Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism/Archive 1

original research? pure blood theory is a myth that doesn't exist in Korea?
Hi kuebie, you've put the tag to say the article is original research but you seem to be busy at giving more details. The article definitely needs more Korean-speaking Wikipedians to help improve it. Please use the talk page rather than just tags or reverts. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're confused with Homogeneity of single ethnic here, there is no "pure blood theory" in any Korean written records. Koreans always referred them as "Dan-il-minjok" which translate as single ethnicity people. If Korea was multi-ethnic society than your assumption of "pure-blood theory" might exist just like with Nazi Germany and KKK America or White supremacy but none of these organizations exists in two Koreas. --KSentry(talk) 14:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Superior pure race
You guys can't make an article that states Koreans believe they are the superior pure race, then write contradictory informations stating they are subordinates. Either the Koreans believe they are superior and we add the references about pure race ideas and how they feel they are better, but once you add subordinate concept, it completely contradicts the article. You guys can reword my additions but please do not censor it (and keep in mind when you reword it, this article is about Korean superiority, so subordinate ideas will not work. Anyways reword my references but do not delete for censor please. I think this article should be deleted. --Objectiveye (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To vote: Articles for deletion/Pure blood theory in Korea --Objectiveye (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to kindly remind User:Objectiveye that he is nearing WP:3RR. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "To vote:" - hate to WP:ABF so soon, but it smells like you're trying to lead a trail for those following your WP:CANVASS. I find it suspicious that you're giving instructions here, when the AFD page is at the top of the main article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok that is it, LLtimes and winstonlighter and Oda Mari are communicating with each other, This whole article is contradictory without the clarifications of why they still believe they are superior. You guys resolve it, but keep in mind contradictory ideas only take away from this article. I've been on the discuss page with all the contradictory editors, but You guys should at least fix the contradiction. Please do not censor, but edit my additions. I'm done for tonight --Objectiveye (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "LLtimes and winstonlighter and Oda Mari are communicating with each other" - you can't make a bad faith accusation like that without a source. Are you still trying to garner people to your side? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everyone that's against your obvious off-topicing inputs which contributes nothing to this article, are "working" or "communicating" together against you. As I've said, you can either create a new topic regard the purity of Japanese Royal Family bloodline, or put it in related articles that I've mentioned. --LLTimes (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the first mention of people partnering up was by benlisquare on the voting section. I though he was referring to you guys because I noticed you asked Oda Mari to come vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectiveye (talk • contribs) 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not LLtimes had asked Oda Mari or myself or anyone to (quote) "come vote" is not relevant, because firstly, we were never told to !vote, but to take a look at something that has occurred, since we are editors that are familiar in that specific field. We made our own decisions, and were never ordered or asked to do anything in the first place, other than to see what was going on. Secondly, regardless of whether LLtimes informed me or not, I would have found out about the AfD anyway, as I watch China-Korea-Japan related articles and their WikiProjects, and I believe the same for the other editors mentioned. I would have gotten here sooner or later, so LLtimes' actions are completely irrelevant. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he put in a link for the article for deletion site on Oda Mari's talk page. Does this really matter, you were the one that brought it up first. --Objectiveye (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oda helps regulate Korea articles constantly, as you can see, I've ask him to come and offer his "perspective" on this case, not to vote. Even if he doesn't contribute to the discussion, then by all means ignore him as this is not a vote "game". However, seems that there were no "real" objections except "sudden" flood of "delete" follow by accuses of original researches and other various stupid reasons. --LLTimes (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the possibility of forum shopping, given the sudden spring of activity overnight. Depending on the nature, off-wiki discussion regarding AfDs and the like are considered taboo and foul play. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, let me clarify WP:!VOTE. AfDs are not the same as voting for the President of the United States. Numbers are irrelevant; WP:CONSENSUS is achieved through valid discussions. For example, currently the "!vote stacks" are Keep 10, Delete 7 (including the WP:SPAs), but that does not mean that Keep will "win". If Delete is capable of providing sound arguments supporting deletion, then the article will be deleted; similarly, if valid arguments are provided by Keep, then the article will be kept. Numbers are meaningless on AfDs, I cannot stress that any more. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Turns out the appearance of WP:SPAs during the AfD was because of this: w:ko:위키백과:사랑방/2010년_제33주. Even the usernames match. There was talk suggesting users to involve VANK within the AfD nom. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Obivous Contradictions in the article
If Koreans believe they are superior pure race, then they will need to explain why they still feel superior after WWII. By adding in the archeological info about Japan they can come to that idea. You guys can re-word it but you have to explain why Koreans would still believe they were still the superior pure race. The concept according to the article was introduced by Japan in the 20th century but they were suppose to be subordinate? That would not make any sense, why would this idea would still persist today. You have to clarify how research after the occupation lead to Koreans feeling superior by (and you can reword it how ever):

'''Historical evidence has pointed to Korea being the original bloodline for the Japanese Royal family from its inception. The constant tombs with Korean writing, clothes and artifacts have added to the idea that Korea's pure blood is Japan's elite. In 1976 Japan stopped all foreign archaeologists from studying the Gosashi tomb which is suppose to be the resting place of Emperor Jingu. Prior to 1976 foreigners did have access. Recently in 2008, Japan has allowed controlled limited access to foreign archaeologists, but the international community still has many unanswered questions. National Geographic wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea" '''

With Japans elite being of Korean blood, it didn't matter that they occupied Korea because they were under a Korean Emperor or something like that. In addition:

'''As science progressed the Subordinate race appeared to be the Japanese. The Japanese elite appear to be of Korean origin. The Japanese pure royal blood line was of Korean origin with ancient buddhist school, artifacts, sculptures, architecture and writing, including the introduction of iron processing and horses all coming to Japan from Korea. " These scientific researches lead to Japan limiting the access of Japan's royal tomb from the international community. ''' and

Borrowing from the Japanese theory of nation and race, Shin Chaeho located the martial roots of the Korean in Goguryeo , which he depicted as militarist, expansionist which turned out to inspire pride and confidence in the resistance against the Japanese. In order to establish Korean uniqueness, he also replaced the story of Gija whose founder was the paternal uncle or brother of the Chinese Shang emperor Zhou with the Dangun legend and asserted that it is the important ways to establish Korea’s uniqueness. '''These are analogous to the Japanese establishing their Emperor Jingu to be from the 2nd century and replacing their Korean pure lines while limiting access for the international community to the Korean artifacts/clothes found in the tombs. '''

You have to add this above section to show they think they are correcting Japans fabrications, etc otherwise why would they think they were superior.

Someone needs to fix this because a quick check on history of China states they are older than 2333 BC

After the independence in the late 1940s, despite the split between North and South Korea, neither side disputed the ethnic homogeneity of the Korean nation based on a firm conviction that they are purest descendant of a legendary genitor and half-god figure called Dangun who founded Gojoseon in 2333BC, making Korean the oldest civilization in the whole world based on the description of the Dongguk Tonggam (1485).

If we add this (You guys can reword it)

'This "oldest civilization in the whole world''" reference is in obvious error considering the History of China section states that the Jiahu culture, Yangshao culture and the Longshan culture of China are all older with dates ranging from 6000 to 2500 BC compared to 2333 BC Gojoseon of Dongguk Tonggam. Considering Korea doesn't believe they are the oldest civilization in the world and Asians easily finding references to Chinese civilizations dating in back to the 6000 BC time frame, how the writer of this reference stated studying archeology of Gojoseon Korea the "oldest civilation in the whole world" is questionable.'''

Anyways we have to fix these obivous contradictions --Objectiveye (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At least fix this obivous mistake of Chinese civilations which date to Jiahu, Yangshao culture and Longshan culture this is too obivous of a mistake for anyone who studied Asian history. Thanks --Objectiveye (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to lead into two more issues regarding the origin of Japanese Emperor and the Gojoseon civilization. The arguments of these contested topics aren't relevant in this article but I agree that these two hypothesis are important to shape the pure blood theory in Korea in the modern days.
 * Instead of promoting these claims, the article should focus on how it helps to sharp the blood theory.
 * My question is:
 * 1, when did the speculation on the Japanese origin raise? How it influence the pure blood theory?
 * 2, The same question for the Gojoseon issue. When and Who proposed it first and who's the notable historians on it? --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectiveye, many users have also expressed that many of these points are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Things about the Japanese Imperial family belong in the Japanese Imperial Family article. Things about historical claims belong in the Korean nationalism article. This article should solely stick to the direct topic, and its effects on Korean society. I also don't see how the above listing represents "(obvious) contradictions in the article"; they don't seem obvious, nor contradictory to me. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually they are related. We can just merge this with the nationalism in Korea article or we can correct these contradictions. No superior race will not explain why they are not subordinate. And even if Korea is 6000 years old they are still younger than China because of the 6000 BC culture would make them 8000 years old. See how this is a contradictory statement. This is highly analogous to the 600 BC or older claim in Japan. We should delete the article altogether or related to the Japanese fabricated history as well.

In either case 1. Superior race will not leave a contradictory idea of subordinate alone without explanation 2. Quick History of China search shows they have cultures dating back to 6000 BC 3. This probably shouldn't be lumped in with the Nazi era stuff, because the time period would be after WWII

We have to fix these contradictions, or this article will appear to be made by some Japanophile editor with too much time on his hands. --Objectiveye (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this I don't even...
It appears that most of this shitstorm (yes, shitstorm, it's a noun that correctly describes this current situation, see WP:NOTCENSORED) is due to the Pure blood theory in Korea section. From the AfD page, nobody is talking about the actual topic. The shitstorm is all about, and I quote, ''This data is most people claim korean histroy is 6000 years. But, this isn't true. Only some people claim 6000 years...korean people isn't claim 'making korea' of Chinese character. This's claimed to Hwandan Gogi need people.'' They aren't directing their arguments to the main topic at all, which is this whole pure-blood racial theory business. This article is about 순혈주의; it's about how mix-bloods such as Hines Ward are perceived in Korea; it's about how Koreans see themselves from a racial point of view. But that's not addressed.

So, how's this. How about we just scrap the damn Pure blood theory in Korea section, and leave everything else intact. It seems that section is the part that most of these people have issues with. I am just curious to see how the argument changes once that damn section is gone.

Just my two cents, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i think that the section about history is actually the major reason that leads many to think about korean nationalism and pure blood theory. Instead of putting it aside, we just need more "Korean prospective" and more contributions to clarify the issues. Winstonlighter (talk)


 * That section alone will cause trouble in the future, If you really want to put it in, then I suggest a short summary of it and reword it in the a neutral way. IMO, it fits more in the Korean nationalism article, which you've already put some parts there. Well that's only my opinion, it's up to you (you'll have to face an onslaught of edits wars, be prepare).--LLTimes (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Storm is because the whole section doesn't even make sense to anyone who studied East Asian history. Even if the Koreans are 6000 years old, anyone who studied E Asian history knows that is not the oldest in any means. Look at the history of China section you easily see 6000 BC cultures. You have to fix these contradictions. What is our point. re-word it to make sense. Are you trying to say Korean believe they are superior because they are the progenitors of Japanese elite, etc. --Objectiveye (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But the section is no longer existent, as I have removed it from the article, therefore the shitstorm should have precipitated out already. Why hasn't it? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Pure blood theory" in Korea
This isn't even consider a popular view in Korea. The pure-bloodness is nothing that existed a century years ago. This is mere exaggeration, with no credited evidences to back up these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut91 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that it isn't a popular view! Do you think White supremacy is a popular view? No? Then go complain on that article. The references in the article are reliable and recent! Derild  49  21  ☼  18:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This title "Pure Blood theory" is wrong, it should be rename it to "Dan-il-minjok" or "Han-minjok" aka homogeneity of single ethnic society of Korea. This is correct term rather than "Pure blood theory".--KSentry(talk) 07:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Danil minjok (단일민족/單一民族) is alright as a name I suppose, but I think it refers more to Korea's demographics rather than a social theory. However, I would be opposed to using the name Han minjok (한민족/韓民族) because it refers to Korean people as an ethnicity (similarly how Joseon minjok (조선민족/朝鮮民族) or Joseonjok (조선족/朝鮮族) in China refers to Ethnic Koreans in China), and doesn't refer to the theory in question, plus the Latin transliteration can easily be confused for 漢民族 Han Chinese. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, we should be rename the title to "Eugenic in Korea" or "Danil minjok", because Danil minjok is what most Koreans and overseas Koreans proud at, and it's based on "pure blood" or "non-mixed gene" theory.--KSentry(talk) 02:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has no relation to eugenics whatsoever. Have a good read of the eugenics article, and figure out what that word means first. And as for danil minjok, read the above. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, there is no 순혈주의 term in Korea, this is totally made up word.--KSentry(talk) 03:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What the HELL is this?
What is this racial supremecy nonsense about? This is news to me, a Korean 강승민. These are unfounded claims and I urge people to have a second look at the arguments and sources.

The Japanese occupation did suggest the two were of same lineage but to suggest the Koreans accepted this historical revisionism is pure hypocricy.

Koreans do agree on a DEGREE of homogenuity and tightly knit nation, but this pure blood and god thing is bullsh*t. There is NO pure blood myth.

Quote: In order to establish Korean uniqueness, he also replaced the story of Gija whose founder was the paternal uncle or brother of the Chinese Shang emperor Zhou with the Dangun legend[7] and asserted that it is the important ways to establish Korea’s uniqueness.[6] Dangun is just a tale to tell the children. This merely replaces one unproven myth for another. Renewed emphasis on Dangun is a kneejerk reaction to Chinese claims of Goguryo but it is not to be taken seriously. Nobody really believes that story.

Mixed races issue section is not complete. The author fails to include awareness campaigns, shift in public opinion, mixed ethinicities in mainstream music and entertainment and so on.

"most Koreans have stronger attachment to "ethnic Koreans living in foreign countries" than to "ethnic non-Koreans living in Korea" is pure fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.168 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Mixed races issue section is not complete. The author fails to include awareness campaigns..." - why don't you be WP:BOLD and complete it yourself? You can contribute, given that you can come across reliable sources. As for the pure blood theory, it was publicised during the Park Chung-hee era, and even if it isn't as popular today, you cannot say that it had never existed. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

""most Koreans have stronger attachment to "ethnic Koreans living in foreign countries" than to "ethnic non-Koreans living in Korea" is pure fantasy." - I suggest you have a look at: Plus, it is clearly a myth if it is claimed that there is no racial prejudice in Korea like you have said.  are clear examples.
 * CHOE SANG-HUN, 1 Nov 2009, South Koreans Struggle With Race, New York Times

More regarding the "pure blood" notion in Korea: The evidence from English-language sources using the words "pure", "blood" and "ethnic" in some order or form, show otherwise. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * UN panel faults Korean emphasis on homogeneity: Discrimination against foreigners found widespread - JoongAng Daily
 * Ethnic pride source of prejudice, discrimination: Blood-based ethnic national identity has hindered cultural and social diversity in Korea, experts say - Gi-Wook Shin - Director at Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center. Appeared in The Korea Herald, August 2, 2006. Stanford University.

Yeah I will get round to adding the Mixed race issues. Also, I think it's misleading to suggest links with Nazism. The discrimnatory systems are not there to discriminate against migrants, mixed races or foreginers, it's just an out of date system from times when there were only Koreans. And I feel the overall gist of the article is off, as one may get the impression this is the predominent mainstream ideology. There is a blood/ancestory thing going on with Korean people but it is not a pure blood of gods or a racial superiority thing. It is just xenophobia because they are new encounters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.168 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You cannot cite Wikipedia, as it is not a WP:RS.
 * 2) None of the original sources refer to "extremist Koreans".
 * 3) Blogs and forums are not WP:RS.
 * 4) Take it to the talkpage before doing major changes.
 * 5) There is currently no WP:CONSENSUS to remove all images from the article.
 * Quote from your edit summary: "4 pictures in an article of this length is messy." - what are you talking about? What screen resolution are you on? 640x480? Why must your computer specs hinder the browsing experiences of other people, who have 1366x768 resolution monitors? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Regarding this edit:) I don't think you understand what WP:RS is. The link you have given is a search engine query, it is not WP:RS. I'll assume good faith, and leave it be, under the assumption that you will eventually find and replace it with a valid source. A WP:RS can be a news article or official publication; it cannot be things such as search engine queries, open content websites (i.e. Wikipedia) or self-published documents (i.e. blogs and forums). --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove this article
This article is another redundant theory from "Korean nationalism" therefore I propose to remove this article. --KSentry(talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has already been through an AFD and it was kept. Derild  49  21  ☼  14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This page was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Now is a bit too soon, don't you think? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Voting finished too soon. why?--KSentry(talk) 14:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It finished a week later, how is that too soon? Derild  49  21  ☼  14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it includes all these members with negative editing history, so it's biased. Also this article contains many suspicious analysis and un-balanced views. I thought wikipedia promotes balanced views. If the voting is finished then we need another voting but keep in mind the article's reference is redundant from Korean nationalism so what's the point having extra article with all the redundant information and wrong terms?--KSentry(talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Actually it includes all these members with negative editing history, so it's biased" - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tell us another one. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow ain't that something. Derild  49  21  ☼  14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys think this is funny? wow another joke from wikipedia. If there is going to be article then article should contain correct information. Not another dodgy article with incorrect analysis and few references which doesn't even match with analysis.--KSentry(talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't get it, from the looks of things. Accusing others of being biased, after this, is pot calling the kettle black. Is it not? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop being biased, we need another round of talk whether we should keep this article or not. Looks like this was work of some Chinese wiki tacteam washup. Furthermore this article contains wrong information. I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't want to promote wrong information.--KSentry(talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Stop being biased" LOL this link never gets old, ahahaha oh wow --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh don't tell me you never played biased edition to other articles before because I've seen your edits before. --KSentry(talk) 09:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool story bro. But still, try a little bit harder. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Split
Just added a couple of things in the Mixed section, please look over it. I suggest we split this article. Now I read that it was split already from the Korean nationalism article, I feel this lumps together two similar but in the end seperate issues. There is indeed racism in Korea, as with all countries, but this article associates it with fascism. First of all, the pure blood theory is an old out of date and today very fringe ideology. There is a Korean bloodline thing but it is not about segregating or killing foreginers. It is a commonplace (and wrong) reaction throughout the world. I do not feel an article about racism is warranted for one particular country. We could add a Korea section in the main racism article perhaps. Yes, keep the pure blood theory but clearly state its position in today's society and if we need to create a seperate article for racism in Korea.

And do we really need a picture of Hitler? He is mentioned in the article, but isn't this Godwin's Law? I don't see pictures in the Korean nationalism article or in fact the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.168 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you crazy? This article needs to removed and move the content to the Korean nationalism, did you know most of information at this article comes from Korean nationalism article? and what the heck is 순혈주의? Is this even exists in Korea?--KSentry(talk) 05:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Are you crazy?" WP:ATTACK much? So all people who oppose you are mentally insane? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, Winstonelighter the Chinese, well it doesn't matter considering the article contains wrong factual info.--KSentry(talk) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Implying being Chinese means anything. You really need to find a better way to argue other than personal attacks. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @94.193.61.168: This page was not split from Korean nationalism, it was a fresh article started by User:Winstonlighter. None of the content covered here was ever present in the Korean nationalism article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Entire "Background" information are wrong
This section needs to be either remove or re-written with correct information. The idea of "Dan-il-minjok-jui" (single ethnic society) existed prior to 20th century, also Independence is nothing do with "pure blood theory", and ROK presidency did not played part in "Dan-il-minjok". This was why I've proposed to remove this article because it doesn't make any sense.--KSentry(talk) 06:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"[the] sense of ethnic homogeneity took root only in the early 20th century. Faced with imperialist encroachments, Koreans developed the notion of a unitary nation to show its autonomy and uniqueness...The need to assert the distinctiveness and purity of the Korean nation grew even more important under colonial rule, especially as Japan attempted to assimilate Koreans into their empire as "imperial subjects." The Japanese assimilation policy was based on colonial racism, which claimed that Koreans and Japanese were of common origin but the former always subordinate...Koreans resisted by asserting their unique and great national heritage. Yi Kwang-su, a key figure during colonial rule, claimed that "hyeoltong" (bloodline), "seonggyeok" (personality), and "munhwa" (culture) are three fundamental elements of a nation and that "Koreans are without a doubt a unitary nation (danil han minjok) in blood and culture." -- Gi-Wook Shin, Director at Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winstonlighter (talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify some terms used above to those who might not be familiar with Korean romanizations:
 * hyeoltong: 血統; 혈통
 * seonggyeok: 性格; 성격
 * munhwa: 文化; 문화
 * Cheers, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename Article -- drop "theory" in favor of "Ethnocentrism"
We start off with a problem in this article with the very title. The title has an improper "elevation" of importance or creditability when the term "theory" is used. True, the intro says "hypothesis" and "notion", but in the proper usage of the term "theory" we are being sloppy. A better title would be "Pure blood ethnocentrism in Korea". That way we avoid the weasel word "notion" and more accurately point the reader to the basic concern of the article -- ethnocentric thinking in Korean culture. (NOTE -- there is nothing wrong with ethnocentric thinking in any culture in and of itself. Only the extreme manifestations of such thinking have lead to problems.)  Also, by giving a culturally-centric title, we can avoid two other problems in the article. One -- we steer away from the scientific (or pseudo-scientific) debate regarding genetics. (The genetics material does not advance the "theory".) Two -- we steer away from the examples given to off-set the legitimacy of the basic premise of the article, e.g., that there is such a "pure blood theory". (By examples, I'm referring to Hines Ward and Tasha Reid.) These examples of achievement do not help explain the overall topic. Similarly, Jesse Owens had an impact during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, but he did not change anything in the overall manifestation of Nazism. Discussing Owens in the context of Nazism, Aryanism, or other such notions does not explain the topics. We should avoid such an unhelpful discussion here. With these concerns in mind, I have tagged the article for POV title and WP:UNDUE--S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make an alternative suggestion, "Korean ethnic nationalism." The bulk of this article, if not all of it, covers the subject of Korean ethnic nationalism where over the course of history a national identity exclusive to the Japanese identity and Chinese identity emerged and became dominant in competition with Japanese imperialist racism, pan-Asianism, and international communism. While I acknowledge that the concept of "pure blood" is used quite often times, such usage are made by laymen journalists who know not much of the subject matter. Ethnic nationalism is a concept that covers this subject matter fully well and in a much better context. For instance, it can properly address much of the extreme biases displayed in this article that puts Koreans at a very negative light, and replace much of them with more neutral academic material. Also, by reframing this article to Korean ethnic nationalism, it can also bring to light a more neutral historical context and the interrelated nature of emerging ethnic nationalisms in East Asia, many of which became the dominant ideology in East Asia today. Another important matter is that such reframing will open the road to interesting articles of similar nature, such as Chinese ethnic nationalism, which is all the more interesting in that while ethnic nationalism has become as dominant in China as it was in Korea after the fall of the communist ideology, unlike in Korea, an ethnically homogeneous nation(whether or not the population origin of this ethnicity was heterogeneous) is being superimposed over what is essentially multi-ethnic/multi-national state, leading to historical and political conflict. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts are well taken, but I think simple "Ethnocentrism" fits better. One, if we say "nationalism", it spills over into sK & nK nationalism (or should I say, sK verses nK). Two, the title gets wobbly -- what about Korean non-ethic nationalism? Three, if we ignore or downgrade the ethnocentric aspects of this, we are ignoring an anthropology behind the situation.--S. Rich (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ethnic nationalism encompasses the ethnocentrism of that particular group, so it'd literally mean the same thing. But here in lies redundancy of this article; Korean nationalism is basically Korean ethnic nationalism. Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? 98.203.208.151 (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, merger into Korean nationalism is the way to go. That article, hopefully, will give us a picture of Nationalism different perspectives -- patriotic, cultural, ethnic, etc. (To compare, the USA is as nationalistic as any other country, but could there be an "ethnic nationalism" for the US?) The Korean nationalism article has a "See Main" notation for this article, but given the loosey-goosey nature of this "theory", both articles need cleanup. (I've already started in the Nationalism article). Regarding the genetics, see Koreans for info on the topic.--S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As always, Cydevil, the voice of reason. "-such usage are made by laymen journalists who know not much of the subject matter." Is there any documented evidence of this pure blood theory? You know, not news articles but like college published books or something? I know our resident chinese editors have been banding together these past few months to let this farce of an article to continue, but ignoring all that, isn't the title itself pretty bogus? Akkies (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging WP:Original research by User: Historiographer
User: Historiographer added a template template:Original research. However this article is supported with substantial reliable sources. If this article is considered WP:Original research, Historiographer should explain the reason or probably more uncontroversial way to add to a relevant sentence. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a genetic analysis section?
"Contrary to the pure blood myth, all genetic studies suggested otherwise." This make it seem if this "pure blood theory" was based on previous scientific evidence, which isn't, but a stimulus to ethnic nationalism. Genetic testing itself developed to the extent of analyzing separate fragments during the 1970's. 98.203.208.151 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is the "pure blood myth"? 98.203.208.151 (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that this article is so absurd. Not all Koreans are racist and relationship with Nazism regarded as a jump of logic.--Historiographer (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * this article IS created by a chinese guy so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.69.83 (talk • contribs)
 * hurr because ad hominem is correct logic amirite? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

testNathanbenisrael (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * just telling it like it is :) the truth. i mean you ARE a chinese too so its not hard to work out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.44.176 (talk • contribs)
 * > Implying that the ethnicity of users is relevant to the topic at hand.
 * Where a contributor comes from has nothing to do with the article. Focus on the content, not the person. As per WP:PILLAR, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Also, sign your posts please. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * lolololololol dude, you being chinese has everything to do with the article. I think I've stated this before, but you guys have an unhealthy obsession with Korea and Koreans stimulated by a huge inferiority complex. Akkies (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that as "bawwwww, I can't come up with a proper logical argument, so I'm just going to whine about it, and use WP:ADHOM because I'm so special ;_;". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * lol me calling out on your bullshit doesn't even need a "proper logical argument" on my part. Simply calling a spade a spade if you will. Akkies (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why you mad though? ;_; --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...says the chinese who obviously has personal interest in said topic. That sort of indifferent attitude will come off a lot more effective if, you know, you were actually indifferent to the article. Akkies (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, a korean nationalist. I guess she's trying to say people who wrote the Holocaust article are all emotional Jews.  Or maybe credible wikipedia users are just trying to maintain wikipedia's factual accuracy?  But no, of course, everyone who points out the factual inaccuracies of korean views are either Chinese, Japanese, or wrong!!11 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ130.216.218.74 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why African American called Korean "Black" ? , i saw some Korean, their skin not black. Can someone explain please ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.49.79 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Genetic analysis
Analysis from referred weblink (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004210) doesn't concludes Koreans are affinities with South Chinese, Vietnamese so it was biased analysis from editor. Therefore I've removed this section. The idea of "pure-blood" is nothing to do with genetic analysis but superficial belief from few individuals. If we're going include full genetic analysis then there was no point of creating this article at first place. Until this days, I've never heard of 순혈주의 (純血主義) from Korea, this term is invalid therefore it can not be use to create Wikipedia article. If creator have better evidence to prove 순혈주의 is exists in North Korea or South Korea then I like to verify it first.--KSentry(talk) 14:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  (later edit)  Just to clarify to editors that it is not simply "just a weblink" as the above user implies. The reference is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. May I remind you all that while any idiot can write an online blog, and anyone with a degree in Journalism can write for a news outlet, say, the New York Times, only specific professionals, mostly those with Ph.Ds or equivalent doctorates, are able to publish such journals. I don't see the logic that User:KoreanSentry has in questioning the given reference; if you have opposing views, find a similar peer-reviewed scientific journal that justifies your view. --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait till you have WP:CONSENSUS before you go trigger happy and revert restorations. You reverted 30 seconds after posting this: who the hell is able to read it in 30 seconds, let alone engage in an in-depth discussion? You obviously misunderstood "take it to the talk page". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So is wikipedia promotes wrong information now? wow --KSentry(talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 0/10. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading through the ref, the section is fully supported by the ref! In the results section it says "the Koreans share lineages with both the southern and northern halogroup complexes of East Asia." Derild 49  21  ☼  14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get it don't you? It's actually false statement, otherwise it must be re-worded or re-written in more scientific ways. This is wikipedia not some blog article.--KSentry(talk) 05:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "otherwise it must be re-worded or re-written in more scientific ways. This is wikipedia not some blog article" - completely ignoring the fact that you have either misinterpreted, or cannot interpret (and I do question your English comprehension skills: you cannot answer even the simplest of questions that I ask you) the peer-reviewed scientific journal provided. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "You don't get it don't you? It's actually false statement..." and "Looks like this was work of some Chinese wiki tacteam washup. Furthermore this article contains wrong information." (from earlier above) - Have a good read about what a haplogroup is before making any further accusations. You seem to assume that I have know knowledge of biology or human genetics whatsoever. Have a look at my userpage. Please, could you remind me what Bachelor degree I'm currently studying? I seem to have forgotten. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I've read that report a year ago, it doesn't state anything like what described on 'genetic' section. Looks to me you didn't read the full report.--KSentry(talk) 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I personally question your English ability. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My challenge to User:KoreanSentry to end this nonsense once and for all
User:KoreanSentry, I suspect that you are incapable of reading a scientific journal. If you wish to prove otherwise, read the text, and answer the following questions within 20 minutes of logging in and reading this message: Keep in mind that the average Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Medical Science university student is able to answer these question in less than 5 minutes after briefly scanning through the text. If you are unable to do so, then I suggest you cease taking part in a discussion regarding a topic that you have completely no knowledge about. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the journal about?
 * 2) What is a haplogroup? (I will be checking for copypasta as well)
 * 3) From where are these genetic analyses obtained from? What kind of DNA?
 * 4) Regarding the analysis undertaken (as described in the journal), how were the samples obtained?
 * 5) What equipment did they use? What was their purpose within the experimentation?
 * 6) List all the subhaplogroup frequencies by percentage, as described in the journal.
 * 7) What were the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups found present in Korea? What haplogroups were not present?
 * 8) For the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups found present in Korea, where else did they appear, and in what proportions, according to the experiment?
 * 9) Briefly explain the results of the Y chromosome analyses.
 * I will also be checking for meatpuppetry and forum shopping as well, as I am aware of what you are capable of. If I deem that a particular writing style does not match your standard writing style, then gg. If you cannot prove that you personally have the competency to be able to understand a journal, then forever hold your peace. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that as personal attack, you shouldn't be be here if you you're based and unable to read scientific journal, let's face it you don't have any knowledge on genetics.--KSentry(talk) 04:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's beat a one year old dead horse, yay. I suggest you take a look at WP:COMPETENCY before making strange accusations. As for genetics, it's a part of my university degree, I'm sure I'm confident in what I'm talking about. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Studies and shared ancestry
Benlisquare, can you please tell us how these Y-chromosome studies are pertinent to the question of whether Koreans, as an ethnic group, have shared ancestry in general? Because unless all genetic studies directly address this matter, it's entirely original research to state that all genetic studies are against this notion of shared ancestry. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, not all studies conducted will come to the same conclusion. There will always be variations in genetic studies due to population sampling and whatnot, and hence one study's findings may differ from that of another. As for the wording applied within the article, the authorship was not mine but that of other editors; as you have brought the issue to my attention, I shall promptly solve the issue. The use of "all studies" is not a correct way of wording things, that I do not dispute. Henceforth, I would like to thank you for engaging in discussion, and hope that in the future, you and other editors will continue to do the same as what you have just done.


 * However, speaking of genetic studies, one study is enough to justify uncertainty towards a theory. In scientific theory and reasoning, it takes many trials to attempt to prove a hypothesis, but only one negative trial to place the entire idea in jeopardy. The data from this study is enough to show that a "pure race hypothesis" may have significant problems in justifying it's certainty. There have been a number of papers, though few, done on the subject, and I for one would be welcoming if more were done, and each come with various conclusions. This particular paper lists one conclusion obtained from a study, but there are other studies out there. If you have a particular paper in mind that goes along a different tangent, you may cite it and add an opposing point to counterbalance the one already present (e.g. "One study done in 2005 shows that ... however, a 2008 study by John, et al., proved otherwise..."); scientific reasoning is based on comparing data supporting and opposing a certain idea. And so, there is no reason for removal as earlier editors have advocated in doing; I will support your contributions if you can bring in additional citations to show the pluses and minuses of a hypothesis in a progressive, logical and scientific manner, however I will strongly oppose a simple blanking. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed the problem that I've pointed out, that the study itself is entirely irrelevant to the question of ethnic homogeneity. Again, how is this study relevant? As it seems the particular study that you've pointed out is basically arguing for the south-north migration hypothesis, which is disputed by many others. It seems to me that much of this supposed mixture had occurred prior to ethnogenesis, and Korean nationalist historiography already encompasses the notion that Koreans descended from mixture of two groups, agricultural migrants and hunter-gatherer natives. Since much of the genetic analysis section is original research with a poor understanding of the issue at hand, I will delete the section until the problem is resolved. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WOw
just came across this article by chance - how embarrassing for Koreans- Is there any real science here or is this suppose to be this bad? I will look see what i can find. Is this whole article a Myth or some odd nationalistic thing?Moxy (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 57 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure blood theory in Korea → Korean Ethnic Nationalism – Relisted Alpha Quadrant    talk    23:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The current title is in gross violation of NPOV, making constructive contributions to the subject matter very difficult and emotionally repulsive. This has lead this article to being not just being uninformative, but worse, being very biased and misleading. Much of the reliable sources, for example those of Gi-wook Shin and Peter Gries, used the concept Korean ethnic nationalism without a single mention of Pure blood theory. I propose a rename of this article to Korean ethnic nationalism, a concept that much better reflects the reliable sources, academic consensus and discourse, NPOV, and under which constructive contributions can be made by all parties. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Sounds reasonable, but should be lowercase as it is not a proper noun—Korean ethnic nationalism. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with Cydevil38 about renaming the title of the article...using a phrase like "pure blood" is redolent of Nazism, Aryan white supremacy and the Third Reich and doesn't encourage constructive edits. Sleetman (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:CENSOR. I think fan death is even more outrageous than this but Wikipedia should not euphemise titles just to spare feelings.  —  AjaxSmack   17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article denotes the belief of an ethnic theory, and so the current title does not represent any inaccuracies. I don't see how the title can be related to Nazism; the concept of "blood" is common with any ethnic theory. The article isn't centred along nationalism specifically, but rather as a result of such theories. Mind you, belief in a theory does not make it a fact; I believe having "theory" in the title is crucial, so that readers don't obtain the wrong idea and actually believe the theory to be a fact. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Actually, the measure of reliable sources use the terminology of blood and race rather than the terminology of ethnicity and nationalism. The idea of "the cleanest race" is how Brian Meyers puts it. Gi-wook Shin notes that the feeling is a "sense of nation based on shared blood and ancestry" with a heavy emphasis on "race understood as a collectivity defined by innate and immutable phenotypic and genotypic characteristics". Fundamentally, according to Shin, the Koreans see themselves as "an organic body formed out of the spirit of a people ... descended through a single pure bloodline". Pieces in the Korea times talk not of nationalism but "blood purity"; and the supposed homogeneity of Koreans (even featured in Koreans Wikipedia article) and their pride in that homogeneity is common knowledge. Park Chung-a speaks of a "Myth of Pure-Blood". Yes, the concept is quite distasteful, but Wikipedia documents all kind of concepts and should not water them down for the benefit of nationalists of any stripe. Quigley (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Korean ethnic nationalism" is too ambiguous to describe this article. However the concept is called "tanil minjok" (pure race), so the title may be more appropriate to "Pure race concept in Korea". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The terms theory, concept and hypothesis are all synonyms, and I'm fine with any of those. I also wouldn't mind if blood was replaced with race either. However, I do not believe that "Korean ethnic nationalism", as suggested by Cydevil38, adequately describes the topic. "Ethnic nationalism" sounds more like something relating along the lines with Serbians killing Croatians because they are Croatians; not only is it vague, but does not relate well to the article which is centred along the idea of racial purity and how the Koreans are a homogenous people. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, so allow me to provide a simple introduction for you. This book has sought to account for the origins and politics of Korean ethnic nationalism in the twentieth century. Ethnic nationalism, here, has meant that which involves emphases on descent and race, that is, on biology. As such, it can also be called racial nationalism. .. Nation, I argue, is a social and historical construction, not an eternal or natural one. As such, nation or national identity is in flux - constantly challenged, contested, reformulated, and transformed. from Ethnic Nationalism in Korea by Gi-wook Shin. The Korean term you use to describe this subject matter, danilminjok, can be more accurately described as "one nation" or "one ethnicity". A more appropriate term for race is injong. As for pure blood theory, which this article describes as soonhyuljooeui(순혈주의) in Korean, is even more ambiguous as the word is more frequently used as group/organizational exclusivity in Korea, rather than this so-called "pure blood theory". As such, if this "pure blood theory in Korea" is to be used, it would require a disambiguation page. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "theory" should not be part of the name of the article. (But "hypothesis" might work). As opposed to some colloquial uses uf the word theory, it implies that we are dealing with a scientific concept, not simply an assumption. The scientific pretentions, conveyed by "theory", may make the concept more difficult to deal with in an NPOV and encyclopedic manner. The title should imply that this concept is an assumption or (at most) a hypothesis. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, I fully support moving Pure blood theory in Korea to Korean Ethnic Nationalism, there's no for doubling up and there's no such soonhyuljooeui(순혈주의) in Korean word, It's should be corrected with Danilminjok, benlisquare have never visited Korea so he doesn't know.--KSentry(talk) 04:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current title may not be ideal but Korean ethnic nationalism does not accurately reflect the core content of the article.  Also, we could consider merging this article with Korean nationalism. I think the two are better left separate but at least some of the content not directly related to this topic could be moved there.  —  AjaxSmack   17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Good grief.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Ethnic nationalism is a widely researched concept, whereas as pure blood hypothesis is an offensive neologism created by some Wikipedia editors. Most of the reliable sources cited here are about ethnic nationalism, not pure blood hypothesis.If framed in the concept of Korean ethnic nationalism, this article can be worked to deal with the subject matter from a neutral point of view and scientific understanding. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Don't double-!vote. A nom also counts as a !vote, and is misleading for others. Refactored to reflect this. Never mind. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not always true that a nomination equals support. I have nominated several moves simply to try and establish a consensus while not necessarily supporting a new name.  On the flipside, does it really hurt to show support for ones own nom?  —  AjaxSmack   15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: The fact that this isn't a school of thought, or an area of study, or a class you can take at your local college, while 'Korean ethnic nationalism' is something actually tangible and not completely made up by user:Winstonlighter. Kuebie (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that there is no such thing as 순혈주의/純血主義 in the Korean lexicon. Kuebie (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kilo T 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)



Choosing a title

 * I'm reading the above discussion, and it's hard to see any kind of consensus, or clear solution. The current title is very bad from at least one perspective, and not necessarily ideal from any perspective. The proposed alternative is liked by some, but according to others, "is too ambiguous to describe this article," and "does not accurately reflect the core content of the article". That doesn't give us any very appealing choices, so what else is there? Can we brainstorm a handful of name alternatives, and see what people think? Perhaps an RfC would be in order? What is our way forward from here? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What this article needs is either some more attention from neutral editors to settle the dispute, or we can go along with the proponents of the "pure blood theory" idea, and treat "pure blood theory" and "Korean ethnic nationalism" as separate concepts, which should also mean that books that mainly deal with Korean ethnic nationalism should not be cited as they do not support the overall contents of this article. What Shin's and Grie's works deal with is a form of nationalism that is quite common in the world, and they try to analyze how this particular ethnic nationalism is given form. As for Myer's, his book particularly focuses on how ethnic nationalism turned out in North Korea, which took a more extreme form than in South Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that some of this article might be split into a separate article on Korean ethnic nationalism? And then this one could focuses on the specific meaning of the phrase "pure blood theory" intended by users of that term? Am I understanding you correctly? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just left notes on the talk page of all three WikiProjects with banners on this talk page. Perhaps we'll get more input that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subject matter of the reliable sources
I think some of the editors here have a very poor understanding of the subject matter that the three most often referenced reliable sources, the works by Myers, Shin and Gries, in this article deal with. The subject matter for all these authors are nationalism. Ethnic homogeneity is one of the essential features of ethnic nationalism, and this so-called "pure blood theory" is a poor neologism that some editors came up with to describe this feature. There is rarely any mention of this neologism in the academia, and if it is, it's framed within the concept of ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism, ethnic homogeneity, and the arguments for and against them in the framework of historiography are common around the world, and the topic is dealt with extensively on the Wikipedia. The neologism pure blood theory is a poor description of this concept that takes the subject matter out of the conceptual framework under which most reliable sources are framed in. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Interwikis and Intention
It is interesting that Winstonlighter created the following interwikis connected to this disputable document: es:Teoría de la sangre pura en Corea, fr:Théorie du sang pur en Corée, vi:Chủ nghĩa huyết trong Triều Tiên, zh:朝鮮純血主義 for a short period. What is your purpose to create this kind of documents around various interwikis? Were you willing to describe or advtertize disadvantages in Korea?

Also, @Winstonlighter: I don't think Pure blood theory(純血主義) is the unique term used in Korea. This theory is also a controversy in China. Again, there is also a strong "pure blood theory " in China. You had to create Pure blood theory first then deal with the theory in the other countries, leading to be regionally unbiased. Then you can also create a branch doc like 中国的純血主義 (Pure blood theory in China) because you are well aware of Chinese and you are much interested in the theory according to my investigation of your edits. --Ykhwong (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to? Winstonlighter has been inactive at this page for months now. You might as well be talking to the wind. You should head for his talk page if you want to talk to him. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already asked him to read this section on his user discussion page. Ykhwong (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to get back late. I think that the Chinese nationalism is based on the sense of humiliation and glory rather than the pure ethnicity. (see Pure-blood Chinese Han ethnicity vanishes on the China Communist's mouthpiece.~
 * This is the first article I wrote for wikipedia and I think you can say that I wanted my article to be found in different wikis. You will make fool of yourself by assuming a bad faith on it. This makes me think of a guy who has tried to suppress the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in the Chinese wikipedia. Wikipedia should hold a neutral position on judging whether an article is negative and positive, it only must be neutral. --Winstonlighter (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Original research claim
Despite the original research tag in the main article, there is no phrases tagged as original research in the article and no discussions regarding original research in the talk page. Therefore I remove the original research tag from the main article. Hkwon (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

infobox
I've kept saying 순혈주의 is an invented term but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. I'll be removing it, unless someone has some sort of empirical evidence to its existence and usage. Kuebie (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

counterarguments for a nonexisting argument
It's an ideology, a concept. Not based on pseudoscience or something. Kuebie (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Kuebie
Kuebie, you seem to have a variety of concerns about this article, and you are removing a lot of information for various reasons. As this is a controversial topic, please discuss your proposed changes here before implementing them. Quigley (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. I've just been on a month break and someone seemed to add back in information that you apparently had no objection to. Simple really. Kuebie (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You came back from a 1-month block for edit-warring on this very article. Hasn't this taught you not to repeat aggressive unilateral changes on this page? Quigley (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check my block log, I came back from an actual vacation. By the way, the current version was pretty multilateral I think, as in this version pretty much stayed up for 2 months. Kuebie (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest removal of this information other than by you just now was also done without discussion. It was rightly restored to the stable version, and the restorer kindly left a note about it here, noting then what I'm noting now about discussion. Now that you can't say you haven't seen the past notice, would you please revert yourself and discuss your concerns? Quigley (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hkwon made superficial edits building upon an ip's ninja edit . I don't have problems with Hkwon since I know he's a good editor, that's not the point. You're just making it look like I'm going against some sort of consensus. Kuebie (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are going against consensus. The AfD was closed as a resounding 'keep', contrary to your and the nominator's contention that the subject or its parts does not exist and is a 'thesis statement' (one of your revert rationales). Against a consensus of editors that attest to the viability of this topic, and keeping in mind the edit wars on this page (which you are involved in), proposing your changes on the talk page before making them is really a commonsense thing to do. Quigley (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. The RM was for a name change. The content stayed the same, for a very a long. And that's pretty the definition of 'stable'. Kuebie (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the failed AfD, but the failed RM also verifies a consensus against your contention that this article is synthesis. I don't know what sections of the article you're talking about, but there have been constant removals and readditions of similar content since the article was created. You definitely should start a discussion if you want a basis for making the hard-and-fast reversions that you did. Quigley (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All I did was removed a bit of previously removed content. Activity in this article was pretty stable since then, what's the problem now? Kuebie (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was obviously not stable if the latest removal of the perennially-disputed content didn't last two months. You offered no new rationale beyond the "everything is synthesis" argument that was rejected at the AfD and RM, so your reverts were unjustified (not to mention tendentious). Quigley (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits have noting to do of the name change and the deletion request. God. I only threw out stable since you said the version with the genetics/counter argument section was the stable version. The part you think is 'stable' and consensus built went the way of the dodo after Cydevil38's extensive rewrite. Kuebie (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your rationales do, since you are crying 'synthesis', which was a key point that was refuted in the AfD and RM. Also, this whole issue is about your reverting to Cydevil38's unilateral changes, which are based on the same anticonsensus arguments that you are basing your reverts on. Quigley (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned 'synthesis' because none of the categories direct refers to article. Again, my revert has nothing to do with the the afd or rm. Kuebie (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any new arguments or rationales aside from the ones you mentioned in your edit summaries, you should have started a discussion with them. Some of your four recent revert rationales have no policy-based rationale at all: this one also seems to condescend to (and by the blanking, deny the existence and concerns of) mixed-race people. Given the sensitive subject matter, some mixed-race people could be editing this article and feel personally attacked. Nationalistic edit summaries are already disruptive to the point of meriting blocks; crossing the line into ethnic nationalism and then into racism is even more serious. Quigley (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My edits weren't racist or nationalist. It was damage control of 212.183.128.45. That's all. It's just funny how all of a sudden you have a problem now. I know you created the article and all, but a lot of people have been trying to rewrite it in a more neutral tone. see WP:NOTYOURS Kuebie (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not funny; not everybody can (or wants to) respond to every edit made to an article they're interested in at the very moment that the change is made. Sometimes things take time. The fact that an edit stayed a few weeks without comment doesn't change the fact that it was made against the repeated agreement of the editors of this controversial article, and blanked content for an invalid reason. You are familiar with the page history of this article, and you know that I didn't write the material that you removed, so don't insinuate that I am protecting the content out of possessiveness. Quigley (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I took a month break, saw 212.183.128.45 unexplained readdition of contentious content, and proceeded to revert. Kuebie (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The removal of the content, both before and after 212.183.128.45 and Hkwon's restoral, was and is more contentious (due to the consensus against synthesis) than its presence, which is consensual. Anyhow, 212.183.128.45's bad behavior doesn't excuse your bad behavior; at least 212.183.128.45 didn't make four consecutive reverts (and is refusing to self-revert to discuss). Quigley (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And what a coincidence; KoreanSentry just shows up here now after a month of inactivity, to make contentious blanking edits, just like you. Quigley (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading title
The title of the article is misleading and there's no Pure Blood theory in Korea, this article is not written in neutral pov and also, in Korea there's Dan-il-minjok theory it's mono-culture or homogeneous ethnic nationalistic pride nothing d with pure blood because technically there's no such pure blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This contention has been repeatedly discussed (and rejected): see AfD, RM, and Kuebie's move-warring. It is verifiable, even if you do not think it true. Quigley (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)