This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hospitals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I suggested title change to "walkout" rather than "strike". Please see these news sources.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC) --Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) (edited more)[reply]

Please format to the Requested move discussion, WP:RSPM, setup to help gain a wider consensus. In response to your sources:

• "South Korea doctors’ strike: government moves to suspend thousands of medical licences" - The Guardian [8]
• "South Korea deploys military, public doctors to strike-hit hospitals" Reuters [9]
• "S Korea deploys military reinforcements to hospitals hit by doctors strike" - Al Jazerra [10]
• "Why have 10,000 junior doctors in South Korea resigned in protest against the government?" Euronews [11], in body "The striking doctors-in-training claim that most of the additionally recruited medical students would also likely try to work in high-paying, popular professions like plastic surgery and dermatology, like current medical students."

When I searched on Google for either strike or walkout, the results returned overlapped each other, and it would boil down to which is either WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:NDESC. I think "strike" itself is understandable, and it is not just a simple "walkout" from one's job since it couples with the usage of mass resignations. Are the doctors expecting all to be hired back after the labor action ends? – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@– robertsky: Then, how about "mass resignations" as a title?
1. It is used in news sources such as [12], [13], [14], [15],
2. "[S]ince it couples with the usage of mass resignations", then the most non-judgmental descriptive titles should be "mass resignations", rather than "strike" or "walkout". --Y-S.Ko (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike is non judgemental enough. – robertsky (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The government said "the argument made by some that the trainee doctors’ collective action is it not a strike".[16] "Mass designation" is a better term. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't sing to the tune to the government on Wikipedia (see WP:OFFICIAL), especially when it has been reported otherwise. Once again, open a Requested move discussion so that other editors may be notified to join in here. – robertsky (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your view.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about potential WP:POV in the article, in favor of the doctors' side. Note: I want to be clear, I don't have opinions on this issue, I don't really know all that much about it. But I am familiar with Wikipedia standards.

There are emotionally charged phrases being used in numerous places in the article. Relevant: WP:WTW. Phrases like "Taking advantage of healthcare providers", "suffers", "forcing", "failure of the government", and "neglected". All of these terms could be substituted for more neutral, dry terms. Some of these are allegations that aren't being attributed to an analyst inline, per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

Other issues with MOS:SAID; "it has been often pointed out", "the study showed". Also potential WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, "although their arguments are convincing". The "Media: Amplification of government message" section has analysis along this line. The section contains clear opinions/analysis that isn't directly attributed to the writers of the sources inline.

One major note imo: a significant portion of the text in this article comes from opinion pieces/papers by South Korean doctors. Given the huge proportion of doctors that align with the strike, I'm concerned about the neutrality of these sources. On the other hand, it seems like there's very little discussion of the government's rationale for its policies. Granted, I'm not all that familiar with this topic, so it's hard for me to say if this is proportional to what's been covered in the press or not. What would make me more comfortable is analysis from external observers.

Think these issues require a major cleaning to fix; basically every sentence needs to be examined and more sources need to be pulled in. seefooddiet (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@seefooddiet: I fixed some problems. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@seefooddiet: (1) I think some of WP:WTW is fixed by my edit. (2) I don't think "although their arguments are convincing" is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because it is from Korean article Media Framing of a Social Conflict - A Case Study of Medical Doctors' Strike in Korea, I don't think "Media: Amplification of government message" is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because it is information from Korean Medical Education Review article. (3) But, I have a different problem in this article. This article is too journalistic rather than encyclopedic. (WP:NOTNP) Furthermore, there are too many Chinese newspaper sources, which can be replaced by more academic sources or English sources. (4) I think real problematic section is "Government" from "Reactions". This section cites only February newspaper sources. I think this should be expanded by using more recent sources. (compared to 2021–present United Kingdom cost-of-living crisis, really lack of quality) Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think little discussion of the government's rationale is that problematic. (because it is discussed in "Demographic change of South Korea") I don't think neutrality of the sources is that problematic. (Many sources are newspaper articles, not by doctors. Of course, there are some sources written by doctors, but are published in academic journals, which is generally more reliable than newspaper.) However, I think that real problem is little discussion of the government's action/reaction in "Reactions" section. Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Although their arguments are convincing" is original research. We cannot judge what seems true or false using Wikipedia's voice. We can say things like "this one scholar thought their arguments were convincing", but you can't say "These arguments are convincing". It's a subtle but importance difference.

"Media:Amplification of government message" has many similar issues. It's stating subjective opinions and analysis as fact using Wikipedia's voice. Those opinions need to be directly attributed inline to scholars.

The article is journalistic, but that's to be expected given a current event. It doesn't strike me as a significant problem; we need voices from both academia and high quality journalism. Chinese sources should be fine as long as they're in reputable newspapers; we need non-Korean perspectives. And while having peer reviewed pieces from doctors is better than having newspaper articles from doctors, just because they're peer reviewed doesn't make them neutral. Academic journals publish opinion pieces all the time.

And I don't think the government opinions are sufficiently explored in the demographics section. Nor are much of the justifications for their specific actions explored elsewhere in the body. E.g. "the government did x, with the explanation that y". So far it reads "The government did x, and doctors protested".

I don't really agree with a lot of your takes; a little concerning... Think we need other people in this conversation too. seefooddiet (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well,.. the problem is lack of sources, not neutrality of sources. Determining if something is biased is quite challenging. For example, while an article about Alex Jones might seem very negative, it isn't biased because it accurately mirrors the predominantly negative mainstream coverage of him. According to Google scholar search, it does not seem that rationale of government is much discussed... (at least academically.) This article reflects this. Maybe there are sources which discussed rationale of government. However, not providing source about this make the argument "this article is not neutral because there are little discussion about rationale of government" unconvincing. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think the South Korean government is publishing academic papers in English, and coverage of this event from people who aren't South Koreans doctors in academic papers is lacking. We're not getting the full picture just from Google Scholar.

To reiterate, academic papers are nice but for current events they're often limited or niche to certain perspective. Journalism is acceptable for filling in those gaps. seefooddiet (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is a side note, but some of the changes you made after my original post have grammar errors in them. The article still needs a more thorough scrubbing and I have other priorities at the moment so I'll abstain for now. It'd be nice if other people can participate in this dialogue and contribute to cleaning the article up. seefooddiet (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this concern. Even if this is a topic that can flow to emotionally stance, writers of this document should stay neutral even if one is a stakeholder of this event. Also, the gist of this document should stay clear even if the opinion about the healthcare system of South Korea can vary - it is the increasing quota of medical school admissions that caused the actions of doctors, otherwise it does not explain why the actions just did happen after announcement of the increased quota, not before or later. Hardynotifier (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hardynotifier: In your edit on "Requested move 4 August 2024" section, you cite the Korean source. Can you read Korean? How about using this South Korean government's briefing website? Y-S.Ko (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched more on South Korean government's position. Then I found South Korean government's briefing website. How about using this website as a source? --Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, so it's less desirable, but if you really need it for something you can use it. Ideally we should rely on WP:SECONDARYSOURCEs. seefooddiet (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the POV tag back. Still don't think it's adequately resolved; very clear what the opinion of the writer is on each matter. An IP user recently deleted a paragraph from the lead that was pretty egregious; I approve of the deletion. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section's content which exists in section "Media". Therefore, I reverted. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Ok, but that does nothing to address the POV.

I said this before, but I don't think you quite grasp how the writing reads biased. I'd like for others to evaluate this too and reaffirm it so that it's clear to you grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with user grapesurgeon. The bias in the article is incredibly clear. By reading this article I don't think it would be clear at all that the almost 90% of Korean people oppose the strike. Judging from their past edits on this and other pages related to Korea and medical science, User Y-S.Ko seems to be a South Korean healthcare worker and the bias in his/her edits are extremely obvious. Of course, there is no rule on Wikipedia against South Korean healthcare workers making edits, but there is a rule against making edits which are so clearly biased and non-neutral in their POV.

The fact that some of these striking doctors write their opinions in journals instead of in newspapers does not magically make those opinions inconvertible facts that need to be reported as certain fact to our readers. Opinions need to be cited as the opinions of specific individuals or organizations, not as facts. Taking the example of the Russo-Ukraine War, I could easily find some peer-reviewed paper by some Foreign Policy professor somewhere stating that the United States and NATO is principally responsible for the war, but I can't go on that page and say that this is certain fact. That would be an opinion of the Foreign Policy professor who wrote that article and it would need to be cited as such.

I also just now took the liberty of deleting a paragraph from the "Government of healthcare system" section. As I explain in my edit notes, this paragraph is cited to sources from 15 and 24 years ago, but the writing obscures that. Using a source about a previous strike from a quarter century ago and making it seem like it's about a strike that is currently ongoing is so incredibly deceptive that it simply looks like a genuine desire to mislead readers.

Frankly, many more changes need to be made to this article which I don't have time for right now, but I will be keeping an eye on this page. FlyDayCTown (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with basically everything said here, and thanks for the edits. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I just made some more. Many of the citations here are quite suspect, and a fair number of them are very out of date. In general, much of this article is VERY wordy and a lot of is just muddying the waters by talking about things that are only tangentially related. A lot of it that is good is still poorly organized, poorly worded and simply reads like rambling.

I plan to scrutinize the sources in this article more and to take a scalpel to it to perform some signifiant cosmetic surgery. FlyDayCTown (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have made even more changes just now to remove irrelevant information, to make the POV more neutral and to make it clear what the public debate in SK is actually about and what the primary causes actually are. The recent edits to my changes from a couple hours ago by @Y-S.Ko make their bias even more incredibly obvious. I made several edits to clearly mark opinions of both supporters and opponents of the strike as being such, with wording like (not exact quote) "Supporters of the quota increase say X," and "Supporters of the strike say Y." Y-S.Ko came in to edit this text to muddy the waters to present the opinions of striking doctors as being simple fact, while he or she apparently had no problem with the opinions of their opponents being labeled as such.

I also took the time to check over the history of this page and to observe past edits by this same user. In August of last year this page had details on the low number of doctors per capita in SK and this user deleted it. He or she is also the one who removed information on the rapidly aging SK population that is going to put more strain on the SK healthcare system in the future. I have added this information back in and cited the Lancet to support it, which should certainly be enough to keep it in the article.

Multiple times this user has removed information which makes the striking doctors look bad and has inserted uncited OR arguments stated as fact to support them. I also see that he or she is the one who inserted vague things like "moral panic" as being the cause of the strike, even while removing actual, factual statistical information about the per capita number of doctors in SK and the aging population.

@Y-S.Ko, I want you to know that I'm going to be watching this page closely and I'm going to be scrutinizing edits by you in particular. If you want to make sure that the position and motivations of the strikers is fairly represented here, that is fine and great, but it must be done in a way that adheres to the rules of Wikipedia. Please do not waste your time and mine be making more rule violating edits. FlyDayCTown (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with FlyDayCTown. Looking at Y-S.Ko's edits, they're fairly obvious style violations (including improper inline reference style and this unhelpful romanization of a title...). Would appreciate if Y-S.Ko took more of a backseat on this. Hard enough to tone down existing article without this disruption. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: Basically, my worry is about generalizing all "supporters" and "opponents". Why did you generalize such group using some small sources? I want to be more accurate. For example, you wrote "Supporters of the government's proposed quota increase say that it is needed because South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. They also say that there is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics." and cited The Lancet article. But the source does not mention "supporters say". The source is like "The doctor shortage is not universal but is mainly in essential medical departments like paediatrics and emergency care. Medical resources and manpower are concentrated in the capital and urban areas, leading to regional disparities in health workforce distribution." This is not given as supporters' opinion. This is given as a statistical fact. If you want to use this source, please do not original research, follow your source, and please do not present it using the phrases such as "supporters say" or "opponents say". Y-S.Ko (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in essential medical departments like pediatrics and emergency care." is well-sourced by Lancet article. But the phrase "they [supporters] say that ..." is not justified. Y-S.Ko (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Y-S.Ko, frankly, you know as well as I do that that is what supporters and opponents of the policy in South Korea have said. It is literally the stated reason given by Pres. Yoon. I want to make this clear to the predominantly Waegukin readers of English Wikipedia, who don't know that like you and I do.

Waegukin are coming here to the page to get an idea of what the controversy is about, what the facts are, what has happened since the crisis began, what people on both sides have been saying and doing. They want to know why the govt raised the quotas and if there were good reasons for it, and they also want to know why it sparked such a severe backlash from doctors. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to present both of these perspectives fairly and to maintain a neutral editorial voice.

As for your claim that "It is not justified that some small sources represent all 'supporters' and 'opponents'": strictly speaking from logical truth values, the statement "supporters say" and "opponents say" would be true as long as at least two people from each side are saying that. Nothing about my wording implies that "all" are saying that. If you think that the Lancet article is not a good enough source, the proper thing to do is to seek other sources to corroborate, which is easy enough to do, and which I have done. Each side now has several reliable sources.

As for your claim that Park (2024) is not an opinion, that is simply wrong, it is literally labeled "Special Issue: Opinion" right at the top of the page. Again, this opinion piece by Prof. Park of Dankook University College of Medicine is notable for inclusion because it represents stated reasoning of the striking medical community. The nature of this source (an opinion piece) is relevant for inclusion, and it's obvious why you want that context to be removed: you want the opinions of the strikers to be presented as uncontroversial fact. That is not how it works on Wikipedia.

Your argument that an opinion article by a medical school professor is not strong enough to stand as a source for the opinion of the medical community, but that it CAN stand in as a source of absolute certain fact is farcical.

You have repeatedly removed factual and relevant information from this article, for example, that the doctor shortage is more severe in rural areas and that Korea has a very low number of doctors per patient. On September 20, you replaced that with a lot of text about how the demographics of Korea have changed in Korea over the past decade that does nothing to make clear to waegukin readers that this is going to cause increasing pressure on the health care system over time. When I came to this article yesterday, there was barely any information on the fact that the shortage is more extreme in rural areas, because you removed it.

On July 26 you added irrelevant information about a rural hospital closure from over a decade ago and an article about media coverage about the doctors strike from 25 years ago, both deceptively worded to make it seem like these are up-to-date sources with direct relevance to this strike, which is OR at best, outright deceptive at worst.

You have also inserted NPOV-violating OR which unfairly presents the opinions of the strikers as fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%932025_South_Korean_medical_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1261420099

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%932025_South_Korean_medical_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1267377675

Your edit summaries are also lacking detail and overly short, reading just "Clipped" when what you actually did was clip out wording that makes the strikers look bad, to replace with wording that makes them look good and which presents their POV as objective fact. Looking at your talk page reveals that people have complained to you about this already many times over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Y-S.Ko/Archive_2#You_aren't_a_new_editor_so_you_should_know_when_you_shouldn't_use_the_minor_edits_checkbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Y-S.Ko/Archive_2#July_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Y-S.Ko#November_2024

This is disrespectful conduct toward your fellow contributors.

Multiple people have come by this article to make your contributions more NPOV, and you come by within a day to switch it back. This is also disrespectful, and comes close to being vandalism.

Now to be fair, some of your other edits have done a great job have laying out background information about the motivations of the strikers, this of course can stay, but it will be correctly contextualized and presented in a way that maintains NPOV.

I'm gonna ask you again, nicely, to please not waste your time and mine with more rule-violating edits that I will remove. FlyDayCTown (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: I did not revert all your edit. If I think my previous edit is not problematic at all, I would revert all your edit. I didn't. Please concentrate "supporters says ..", and "opponents says...", right?

My problematic paragraph is this:

"Supporters of the government's proposed quota increase say that it is needed because South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. They also say that there is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics. On the other hand, opponents of the policy, who are lead by the Korean Medical Association, say that the strike is warranted because the healthcare system struggles with low reimbursement rates, and insufficient financial support from the government, and that governmental mismanagement is the primary cause of labor shortages and overworked staff. They argue further that increasing the quantity of medical students would necessitate lowered standards and would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care."

Cited these references:

[1] Junior doctor strikes in South Korea: more doctors are needed?

[2] More physicians needed for more hope in South Korea

[3] The 2024 Medical Crisis : Challenges for Medical Education

[4] The dispute over increasing medical student numbers in South Korea

[5] Doctors on Strike: Why are South Korea’s Government and Medical Community at Odds?

[6] Why Doctors Are Against South Korea’s Expansion of Medical School Admissions

[1] is not given as supporters' or opponents' opinion. This is give as a news. This cannot be used as "supporters/opponents says ..." type structure.

[2] cannot be used as generalized "supporters/opponents says ..." type structure. This is about Byung Uk Lee's stance and related facts, not about supporters/opponents' general opinion. If you use this, "Byung Uk Lee says ..." is all right. But generalized "supporters/opponents says ..." is not justified.

[3] also cannot be used as generalized "supporters/opponents says ..." type structure. This is about Hyoung Wook Park's stance and related facts, not about supporters'/opponents' general opinion. If you use this, "Hyoung Wook Park says ..." is all right. But also, "supporters/opponents says ..." is not justified.

[4] says "Government stance" and "Medical community opposition". Not "supporters/opponents says"-type.

[5] says "South Korean government proposed a change intended to increase the number of medical practitioners nationwide. Then, thousands of doctors left their posts." Also "Government vs Medical community"-type, not "supporters/opponents says"-type

[6] says "Proponents assert that the scarcity of essential healthcare workers, rapidly aging demographics, and doctor deficits in rural areas underscore the necessity for swift action to expand intake of medical students. Opponents, led by the Korea Medical Association (KMA), claim that meaningful change remains elusive without a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s medical system." This is quite similar to the paragraph's content. But even this does not support the thesis opponents say "the strike is warranted because the healthcare system struggles with low reimbursement rates, and insufficient financial support from the government, and that governmental mismanagement is the primary cause of labor shortages and overworked staff."

[6] can be cited as a source of "Supporters of the government's proposed quota increase say ..." But, even so, "opponents of the policy, ... says the strike is warranted ..." is not justified in this. Really, who said "the strike is warranted because ..."? These sources did not say this. [2] and [3] did not use even the word "strike".

Sources([4] and [5]) showed government's stance and medical communities' stance rather than generalized supporters'/opponents' opinion. How about saying stances of "government" and "Korean Medical Association", more concrete than overgeneralized "supporters" and "opponents"? Also, please remove "the strike is warranted because ...". These sources did not say this. Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you, before I respond with a more detailed reply (which I don't have time to do right this moment)

Can you honestly tell me that you think my paragraph contains factual errors? I believe it is accurate and it fairly represent arguments used on both sides. Instead of nitpicking my sources, please tell me what factual errors exist in the text I wrote. FlyDayCTown (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Supporters vs Opponents viewpoint ignores moderate and diverse opinions. Please read "Reactions" section. There are stances of government, experts in medicine, doctors, students/residents, media, patient group, opposition party and public. it is misleading these diverse opinions as supporters vs opponents viewpoint. For example, there is an opinion supporting "moderate" increase quota and criticizing government. Is this supporting or opposing policy? Therefore, I favored "Government's stance is ..., Korea Medical Association's stance is ..., Resients' stance is ..., Patients' stance is ..." rather than Supporters vs Opponents viewpoint. This also follows MOS:INTRO, following content of main body of this article.

(2) The paragraph gives generally recognized analysis as one partial opinion. For example, "[Supporters] also say that there is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics." But Junior doctor strikes in South Korea: more doctors are needed? shows this is generally recognized analysis. The paragraph is like "Supporters say Earth is round." rather than "Earth is round." Others statements ("rapidly aging population", "low reimbursement rates" ...) are also well-recognized academic analyses, but the paragraph presents them as opinionated arguments. Please read "Background and causes" section. It presents these analyses as "South Korea has the lowest birth rates in the world with the most rapidly aging population." not "Supporters/opponents says ..."

(3) "the strike is warranted because ...": As I said above, it is not supported by any sources. This should be removed. Y-S.Ko (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't see anything I've done that violates MOS:INTRO, on the contrary, it says the opening should be concise, less detailed than the body and should place things in context for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject.Openings are supposed to give a general overview, the body of the article is for elaborating on the full diversity of opinions.

Changing "supporters say-" to "The Government said-" agreeable enough for me to compromise on. Done. I've also changed unnamed "opponents" to "striking healthcare workers, who are lead by the Korean Medical Association".

2. I've changed it to make it clear the strikers agree that the shortage is real.

3. I don't see what is objectionable about "the strike is warranted because ..." Obviously the opponents of the quota increase, who have gone on strike, believe that the strike is warranted. FlyDayCTown (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:LEAD: "the lead summarizes the points of the body and the body provides elaboration on those points." There is a "Reactions" of government, experts, doctors, et al. (It is not about supporters/opponents.)

2. In main body of the article, "rapidly aging population", "low reimbursement rates" et al. are provided as "background" of the crisis, not arguments of supporters/opponents. Please follow the main body of the article.

3. Please do not say "obviously". Please do not write it if the provided sources does not support them. Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not have a long history of inserting NPOV-violating and uncited OR on this page, it would be easier to take your objections seriously.

You removed swathes of my edits without giving any stated reason as to why. Many of those edits are fixes to English grammatical and vocabulary errors. Please, Do not remove them without giving a reason.

The verbiage "supporters" was changed to "Government", exactly as you requested, and you went and removed it anyways. This is trollish behavior. Please tell me specifically you find factually incorrect or rule-breaking about the wording of the opening as it stands below?

"The government said that quota increase is needed because South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. They also say that there is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics. On the other hand, striking healthcare workers, who are lead by the Korean Medical Association, have argued that the strike is warranted because the healthcare system struggles with insufficient financial support from the government. They agreed that there are labor shortages, but asserted that governmental mismanagement is the primary cause and that reform, rather than an increased number of doctors, is needed to address it. They argue further that increasing the quantity of medical students would necessitate lowered standards and would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care"

I have reverted your edit. @Grapesurgeon has also stated that he agrees with me, you have no consensus to be making unilateral changes like this. That you did it even after you and I came to a compromise is frankly absurd and gives further credence to the my thought that you are not engaging in good faith here.

Again, please stop wasting your time. FlyDayCTown (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: I analyze the your new paragraph.:

"The government said that quota increase is needed because South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. They also say that there is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics. On the other hand, striking healthcare workers, who are lead by the Korean Medical Association, have argued that the strike is warranted because the healthcare system struggles with insufficient financial support from the government. They agreed that there are labor shortages, but asserted that governmental mismanagement is the primary cause and that reform, rather than an increased number of doctors, is needed to address it. They argue further that increasing the quantity of medical students would necessitate lowered standards and would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care"

The main problem: This paragraph does not follow WP:LEAD and WP:NOR.

WP:LEAD said: "the lead summarizes the points of the body and the body provides elaboration on those points." But that the body of the article said is different from the paragraph. It suggests i.e. "rapidly aging population", "shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics" as background "facts", but the paragraph gives this only an excuse of government. This is not the case. And "On the other hand, striking healthcare workers, who are lead by the Korean Medical Association, have argued that the strike is warranted ..." is neither supported in the main body nor cited sources(WP:NOR). What you need is the exact quotation that supports this sentence. Please do not say "obviously". This phrase can be the source of the original research.

I want "background" facts are provided as background facts.

And please do not say "stop wasting your time" without proper quotation supporting this sentence. Please!

And please do not use ad hominem argument. I didn't say about you like "you have less than 100 edits. What a newbie! How unreliable!" Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I remarked many time @FlyDayCTown, but not @Grapesurgeon. Could you suggest supporting news quotation to "...the strike is warranted ..."? Or any other arguments? Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy atm but will consider responding when I have time. I haven't read anything after my last comment. Fwiw so far I've pretty consistently leaned with FlyDayCTown on pretty much every point and lean really skeptical of your edits, Y-S.Ko. My skepticism towards you has been for months now. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you have made numerous rule violating edits is not a an ad hom, it is a fact, a fact you are not even denying. Your editing is biased, and biased editing is a violation of the rules. There is no rule against being a new editor.

The stated reasoning of the gov't/Yoon is given in the section "Aging Population of South Korea". More detailed reasoning used to be there but you deleted it last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_South_Korean_medical_crisis#Aging_Population_of_South_Korea

It is appropriate for inclusion in the opening. I agreed to your compromise already and you are still trollishly arguing about it.

Clarify again what you don't like about "have argued that the strike is warranted -". it IS supported by the sources I gave. Give a detailed argument about what SPECIFICALLY is not supported and what a reasonable compromise would be. FlyDayCTown (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: Well, we can only agree that we disagree! You said "it is supported by the sources" but I wanted more concrete quotation. But it seems you will not provide that quotation from the source. My suggestion is you provide more concrete quotation from the source about "the strike is warranted because ...". But you repeated your argument. I think burden of proof is upon you... But I felt I failed to persuade you. In this case, I gave up! I am not persuaded, but maybe I am foolish. Thanks for answering me, anyway. Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Diplomat states "Opponents, led by the Korea Medical Association (KMA), claim that meaningful change remains elusive without a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s medical system."

Bu-Kyu Lee states "The KMA strongly opposes the plan [...] They claim there is no actual shortage of physicians. [...] The KMA initiated strikes."

The Wilson Center states "a major walkout of junior doctors [...] The move protested the government’s announced plan to increase the annual medical school admission quota."

Hyoung Wook Park states "the Minister of the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced a plan to increase the medical school enrollment quota [...] In reaction to this significant increase, [...] medical residents, [...] submitted their resignations.

My edit synthesizes these into a broad summary, suitable for an opening, and does not have any OR in it. It clearly states the govt's stated reason for the quota increase, and the strikers stated reasons for opposing the increase.

My edit to the opening is actually quite generous to the doctors, and makes no mention of how a prevailing public opinion in SK is that doctors want the quotas to be low out of a greedy desire to keep their incomes high via manipulating supply and demand, by suppressing the supply of doctors even as they know the demand is going to go up over time. FlyDayCTown (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It ignores WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Y-S.Ko (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I didn't do that then. Do you want me to find something that literally has the exact word "warranted" in it?

I'm gonna ask you again, can you please tell me what factual error exists in that text? FlyDayCTown (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, after sleeping on it, I've decided that to show everyone that I am not unreasonable and that I'm trying to work in good faith here, I will compromise with you on the "strike is warranted because" wording, just like I did on the "supporters/opponents" wording.

How does the below text look to you?

"On the other hand, striking healthcare workers, who are lead by the Korean Medical Association, agreed that there are labor shortages, but asserted that governmental mismanagement is the primary cause and that reform—rather than an increased number of doctors—is needed to address it. They have argued that the healthcare system struggles with insufficient financial support from the government and that increasing the quantity of medical students would necessitate lowered standards that would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care."

I think that this states a clear, factual and properly contextualized summary of the stances of both the gov't and the KMA-led strike movement, the wording you objected to ("the strike is warranted because") is gone now, even though I still don't agree that it broke any rules.

I assume you will agree that the above text is preferable to the previous one, since the text you objected to is now gone, so I have taken the liberty of placing it in the article.

I've already compromised with you multiple times about this paragraph, and we've gone back and forth about it for 2 days now, so I hope you will likewise compromise with me so that we can stop debating this issue. FlyDayCTown (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown If you find yourself stuck on a debate or getting heated on something that the other person isn't budging on, I recommend you try WP:RFC (I would recommend WP:3O but technically ineligible for that's when there's only been two participants in convo and I'm #3).

I'll read through this convo when I can and respond. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think "XXX says/agreed/asserted ... " and "the strike is warranted because ..." so much important? I think it is better to provide "rapidly aging population", "shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics", "low reimbursement rates" as background "facts", rather than opinionated argument. These are advantages.

1. It uses sources more comprehensively. For example, You cited these articles: More physicians needed for more hope in South Korea and The 2024 Medical Crisis : Challenges for Medical Education. But, These doesn't say "XXX says/agreed/asserted ...", so on... Their main points are their own stances and related facts. These sources does not represent government or other groups. Therefore, it is natural to remove these phrases. Removal of these phrases treats these sources as fact-givers, not representatives of government and other groups.

2. You can think that government's/doctors' reactions are also important. But, it is provided in the first paragraph of the article. Then, background "facts" should be suggested. "XXX says/agreed/asserted ... " gives the impression that these "facts" are suggested as arguments. The main body of the article gives these information as a fact ("South Korea has the lowest birth rates in the world with the most rapidly aging population."), not as "XXX says/agreed/asserted ...". Removal of these phrases makes the paragraph more consistent to the main article.

3. Removal of these phrases, it makes these paragraph more clear and more easy to read.

Therefore, I suggested this:

"South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. Also, there is a shortage of doctors in rural areas and in key fields such as pediatrics. The healthcare system struggles with low reimbursement rates, and insufficient financial support from the government, and that governmental mismanagement is the cause of labor shortages and overworked staff."

Can you provide the reason these phrases are so important? Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FlyDayCTown is trying to use inline attribution, per WP:NPOV. This is the correct practice, attributing opinions to who said them within the text.

Y-S.Ko, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding on the philosophical properties of "fact". Arguably fact's don't exist; basically every bit of information in text is explicitly or implicitly filtered through human perspective.

That said, if an idea is basically universally accepted, we don't need inline attribution. But some of the statements in that paragraph are not 100% obvious, so they could benefit somewhat from inline attribs. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon, thank you for your input.

@Y-S.Ko I wrote a lot of text explaining my edits to you. How about you respond to my 13 questions below and explain your edits to me? It's only fair, I think. FlyDayCTown (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To your point 1:

In "More physicians needed for more hope in South Korea" the writer himself doesn't say "X argues that" because he himself is the X and he is laying out his argument. Byung Uk Lee is not an impartial fact giver. He opposes the strike and lays out his reasons for opposing it. His text is a 'Correspondence" that is to say, not a peer-reviewed study, rather, an expression of his own view.

Likewise for Hyoung Wook Park. He opposes the government's plan and he lays out an argument for opposing it. He is not an imperials fact giver, his text is an opinion piece. He doesn't say "Y argues that' because he is the Y and he is giving his argument.

-"These sources does not represent government or other groups. "

Yeah, that is why I wrote "supporters/opponents' earlier, but you wanted it changed to "Government" and "KMA". I did that and now you again are still arguing about it like a troll.

2- Facts are used by both sides to support their arguments. That they are used in arguments by both sides does not imply that they are untrue.

3.

"Can you provide the reason these phrases are so important?"

Removal of those phrases removes clarity and context.

As I have said, my text accurately gives the stated reasons for the quota increase by the govt, and the stated reasons for opposing the quota by the strikers. The sources I've given identify the Govt and the KMA-led Strike movement as the two main sides in this crisis, and the positions of both side must be accurately represented to maintain NPOV. It adheres to MOS:INTRO.

Let me ask you to answer these points.

1 What factual error is present in my text?

2 What rule does my text violate?

3 Why have you made multiple rule-violating edits to this page?

4 Why did you removing factual information about how demographic changes in SK will mean that SK will require more doctors in the future?

5 Why did you remove information on the low number of doctors per capita in Korea? And before removal, why did you insert uncited and outright false OR about how it is "generally agreed" that the low number is not actually a problem?

6 Why did you remove information on how the shortage is especially severe in rural areas?

7 Why did you remove information on how doctors in SK tend to go into high-paying fields like cosmetic surgery?

8 Why did you remove information on the high average income of doctors in Korea?

9 Why did you insert "moral panic against doctors" as a cause of the strike with no citations?

10 Why did you change "Lee Jae Myung opposes the strike" to "Lee Jae Myung opposes doctors"?

11 Why have you inserted lengthy paragraphs about things that are not related to this strike, such as about the hospital closure from over a decade ago?

12 Why is it that when I came to this article, the vast majority of the text was spent on giving arguments that support the strike and virtually nothing about why the quota was increased in the first place, in clear violation of NPOV and WP:RSUW ? FlyDayCTown (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, here is one more:

13 Why is that I've agreed to your desired compromise and you still want to argue about it? FlyDayCTown (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think it is you who shows the "the strike is warranted because ..." is the fact, following this rule: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

2. It seems to me WP:SYNTH. But it is somewhat repeating.

3-12.

1. It happened months ago. Therefore, my memory isn't accurate. Do you mean this version? Right? Then, It included:

"In 2023, 69% of local medical centers could not fill their quota of doctors."

"South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol argued the basic medical system is collapsing, with pediatrics, obstetrics, gynecology, and other specialties lacking manpower and thus treatment being delayed. He also cited the imbalanced urban-rural distribution of medical services as a reason for the quota increase"

"Skewed distribution of doctors in South Korea"

"doctors move to lucrative specialties away from critical care."

"The average resident salary is 70 million won (about $50,000)."

and so on....

It happened months ago. Therefore, my memory isn't accurate. But maybe I thought there was already enough information about this.

2. Maybe there were some wrong edits. because I tried merge two big sections, suggested by 172.97.141.219. Maybe this happened due to my inadequate ability. Maybe I was wrong. But now I didn't oppose your edits about this. If you think these edits are wrong, please fix them! I didn't revert your edits about these.

3. And, These questions are not relevant to the main theme of this discussion. I now oppose you not because of these things.

And especially 11: Maybe you refers to this sentence: "South Korean policymaking considers few professional opinions. This resulted in governance failure, with unnecessary severe conflicts among doctors, pharmacists, civil society organizations, media, and other stakeholders...." Right? Maybe I thought it is related, due to it shows history/background. For example, please see World War II (1939-1945)'s "Background" section.: It describes events in 1917. (20 years before the World War II) But it is included due to it shows "History"/'"Background". Likewise, it shows "Background".

And again: It is not relevant to the original problem of the paragraph.

13 Because I want the better paragraph. But you didn't/don't and (maybe) will not agree with me. Therefore, I gave up to persuade you and I stopped to edit this article. It seems that other users are needed to solve this problem. Anyway, you concentrated your efforts to this article. (Your edit history shows it.) Thanks for this! Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you said: "Arguably fact's don't exist; basically every bit of information in text is explicitly or implicitly filtered through human perspective." : Please read WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. You can know how this argument is treated in Wikipedia. Anyway, If the article does not follow WP:SYNTH, it must be revised. Y-S.Ko (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand the essay you just linked. This is a fairly common theme with your other posts; you just link things to sound like you have arguments without fully grasping what you're linking.

That essay aligns very closely to what my original comment said. That essay says that it's not taking a philosophical stance on whether facts exist. Rather, it says that the important thing is that we try to describe debates rather than engage in them ourselves by ourselves trying to assert what objective facts are. The essay also provides the exact same functional definition of "fact" as me: WP:ASSERT when something is basically universally agreed upon.

Getting tired of you wasting others' time. Read these essays more carefully before you link them. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: I read your other edits more carefully, and I found that your other edits are also problematic. A lot of problems (MOS:WEASEL, MOS:SAID and MOS:RELTIME)... These edits can be fixed. (One example: "Former South Korean President") Y-S.Ko (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm losing patience with this. Let's move to an RfC so we can get more thoughts on who's writing is fairer. This is just going to be an argument forever at this rate. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon, If @Y-S.Ko, is going to insist on continuing arguing about this when I've already agreed to many compromises, than I think that this would be appropriate. I think most reasonable people, given the points I've made in previous comments here and here will be able to see who here is more unbiased in their editing. FlyDayCTown (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that my edits have weasel words. Weasel words are "aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated." My edits do not have vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claims.

Re: MOS:SAID, I have removed a few usages words such as "argue" and "assert". There is still 4 usages of "argue" and 1 for "assert". I don't think the remaining usages are problematic because these literally are arguments that are being made in a public debate. MOS:SAID states that "extra care" is needed when using words like that, it doesn't say to never use them. These are arguments, the appropriate verb for them is "argue".

Regarding MOS:RELTIME, I don't see the violation. The phrasing "Former South Korean President" does not violate MOS:RELTIME. Anyways, I removed it. FlyDayCTown (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MOS:SYNTH, There is and was no violation in my view, but I've already agreed to your desired compromise and removed the wording "-the strike is warranted because-". There's nothing left to talk about there. FlyDayCTown (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On MOS:RELTIME, I meant this: "Democratic Party politician Lee Jae-myung, who is now the president of South Korea"

No, You should say: "South Korean president Lee Jae-myung ..." Y-S.Ko (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About "Formerly": Please read MOS:PERSONOROFFICE : Former President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972 – This is incorrect because Nixon was not a former US president at the time; he was still in office. Write President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972. The construction then-President Nixon is often superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between periods of Nixon's career, other holders of the office, or between other people also named Nixon. Y-S.Ko (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These points you've brought up are so utterly minor that I'm deeply confused as to why you're arguing them so passionately. They have no significant impact on POV. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2025, I edited small amount compared to FlyDayCTown. It is FlyDayCTown who edited the article quite extensively. What I've edited and suggested in June 2025 is very minor. However, it seems that such minor revisions are problematic to FlyDayCTown.

About "why you're arguing them so passionately": I felt similar things about FlyDayCTown: "Why do he resist my suggestions so passionately? My June 2025 suggestions are only small revisions, and removing some phrases, changing the writing style according to WP:MOS." What I've suggested is trimming and removing some problematic phrases, not extensive adding/removing. Basic content is not that different. But he seems to be very passionate about this. Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know what you were changing and why. If you look at my edits, I left pretty extensive notes in the edit summary about what I'm doing.

As I said, "You removed swathes of my edits without giving any stated reason as to why. Many of those edits are fixes to English grammatical and vocabulary errors. Please, Do not remove them without giving a reason."

I gave my reasons in the edit summary and here. I think you can as well. FlyDayCTown (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Democratic Party politician Lee Jae-myung, who is now the president of South Korea" I wrote it that way for clarity because he was not the president yet when he said that. But as per the policies you cited, I think maybe we should change it to something like "who was than a leader of the opposition party" or maybe to "Who would later become the president of South Korea following the 2025 election" or something like that. FlyDayCTown (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for me arguing passionately, I could say the same to you, you were debating me about the word "warranted" for nearly 3 days straight. I would have been happy to compromise on it days ago so that we could discuss other sections of the article.

FlyDayCTown (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am irritated by complex phrases... (just like "XXX says ...") How about removing "who would later become president of South Korea following the 2025 election" phrase, if that information is not that relevant? In the article Normandy landings, "General Dwight D. Eisenhower" is enough. No "who would later become president ..."

Frankly speaking, I want to edit the article for myself. But, you seem to be angry about my edits. Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to keep the global audience of English Wikipedia in mind. Many users may not know who Lee jae-Myung is, noting that he became president after Yoon increases clarity. Eisenhower's presidency is not relevant to the Normandy landing because they had been over for 9 years when he took office. The doctors' strike in SK is still ongoing. The fact that Lee is president now has direct relevance to the topic of this article and we can't assume that every reader is going to know and understand that.

"Frankly speaking, I want to edit the article for myself. But, you seem to be angry about my edits"

All I asked is that you leave detailed edit summaries. I and many other people over the years have complained to you that your edit summaries are vague and non-descriptive.

The purposes of my edits has been to add context, to bring this page up-to-date, to make sure it adheres to the NPOV policy and the undue weight policy, and to remove non-standard grammar and vocab. I've tried my best to make sure that is clear in my edit summaries. FlyDayCTown (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then, how about removing "later" and dividing the sentence? It is misleading to use "later" because it is an ongoing event. It is also quite problematic due to MOS:RELTIME. Also, similarly to the second paragraph, "XXX stated that" can be trimmed.:

"Democratic Party politician Lee Jae-myung opposed the strike and supported the quota increase. [...] In 2025, he become president of South Korea. [...]"

New information in your new edits is good, but the article can be better if it uses more concise style and follows WP:MOS. Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not misleading because the context of the sentence is "at the outset of the crisis". Meaning, Lee, at the start of the crisis in Feb of 2024 said that he opposed the strike and supported the quota increase, and then later (in Jun of 2025) he became president. It does not violate MOS:RELTIME because it will always be true that he opposed the strike in Feb 2024 and then later became President in June of 2025.

Anyways, I went ahead and made the change you proposed anyways, you are correct that it is simpler grammar. FlyDayCTown (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now are talking again.

"Korean Medical Association" (with an N on "Korean") is the correct and official translation for 대한의사협회, please don't change it back to "Korea". You can look up their website and see it for yourself if you want. The Wikipedia page is titled "Korea Medical Association" but this is an error and that article should be re-named.

The opening should also clearly identify the KMA as a leading organization of the strike movement, as my sources show. We can not expect readers to know that the KMA supported the strikes or what the KMA is, and so, the opening should tell them directly and clearly, as per the rules. I therefore moved the phrase "a trade union which represents around 2/3 of the doctors in South Korea" from the Reactions section to the opening. I think you will agree that it is reasonable to give readers that context.

The phrasing "Healthcare workers have been villainized by President Yoon and the media" is an NPOV violation. Please don't put it back in again, I will change it back again.

In the same paragraph, I also took out the phrases "emergency room ping-pong" and "pediatric clinic open run" because frankly, it's pretty much impossible to tell what these are supposed to mean without further context. "오픈런" ("open run") is a Konglish term not common in English. The meaning of "ping pong" here is also not clear. It's not really important what exact phrases the videos were using, the important context is that they were from the government and they criticized the strike. FlyDayCTown (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Y-S.Ko,This is getting very, very tiring. We've been at this now for like 8 months, where you insert edits that violate Wikipedia's rules, and then I come back here to change it back and then to complain at you in the talk page. Looking at the history page for this article shows you have a long history of doing that to other users. Someone comes in to try to fix your vandalism, after some time passes, you pop in again to change it back to the rule-violating version. You did it to me already in July/August and now it is happening again.

I told already on June 5 of last year that I'm gonna be watching this page closely and I asked you to please stop wasting our time. You've continued your trollish behavior, inserting 3 rule violating edits a couple days ago.

One. The cited source is NOT a study. We talked about this last year. It is an opinion piece, and it says so directly at the top. We talked about this one for a REALLY LONG TIME last year.

Two removing relevant context about who the KMA are. You and I agonized over this wording here for DAYS ON END to come up with a compromise wording. You decided to simply wait until I might not be paying attention any more?

Your stated reasoning here for the removal is that the representing 2/3 of docs is not cited. Honestly I'm certain I saw it one of the sources that is or was cited on this page, but can't find it now. But, actually I don't believe that the 2/3 number is the part you don't like. The part you dislike is that it clearly reveals to readers who the KMA are and it therefore reveals their bias. I also assume you also don't like "on the other hand" as it too clearly establishes that this is a contrasting opinion in a controversial public debate that has been raging in South Korea. This is line with your other trollish edits where opinions of striking doctors are reported as certain facts, the identity of the people stating said opinions are obscured, and the edit summary is deceptive.

Anyways, to show my good faith

"On the other hand, the Korean Medical Association, a trade union which represents around 2/3 of the doctors in South Korea, stated that -"

will be changed to

"On the other hand, the Korean Medical Association, a trade union which represents doctors, stated that -"

Nothing about 2/3, you should have no problem with this wording, right? :)

Three is basically in the same vein, removing context, removing clarity and making the nature of the debate over this issue more obscure for the non-Korean readers here on English Wikipedia. Our previous compromise version made it very clear to readers that there is a public debate about this with, broadly speaking, two sides, and it laid out stances of the two sides very clearly, in line with what the cited sources say. You have obscured that again, like it was when I first came to this page in June.

I'm gonna go ahead and tag User:grapesurgeon to get his view here, since he, you and I are the only three people here, apparently.

Y-S.Ko, I'm only gonna say this once : if you continue with the rule violations, I'm gonna escalate this issue and try to get you blocked from editing this page. I don't want to do that because I don't edit Wikipedia a lot and I don't know the process for doing it well, and I don't want to waste time with learning it, I have other things going on in my life right now. But I'm telling you for the very last time. PLEASE stop wasting my time and yours. FlyDayCTown (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: Sorry, what is your problem in this case? Please be more specific. Please explain why you think I violate NPOV, in this case. Y-S.Ko (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your response has to be in bad faith. FlyDayCTown provided an extensive explanation and you still don't understand?

@FlyDayCTown based on the above and previous really difficult discussions with Y-S.Ko I'd be interested in a topic ban for them. Even if theyre acting in good faith there are serious WP:CIR concerns. Consider opening a case in WP:ANI if this proves too difficult grapesurgeon (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you check down near the bottom of the page, there are a few more replies between me and Y-S.ko He's now tried to argue with me, a native English speaker, about English grammar. There's just never ending minutia to argue about this guy, almost like he is a Korean healthcare worker who has a conflict of interest and he assumes that for this reason, he would be more interested in this page than I am, and thus he can either wear me out with tedious argument or else wait me out for a few months. He has successfully waited out other users before me, if you check the page's history. It's a pattern of people stopping in to fix his vandalism and him coming back to revert it.

Anyways yes, I support banning him from editing this page. But as for opening a case and all that, I don't really know very well about how this system is supposed to work on Wikipedia. I should just go to that ANI page and make a post just like this one basically describing what is going on? FlyDayCTown (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post on your talk page grapesurgeon (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A third of § Reactions describes hypothesized causes that § Background and causes aims to contain. Another third duplicates § History. What would a better sectioning look like where the article body states everything once? 172.97.141.219 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried merge History to Reactions.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyDayCTown: You seem to think these violate NPOV.: "The government said that quota increase is needed because South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. Rural areas and key medical fields such as pediatrics are reportedly suffering from a doctor shortage" and "According to the Korean Medical Association, governmental mismanagement is the primary cause of the shortage and that reform—rather than an increased number of doctors—is needed to address it, and the healthcare system struggles with insufficient financial support from the government and that increasing the quantity of medical students would require lowered standards that would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care."

Your suggestions: "The government said that quota increase is needed because South Korea has a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people will place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. They also report that rural areas and key medical fields such as pediatrics are suffering from a doctor shortage." and "Korean Medical Association (KMA), a trade union which represents doctors, stated that governmental mismanagement is the primary cause of the shortage, that reform—rather than an increased number of doctors—is needed to address it. They have also argued that the healthcare system struggles with insufficient financial support from the government and that increasing the quantity of medical students would require lowered standards that would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care."

I personally think that my version is much briefer. But if you think my version violates NPOV, what can I do? This is my excuse.:

(1) "That" clauses in both cases make these sentences complicated. Therefore, I want to make these briefer with basically same meaning. Do you think these have really that different meaning? I think my version in this case has similar meaning with your version. But you favored "that" clauses. I don't understand why you say "rule violations", in this case. I did not undo your edits, contrary to your undoing my edits.

(2) If you favor more complicated sentences, then, how about at least grammatically consistent sentences? In first case, "The government said" (singular, past) - "they also report" (plural present), In second case, "Korean Medical Association (KMA), ... stated" (singular), "They have also argued" (plural), ...

(3) If you favored complicated sentences, how about this?: "The government said that quota increase was needed because South Korea had a rapidly aging population and that the increasing proportion of elderly people would place an increasing burden on the health care system as time goes by. It also reported that rural areas and key medical fields such as pediatrics were suffering from a doctor shortage." and "Korean Medical Association (KMA), a trade union which represented doctors, stated that governmental mismanagement was the primary cause of the shortage, that reform—rather than an increased number of doctors—was needed to address it. It also argued that the healthcare system struggled with insufficient financial support from the government. It also argued that increasing the quantity of medical students would require lowered standards that would cause a decrease in the quality of medical care."

I don't know why you favor that complicated sentences, with high possibility of problematic grammar. But if that is your want.... then...

(4) Please do not confuse your prejudge and anger against me with fact. Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be angry with me. Please do not be angry. Please do not say "try to get you blocked from editing this page" so easily. It shows your emotion, but not fact. Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your reply above "Sorry, what is your problem in this case? Please be more specific. Please explain why you think I violate NPOV, in this case."

I've been plenty specific. I have over 500 words there above, and thousands of words overall on this page, explaining my view on your edits.

It's really astounding, the way you constantly argue in here over the littlest things, and even after I compromise with you, and in good faith, accommodate your stated point, you shift your point and continue the argument! Your edit says "information about 2/3 seems to be untrue", okay I accommodate that and try to compromise with you, keep that part out but keep in "on the other hand" and "a trade union which represents doctors," but you just shift to another stance and keep arguing! Now all of the sudden it's not about "represents 2/3 of doctors", it's now about how the word "that" makes the grammar too hard.

There's just always going to be more arguments like this that you can pull out of your hat, isn't there? And every time I compromise, you try to push it further to get it even closer to your goal. And when you saw that I won't compromise any more, you just decided to sit and wait for awhile until I might not be looking any more, and then you made some edits to try and push it even more.

Your reply is trollish, and seems to be designed to get me to waste my time on pointless arguments over grammar. But here I go anyways.

"(1) "That" clauses in both cases make these sentences complicated."

If someone can't understand that grammar, they will not be fluent enough in English to understand almost anything on Eng Wikipedia.

"I want to make these briefer with basically same meaning."

I think what you want to is to remove the context that the KMA is a labor union that represented striking workers and is not an unbiased source of certain act.

"(2) If you favor more complicated sentences, then, how about at least grammatically consistent sentences? In first case, "The government said" (singular, past) - "they also report" (plural present), In second case, "Korean Medical Association (KMA), ... stated" (singular), "They have also argued" (plural), ..."

You are simply wrong here about English grammar. I could elaborate more but it's not my job to write out an English grammar lesson. I'm a native English speaker, you are not, please do not try to correct my grammar. I'm never gonna tell you how to write and speak in Korean because I'm not a native Korean speaker.

WHY WHY WHY are you arguing with me again about the wording that we already compromised on half a year ago? Why can you not accept the compromise we already made a long time ago, like I have done? FlyDayCTown (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said "WHY WHY WHY are you arguing with me again about the wording that we already compromised on half a year ago? Why can you not accept the compromise we already made a long time ago, like I have done?":

(1) Reading this again after a long time, I felt something was off. It is natural to change opinion, after a long time. (2) I don't know why you are so angry with me. I think the difference with my version and your version in this case is about form rather than content. (3) Of course, you can dislike my edit. You can think that my edit is not improvement. If you dislike my edit, then revising the article again is understandable and natural. But, you did not stop with this. You attacked me with block threats. Well, I did not attack you with threats like this. Anyway, because of threat, I defended myself from the charge like that. (4) Because you are angry with me, I won't insist on them for now. (Of course, I may reconsider my position in the future.) Y-S.Ko (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike your edits because they violate OR and NPOV policies. It is not personal. It's not a threat either, if I knew the process for escalating this, I'd have done it already, I'm just too lazy to look it up.

user:grapesurgeon already said he agree with me that he "would appreciate if Y-S.Ko took more of a backseat on this" and he told me we should try to escalate this and bring in other users if you keep this up.

If I see another rule violation in here by you tho, I will lose my laziness and I will look it up.

I have nothing left to say to you except this: Stop wasting my time. FlyDayCTown (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I'm gonna start adding information on here about the Korean people who have been reported as dying from inadequate medical care because of the strike. over the past couple of years, such as this.

SCMP: Elderly South Korean woman dies after 5-hour wait for hospital that can perform heart surgery amid doctors’ strike FlyDayCTown (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I already said "I won't insist on them for now."
(2) If you want to edit the article and it is good for the article, please do it. I think adding more information on this article is not bad. SCMP can be great source.
(3) Please do not be aggressive. Even after your block threats, I did not attack you like yours. You can revise the article without severe attack on others. Y-S.Ko (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]