Talk:South Korea

Missionality

I really don't see what this has to do with any of the four mission statements. I could be wrong: when it came to Jesus with an erection, others turned it from a stub I thought should be deleted into a bronze article. Improvements or a total rewrite would be good. We need something to make this an actually mission-related article. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, unification is constantly talked about. Every politician says that the ultimate goal of all foreign policy is the eventual reunification with North Korea (under the auspices of the democratic South, of course).Researcher 12:52, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

In fact, the President recently called for a tax to fund the unification. And, South Korea has good ties with Japan (largely due to both being scared of the north). I'm killing that section. Researcher (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling a vote here.

This article... why is it on RW? It doesn't have anything to do with any of the four parts of our mission statement, so why should it be here? This should probably be moved into an essay, nixed, or somehow edited (or completely rewritten) to meet the standards. Calling a vote. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What should we do with this article?

Keep and rewrite/expand

1. The needlessly detailed stuff on language & food should go, but we need an article on SK. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep. Тy^talk 20:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
3. --★uːʤɱ federalist 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
4. --^talk 21:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete/Move to essay

1. For now, I'd have to go here. Don't see how this has to do with the mission in any way. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• Whatever the fate of this article, shouldn't such a fate also apply to most other articles about countries and territories? What's the missionificness of Nevada or Italy, for example? 86.173.8.58 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm serious.

“	The needlessly detailed stuff on language & food should go, but we need an article on SK.	”
—Weaseloid

So far, none of that's happened. We still have needlessly detailed stuff on language and food. If you'll look here, you'll see that the only changes were the removal of the two empty sections on Korean religion and culture and the addition of a couple of words here and there. In short, practically nil. I agree an article on South Korea would be good, but I think it should focus more on its relationship with its northern evil twin. I'll check back here in three days. I want to see this article improved/rewritten so it's actually on-mission, or I'm deep-sixing this shit. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you, Ed Poor? -- Nx / talk 22:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well damn, Nx, what are you waiting for? Don't want this page to get nixed. Sam ^Tally-ho! 22:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this on-mission?

Apparently, somebody thinks this article is on-mission. Let's review each part of the mission statement in order and see how it matches.

• Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.

Uh, no mention of any South Korean cranks. Even then, it would be better to just have an article on the crank.

• Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.

Don't see how by any stretch of the imagination how this could possibly fit.

• Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

Brief mention of former South Korean dictatorship. Nothing more. Not really an exploration.

• Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Absolutely no mention of Korean media at all except for the names of a few actresses and skaters and whatnot. Still doesn't have to do with the subject.

So, could anyone tell me how this article meets any of the criteria above? You need to specify! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See here. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I just wrote on your talk page: "The mission is a guideline to help us focus and find writing/discussion topics. It's not a test we subject articles to." Blue (is useful) 03:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. That's exactly what it is. And it's always been a reason for deletion. That's why we have the "mission" template.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So why on Earth do we have both the mission template and the delete template? Why do the community standards say we welcome articles which are of general interest even though they're not directly on mission? Blue (is useful) 07:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the mission template is a gentler poke at the article; it could be a request to add missionality to the article. The Delete tag is a more forceful tag for a hopeless case. Rennie McGreet (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The delete template is for utter crap and the mission is the question the mission status. Where wikipedia has notability we have missionality.

I'm not saying that country articles could not be on mission - only that most of them are not. We need to focus on how much fundamentalism there is, how much anti-scicence, who are the manl players, how much creationism.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you decide to delete them please let me know, I want them for Liberapedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The idea that we have to delete all articles on off-mission topics is sort of ridiculous. That's at least a hundred articles, I'd guess, and a lot of them provide support to articles that actually are on-mission. Blue (is useful) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We just had a fucking vote on this.--^talk 09:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, but we didn't vote on how to vote, so the vote shouldn't be accepted until we have a vote on how to vote. Then we can vote. Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. What vote is being referred to above? I may have missed it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The deletion vote above. Blue (is useful) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we just make the country articles one exception to the mission? I know there's that whole slippery slope fear but I think the country articles are nice and if it's explicitly stated they're the only exception then we can hopefully end this whole debate?. Good idea? Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The big exception already exists. It's in the community standards:

"...the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world." Blue (pester) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. So why the hell are we arguing about it then? Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the invisible text?

Osaka Sun I noticed that you moved a block of text and made it invisible. May I ask why you did this?--TiaC (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I hid Chun Doo-hwan because I'm not sure why we primarily emphasized him over the other two dictators (Rhee and Park). Osaka Sun (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the corruption index

Why is it just 5.5? The 2022 CPI of South Korea is 63 according to Wikipedia and even the most corrupt country has twice as much CPI.Dangduomg (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)