Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

Wikimania 2020

Bangkok, Thailand – 2020-08-05

End (optional)

Local Time ()

Finding a source

I can't seem to find a good source for Kang Myung-A, a south korean shooter. Can anybody help me? Thanks! Neverbuffed (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Neverbuffed, I am sorry nobody helped you. Maybe try asking at a bigger forum. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

BTS (band) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BTS (band) to be moved to BTS. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Has it been discussed before here?

I was wondering, if/when the two Koreas unify ( a big IFF), what would be the names? Was there a prior discussion? Starzoner (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really the place to speculate on such things. We need reliable sources to write about the subject - the point of Wikiproject Korea is to improve articles related to Korea. Your best bet for anything on this issue would be Korean reunification. Evaders99 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for assistance

There is discussion at Talk:United States Military and prostitution in South Korea about the number of prostitutes in South Korea during the 1950s and 60s. As I don't speak Korean and the format precludes machine translating, could somebody kindly verify (or not) the the ROK Government figures for prostitutes serving the UN/US military were 10,000-30,000 in 1954, 20,000 in 1966 and 13,000-14,000 in 1969 from these sources [1], [2] and [3].

Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month

I don't know if anybody has told you about this, but May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and DYK has set aside a special holding area for that. Please see WT:DYK. Also, so far, we just have contributions about Hawaiian Asian culture, and Fililpino Americans. It seems to me that Koreans in America are a sizeable population. Please feel free to participate. If anyone needs help getting started over there, just post a request for help at WT:DYK. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Korean Air Lines Flight 007, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Exceptions To Members Sections

I actually came here because of the Dempagumi.inc members section and how furious I am at the removal of detailed information about the members of the group. I know that they're J-pop and this is about K-pop but the idea of members and the things they represent remains consistent through both cultures. The difference is that as K-pop is vastly more popular in the English speaking world than J-pop is, it's far more well-documented in English. The problem I have arises from something like the Dempagumi.inc member section having its detailed member informatuion removed. As of right now, Wikipedia is one of if not the only place on the English-speaking internet where that detailed information from the member section can even be found. Things like what each member represents in their otaku genre, their color, information about their circumstances, join and graduation dates, etc. That information only exists right here in that former revision of that Wiki.

By removing that information, you are - metaphorically speaking - burning the only known translation of a book. You are erasing recorded history, and that is absolutely unacceptable. I will continue to revert that version until a rational consensus can be reached. There needs to be a place for information like that, especially when Wikipedia is the only reputable home on the internet to translated information such as that. I do not care if you can't settle on an agreement upon how to organize something like that. If you are removing detailed information like that for the sake of "consistency", you are an enemy to the preservation and recording of history, and that is downright putrid and you should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPopPapi (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@KPopPapi: It is trivial, and you do not own the article. Any continued disruptive behavior will only lead you to being blocked. On the contrary to your claim, you have to find consensus to include the content, not the other way around. It wasn't there in the first place. Wikipedia is not a fansite nor is it a place to dump any and all information simply because it is exists. ƏXPLICIT 11:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the removal of dating info from Korean artists

There are currently 2 discussion about the removal of dating info from Korean artists Talk:Kim_Hee-chul#Personal_life_section and Talk:Kang_Daniel#Personal_relationship. Please help us reach a consensus. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Add photo for Ri Chun-hee?

(Question also posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Korea, but raising here as well for greater coverage.)

I would like to propose adding a non-free photo of Ri Chun-hee (the North Korean TV news presenter), per a fair use exemption. Normally, the "pictures of people still alive" condition would bar fair use of a non-free picture of a living person, on the assumption that a free image may eventually become available. But it would appear vanishingly unlikely for anyone to ever be able to obtain a free photo of Ms. Ri under any circumstances — much less a picture of her in the pink attire that is an essential part of her persona and her notability. So, I'm strongly inclined to argue that a non-free photo of her, taken from a screen grab of a South Korean or other foreign news broadcast, would be appropriate. Comments? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Also asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Korea. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reversing the eradication of the relationships section on Korean artists' pages

Edit: People are not reading what I have written and do not understand my point before voting. I'm not saying to add or remove every dating info, I'm saying we should discuss it page by page, and not have a general rule like discussion 1 dictating that we should delete everything when someone breaks up, significant or not. If you did not know, I'm the one that re-added Sulli's relationship info which was previously deleted because of discussion 1 even though it was significant because the couple was cyber bullied. That is why I say we discuss it per page and not have general rule like discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago, there was an edit war on Kim Hee-chul revolving around the Relationships section and we started a discussion about whether to remove it or not. However, while discussing with the other editors, I came to the realization that the Korean artists' articles' editors hold different views on the matter and enforce removal of verifiable and well-sourced information from WP:BLP because they subjectively deem them insignificant or allegedly "harmful" and "sensitive information" (against WP:CENSOR) as can be seen here Here. Also, for years I have been told that when Korean artists' breakup the info of them dating should be deleted, and now I discovered that all that was decided against Wikipedia guidelines without any proper discussion and a consensus as seen here discussion 1 and discussion 2, and many of pages lost the Relationships section because a couple of editors thought they are not necessary even thought they are usually well-cited.

I raised the issue here but an admin, Guy, closed it and told me here that: "Per existing policy and guidance, you can add a relationship that's reliably sourced, remove only if you think it's not reliably sourced, and if anyone challenges a specific addition then you discuss it on the Talk page. Facts supported by reliable sources can be added, but if they are challenged by another editor it's your job to achieve consensus for inclusion."

Dating news (dating or breakup) that are well covered and are confirmed news by both parties/agencies do not fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:FAN. Dating news should be Neutral point of views, Verifiable under Korean reliable sources, and not an original research, so the points raised in discussion 1 and discussion 2 are against Wikipedia's already "existing policy and guidance" in WP:BLP. Dating news should not be deleted from the Relationships sections when it is well sourced with even international news outlets covering it by using discussion 1 as an excuse or saying all dating news are inherently insignificant. They keeps saying that any thing that doesn't contribute to the person's career should be removed, so should we also delete the birthplace, birth year, mention of family members, and education and Uni's major (if it is not acting/singing/etc.)? Please be consistent.

Relationships section can be seen in almost all artists’ articles on Wikipedia, be it a Korean artist (Park Shin-hye, Choi Tae-joon, Jung Eun-woo, Shin Min-a, and Kim Woo-bin, etc) or western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc). There should be a fair objective standard between Korean and western artists. As the admin said, there should not be a Korean-artist-wide rule that states that sections should be deleted when a person breaks up and it should be a page-by-page consensus. Personally, I think it should either be that, or the relationships section should be totally eradication even from western artists' pages or totally allowed (with dating and breakup info) on all pages included Korean artists' pages, as we can't objectively judge if the dating news is significant or not, or the duration of the artists' relationship before the relationship is deemed long term and allowed on the page (1 year, 2 years, etc), or how famous should they be to deem the relationship significant.

To conclude, my main issue is with discussion 1 and discussion 2 suggesting that all dating news are inherently insignificant and WP:FAN if artist break up and should be removed, which is being held as a rule by editors on Korean artist’s page. What I’m hoping from starting this discussion is to reverse the immediate use of discussion 1 as an excuse to remove all dating news (dating or break up) from articles. I wish for issues of inclusion and deletion to be judged page-by-page without enforcing or using discussion 1 as an excuse on all Korean artists as being done now, since that goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Format your comment to contain "Keep" the Korean-artists-wide rule reached on discussion 1 and discussion 2 about the eradication of the relationships section upon break up or "Reverse" the eradication of the relationships section upon break up, and include a rationale for your choice and please use guidelines and don't give me nonsense subjective non-Wikipedia useful reasons such as “idol dating news is sensitive” and “Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo” since that is WP:CENSOR. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not supporting this as a censoring or not. Rather, for 99% of all dating news ... it is trivial and not notable. It becomes a news event and then nothing happens. They move on, they break up, it's transient news. It adds nothing to their career. WP:ONUS says that not all verifiable information needs to be included. Adding one sentence that "X is announced to be dating Y" and nothing beyond that is a trivial mention and really adds no context. I'm not against mentioning specific relationships when there are other influences to their notability beyond that - esp in regards to Korean news media. But as a whole, specific current relationships aren't necessary just as we don't list all previous relationships. Evaders99 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaders99, "just as we don't list all previous relationships." Who said that we can't add info if they break up? That is the issue I'm talking about, people use it as an excuse to include info. There is no proper consensus to remove info if artist break up. Actually, the main consensus on Wikipedia is to allow it if it is reliably sourced as seen western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc), even Good articles, that have been looked at my multiple editors, allowed it. The current main consensus on Wikipedia which is stronger than a few editors consensus in here. Only Korean article editors make up their own rules, without proper discussions and try to enforce them on all pages. Your are the ones that need consensus to remove dating info about Korean artists break up in page-by-page discussion, as the removal goes against Wikipedia guidelines, not others who need to make dissuasion every time you remove it for no reason even though it is allowed throughout Wikipedia. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of Western artists have significantly more to write about... heck, a lot of their notability is who they are in relationship to their ex's ("Beniffer", "Brangelina", etc). Their public image is engrained in who they are in relationships with. In every example you link, the Korean artist has one line. The Western artist has two or more paragraphs on their relationships. No one is "making up" rules, but discussing what is notable to mention is a valid to debate here. Plenty of additions to Korean artists are press releases and don't really go into the why it matters. Context matters. For large amount of WP:NPF, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" is a valid guideline to consider. If they Korean artists were dating a non-celebrity, would it matter either? Evaders99 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaders99, "Lots of Western artists have significantly more to write about..." See Brad Pitt (a featured article by the way), him dating Robin Givens, Jill Schoelen, and Juliette Lewis is mentioned all in 1 sentence. That is not "significantly more to write about". "Their public image is engrained in who they are in relationships with." Subjective. Lots of extremely famous Korean actors date other extremely famous Korean actors, but the info is removed, even though other find it significant as the couple are famous worldwide, but their opinion is rejected because of the ingrained believe that there is a consensus that sates that dating info should be removed while there is not. "No one is "making up" rules, but discussing what is notable to mention is a valid to debate here." It might for Kim Hee-chul and Kang Daniel, but it is not the case on other articles when the info is removed immediately following the break up without a page-by-page discussion because of discussion 1. "For large amount of WP:NPF, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" is a valid guideline to consider. If they Korean artists were dating a non-celebrity, would it matter either?" That is a different issue, we are not speaking about adding random info about non-celebrity. If an actor dates them, their name, if available, is mentioned as it is relevant to the actor's news of dating them (Since ####, XX actor has been dating non-celebrity YY), of course only if it can be reliably sourced. WP:NPF is not applied here as the non-celebrity is only mentioned at most once or twice because of the person of interest's page, we are not writing paragraphs about them. Also, aren't non-celebrity always mentioned when a celebrity marries them? Based on your logic, shouldn't WP:NPF imply to them too? But I really don't care about that, my issue is mega-famous Korean celebrities having their dating info removed for no reason except discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• What is this nonsense? On Wikipedia, that which can be reliably sourced, can be included. If inclusion is challenged then you discuss on talk. The onus is on the editor seeking to include the content, to achieve consensus for inclusion. Nothing needs to change: that is how Wikipedia already works. Guy (help!) 20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, It is already being debated and no consensus is being reached. I think people are looking for more guidance project-wide, otherwise this fight just spills into every single page. (Also people use WP:OSE as a argument again and again) Evaders99 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This also makes not much sense to me. If the aim is to get editors interested in Korean artists to conform to wikipedia standards then for sure, they should. We don't have one rule for one wikiproject and different ones for the rest of wikipedia. Wikiprojects, especially ones like this, are useful in helping provide guidance on what could be considered a reliable source and other information that may be hard to come across for editors unfamiliar with a topic, but they are still bound by the PAGs and general good editing practise. The trouble is the discussions linked above show no evidence of this, so I am not sure what the op is getting at.

As to the wider question on whether to include relationship updates I tend to agree with the consensus reached at the other pages. We don't need it unless it plays a significant role in the persons life. Significance is subjective; but things like marriage, kids, length of time, any major incidents etc should provide some evidence of significance. As such these should be done on a case-by-case basis and any blanket rules are just going to create more headaches than necessary. I would also be wary of reliable sources. Tabloids, or even more reputable publishers, that use celebrity gossip as clickbait should not be used anywhere on a BLP. Also having a reliable source is the minimum for inclusion, we also have to take into account due weight, not news, recentism and other factors. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn I amended the first post to be more clear. My main issue is with discussion 1 and discussion 2 being held as a rule by editors on Korean artist’s page. What I’m hoping from starting this discussion is to reverse the immediate use of discussion 1 as an excuse to remove all dating news (dating or break up) from articles. I see excuses such as “It will be removed after the artists break up because of discussion 1, so why add it from the start?” They would remove the info even if it was significant relationship between very famous actors or years long relationship because they believe discussion 1 told them all info from all pages should be removed following break up. I wish for issues to be judged page-by-page without enforcing or using discussion 1 as an excuse on all Korean artists as being done now, since that goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; shouldn't come as a surprise that this is my opinion, and this is the same opinion for western and eastern articles. Unless there's something particularly notable or significant about the relationship I see no real reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Just because something can be reliably sourced does not mean it needs to be in an article. Alex (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - it really doesn't make any difference what the guidelines are here at WikiProject Korea about including dating relationships, like Guy stated — If inclusion is challenged then you discuss on talk. The onus is on the editor seeking to include the content, to achieve consensus for inclusion.. So in my view, it's on a case by case basis for any article, and if consensus is achieved to add the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaidnoway I'm not talking about adding or deleting info from a specific page, what I'm talking about is reverse discussion 1 so it is not used as an excuse to remove things with no discussion page-by-page. Which means next time someone comes to delete dating info from an artist that recently broke up, has to open a new discussion on the artist's talk page instead of using discussion 1 as a reason with no discussion. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; actually this can be apply to all celebrity.i put concern here because of culture that korea having to be honest but i see from an earlier discussion, i become more strongly believe that dating info is not important enough to put in an encyclopedia. Is only daily news that not worth to be someone history that everyone need to know unless is having some big change happen to their life or carreer because their relationship. Lucia kwon (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; From what i see is right to delete it after they break up, and i even more agree if they not put a dating issue at all. Dating issue either they date or break up is not important to be listed without a very important reason that make it more significant event to be list. Lee Hayi (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; i don’t understand why we need to discuss about this again, the topic that decide before is actually what is best, we don’t need to delete if is have the significant event on their relationship. For example like what is listed on Sulli or Goo Hara article that even they has break up, they have a significant and notable event happen that important for people to know about. When it’s nothing then what should people know who they used to date with? If you compare with they biography such a birth date , place or education. That all is their important history where is being celebrate and can be people choice to go study, so of course that is important to be listed. Dating ? Break up ? In normal occasion what is so important about that so people need to know? I think is need to see case by case wether the relationship or the past relationship is worth enough to keep for people to know and why. Timing999 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Timing999 If you did not know, I'm the one that add Sulli's relationship info. They were previously deleted because of discussion 1 even though it was significant, just like you said, because the couple was cyber bullied. That is why I say we discuss it per page and not have general rule like discussion 1. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94 that’s what a good one and i very agree and thank you to put it back and then put a reason and article that support how this event is so important for it. I think is same, is nice if we still keep the discussion 1 but we add more additional information about if there is significant and notable event for the break up to not delete it but help for more article that show how important this relationship for the person on the article regarding is positive or negative event. So rather to reverse is better to make additional exception to support that discussion for what is should delete or not.Timing999 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reverse: Agreed with what CherryPie94 and Guy stated. The general rule of eradicating all ex-relationship, despite its significancy, should be reversed; instead, the content should be removed on a case-by-case basis. From what I read with those chose "Keep", most pretty much agreed that significant ex-relationship should still be included. Heolkpop (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BP Guinness World Record discussion

I posed a question on the talk page of the Blackpink awards article regarding the GWR section and got some responses from only 3 editors related to the page, one of whom did not seem to understand at all what I was asking. In light of that I am hoping for additional thoughts on the matter if anyone is willing to take a look. Please note I am not contesting the information's inclusion but rather the way it is being presented on the page, as it seems to hinge upon a technicality in the supporting reference rather than clear-cut official confirmation from the record awarding body. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Seoul station listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Seoul station to be moved to Seoul Station. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Draft:Yangsan_Tower

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Yangsan Tower to verify my hunch that this is a word-for-word translation (and thus a copyright violation) from https://www.yangsan.go.kr/yangsantower/contents.do?mId=0101000000. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Women in Red - Draft:Im Seong-gu

Hi WikiProject Korea editors, Hope you're all well. I wondered if anyone had a chance to look over a draft I started as part of June's Pride theme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - the page is for an intersex person from the Joseon dynasty, some of which I google-translated from ko:임성구지 but then I found out more things! Here's the page: Draft:Im Seong-gu What I'd like to know is whether I've got the name of the person right? I saw a few different transliterations, which contradicted each other. Also Saganwon (사간원) is discussed in the article and I put The before it (so 'The Saganwon (사간원)') because it sounded like an organisation? Is that OK, or should 'the' be removed? Thank you for your help (Lajmmoore (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC))

Did you see the spelling Im Seong-gu anywhere? It would be good to have at least on English language source. Otherwise, it is probably best to use Im Seongguji for now. Except you found a good reason to omit the "-ji". Actually, I first thought it would be Imseong Gu-ji. But at one point in the Annals of Joseon Dynasty, he is just called Seongguji. The Saganwon should be correct. --Christian140 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, rather than 임성구지, 林性仇之 should be used in the article. The Annals of Joseon Dynasty where written in Chinese. E.g. on this site: http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kma_10311018_002#, you have the original on the right side, and the translation on the left side. The Korean alphabet wasn't even widely used until modern times. --Christian140 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This stub is a shame. But if someone doesn't understand what could be the meaning of 사간원, the odds are rather low that the same someone will understand what could be the meaning of a four lines extract from the Myeongjong sillok. Pldx1 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

South Korean IMF (International Monetary Fund) in 1997

Can someone from the project look at the recent article South Korean IMF (International Monetary Fund) in 1997? It's in dire need of cleanup and seems to contain a lot of original research and NPOV issues. Also, the title really needs to be changed but I'm not sure what the best title would be. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Korean chili peppers, and Introduction to Korea

A research paper was published in 2014 that disputes the popular idea that the Korean chili pepper was introduced to the country via foreign trade and that the first historical mentions of the pepper occur after the 15th century. The paper used DNA sequencing as evidence that there is no possibility of any foreign pepper of the same genus could have evolved into the genetically different Korean pepper in the amount of time needed to introduce the flavor to an entire county and integrate it into its cuisine in a way that even slightly resembles the historical records of kimchi and Korean chili powder. Furthermore, it points to older Korean historical documents that do document the presence, consumption, and popular use of Korean chili peppers, dating back to the first century.

Would this paper be enough of a verifiable reliable source to cite and introduce edits to the Korean chili pepper page?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319445357_DNA_Sequence_Analysis_Tells_the_Truth_of_The_Origin_Propagation_and_Evolution_of_Chili_Red_Pepper

2601:5CC:C500:1610:CD45:9DA1:B9C:C83A (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)