Talk:Politics of South Korea

Untitled

State-run KBS said Roh's Millennium Democratic Party's had scored 49.1 percent of the vote, while Lee of the Grand National Party had 46.8 percent. The broadcaster said its poll had a 2.2 percent margin of error.

Talk more about the voting system, please.

Does South Korea use a mixed member proportional system? How exactly is "half" of the representation obtained proportionally? Are party lists used? If a party has 20% of the vote but wins none of the non-proportional seats, will they end up with 20% of the legislature, or only 20% of the half that's elected proportionally? Scott Ritchie 07:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Group of 77?

Is Korea in the G-77 developing nations? I think it's in the G-20 industrial nations. (LeeJun7 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of South Korea" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Emblem of Korean Courts.svg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.] KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.] In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Emblem of the Government of the Republic of Korea.svg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.] KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.] In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

Content that appears to be partially AI-generated

Only some parts of the article appear to be partially AI-generated, likely to expand the prose. Information on various special interest groups has to be redistributed to their respective articles. BasicWriting (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BasicWriting can you quote bits which stood out to you? CMD (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Strangely robotic and monotone, and at any rate needing a competent rewrite anyway, are the latter five sections on the various interest groups and labor unions, and the earlier subsection 'Political nature'. The prose seems to be puffed out; however, the material itself ought to reappear in specific articles, with this one possibly being just a cursory overview of the various groups interacting. Only parts of the 'Political nature' subsection seem thematically fitting.

On a closer look as to the origin of those passages, they all seem to originate through a span of several days in November 2025, and by accounts that haven't posted since. Some of these contributors were seemingly editing under their actual names, so I will refrain from listing them here. My impression is that what we are seeing here may be the result of a university assignment, in which students likely relied on AI tools to varying degrees (and some possibly not at all). This would also explain why AI detection tools return mixed results, as the writing is not entirely uniform. BasicWriting (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

If they're all from the same period by the same editors, then perhaps reverting the text would resolve the issue? If it's a class it's presumably long over so no disruption to that. CMD (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Possibly, although I'd advise reworking the 'Political nature' subsection and keeping that information in the article. BasicWriting (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with User:BasicWriting: I think the best thing would be to (a) check the sources to make sure they are appropriate, and then (b) rewrite the text so retain the benefit of the sources that should be cited in this article without the problems that generated the concerns that led to this discussion. (However, I'm not prepared to do that work myself. I'll be happy with any changes that seem to improve the article.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I can quote plenty of stuff: plays a key role in enhancing global competitiveness, This approach reflects the organization’s ideological background, which aims not only to address issues within individual companies but also to challenge the structural problems of capitalist society and promote broader social transformation, etc. Most of this was not present in the October 2025 version. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The various November 2025 new accounts and TAs also never edited again. Odd situation. CMD (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)