Talk:South Korea/Archive 4

message: Hello there. I propose deleting the statement at the top of the article saying that Korea has one of the world's oldest civilizations. The justification is this: the statement is wrong - it is merely a national myth that Koreans like to believe, but which isn't true. Rather than mention all the civilisations in the middle east, north Africa and Asia that are older than Korea's, I'll just mention one: The Thais entered the Bronze Age between 5000 and 6000 years ago. Also, note the source given for the statement is a museum brochure which merely repeats the same national myth, without actually giving any facts, figures or comparisons.
Second, I propose deleting the statement in the intro that Korea has visa-free status with the US. This information is not important enough to be in the article, let alone the intro, because many countries have visa-free status with many other countries, and these are not mentioned in the other countries' articles. I suspect a Korean editor has placed it in the article because it is topical (only happened a couple of months ago, to great fanfare in SK), and to give the impression that the US somehow "approves of" or "accepts" South Korea.
Third, I propose altering the statement that Korean teenagers have the lowest pregnancy rate in the world. The statement is wrong (the link itself says the BIRTH rate is the lowest in the OECD, which is quite different). I propose altering it to a statement about Korea's overall birth rate, which is among the lowest in the world. I suspect a Korean editor has deliberately chosen a statistic which gives a favourable impression of Korea (Korean girls are virtuous) instead of the more interesting general statistic (which would acknowledge that Korea has a problem with declining birth rates).
At a later stage I will suggest some alterations that deal with the problems with North Korea, the innumerable rankings, and the environmental section. But these three will do for now.
Please feel free to add your suggestions to mine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.234.16 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose two deletions and an alteration 

message: Due to the huge amount of text and the length of time since the last archiving (about 2 years it seems from the date stamps), I have archived much of this page to Talk:South Korea/Archive 3.  To see what controversies & NPOV issues were being raised before the South Korea page was protected, please look over this archive.  KieferFL (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Note 

message: The page is locked for a short time so I can be clear about this. In 15 minutes the page will be unprotected. From this time onwards, anyone continuing to edit war will  be blocked to prevent disruption. Confine your edits regarding the contested area to the talk page until a resolution has been achieved. If the issue seems intractable, seek dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: I have now checked that all parties have been previously advised of the existence of the 3-revert-rule. Be mindful of this when the protection expires. CIreland (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 15 minutes? I think at least one-day full protection would've been suitable for the article, given this ridiculous edit wars.--Caspian blue 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  I am happy to use dispute resolution or discuss this diplomatically, but until consensus is reached, the tags must remain. Colliver55 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody should be blocked for the responsible of seriously taunting WP:3RR rule and WP:Civility, that is you. You've reverted more than 20 times and do not use insulting language The above thread tells you that you're the only one who insists on tagging the templates.--Caspian blue 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is pretty clear on this: don't protect if blocking is a feasible solution. Since there are only 3 edit warriors and they are all way over 3RR, blocking is the preferred option. Of course, I would rather the edit warriors ceased of their own volition since blocking also holds up discussion. CIreland (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  It seems there is no one who is going to take a neutral view of this. This article is in a shocking state. If you choose to block me then go ahead. It makes little difference. No wonder Wikipedia is doomed! Colliver55 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, none would believe that you're neutral or civil editor per your really disruptive behavior. You should present "what is so shocking" to you on the talk page.--Caspian blue 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Alright, firstly don't insult Wikipedia like that. Secondly, the sections are well-sourced, clearly cited and use appropriate language. I can't find any evidence that is showing it is misleading. You clearly have a personal issue with this. Wondergirls (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't bite, Colliver55. I actually don't mind three are all blocked for their edit war.--Caspian blue 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an issue with YOU. I have read the discussions between you and lakshmix and your prejudices are appalling in this globalizing 21st century. I have read all the references carefully. They are statistics from the OECD, Goldman Sachs, IMF, Britannica, NSO...etc. Plus, I am not Korean. Yet I think S Korea is a very historic and cultured country, not at all like Western countries. You are making inappropriate assumptions again here. Wondergirls (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, can I add that I dont want to be engaged in an edit war at all. The only issue I have is these clearly inappropriate tags. "citation needed" is far more appropriate if necessary.Wondergirls (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have to say that I agree with the dozens of other people who think there are serious problems with this article. There are way too many rankings and statistics, all of which are favourable to Korea. There's no mention of the working hours (longest in the world), women's rights (only 128th in the world) and suicide (highest rate in the world). Just a whole bunch of stuff about how Korea is best at this, third-best at that, those kinds of things. As for the claim that the article is well-sourced, I think it mostly is well sourced. However, this has nothing to do with POV. This article has POV problems because the information it presents is selective (all good news about the economy, etc) and glosses over anything negative (the environment, working hours, ongoing problems with North Korea, population density, yellow dust storms, teething problems with democracy, etc). This article needs serious attention from editors who are not Korean and have no vested interest in presenting Korea as some type of utopia, which it clearly isn't. I lived in Korea for nearly 3 years, so I should know. Also, the article is too densely written and needs attention from somebody like a newspaper editor, who can make it more readable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.59.168 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. I attempted to interject some statistics about suicide and corruption. These were removed as "deliberate POV," and the person has been, so far, unwilling to provide an explanation. There are additionally rankings regarding the relatively low productivity within the OECD, but I was unable to pin down the exact source. I could only find vague references within the English media in Korea. 76.187.104.246 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same problem. I tried to add some rankings about working hours and suicide rates, in order to balance the dozens of other "rankings" that are more favourable. They were removed without explanation and I was accused of "vandalism".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.234.16 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I've never edited this article before, as far as I know, but I just came and looked at it after seeing it mentioned at WP:AN.  Much of the article is written NPOV, but much of it isn't, especially the Economics and Science and Technology sections.  Those sections, along with the intro, look like they were written by employees of the S. Korean government.  Nevertheless, adding a bunch of fact tags and NPOV templates to the article won't help it much.  Instead, go through and NPOV the wording.  If you're too protective of the article, then step back and let someone else handle it.  Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say "much of it isn't" POV, then why put a POV tag to the entire article? It is clearly inappropriate. I agree the article has some POV problems that must be rewritten, but tagging the whole article as POV isn't very helpful.Lakshmix (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single fact is sourced and referenced. Give me one example which isn't true and I will be happy to remove or find a source for it. Lakshmix (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I just fixed a previous error, here is the correction made:
It is a global technology and innovation leader, it ranks third in the number of inventions filled first in the country, typically meaning where it was also invented.Trotter, Stephen. World IP Today - A Thomson Scientific Report On Global Patent Activity from 1997-2006, Thomson Scientific, 2007
I really doubt South Korea holds more patents than the US--it has a lot more fund and a way larger workforce than South Korea. -embarrassed laugh
It was probably the work of a nationalist knucklehead. -embarrassed laugh
You have to remember that South Korea is no Japan, at least not yet-- and this comes from a Korean.
Aerain (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of South Korea being Japan, that is your POV. Yes, South Korea holds more patents than the United States, twice as many, in fact. See here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra-economy-patents-granted
It says "per million people". -embarrassed laugh 
Now, revert back to what it was before. Aerain (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your prejudices and assumptions are pointing to WP:V and original research. You use the word "typically" - this suggests own research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia according to WP:V.  Lakshmix (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  error 

message: A lot of nationalism... -embarrassed laugh Aerain (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nationalism 

message: This article is loaded with POV, boosterisms, poor references and copyright violations. One of the weakest country articles I came across.
:::Be objective and precise. Precisely what is POV or boosterism? unless you can provide evidence, your claim is against WP:POV. Lakshmix (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the first person above. This article is loaded with POV. There are many, many examples given by many, many people on this discussion page. Look and you will see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor quality 

message: I understand that Koreans are proud of their nations progress in the last few decades, but come on...this article while perhaps factual, stinks of undue weight. for example..
The postwar economic miracle in the late 20th century transformed South Korea into an industrial powerhouse and one of the wealthiest countries in Asia.
The K2 Black Panther is one of the most advanced main battle tanks in the world.
Seoul is a major global city and a leading financial center in Asia.
South Korea is one of the world's top five automakers, led by Hyundai and Kia.
South Koreans enjoy one of the highest living standards in Asia, with a high income per capita and a high degree of economic freedom.
South Korea is the world's largest shipbuilding nation and one of the top ten exporters in the world.
Samsung Group is the world's largest conglomerate,[83] leading several key industries in the world.
South Korea is the world's leading producer of computer memory chips
South Korea is a world leader in high-tech electronics such as cell phones and LCD TVs, led by Samsung and LG.
This is just a fraction of the OTT language used in this article, this is wikipedia, not a promotional website for South Korea.
It would be nice if someone who is familiar with this article changed it, otherwise I am going to make some bold edits and major changes.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continued unexplained removal of contents and edits are highly controversial and point to WP:N - You deliberately added "a cause of both national and international celebration in contrast to great turmoil of the past", which is inappropriate and suggests original research. All your past edits suggest you praise Japanese related articles and have continued to dispute with Korean editors and Korean articles, vandalizing Korean articles for no valid reason. All facts are clearly sourced and are objective. You are removing sourced materials without prior consensus. Lakshmix (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: My edits are fully explained on this talk page. I did not add that phrase, I removed it - so check your diffs before you accuse me of anything. My edits in the past have no relation to my edits on this article, assume good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is simply amazing still user like Sennen goroshi actively make edits in wikipedia without any penalty or prohibition. It is so obvious this person keep trying to harm on Korea-related articles and praise anything but all Japanese-related stuffs. This kinda crooked patriotism actually lead Japan was hit by two nukems in the past. I hope you can learn lessons from the past and please don't forget that. By the way, any commendations or ranks in this article, especially  Sennen goroshi listed supported by valid references, which means they are allowed to be posted and valid!!! Patriotmissile (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No personal attacks please. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  undue weight 

message: The article has been protected for 3 days from today because of the ongoing edit wars between users. Please discuss the dispute on the economic section in a civil way. If the conflict is not resolved or a consensus not reached within the day and then edit wars resumes again, the protection would be longer per a request to WP:RFP.--Caspian blue 13:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  full protection for 3 days 

message: Since there haven't been any opposing views:
1.  Currently there are 26 times that Seoul is mentioned as a city.  18 of those times, it is a link. 
*Proposed Change: I propose that the links to Seoul be kept in the 1st paragraph (Its capital is Seoul, a major...), in the section on History ("...and moved the capital to Seoul.), and in the 3 tables (Infobox, Administrative divisions, & Largest cities), but all other links to Seoul removed.
*Reason: According to MOS:LINK, an article may be overlinked if: "A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article." Those other links do not add context to their statements.
2. Currently Snuppy is linked to twice in the Biotechnology section.
*Proposed Change: Removal of the link in the picture's caption.
*Reason: The links are very close to each other, and adds context to the section, but not to the picture.
3.  Currently Samsung Group and Samsung (which redirects to Samsung Group) are linked to a total of six times, four links in picture captions.
*Proposed Change: Removal of the links in the picture captions, except for the one showing the Samsung sign (Samsung04.jpg).  KieferFL (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: —EncMstr (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposals concerning overlinking

message: 1. Currently: "...it is neighbored by China to the west, Japan to the east and borders North Korea to the north."
*Proposed Change: "...it is neighbored by China to the west, Japan to the east, and shares a border with North Korea to the north."
*Reason: Current wording can be misinterpreted to mean that South Korea is north of North Korea, which (obviously) isn't the case.
2. Currently: "...in the 14 century and the rise and influence of Confucianism."
*Proposed Change: "...in the 14th century and the rise and influence of Confucianism."
*Reason: 14th century is the correct form.
3. Currently: "...renewable energy to reduce its reliance on foreign oil imports..."
*Proposed Change: Removing the link to reliance.
*Reason: Does not add context, common enough term.
4. Currently: "South Korea is the world's sixth largest nuclear power producer and the second largest in Asia."
*Proposed Change: Removing the link to Asia.
*Reason: Does not add context to the sentence, WP:CONTEXT states that "the names of major geographic features and locations" need not be linked to.
5. Currently: "...capable of expressing human emotions."
*Proposed Change: Removing the link to emotion.
*Reason: Does not add context, common enough term.
:.  I unlinked 3 more Asia/Asian links in addition to the requests above.  —EncMstr (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for Change #4

message: Three days & no opposition, so:
1. Currently: "Balhae, Silla's neighbor to the north, was formed as a successor state to Goguryeo." 
*Proposed Change: Removing the link to Goguryeo
*Reason: linked to already six sentences earlier
2. Currently: "South Korea is considered to be one of the world's most successful economies,http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051116-6.html which was the second fastest growing economy..."
*Proposed Change: "South Korea has been the second fastest growing economy..."
*Reason: The reference is to support the phrase "one of the world most successful economies", but it is a transcription of a speech that President Bush gave and isn't an analysis of the economics of South Korea. The phrase itself is vague (successful how & compared to what), is better said by the facts presented in the section, and adds unnecessary wording to the sentence which is about the phrase "second fastest growing economy", which has its own reference.
3. Currently: "The Hyundai Kia Automotive Group is the second largest car company in Asia..."
*Proposed Change: removal of the link to "car"
*Reason: link unnecessary - common term
4. Currently: "...and making South Korea the world's seventh largest economy in 5 years.Robert Koehler (Mar. 2008). Korea's CEO President Lee Myung-bak, Seoul Selection.http://seoulselection.com/shopping_book_view.html?pid=1557"
*Proposed Change #1: removal of "economy" link
*Reason: Unnecessary because the entire section is about the economy
*Proposed Change #2: "...and making South Korea the world's seventh largest economy by 2013."
*Reason: Giving a specific date as opposed to the non-specific, which will change over time.
5. Currently: "Transportation in South Korea is excellent and provided by extensive networks of..."
* Proposed change: removal of "excellent and" to read: "Transportation in South Korea is provided by extensive networks of..."
* Reason: "Excellent" is an unnecessary value term
KieferFL (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: —EncMstr (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for Change #5

message: These proposals are focusing specifically on the Technology, Cell phones, and Online Games section.  This section needs serious cleanup, especially since it has no (zero) references.
*Proposal: The section should be tagged "Unreferenced."
*Reason: The section is, in fact, completely without citations or references. Although this section (and others) may soon become well-sourced, it would be a disservice to those who visit the page in the meantime not to mark it.
"Modern South Korean culture is heavily dominated by technology."
*Proposal: Clarification of the sentence 
*Reason: It is unclear what is meant by 'heavily dominated', and simply changing 'dominated' to a weaker synonym like 'influenced' does not help make the implied comparison any clearer: Korean culture is "more" influenced by technology than other cultures? Whose? 
"In recent years games, both online games..."
*Proposal: Deletion of the sentence 
*Reason: Despite reinforcing the preceding statement, 'significant' is a rather weasely word and without sourcing it's difficult to tell who decided/defined that PC gaming is now significant.
Paragraph beginning: "Modern South Korean culture is dominated by..."
*Proposal: Either unlinking many of the games, or removing excess examples of PC games.
*Reason: Much of the "blue" in this article has already been carefully excised (by KieferFL  and EncMstr), but this rather short paragraph has an average of two links per sentence.  That's over-kill.
"This is by far the preferred pastime for students..."
*Proposal: Revision as follows: "This is a pastime for students but is enjoyed by many other Koreans as well."
*Reason: This sentence is particularly in need of a citation, but even with a moderately supportful one it seems unlikely that 'vastly preferred' by 'everyone' is not hyberbole.
One last note about the section about Samsung and LG phones at the end:
This part is misleading, if not outright false--without sourcing it’s even harder to tell.  First of all, as cell phone operators they are somewhere in the top twenty perhaps, but even the best Korean operators combined-- SK, KTF, and LG Telecom—would only rank eighth in the world.
Second, if the two companies are being touted as cell phone manufacturers, then they should be listed as such, but it still needs sourcing. In fact, the brief searches I made on various engines brought up a few articles that mentioned Samsung as #2 in the world, but LG was listed as #4, not #3. This first link is outdated a bit,  but even last year they were noted as being fourth according to BBC.   Really though, I don't mind if people bombard me with a dozen news clip telling me I'm wrong, since it would at least be a sourced comparison.  Which brings me to my last point, why do these comparisons need to be made both here and in the Economy section?  It's not a secret that people have been complaining about the rankings and comparisons in the article, so let's remove some of them, redundant or otherwise. RlndGunslinger (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for Change #7

message: Right now there are 12 pictures for the economy section.  Six in the general economics section, four in the high-tech industries section, and two in the Transportation and Energy section.  I feel that some of these pictures are unnecessary as they do not illustrate the section well.  The large number also, I feel, overwhelms the section visually.  Therefore I would like to see a little weeding of the pictures take place.
I think that the picture of Seoul with the caption "In 2006, Seoul was the second most expensive city in the world.[61]" should be removed, as there is already a picture illustrating Seoul at the top of the section.  (Caption: Seoul is a major global city and a leading financial center in Asia.[45])
The picture with the caption "South Koreans enjoy one of the highest living standards in Asia, with a high income per capita and a high degree of economic freedom." I feel should also be removed.  It does not support the point of the caption, nor does it seem illustrative of the country's economy.  Also, it's main subject appears to be the green car, and another picture with a car is being used to illustrate the Automotive industry, so there is a bit of visual repetitiveness.
The high-tech industries section has four pictures, two of which illustrate the corporations Samsung & LG.  I think that a picture showing a high-tech industry giant is useful, but 2 (even though the LG picture is meant to illustrate the technology...I'll get to that part next) is a bit too much.  So, I would keep the Samsung picture.
The other three pictures are meant to illustrate the various technologies.  I feel that 3, again, is a bit overwhelming.  I suggest that removing 2 of these would better illustrate and highlight the technology side to the section.  I feel that the best of the three is the picture of the memory chips with "KOREA" on them.  The computer chip is the basis for the technology industries and it illustrates the section well.
The remaining two represent their section, although the picture of the airport isn't as illustrative as the picture of the train.  Perhaps the picture :Image:Korean.747.arp.750pix.jpg would be better?  KieferFL (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some pictures in the article should probably be removed, (and not just in the Economy section.)  The pictures you've proposed to remove seem reasonable, given your explanations for each.  Besides, to give an illustration of the "norm" Iran, France, the U.K. and Japan pages have an average of 30 pictures.  (This article has around 50.)  These all are (or were--France) Good Articles, so I think that it isn't necessary to have so many pictures in order to have a Good Article. RlndGunslinger (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of pictures are surplus, but could you provide ideal examples here or on your subpage? The suggestion without anything viewable is hard for editors to follow.--Caspian blue 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture removal in the Economy section 

message: Of all the country-articles I've read at Wikipedia (easily more than 100), this one is the first one that strikes me as genuinely bad. As other editors have commented upon, it's so extremely nationalistic that it leaves the reader with a negative impression of the country. While all the things in the lead are positive by themselves, such a mouthful of praise already in the lead gives the impression of an extremely chauvinistic society. I don't propose deleting any of it, but I don't think it belongs in the lead (which is already far too long). Other countries have similar achievements in a separate section in the article.
I'd also like to point out that even though the article is very well sourced, I would argue that it violates WP:POV. Focusing only on the positive features of any country and leaving out everything that could be negative is in violation of POV, even though sources are used.
All in all, I'm sorry to say that South Korea is the first country-articles that leaves me with a more negative image than I had before I read it, and I think most readers will react in the same way at the lavish and uncontrolled praise and nationalism on display here. I would encourage those Korean editors who want to create a positive image of their country to rethink the way they edit this page.JdeJ (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article is that biased, could you please give specific examples of what is NPOV?  You could aid us; we could always use more editors to help improve the page. If you've already identified problems that would even give you some momentum to fix them. RlndGunslinger (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I already said, the tone in the lead is very chauvinistic. Korea is best in this, Korea is best at that, Korea is the best country for X and Y is by far best in Korea. If you read the lead and count the superlatives used there to tell the reader how great Korea is, you will find a very large number. If you compare that with the lead for other highly developed countries such as Canada, the US, France, Switzerland or Germany you'll see that they are not written even remotely in the same way, even though we could list similar achievements in the lead for those articles as well. In short, I don't think the lead is the place for huge dose of "Korea is BEST BEST BEST". If there were two or three of these statements in the lead, the reader might think "Wow, Korea looks like a really great country" and I'm that's what we'd all want. At present, the reader is much more likely to think "Wow, Korea looks like a really nationalistic and insecure country" and I don't see why anyone would want that.JdeJ (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for any change to take place, however, specific edits must be discussed.  Personally, I think that much of the obvious non-neutral language has been removed.  Now, it is a matter of re-writing the sections (such as the Introduction and the Economy sections) that have a lot of the tone that you mention.  Not so much because of the "BEST BEST BEST" feel, but because of their incohesive, random nature.  They essentially contain lists of the things that South Korea is good at.  They may be true, but everything that South Korea is good at doesn't need to be listed here.  The main country article should serve as an introduction to that country, not a "Master's" course.  It should "flow" better in order to convey the information in a clearer fashion, and the constant listing of achievements is a barrier to that goal.  Once these random sections are edited, I think that the "BEST BEST BEST" feel of the page will diminish.  But, once again, we need to talk in specifics when it comes to what changes should be made.  If not, then an "editprotected" tag can't go on the proposals for an admin to make the changes, and nothing is accomplished.  KieferFL (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it is an extremely over-positive article, it sounds like something the North Korean govt would say in a press release about their own country. Instead of stating the the country is the best for producing something, just state that they produce it - or even better don't say anything - we don't need a huge list accompanied by images stating that Korea makes cell-phones - such things may be relevant for an economy of south korea article, but not for this article, I propose as soon as the editing ban is lifted that huge chunks of this article are changed/removed. I can't be bothered to list everything I wish to change, and I am sure the nationalistic editors will whine about it and back up their claims stating that in 2004 south korea was voted number one at something, but whatever - the article needs major change. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think there should be one mention in the lead of the economic changes that Korea has gone through, that is notable, however being fourth, second of "one of" is not notable, also peacock terms such as "trend setting" and "influential" should be banished from this article. The point that is the worst as far as I am concerned is "one of the two most...." to me that seems as if they are the second most...but someone wishes to hide that fact and state that they might be first or second.  Either way, this should not have to turn into something overly negative, a history section should make interesting reading, a South Korean economy article can easily make the point that they are a major industrial nation.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems like Sennen goroshi has a history of removing "huge chunks" of contents off Korean articles such as what you did with Seoul. Least surprised that you are Japanese, but regardless I have to agree that this article is overly positive and extremely nationalistic. The introduction is completely fuelled by rankings and world class achievements. There are too many "words" and sentences that are just repeating over and over. About half of the things mentioned in the introduction could be taken out and still convey to a user the same meaning, just without the excessive boasting. 
From analyzing the introduction-
"South Korea is one of the world's top ten exporters and a highly industrialized country that is classified as a High-income economy by the World Bank and an Advanced economy by the IMF and CIA." 
This could just be written as ""South Korea is one of the world's top ten exporters and is an Advanced economy by the IMF and CIA." The article makes it obvious that South korea is a higly industrialized country and all advanced economies are high-income anyway. 
"It has the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy." 
This line is completely irrelevant as an introductory statement for a country. 
"The Asian Tiger is leading the Next Eleven nations and is one of the world's fastest growing developed economies."
This line could also be left out. 
Also the image captions all say the world's most, the first, world's top etc etc.. The images should compliment the contents of the article. Not to metion that there are far too many images as well, especially in the economy section. Pds0101 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article gives a bad impression of South Korea 

message: Everyone can know racist Sennen and sockpuppets: Keifer, RlndGunsinger,Heroeswithmetaphor... the "true colors" are shown.  You're many reverts without a valid reason is pointing to WP:POV. Stop your vandalism with no consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.98.180.232 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppets that disagree with each other and have different editing and writing styles?  Okay, anonymous visitor.  KieferFL (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we're trying to gather consensus unlike some who would rather make ad hominem attacks.  Also, I'll thank you not to POV push unsourced changes on the U.S. beef imports page. RlndGunslinger (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather rich, an anonymous IP accusing all non-Koreans, engaged in long and constructive discussions, for being racists. I wonder how this "new" user managed to find this discussion? It's not the first time we meet accusations saying that everybody who isn't Korean is a racist. Defining racism by race, that's a new conceptJdeJ (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Topic 

message: [Its Gyeongnam region is also the richest region in East Asia with a GDP per capita of over $36,000.[52]
This part's source is under wrong. Gyeongnam's pop is 7.74million, and Total GRDP is USD 178Billion. So, Gyeongnam's GRDP per capita is around of USD 23,000. not 36,000. that is City of Ulsan(pop 1.2million)'s GRDP per capita.
And plus, meaning of East Asia is Northeast Asia + Southeast Asia, this source not containing other East Asian Flourishing Regions, Such as HK,Singapore,Taiwan.. So, richest is false expression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist24 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This part's expression and source are under wrong 

message: Hello there: the korean wiki uses Daehan minguk to name the article, shouldn't we use the Official Title of the country to name the article, including that its commonly knows as South Korea?
BTW, yes, the article as a whole sounds biased and chauvinistic, but if reliable sources are provided (as I can see it is in several cases), well, those r the facts...
Plus, I've been adding more information to the KORUS FTA article, using the most wide number of sources available, where sometimes anonimous contrubitors would vandalize adding UNSOURCED DATA, so, thats what we must look after: UNSOURCED DATA.Gumuhua (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your interest in the South Korea page.  Using the common country name for the article is standard practice throughout Wikipedia, for example China or Australia.  Currently the title is listed as "South Korea" although the lead explains that the official state name is "The Republic of Korea."  Although the page is currently under protection please feel free to post any proposals you have for improving the article on the  Talk Page. RlndGunslinger (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the official name to name the article: 

message: I came to the article with a sincere interest in the economic history of South Korea, but found the overall congratulatory tone of the article distracting, which undermines the content's credibility. I specifically peered into the discussion area wondering whether I was the only one who observed this. I don't want to get into the trenches already carved by the lengthy discussions, but I do want to underline a couple of points. I recognise that proponents of the current state of the article feel that their citations sufficiently justify each claim individually, and that moderators want to hear specific suggestions. The problem, however, is with the general tone, which is a product of the sheer number of rankings and achievements listed. They may all be true, but as a neutral reader, I'm interested in a few key highlights. The sheer volume of rankings, and repetition of vague qualifiers (most advanced, futuristic) give the whole article a biased tone. 
There is also a conspicuously cursory treatment of negative facts in contrast to the positive ones. For example, "As with many of its Asian neighbors, South Korea suffered the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, but the country was able to re-emerge and continue its growth towards a major economic power after a swift recovery". My reaction as a reader was that the author was uncomfortable discussing the effects of the financial crisis, instead choosing to rush into the recovery phase with bright adjectives like "major" and  "swift".
So to address earlier points, yes a big portion of the article is fine, but there needs to be acknolwedgement that the general tone of the article is biased. There is a palpable need to impress. It leaves me with the feeling that Koreans are insecure, which surely wasn't the authors' intention, so it's in their best interest to tone it down, rather than attack critics with demands for specifics.
Steven (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebratory tone is distracting 

message: "Are there really no noteworthy Korean poets, writers, philosophers, musicians, artists, etc.?"
I am not surprised to see such response from the readers; there are indeed serious problems with regards to the research, flow and articulacy of the writing. So, I have made some suggestion for all editors who are willing to improve the quality of the article.
Facts are thrown in this article without a clear analysis and relevance to the overall topic. For instance, many of the claims in the economic sections are disjointed without any “segue.” Hence, as you can see, there is no argument or thesis being portrayed from the section other than "Korea is rich." For instance, we should segregate the era of Asian financial crisis separately from South Korea's growth of the economy ater the crisis, instead of merging them into a single statement: "Korea suffered during AFC but now it is the fast growing economy..."    
"South Korea has the second highest savings rate in the developed world[61] and is well protected from external economic conditions through vast foreign exchange reserves.[62] South Korea is a global technology and innovation leader, filing the largest number of patents per GDP and R&D expenditure in the world.[63] It is the world's largest shipbuilder - in 2008, more than half the ships produced in the world were made in Korea.[64] It is also one of the world's top five automobile manufacturing *nations[65] and the sixth largest steel producer in the world.[66]"    
 :: Interesting sets of information however I do not see the point of this paragraph. 
The second problem is that many of the statements are not justified or explained. For instance, "South Korea seeks for reunification with the North" is not sufficient enough. We need to actually go to the library or online databases to look up South Korea's policy to the North and the relations between the two countries. As far as I know, the inter-Korean relation is much more sophisticated and it deals a great deal of explanation.
The third problem is the wording. There are several spots where I find awkward sentence structures and these hamper the soundness of the article. Even a slight change can enhance the impression.
Lack of reliable academic research is the main factor that disrupts the overall credibility of the article. The article is starving for more in-depth content and substance; and the editors have to invest more time researching before presenting the information, and proofreading may help. South Korea is much more than this and it is certainly a great country, however, I find it disappointing to see the article portraying the false image of the country due to the inadequacy of the research content and the basic flow of the writing. 
--Kingj123 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the rest of the article is also biased, could you please give specific examples of what is NPOV?  You could aid us; we could always use more editors to help improve the page. I see above that you've already identified some problems which is a good start.  Could you please offer some solutions?  Although the page is protected now, if you make some proposals we should be abel to get them in the article. RlndGunslinger (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Ziggymaster, thank you for your interest in the South Korea page.  Until recently the page was under protection due to rampant vandalism and edit-warring.  Due to these problems and others the talk page for such a controversial article is especially important.  Improvements to the article are welcome, but please feel free to post any proposals you have for improving the article on the Talk Page first. Concerning the templates placed, I put them there because these section are either completely unsourced, or have only one source.  In this way, it is more appropriate to tag a section than simply add citation needed to every sentence in the section, (although others have tried that.)  If you check the "proposals" section you can find what I plan to improve, and my reasoning for the changes. I didn't undo your reverts because I want to talk about the changes first; let's try to work together to improve the article. RlndGunslinger (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wondergirls, I see you have also come back now that the page is unprotected.  I assume that you're here to help, but please use the talk page when possible.  It looks like you've tried to make some phrases more NPOV, and even added sources, which is great.  Nonetheless, the recent reverts of other users' edits aren't constructive without consensus.  This was, and still is, a controversial page.  Therefore, let's try to use the talk page both to explain any changes/reverts, as well as to gather some agreement. RlndGunslinger (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit Dispute 

message: I have made some major changes to the article.
It goes without saying that prior to my edits it was a highly biased article that seemed to concentrate on promoting South Korea - advanced this, world leaders in that, blah blah blah.
I am wondering if someone from the South Korean tourism dept was asked to edit this article.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I asked for your editing help, I had hoped that you would try to gather consensus before making such bold edits.  I understand that many people have complained about the bias of the article, but we should try to work together; it wasn't that long ago that this page was locked because of edit warring.  
I myself disagree with many of the recent changes, but I'm being careful not to revert anything until people have had a chance to respond.  Protecting the page is just a short-term solution, we need to "win the hearts and minds" if we are to stop the edit conflicts. RlndGunslinger (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I see your point. I went there with the best of intentions however the article for want of another word - stinks. If there had been a reasonable conversation in the past, I might give the talk page a few days before editing anything, however the people on this talk page seem to be either 1. responsible editors who see the bias for what it is and wish to remove some of the OTT statements  2. Nationalistic editors who for whatever reason want to turn this into a huge KOREA IS BETTER THAN EVERYONE article and don't understand the meaning of notable and/or balanced. I personally would like to see an admin take this article, change it for what is generally acceptable in wikipedia and then lock it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  major changes 

message: There's been a bit of edit warring in the last few days; remember, please do not revert each other, even if your edits are consensus-backed. Instead, try to talk it over with users who are not cooperating, and if that doesn't work, report them to WP:AN3 or myself. The page will be protected from editing if it starts going back and forth, though. Thank you, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is why I am not going to jump back in and undo reverts of my edits..for the time being.  BTW  Lakshmix and Wondergirls are either the same editor, or similar editors who share an interest in editing a huge amount of the same articles. I can understand them both editing Korean articles, but it seems strange that in addition to Korean articles, they are both editing an article relating to an obscure private school in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College_School - I smell sock. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It now seems abundantly clear that Ziggymaster, Wondergirls and Lakshmix are all the same editor, and without their recent contributions, there would have been next to no edit wars on this article. I suggest that they are reverted on sight. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: and if they remain quiet we might be able to make a few alterations that change the tone of the article into one that isn't so overly positive and is neutral.
before I jump in and remove huge lumps of promotional crap, I wouldn't mind if a few people gave their opinions.
And yes I do know that a lot of the things I have removed in the past had sources, that is not the issue - the tone of the article sucked.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The socks are quiet 

message: I edited 7 places on Jan 16th, they were all minor edits of just a couple words, and I gave very clear reasons for all my edits, the second day when I checked, all my 7 edits were reversed without giving any reason, or at least i can't tell the reason was referring to me or to someone else (didn't say anything about the content of what i edited). Of my 7 edits, one can be considered positive, a couple were neutral, the rest were changing the original sentence from positive to neutral, they were in general just more accurate.  I think at least a few of my edits were necessary to avoid misunderstanding if the original sentence were to be kept. This is the first time I edit something related to Korea, and I just realized there's this editing competition going on here. I am wondering is there an administrator for this article who can tell me how i can avoid being reversed if i believe my edit is genuine and necessary?   Chadsnook (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to edit on this page at all? 

message: Now the socks are quiet, I have made some major changes.
The article really needed these changes.
I am sure South Korea is a lovely place, but the article was so positive I was waiting to read that Korea dogs leave golden dog shits on the streets.
If I have messed something up and removed an all important reference I am sorry, but I do think the article is a million times better now.
Not that I have finished, but I will wait for the dust to settle before I do any more.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nearly a month since your changes, but still, when I read the article… well, there's a comment below that says "Absolutely Horrible". I admire the Koreans and their success in rebuilding South Korea. Sadly, this article gives a bad impression of a remarkable and accomplished nation. Korea deserves better! --Mtd2006 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes again 

message: I noticed the statistics about suicide and corruption were removed from the International Rankings. Ex
plain yourself, 92.233.108.66. If you refuse to justify your removal, then I will revert your edit or remove the rankings altogether. 76.187.104.246 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Rankings 

message: As yet another example of the numerous problems with this article, South Koreans were recently allowed to visit the US without obtaining visas. Of course, most countries have visa-waiver status with dozens of other countries, and such things are not terribly important. But one of the "Korea-is-great-and-now-America-loves-us" editors thought this significant enough to put in the INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS TO THE ARTICLE. This is a symptom of the problems with the article as a whole - whenever something happens that makes Korea look even vaguely good, or accepted by other major countries, it gets thrown into the article as a random fact, with no relation to any other part of the article.
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.53.5 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your contribution. Pds0101 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa Waiver in the intro? 

message: It is understandable that there are areas which need to be more neutral, however, I widely regard Sennen Goroshi's actions are edits as hostile to Korean editors (reverting any edits by anyone who writes a positive edit). It is clear that outside this article, his articles continue to remove any positive remarks about Korea-related articles - this is very worrying and raising suspiciousness about assuming good faith for this user. 
On the other hand, his edits for Japan are extremely favourable - he deliberately removed several A-class Japanese war criminals in this article, with no reason given, clearly pointing to NPOV.
This user is also continuously accused of creating several meat puppets to do what I described above - in the case of his/her sock puppets, the actions were much more hostile, deliberately removing entire paragraphs, blanking out Korean articles and breaking more than a dozen of Wikipedia guidelines.
Sennen Goroshi should be rightfully blocked as he/she has broken the 3-revert rule more than twice in a row - this week alone. He/she is continuing to revert any reverts by anyone and accusing them as "meat-puppets". The problem lies on this user's personal view about Korea, which are irrelevant. He/she continues to remove sourced materials with citations, which is clerly inappropriate and superficial.
I have also noted continued disputes between this user and other editors, and this user continues to use rude language such as "fucking", clearly inappropriate in Wikipedia. Assume good faith. I had to revert some edits and remove some hostile edits for this reason.
My conclusion is that Sennen Goroshi's actions inevitably only lead to continued disputes with other editors and that he/she must work together with other users, stop removing sourced materials and not revert anyone or accuse anyone of meat-puppets. That only creates more hostility. 
This is for the improvement for the article, not a direct criticism to Sennen Goroshi.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.108.66 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-22T00:02:03 (UTC)
: Then Sennen Goroshi must be reported to an administrator. Anyone care to do so? Pds0101 (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A sock and a sock IP in conversation? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are concerned, file this account as well then instead of callng every editor here a sock. Other editors are just worried for the good of this article from distruptive edits like yours. Pds0101 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sennen Goroshi 

message: Seriously, I can sense the hidden implication in pictures. I'm gonna remove or replace current excessive, unnecessary, unfit images from the article. Encyclopedia is NOT an image repository or catalog, but the images on the article really prevent me from "read" texts or edit further.
gallery
File:Autumn Seoul Olympic Park.jpg|1. Olympic Park (Ziggymaster)
File:Inside Seoul World Cup Stadium.jpg|2. Seoul World Cup Stadium (Ziggymaster)
File:Gyeongbok Palace main attraction.png|3. Gyeongbok Palace (Ziggymaster)
File:My LG Shine and Chocolate.png|4. LG phones (by Ziggymaster)
File:DMB phone in Seoul.jpg|5. DMB phone (Ziggymaster)
File:Seoul Grand Park Hill.jpg|6. Seoul Grand Park Hill (Ziggymaster)
File:Korean Air Cargo Aircraft.png|7. Korean Air Cargo Aircraft (Ziggymaster)
File:Lotte World Theme Park.jpg|8. Lotte World Theme Park (Ziggymaster)
File:KTX Gwangmyeong Station.jpg|9. KTX Seoul Station (Lakshmix)
File:ROK Marine with K2.JPEG|10. A ROK Marine (U.S. Navy)
File:Haeundae.jpg|11. Night scene of Haeundae (Patriotmissile)
File:Einstein-Hubo.jpg|12. HUBO (Mac)
File:Suwon Global Zone 7.JPG|13. (Jpbarrass)
File:Myongdong2.jpg|14. Myeongdong (HunkinElvis)
File:TVXQ - Bonjour Paris.jpg|15. TVXQ in Paris (Ninjacatherine)
File:Gimbap closeup.jpg|16. Gimbap (ZenKimchi)
File:Korean rice cake-Tteok-Gyeongdan-02.jpg|17. Gyeongdan, a variety of tteok,  (a flicker user)
File:Korean.tea-Daechucha-01.jpg|18. Daechucha, jujube tea (a flicker user)
--Caspian blue 07:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My pictures are better than others? 

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

message: It's obvious that this article is seriously lacking in NPOV. Don't even think about asking me for specifics; they've been clearly laid out previously, some are just too POV oriented to see it. Plus, I have a life other than editing Wikipedia, so....
What about uniformity standards? I'm sure there are some. If this article doesn't look uniform to say...USA, England, Japan, etc., then it should be revised to look that way. If the USA's article doesn't have rankings, then why should South Korea's? I think you see the point here. If it doesn't look like other countries (not facts, obviously, but format, layout, etc.) then it should be revised to be such.javascript:insertTags('69.23.143.175 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this? 

message: I removed the controversy charge with regards to the 2006 World Baseball Classic. I could find nothing to validate this other than Wikipedia. However, these pages include the same story. That is, South Korean beat Japan in the first and second round-robin pools, but then lost to Japan in the single elimination semifinal game. I can see how this might be frustrating, but without some sources supporting the controversial nature of the tournament format I see no reason to include this statement. Further note, this story is repeated on other pages. Hence, they will need some cleaning as well. Liberum.philologus (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WBC Controversy Charge 

message: Compare the introduction to this article to the Korean-language Wikipedia. The difference is amazing! The Korean introduction has three paragraphs that briefly describe Korea: 1) the country, its capitol and its form of government, 2) the fact that Korean has grown from a war-ravaged country to a strong economy (mentioning "miracle of the Han River"), 3) and a distinction between North and South Korea. These are the essential facts that describe South Korea.
On the other hand, the English-language introduction overuses superlatives, and while factual, the overstatement of fact lessens the credibility of the article. Others who have commented make the same argument, which I'll restate: overstatement and redundant superlatives confuse the reader, and make an immediate, negative impression of Korea. Consider the difference between the Korean- and English-language introductions:
Comparison of Korean- and English-language Wikipedia
Korean wiki                                                                                                                                                                                         	English wiki
Seoul is the capitol.                                                                                                                                                                               	Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world.
The president and the head of state, is Lee Myung-bak, the 17th president of the Republic of Korea. The prime minister is Han Seung-soo, and the chairman of the National Assembly is Kim Hyeon-goh.	Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, first inhabited as early as the Lower Paleolithic. Following the unification of the Three Korean Kingdoms under Silla in 668 AD, Korea went through the Goryeo and Joseon Dynasty as one nation until the end of the Korean Empire in 1910. After liberation and division, South Korea was established in 1948 and has since become one of the two full democracies in Asia.
...a war-ravaged county, the economy has grown to 13th-ranked GDP in the world.                                                                                                                     	Following the Korean War, the South Korean economy grew significantly, transforming the country into a major global economy. ... South Korea is a developed country. It is the second most prosperous major economy in Asia and a High-income OECD member, classified as an Advanced economy by the CIA and IMF. South Korea's exponential economic growth is called the Miracle on the Han River and earned the distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger in the world. Today, it is leading the Next Eleven nations and its economic success is a role model for many developing countries.
DPRK is North Korea... Republic of Korea is South Korea...                                                                                                                                          	South Korea shares the most heavily-fortified border in the world with its only land neighbor, North Korea.
—                                                                                                                                                                                                   	South Korea has a high-tech and futuristic infrastructure, and is a world leader in technologically advanced goods such as electronics, automobiles, ships, machinery, petrochemicals and robotics, headed by Samsung, LG, Hyundai-Kia and Hyundai Heavy Industries. It is a global leader in the fields of education, having the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy. South Korea was also estimated, in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, to have the second highest average national IQ.
—                                                                                                                                                                                                   	Since the 21st century, South Korea's modern culture has become popular in Asia and beyond in a phenomenon known as the Korean wave.
—                                                                                                                                                                                                   	South Korea has an international outlook with memberships in the United Nations, WTO, OECD and G-20 major economies. It is also a founding member of APEC and the East Asia Summit, being a major non-NATO ally of the United States.
===Proposed change to the Introduction===
Simply put… follow the example of the Korean-language article. Reduce the introduction to the essential facts about Korea. Eliminate overstated facts and facts that belong in the body of the article:
*second highest average national IQ, (deleted by another editor, please discuss before restoring this information)
*high-tech and futuristic,
*major global economy,
*advanced technology world leader,
*most heavily fortified border,
*world's highest…,
*global leader in…,
*modern culture [is] popular… Korean wave,
*second most prosperous major economy,
*leading the Next Eleven nations,
*role model for developing countries,
*distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger,
*one of the two full democracies in Asia, etc.
Many of these facts have a place in the body of the article, or spread out in the related main articles. But in the introduction, the concentration of non-stop superlatives is off-putting to the reader. The problem is not a POV issue in the literal sense, but rather in the tone of the text and how it's presented. Other sections of the article need the same reduction of concentrated superlatives, but trimming the introduction is the first step. Comments welcomed! --Mtd2006 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An assessment of the Introduction 

message: Simply put… follow the example of the Korean-language article. Reduce the introduction to the essential facts about Korea. Eliminate overstated facts and facts that belong in the body of the article:
*second highest average national IQ, (deleted by another editor, please discuss before restoring this information)
*high-tech and futuristic,
*major global economy,
*advanced technology world leader,
*most heavily fortified border,
*world's highest…,
*global leader in…,
*modern culture [is] popular… Korean wave,
*second most prosperous major economy,
*leading the Next Eleven nations,
*role model for developing countries,
*distinctive reputation of Asian Tiger,
*one of the two full democracies in Asia, etc.
Many of these facts have a place in the body of the article, or spread out in the related main articles. But in the introduction, the concentration of non-stop superlatives is off-putting to the reader. The problem is not a POV issue in the literal sense, but rather in the tone of the text and how it's presented. Other sections of the article need the same reduction of concentrated superlatives, but trimming the introduction is the first step. Comments welcomed! --Mtd2006 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to the Introduction

message: Another reason for article improvement tags, besides encouraging discussion and concensus, is that tagged articles appear on the WikiProject Korea's list of articles needing cleanup. Tagging this article alerts members of the Project that attention is needed. Removing tags, without fixing problems, simply hides the problem from the editors who are most interested in its quality. That is truly unfortunate. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The reasons for article improvement tags

message: Regarding this edit: while the way the information was inserted was clearly unconstructive, The Onions atlas (Our Dumb World: The Onion's Atlas of the Planet Earth) actually does have a long parody article on something like "South Korea: best at being second best" or whatever.  Maybe it would be worth mentioning somewhere that this popular stereotype exists (as long as we are clear that it's a parody and a stereotype, not a legitimate view of historians and social scientists and whatnot). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a scary idea. Let's not open that can of worms right now. --Mtd2006 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "The Onion" is not a proper source for information of any kind, according to the verifiavility policy of wikipedia, TheOnion is a parody project --Andersmusician NO 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto! --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd-best 

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

message: Right now, the article has many instances of cherry picking. Cherry picking happens when an editor finds a source of information, but selects only the most favorable (or least favorable) facts.
This sentence is from the introduction: "Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world." The citation for this statement come from this published research paper: Which are the largest? Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly. From the title alone, I think we can see that the reference is not about which cities are largest, but rather it's about why it's so hard to know which city is first, second, or third. Here's what the reference says about Seoul's population:
Table 1. The World's Twenty Largest Urban Areas According to Eight Different Sources, p2.
Source	Rank	Populationin millions
A     	#2  	22.9
B     	#4  	21.7
C     	#2  	20.7
D     	#4  	20.2
E     	#7  	16.9
F     	#4  	19.8
G     	#18 	9.9
H     	#9  	10.2
In Table 2, p6, a United Nations population estimate lists Seoul, ranked #18, with population 9.5 million.
A wiki editor cited this reference but selected only the most favorable fact. These two tables really say that Seoul's population ranks between #2 and #18, depending on how population is counted. The sentence in the introduction is incorrect according to the reference. Moreover, even if a source is found that only lists Seoul's population as #2, it should not be used to justify this factoid. The reason is explained in the conclusion, p37 (my emphasis):
For these reasons, I propose that the sentence, "Its capital is Seoul, a major global city with the second largest metropolitan area population in the world." should be revised to read, "Its capital is Seoul."
Comments always welcome.
-- Mtd2006 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%.  Great work! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: , I love cookies. --Mtd2006 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry picking 

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

message: The introduction states that Korea has "the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy." The problem with this statement is that the references at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_mat_lit-education-scientific-literacy don't support the claim. Both table are the results of testing 15-year-old students. It's easy to miss the definition at the bottom of each page that says "mean value of performance scale 15 years old 2000". These factoids are only true for 15-year-olds in the year 2000. The phrase "having the world's highest scientific literacy and second highest mathematical literacy" is not true according to the NationMaster web site and should be removed from the article.
If this factiod is important to the article, its correct place is in the Education section. However, you should explain that the tables from NationMaster are the result of testing 15-year-olds in 2000, because this fact is easy to miss if you read the references.
--Mtd2006 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's highest scientific literacy 

message: At various times, the infobox has cited two sources of financial statistics. One is the IMF (the International Monetary Fund) and the second is the CIA World Fact Book. Of the two sources, the IMF is an internationally recognized authority. The World Fact Book is published by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and is not internationally recognized as a source of financial data; it's not the best source we can use.
We need four statistical items of financial data for the infobox.
#GDP (PPP)
#GDP (PPP) per capita
#GDP (nominal)
#GDP (nominal) per capita
The IMF resource provides all four items from a single, consistent source. The IMF statistics are clearly marked as actual figures or staff estimates. As of February 2009, the 2007 data is the most current actual data; the IMF has not published 2008 actual figures.
The World Fact Book lists only GDP (PPP), GDP (PPP) per capita, and GDP (nominal). These statistics are labeled "(2008 est.)". The CIA resource does list actual data as of February 2009, nor does it list the 2007 actual figures.
The IMF is the single best source for the GDP statistics that are needed for the infobox. The CIA does not publish the four statistics that are required for the infobox, and its figures are estimates rather than actual data. When the IMF publishes 2008 data, the infobox should be updated with that information. Is IMF the most consistent, most accurate, internationally recognized source of this information? Is there another source?--Mtd2006 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMF versus CIA financial statistics 

message: What is the Joshua Project? The "Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the least followers of Jesus Christ." It's not a census of the population in Korea and it's POV by its advocacy. It focuses on select groups of ethnic people based on religious preference.
The web site states:
The exactness of the above numbers can be misleading. Numbers can vary by several percentage points or more.
A non-POV, census-based source is needed for ethnic statistics with accurate figures. "Numbers can vary by several percentage points or more" isn't a reliable source for statistics as precise as: 96.9% Korean, 2.01% Japanese, 0.14% American, 0.13% Other Asian, 0.03% Eurasian, 0.02% European, 0.76% unclassified. The Joshua Project statistics should be removed or another source located. Comments welcome.--Mtd2006 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the editor a message a few minutes ago asking about this, at User talk:Cryingnut#Ethnic groups of South Korea.  S/he said that it's from the UN census.  Personally, I don't mind that it's a Christian organization (sometimes these POV organizations can still put out good information...for example, SIL International is one of the best resources on language typology, even though they are unfortunately affiliated with missionary activities...it's just something we take with a grain of salt); what really caught my eye was that it lists "American," "British," and "Deaf" as ethnic groups, which seems very strange to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you identified the problem when you observed that "American," "British," and "Deaf" are identified as people groups by the Joshua Project. I had looked at the sources of the data. The United Nations is not among them. The sources are advocacy groups. The Joshua Project is an unreliable source for ethnic group statistics. The reference states that "numbers can vary by several percentage points or more". From this source, we can conclude that 97% of the population of Korea claim Korean heritage, and 3% claim "other". Can we move these people-group statistics to the talk page until ethnic-group statistics are located? United Nations census data would be a sufficient reference. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...I don't see UN in there, as claimed.  I know Ethnologue is a decent source (although almost certainly not the one that was used for ethnic group statistics; Ethnologue is a language database), but I can't vouch for any of those others. I have removed the information:96.9% Korean, 2.01% Japanese, 0.14% American, 0.13% Other Asian, 0.03% Eurasian, 0.02% European, 0.76% unclassifiedJoshua Project - Ethnic People Groups of Korea, South rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic group statistics from Joshua Project 

message: The section has no lead-in. This leaves the reader at a loss for context, that is, what's the importance of this section and how does South Korea present itself to the rest of the world?
I suggest a simple solution. Move the text from the Other nations sub-section to the top Foreign relations section, and eliminate the "Other nations" sub-section. The "Other nations" text nicely summarizes South Korea's place in world politics, and presents a significant fact that Ban Ki-moon serves as United Nations Secretary-General.Mtd2006 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to Foreign relations section 

message: This discussion page is too long. I'll archive old discussions, but I'd like to refactor (rearrange and combine) some topics that are still relevant. It's important to preserve the blatant criticism of the article in the archives, but some entries aren't going anywhere or they're OBE (overcome by events). Give me a go-ahead and I'll refactor. We can restore if there are controversial topics that need to stay. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think archiving would definitely help.  Most of the entries up above are old and aren't being acted on any more; the more recent entries are still relevant to the ongoing cleanup.  I don't have a problem if you do some refactoring and archiving. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time to archive? 

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

message: I removed this prediction from the Demographics section, "The latests estimates state that Korea will have an aged society by 2018, and that the economy will collapse by 2036 unless birth rates increase or immigration is substatially boosted." The cite for this statement is: Tackling Low Birthrate Requires Shift in Thinking.
There are four problems with the "collapse by 2036" statement:
#The chosun.com article is an editorial, not research, nor news reporting,
#Quoting the editorial, "In 2036, that ratio will change to one Korean in his productive years having to supporting one senior citizen. The economy will be unable to withstand the pressure, and the social safety system will collapse." The editorial does not say, "the economy will collapse by 2036 unless birth rates increase or immigration is substatially boosted;" specifically, the editorial predicts the social safety system will be stressed because, by 2036, one working Korean will support one senior citizen.
#The editorial predicts future events if action is not taken or policy is not changed; the editorial doesn't claim that no action will be taken, nor that policy will not change,
#The editorial concludes, "Korea either must change its perceptions, practices and institutional framework when it comes to marriage, family and childcare, and endure the side effects, or open its doors to immigrants and embrace multiculturalism. The country is getting closer to the day when it will have to choose between the two." The editorial asserts that South Korea must make social and economic changes, but presents two options that may or may not occur in fact.
--Mtd2006 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial from chosun.com does not predict collapse of economy in 2036 

message: I came to the article with a sincere interest in the economic history of South Korea, but found the overall congratulatory tone of the article distracting, which undermines the content's credibility. I specifically peered into the discussion area wondering whether I was the only one who observed this. I don't want to get into the trenches already carved by the lengthy discussions, but I do want to underline a couple of points. I recognise that proponents of the current state of the article feel that their citations sufficiently justify each claim individually, and that moderators want to hear specific suggestions. The problem, however, is with the general tone, which is a product of the sheer number of rankings and achievements listed. They may all be true, but as a neutral reader, I'm interested in a few key highlights. The sheer volume of rankings, and repetition of vague qualifiers (most advanced, futuristic) give the whole article a biased tone. 
There is also a conspicuously cursory treatment of negative facts in contrast to the positive ones. For example, "As with many of its Asian neighbors, South Korea suffered the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, but the country was able to re-emerge and continue its growth towards a major economic power after a swift recovery". My reaction as a reader was that the author was uncomfortable discussing the effects of the financial crisis, instead choosing to rush into the recovery phase with bright adjectives like "major" and  "swift".
So to address earlier points, yes a big portion of the article is fine, but there needs to be acknolwedgement that the general tone of the article is biased. There is a palpable need to impress. It leaves me with the feeling that Koreans are insecure, which surely wasn't the authors' intention, so it's in their best interest to tone it down, rather than attack critics with demands for specifics. Steven (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebratory tone is distracting