Talk:South Korea

---

---

Neutrality

This article is in serious need of attention. The continuous and ridiculous economic miracle facts are laughable. When you look at South Korea's GNP(nominal),it is far below other major industrial nations - that is the important information. Keep rambling on about how its industries are bigger than Coca Cola and Burger King etc. put together do nothing to help the reader actually gain the information they are looking for. Colliver55 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reading this article and I was shocked to see the article is no more than a rankings list for South Korea. South Korea is the largest, South Korea is the third, South Korea is the sixth, and so on and so forth.

The article is massively POV, as in probably the most POV article I've ever read and I've been reading articles on here regularly since 2006. It states little in the way of any content, as it seems to have sacrificed all content to be just a long list of rankings. Even these rankings are worded in such a manner as to mislead the reading into thinking the ranking is higher than it really is.

This article seriously needs a rewrite and needs to take note of how other country articles are written. It seems that one or a small group of very pro-South Korean editors have dominated the article and written it to be basically just a big billboard for how great South Korea is. I think judging by what other editors have written on this Talk page I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this. 88.109.226.107 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the person above. It mostly consists of dozens of "rankings" - "Korea has the world's 17th-biggest cabbage soup industry". Who cares? Whoever is putting all these "rankings" in the article is conveniently overlooking the negative ones.unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article closely, I can see a number of other problems - specifically with the numerous statistics, rankings and figures. For example, it says Korea's teenaged girls have the lowest pregnancy rate in the world. But if you check the reference given, it says that SK teens actually have the lowest BIRTH rate in the OECD - quite a difference, especially if you consider Korea's high abortion rate. Actually, it would be more appropriate to state the SK has one of the lowest general birth rates in the world (at around 1.1 per woman). This is a more interesting statistic, as it highlights SK's long-term problem with declining birthrates and the economic problems this is forecast to create after 2020.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. This article should be tagged NPOV and with need for attention by a NPOV editor. Maybe that way the numerous weasel-words and random statistics and rankings can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.53.5 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Every country has its good and bads. And we *always* look at it from our own POV. So I would let the numbers do the talking in this case. South-Korea is certainly not heaven on earth, but no country is. Could we please leave all the nationalism and anti-Korea sentiments behind us!!! Kbarends (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I agree with the dozens of other people who think there are serious problems with this article. There are way too many rankings and statistics, all of which are favourable to Korea. As for the claim that the article is well-sourced, I think it mostly is well sourced. However, this has nothing to do with POV. This article has POV problems because the information it presents is selective (all good news about the economy, etc) and glosses over anything negative (the environment, working hours, ongoing problems with North Korea, population density, etc). This article needs serious attention from editors who are not Korean and have no vested interest in presenting Korea as some type of utopia, which it clearly isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.59.168 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I attempted to interject some statistics about suicide and corruption. These were removed as "deliberate POV."76.187.104.246 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem. I tried to add some rankings about working hours and suicide rates, in order to balance the dozens of other "rankings" that are more favourable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.234.16 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited this article before, as far as I know, but I just came and looked at it after seeing it mentioned at WP:AN. Much of the article is written NPOV, but much of it isn't, especially the Economics and Science and Technology sections. Nevertheless, adding a bunch of fact tags and NPOV templates to the article won't help it much. Instead, go through and NPOV the wording. If you're too protective of the article, then step back and let someone else handle it. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that an article of a country that is not a insignificant power is in such a poor state. It is probably the worse case of POV I have seen out of all notable articles. A POV tag for the whole article is completely justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.81.33 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is loaded with POV, boosterisms, poor references and copyright violations. One of the weakest country articles I came across.

Be objective and precise. Precisely what is POV or boosterism? unless you can provide evidence, your claim is against WP:POV. Lakshmix (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first person above. This article is loaded with POV. There are many, many examples given by many, many people on this discussion page. Look and you will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As a further note to the non-neutrality of such picking-and-choosing countries to compare South Korean statistics to, I submit the following from W:NPOV: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. KieferFL (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebratory tone is distracting

I came to the article with a sincere interest in the economic history of South Korea, but found the overall congratulatory tone of the article distracting, which undermines the content's credibility. I specifically peered into the discussion area wondering whether I was the only one who observed this. I don't want to get into the trenches already carved by the lengthy discussions, but I do want to underline a couple of points. I recognise that proponents of the current state of the article feel that their citations sufficiently justify each claim individually, and that moderators want to hear specific suggestions. The problem, however, is with the general tone, which is a product of the sheer number of rankings and achievements listed. They may all be true, but as a neutral reader, I'm interested in a few key highlights. The sheer volume of rankings, and repetition of vague qualifiers (most advanced, futuristic) give the whole article a biased tone.

There is also a conspicuously cursory treatment of negative facts in contrast to the positive ones. For example, "As with many of its Asian neighbors, South Korea suffered the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, but the country was able to re-emerge and continue its growth towards a major economic power after a swift recovery". My reaction as a reader was that the author was uncomfortable discussing the effects of the financial crisis, instead choosing to rush into the recovery phase with bright adjectives like "major" and "swift".

So to address earlier points, yes a big portion of the article is fine, but there needs to be acknolwedgement that the general tone of the article is biased. There is a palpable need to impress. It leaves me with the feeling that Koreans are insecure, which surely wasn't the authors' intention, so it's in their best interest to tone it down, rather than attack critics with demands for specifics.

Steven (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Remarks regarding neutrality

Everything is sugarcoated in order to promote. Please, somebody give the article a good rinse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, in a certain sense, yeah why not? In a view point that both tour guide and Wikipedia purport to introduce the designated issue, they definitely have commons. What really matters is if the contents introduced are underpinned by facts. As seen, most contents in the thread are backup by reliable references. Before you make any complaint, please denote which parts are actually violating the Wikipedia rules. For God sake, why the heck this Korean thread is always under dispute and crowded with users with certain intention? Please remember one will pay the fiddler when time comes.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why "this Korean thread is always under dispute" is that the South Korean article is a very poor one. The reasons are too numerous to list here, but the main problem is that it has been written by highly patriotic South Koreans who delete anything remotely negative from the article and insert cherry-picked favourable facts. In western cultures, one of the most unlikeable personality traits is vanity. This article reeks of vanity and boastfulness.

In the year or two since I became aware of this article I have made numerous attempts to imrove its quality by re-writing flowery sections so they do not sound so boastful. Every time, a South Korean editor has deleted my alteration and replaced it with an even more boastful and jingoistic passage. Personally, I believe this article will never achieve "good article" status. Nor does it deserve to!

Culture Section

Here's what this article has taught me about Korean culture: it spans from the first K-pop band in the 90s to today's most recent cellphones & online games. Are there really no noteworthy Korean poets, writers, philosophers, musicians, artists, etc.? Wallers (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You raise a great point: most of this section (and indeed the article) focuses on the last 30 years of Korean history. Nonetheless, it's important to remember that the article as well as the respective sections of the article are meant to be summaries or overviews. As such, they can't really be exhaustive lists of people, places and events.

I think that you have some good examples above, but I also think they would belong better on the main Culture of Korea page. If you're worried about the brief summary paragraphs on the in the Culture section, then why not offer some changes or additions? Although the page is protected now, if you make some proposals we should be abel to get them in the article. RlndGunslinger (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I insert a table and missing signature of Kingj123 (talk · contribs) to reduce the unnecessary lengthy space. The previous version can be seen in this diff--Caspian blue 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening introduction/Lead

When we first come into a wikipedia article about a country, nation or a state, we know that the lead is one of the most important sections of the page as it is opening and introduction to a user. I have seen many, so many other country articles and I have to say with absolute honesty that the lead for South Korea is probably the most strikingly bad introduction. Economic, scientific, military and educational achievements take up more than half the physical contents of the opening lead. Why is there a need to include things such as vise waiver, top scientific literacy and having a strong cultural influence? This is completely unacceptable. There are also other wealthy major economies in the world that have achieved just as much or more that Korea, but when you compare South Korea's lead to other countries, Its fair to say that it is overly positive. This article is already detailed enough and mentions all and more of what is in the introduction. It even has a ranking table in the end; Something which most country articles don't have. I am very aware of, and have for a while kept my eyes on edits made by users such as Sennen goroshi who make rather distruptive changes or cause vandalism(but not always). However, these attacks are a common occurance on country related articles, and there are also those who wish to present a more constructive and neutral point of view. I will put forward a new toned-down introduction to the article which can address as many relevant points as possible. Pds0101 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

An assessment of the Introduction

Compare the introduction to this article to the Korean-language Wikipedia. The difference is amazing! The Korean introduction has three paragraphs that briefly describe Korea: 1) the country, its capitol and its form of government, 2) the fact that Korean has grown from a war-ravaged country to a strong economy (mentioning "miracle of the Han River"), 3) and a distinction between North and South Korea. These are the essential facts that describe South Korea.

On the other hand, the English-language introduction overuses superlatives, and while factual, the overstatement of fact lessens the credibility of the article. Others who have commented make the same argument, which I'll restate: overstatement and redundant superlatives confuse the reader, and make an immediate, negative impression of Korea. Consider the difference between the Korean- and English-language introductions:

Comparison of Korean- and English-language Wikipedia

Korean wiki	English wiki
Seoul is the capitol.	Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world.
The president and the head of state, is Lee Myung-bak, the 17th president of the Republic of Korea. The prime minister is Han Seung-soo, and the chairman of the National Assembly is Kim Hyeon-goh.	Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, first inhabited as early as the Lower Paleolithic. Following the unification of the Three Korean Kingdoms under Silla in 668 AD, Korea went through the Goryeo and Joseon Dynasty as one nation until the end of the Korean Empire in 1910. After liberation and division, South Korea was established in 1948 and has since become one of the two full democracies in Asia.
...a war-ravaged county, the economy has grown to 13th-ranked GDP in the world.	Following the Korean War, the South Korean economy grew significantly, transforming the country into a major global economy. ... South Korea is a developed country. It is the second most prosperous major economy in Asia and a High-income OECD member, classified as an Advanced economy by the CIA and IMF. South Korea's exponential economic growth is called the Miracle on the Han River and earned the distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger in the world. Today, it is leading the Next Eleven nations and its economic success is a role model for many developing countries.
DPRK is North Korea... Republic of Korea is South Korea...	South Korea shares the most heavily-fortified border in the world with its only land neighbor, North Korea.
—	South Korea has a high-tech and futuristic infrastructure, and is a world leader in technologically advanced goods such as electronics, automobiles, ships, machinery, petrochemicals and robotics, headed by Samsung, LG, Hyundai-Kia and Hyundai Heavy Industries. It is a global leader in the fields of education, having the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy. South Korea was also estimated, in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, to have the second highest average national IQ.
—	Since the 21st century, South Korea's modern culture has become popular in Asia and beyond in a phenomenon known as the Korean wave.
—	South Korea has an international outlook with memberships in the United Nations, WTO, OECD and G-20 major economies. It is also a founding member of APEC and the East Asia Summit, being a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

Proposed change to the Introduction

Simply put… follow the example of the Korean-language article. Reduce the introduction to the essential facts about Korea. Eliminate overstated facts and facts that belong in the body of the article:

• second highest average national IQ, (deleted by another editor, please discuss before restoring this information)
• high-tech and futuristic,
• major global economy,
• advanced technology world leader,
• most heavily fortified border,
• world's highest…,
• global leader in…,
• modern culture [is] popular… Korean wave,
• second most prosperous major economy,
• leading the Next Eleven nations,
• role model for developing countries,
• distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger,
• one of the two full democracies in Asia, etc.

Many of these facts have a place in the body of the article, or spread out in the related main articles. But in the introduction, the concentration of non-stop superlatives is off-putting to the reader. The problem is not a POV issue in the literal sense, but rather in the tone of the text and how it's presented. Other sections of the article need the same reduction of concentrated superlatives, but trimming the introduction is the first step. Comments welcomed! --Mtd2006 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For more discussion about the intro, please read Cherry picking. --Mtd2006 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

I have never thought that any of the claims were incorrect, I just don't see a lot of them as being relevant. I suggest that all leading terms are removed - world leaders in blah blah..they have no place in this article. This article needs to be assumed to be neutral when someone reads it - at times it has been pathetically over-positive and anyone reading it would know straight away that it was written by a Korean who wants to portray their nation in the best way possible. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine. I understand why you might have thought that way. But back to your point, Well I don't think it would hurt if them term "world leader" was used at least somewhere in the article when necessary, as it is used in other country articles too. But these kinds of overly positive words do occur perhaps too often. I have tried to some make changes to the introduction several times already to tone things down (at least this is a start), but it seems making any edits to this page is virtually impossible. When you compare South Korea's lead to other major countries, it is the only one that comes to my mind as strikingly bad. Pds0101 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I just thought I'd drop in with some comments.

First, do not use Wikipedia as a citation. I can see that with the comment It is a global leader in the fields of education. I would only give factual references as to where it comes in league tables and the like. "A global leader" is a subjective term depending on how you define it, so I would not use it unless someone like the OECD do in recent publications.

Second, more generally I do not see proper citations that accompany "world leader" throughout the article. Remember that if this article is to get FA status it needs to be properly citated. I promise you the article could fail on this point alone so you might as well try to avoid such subjective terms to begin with. It adds nothing to the article, other than to make some South Koreans proud. I hope you'd all agree that's not what the article should be about.

Third, I feel the tone of the article is like a promotional campaign for why South Korea is generally "great". Some of the citations are clearly not appropriate. You can't say Frequently described as a technology superpower and use a US-Korean student conference as a citation.

Fourth, keep the image captions simple and don't put contentious statements in there without a proper citation. Comments like EveR-2 is a highly sophisticated android capable of expressing human emotions naturally. and Albert HUBO is one of the most advanced humanoid robots in the world. are subjective and may even be controversial. Just say what the image is and leave it at that - unless say it won a very prestiguous international award. For example Kim Yu-Na is a world leading figure skater and one of the most recognized athletes in South Korea. should be changed to Kim Yu-Na is a medal-winning ice figure-skater. It's factual and simple.

Fifth, I think the article could do with a link to an article on racism/racial issues in South Korea if there is one under the demographics section. If not you could use Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

Sixth, the citations need formatting and there need to be a lot more of them. John Smith's (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, I hope to see that at least some of your points will be implemented. Pds0101 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to chime in with Sennen Goroshi and John Smith--esp. the captions for the pictures really make this look like a brochure from the Korean chamber of commerce; they are decidedly unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the overuse of superlatives and overstated facts that occur throughout the article. In the intro alone there are plenty to remove. If we agree, how do we start and how do we convince with those who disagree? --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

About cited superlatives… many references use them. A web page about a new aircraft will say it's the most advanced in the world. Another about shipbuilding will have plenty of data to support a claim of long-term success. But part of editing for an encyclopedia is reducing extraordinary claims to ordinary fact. Is it necessary to repeat every best, greatest, most advanced, highest, etc., that we find in references? When we cite references, people can read them. Korea's accomplishments are significant. It should be easy to say so without overstatement. --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced and weasel tags

I agree with these tags for this article. See "An assessment of the Introduction" for my reasons. Lets not attack the editor... Please discuss the article. --Mtd2006 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. The manner in which the editor has placed the tags is not very constructive, but his concern with the article's pov is well-placed. Personally, I have looked through some areas and haven't even known where to start; cleaning up the article is probably going to be a pretty massive task. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

An example of unbalanced and weasel words

I looked at the Military section because it's an interest of mine. The opening paragraph says (my emphasis),

A major military power in the world, South Korea possesses the world's sixth largest number of active troops, the world's second largest number of reserve troops and one of the ten largest defence budgets in the world. The South Korean army has 2,300 tanks in operation, consisting of technologically advanced models such as the K1A1 and the new K2 Black Panther. The South Korean navy has the world's sixth largest fleet of destroyers and is one of the five navies in the world to operate an Aegis guided missile enabled destroyer, the King Sejong the Great class destroyer.

Not one of these extraordinary claims are supported by the citations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One document cited for these claims was published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It's an academic analysis of military forces in Asia. A quote from the analysis puts the comparison of spending by North and South Korea in proper perspective:

Figures 5 and 6 show that South Korea greatly outspends North Korea, but that

North Korea has increased its military spending more quickly. North Korean expenditures are low, however, because state determination of prices and the ability to enforce very low manpower costs. Its expenditures would be

significantly higher if measured in comparable prices.

The claim that South Korea has the sixth largest number of active troops is not supported by the CSIS citation. The table on page 35 shows figures for Australia, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; the rest of the world is not included. South Korea (678,700) is ranked fourth, exceeded by China (2,255,000), India (1,325,000), and North Korea (1,106,000). That does not mean South Korea has the fourth largest number of troops in the world. Instead, the citation has been incorrectly quoted.

The CSIS article does not mention Korea's K1A1 or K2 Black Panther tanks. It compares South Korea's tanks to other nations' tank forces only by number and type. The one verifiable fact from the CSIS article (Figure 7: Asian Military Forces in 2006: Part 1, p. 24) is that South Korea has 2,330 main battle tanks; versus China (7,580), India (3,978), North Korea (3,500), Pakistan (2,461), et al.

The next citation, dated May 2007, is an article summary (not a quotation) of another article that is no longer available online. This is the entire text:

The same day that North Korea again test-fired several short-range missiles, South Korea launched the first of three new Aegis destroyers equipped with advanced air and sea weaponry. President Roh Moo-Hyun, speaking at the launch of the one-billion-dollar 7,600 ton KDX-III destroyer, said “We cannot sit idle in the face of a continuing arms race in the Northeast Asian region." The destroyer, named the King Sejong, was built with stealth technology, making detection more difficult. South Korea becomes the fifth country after the United States, Spain, Norway and Japan to have the Aegis integrated weapons control system. The South Korean ship will be deployed operationally in 2009. A second Aegis destroyer will be launched in 2010, and the third in 2012.

The citation says nothing about the size of the South Korean destroyer force relative to the the rest of the world. It does not say South Korea operates an Aegis-equipped destroyer, only that one ship was launched in 2007. "It has also the world's largest fleet of frigates, the sixth largest of corvettes and the fourth largest of submarines in operation," has no citation.

The third citation is a table of South Korea's Air Force equipment. The table does not compare Korea's air forces to the rest of the world. The paragraph states that Korea operates "advanced American fighters such as the F-15K, KF-16 and advanced indigenous models such as the T-50 Golden Eagle." This is overstatement of the capability of the T-50. The T-50 is a trainer — it has no fighter capability. According to the table, the TA-50 version, a combat capable trainer, will be available in 2015.

You only exemplified a couple of sentences in the military section, and now you are claiming that entire South Korea article is bluffed. That's what people say exaggeration. I guess you have to consider what kinda tags you can use properly first.68.40.179.217 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no such claim. The article is not "bluffed". It contains overstated facts like those in my example. I agree with the unbalanced and weasel words tags, and I've tried to explain my reasons. Please comment about the content of the article and avoid remarks about other editors. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be a question, "why is the entire article tagged unbalanced and weasel words?" I didn't tag the article, but I agree the tags are needed. Please read this discussion and the archives Talk:South_Korea/Archive_1, Talk:South_Korea/Archive_2, and Talk:South_Korea/Archive_3. Look for "POV" and "disrupt" in the archives. The problem of POV is a recurring one. The article is rated as Top-importance by the WP:WikiProject Korea, but remains at C on the quality scale. South Korea was twice nominated for good article, but failed both times. The same quality problems have remained for two years.

No wonder why this article has fallen to the C grade article. How could possibly this artcle maintain 'good quality' (to which standard?) against so many those biased attacks? Those kinda crooked chauvinisitic attacks really make Wikipedia's neutralism in peril.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The standard is WP:WikiProject Korea rating of articles. The good article rating process is explained at the top of the discussion page. Let's discuss the article and avoid remarks about editors. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One alternative to the article tags is tagging each questionable item within the article. That's been tried before, and it doesn't work. When there are too many tags within the article text, the tags themselves become disruptive. Tag-wars are edit-wars in disguise.

My purpose in support of the tags on the entire article is to encourage discussion. If I had no experience with Korea or Korean culture, I'd have a negative impression from reading South Korea. South Korea deserves a better article! --Mtd2006 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply to convene discussion, you said you put tags. That's really something I don't think you are supposed to do. Yes, it deserves a better article. The real problem is people have different views upon the standard of better article. As everybody knows, we are not all angels, so some people are willing to abuse the freedom of this editing or tags as a weapon for meeting his/her chauvinisitic partiotism.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are published standards for this article. Please read about the article quality scale. --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. Now you are claiming that the South Korea article is full of unbalanced and weasel words. Then my suggestion is you to make a desirable draft for correcting those words you indicated. About the tags, as I know puttung those kinda tags cannot be used as a weapon and also determined by individual judgement. I will ask this article to be protected from this absurd situation. Before you bring the draft and reasonable numbers of consentment on putting the tags, the tags should be removed until then.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of tags is to alert editors that the article needs improvement and invites new editors to join a discussion. Please read WP:Tag First and WP:RESPTAG. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you identify problems in an article but don't have the time to fix those problems, at least take the time to choose the most relevant and specific tags, and consider leaving some explanation on the talk page so that others can understand what the problem is and determine if they can do anything to fix it. — quoting WP:RESPTAG

In addition, I think it is not reasonable and justifiable that putting the tags to entire article, simply because someone has tried to put the tags on certain sections of the article, but claimed it was in vain. This kinda act really makes all those efforts by many users in vain. Please consider it.68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The tags are not the issue (or they shouldn't be) and they are not a weapon. We should discuss the article, not the tags! Tags are not a criticism of the subject of the document. They indicate the document needs work. If the tags are removed, it indicates the article is fine as it stands. Dead lock. Nothing will change. It's pointless to make changes that are immediately reverted because there's no consensus on the problem. That's where this article has been for two years. Yes, the whole document needs scrutiny, some areas more, some areas less.

The purpose of the tags is to engage a discussion. We remove the tags; the discussion ends; dead lock; nothing happens.

I haven't edited the document because I've seen how contentious the process has become. I commented on the problem before tags were added — I did not add them. Anyone is free to tag an article that they feel has problems. It's wrong to remove a tag unless the problem is addressed. The problem is not the tags or who added them. The problem is why they were added and the reason is that the article needs work. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging issues

This back-and-forth tagging really needs to stop. Personally, I agree with Mtd2006 that the article has issues that need addressed...but right now I'm trying to speak as an impartial observer, because no matter whether or not the tags belong there, edit warring over them is even worse. Here's my suggestion for how we can find a happy medium until the article is cleaned up:

Identify the most problematic subsections of the article and tag those. As Mtd2006 pointed out, over-tagging can harm readability and be bad for the article... but at the same time, this article has certain subsections that are fine and factual (such as the ones about climate, administrative divisions, and other boring stuff), and having all-encompassing tags that cover the whole article seems to offend some people. So I think tagging the three or four most problematic subsections will keep people from being offended (since it avoids saying "this entire article is bad"), and it will be more constructive because it will show people more specifically what needs to be edited.

My suggestions for what needs to be tagged:

1. Military (This is a short enough section that the problematic peacock bits could probably be identified and edited in barely any more time than it takes to tag.)
2. Economy
3. Science and technology
4. Culture

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be more specified to the fatual revisions you are expecting on those sections you listed? As I know, most lines are underpinned by reference(s). So I wonder how you wish to be cleaned up those sections: just revising their ways of expression or consolidating with more citations?68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some parts are referenced but just much more wordy and flowery than they need to be (Mtd2006 put together a list of examples above). The other problem that comes up in some of these sections is that, even though everything is referenced, it's only really showing one side of the story; the original author of those sections may have cherry picked a lot of the references to include only the positive ones. As editors, we need to be evaluating the references and their claims, and trying to represent our best approximation of the truth, rather than just a view that happens to be supported by certain references we find. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for this approach if it works. I made my assessment to a deafening silence until another editor added tags. The tags are not the issue; their purpose is to bring editors to the discussion page to reach consensus about the article. No tags… deafening silence. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Like Rjanag, I come to this article as an impartial observer. I haven't contributed to the article. I admit to being frustrated that the edit wars continued with very few comments in the discussion… until another editor added tags. The tag/no tag problem is a repeat of previous problem in the archives. One editor, angered that he couldn't tag the article, decided to tag the text instead. This too was ineffective and ultimately disruptive. It's called WP:Tag bombing. When an new editor comes to an article, the tags indicate that discussion is needed. An editor who sees no tags rightly assumes there are no issues that need discussion, which leads to an edit war. The tags are intended to encourage discussion. There's no other purpose or intent. Can we reach consensus if we don't discuss?

To Rjanag's list, I would add the introduction. I agree about the other four sections. Based on the edit history of this article and the numerous edit blocks that have occurred, there will be little progress until editors can agree on what's wrong and what needs to be changed.

Introduction: In my attempt at an assessment, I mentioned the Korean-language version of this article. I read Korean poorly. I can make out the basic meaning, but the tone and specifics are beyond my abilities. If someone who is fluent in Korean would look at the Korean version of the introduction, I think we would have a good example to follow. What better description could there be than one written by Koreans?

Specifics:

1. Do we agree to remove superlatives, wordy and flowery language? In the first paragraph of the Military section alone, we'll lose some highly complimentary statements.
2. References — several problems, but there are plenty of good-quality references

Korean language references per Non-English sources,

I agree about cherry-picking, exceptional claims require exceptional sources,

Citations missing publisher, date, and author information — a "small" problem that makes finding replacements for dead links especially difficult

A general remark about the article itself… The basic problem is not the facts in the article or the references that are cited. The problem lies in the way the facts are presented and how the references are used. Call it what you like: POV, wordiness, etc. If you look at the history of this article, isn't that the main problem? Please don't mistake criticism of the article on South Korea with any intent to defame Korea or Koreans. My goal, and the hope of others who have tried before is to improve this article. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with this assessment. We should definitely remove superlatives unless they are really notable; South Korea is already a country, so it's not like we have anything to prove. With articles about joe schmoe garage band you often have to say it's the "most" something in order to prove notability, but that's not a concern here, so we can afford to be neutral. I have been slowly working on taking superlatives out of image captions (image captions aren't the place to impress people anyway; that stuff goes in the main text. The image caption should be describing the image.).

References are also a major problem. For the image caption about Korea Air, it said KA was the largest cargo carrier in the world, and when I checked the reference it was actually listed as the second-largest, which is a very big difference. Needless to say, I removed the reference and the statement. We are going to have a lot of work on our hands checking all these references wherever there's an extraordinary claim, but it needs to be done, because right now all references and claims are suspect.

And, of course, the incorrectly formatted citations (bare URLs, etc.) need fixed. This has always been one of my major pet peeves. In the process of checking facts we can also fix the citations as we go. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

South Gyeongsang is Richest Region in East Asia / Ulsan is Second Richest City in East Asia？

http://stats.oecd.org/OECDregionalstatistics/indexTL2.html(OECD Japan / Korea(TL2)

---

This source's GDP per capita calculation is falsed; Gyeongnam Region(pop. 7745535/GDP. 178059 Million USD)'s GDP per capita calculation result is must be around of 23,000 USD. not 36,000. in this source, Japanese Regions GDP per capita calculation also falsed. this source is not 'RELIABLE' source. so, i think this source and source-related article parts must be deleted.

AND Ulsan is Second Lichest City in E.Asia and Tokyo's GDP per capita is just 45,000 USD？ it is just ridiculous. Tokyo also Osaka GDP per capita exceed 70,000 USD in 2004 Source and Nagoya's GDP per capita in 2005 is around 5.5million yen. please LISTENING READER's OPINIONs for make GOOD ARTICLE.

GDP of Tokyo[1] Osaka[2] Nagoya[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.111.130.185 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that OECD's data is unreliable but that those claims are not actually supported by the referenced pages. The TL3 data is used for Ulsan's "the second richest city" claim. However, The TL3 obviously is not city level division but provincial and metropolitan city level division in South Korea and prefectural level division in Japan. As noted above, several cities in Japan have higher GDP per capita than Ulsan. The TL3 data also shows that Gyeongsangnam province's GDP per capita is 20,737 USD. Also note that those data cover South Korea and Japan only so cannot be used to assert their relative wealth "in East Asia". Based on this, I removed those claims. --Kusunose 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for researching that one. I restored the OECD link for GDP data. It's a better source than City Mayors. N.B. I also changed the Lichest to Richest for this section's title.

Royal Ontario Museum

Update citation for url=http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=sg1yebpnv8

• Old title: "Ancient Civilizations"
• New title: "News Releases: Gallery of Korea"
• Date: 12 December 2005

--Mtd2006 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This news release from the Royal Ontario Museum is used to support the statement that "Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world". The reference has been misused. It's an example of cherry picking (see Cherry picking below). The news release was incorrectly titled "Ancient Civilizations" in an old revision[4]. The news release is not about ancient civilizations. It's an announcement that the Royal Ontario Museum will display over 250 Korean objects in its new gallery.

An editor found the quotation, "Considered one of the oldest civilizations in the world, Korea has evolved as a distinct culture making its mark through art and technological accomplishments." The news release is an incorrect citation for the claim that "Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world". A correct reference would be a research paper that describes ancient civilizations. A museum press release doesn't do that. The statement should be removed from the introduction. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else noticed this. I tried to delete this part of the sentence, and provided a rationale for doing so, but the passage was instantly reverted by a Korean editor.

Unsourced information

If you find unsourced facts that you can't verify, please comment here. List the section and quote the unsourced fact. Unsourced facts should be verified or removed, see WP:VERIFY. Please sign with ~~~~ , and thank you. Mtd2006 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Section	Statement/Comment
Transportation and Energy	"South Korea has currently the world's fifth largest rapid transit system." This statement has a reference to Total rapid transit systems statistics by country, but that article has no reference at all. Mtd2006 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking

Right now, the article has many instances of cherry picking. Cherry picking happens when an editor finds a source of information, but selects only the most favorable (or least favorable) facts.

This sentence is from the introduction: "Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world." The citation for this statement come from this published research paper: Which are the largest? Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly. From the title alone, I think we can see that the reference is not about which cities are largest, but rather it's about why it's so hard to know which city is first, second, or third. Here's what the reference says about Seoul's population:

Table 1. The World's Twenty Largest Urban Areas According to Eight Different Sources, p2.

Source	Rank	Population in millions
A	#2	22.9
B	#4	21.7
C	#2	20.7
D	#4	20.2
E	#7	16.9
F	#4	19.8
G	#18	9.9
H	#9	10.2

In Table 2, p6, a United Nations population estimate lists Seoul, ranked #18, with population 9.5 million.

A wiki editor cited this reference but selected only the most favorable fact. These two tables really say that Seoul's population ranks between #2 and #18, depending on how population is counted. The sentence in the introduction is incorrect according to the reference. Moreover, even if a source is found that only lists Seoul's population as #2, it should not be used to justify this factoid. The reason is explained in the conclusion, p37 (my emphasis):

This paper has made an effort to clarify the statistical portrait of the world's most populous urban areas, and to explain that differences between published lists of such areas are due primarily to differences in geographical definitions. [...]
Each type of definition has both advantages and disadvantages. In any major metropolitan area, the administrative central city is an important entity and well known locally, and statistical data for it are essential to its efficient operation. However, it rarely provides a good basis for comparisons with other large urban areas except on limited issues of municipal administration. Likewise, definitions based on administrative areas larger than the central city may be useful locally but offer little comparability with other areas and other countries.

For these reasons, I propose that the sentence, "Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world." should be revised to read, "Its capital is Seoul."

Comments always welcome.
-- Mtd2006 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Great work! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I love cookies. --Mtd2006 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle

T-50 Golden Eagle is not the world's first supersonic trainer

Editors frequently add the words "world's first" to the T-50 Golden Eagle trainer. This is untrue. I suspect there's an incorrect news release or web site that makes this claim. There are other supersonic trainers that are older than the T-50. One famous example is the SR-71B. There's a nice drawing of the SR-71B at the U.S. Air Force web site. Notice the extra instructor cockpit just above and behind the main cockpit. Please don't add "world's first" to the description of the T-50. Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle is a joint venture

The main article implies that the T-50 is an aircraft model indiginous to South Korea. Actually this model is constructed jointly between Lockheed Martin and the KIA. The link I have given is Lockheed Martin's online brochure page for the T-50 from their corporate press kit section of their website. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/T-50-Brochure.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.214.225 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

World's highest scientific literacy

The introduction states that Korea has "the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy." The problem with this statement is that the references at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_mat_lit-education-scientific-literacy don't support the claim. Both table are the results of testing 15-year-old students. It's easy to miss the definition at the bottom of each page that says "mean value of performance scale 15 years old 2000". These factoids are only true for 15-year-olds in the year 2000. The phrase "having the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy" is not true according to the NationMaster web site and should be removed from the article.

If this factiod is important to the article, its correct place is in the Education section. However, you should explain that the tables from NationMaster are the result of testing 15-year-olds in 2000, because this fact is easy to miss if you read the references. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean versus Hangul

This issue has been discussed previously and the problem recurs. In English, we use "Korean" for both the spoken and written Korean languages. We have a bias in English-speaking countries and generally all counties that use the Latin alphabet; we rarely make a distinction between our language and our alphabet. The "English alphabet" is really the Latin alphabet from the middle ages; see a clever graphical illustration at Evolution of Latin Characters from Evolution of Alphabets.

Other languages have specific separate names for the spoken and written forms of language. Korean is one of these. Written Korean is called Hangul; the spoken language is called Hanguko (formally), Hangukmal (general use), or several variants used in North Korea. Another variant of written Korean is called Hanja. Because this article is about South Korea, Hangul is the best name for the written language.

Follow the link to Korean language, and the distinction is clear,

This article is mainly about the spoken Korean language. See Hangul for details on the native Korean writing system.

Although I accept that common English usage is to use "Korean" for both the spoken and written languages, our bias is incorrect. Admittedly, Hangul is an unfamiliar term to most readers. The nice thing about unfamiliar terms in Wikipedia is that they can be easily linked to an appropriate article that explains them. The label [[Korean language|Korean]], directs readers to the spoken language. But Korean language redirects readers interested in the written language the Hangul article. The [[Hangul]] label explains the unfamiliar alphabet to readers who can't read Hangul. Isn't it most appropriate to refer readers to the directly to the separate article about the Korean written language when we introduce an unfamiliar alphabet?

--Mtd2006 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue is whether we feel we're presenting a Hangul term or a Korean term. The sentence at issue is this one from the lead:

often referred to as Korea (Hangul: 대한민국)

Personally, my intuition is that this sentence is not intended to introduce the spelling of a word, but to introduce a new word (ie, saying "This is how you say "Korea" in Korean," rather than "This is how you spell tey han min guk in Hangul"). Since the word is a Korean word, not a Hangul word (Hangul is, as you said above, only a way of spelling Korean words), I feel that is the most appropriate way to introduce it. It's not a huge deal, though, and I am certainly open to other opinions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what I said, or if I did, that wasn't my intent. Hangul is the official, written Korean language, not just a way of spelling. The McCune-Reischauer system (see The McCune-Reischauer Korean Romanization System and Romanization System of Korean: McCune Reischauer (with minor modifications) BGN/PCGN 1945 Agreement) is a way of spelling. McCune-Reischauer is not a language. For more about romanization of Korean, see Korean romanization. Since this discussion began, another editor has added the Hanja version of tae-han-min-guk.

Some difficulty may be that the Hangul and Hanja follow the word "Korean". Since 대한민국 and 大韓民國 translate to "The Republic of Korea", would it be better to move them after the words "Republic of Korea"? How's this?

South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea (ROK) (Hangul: 대한민국, Hanja: 大韓民國, IPA: [tɛː.han.min.ɡuk̚]), ), often referred to as Korea, is a…

It may be that this was how the article read at one time, before the extra words, "often referred to as Korea" were added.

--Mtd2006 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

IMF versus CIA financial statistics

At various times, the infobox has cited two sources of financial statistics. One is the IMF (the International Monetary Fund) and the second is the CIA World Fact Book. Of the two sources, the IMF is an internationally recognized authority. The World Fact Book is published by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and is not internationally recognized as a source of financial data; it's not the best source we can use.

We need four statistical items of financial data for the infobox.

1. GDP (PPP)
2. GDP (PPP) per capita
3. GDP (nominal)
4. GDP (nominal) per capita

The IMF resource provides all four items from a single, consistent source. The IMF statistics are clearly marked as actual figures or staff estimates. As of February 2009, the 2007 data is the most current actual data; the IMF has not published 2008 actual figures.

The World Fact Book lists only GDP (PPP), GDP (PPP) per capita, and GDP (nominal). These statistics are labeled "(2008 est.)". The CIA resource does list actual data as of February 2009, nor does it list the 2007 actual figures.

The IMF is the single best source for the GDP statistics that are needed for the infobox. The CIA does not publish the four statistics that are required for the infobox, and its figures are estimates rather than actual data. When the IMF publishes 2008 data, the infobox should be updated with that information. Is IMF the most consistent, most accurate, internationally recognized source of this information? Is there another source?
--Mtd2006 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic group statistics from Joshua Project

What is the Joshua Project? The "Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the least followers of Jesus Christ."[5] It's not a census of the population in Korea and it's POV by its advocacy. It focuses on select groups of ethnic people based on religious preference.

The web site states:

The exactness of the above numbers can be misleading. Numbers can vary by several percentage points or more.[6]

A non-POV, census-based source is needed for ethnic statistics with accurate figures. "Numbers can vary by several percentage points or more" isn't a reliable source for statistics as precise as: 96.9% Korean, 2.01% Japanese, 0.14% American, 0.13% Other Asian, 0.03% Eurasian, 0.02% European, 0.76% unclassified. The Joshua Project statistics should be removed or another source located. Comments welcome.
--Mtd2006 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I left the editor a message a few minutes ago asking about this, at User talk:Cryingnut#Ethnic groups of South Korea. S/he said that it's from the UN census. Personally, I don't mind that it's a Christian organization (sometimes these POV organizations can still put out good information...for example, SIL International is one of the best resources on language typology, even though they are unfortunately affiliated with missionary activities...it's just something we take with a grain of salt); what really caught my eye was that it lists "American," "British," and "Deaf" as ethnic groups, which seems very strange to me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you identified the problem when you observed that "American," "British," and "Deaf" are identified as people groups by the Joshua Project. I had looked at the sources of the data[7]. The United Nations is not among them. The sources are advocacy groups. The Joshua Project is an unreliable source for ethnic group statistics. The reference states that "numbers can vary by several percentage points or more". From this source, we can conclude that 97% of the population of Korea claim Korean heritage, and 3% claim "other". Can we move these people-group statistics to the talk page until ethnic-group statistics are located? United Nations census data would be a sufficient reference. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree...I don't see UN in there, as claimed. I know Ethnologue is a decent source (although almost certainly not the one that was used for ethnic group statistics; Ethnologue is a language database), but I can't vouch for any of those others. I have removed the information:

96.9% Korean, 2.01% Japanese, 0.14% American, 0.13% Other Asian, 0.03% Eurasian, 0.02% European, 0.76% unclassified

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Foreign relations section

The section has no lead-in. This leaves the reader at a loss for context, that is, what's the importance of this section and how does South Korea present itself to the rest of the world?

I suggest a simple solution. Move the text from the Other nations sub-section to the top Foreign relations section, and eliminate the "Other nations" sub-section. The "Other nations" text nicely summarizes South Korea's place in world politics, and presents a significant fact that Ban Ki-moon serves as United Nations Secretary-General.
Mtd2006 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editorial from chosun.com does not predict collapse of economy in 2036

I removed this prediction from the Demographics section, "The latests estimates state that Korea will have an aged society by 2018, and that the economy will collapse by 2036 unless birth rates increase or immigration is substatially boosted." The cite for this statement is: Tackling Low Birthrate Requires Shift in Thinking.

There are four problems with the "collapse by 2036" statement:

1. The chosun.com article is an editorial, not research, nor news reporting,
2. Quoting the editorial, "In 2036, that ratio will change to one Korean in his productive years having to supporting one senior citizen. The economy will be unable to withstand the pressure, and the social safety system will collapse." The editorial does not say, "the economy will collapse by 2036 unless birth rates increase or immigration is substatially boosted;" specifically, the editorial predicts the social safety system will be stressed because, by 2036, one working Korean will support one senior citizen.
3. The editorial predicts future events if action is not taken or policy is not changed; the editorial doesn't claim that no action will be taken, nor that policy will not change,
4. The editorial concludes, "Korea either must change its perceptions, practices and institutional framework when it comes to marriage, family and childcare, and endure the side effects, or open its doors to immigrants and embrace multiculturalism. The country is getting closer to the day when it will have to choose between the two." The editorial asserts that South Korea must make social and economic changes, but presents two options that may or may not occur in fact.

--Mtd2006 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's great that someone has gone to so much effort to get rid of one slightly negative section of the article.

Now, if someone would just do something about the 548 jingoistic, inaccurate and cherry-picked overy-favourable sections, this article will be just fine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hanja in infobox?

Regarding this and this: is it necessary or useful to have hanja at the top of the infobox, given that it's not a widely used writing system for Korean anymore? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Restoration

Rjanag,

I had found a very interesting poll and artical regarding the restoration of the Korean Monarchy, and added that sentence under government. The sentence was

A 2006 poll conducted by the Realmeter research company revealed just under 55% of South Koreans favor restoring the Korean monarchy of the Yi Royal Family of Korea

I understand and respect that this is just one poll, but clearly it deserves a mention somewhere in the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in the article. You already inserted the same material to an article pertinent to the subject? --Caspian blue 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I did add it to the House of Yi page, and the government page, understanding that this was topical to both. Why would you say that the sentence is unwarrented for the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from Government of South Korea because South Korea is not a monarchy. If Korea was not divided into the two states, well that kind of "one time" poll may have some merit to be mentioned. Besides, your source is a "blog".--Caspian blue 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside of the merit of the insertion, Original new article and this would have a better position than linking the blog.--Caspian blue 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh! I did not realize it was a blogsite! On my screen, the link I had does not display that it is a blog. It has a logo for the JoongAng Daily, and was written by Park Sung-ha, and published in Published : October 22, 2006. But as my computer does not actually translate Korean, none of the Korean is displayed for me. Because of this I do not see anything that listed it as a blog site. Clearly, yes, blogs are not reliable sources and I apologize for linking it. Thank you for finding and linking the better source! :) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But I do not necessarily understand why it still does not warrent a mention in the artical, when it reveals more then 50% favor a restoration? Granted it is only one poll that we can find but I am not in Korea or speak Korean so can not do that research myself. Why does it matter if Korea is divided or not.... in terms of this poll and mentioning it in the artical? The poll was conducted of corse of South Koreans ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert or go on about it, but it seems to me (and I may be wrong, I'm no expert on Korea) that the poll reveals a significant and under reported interest in the Korean people of their monarchy. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Drachenfyre. This poll is interesting, but, as I explained in my edit summary for this revert, it is just one poll. First of all, a single poll can never really say anything beyond a doubt, as all polls have their shortcomings; a poll is only useful if a) you are sure it was carried out with good methodology (ie, if it's part of an article from a peer-reviewed journal, etc.); and b) you are able to put it in context, weigh how accurate it might be (with error intervals, etc.), and back it up with supporting material (similar polls, other research, etc.).

That being said, even if we did have enough reliable material to determine how valid this poll is, it's still just one little thing and not worthy of mention in this particular article. If we had an article about Popular opinion in South Korea or South Koreans' perception of government or something like that, it would make sense there; this, though, has to be a broad overview article, and doesn't have room to go into as much detail. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Prehaps a specific page Monarchism in Korea maybe? This would be simular to the Monarchism in Georgia page, and echo Spanish Monarchy and other pages.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be good, if you could find reliable sources (preferably books and journal articles, rather than polls and news articles, since the latter tend to overemphasize recent things). If you do get around to writing that, be sure to bring it to DYK, i think it would go nicely there! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is revision too slow?

Not quite as the editors schemed out a revision plan, I am wondering why the revision is so lagging. As I understood, revision would be done in a counter democrastic way by the editors, which may not need to collect opinions, and I expected this might accelerate the speed of revision, leading to remove tags in soon. However, I honestly couldn't find any significant amelioration, and the tags are still intact. If the ultimate purpose of putting tags is not permanent settlment of the tags in this article, then I hope revision process must go on faster in accordance to what editors mentioned above.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The revision happens at our leisure time; everyone on Wikipedia is doing it as a volunteer, in their free time, and there is no deadline. Please be patient.

In the meantime, people can't just remove cleanup tags by saying "no one has done the cleanup in a while." Cleanup tags should only be removed when there are no longer issues that need cleaning up; if no one has time to clean this article up until 2010 (hypothetically), the cleanup tags should stay until 2010. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it only myself who consider what you just said is so irresponsible? Seems like you guys only care about inventing a retext and putting tags in this article. I really am curious about what is the standard of electing editors. By the way, I guess you need to rethink what you believe. As I know, revision can be done not only by chosen editors, but by any users, and the tags can be removed once those revisions are assessed and proven to be allright. Let me know if I am wrong.Patriotmissile (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "irresponsible" about the fact that I have other things to do and only edit this article at my leisure. Like I said above: all Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Editors aren't "elected".

And, yes, revisions can be done by any editor, and tags can be removed once those revisions are assessed, as you said. In a controversial article like this, people can't just remove tags when they feel like it; after making revisions, they should come here and discuss why the tag should be removed, so that other editors may assess it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, I think, at least, there's a chance that the tags can be removed before 2010. The only thing I'm concerning is whether assessment will be proceeded fairly. I'm not sure if a judgement call made by editors is made unanimously or by majority, but I hope there's a system which enable us to assess the assessment made by eidtors has been made in fair and logical criteria.Patriotmissile (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2010 was only an example. The tags will be removed long before that. You just need to give us some time. User:Mtd2006 is already working on rewriting sections of the article one at a time: User:Mtd2006/Draft of South Korea. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be more tags on this article. Starting with environment ("there used to be some minor air pollution in Seoul, but the mayor has fixed it") and international relations ("North and South Korea are working towards peaceful reunification. Please just ignore the fact that they share the world's most heavily-fortified border and the North has detonated an underground nuke.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

More tagging is not a Midas's touch, and tagging shouldn't be used to express and achieve personal purposes. Heavily stacking military in DMZ doesn't mean working towards peace together is a lie. According to your idea, US and Russia, still aiming countless nukes at each other, must be in preparation of upcoming war right now. About the enviroment section, the mayor anyhow helped remove pollution in some extent by improving the Chengyechun stream.If the line is still problem, it can removed, but simply because there's just a single line needed to be improved, putting tags on entire section is just like burning whole house because there's a cockroach in it.Patriotmissile (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The environment section should give general information about the environment of South Korea, not merely a single cherry-picked fact about a single stream in Seoul. And the sentence "there used to be some minor air pollution" is completely inaccurate. Just last week, the yellow dust-storms came in from China. In regards to the relationship with North Korea, the border is the most heavily-fortified in the world, the two countries are still technically at war, and there are major problems between the two countries. But a South Korean editor has removed the mention of the fortified border and glossed over the major challenges facing the two countries. These are examples of the MAJOR PROBLEMS with this article - cherry-picking and distorted facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.76.26 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a sock puppet kept removing "most fortified border" replacing it with "S. and N. Korea are now working towards a peaceful and glorious reunification" or something like that. I kept reverting it for a long time; I don't quite remember what has become of it now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So are you urging that intermitent occurence of the yellow dust-storm from China in a short time during Spring makes South Korea is heavily polluted place? Don't you think it is a good example of showing too much over-generalization? In addition, as I told already, heavily fortified DMZ doesn't mean that South- and North Korea gave up their effort towards peace. Please answer my question above. If heavily armed forces aiming at each other is an antonym of pursuing peace in between two countries, are US and Russia technically at war rightnow and absolutely no peaceful efforts have been made in between two countries? I hate to say this, but I'm getting more worried about fairness on judgements and oblique stance of a few editors as this talk goes by. Yes, some flamboyant and subjective words are rather be removed, but by way of excuse this, please do not generalize that the entire contents are imbued with cherry-pickering. We are not at psychological warfare to keep one's self pride. Please remind that the discussion is for improvement of this article, not for witch-hunt or paving the way for only one-side track.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "urging" anything. If you haven't noticed, I have not ever added a single thing to this article; all I'm trying to do is gradually remove the stuff that doesn't belong. Your constant badgering of everyone who edits the article is not helpful and not constructive. If all you're interested in is picking a fight, I suggest you do it somewhere else.

And as for the specific issue of whether the N/S Korea border is "heavily fortified" or not, it's very simple: the statement that it is fortified was supported by a source, and the statement that they are "working towards a peaceful reunification" had no source. All I do is follow what is sourced and verifiable; to be honest, I don't really care about the N/S Korea border or anything you said above. (And, if I don't care, I am by default not in favor of either POV). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I am sorry that you think I'm just provoking war with you and other editors. However, don't you think it is a bit inappropriate and too subjective that you are saying my little efforts here are useless? Just for the case of heavily fortified border, I have enough sources enabling us to verify that South- and North Korea are working together for peace. In addition, the focus I was telling above is inadequate logical flow from heaviliy fortified border to denial on the fidelity of 'working together towards peace'. Those are the two different issues, and are not a necessary and sufficient condition for each other.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a side talk, but worthy to note. Patriotmissile, I stopped reading your complaints because purely due to the offensive subtitle that you put on. That strongly implies that editors who contribute to this article are "retarded". You'd better change the title if you get more input on your opinion.--Caspian blue 20:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think he just meant "slow" :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but that intention does not excuse the nature of the offensive language.--Caspian blue 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely have no intention to harm on any editor. I apologize for the title that can breed such misunderapprehension. Surely, I'm the one who deeply respect editors and their intellectual ability. By the way, I'm not just making complaints, but I'm just participating as a single user who is also eager to improve this article. Caspian blue, according to your recommendation, I changed the title. Thanks.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the understanding and willingness to cooperate altogether. I'm gonna start reading what you want to improve the article.--Caspian blue 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what concern you have, Patriotmissile, but editing Wikipedia is purely "voluntary unpaid job", so if you have a time, you can quickly remove the ugly tags as providing reliable sources and rewrite passages and remove povs.--Caspian blue 21:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice, but if I understand right a few editors mentioned that major revisions would be solely made by editors in a nondemocratic way and any revision should be settled upon by editors before removing any tags. Anyway, I'm happy to help editors improve this article, and appreciate for sharing editors' personal times to improve this article.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)