Talk:South Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	South Korea was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed April 28, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article South Korea, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality. This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article.

	On 14 February 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

This is not a forum for general discussion of South Korea. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This article was refactored on the 14th of October, 2005, for readability, length, and removal of out-dated discussions. To view the refactored text, go here [1]. Masterhatch 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Archives

1 2 3 4 Create using the "move procedure"

[edit] Grammar error

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries such as nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."

That doesn't make sense, can an admin change it back to how it was before? I believe it was something like:

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries and is the only country having nationwide 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, WiBro and 3G HSDPA."

It may have been slightly different that that but you get the point ;) Thanks -- Igob8a (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's 33rd NOT 33st for per capita income. -Ed

However, the South Korea economy was awarded severely wounding for an 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

Please fix this. Should read,

However, the South Korean economy was severely wounded by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

DaronDierkes (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most wired country status.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html?ex=1301634000&en=7d5fcaf014309078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss--Sir Edgar 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, but see also [2] and various other reports on the 2006 Ipsos Face of the Web survey, which found that Japan is now the most "wired" (in terms of broadband connections per capita). I'm not really sure how trustworthy the Ipsos data is, but as far as I can tell they're the only people who go out collecting this kind of information. One suspects that the NYT reporter was using old information; in 2003 or 2004, nobody would have questioned the ROK's status. -- Visviva 10:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The above conversation was blanked by 64.123.114.149 on May 16 2006 and restored by Visviva 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a new update to this, and apparently they're still the most wired nation http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin That's only a few days old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igob8a (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The information you bring out seems to be about "broadband statics", and you didn't quote relevant information here. There is too many statics by various category, so quote it first. And you should not confuse "broadbnad" with wired nations.

P.S I feel like you're not a Korean at all per your contribution history. Koreans generally don't abbreviate country name like S.Korea. You can change your name via Wikipedia:Changing username--Appletrees (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you miss the point. Still, many people access internet with 'non-broadband' service or dial. The most wired country doesn't mean a country with highest subscribers of broadband in the world. You better check broadband article before deleting reliable source like the New York Times citation. Unless the citation is proved wrong, Koreakorea1's removal can be considered as vandalism. I requested to show the evidence to back up your claim but you didn't. Cvcc and Koreakorea1, these two editors recently created their accounts and then equally obsess with rankings and technology of South Korea and Japan. Very interesting. Using country name is okay as long as it doesn't breach to the username policy, but it is also allowed for any user to recommend someone to change his or her name. To me, the name looks very conspicuous. I wonder why Cvcc directly responded to my opinion on the matter on behalf of Koreakorea1. The changing or removal of the sentence was only done by Koreakorea1. --Appletrees (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Koreakorea1 is obviously not Korean and has no interest in helping Wikipedia improve its articles. On numerous occations I see him quietly taking important parts out of the article. Look at his edit history and you see that he's nothing more than a vandal pretending to be a contributor :\ Koreakorea1, please stop. -- Igob8a (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 100Mbit/s broadband internet access, full HDTV broadcasting, DMB, 3G HSDPA

You could've removed just "only", but you didn't. You blanked the whole sentence along with the robotics sentence. Why did you make such the disruptive edits? --Appletrees (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't also explain about your blanking. You deleted the examples of the android, EveR-1. You can also tag ^{[citation needed]}, but you just delete with your POV pushing. What you did to the article is disruptive enough. And stick to using one account.--Appletrees (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually South Korea IS the only country with NATIONWIDE 100mb/s broadband, hdtv, dmb, wireless broadband and hsdpa. japan has it in major cities, but it is nowhere near being nationwide. The upper half of japan is mostly mountains and rural areas, which obviously don't have the previously mentioned technologies.

Just because you're japanese, it doesn't mean you should go vandalize other countries' articles that disagrees with your POV.

Unless "koreakorea1" can provide proof, we should revert his changes (SK being the only country). Thanks ^_^ -- Igob8a (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the technology information of South Korea. I'm dull at the info, but Koreakorea1's blnaking is very conspicuous and concerned. --Appletrees (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP

koreakorea1, what is your problem? Stop trying to spread false data! You don't see Koreans doing that to the japan article, so stop before you get banned. And stop silently removing parts from the article to create grammar errors and incomplete sentences, etc -- Igob8a (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam paragraph.

The Vietnam paragraph seems to be either a translation or written by someone whose English is poor. I would try to edit it, but I'm unclear as to the meaning of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwartz Farquhartz (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture diversification and more citations

This page needs more pictures of places in Korea besides Seoul, and more citations on various claims made in the articles Deiaemeth (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. maybe pictures of Busan, Gyeongju, Daegu? We don't really have good pictures of other cities at this time. --Appletrees (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sandwiched between Japan and China

A lot of sources are being written that -->> One of phrases that Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) used to use it a lot. I want to ask you, why information about serious Japanese economic bubble doesn't be mentioned at Japan at all? that is very important fact and well-known. This page should be concise and hold representative of South Korea. It is not a place to hold every POV contents. And Japanese war crimes isn't mentioned there either. Don't push your POV, or stop whatever 2channel meatpuppetry. --Appletrees (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2008FromKawasaki, it is not logical and sensical that any words coming out from the mouth of CEO in a certain group are all true nothing but true. As you may be a Japanese, it is hard to understand the political situation behind the word, but when Kun-Hee Lee said the word you kept quoting, it was on the verge of presidential election, and many Koreans do believe that the word was aiming to hurt the current regime. In short, the word has nothing but a political meaning. In addition, I have no idea why another user, Koreakorea, has kept erasing the content backing up by reasonable references. People call it, vandalism, and that kinda act is not tolerable in Wikipedia, officially.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

2008FromKawasaki is a Japanese and obviously has no intention of helping improve Wikipedia's articles. His contributions have been nothing but vandalisms and false claims. Probably Koreakorea1's other account. -- Igob8a (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the claim that 2008FromKawaki has no intention of helping to improve Wikipedia because he is Japanese is NPOV, but I do agree that sockpuppetry from 2CH is getting out of hand. Deiaemeth (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New president of South Korea

{{editprotected}} It is the 25th of February in Korea due to the international date line. An official transfer of power has occurred from the administration of Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak hours prior. I ask an administrator make relevant changes to the article. Gryffon (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, as the edit is all based on information already in the infobox, and is unrelated to the dispute. If there's any more places ion the article which need fixing, please make a more specific request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trillion dollar club?

This article claims that "In 2004, South Korea joined the "trillion dollar club" of world economies". However, the citation does not support this claim. I've been researching the "trillion dollar club" to write an article about it, and this 2007 Forbes article lists the current members as "[India], U.S., U.K., Japan, Germany, China, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil and Russia." South Korea is not included — and indeed, the article notes that ""The U.K. is the only economy to stop being a trillion-dollar economy for a while after attaining the status the first time,” the report said." I assume that this must be because the article is talking only about the countries currently on the list?

Because I can find a couple articles which claim it actually did become, while I can find others stating that it is about to. So, what is right here? Did South Korea join the club, or not? Is it still in the club — the CIA factbook source indicates that it is not, as does the Forbes article. What is the accurate assessment here? --Haemo (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not even sure even if there is an actual "trillion dollar club" classification; this term is by no means an official title or qualification, but rather a term used to describe economies with GDP of a trillion dollars or more. Since the exact figure of the GDP of Korea varies (two broad distinctions in both nominal and PPP GDP, and figure varies in both accounts), it really depends on which figure and the which source you are looking at. I hope this helps. Deiaemeth (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it actually is a measure calculated by some firms around the world, and it does have a precise definition — it's GDP in current US dollars, not PPP GDP. The Forbes article I linked, above, discusses it — there's also a bunch of hits for the term when India joined, as it was judged an important milestone. I think we should omit mention of it, since the sources disagree over whether or not SK ever was a member. --Haemo (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to go ahead and remove the discussion of the trillion-dollar club from the article, since it's at best confused, and at worst false. --Haemo (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population of South Korea

{{editprotected}} This needs to be updated. See here. The population has officially surpassed 50,000,000. Now get it sorted. Please.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.105.162.97 (talk) 2008-03-05T07:50:47 (UTC)

N Not done The information in the article is not wrong; it may be out of date, but the 2007 figure is from a known reliable source (UN estimate). While the source you point out may be reliable, it may not - please establish a consensus on this page as to whether the population figure should be updated to this new figure. And in future, please try to be a little more civil. Happy‑melon 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} While I appreciate the person who made the edit request was uncivil (perhaps tongue in cheek) in his/her request, I second the request. Yes UN estimates is a relibable source, but surely the South Korean Ministry of Government and Home Affairs is also a reliable source, at least for the population of its own nation. The link here is from a South Korean government page and quotes South Korean government sources. Could it please be updated on the page? Population is not a controversial issue that needs "consensus" in order to update it, unlike the other issues why the page has been locked for editing, is it? 152.99.244.60 (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha. See? Get it sorted. Pretty please. ㅋㅋ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.105.162.97 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing population with residents. The article you refere to gives the number of residents as 50,087,307 including 624,377 foreigners living in the country. The population should then be 49,462,930 as of October 2007 according to the country's own official statistics.

ToK (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, chummy. The population is the total number of residents. Foreign residents are part of the population, just as Koreans who reside abroad are not. Please read the article again. It is by the Korean Government. The title is "Population of Korea surpasses 50-million mark." Our wikipaedia article is about the country, not the indigenous peoples. But what is actually going on here is obvious to all. I made a poor joke of my first request and the powers that be are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Simply because you don't like my tone/language, you are refusing to update an article with pertinent information. Please reconsider.

While I disown the tone and language of the poster above, I do agree that population includes (mostly registered) foreign residents. When a census is taken in a country, it includes anyone who is in the country at that time, not just those who have citizenship.

152.99.244.25 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have checked a little and you're mostly right. Most countries use the "balance method" when updating their population figures. This means they take the last census + live births - deaths + registrations for permanent residence - registrations for permanent residence (+/- changes due to administrative changes, for instance border adjustments). So it is not enough to be in the country on a temporary basis to count as part of the population. But I suspect that the figures from the Korean authorities are in line with these definitions.

Since an article mentioning a press release mentioning a report is not the best of sources, I have asked Koreas statistics services for a more authoritative source than the referenced article. Normally they should be able to provide the report itself.

ToK (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of 152.99.244.25 (talk) and I hate to offend his sensibilities, so I've amended my tone/language. Hope that's cool with y'all.

[edit] 3rd richest country by 2025 - error

The information that "South Korea will be the world's 3rd richest country by 2025 with a GNP per capita of $52,000 according to Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banks.[10]" is wrong. If you check the reference [10], you see that South Korea is expected to be the 3rd richest country measured as GNP per capita among the 22 countries in Goldman Sachs' study. This is not to say that other countries not included in the report can not have a higher GNP per capita. This is almost certainly the case since measuring GDP per capita serves small and relatively rich countries like Singapore, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg very well. A better piece of information to use from the Goldman Sachs report would be that South Korea is expected to be the worlds 9th largest economy by 2025.

ToK (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2channel's watchlist

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on a watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets relevant the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

• Relevant articles.
  • Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets (in WP:ANI archive380)
  • Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 (diff 1diff 2)
  • Special:Whatlinkshere(see the RFCU and SSP files)

• Note:
  

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement

This article needs some improvements in trimming down the introduction, fixing grammar problems (syntax, typos, etc.), and diversifying pictures (more pictures of Korea besides Seoul). Deiaemeth (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section

The history section of this article is a little strange. There is little information on the establishment of South Korea, or the Japanese occupation just before it.

I think the history of "Korea" before the division should only be in the separate "Korea" article, and only the history of "South Korea" should be in the "South Korea" article. The "North Korea" article does this correctly.

If you are going to combine "Korea" and "South Korea" histories in this article, you should at least add a paragraph on the end of Choson and some details of the Japanese occupation, as well as the actual founding of the Republic of Korea.

-MNadelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNadelman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The so-called "national IQ"

From the (very lengthy) introduction:

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106"

This latter part of this sentence should be removed. What is being referred to here is a book whose scientific validity is in serious dispute: as far as I've understood, the claims of Dr. Lynn and Dr. Vanhanen are not taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community. They base their estimates of "national IQ" on differences in national income, causing the poorest countries to have an average "IQ" of around 60 or less (which is the equivalent of mild retardation).

It should suffice to say that South Korea is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, having a very high GDP per capita. There is no reason to translate this to some dubious concept of "national IQ" based on research of poor scientific quality. Information drawn from controversial sources should not be presented as factual, especially not in an encyclopedia. -- Anthee (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with your sentiments, and that sentence should be removed or modified appropriately. The introduction is also getting too long with laundry lists of random figures, and there has to be some major copy-editing to make the introduction concise and and move its constituent parts into other parts of the article or different parts of the articles. Deiaemeth (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106 along with a heated focus on education, being directly linked with its strong performance in mathematics and science"

into

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, its heated focus on education being directly linked with its strong performance in mathematics and science"

until the whole introduction is revised. -- Anthee (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries, having the most intelligent population in the world with a National IQ of 106" Forgive me for stating it, but including this kind of information borders on chauvinism and the only other country that would ever include this kind of information would have been Nazi Germany... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.11.4 (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The above kind of references to "national IQ" have already been deemed inappropriate for the article. This kind of provocative commenting adds nothing further to the discussion. -- Anthee (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starcraft

A mention about starcraft is a must for any discussion about SOuth Korea.

Seriously it's the one thing they are world famous for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.239 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the game Starcraft?Euge246 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's obsurd... We're not mentioning a game in this article. -Steve12992

[edit] GA Quick-Fail

This article needs to be thoroughly referenced before it is ready for GA status. It has been tagged with a "refimprove" tag, and simply removing the tag doesn't solve the problem. Please add citations to the entire article before renominating. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, indicate exact contents or lines to which you raised a question on their reliablity and consequent requirement of references. It is way too broad to remark 'thoroughly referenced' on the entire article. In addition, in my personal opinion, contents are average-well referenced compared to other articles. I think it is not fair to put the GA tag simply by one's own opinion.Patriotmissile (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who failed the GA nomination, but even I can see that this article still has massive problems with verifiability. Every section needs to be referenced. Every paragraph needs to be referenced. I've identified two sections ("Climate" and "Transportation") which have no references at all, and I could certainly go much further. The "Sports" section, for example, has only a single citation which is for the introduction and popularity of baseball in Korea; what about the rest of the section? There are several dead links which should be fixed, and the citations should to be properly and consistantly formatted. Citation #2 even references Wikipedia, which is a strict no-no. There is still a long way to go with this article. PC78 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest to correct the bibliography form of some sources. An encyclopedia article MUST have proper bibliographic and citation form. Idontknow610^TM 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There is a lot of vandalism going on, particularly on the intro page. I had to restore the page because someone blanked out the last paragraph. The statistics column on the right is always vandalized and people change it to random numbers all the time. Can we do something about this and make this article semi-protected? I noticed that almost half of the edits are simply vandalism.Jenny0313 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Please semi to prevent anon IPs re-introducing unsourced nonsense about national IQs and other fluff that doesn't belong in the lede ... richi (hello) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Semi-protection would be good. --Bakarocket (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd highest GDP/capita by 2025

Below is a retread of a discussion between User:Richi and User:Lakshmix on this subject. We're looking to gain some consensus among editors about what to do with this text. Thoughts?

Hi. Can you show me where you're seeing it "clearly surpasses the mentioned countries by a signifcant margin by 2025"? I'm looking at the chart on page 9 that shows the four countries the same. Thanks ... richi (hello) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Korea exceeds the income per capita of UK, France and Germany by 2025, in particular Germany - it shows a difference of almost 2000-4000USD, which translates to almost 200 billion USD in economy size, equivalant to that of several developing countries' total GDP. If you don't consider this significant, you still do not have the right to modify or change this fact and show a misleading statement in the article, which is clearly not valid according to the reference. By equal or equivalant, you are directly implying that their income per capita is arithmetically the same, which it is clearly not stated in the source. Whether the figures are signifcant or not, that is irrelevant - your POV does not comply with the source and the source clearly shows that Korea has a larger income per capita than those three countries. If you consider them "tiny", this is your opinion and should not be introduced into the article to modify and change it according to your POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where you can take sources, modify it to your own will (i.e. claim that the three countries income per capita is EQUAL to the income per capita of Korea in 2025) without the authorization of the publisher, Goldman Sachs in this case, and state your own opinion in any of its articles. In other words, your claim is your POV and opinion, not a fact. This is for the benefit of all Wikipedia users and if you feel that there is any reason why you should object to this fact, please feel free to leave a comment below. Thank you.Lakshmix (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I asked. You're clearly seeing different data to those that I can see in the reference. I'm asking you to tell me where you're seeing it. Sources must be WP:V ... richi (hello) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am referring to the source published by Goldman Sachs, page 9, the 2nd bottom diagram. This is the linked PDF report that is referenced in the statement in the introduction. The data you have been referring to is precisely this. Make sure that you verify the data and check the figures carefully, in particular for Germany. As clarified previously, however "tiny" (according to your opinion stated on the article revision history) any fact or figure may be, you cannot modify it according to WP:V. Lakshmix (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, your English is better than my Hangul! That's the same chart as I'm looking at. It shows that ROK, UK, and France's estimated GDP/capita for 2025 are indistinguishable. You are correct that Germany's is lower, perhaps significantly so. The point is that these are estimates, not facts -- estimates with a 20 year horizon. It's also complicated by the fact that the US$ has fluctuated significantly differently against these currencies since 2005. It's not reasonable for an encyclopedia to be so precise, given: the nature of estimates and these other variables -- and the fact that we're talking about 20 years.

    Do you have any training in statistics? Personally I often deal with situations like this, where quantitative data are "fuzzy" due to estimates or from survey data. From careful measurement of the bar charts, we're talking about a difference of less than one percent -- there is no doubt in my mind that this is statistically insignificant, given the nature of the data.

    BTW, there's no POV here -- I could care less whether ROK's GDP/capita exceeds that of the UK. My motivation is to help clean up an article that has become badly bogged down. If we can't reach consensus, we'll have to follow WP:FUTURE and remove the text altogether.

    Thanks for your time ... richi (hello) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can speak Hangul, are you Korean? I am currently mastering in Economics and Statistics at New York University and the Economy of South Korea is my specialty along with other East Asian economies. For you, this 1% might look insignificant. And I agree the great majority do. However, as a statistician, all data, including numbers to an infinite amount of significant figures or decimal points are valid. If you ignore these figure, however small or tiny they are, there will be chaos in the statistics world. One ranking of a country can be slipped or moved up by just 1%. If you simply ignore it, it breaks down the whole theory of statistics. While I agree this report is an estimate, there is no denial in the fact that it is an official report published by Goldman Sachs and hence it must be treated as a verifiable source according to WP:V. I would like this to be respected and more importantely, the acceptance that fact is fact - no more, no less. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you. Lakshmix (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take it to Talk:South Korea and try to gain consensus ... richi (hello) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with richi that the difference is not large, however, as lakshmix states, I think the sentence should remain in the introduction as it is true by the source, even if the difference is not large. Also, it is an excellent example demonstrating South Korea's future capability in becoming a very wealthy country in the future. And this should therefore not be modified or removed. Thank you.Jenny0313 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my view, Jenny. That statement has been on the article for almost half a year and it is a true and honest statement, whatever way I try to interpret it. Richi, you cannot ignore those fine details, even if they are not significant. Goldman Sachs put South Korea ahead of others for a reason. It is designed to demonstrate its economic capabilities beyond just facts and figures. For example, if you simply ignore the fine figures of a GDP, perhaps, then a country can move up and down whole rankings as many have very close figures. And of course, they are estimates themselves, so saying that they are "estimates" and therefore should be ignored is not correct and they should definitely be included in the article.Billythekilly (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand why this would need a consensus in the first place, it is a fact from the source and well, you can't change that. I know it is incredible that S.Korea surpasses France, Germany and UK but and yes, I agree it is significant news but oh well, fact is fact and you can't mess around with it. The fact that S.Korea overtakes these countries IS the significant part, not just because they are estimates. I am sorry but I reckon this should simply stay where it is.Theoneandonlyonewill (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Will, this is exactly what I have been trying to reiterate and emphasize all the time in this discussion, the fact that you can't change facts. I personally don't mind at all whichever country has more income than the other but I have a strong defence for justice and honesty. If you just change facts because they are small or estimates than you are completely undermining the whole point of Wikipedia. Every GDP is an estimate, even the ones we find today, they are never precise. And yet every country is ranked this way, with differences as small as a couple of billion dollars (which is a very small sum in GDP terms). An Economist would take this very seriously and I agree that Goldman Sachs had a clear intention of putting S.Korea ahead of others. Think about it.Lakshmix (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No personal offence but I would like to mention that this user called richi seems to have a negative opinion about South Korea, not necessarily showing a good willness. I found it very unfair that he gave me a sock accusation without any evidence. I don't know if he/she is Japanese or from 2Channel to be biased about South Korea and in particular, many of the article he edits are negative or degrading information. Richi does not add any constructive information to his/her edits, they are just pure fact correction. As a hard evidence, I have found that he/she has deliberately put South Korea's nomimal GDP at 14th place, even though it was clearly 13th by all international sources. Appletrees gave him/her a warning in the history section, yet richi's POV just doesn't justify his will of goodness. As I repeat, this is not a personal offence to richi but I am arguing that his negative POV is influencing this discussion when he accuses everyone who writes positively (and righfully so with given references and sources like this one) about S.Korea.Billythekilly (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know!! This whole discussion should not even be here, sources and references are clear according to Wikipedia guidelines, I mean, what is there to argue about it? Richi seems to have something against people who contribute to S.Korean articles positively and is giving warnings to anyone like that without a fair reason and evidence. That is certainly against Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously, I don't want this discussion to be about richi but clearly, we can question his/her good intentions regarding Korean articles.Jenny0313 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to know something that may or may not happen in 2025??? Guys - get real. Wait till 2025 and then write about it! I also think you shouldn't write only good and national-pride driven facts. Be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More reference needed!!!

'Korean farmers have a hard time finding a wife, as few women want to live in the countryside. Farmers are forced to look abroad to find their wife, most from the much poorer Southeast Asia, and increasingly Eastern Europe. For the year 2006, 41% of the marriages amongst the farmers were to foreign nationals.[74]' This part is based on an article from internet. More reliable data is needed!!! No reference to Eastern Europeans even in this article. Source needed!!! The article mentions as first: wives from China!!, but you seem to write only about SouthEast Asian wives... Very unreliable and misleading!!!!!!!!!! Who accepted it???? Please check the sources given by contributors!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.222.143 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] motto

The Motto of Republic of Korea is not official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.83.247 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)