Talk:Korea/Archive 4

Science and Technology Section

Can someone clarify what is precisely meant by the line "today [hangul] is regarded as possibly the most scientific writing system in use" I did a check in the main article that is linked to the section as well as Hangul main article but could not find any more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.205.21 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Period Under a Part of Japan

I realize that this article is edited by many non-native English speakers, so I don't find the poor usage throughout surprising. That being said, we should at least get the headers right. "Period under a Part of Japan", in English, is very poor usage. It sounds like Korea was literally under Japan (continental drift?). I will change this to Korea under Japanese Rule, as the related article is titled. I will also correct some other usage problems and poor grammar throughout the article.

Furthermore, it seems that there is quite a bit of bias in this article. I realize that there was an edit war on this article, but sheesh, some of this is so blatant as to be laughable. Coming at this fresh, without much of a horse in this race, some of the bias is ridiculous. For example, "Japan kindly suggested Korea to engage in foreign trade through the Treaty of Ganghwa in 1876." Kindly suggested? That is not appropriate.--Utbriancl 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is under an edit war. It should be relocked. --Utbriancl 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree these pro-Japanese edits are vandalistic and chronic.melonbarmonster 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Nation of Decorum

Here's a recent edit by an anonymous user. Is the Chinese character correct? (Wikimachine 17:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

It is correct. 69.144.184.243 07:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits that were ridiculous

• This evidence is original research. See Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research.

The history of Koma(高麗史) is History record that Joseon Dynasty edited. If this record is an original research, the half of the history of Korea becomes an original research. --NekoNekoTeacher 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We must take evidences from analysts and historians from later times who have studied both sides and know the preceding and afterwards events. (Wikimachine 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

By the way, Wikimachine does not have the source. Do not abuse Japan without having the source, and do not delete an original source.

Stop talking in 3rd person, anon. And sign everytime you post with (~~~~).

Part of the point of Wikipedia is that you are granted anonymity. It is perhaps worth respecting the wishes of people who wish to retain it, since clearly your lack of signature indicates you desire anonymity also. Nasajin 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan. After nearly thirty years of war, the power of Goryeo has become weak is POV. See Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. The coalition force reached Japan only after having been heavily damaged by a storm.

Korean resistance to the brutal Japanese occupation was manifested in the massive nonviolent March 1st Movement of 1919

Yes, The fact on which we can agree is that Korea failed in the Japan invasion two times.

1) Brutal is agreed. 2) Goryeo army was never annihilated. 3) There was no Goryeo army, it's Chinese-Korean under Chinese command. 4) A storm heavily damaged the two attempts. 5) "power of Goryeo has become weak" is really bad English. 6) Goryeo was already weak at the time. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

• Joseon Dynasty was not able to control a Korean peninsula. When the farmer in Korea raised a revolt, Korea requested the repression of the revolt to China and Japan. To say that Joseon Dynasty on the whole side of its history couldn't control is false. The 19th century was marked with downfall of the dynasty. And Korea only requested Chinese help. Japanese budged in.

If a Joseon dynasty controlled a Korean peninsula, the revolt was repressed by a Joseon dynasty. However, there might be a more accurate explanation.

• 第一條 清國ハ朝鮮國ノ完全無缺ナル獨立自主ノ國タルコトヲ確認ス因テ右獨立自主ヲ損害スヘキ朝鮮國ヨリ清國ニ對スル貢獻典禮等ハ將來全ク之ヲ廢止スヘシ is original research.

This is Article 1 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. A national agreement is not an original research but history material that can be trusted most.

History material is original research. Read my definition of original research from above. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

original research? Does not Wikimachine know the Treaty of Shimonoseki ?

• who approached Yuan Shikai was assassinated by the Japan describing Empress Myeongseong... about what? Are you trying to say that because the empress sided with Japanese she was assassinated?

king's wife was fighting over a Korean dynasty against father. They tried to obtain leadership by using China, Russia, and Japan. To obtain the leadership at a Korean dynasty, father of the king and Japan killed the wife of the king who had won the support of China and Russia.

But this is disputed between the two sides. Go to the article on the empress herself.

• the symbol of a Japanese Parliament Ito Hirobumi wrong grammar.

Please write a correct grammar.

• was assassinated by the Korean nationalist in 1909, As a result, the Imperial Japanese Army had strong power - How do they relate?

The meaning of the question is not understood. Ito was a negative politician in the military campaign. Ito was assassinated, therefore a Japanese army had stronger influence.

• the emperor in Korea did not agree with this agreement should be "Korean emperor did not agree."

Other proper edits that were lost by my revert should be included back. (Wikimachine 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

I wish to express our gratitude for your having participated in the discussion. --NekoNekoTeacher 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See above for reasons why this level of detail *does not belong* in this article. Improvements to style and balance are, however, welcome. -- Visviva

I can not understand the Korean denies a lot of original sources in support of an original research of the amateur historian.

• Why is it concealed that the South Korean assassinated ItoHirobumi?

I don't know anything about South Koreans assassinating Ito. If they did, provide an article by a recent historian.

---

Reply: Yes, Korean did assassinate Ito Hirobumi. However, Koreans don't deny it,nor concealing it. It's in Korean textbook, and also in An Jung-guen(can't be sure of the spelling) biography. Almost every Korean knows that An Jung-geun shoot Ito 3 times in row in 1909, Oct. Korean killed Ito because that time, Korea were colonized by Japan (which were wrong thing. After all, colonization isn't good idea as most people know. Think about Ghandi trying to resist England.) and to show the world that they have an independent mind and do not want to be colonized by Japan. Also, Ito killed so many Korean people including the Queen of Korea (Myeong-Seong), that's why An Jung-guen killed Ito. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.25.218.82 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

---

• Why is it concealed that Korea attacked Japan with Mongolia?

It's not concealed that Korea attacked Japan. I know about it. It's in Korean textbooks. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

• Why is evidence that a Korean peninsula develops rapidly by the modernization

campaign for Japan concealed?　--220.212.100.97 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We should fix the concealed information in the Japan article, where they keep trying to hide the fact that Japanese culture rapidly developed by the introduction of new innovations by Korea. There are always vague states like East Asia or the all incompassing China to mean Korea in the Japan articles. This is a blatant concealment and should be fixed.

Why is information about current Japanese pottery being directly influenced by Korea concealed.

Whys is information about Japanese sword making technique being identical to older Korean sword making technique concealed in the Japan articles. So many questions so little time.

They are not "concealed". Read about the Korean war. All of Japanese infrastructures were destroyed, and Japanese did not hire many Koreans for skilled jobs in fear that Koreans would be less subjected to control. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Seoul Station, Seoul National University, and Seoul city office, The building that a lot of Japan built can be seen now. Most of the dam in North Korea is what Japan made it. (ex.Supung Dam)

I know that too. (Wikimachine 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

Once again, this level of detail does not belong in this article. Please add this information to History of Korea or Korea under Japanese rule, provided that you have a reputable secondary source available to support your claims. -- Visviva 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the reason to support the source that the amateur historians wrote. Has the reason been linked with the deletion of the source that has been trusted worldwide? To insult Japan, does Korea conceal own failure, and emphasize cruelty in Japan?

Frankly, your edits don't do much but slant the article towards a Japanese point of view, and garble the text. A lot of things in it don't make sense. For instance, you make it sound like the thirty years of war that weakened Goryeo were thirty years of war with Japan, when that was supposed to refer to thirty years of war with the Mongols. (There weren't anything like thirty years of war with Japan!) As Visviva pointed out, this section should be a brief summary of what's in History of Korea. This stuff doesn't belong here. --Reuben 18:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem in Korean's writing information not correct of Korea. However, the Korean's writing information not correct for Japan has the problem. I am not interested in the Korea civilization. However, I cannot agree to the insistence of having destroyed Korea. There is no problem even if the Korean insults Japan. However, Japan must not object about the insistence about the Korean. Is this your policy?　--61.209.171.75 19:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What you think about rivalries between Japan and Korea don't have any relevance to the article. If you're not interested in Korea, perhaps you should edit another article instead. --Reuben 01:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)]

The article to which Korea insults Japan is opposed though I am not interested in Korea. (Based on the source. )　And, the South Korean should not do the article based on nationalism. --218.218.129.105 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reuben, You should discuss knowledge that is more correct to conceal the source.

You should not engage in edit warring, blatantly violate wikipedia policies such as WP:3RR, evade enforcement of those policies by frequently switching IP addresses, or try to impose nationalist sentiments upon articles that you're otherwise uninterested in. Also, please don't assume that anybody whose edits you don't like is South Korean. --Reuben 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::It is necessary to make the comment Room218. The act to which he insults Japan is correct. And, objecting doesn't permit to him. Please answer in Yes or No. --219.66.43.115 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Yes? What's the question? --Reuben 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Reuben is reiterating an insistence completely corresponding to Room218. It is regrettable that Korea is being made a tool on an anti-Japan by them.

Anybody has a source

I have just found that someone had added the sentence Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan, but I couldn't find the source. Do anybody give me the source about the defeat of allied army of Mogol and Goryeo by Japan? Even primary source is fine. --Hairwizard91 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need source for that because that is common fact, but I disagree with insertion of that sentence because of the reasons described above -i.e. accuracy (allied forces, not just Goryeo). I also don't like the anonymous user's intent of putting the term "annihilated". He's putting these terms out of spite & as a means to express his angst against Koreans. (Wikimachine 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

It was just for my private interest. haha. --Hairwizard91 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We do need sources for all assertions of fact on Wikipedia. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Common knowledge. I'm not challenging this particular fact, but in general any assertion that cannot be supported by a reliable source is subject to removal. -- Visviva 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not neccesarily. Of the 900 Goryeo ships that accompanied the Mongols to Japan, few were destroyed by the storm and most returned. Good friend100 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan" is somewhat exaggerated since they were washed away while they had been failing to keep their landing points. A cartoonized view based on Goryeosa (高麗史 卷104 列伝巻十七 金方慶傳) can be seen here.[1]--Jjok 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin help

Could an admin please move this to the article page?

Done —Mets501 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I AM ADMIN US EAST ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ KEKEKEKKEKE ZERG RUSH ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ KEKEKEKKEKEKKEKEKE ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 71.161.89.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge request

Since the Korean Peninsula is coextensive with contemporary Korea according to the maps and articles, why not merge this content with Korea? A sentence can be added to the Geography section stating something to the effect of "Korea is coextensive with the Korean peninsula, called Choson bando (조선반도) in North Korea and Han bando (한반도) in South Korea due to the different names for Korea." —  AjaxSmack  19:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree (Wikimachine 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
• Dually agree. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't know there was an article on Korean Peninsula. If we do merge I hope we can retain all the information in each article. Good friend100 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. As noted in the History discussion above, Korea is a survey article, covering all aspects of Korea. The Korean Peninsula is only one aspect of Korea. It needs to be discussed in general here -- and it already is, in the "Geography" section -- and discussed in detail in its own article. -- Visviva 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate... as it says in the very first paragraph of this article, Korea is "a geographic area, civilization, and former state." Of course that list is incomplete, but in any case Korean Peninsula covers only one of these aspects, the geographical region. -- Visviva 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Visviva. In addition, the article is already long; merging would affect readablity. See WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. --Kusunose 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Korea -> Korean Peninsula -> Geography of North Korea and Geography of South Korea. This is similar to Korea -> Koreans -> Demographics of North Korea and Demographics of South Korea. No need to merge Korean Peninsula here, unless you also want to merge Koreans, History of Korea, Korean language, etc. Goguryeo 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But don't you guys want to consider the information in Korean Peninsula as well? I'd like to synchronize the information in both. Good friend100 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "Geography" section here should basically summarize Korean Peninsula, perhaps with a paragraph thrown in regarding the disputes concerning the extent of Korea (vide Gando, Ieodo, Dokdo, etc. etc.) But Korean Peninsula should still be a separate article. -- Visviva 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would look up how they dealt with it in other cases. Redskunk 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Because most Koreans have delusions of Manchurian conquests. --JakeLM 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That's very funny, JakeLM, can you keep your nonsense to yourself? 69.144.184.243 07:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A people in arms

Something noteworthy the Korean states have in common is that they both maintain huge armies, especially the North. In the list of countries by population, North and South are only #47 and #25 – in the list of countries by number of active troops (same list also at list of countries by size of armed forces), they are #4 (DPRK) and #6 (ROK). Both Koreas taken together keep more troops active even than the United States, only topped by the PRC. South Korea is #9 in the List of countries by military expenditures. All the above are rankings by total figures, not in comparison to the countries' population or their economic power.

Korea's high level of militarisation should probably be mentioned in the article in a word or two if only for the economic damage it causes, but which section would be appropriate? Perhaps somebody can sum it up in a sentence and include in somewhere. Wikipeditor 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Active troops per thousand citizens lists the DPRK as #1, the ROK as #16. Wikipeditor 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Korea Article should have a similar format to China Article in these aspects

Sports and recreation article:

Sports and Recreation like Martial Arts even though it is already touched upon in Culture of Korea article, also Archery, Folk Wrestling, Western Sports like the Football,Baseball and the like. Korean board Games etc.

adding articles of South and North Korea in Main Korea Article

Also, seeing the China Main Article includes both the R.O.C. and The P.R.C. why not include both South and North Korea in the Main Korea Article?

what do other people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternknight (talk • contribs)

Agree with this and above proposal by Wikipeditor. In general the existing article has focused excessively on Korea qua historical entity, but that is at best a third of the picture. Sections on "the Koreas" (including inter-Korean relations), "Sports and recreation," and/or "Military" would be pertinent. "Economy" section would be a good idea too, but a bit difficult to write since there is little to say about the Korean economy in general. Had been working on a rewrite that would include some of this, but got stalled. -- Visviva 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Korea article having information on both Koreas. Good friend100 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we now have the article unprotected?

What the title says its been long enough lets take it off the protected article list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternknight (talk • contribs)

Seems reasonable to me. We'll see if our anonymous edit warriors return... -- Visviva 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New article?

I am thinking there should be a seperate article about the history. I need it for my essay. --Pupster21 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you're looking for History of Korea? -- Visviva 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not steal the Japanese culture

Koreans never stold Japanese culture. It's really lame and stupid topic. History always has Japanese stealing Korean culture. Stop bias comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the article on Japan, the quality keeps being debased by the Korean. Please scamp it....

• [2]
• [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.3.119.108 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Uh, what are "The Korean" Stealing exactly? perhaps im missing something but the furst issue is East Sea/Sea of Japan which is of course old news and the 2nd about Korean History related to Japans History? Oh, and its ineresting how you bring up the Article on Japan since a Assumed to be Korean Wikipedian brought up the Yamato [sp?] relationships with the Three Korean Kingdoms and the Kaya Confederacy with the statement that Yamato was a colony of Baekje and what wasn't mentioned is Japans first Emperor was an exiled Prince from Baekje. After that several Japanese wikipedians left unintelligent and racist comments on Japan's talk page and others bashing Korea "Facist Korean Propaganda" so on and so forth. Easternknight

You know what I think? There used to be some POV statements from Koreans that I thought made Koreans look bad. I guess same applies to Japanese too then. (Wikimachine 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Thats true, everybody needs to realize that they represent their country or origin and making yourself look bad just makes your country look bad. =[ Good friend100 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit by 100110100

I just want to clean up the double spaces, and moving {{seealso}}s right below {{main}}s.100110100 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the double spaces. What's wrong with the {{seealso}}s where they are? – Gurch 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the usage guide at Template:Seealso suggests that they be placed at the top -- which makes a bit of sense; sections aren't meant to be structured like mini-articles. -- Visviva 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Zsinj^Talk 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You've missed a {{seealso}} in ===Cusine===.100110100 07:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Prehistory of Korea link

would like to add Prehistory of Korea link to the 'See also' section at your earliest convenience. Mumun 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Brutal

Please define brutal. The edit battle of Japan and South Korea might continue if it is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.218.135.117 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

As like any other respectable wiki article. Non-NPOV words should not be used. Facts should speak for themselves. Please don't manipulate this article because of your own emotions and opinions.EvolutionaryCreationist 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct spelling of the Silla dyanasty is?

"Shilla" not "Silla". Please see Seoul Times

Seoul Times is wrong

• 실라 = Silla. Not Shilla.
• 실=sil
• 쉴=shil
• 라=la

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilha Youn (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Ummm... Shilla is spelled 신라 not 실라, so the H should be there. Baejung92 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty simple, really. 시 was spelt shi before the South Korean government revised Romanised spelling, when it became si, hence how all road signs now say, for example, "신촌/Sinchon", "왕심리/Wangsimni", etc. JPBarrass 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Article has been protected for months

Why hasn't the Korean Article been taken off of protection? This is ridiclous. -Easternknight

I agree. Requested unprotection - Jack · talk · 16:18, Thursday, 8 February 2007

Done. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! sorry guys can't hide my excitement.

User:Easternknight

IMO there is a vandalism act again - see Korean War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.117.3 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of IP's edits

Is there anything wrong with these edits? Would anybody mind if we undo Wikiment's reversion? Wikipeditor 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted because the editor seemed to have a certain point of view to express. I don't object to the relevant facts, it could just be re-worded and trimmed. Korea was a tributary in form, but was largely politically and culturally independent in fact. Wikiment 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My revision is based on plain and fair description of history, which cannot be changed or denied. If you doubt it, please read various Korean or Chinese history books, in particular, the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (朝鮮王朝實錄)(조선왕조실록밀직사), which is written and preserved by the Korean officials. Please pay special attention to paragraphs such as 조임을 경사로 보내 태조가 즉위하게 된 사유를 알리는 표문을 올리다. URL: http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=kaa_10108029_001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 21:00, February 12, 2007

Considering this is the English wikipedia, do you have an English source for your edits? Otherwise, it's difficult to follow. oncamera^(t) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest printed text

The Korea#Science and technology section says that Jikji is the earliest known movable metal printed book. However, the dates do not match with those mentioned in Jikji. It may be a mix up with the Mugujeonggwang Great Dharani Sutra mentioned in Seokgatap, although it says it's a woodblock print. (If I had any expertise in history or archeology, I would have edited it myself, but since I don't ...) YooChung 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Korean family names nominated for deletion

Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean family names (2nd nomination). Badagnani 06:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The page contains several grammatical and spelling errors.

Request for list of Living National Treasures

I've been looking around and I can't find it anywhere. What better place to have it than under South Korean National Treasures? Quietmartialartist 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Block (from editting) Request

Vandalisms that are hard to notice are occurring. Orthodoxy

Imp. additional info: "When Korea is finally united, there will be a war between The United States of America and the United C(/K)orea [UCO/UKO]." Polleo 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Korean War in the lead

There is no mention of the Korean War in the lead of an article titled Korea. I find that really bizarre. --JakeLM 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

current poll

[4]

There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Layout query

If you look at the current version, the Three Kingdoms image bleeds into the text. Is this preferrable to the amended layout I worked on?Shehzadashiq 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anglo"

In demographics, a number of ethnicities/nationalities are mentioned as minorities including "Anglo". Does this mean an English national or a person specifically of English descent? Sometimes in the US I am referred to as "Anglo" even though I don't have a drop of English blood. I think the idea is that I'm a white anglophone - but that is slang which (IMHO) doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Matt Yoder (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Login Problem!

I tried to login on this page, and confirmed the submission like it always does. However, when I returned to the article, it said at the upper-right corner: "Sign in/create account". And it gets weirder.I clicked on that Three Kingdoms of Korea map, and it showed that I was logged in. I tried every which way I knew how to access it--links, type-ins, etc.; it changed not a bit. I do not know if I even have the power to fix it! BlueCaper (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[1950-1953]

Pandangan hal habitus baru di Korea/ATLJ-ATLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.82.153 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kabaukkasan"??

What is the origin/meaning of the term "Kabaukkasan"? It doesn't sound like a Korean term (neither native nor hanja(Chinese-character)-derived). If so, who refer Korea by the term?

Also, "anglos" in the demographic section. I'm guessing it refers to those from the US/Canada/Britain/Australia, but it sounds vague and crude, like "gringos" in Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.255.214 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed, thanks. -- Visviva (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wildlife in Korea

FYI. There are articles on almost every Asian country except Korea. See Category:Wildlife by country. I noticed this during an edit on Wildlife of Azerbaijan there is a nice navbar on the right side listing "Wildlife of Asia series" with Korea in red letters.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwangju Democratization Movement of May 18, 1980 should be listed

I just saw a well-produced 2007 movie called "5.18" (See http://www.rememberu518.co.kr/) about civilian demonstrations against new military rule leading to thousands of deaths in May 1980. There is an informative article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Massacre and it seems the main article should list this event and link to the other Wiki article on it, at a minimum. Also search Google for "Kwangju 1980" for more links. After seeing the movie I came here to learn more, but saw no mention of the event. It was only after some searching that I stumbled across the "Gwangju Massacre" article on Wiki. Why isn't this linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.117.140 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CULPABALE PROHIBITION:... the theory is that if any culture is prohibiting any other culture it automatically hastens the vintage culturalisation of the missing culturalists --- 'you think they are ridiculous' --- in this way korean-polaxe-spartan-snake realises study on this everyman-level, and where culture can be trusted in dynastical terms, then it stands to reason that it is forseen and supervised by this eye of the beholder "they thought they were ridiculous' --- in this way can it be maintained because it's subversions realise it is being watched in this way, has antiquity in affable mandate - which is then included before the ending mysoginy --- this inclusive until generations-anotonymn is finished and has verifications deselection --- that it is founded in various places realises that an nomans-emporer is luciferially chosen to instigate this focus --- it is amiable to beleive that korea is doing this invariously of parliamental procedures over material --- material deadalus in korae is existentialist babylonianism depending on doxological revenue in faithful reliance towards it's structure magnamimous --- this magnificent crystal is furnishing...