Talk:South Korea/Archive 1

message: This country needs a paragraph on culture (to go with the links)... Also, let's not forget contemporary culture. I'm thinking particularly of Korean Film (there's an entry for Shiri (film)) and K-pop. Maybe something on Noraebang (Karaoke)? DiruWiki 22:11, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made a start... DiruWiki 22:42, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget all the other great movies coming out of Korea these days...like "Number 3" (okay, that was 6 years ago), and this year's "Tale of Two Sisters" (Janghwa Hongnyeon).  --Sewing 03:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: I have moved the bit on contemporary culture to its own article. Maybe you want to add this there? DiruWiki 12:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture

message: I've reverted the spelling of Gangwon (from Gangweon). This so, because the spelling is Gangwon (강원). DiruWiki 09:14, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Gangwon

message: The duplicated notice by Sewing was moved to Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan, not to make discussion scattered over Wikipedia.
:The above unsigned comment was added by Nanshu. --Sewing 16:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: I reverted to a previous version of this page because all recent updates to this page have been outrageously POV. --Ce garcon 06:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent versions have been absurdly POV.

message: User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation requested

message: What reason can you give for deciding to reopen the edit war? I added an "editing dispute" tag that allowed readers to view both versions. It seems to have been removed, so I added it again. Please stop editing the disputed portion until a resolution can be reached on the talk page --Ce garcon 10:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it had been there almost two weeks with no change, and with the diff growing stale.  We put it back (not you), but then Shorne removed it saying "there is no dispute", so, this solution having been rejected, I simply reverted his edit. VeryVerily 10:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no discussion. Leaving such tags in place for the long term is against Wikipedia's practice. If there is a serious dispute about the correct claim that there are recurring complaints of human-rights abuses in South Korea, let's hear it. Otherwise, I shall remove the tag again and restore the statement. Shorne 11:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. VeryVerily 11:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: VV: And who is to decide exactly what is and is not a "frivolous" complaint? --Ce garcon 05:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained my reasoning.  And a "frivolous" human rights complaint would be that several states require bars to close at 2 or 2:30.  For example.  Now stop being dense and irrelevant. VeryVerily 07:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pay no attention to him, Ce garçon. He merely insists on his POV. He isn't here to contribute; he's just here to dictate. Shorne 13:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: "North Korea's record is incomparably worse than SK's, and this is the point Shorne is trying to obscure."  Oh it is, is it?  What about the massacre at Gwangju?  South Korea was mostly under the dictatorial rule of generals until 1993, and since then the system has changed very little, although the massive resistance against South Korea's tyranny has forced the government to open up the slightest bit since then. Ruy Lopez 19:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VV: I don`t see what pub closing times have to do with the issue at hand. I consider the opinion of human rights organisations towards all states to be worthy of mention.--Ce garcon 06:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And no one said otherwise.  You wanted an example of a frivolous human rights complaint, you got one.  For more, see China's reports on human rights in the U.S. VeryVerily 08:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, I added specific cases of alleged human rights abuse in both the North Korea and South Korea articles, so do you consider the "there are recurring complaints about human rights in North Korea" passage also to be redundant, given that, as you say "specifics are already mentioned"? --Ce garcon 06:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at that article in a while, so I don't know whether my two points apply in that context. VeryVerily 08:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VerilyVerily: I know that Shorne and Ruy Lopez are communists and that their contributions to other articles have been biased towards communism and communist states. At the same time, in my opinion, you should let this one go. Seeing as there are human rights complaints about South Korea, I see no reason why you should not let this phrase stay here. The fact that Shorne and Ruy Lopez are generally biased does not mean that in this particular case, this phrase is not justified. I also feel strongly about North Korea`s human rights record. That is no reason to stop documenting human rights abuse in South Korea. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  --Ce garcon 10:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see the evidence of bias towards communism in contributions by Ruy Lopez and me. Several fellow Wikipedians have praised us for supplying balance where it is sorely needed. I admit to being "generally biased", like every other human being, but I don't admit to inserting biases into the articles here to any significant degree. Shorne 10:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VerilyVerily: Do you consider Amnesty International to be part of the "far left"? I mean, OK, maybe you want to rephrase that sentence, but that is just downright misleading. --Ce garcon 02:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Verily Verily and Shorne

message: I've protected the page, due to a continuing edit war between VeryVerily, Shorne, and Ruy Lopez. ugen64 22:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect from VeryVerily, Shorne, & Ruy Lopez

message: Can somebody please add an interwiki link to chr:ᎤᎦᎾᏭ ᎢᏗᎵ ᎪᎴᎠ?
:I've added it. Are you sure that it works, though? I can't read Cherokee, I'm afraid, but it seems to bring up a page that says something like "Article South Korea does not exist". Shorne 15:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read Cherokee either, but happening to have the font installed it looks like it says "South Korea is a country in East Asia."  Not a terribly informative piece of writing, but I guess it's a start.  :-)  -- Visviva 16:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ce_garcon asked
:Please explain your removal of the sentence relating to 日本海/東海 in the article South Korea. 感射합니다. 
I moved the phrase to the bottom of the article, not deleted. The phrase was in the header of the article. I thought it's better make it short and  brief summary. -- Ryuch 05:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: &#26085;&#26412;&#28023;/&#26481;&#28023;

message: I happened to notice that the official stats provided by the South Korean NSO are somewhat out of line with the area figure now cited in the country profile.   Specifically, the NSO states that SK's land area as of 2003 is 99,600.87 km².  It appears that the land area has risen every year, presumably due to land "reclamation."  The figure on the country profile would appear to date from the 1980s.  Does anyone know a reason that we should not use the NSO's 2003 figure? -- Visviva 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Area

message: Gzornenplatz, let's bury the hatchet, we smoke em' peace pipe.--Jerryseinfeld 23:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The Korean writing system, Hangul, was invented in 1446 by King Sejong the Great to widely spread education - as Chinese characters were thought to be too difficult and time consuming for a common person to learn - through the Royal proclamation of Hunmin Jeongeum (훈민정음/訓民正音) which literally means the "proper sounds to teach the general public." [...] The Korean writing system, Hangul, was invented in 1446 by King Sejong the Great to widely spread education - as Chinese characters were thought to be too difficult and time consuming for a common person to learn - through the Royal proclamation of Hunmin Jeongeum (훈민정음/訓民正音) which literally means the "proper sounds to teach the general public." This is redundant - someone might want to reformulate those two paragraphs.
Sbarthelme 09:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy in the language section

message: I just noticed that an edit that i did for Korea was duplicated onto this page. it is the section regarding the number of ex-pats and other foreign workers currently in korea. We don't need two pages stating the same thing. It should either be here in the south korea page or it should be in the korea page. not both. I feel that, even though i originally put it in the korea page, it should be here in the south korea page. Does anyone agree or disagree with me? Let me know your thoughts before i (or anyone else) makes the change. 
:(Above comment by User:Masterhatch.)  -- Visviva 05:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me.  The more detailed information should be in the country-specific article.  -- Visviva 05:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate 

message: The Religion section is currently a mess.   Where do these figures come from?  Why are they unreliable? -- Visviva 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I am more and more unsure about the legal status of Korean in South Korea. As far as I can determine, it has no explicit status in written law. However, during the recent controversy surrounding President Roh Moo-hyun's proposed special law to move the capital, the argument that the prominent national symbols—Seoul being the capital, the national anthem, Korean as the "official" language—are included in the unwritten "Customary Constitution" (관습헌법) was used by the Constitutional Court of South Korea to overrule the proposed special law as being unconstitutional. Naturally, this raised a whole political debate about the validity of the "Customary Constitution" argument, and if we merely follow the Court's decision and say that Korean is the official language of South Korea, we may risk choosing a side in an ugly battle. How should we deal with this situation? --Iceager 01:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have been reminded that earlier this year (2005) the "Basic Law on national language" (국어기본법) was passed, and although I haven't been able to find its content anywhere, according to the press reports at the time it specified Korean as the official language and Hangul as the official script. I completely forgot about this. Never mind then... --Iceager 01:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language 

message: The current (10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  A less artistic and more informative map would be nice. -- Visviva 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of provinces 

message: Masterhatch recently changed the romanized spelling "gukhoe" to "kukhae."  The former reflects the Revised Romanization of Korean; the latter, supposedly, McCune-Reischauer Romanization.  (The M-R spelling should, in fact, be "kukhoe.")  In doing this, he cited the Korean Naming Conventions.  Nothing I can see in the edit history or recent discussion of the naming conventions, however, indicates agreement to a change in preference from the Revised system to M-R.  I don't necessarily have a problem with such a change, but as things currently stand, as far as I can tell, the practice is still to favour the Revised system, at least for articles on South Korean topics.  (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#Romanization">here</a>.)  This is different altogether from KittySaturn's recommendation of the practice to follow for already existing McCune-Reischauer spellings (as in the name tables): standardizing such spellings is not the same as introducing them where they did not occur before.  Again, I am not necessarily questioning such a change in practice, but trying to point out that such a change does not appear to have yet been agreed upon.  -Sewing - talk 23:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been clearer on my edit. When I cited the Korean naming convention, I wasn't referring to the spelling, I was referring to the use of East Sea and Sea of Japan. An IP address had changed the spelling of Kukhae and the sea's name order. I had just changed it back to before that IP's edit. Sorry about the confusion. Anyways, I will be more careful in the future. Masterhatch 02:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kukhae"?