper official title & you go on reading the text with the familiar shorthand name.

current state isn't really "wrong" but does look unprofessional & somewhat illogical. i'd be interested in hearing more pro/con arguments.Appleby 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no "South Korea". This is only a term used for convenience. As you can see, the West Germany article is minimal and China and Taiwan refer to the People's Republic of China and Republic of China articles. I think this article should be renamed Republic of Korea and any searches for South Korea should be redirected to it, not vice versa.--Sir Edgar 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---convenience shouldnt be an excuse. if you look at ireland it is listed as the republic of ireland. its kinda similar to korea, divided into north and south. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland

What Percent of S. Korea Speaks English?

How prevalent is english? If I picked an 18yr old, a 30 yr old, and a 50yr old at random from the S. Korean population, what are the odds they'd speak english? Exact numbers nice, but just a general guess will suffice. Alecmconroy 06:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

not to be flippant, but depends on what you mean by "speaks english." most would know numbers & "yes/no," but holding a elementary school-level conversation, probably less than 20% of 18 yr olds (a majority of them could read a young teen novel, slowly). of 30 & 50 yr olds, my gut feeling is less than 5% & 2%, especially if you sampled the whole country, not just big cities.Appleby 06:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

latest revert

sorry, looks like in the confusion of a different revert war with militant, i reverted this article 4 times. the section seems pretty obviously pov, either unsourced or sourced to japan pov, ungrammatical, & overall apologist in tone. if anyone other than militant wants to undo my 4th revert, please go ahead, i'd be glad to continue discussion here before further reverts. funny how newly registered militant immediately starts a volley of japan pov edits, including at Korean-Japanese disputes, but is intimately familiar with 3rr & article move & redirect procedures. Appleby 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Renaming?

The article should be called Republic of Korea, with South_Korea redirecting to it, not vice versa. The article for NK should be Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with North_Korea redirecting to it. Can someone take care of this? 69.118.247.101 20:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. See Wikipedia:Use common names. -- Visviva 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

deletion of Korea Scout Association from South Korea

+ Why was Korea Scout Association removed from South Korea? It is related, it is not vandalism, no reason was given as to it was removed. Chris 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, but I'd guess it's because it is no more related to South Korea than many other articles contained in the many subcategories of Category:South Korea. This is why we have the List of Korea-related topics, to which the KSA article has been added. -- Visviva 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the culture of the country and should go there. I see massive sets of reverts in the history of this article. Unless you form a South Korea WikiProject, these self-appointed guardians have no right to repeatedly revert edits--it is not in the Wiki spirit. And if you do revert, you should provide an explanation. If you form a project, you could claim it's in the scheme of the project to do so, otherwise; you are just another Wikipeidian. Rlevse 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it is part of South Korean culture. So are the topics of all of the articles in Category:Korean culture, and many more besides. Should we add them too? -- Visviva 07:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for my part, I didn't revert; I removed a large number of other inappropriate links. I see that the external links section needs some work too. -- Visviva 07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

South Korea relationship with United States

From South Korea: Foreign relations: "Koreans also have some bad relations with the United States, its main ally, mainly due to abuse by soldiers at American bases and also regarding aggressive militarism over the war in Iraq."

bad relations? what is this? too vague, shallow and biased.

Well there is the famous case of the GIs who ran over and killed (2?) School girls. Also there is a large Anit-Americanism (stemming from the US support of the military dictatorships and the percieved permission that went towards the Kwangju uprising) movement in Korea. Also (from living in Seoul as a foreigner perspective) the GIs and certain English Teachers can be rather uncaring to the more conservative Korean culture and customs, especially when in clubs or bars. Many Koreans are also upset that Korea has sent troops to Iraq in a war that they dont feel they should have any part in. And the recent attempts by the US government to gain access to the rice market in Korea as well. All of these things add up to a general anti-americanism at a cultural level but at a Political level I do not think this is the case. Rufusde 16:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Nissi Kim 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kunosoke 's recent edits regarding Foreign Relations of South Korea

I've decided to erase Kunosoke's edits regarding SK foreign relations. It was poorly termed, POV, and false.

The South Korea-Japan relation became intimate by Kim Dae-jung. (Japanese culture openness policy etc)　However, the South Korea-Japan relation is returned by Roh Moo-hyun in the age of "Apology and compensation".[3]

Not only was this excerpt poorly termed, there is no mention of President "Roh-Moo Hyun" returning Korea-Japan relation to age of "apology and compensation." He simply reprimanded for ambassador Takano's statements regarding Liancourt Rocks, and said that he understood Japanese people's anger on NK abductions of Japanese citizens, but to remember the fain pelt by Koreans during Japanese colonial rule of Korea.

"Touching on the issue of Japanese citizens allegedly abducted by North Korea, Roh expressed understanding of the Japanese people's anger. "But I call on the Japanese to understand the sufferings of Korean people forced to serve as comfort women and laborers during the colonial period,' he said. "

"President Roh stressed the need for the two nations to be reborn as close neighbors based on sincerity in a bid to jointly open an era of Northeast Asia, noting this year marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries."

Commision on Human Rights clarified an intimacy in North Korea and a diplomatic war to Japan in South Korea with South Korea. 2005/04/07､South Korea united with North Korea and did the complaint to the history education of Japan. [4]

Again, poorly worded, and the reference this time is a Political cartoon. The caption in itself has nothing to do with SK working with NK. It just shows Presidedent Roh Moo Hyun saying "it is unfortunate to be living near Japan". Again, it's not his direct quote, rather a "Political Cartoon".

South Korea is politically conflicting with Japan after the president Roh Moo-hyun declares a diplomatic war against Japan in 2005.[5]

This is the most Ridiculous claim I've heard. First of all, President Roh Moo-hyun never DECLARED a diplomatic war to Japan. See this exact quote from his address.

"These tasks will not be easy to achieve. It is not only a tough but also uncomfortable thing to try to find fault with and point fingers at others. The two countries may confront each other more often than they did. It could also be very embarrassing to quarrel with each other for the whole world to see.

There could be a tough diplomatic war. And that may adversely affect exchanges in economic, social, cultural and various other sectors, especially causing concern about possible economic difficulties."

President Roh-Moo Hyun declares a diplomatic war? Oh really? That was a deliberate twist of his quote to seem like he "declared war" on Japan.

For Goguryeo part, this is a quote from Talk:Goguryeo

" But China in April took what is viewed as an apparent attempt to claim the kingdom wholly as its own, abruptly declaring it as part of its history and deleting references to Goguryeo as part of Korea from its Web site."

   "The move followed a series of similar actions by Chinese academic and media organizations to claim sovereignty of the kingdom, which ruled the upper part of the Korean Peninsula and what today is Manchuria in China from 37 B.C. to A.D. 668."

   Then, on Thursday it was discovered that China has now deleted from its Foreign Ministry Web site its entire section on Korea's history up until 1948, when South Korea was formally established. " 

Deiaemeth 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that our friend Kunosoke could do with some help in style and developing a more NPOV style, but I think his Posts are in good faith, so let's try to build on them rather than revert them wholesale. Deiaemeth - I thought some of the stuff you'd done in this section was on the mark - please could you augment my rather amateurish revision of Kunosoke's latest efforts. Thanks to you both Hongshi 23:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with your edits, as your edits seem to be NPOV and factually accurate. I rv'd user:Kamosuke's edits because he boldly inserted his brazen POV views (suggesting "south korea does not care about north korea human rights), deliberate misinterpretation of sources (citing UNCHR resolution as un acknowledge korea declare diplomatic war on japan), factual inaccuracy (claiming there no diplomatic relationships between china and korea!!!), etc, etc. If he wishes to contribute constructively to any Korea-related articles, or any articles, his edits will be welcomed. But as you can see in the page (and other Korea-related articles) history, his edits have been deemed unsuitable and reverted by many other editors. Deiaemeth 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemet Simply, if you want to see only the praise article on South Korea, you should not use Wiki. And, you must stop a wrong explanation. Simply, Roh President is declaring "Apology and compensation to Japan" and "Diplomatic war to Japan". (Official announcement of South Korea government that I quoted. )And, because Japan had not agreed to his demand, Roh President discontinued the promise to do the summit regularly to Japanese Prime Minister. You are tedious in the speech of the speech. The reason is that your personal insistence is spoken long. Could you bring your insistence together within 300 characters --Kamosuke 12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Culture

Can I ask someone with more knowledge about Korean culture than me to please take a look at Contemporary culture of South Korea? PhatJew 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, PhatJew. I can't claim to be any kind of Korea expert, but I lived there a few years, dabble in the language, have been happily Korean-married going on 12 years, and go back to visit the in-laws and the country every other year.

The article looks good at first glance, if a little list-ish. Some sort of historical overview-statement or framework, similar to the one that was recently deleted, without the editorializing POV, may be appropriate. I did a little touch-up on the Karaoke section.

I'm a Wiki-newbie, and have been working on the Cinema of Korea article off & on for a little while. I had a lot of fun writing a biographical sketch of Na Woon-gyu, and I'll keep Contemporary culture of South Korea in mind and add whatever I can to as time allows.

Rizzleboffin 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Rizzleboffin

Great! I remember having a set of biographies of famous people in Korean (위인전), and I read about Na Woon-gyu and how he dedicated his life to cinmatography. It's good to see more editors working on Korea-related articles, as some materials definitely need some expansion. Deiaemeth 23:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Deiaemeth. I don't think it's mentioned in the Na Woon-gyu article... maybe in the article on his film, Arirang... but a Japanese film collector who died last year may have had copies of some of Na's films. Since Na Woon-gyu's films are all presently presumed lost, it would be wonderful if one is rediscovered. As a lover of both silent film and Asian film, I am hoping we will be able to see one of Na Woon-gyu's films some day.

Rizzleboffin 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

names

i may be biased because i contributed a lot to Names of Korea, but i think it would be helpful to have a link to that article near the top of this article. it would be consistent with not only Korea and North Korea, but with most other country articles to explain the country's name in the lead. WP:WPC: "If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar)." i'm not wedded to the previous wording specifically, but i would like to see a bit more info on the name at the top. Appleby 18:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction must be kept as easy-to-read as possible. One issue that I would like to bring up is that there are articles entitled "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China", but not "Republic of Korea" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Instead, we have the unofficial "South Korea" and "North Korea". I really think South Korea should redirect to Republic of Korea, not vice-versa. In other words, this article should be entitled "Republic of Korea".--Sir Edgar 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Yu?

I removed the sentence below, because I cannot find any trace of a "famous South Korean diplomat" by this name (유근우? or maybe 유건우?). It might just be a matter of spelling -- if anyone can verify this content, please feel free to return it to the article.

Famous South Korean diplomat Peter Yu (Yu Keun-woo in Korean), once said, "The change of the peninsula to simplified characterisation played a central role in converting the power structure and development of future generations."

Cheers, -- Visviva 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for korea

Suggesting we add a section about major transportation systems.

Cb vicious 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We do already have Transportation in South Korea, which could use some work BTW. I would personally prefer not to add any more sections to this article, which is already 36 KB large. However, perhaps we could add a paragraph on this subject in the "Economy" section? -- Visviva 23:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Lets get that together then? --Cb vicious 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

National motto

I reverted the change of the national motto to "역동적인 한국 / (Progressing Korea)" because I can't find any evidence that this has become the country's official motto. Also, I think it's generally translated "Dynamic Korea," but that's neither here nor there. -- Visviva 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm hard pressed to find any evidence that Hongik In-gan is the national motto either, although it was the "foundational concept" (건국이념) of the Republic. Does the ROK even have a national motto? If so, why do no government websites seem to mention it? -- Visviva 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

i've wondered about that myself. a while back, trying to find a good translation for hongik ingan, i couldn't confirm that it was a "national motto" either. i'd personally be ok with hongik ingan as a similar substitute, or with "none". Appleby 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

References

I respect the need for the article to be readable, but that does *not* trump the need to cite sources. Reformatting references would be acceptable. Removing them in bulk is very uncool. Also note that peer review noted the inadequacy of the article's prior references. I don't have the time right now to go through all of the edits that have been made and restore this content without losing new content. Please restore the footnotes or provide some policy-based reason for removing them. Thanks! -- Visviva 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All the facts on there are common knowledge that anyone can dig up when researching South Korea on the Internet. I don't know what needs to be proven. Why is this article under more scrutiny than others? For example, I've worked on the Japan article extensively without having to put references on every other single sentence. If you insist on making this article appear the way it currently is (looking like a research paper still in progress), then I refuse to help improve it. Make it readable to visitors to Wikipedia!--Sir Edgar 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal. If you are going to put assertions of fact into an article, they need to come from a reliable source. Saying that something is "common knowledge that anyone can dig up" does not cut it. This is per Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an absolutely immovable policy. Removing references for non-trivial information (for example "the economy grew at 8.6%"), as you did, would meet many editors' definition of vandalism.

In terms of style, I gratefully welcome your efforts. I am well aware that the previous version left much to be desired (as the current one still does). In fact, working on the style had been on my to-do list for some time. Thank you for attempting to fix it. The underlying problem may be that there are still too many details (which call for detailed citations) in the article. This is always a difficult balance; even summary sections need illustrative details, and those details need to be cited.

I am personally trying to hold this article to the highest possible standard, because I hope that it will become a featured article in the near future. Adding unreferenced and POV assertions ("this solid economy"), and removing information about one of the most notable aspects of South Korea today (its labor climate) does not aid this process. But once again, I thank you for your efforts at improving the article's style. Your intentions are appreciated. -- Visviva 13:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

i would agree the notes are slightly excessive in demographics, economy, & culture sections. these are supposed to be summaries, with the specific content in the daughter articles. as an aside, i personally think these ref notes style is a bit of a hassle for new editors to learn, slowing down contributions, make copying (for example, to a daughter article) more cumbersome, and even just reading the citations a little less intuitive (no longer visible by mouse hover or while section editing). i guess they are more professional, but still a barrier to an "encyclopedia anyone can edit," imho, not that i can do anything about it.Appleby 00:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to move details to the daughter articles as you see fit; but bear in mind that an unreferenced summary is also in danger of being original research. I believe that there is now an automated process for converting the ref/notes templates to cite.php format. Cite.php solves most of the back-end problems with the ref/notes format, since the notes lie directly in the text which they support. (I would have converted it manually, but that would involve some hours of tedious work). Converting to cite.php doesn't solve any of the front-end ugliness issues, however. --Visviva 13:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this page by using Cyde's Wikirefs tool. I converted this article, as well as the History and Economy of South Korea articles. Happy editing, Mysekurity ^[m!] 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Visvisa, I did a thorough editing of the history and economic sections. If I deleted something that you feel is an integral part of the section, please speak up. But I had no intention of "vandalism". The "solid economy" description comes from the CIA country report on South Korea.

I think clarification of facts should be in the Discussion section. Compare the readability of this article to others. I understand that there was a lot of work done in referencing facts and I am sure that much of it was because of people challenging their validity. However, for the average reader of this article, the footnotes are excessive. Can we please leave out most footnotes and just keep the more obscure and likely-to-be-questioned ones? Appearance and readability are half of an article.--Sir Edgar 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Military and Foreign relations

I think the military and foreign relations parts should be seperated, with more info added on Military part. Right now, there are only two sentences describing military of Korea - that does not do the Korean military justice! The paragraph on Military should be how it came into effect (expansion after Korean war), number of personnels, history of Peacekeeping operatives, etc.Deiaemeth 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We do have a size issue here; the article already weighs in at 39K. -- Visviva 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, many other articles on countries tend to go over 50K ... I guess there is just too much info to incorporate. If the size is the problem, I guess the current state is good enough. :) Deiaemeth 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction looks terrible.

It does not read like a country article. I do not agree with recent edits at all.--Sir Edgar 05:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Many recent edits were yours. :-) -- Visviva 11:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fabrication of the history----No nation called Korea existed from 1910-1945. Why do the Koreans tell a lie like breathing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.132.88.221 (talk • contribs)

We might as well ask why you systematically engage in personal attacks and fail to assume good faith. We might also ask why you assume that all edits to this article (aside from yours) were made by Koreans. Regarding your specific complaint, the current form of the sentence was incorrect. On the other hand, it is true that Korea was united as a single entity from 935 to 1945. Korea was not a country from 1910 to 1945, but it was nonetheless united. -- Visviva 11:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The incorrect sentence should be accurate,so I re-wrote it.(Korea was just a province rather than entity during 1910-1945.Because the word "entity " seems to imply Korea as a distict existence from Japan. Could Korea at that time establish an independent stand from the Japansese rule?)But someone reverted again.The reason why I assume the reversion was made by Korean is derived from the fact that the participants in the discussion on the Korean-related topics are clearly the Korean-side.From another viewpoint, the articles or the discussion chracterise phobia against or disgrace to Japan.(I really enjoyed the discussion on the dipute on the name of "SEA of JAPAN", the activitives of the Korean are just come from the ambition to delete "Japan " from the name of the SEA. What the Koreans truly desire to change into "SEA of KOREA!!! "EAST SEA" is just a means to delete "Japan "!!!) The race which does such kind things can receive benefits is the Korean or the Chinese....But the Chinese should be excluded.Because the benefits of the Chinese will not appear if participating in the Korean-related topics.(Before that, the Chinese may take a different stand against Korea on the entity itself or the history from the Korean's viewpoint....) Do not eliminate other viewpoints under the name of "good faith".

As a non-Korean with ties to both Korea and Japan, 211.132.88.219, let me just say I see no sense in your argument. Was Korea divided or unified during the 1910-1945 occupation? I've never heard that it was divided until after the occupation. End of discussion, right? Rizzleboffin 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to say, I hesitate to believe a person calling him/herself non-Korean in Japan-korean related topics.Because Koreans tend to pretend neutral by borrowing a name of another country,aiming at the support for the Korea in the vitual or the real world.Secondly,your remark "the 1910-1945 OCCUPATION" may not be appropriate.Because,the word "occupation" gives indirectly what was all done in the place to be occupied to negative image. Even during 1920s-1930s, the average of GDP is 4.1% and that of GDE is 4.24% in Korea.(at that time the 1% growth in the Europe,3% in Japan and the U.S.),according to Prof.Lee of the National Seoul University .See the source(if you can read the Japanese. the Korean version may be available. ).http://japanese.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2004/03/03/20040303000075.html]Thirdly, your question is out of the point that I would like to focus upon.It's nonsence.And finally, what I have been trying to point out in Japan, Korea, and Japan-Korea related topics of Wikipedia is that the Koreans have always been trying to improve INAPPROPRIATELY the image of Korea and to disgrace Japan at the same time by fabricating the truth or re-creating the history.Of course, the activites of improving bad images of Korea is acceptable. But the way of Korean participants here or the VANK is not. What the Koreans should do to improve the images is not writing something in the net or sending huge amount of emails somewhere. Trilozengy

Trilozengy, your comments are not only rude, but racist and offensive. They are also unproven accusations. I think you should refrain from making such statements. All it does is reflect poorly upon your character.--Sir Edgar 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've learned about people, Sir Edgar, is never trust someone who assumes everyone else is a liar. Also, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with such a person, and a waste of time to even attempt one. -- Rizzleboffin 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with your remark "it is impossible to have a rational conversation with such a person, and a waste of time to even attempt one". Probably that's what all people on the earth want to say to persons on,from or,close-relationship with a nation on a certain penisula in Asia.(Mmm...The World Cup Germany may remind us of the nation.....) Most mysterious is it that a person calling him/herself no-relationship with the nation does enjoy so many movies produced there that the world does not care!!! Trilozengy

This is a typical racist remark that many Japanese often make. Whenever critical comments are made about Japan, someone always says, "I knew it was a Korean!" Or if a crime is committed, "It had to be a foreigner!" Just pathetic and sad. You sound like a total baby.

A lot of people like Korean movies, Trilozengy. Does that make them a bad Korean? Many are foreigners, often Westerners. Please stop the racist remarks or I will be forced to report you to admin. Stick to the discussion.--Sir Edgar 04:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very very quick response,Sir Edgar.firstly ,advantages and disadvantages give energy to participation.In the dispute between Japan and Korea, what benefits can give to the outsiders?It is easily understood when taking an example of the dispute on the history between two neibouring nations in Africa for the Koreans.For the outsiders, the dispute between Japan and Korea is out of curiosity.It is natural to assume the participants here are the Japanese or the Korean.Secondly, are Korean movies popular? The number of DVD dealt in Amazon.com is not so many, however you remark "a lot of people like Korean movies" .Tell me why. Trilozengy

It's easier to labell rude ,racist or offensive on comments you Koreans want to avert than to refute. That's a loser's way. By the way, why are you Koreans in Wikipedia so free to revert articles or adding comments for Korea? Are you professional Wikipedia participants directly or indirectly hired by your government? VANK is well-known connected to the government.....Trilozengy

I know I'm going to regret responding to you, Trilozengy, as it seems like it would be a waste of time. But why do you assume everyone is: 1. Korean 2. from VANK 3. agents for the Korean government? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Unless you are going to contribute to the discussion and use reasoning and facts without insulting other Wikipedians or making baseless accusations, I think everyone (including me) will ignore you. Please try to change your behavior and act civil. There is no need to be emotional and rude in every post. I think you should apologize to Rizzleboffin and others you have offended here.--Sir Edgar 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To reply your questions,I would like to answer firstly as the common to the three questions:The questions themselves you made imply your connection to Korea or the VANK. If you have no relationship with Korea or the VANK, you can easily ignore my assumption. But the questions have led to show you are very sensitive to it.Why are you so sensitive?Moving to each question,for the q.1,fortunately or unfortunately ,the image of or the evaluation against the Korea in the world has been worse.(The World Cup 2002 tells the world what the Korea is,for examle.)The image or the evaluation will not take stand for the Korea. But,in Wikipedia,the description in Japan or Korea,or Japan-Korea related topics are clearly Korean-sided,and at the same time,disgracing Japan.There is a gap between what appears in the real world and that in Wikimadeia. Therefore,it easily arrives at an assumption that the Korean-sided description was all written by the Korean(including natualised citizens from Korea).For the q.2, very very quick and close-tied response by the frequenters to commnets or modification the Koreans want to erase.Only regular monitor and close-tied activities do make it possible. In my case, one or two hours later after I wrote here,Sir Edgar made a response. For the q.3,what is an economic benefit of the "VOLUNTARY NETWORK" if it succeeded to change the name of sea or to brainwash the world on the sovereignty of the tiny two islands in the SEA OF JAPAN? Is the VANK a Korean fishermens' network? Show the details about the VANK,for example ,the economic source of running the network itself,or of the TV or newspapers ads on EAST SEA(probably the ads costed very high),and the reasons why you can show the details if the VANK is not connected to the government.Trilozengy

Visviva, I'm working on the introduction. It will take time. I am, however, focusing my attention on Korea-related articles now and less on the Japan-related ones.--Sir Edgar 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I must have not been paying attention, but where did all the references go? I found a citation for "most wired country, South Korea," I believe it had a "citation needed" in the article. [6]. Is it even needed anymore? Tortfeasor 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, per core Wikipedia policy, which some people seem to be ignorant of even though notices are posted at the bottom of every edit screen. I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy for to keep reverting the ridiculous changes that are being made to this article, but any efforts anyone can make are much appreciated.

In any case, I would question whether that source is reliable, given the findings of the IPSOS survey this year. That article doesn't clarify the source of its information, but one suspects it is somewhat out of date. -- Visviva 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the section which discussed the most-wired claim was blanked. I have restored it (see below). -- Visviva 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rizzleboffin has fabricated the history of Korea in the article of the introduction. No country called Korea existed during 1910-1945, Rizzleboffin has reverted into the phrase"it was a single country called Korea until 1945".To be correct and neutral, I erased the phrase " until 1945" and added "before".Rizzleboffin ,show the evidence that Korea was an independent country from Japan.Before that, I would like to point out that the Treaty between Japan and Korea in 1910 was valid with the signature of the complete power of attorney of Korea.Can you understand the complete power of attorney ? And It is different from your phrase"Japanese occupation"(which,I don't think it neutral,should be changed into "the period of the Japanese sovereignty" or something like that ,as mentioned before.) from the American occupation. The period of the Japanese sovereignty in Korea was just the result of the Treaty in 1910,on the other hand ,the American occupation was a temporary postwar procedure. Rizzleboffin is lack of the ablity to distinguish the essentials in the two things.And it is enough to describe the state of "the end of the war" to just say "the end of the war".Tell us the reason why the phrase"Japanese occupation" should be added when describing "the end of the war" in connection with the separation of Korea.The additon suggests "the period of the Japanese sovereignty" itself as something all wrong and as the connection with the separation. And finally,"East Sea " should not be added on the English version of Wikimedia(It is free to describe on the Korean version). Because Sea of Japan has been stable and matured to be easily recongnised.It is the Japanese Archipelago that can be distinguished from the Pacific Ocean.When people hear "east sea",no one but the Koreans can recongnised.Probably the Koreans will drag "North Sea" into this issue, "North Sea" has been long stable.So has Sea of Japan.No need to change the name of the sea. --Trilozengy 06:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Most wired country status.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html?ex=1301634000&en=7d5fcaf014309078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss--Sir Edgar 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, but see also [7] and various other reports on the 2006 Ipsos Face of the Web survey, which found that Japan is now the most "wired" (in terms of broadband connections per capita). I'm not really sure how trustworthy the Ipsos data is, but as far as I can tell they're the only people who go out collecting this kind of information. One suspects that the NYT reporter was using old information; in 2003 or 2004, nobody would have questioned the ROK's status. -- Visviva 10:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The above conversation was blanked by 64.123.114.149 on May 16 2006 and restored by Visviva 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it no longer meets criterion 2 (verifiability). It also has recurrent NPOV and stability issues. -- Visviva 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies for status as a Good Article yet. I worked on the Japan article far more than I have with this one, unfortunately. It deserves more attention really.--Sir Edgar 04:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)