Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:27, 18 December 2005

An event mentioned in this article is an August 15 selected anniversary.

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 . Masterhatch 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

Flag

According to "Flags of the World" (ISBN 0-517-07316-1), red, white, and blue are the traditional Korean flag colors at least since the 19th century. The yin-yang has "its customary Buddhist fusion-of-opposites meaning"; the white background represents purity, and the four black trigrams represent simultaneously the four seasons, the four cardinal directions, and sky/heaven, moon, earth, and sun. --Brion

Romanization of Korean

See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Romanization for all spelling enquiries about Romanising the Korean language

East Sea vs. Sea of Japan

For the usage of "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" in Korean articles see here:

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea)
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style
• Sea of Japan naming dispute

Religious composition

In the article it says

Christianity (31.7%) and Buddhism (23.9%) comprise South Korea's two dominant religions.

but later we have

Other religions comprise about 9.4 percent of the population.

Now according to my math that totals 65 percent. So what about the remaining 35 percent? Cheers, Io 13:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The remaining 35% are probably atheist; I noticed that there wasn't an atheist category, so that's probably it. Either that or the Unification Church just got bigger :p FvNK 01:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, only 50.7% of the Korean population are religious. Data of 1995

Christian 26.3%   (Protestant 19.7% and Roman Catholic 6.6%)
Buddhist  23.2%
Confucian  0.5%
Wonbulgyo  0.2%
Cheondogyo 0.1%
Other      0.4%
===============
Total     50.7%

Looks to me like the figures are not correct anyway (I can't imagine "other" fluctuating from 9.4% to 0.4% in a few years... --dfrki 13:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

I think my edition is as close as it gets when it comes to statistics on religion, based on data from Korea National Statistical Office. Still, if anyone can tidy up these paragraphs, that would be better. noirum 15:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Economy

How could South Korea enter the 'trillion dollar club of world economies' in 2004 if its GDP in this year is 720,772 million dollars? (List of countries by GDP (nominal))

The same happens with the data on the top of the page:

GDP - Total (2005 est.)- $1.099 trillion in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) using data from 2005 its $0.72 trillion. You use purchasing power parity values, which I think is not the right way. At least you have to mention it!

GDP/head - $22,543 in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) its 14,784!

You really should say if you use PPP or nominal values. As for example in People's Republic of China.

... as nobody answered, I felt free to change the above mentioned points.

rok

why is the title of this article south korea rather than republic of korea? if their official name is the republic of korea.

isn't this a valid point? does anyone object?Appleby 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather see it under ROK, but Wiki seems to have a policy of using the most common English name for articles. Sometimes, though, using "official" names is better. An example of an article using the official, not the most common, name is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. The most common name for that team is Anaheim Mighty Ducks, but as you can see, the official one is being used. So far, no one has actually objected to the "move" that you have suggested, so if you want, I suggest you try moving the page and see what kind of response you get. Who knows, you might get a backlash or you might get support. But this does draw a question into play that must be answered before a move takes place. In other articles related to the Koreas (we would have to move North Korea if we were to move south Korea), do we leave the links at South Korea and North Korea or do we go around changing the links to Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Just some food for thought. Masterhatch 04:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an old discussion on the name of this article: Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Republic of Korea vs. slang/inaccurate South Korea. According to that discussion, South Korea is used because of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. Masterhatch 04:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reference. looks like there was never much of a discussion. the anonymous original suggestion was about the article title; the body should use the familiar name first, then a parenthetical to the official or alternate names, then subsequently familiar name. i think this would be consistent with wiki style policy.

germany, russia, mexico, etc are all under the common names, but these refer to a historic/geographic entity and the current polity together. but "korea," the former, has its own article, and "south korea", the latter, is completely identified by "republic of korea". same reason there are the separate entries for china & prc (under official name).

with referral webpages, there is absolutely no inconvenience or confusion, you type "south korea," you get the page about south korea, it is identified with the proper official title & you go on reading the text with the familiar shorthand name.

current state isn't really "wrong" but does look unprofessional & somewhat illogical. i'd be interested in hearing more pro/con arguments.Appleby 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What Percent of S. Korea Speaks English?

How prevalent is english? If I picked an 18yr old, a 30 yr old, and a 50yr old at random from the S. Korean population, what are the odds they'd speak english? Exact numbers nice, but just a general guess will suffice. Alecmconroy 06:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

not to be flippant, but depends on what you mean by "speaks english." most would know numbers & "yes/no," but holding a elementary school-level conversation, probably less than 20% of 18 yr olds (a majority of them could read a young teen novel, slowly). of 30 & 50 yr olds, my gut feeling is less than 5% & 2%, especially if you sampled the whole country, not just big cities.Appleby 06:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

latest revert

sorry, looks like in the confusion of a different revert war with militant, i reverted this article 4 times. the section seems pretty obviously pov, either unsourced or sourced to japan pov, ungrammatical, & overall apologist in tone. if anyone other than militant wants to undo my 4th revert, please go ahead, i'd be glad to continue discussion here before further reverts. funny how newly registered militant immediately starts a volley of japan pov edits, including at Korean-Japanese disputes, but is intimately familiar with 3rr & article move & redirect procedures. Appleby 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)