Talk:Korea/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Science and Technology Section

Can someone clarify what is precisely meant by the line "today [hangul] is regarded as possibly the most scientific writing system in use" I did a check in the main article that is linked to the section as well as Hangul main article but could not find any more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.205.21 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


== Period Under a Part of Japan ==u should not read this page

I realize that this article is edited by many non-native English speakers, so I don't find the poor usage throughout surprising. That being said, we should at least get the headers right. "Period under a Part of Japan", in English, is very poor usage. It sounds like Korea was literally under Japan (continental drift?). I will change this to Korea under Japanese Rule, as the related article is titled. I will also correct some other usage problems and poor grammar throughout the article.

Furthermore, it seems that there is quite a bit of bias in this article. I realize that there was an edit war on this article, but sheesh, some of this is so blatant as to be laughable. Coming at this fresh, without much of a horse in this race, some of the bias is ridiculous. For example, "Japan kindly suggested Korea to engage in foreign trade through the Treaty of Ganghwa in 1876." Kindly suggested? That is not appropriate.--Utbriancl 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is under an edit war. It should be relocked. --Utbriancl 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree these pro-Japanese edits are vandalistic and chronic.melonbarmonster 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm responding to the 31 October 2007 request for clarification. As an American college student of Korean (1970s) who later lived in Seoul twelve years until 1990, I am very familiar with hangul and can confirm the referenced "line" ("hangul is the most scientific writing system") is a popular idea in Korean academic circles. And, unlike many of the Korean community's more ethnocentric/chauvinistic claims, I agree with this one.

"Scientific" seems to me to have three distinct meanings here. First, it refers to linguistic techniques and an overall understanding of languages and their sounds. Keep in mind that the Korean alphabet was created a mere 550 years ago by a royal committee under King Sejong's strong and stable government, at a time when Korean scholars were very familiar with Chinese and Japanese (two remarkably different languages), and had some knowledge of many other languages. This ability to compare the sounds and symbols that several other cultures have used resulted in the creation of hangul. Since then how many alphabets can you identify as new? Cherokee is the only one I can think of as truly and thoroughly new in the same sense as hangul.

(How did Koreans write before hangul? Males of the noble class learned Chinese as a second (or even first) language from childhood, and recorded all information in that language.)

Second, "scientific" may refer to the fact that there are very few exceptions, if any, in terms of the written symbols and their related sounds (unlike English with its "rose" and "rows", and "seas", "sees", "seize", and "Cs").

Finally, "scientific" seems to be a comment on the regularity of the etymology, the fact that hangul displays and maintains the source of words and their connections to associated words; here I am thinking of the Latin/Greek roots so often displayed in English words such as "refrigerate", "frigid" and "freeze". Example: the Korean verb stem "to read" sounds like "ikda" in its dictionary entry (I intentionally use my own romanization based on sounds you would hear), whereas "(I) read (it)" is "ilgaw" (again, my own romanization). (The k-to-g transfer is common in many languages and needs no explanation here.) The issue is the apparently inexplicable addition of the L sound. However, in hangul, there is no issue. The L letter always appears in "read", and is simply silent when the k/g is followed by a vowel.

You remember the old rule "I before E, except after C". Well, there are many exceptions to this English spelling rule, not least the word "scientific" itself. English has lots of rules, but so many exceptions that you have to swallow its spelling whole, by learning thousands of words by rote. Korean hangul spelling has fewer rules, and very few exceptions (perhaps none!)

What's the bottom line? Hangul is "scientific" in the sense that the metric system is "scientific". Metrics and hangul are tighter, more logical systems than the related English-tradition counterparts many of us are all so familiar with today: English language spelling (mis-spelling?), and the confusing US/English standard measurement system. Linguists (not King Sejong himself, as Koreans love to think) developed hangul, and modern people, including scientists, developed the metric system.Ertdfgcvb (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Nation of Decorum

Korea actual " Geographical size and land" Korean Peninsula 220,186 + Kando 42,700 ( Korea geographical size 262,886) larger then United Kingdom of Britian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanstudy1 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent edit by an anonymous user. Is the Chinese character correct? (Wikimachine 17:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

It is correct. 69.144.184.243 07:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits that were ridiculous

The history of Koma(高麗史) is History record that Joseon Dynasty edited. If this record is an original research, the half of the history of Korea becomes an original research. --NekoNekoTeacher 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We must take evidences from analysts and historians from later times who have studied both sides and know the preceding and afterwards events. (Wikimachine 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC))
By the way, Wikimachine does not have the source. Do not abuse Japan without having the source, and do not delete an original source.
Stop talking in 3rd person, anon. And sign everytime you post with (~~~~).
Part of the point of Wikipedia is that you are granted anonymity. It is perhaps worth respecting the wishes of people who wish to retain it, since clearly your lack of signature indicates you desire anonymity also. Nasajin 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan. After nearly thirty years of war, the power of Goryeo has become weak is POV. See Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. The coalition force reached Japan only after having been heavily damaged by a storm.
Korean resistance to the brutal Japanese occupation was manifested in the massive nonviolent March 1st Movement of 1919
Yes, The fact on which we can agree is that Korea failed in the Japan invasion two times.
1) Brutal is agreed. 2) Goryeo army was never annihilated. 3) There was no Goryeo army, it's Chinese-Korean under Chinese command. 4) A storm heavily damaged the two attempts. 5) "power of Goryeo has become weak" is really bad English. 6) Goryeo was already weak at the time. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Joseon Dynasty was not able to control a Korean peninsula. When the farmer in Korea raised a revolt, Korea requested the repression of the revolt to China and Japan. To say that Joseon Dynasty on the whole side of its history couldn't control is false. The 19th century was marked with downfall of the dynasty. And Korea only requested Chinese help. Japanese budged in.
If a Joseon dynasty controlled a Korean peninsula, the revolt was repressed by a Joseon dynasty. However, there might be a more accurate explanation.
  • 第一條 清國ハ朝鮮國ノ完全無缺ナル獨立自主ノ國タルコトヲ確認ス因テ右獨立自主ヲ損害スヘキ朝鮮國ヨリ清國ニ對スル貢獻典禮等ハ將來全ク之ヲ廢止スヘシ is original research.
This is Article 1 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. A national agreement is not an original research but historo material that can be trusted most.
History material is original research. Read my definition of original research from above. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))
original research? Does not Wikimachine know the Treaty of Shimonoseki ?
  • who approached Yuan Shikai was assassinated by the Japan describing Empress Myeongseong... about what? Are you trying to say that because the empress sided with Japanese she was assassinated?
king's wife was fighting over a Korean dynasty against father. They tried to obtain leadership by using China, Russia, and Japan. To obtain the leadership at a Korean dynasty, father of the king and Japan killed the wife of the king who had won the support of China and Russia.
But this is disputed between the two sides. Go to the article on the empress herself.
  • the symbol of a Japanese Parliament Ito Hirobumi wrong grammar.
Please write a correct grammar.
  • was assassinated by the Korean nationalist in 1909, As a result, the Imperial Japanese Army had strong power - How do they relate?
The meaning of the question is not understood. Ito was a negative politician in the military campaign. Ito was assassinated, therefore a Japanese army had stronger influence.
  • the emperor in Korea did not agree with this agreement should be "Korean emperor did not agree."


Other proper edits that were lost by my revert should be included back. (Wikimachine 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

I wish to express our gratitude for your having participated in the discussion. --NekoNekoTeacher 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
See above for reasons why this level of detail *does not belong* in this article. Improvements to style and balance are, however, welcome. -- Visviva
I can not understand the Korean denies a lot of original sources in support of an original research of the amateur historian.
  • Why is it concealed that the South Korean assassinated ItoHirobumi?
I don't know anything about South Koreans assassinating Ito. If they did, provide an article by a recent historian.

Reply: Yes, Korean did assassinate Ito Hirobumi. However, Koreans don't deny it,nor concealing it. It's in Korean textbook, and also in An Jung-guen(can't be sure of the spelling) biography. Almost every Korean knows that An Jung-geun shoot Ito 3 times in row in 1909, Oct. Korean killed Ito because that time, Korea were colonized by Japan (which were wrong thing. After all, colonization isn't good idea as most people know. Think about Ghandi trying to resist England.) and to show the world that they have an independent mind and do not want to be colonized by Japan. Also, Ito killed so many Korean people including the Queen of Korea (Myeong-Seong), that's why An Jung-guen killed Ito. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.25.218.82 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Why is it concealed that Korea attacked Japan with Mongolia?
It's not concealed that Korea attacked Japan. I know about it. It's in Korean textbooks. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Why is evidence that a Korean peninsula develops rapidly by the modernization

campaign for Japan concealed?　--220.212.100.97 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We should fix the concealed information in the Japan article, where they keep trying to hide the fact that Japanese culture rapidly developed by the introduction of new innovations by Korea. There are always vague states like East Asia or the all incompassing China to mean Korea in the Japan articles. This is a blatant concealment and should be fixed.

Why is information about current Japanese pottery being directly influenced by Korea concealed.

Whys is information about Japanese sword making technique being identical to older Korean sword making technique concealed in the Japan articles. So many questions so little time.

They are not "concealed". Read about the Korean war. All of Japanese infrastructures were destroyed, and Japanese did not hire many Koreans for skilled jobs in fear that Koreans would be less subjected to control. (Wikimachine 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))
Seoul Station, Seoul National University, and Seoul city office, The building that a lot of Japan built can be seen now. Most of the dam in North Korea is what Japan made it. (ex.Supung Dam)
I know that too. (Wikimachine 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
Once again, this level of detail does not belong in this article. Please add this information to History of Korea or Korea under Japanese rule, provided that you have a reputable secondary source available to support your claims. -- Visviva 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the reason to support the source that the amateur historians wrote. Has the reason been linked with the deletion of the source that has been trusted worldwide? To insult Japan, does Korea conceal own failure, and emphasize cruelty in Japan?
Frankly, your edits don't do much but slant the article towards a Japanese point of view, and garble the text. A lot of things in it don't make sense. For instance, you make it sound like the thirty years of war that weakened Goryeo were thirty years of war with Japan, when that was supposed to refer to thirty years of war with the Mongols. (There weren't anything like thirty years of war with Japan!) As Visviva pointed out, this section should be a brief summary of what's in History of Korea. This stuff doesn't belong here. --Reuben 18:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem in Korean's writing information not correct of Korea. However, the Korean's writing information not correct for Japan has the problem. I am not interested in the Korea civilization. However, I cannot agree to the insistence of having destroyed Korea. There is no problem even if the Korean insults Japan. However, Japan must not object about the insistence about the Korean. Is this your policy?　--61.209.171.75 19:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What you think about rivalries between Japan and Korea don't have any relevance to the article. If you're not interested in Korea, perhaps you should edit another article instead. --Reuben 01:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)]

The article to which Korea insults Japan is opposed though I am not interested in Korea. (Based on the source. )　And, the South Korean should not do the article based on nationalism. --218.218.129.105 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Reuben, You should discuss knowledge that is more correct to conceal the source.
You should not engage in edit warring, blatantly violate wikipedia policies such as WP:3RR, evade enforcement of those policies by frequently switching IP addresses, or try to impose nationalist sentiments upon articles that you're otherwise uninterested in. Also, please don't assume that anybody whose edits you don't like is South Korean. --Reuben 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::It is necessary to make the comment Room218. The act to which he insults Japan is correct. And, objecting doesn't permit to him. Please answer in Yes or No. --219.66.43.115 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Yes? What's the question? --Reuben 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Reuben is reiterating an insistence completely corresponding to Room218. It is regrettable that Korea is being made a tool on an anti-Japan by them.

Anybody has a source

I have just found that someone had added the sentence Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan, but I couldn't find the source. Do anybody give me the source about the defeat of allied army of Mogol and Goryeo by Japan? Even primary source is fine. --Hairwizard91 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need source for that because that is common fact, but I disagree with insertion of that sentence because of the reasons described above -i.e. accuracy (allied forces, not just Goryeo). I also don't like the anonymous user's intent of putting the term "annihilated". He's putting these terms out of spite & as a means to express his angst against Koreans. (Wikimachine 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
It was just for my private interest. haha. --Hairwizard91 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
We do need sources for all assertions of fact on Wikipedia. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Common knowledge. I'm not challenging this particular fact, but in general any assertion that cannot be supported by a reliable source is subject to removal. -- Visviva 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not neccesarily. Of the 900 Goryeo ships that accompanied the Mongols to Japan, few were destroyed by the storm and most returned. Good friend100 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan" is somewhat exaggerated since they were washed away while they had been failing to keep their landing points. A cartoonized view based on Goryeosa (高麗史 卷104 列伝巻十七 金方慶傳) can be seen here.[1]--Jjok 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin help

Could an admin please move this to the article page?

Done —Mets501 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I AM ADMIN US EAST ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ KEKEKEKKEKE ZERG RUSH ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ KEKEKEKKEKEKKEKEKE ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 71.161.89.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge request

Since the Korean Peninsula is coextensive with contemporary Korea according to the maps and articles, why not merge this content with Korea? A sentence can be added to the Geography section stating something to the effect of "Korea is coextensive with the Korean peninsula, called Choson bando (조선반도) in North Korea and Han bando (한반도) in South Korea due to the different names for Korea." —  AjaxSmack  19:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't know there was an article on Korean Peninsula. If we do merge I hope we can retain all the information in each article. Good friend100 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted in the History discussion above, Korea is a survey article, covering all aspects of Korea. The Korean Peninsula is only one aspect of Korea. It needs to be discussed in general here -- and it already is, in the "Geography" section -- and discussed in detail in its own article. -- Visviva 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate... as it says in the very first paragraph of this article, Korea is "a geographic area, civilization, and former state." Of course that list is incomplete, but in any case Korean Peninsula covers only one of these aspects, the geographical region. -- Visviva 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Visviva. In addition, the article is already long; merging would affect readablity. See WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. --Kusunose 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But don't you guys want to consider the information in Korean Peninsula as well? I'd like to synchronize the information in both. Good friend100 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the "Geography" section here should basically summarize Korean Peninsula, perhaps with a paragraph thrown in regarding the disputes concerning the extent of Korea (vide Gando, Ieodo, Dokdo, etc. etc.) But Korean Peninsula should still be a separate article. -- Visviva 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would look up how they dealt with it in other cases. Redskunk 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Because most Koreans have delusions of Manchurian conquests. --JakeLM 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's very funny, JakeLM, can you keep your nonsense to yourself? 69.144.184.243 07:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A people in arms

Something noteworthy the Korean states have in common is that they both maintain huge armies, especially the North. In the list of countries by population, North and South are only #47 and #25 – in the list of countries by number of active troops (same list also at list of countries by size of armed forces), they are #4 (DPRK) and #6 (ROK). Both Koreas taken together keep more troops active even than the United States, only topped by the PRC. South Korea is #9 in the List of countries by military expenditures. All the above are rankings by total figures, not in comparison to the countries' population or their economic power.

Korea's high level of militarisation should probably be mentioned in the article in a word or two if only for the economic damage it causes, but which section would be appropriate? Perhaps somebody can sum it up in a sentence and include in somewhere. Wikipeditor 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Active troops per thousand citizens lists the DPRK as #1, the ROK as #16. Wikipeditor 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Korea Article should have a similar format to China Article in these aspects

Sports and recreation article:

Sports and Recreation like Martial Arts even though it is already touched upon in Culture of Korea article, also Archery, Folk Wrestling, Western Sports like the Football,Baseball and the like. Korean board Games etc.

adding articles of South and North Korea in Main Korea Article

Also, seeing the China Main Article includes both the R.O.C. and The P.R.C. why not include both South and North Korea in the Main Korea Article?

what do other people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternknight (talk • contribs)

Agree with this and above proposal by Wikipeditor. In general the existing article has focused excessively on Korea qua historical entity, but that is at best a third of the picture. Sections on "the Koreas" (including inter-Korean relations), "Sports and recreation," and/or "Military" would be pertinent. "Economy" section would be a good idea too, but a bit difficult to write since there is little to say about the Korean economy in general. Had been working on a rewrite that would include some of this, but got stalled. -- Visviva 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the Korea article having information on both Koreas. Good friend100 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we now have the article unprotected?

What the title says its been long enough lets take it off the protected article list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternknight (talk • contribs)

Seems reasonable to me. We'll see if our anonymous edit warriors return... -- Visviva 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New article?

I am thinking there should be a seperate article about the history. I need it for my essay. --Pupster21 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you're looking for History of Korea? -- Visviva 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not steal the Japanese culture

Koreans never stold Japanese culture. It's really lame and stupid topic. History always has Japanese stealing Korean culture. Stop bias comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the article on Japan, the quality keeps being debased by the Korean. Please scamp it....

Uh, what are "The Korean" Stealing exactly? perhaps im missing something but the furst issue is East Sea/Sea of Japan which is of course old news and the 2nd about Korean History related to Japans History? Oh, and its ineresting how you bring up the Article on Japan since a Assumed to be Korean Wikipedian brought up the Yamato [sp?] relationships with the Three Korean Kingdoms and the Kaya Confederacy with the statement that Yamato was a colony of Baekje and what wasn't mentioned is Japans first Emperor was an exiled Prince from Baekje. After that several Japanese wikipedians left unintelligent and racist comments on Japan's talk page and others bashing Korea "Facist Korean Propaganda" so on and so forth. Easternknight

You know what I think? There used to be some POV statements from Koreans that I thought made Koreans look bad. I guess same applies to Japanese too then. (Wikimachine 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
Thats true, everybody needs to realize that they represent their country or origin and making yourself look bad just makes your country look bad. =[ Good friend100 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
They can't help themselves. It's like a mosquito bite. Give them a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertdfgcvb (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit by 100110100

I just want to clean up the double spaces, and moving {{seealso}}s right below {{main}}s.100110100 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the double spaces. What's wrong with the {{seealso}}s where they are? – Gurch 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the usage guide at Template:Seealso suggests that they be placed at the top -- which makes a bit of sense; sections aren't meant to be structured like mini-articles. -- Visviva 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. ZsinjTalk 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You've missed a {{seealso}} in ===Cusine===.100110100 07:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Prehistory of Korea link

would like to add Prehistory of Korea link to the 'See also' section at your earliest convenience. Mumun 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Brutal

Please define brutal. The edit battle of Japan and South Korea might continue if it is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.218.135.117 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

As like any other respectable wiki article. Non-NPOV words should not be used. Facts should speak for themselves. Please don't manipulate this article because of your own emotions and opinions.EvolutionaryCreationist 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct spelling of the Silla dyanasty is?

"Shilla" not "Silla". Please see Seoul Times

Seoul Times is wrong

  • 실라 = Silla. Not Shilla.
  • 실=sil
  • 쉴=shil
  • 라=la

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilha Youn (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Ummm... Shilla is spelled 신라 not 실라, so the H should be there. Baejung92 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's pretty simple, really. 시 was spelt shi before the South Korean government revised Romanised spelling, when it became si, hence how all road signs now say, for example, "신촌/Sinchon", "왕심리/Wangsimni", etc. JPBarrass 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Article has been protected for months

Why hasn't the Korean Article been taken off of protection? This is ridiclous. -Easternknight

I agree. Requested unprotection - Jack · talk · 16:18, Thursday, 8 February 2007
Done. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! sorry guys can't hide my excitement.

User:Easternknight

IMO there is a vandalism act again - see Korean War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.117.3 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of IP's edits

Is there anything wrong with these edits? Would anybody mind if we undo Wikiment's reversion? Wikipeditor 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted because the editor seemed to have a certain point of view to express. I don't object to the relevant facts, it could just be re-worded and trimmed. Korea was a tributary in form, but was largely politically and culturally independent in fact. Wikiment 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My revision is based on plain and fair description of history, which cannot be changed or denied. If you doubt it, please read various Korean or Chinese history books, in particular, the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (朝鮮王朝實錄)(조선왕조실록밀직사), which is written and preserved by the Korean officials. Please pay special attention to paragraphs such as 조임을 경사로 보내 태조가 즉위하게 된 사유를 알리는 표문을 올리다. URL: http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=kaa_10108029_001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 21:00, February 12, 2007

Considering this is the English wikipedia, do you have an English source for your edits? Otherwise, it's difficult to follow. oncamera(t) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest printed text

The Korea#Science and technology section says that Jikji is the earliest known movable metal printed book. However, the dates do not match with those mentioned in Jikji. It may be a mix up with the Mugujeonggwang Great Dharani Sutra mentioned in Seokgatap, although it says it's a woodblock print. (If I had any expertise in history or archeology, I would have edited it myself, but since I don't ...) YooChung 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the exact document you mention but I can speak on the issue of Korea's "first" in the technology of printing. The Koreans did, in fact, develop a printing press using type which was movable (not carved into a larger base media), and metal (not wood), several centuries before the mid-1400s when Gutenberg developed his press. Most Europeans are unaware of this fact.

So, why did Gutenberg's invention take off, while the Korean one fizzled? Think of the numbers of pieces of alphabet type you need to print a page in Europe. Several thousand, right? But having carved those metal pieces, they are infinitely reusable.

Now, consider that the Koreans, in the 13th century, had never seen an alphabet. And, something like 4 to 5 thousand individual characters were required, both then and today, to fit the definition of literacy. Even if you carved the several hundred thousand metal character pieces you would need to print the first book, then how would you manage them for a second book? Your printing room would have to be the size of a library.

I think you will see why, after the Koreans printed a few pamphlets, they rejoined the Chinese and Japanese in preferring woodblock prints. Wood is easier to carve than metal, it's cheaper, and storage of individual wooden plates is no greater than that required by metal type. A Buddhist temple in Korea is famous for the storage of 80,000 wooden plates (the Tripitaka) carved around the same period in history. Ertdfgcvb (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Korean family names nominated for deletion

Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean family names (2nd nomination). Badagnani 06:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The page contains several grammatical and spelling errors.

Request for list of Living National Treasures

I've been looking around and I can't find it anywhere. What better place to have it than under South Korean National Treasures? Quietmartialartist 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Block (from editting) Request

Vandalisms that are hard to notice are occurring. Orthodoxy

Imp. additional info: "When Korea is finally united, there will be a war between The United States of America and the United C(/K)orea [UCO/UKO]." Polleo 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Korean War in the lead

There is no mention of the Korean War in the lead of an article titled Korea. I find that really bizarre. --JakeLM 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

current poll

[4]

There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Layout query

If you look at the current version, the Three Kingdoms image bleeds into the text. Is this preferrable to the amended layout I worked on?Shehzadashiq 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anglo"

In demographics, a number of ethnicities/nationalities are mentioned as minorities including "Anglo". Does this mean an English national or a person specifically of English descent? Sometimes in the US I am referred to as "Anglo" even though I don't have a drop of English blood. I think the idea is that I'm a white anglophone - but that is slang which (IMHO) doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Matt Yoder (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

its used to show a relation to the english people e.g. Anglo-Saxons--82.12.247.222 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Login Problem!

I tried to login on this page, and confirmed the submission like it always does. However, when I returned to the article, it said at the upper-right corner: "Sign in/create account". And it gets weirder.I clicked on that Three Kingdoms of Korea map, and it showed that I was logged in. I tried every which way I knew how to access it--links, type-ins, etc.; it changed not a bit. I do not know if I even have the power to fix it! BlueCaper (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[1950-1953]

Pandangan hal habitus baru di Korea/ATLJ-ATLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.82.153 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kabaukkasan"??

What is the origin/meaning of the term "Kabaukkasan"? It doesn't sound like a Korean term (neither native nor hanja(Chinese-character)-derived). If so, who refer Korea by the term?

Also, "anglos" in the demographic section. I'm guessing it refers to those from the US/Canada/Britain/Australia, but it sounds vague and crude, like "gringos" in Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.255.214 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed, thanks. -- Visviva (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wildlife in Korea

FYI. There are articles on almost every Asian country except Korea. See Category:Wildlife by country. I noticed this during an edit on Wildlife of Azerbaijan there is a nice navbar on the right side listing "Wildlife of Asia series" with Korea in red letters.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwangju Democratization Movement of May 18, 1980 should be listed

I just saw a well-produced 2007 movie called "5.18" (See http://www.rememberu518.co.kr/) about civilian demonstrations against new military rule leading to thousands of deaths in May 1980. There is an informative article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Massacre and it seems the main article should list this event and link to the other Wiki article on it, at a minimum. Also search Google for "Kwangju 1980" for more links. After seeing the movie I came here to learn more, but saw no mention of the event. It was only after some searching that I stumbled across the "Gwangju Massacre" article on Wiki. Why isn't this linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.117.140 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CULPABALE PROHIBITION:... the theory is that if any culture is prohibiting any other culture it automatically hastens the vintage culturalisation of the missing culturalists --- 'you think they are ridiculous' --- in this way korean-polaxe-spartan-snake realises study on this everyman-level, and where culture can be trusted in dynastical terms, then it stands to reason that it is forseen and supervised by this eye of the beholder "they thought they were ridiculous' --- in this way can it be maintained because it's subversions realise it is being watched in this way, has antiquity in affable mandate - which is then included before the ending mysoginy --- this inclusive until generations-anotonymn is finished and has verifications deselection --- that it is founded in various places realises that an nomans-emporer is luciferially chosen to instigate this focus --- it is amiable to beleive that korea is doing this invariously of parliamental procedures over material --- material deadalus in korae is existentialist babylonianism depending on doxological revenue in faithful reliance towards it's structure magnamimous --- this magnificent crystal is furnishing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.235.143 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Map color wrong?

Is the land being white and the water being blue opposite the convention? (72.208.41.239 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

This article is on 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 the 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.

  • Note:

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

I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographics/Language

The article states: "Other large groups of Korean speakers are found in the United States (around 2.5 million speakers), China (around 2 million speakers), the former Soviet Union (around 1 million), Japan (around 700,000), Canada (250,000), United Kingdom (200,000), Germany (150,000), Vietnam (100,000), Philippines (70,000) and Australia (50,000)."

Having lived in Germany (West) and being of Korean ethnically I am pretty sure that the above number is not right. The wikipedia page for Koreans states that there are - as of 2007 - 32,068 Koreans in Germany. It should be noted that the estimates on that web pages also states (there the numbers are cited) with Korean speakers: 78 million and Total population: 79 million the number of Korean speakers is smaller than the population which is plausible because of many second generation abroad Koreans.

I don't know where these numbers are from but for Germany they can't be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonQ1906 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC) --DonQ1906 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the German statistic, but you seem to be ignoring the non-Koreans who speak Korean. I'm an ethnically white American citizen, living in central China, and fluent in Korean after living in Seoul for more than a decade. Where am I in your statistic? Among the Chinese? Among the Americans?Ertdfgcvb (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

North Korean famine totally neglected

With 6.5 million people on the brink of death from starvation now, and hundreds of thousands to 3 million dead already, this article is a joke. Shame on you Wikipedia. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, people. I can't believe how ALL OF YOU IGNORE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THE BRINK OF DEATH FROM STARVATION. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to North Korea. This article details history common to both north and south Korea.--84.53.31.131 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not the fastest growing religion in South Korea

Hi there! As I can see that you are always adding this entry "Islam is also the fastest growing religion in country" to many Korea-related articles and its source is come from an Islamic organzation [5]...that is why mostly people highly doubt it, will the people believe it? Because according to the national estimates of South Korea has showed that Roman Catholicism and Won Buddhism are 2 fastest growing religions here. I suggest that you must never added this entry again because it violated WP:RS, NPOV. Thank for your good works. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, The source is originally Arab news, not an Islamic organization. The page in Islamawareness.net shows the article from Arab news. If otherwise, please show the census estimates, that you said, that shows that Roman Catholicism and Won instead are the 2 fastest growing religions. Still, I want to say I appreciate your concern in keeping this NPOV.Opticals (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's do some operetions between national census as of 1995[6] and 2005[7]:
  1. Roman Catholicism: 2,950,730 (6.14%) as of 1995 ==> 5,146,000 (10.53%) = nearly double after 10 years
  2. Won Buddhism: 86,923 (0.18%) as of 1995 ==> 130,000 (0.26%) = +150% after 10 years
  3. Other religions (included 45,000 Muslims): 267,996 (0.55%) as of 1995 ==> 247,000 (0.5%) = declined
Other religions: Including not only 45.000 Muslims (the least in other recognized religions in South Korea), but also Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Seventh-day Adventist Church, Daesun Jinrihoe.[8]

And if Islam is the fastest growing religion in S.Korea with only 45,000 Muslims so it can be impossible with only 6 mosques. Because don't like Buddhism, or maybe even Christianity; Muslims must go to mosques at least once a week. Now, let's do a small operation:

  • 45,000 Muslims : 6 mosques = 7,500 people/ mosque

But remember that the largest mosque in Korea is Seoul Central Mosque can contains only less than 1000 people.

Now, that is clear. And Islam was not the fastest growing religion in South Korea. About your citation given: 100% citizens of Arab countries must be Muslims and Islam is state religion. Look again the words in your citation given is: Islam Awareness; I don't care it come from Arabia or not but I know that is an Islamic webiste. The citation given of The Korea Times (11-22-2002) has agreed that Islam is growing in South Korea but it's no way to be the fastest growing religion here.[9]

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the section "Japanese Occupation" in history reads messy. In the second paragraph of the "Science and technology" section has a statement: "Korean pottery made with blue-green celadon was of the highest quality in the world". This seems less than impartial/neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.229.77 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


In the statement "A is the fastest growing B", it's important to define the way you measure growth. If A is a grain of sand on the other side of the universe, and growth is defined as doubling its mass each year, then after the first hundred years, it'll still be no bigger than a large ball. However, after a million years or so, when it reaches the size of a galaxy, it will soon engulf the Earth and snuff out our insignificant lives. Goodbye you, me and Wikipedia!

More seriously, one way something can be classed as being the fastest growing is by starting small and measuring growth in PERCENT INCREASE each year. Islam in Korea would seem to qualify, just as the grain of sand did. On the other hand, another way to be the fastest growing is, a bit like MS Windows users, to be very large and to define growth as an increase in the GROSS NUMBERS of members each year.

Take your pick. Choose the first if you're Islamic and want to puff up your chest; choose the second if you're Christian and want to puff up your chest. Choose to stop reading this article if you really don't care about people's biases.Ertdfgcvb (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Human rights and Korea

"During the past 65 years, more than 10,000 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Korea have chosen to serve a prison sentence rather than violate their Bible-trained conscience. Their personal experiences speak for themselves." - http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/5263723221/62734221.htm ...

http://www.jw-media.org

"The public was largely unaware of the mistreatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses until media coverage began in 2001. Everyone was astonished when it was reported February of 2001 there around 1,600 in prision. In 2002 a U.N resolution members nation to establish for alternative service for conscious objectors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..so? What is your point to the article of the only divided nation in the world? Military service is very important to the the states. Back to 2004 president election in South Korea, Lee Hoi-chang failed to become the president due to controversies around his son's military service regardless his high profile and strong political background.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Korea probably mistreats devout members of the Church of No Tax. Won't they think of conscientious tax evaders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.229.77 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.243.135.208 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would like to know why in the opening ceromony of the Olympics they had North and South Korea, yet now that the Olympics have started, they are known as Korea and the People's Republic of Korea??? It's probably really obvious, but I can't find anywhere that will tell me. Tygz (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


The official names, as fully translated into English are: South Korea: Great Republic of Korea, and North Korea: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

In common speech and writing in English, the "Great" is dropped, but in Korean language it is very much there, and therefore significant.

Your question about how the Chinese introduced the national teams is more appropriately answered by someone who understands the Beijing Olympic organization and the political issues under which they operated. And, I suspect that the International Organizing Committee (IOC) has clearly required terms which have a history behind them. Perhaps, the south Koreans are labelled "Korea" because they have participated in the Olympics more and started earlier. As for the first night, perhaps the Chinese were free to arrange things, at last labels, as they wished without interference from the IOC. Can anyone comment on my speculation?

There is much that is illogical in Korean politics. More than twenty years ago, Kim Il-song died and yet he is still listed as the leader of the country, with his son, Kim Jong-il, ranked second. Explain that!Ertdfgcvb (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with these people?

This is by far the most unbalanced article I've ever read in wikipedia. Almost every negative thing is gone and every positive thing gets exaggerated. Who are these people editing this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheart (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty

As for the Japanese occupation, this article says that the Annexation Treaty is a controversial treaty since the treaty was never ratified by the Korean Emperor and the required Korean Imperial seal was absent. But as you can see here, the emperor's seal does exist on General power of attorney whether he was forced to or not. I do not know what the book "서울대이태진교수의동경대생들에게들려준한국사 : 메이지일본의한국침략사", which the sentence above uses as its information source, really says, but the information that the treaty was never ratified by the Korean Emperor and the emperor's seal was absent seems contradictory to the photo. Does anybody here explain this contradiction?

In addition, the information was added by an IP user who almost always edits without sources [10], and the source was added by a user who has been blocked indefinitely [11]. It seems that the interpretation of the source or the source itself is wrong, since there is a seal on the Treaty as you can see.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to justify Japan's annexation of Korea, but I want only to know the truth and I am only trying to add correct information.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A proclamation by the Korean emperor granting general power of attorney to the Korean Prime Minister is not the same as a treaty of annexation of Korea by Japan. Use of this image on Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty is very confusing. Taemyr (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I know the the treaty itself and the general power of attorney are different, but the general power of attorney has the emperor's seal. I don't get why you can say that "the treaty was never ratified by the Korean Emperor." And was his seal really "required" for the treaty, although his seal was present on the general power of attorney? It seems to me like an interpretation by a wikipedian that the treaty was never ratified by the Emperor.
In order to prevent original research, isn't it more appropriate to say that "the treaty was signed by Lee Wan-Yong, who was given the General Power of Attorney by the Emperor. But the Emperor is said to have actually ratified the treaty according to Yi Tae-jin"?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been more than a week and there seems no objection. I am changing the article.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

korea's national customes

Korea's national costume is so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.104.216 (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool for Koreans

The articles on Korea always consist of something which shows baseless Koreans'superiority to Japan,and which tells Japanese rule on the penisula was absolutely brutal,citing Korean-sided documets. Without Japanese help in the early 20th century,the nation named "Korea" would not or could not exist! And don't forget the IMF help by Japan !!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilozengy (talk • contribs) 2008-11-24T13:33:29 (UTC)[12]

What are you talking about, IMF help by Japan? Japan didn't help Korea by IMF. And of course, Korea didn't need any help from Japan.I think.58.148.71.209 (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korea/Archive_4&oldid=1119165870"