Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 29 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Korea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	South Korea was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2005, August 15, 2006, August 15, 2007, August 15, 2008, August 15, 2009, and August 15, 2010.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea Top‑importance 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. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Korea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Orthographic Projection

Support for Orthographic Projection

• Vast majority of country articles including the featured articles (i.e. Japan FA, Libya FA, China, Australia FA, Sri Lanka, US, Canada FA, and even North Korea) use orthographic projection.

• The image serves its purpose as a locator map. It clearly shows S. Korea's location in the world and the close up map of the country is shown in the separate image.

Support for Red Colour Locator Map

• Red is preferable colour to Misplaced Pages standard although it is not followed by most country articles.

• South Korea is enlarged.
  • I agree, there should be an enlarged map image included as well, like the Sri Lanka article. (the same should be applied for North Korea as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amphitere (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. There should definitely be an enlarged image like Sri Lanka so that cities can be shown. Massyparcer (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References

about Dokdo / Takeshima　Comfort woman

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

"Inhabited half a million years ago"

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

• Seth, Michael J. (2010). A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-7425-6717-7.

"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."

• Stark, Miriam T. (2008). Archaeology of Asia. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4051-5303-4.

"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."

• Schmid, Andre (2013). Korea Between Empires. Columbia University Press. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-231-50630-4.

"Most treat the myth as a later creation."

• Peterson, Mark (2009). Brief History of Korea. Infobase Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4381-2738-5.

"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."

• Hulbert, H. B. (2014). The History of Korea. Routledge. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-317-84941-4.

"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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Republic of Korea" VS "South Korea" as a main header

Wondering why unofficial name "South Korea" is used as a main header for the page and redirection is done from official "Republic of Korea"?

Even article text puts unofficial name first.
South Korea officially the Republic of Korea...

Here is example from USA page where official name is first at least in the text:
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America.

It applies to North Korea and China articles too. So I guess there is a rule about that. Does anybody know it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.26.2.181 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/12/bio.kim.daejung/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicities of Historical Rulers?

User:Greenhorn insists that the ethnicities of the semi-mythical rulers Gija and Wiman need to be clarified in the "history" section of the article. Never mind the fact that we don't mention the ethnic backgrounds of any of the other rulers, such as those of ambiguous or mixed ethnic origin (see Balhae), are omitted (given their lack of relevance), I fail to see how such information as a whole is relevant to the formation of the article's subject, South Korea. Quite frankly, it seems as though this user is trying to push some sort of nationalist agenda in direct violation of WP:BALASPS and WP:UNDUE. WP:BALASPS states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." As such, I want to know how the ethnicities of two ancient (and arguably mythical) rulers are worthy of mention in an article explicitly about South Korea, because as far as I see, they're not.BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It has virtually nothing to do with the modern Republic of Korea. We can't jot down every minor little detail of an ancient semi-mythical kingdom ruler in any Misplaced Pages country article. And more importantly, User:Greenhorn is continuously violating WP:Consensus - If there's no consensus, the basic Misplaced Pages rule is that you leave it the way it was before the controversial editing. What's concerning is that User:Greenhorn is going around editing every major ancient Korean history article and adding any Chinese-ethnicity based information that may be controversial or unverified. I can't see this as anything but some sort of nationalist agenda. Massyparcer (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was notified that there was a sockpuppet investigation going on about this user - He appears to have been doing the same thing for the last couple of years: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787. I have opened a new one under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenhorn38. Massyparcer (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Health section pretty biased

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)

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

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)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2010)
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Korea-related articles
• Top-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• B-Class Asia articles
• Top-importance Asia articles
• WikiProject Asia articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles