Talk:South Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee South Korea was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
May 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
April 28, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Korea (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Asia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


References[edit]

about Dokdo / Takeshima Comfort woman[edit]

Please see the video was created using historical primary source material. Please assess the facts and well.

North Korea should get it along with their mentor the Communist Chinese butchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.99.6 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Inhabited half a million years ago"[edit]

The second paragraph asserts that South Korea was inhabited "half a million years ago". This number is both imprecise and fallacious. Homo sapiens as a species is simply not that old! Would someone please fix this?

Chadpimp1 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Homo_sapiens says that 'modern humans' are between '100,000 and 200,000' years old, however Homo_erectus, and specifically Peking_Man were dated in the region 750,000 years ago. On that basis the Korean peninsular may actually have been inhabited? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You mention "in the region." Is there any evidence that Peking Man inhabited the Korean Peninsula? Mark Froelich (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Inhabited by what? Birds? Snakes? Horses? The sentence needs to be a bit more precise or it should be removed altogether. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Formation Section[edit]

Listing every Korean state is inconsistent with the styles listed on comparable pages, such as China, Japan, etc. Each nation page only lists 4-5 points of the main events that transpired, such as the foundation day, independence day, foundation of the republic, etc. As such, mentioning every period in Korean history is inconsistent with the style used on every other Wikipedia article in this category, contradicting Help:Infobox.

While I'm open to discussion regarding exactly which 4-5 events should be included, I think the ones currently in place should suffice as they include: The Foundation Day, the date when the Korean peninsula became completely unified, the independence day, and the establishment of the republic, and the date when the current constitution was implemented. This makes the section consistent with those of on other Wikipedia articles. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Switzerland, Norway and Austria, listing up to 10 events seem fine and renaming the section to history seems more appropriate like Switzerland. Only major kingdoms that had significant influence in Korean history should be included. This would start with the national foundation day like Japan and Switzerland, followed by the Three Kingdoms of Korea, Balhae that succeded Goguryeo and the unitary dynasties of Goryeo, Joseon and the Korean Empire. The Japan-Korea Treaty and the formation of the First Republic should conclude it. Massyparcer (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that up. I honestly have no problem with the infobox in its current form. However, my only concern is that users will end up abusing the list and include far more kingdoms/states/periods than need to be included, hence why I wanted to keep the section as simple and concise as possible: National Foundation, Unification, Independence, Establishment of the Republic, and Current Constitution. Let me know what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We would need to keep the list this way by sticking to a consensus. It appears to me that the list is simple as it is, but if you would like to simplify it further, we could sum up Goryeo, Joseon and Korean Empire as the unitary dynastic period, since their territories were more or less similar. We could do the same with Baekjae, Goguryeo and Silla, terming them under Three Kingdoms of Korea. I would say that the "current constitution" is unnecessary since it is explained in the lead and is not the foundation of a completely new state. Massyparcer (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

BlackRanger88, you're removing the semi-historical Gija Joseon, fully historical Wiman Joseon and Four Commanderies, while restoring the 100% mythological 2333 BC date

Academic consensus

"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."--Greenhorn38 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it is more of a question of how relevant it is to the modern Republic of Korea. At the end of the day, this article is about the Republic of Korea. The National Foundation Day is an official holiday designated by the government. It is not necessarily recognition of the historical event but a widely known and accepted date in the society like Japan or Switzerland. The kingdoms you mention of course have academic recognition. They are all part of Korean history and if we could list everything, it would be nice. But unfortunately, it appears that most Wikipedia country articles restrict the events as simple as possible, keeping only major events that had significant influence on the formation of the modern country. Gija and Wiman were part of Gojoseon that is honored via the National Foundation Day in this article and the Four Commanderies of Han were not really Korean kingdoms but set up by the Chinese and ruled by them. As a a result, the kingdoms you mention are difficult to be qualified under these conditions since they are too old and minor to have had a major impact on the formation of the mdoern republic. Written records and cultural heritages from those kingdoms are insufficient. If you look at the Three Kingdoms and the cultural legacy they left behind, this becomes clearer to understand. Massyparcer (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Greenhorn38: As I've mentioned before, my main concern is to abide by the comparability guideline set forth by Help:Infobox and help Wikipedia as a whole stay uniform and infoboxes to remain concise, as intended. Please use the infoboxes of articles on other nations as a reference.

@User:Massyparcer: I agree with most of your revisions, however, I would change "Balhae" to "North and South Kingdoms" since it encompasses the affairs of the entire Korean peninsula at the time. Additionally, I would change the "Japan-Korea treaty of 1910" to "Gwangbokjeol" since most other former-colony nation articles list their Independence day in this section rather than the date of annexation/occupation. Logically as well, the independence of the state is directly related to the formation of the modern day state. BlackRanger88 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with changing Balhae to North and South Kingdoms, however there seems to be a misunderstanding about Gwangbokjeol, which you listed as 1910, when the Japan-Korea Treaty was signed. I corrected this. Massyparcer (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually just forgot to change the date corresponding with Gwangbokjeol. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Han Commanderies is confirmed in every Korean history textbook.

when you want to claim a point, the proof is necessary. Now show me that the current major korea history textbooks don't talk about Chinese commandaries, otherwise your point is worthless. Here let me simply list some of many college textbooks that do discuss the Chinese commandaries as the part of Korea history.

Kyung Moon hwang, "A History of Korea, An Episodic Narrative" 2010,

Carter J. Eckert, el., "Korea, Old and New: History" 1990,

Michael J. Seth, "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present" 2010,

Charles Roger Tennant, "A History of Korea" 1996,

Mark Peterson, "A Brief History Of Korea" 2009.

Based on all above CURRENT research, the Chinese commandary is a must to be listed in the template.

Your personal opinion regarding the commanderies contradicts the fact that they are presented in just about every English language book on Korean history. Excluding a period from Korean history simply because it violates your own sensibilities is irresponsible and violates NPOV. The history of a country has never been restricted to exactly those that it perceives compatible with its present political continuity; otherwise, why is the Japanese colonial period - which no Korean state perceives to be within the Korean continuity - included in the History of Korea? --Greenhorn38 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about being mentioned in textbooks nor about my personal views. In fact I have agreed with all of your opinions before (if you have read what I said) that they are a part of Korean history. There is no question about that. How much relevant it is to the foundation of the modern Republic of Korea - Is an entirely different issue. Quite frankly, if you look at the UNESCO Cultural Heritages or World Heritage Sites, none of it comes from that period. There's not much left if any legacy left behind from those Chinese commandaries on modern Republic of Korea. Compared to the Three Kingdoms, Goryeo or Joseon, it is barely if ever mentioned in the modern South Korean media with little awareness in Korean society itself, let alone internationally. This is not my opinion - It is what the current situation is based on multiple sources. Again, this article is about the modern Republic of Korea and as the other editor has voiced, we must keep the list simple to major periods only like every other country articles. I would also refrain from constantly reverting this and follow the WP:Consensus procedure. Massyparcer (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Therefore the source?--Greenhorn38 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The source is the lack of sources - Look at the number of sources which highlight the four Chinese kingdoms in modern South Korean media as significant or even relevant to the formation of the modern Republic. It is a testament to how little if any influence it had on the modern Republic. Massyparcer (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Greenhorn, as I said in my edit summary, the previous map that was in place was far more suitable since it depicted the boundaries of all the relevant states/kingdoms on the peninsula at the time. The Four Han Commanderies are not nearly as important to the foundation of the South Korean republic than are Goguryeo, the Samhan Confederacy and other states. In fact, the image that was used before your edit even included the boundaries of one of the Han commanderies, so nobody here is denying that the commanderies existed, it's about the relevance that specific image has to the article as a whole. You have no reason to keep pushing this edit except for nationalist ones. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BALASPS and WP:UNDUE before continuing to escalate this into an edit war. In other words, if a map were to be included in the article, it should absolutely be the one that presented all relevant states on the peninsula, not just the Han commanderies. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Having the ancient fiefdoms is inappropriate since this is about the modern South Korean state. But, if you're going to add the irrelevant ancient fiefdoms here, might as well add them to the North Korean article as well to maintain NPOV. Having them here and not on the North Korean one is blatant POV pushing. I'd do it myself, but my web browser keeps crashing every time I try to cut and paste something into Wikipedia. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Health section pretty biased[edit]

The Health section only lists the positives. While there surely are good things about the ROK's health industry, it neglects to mention that the country has the highest suicide rate of all OECD countries, an issue that's well documented by international news agencies from Japan to the U.K. and U.S. The health section should list the positives and negatives about the topic. The way it's written now sounds like tourist board boosterism, where there's nothing wrong and everything's all hunky-dory perfect. Also, why does the section list that "ROK is better than country XYZ" umpteenth times? This is supposed to be about the ROK, not a random arbitrarily-chosen country on the other side of the globe. Not only is this blatant boosterism, disparaging to other countries and not to mention misleading, it also makes the section hard as heck to read. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is biased. Look at the editors involved and their history for pushing nationalistic bias. I have a huge amount of respect for Korea and Koreans, and it sucks to see a few nationalistic editors give their nation such a poor image with this crap. The only question is: are these sincere edits, or are they intentionally playing the rules to include NPOV edits? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, why does the establishment section list random ancient kingdoms? This article's about the ROK, not Gojoseon. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Korea is NUMBER ONE ...fuck yeah !! (Japan boo) Korea NUMBER FUCKING ONE !!!![edit]

It seems from the edits on this article, that the above would be quite a suitable title.

"South Korea was number one for exports of left handed scissors in Asia, from February 2006 until April 2006, beating (insert random nation) by 23.89%"

If you are Korean, please use this article to inform people about your awesome nation, in a neutral and relevant manner. All of the retarded stats, comparisons to random nations and POV terms just make this article kinda shit. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's all rather counter-productive. If you make a blatantly biased article to support your nation, one of three things will happen.
1. Readers see the obvious bias and think that people from that country are not honest.
2. Editors remove all of the positive content
3. Editors from other nations who are portrayed negatively in the article, add negative content.
Try making an honest article without the stupid agendas, and you might have a decent article about South Korea. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow. This article was a good article nominee back in 2008. Could we try to get it back to at least that level again, please? It's not hard, just consider NPOV, weight, MOS and sources and you're half way there. It really makes me frustrated when I realize that so many wikipedians are here to push their POV, rather than create an encyclopedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, I'm afraid your plea will fall on deaf ears. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 20:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420, Illegitimate Barrister, and BlackRanger88: I need you guys to verify that user User:134ricks is user User:Massyparcer. His most recent edits seems to have behaviors similar to Massyparcer which include adding texts claiming South Korea to be the "world's best in ..." in everything with no bad points to balance things out (possibly in violation of WP:BALASPS). Also, this edit he made replaces "South Korea" with "Korea" (pretty baised or one-sided considering North Korea can also be considered 'Korea'). A similar edit which Massyparcer made here. 42.61.163.50 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"You guys" (meaning all of the editors in this thread) cannot do that; that requires a checkuser's attention, and a better reason than idle curiosity. If you think that they are the same user and they have both been used to edit unconstructively, submit a request for Sockpuppet investigation. General Ization Talk 18:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I just feel his actions were familiar with Massyparcer and wanted to point it out. We will see how things go. 42.61.163.50 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Corea vs. Korea[edit]

It seems that the sentence at the end of the first paragraph on "Etymology," that mentions the Corea vs. Korea spelling debate, is just giving voice to an unsubstantiated myth. The first cited source mostly just reports on the existence of the myth without providing any evident for the veracity of the claim (the claim that Japan changed the spelling from Corea to Korea so that Japan would preceed Korea in an alphabetical listing of countries, that is). The second cited source (a temperamental Wayback Machine archive of a post on a now-defunct blog, added by myself some time ago) thoroughly debunks the myth. But why include myth and urban legend in the first place? It seems that the page should be a place for facts, or at least consensus expert beliefs.

TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The claim doesn't have to be true to be notable. That the existence of the myth and the fact that is is believed by many is reported by a reliable source (no less than Barbara Demick, then the Beijing South Korean bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, based in Seoul), and that another source exists that refutes it, is sufficient to make the existence of the urban legend notable. We report it as a widely held belief, not fact, and we include the source that makes the refutation. It is a fact (according to our source) that there are people who believe it, and that is the fact we are reporting. Please stop removing it. General Ization Talk 05:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also note that we give this myth exactly one sentence, so its inclusion here hardly represents undue weight. General Ization Talk 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Should the Barack Obama page be edited to include the belief that he's a Muslim? It is a fact that plenty of people believe that he's a Muslim, and this belief has been reported by reputable sources - does that make it worthy of inclusion? At what point does a ridiculous, unsubstantiated, illogical rumor cease to be notable? The mere mention of a spurious rumor risks giving it undue weight. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not only is the myth that Obama is a Muslim notable, it is so notable that it has an entire article dedicated to it (along with claims that he is the Antichrist). See Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, which is linked from Barack Obama. There are numerous other examples here of a false belief that is notable because it is widely held and discussed in reliable sources. General Ization Talk 12:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Haha, ok, you win. How about I add a second sentence regarding the debunkedness of the myth, though? That seems fair, and it relates to the second cited source. I had added such a sentence before and it ended up getting deleted at some point.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually tried to do that using the existing sources. Unfortunately, the source you provided for the debunking is in fact the least reliable of the sources, being a blog, and the others quote scholars who weigh in on both sides of the question. So the only way for you to do that is to find and cite a better source. As it stands, the best course of action is to state, as the article does, what some people believe without taking any position on the belief (but including the sources). See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. General Ization Talk 15:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The first source is new, and in Chinese, so I don't know what the heck it's about or why it's even there. And the second source quotes a scholar whose speculation comes down on one side of the issue yet provides no evidence - and admits that none exists - and quotes no source who offers any insight as to the other side of the issue. The blog post is a blog post, but it includes pictures of stamps and letters which support its contention that the myth is just that - a myth. Fair enough that the Los Angeles Times has more credibility than a blog, but the blog author carefully cites and includes historical sources for his or her assertions, unlike the one, idly speculating scholar in the Los Angeles Times article. A reading of both sources reveals the third one - blog post that it is - to contain much more rigorous research. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A machine translation of the first citation (which was already used in the same section of the article to support the second sentence) makes it very clear that there are those who subscribe to the theory that the Japanese are responsible for the change in spelling. And the fact that the blog's research was evidently more rigorous (or perhaps just that more of it was published on the blog vs. in the LAT article) does not make it more reliable for our purposes here. It is still a blog. I personally do not doubt its findings, but it does not pass muster here as a reliable source (see WP:RS). As I said, find a better source or sources, perhaps using some of those cited on the blog, and feel free to include it or them here (being careful not to get carried away on this relatively minor point within the scope of the entire article). General Ization Talk 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there is no requirement here that cited sources be in English. General Ization Talk 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is another article at a reliable source (the Chicago Tribune) on this topic. I started to add it, then decided it was mostly a rehash of the LAT article. However, it does contain a quote from one scholarly source (David Shaffer, a professor of English at Chosun University) who disputes the theory about the Japanese, which doesn't appear in Demick's article as published. I wouldn't suggest adding this citation alone, as it contains little else that is useful beyond what's in the LAT article and is only a single scholar's quoted view (not enough to say that it is "the experts' view"). But it might be useful in conjunction with other citations. General Ization Talk 17:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll stay on the lookout for other debunkings that have taken place in more official, reputable mediums, but considering how incredibly small the group of English-speaking people interested in the matter likely is, it's surprising that it was ever even reported on in an English-language newspaper at all. My best bet may be to search for Korean-language sources, but my attempts at such have been unsuccessful thus far. It's unfortunate that the reporters for the two English-language newspaper articles apparently spent such little effort finding an authoritative voice on the other side of the issue - the reporters seem to have been concerned merely with the existence of the rumor, rather than its veracity, and ultimately now, via this Wikipedia page, will have ended up spreading the rumor, as a result. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

High civil liberties and transparent government[edit]

Whether the South Koreans have high civil liberties and transparent government is debatable. NGOs and the U.N. have expressed concern over government restrictions on these. See here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sejong City[edit]

From Wikipedia page on Sejong City: "South Korea's de facto administrative capital city. In early 2007, the South Korean government created a special administrative district from parts of South Chungcheong Province and North Chungcheong Province provinces, near Daejeon, to relocate nine ministries and four national agencies from Seoul. The new capital opened on 2 July 2012 (etc)

This is not mentioned on the South Korea page, and it seems to me it should be.

76.254.28.166 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)