Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism/Archive 2

Call for expert opinion?
Is there a reason not to call for an expert opinion on this article? I'm asking for a very particular reason. Before I saw it mentioned at WP:AIV, I was unaware of the existence of the article, but on a first read, it doesn't seem well-balanced or neutral. Now, given the discussions that have already taken place, I'm not about to try re-opening cans of worms that have already been opened and re-sealed ad nauseam. However, I have had success in the past with the use of the maintenance tag, and while it hasn't (for me) resulted in moving an article to WP:GA or WP:FAC status, it's certainly helped settle what could have been a very ugly word-war. So, I'll ask the question again: is there a reason not to call for an expert opinion on this article? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The main objection was to OR, POV-title, etc. If you don't think this article is neutral, then please point to specific phrases or problems that can be addressed by editors. As for expert, I don't think that template is particularly useful because all articles could use the attention of experts, and because an expert's attention is better sought at the relevant WikiProjects or somewhere other than by an obnoxious banner on the top of an article with very few views. Quigley (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Tanil minjok," "pure blood," "nationalism," and the topic of this wiki
Hi there! Though I usually edit articles on Chinese history, I've recently become interested in analyzing and trying to mediate disputes in Korea-related articles. (Yeah, I know :). And no, I'm not an admin.) As I've argued in many other places, the best way to resolve content conflict is to see how reliable English-language sources (RS) have named and discussed a particular topic. Once we find a wide array of RS to rely on, we get a verifiable page that respects WP:NPOV and is free of original research.

I see that the name of this article has been contentious. Many editors have protested that there is no Korean word for "pure-blood theory" (or pure-blood-ism). They have also requested a move to "Korean ethnic nationalism," but the request failed because no consensus was reached. And the last 24 edits on this page have been reverts or reverts or reverts, most of which are about the title. I realize that these are sensitive issues, so let me just say that I'm not doing this to support any POV, any "side," or any individual editor, but to implement Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, V, WP:RS) as best I can in order to remove controversy and get back to constructive editing (you can view my article-space edit history to see what I'm talking about). This is a very long post, but I think only a thorough analysis can lead to a new solution. Please stay open-minded all along, folks! Here's what I got:

"Pure-blood theory" vs. "tanil minjok"
The first line of WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA (within WP:Naming) states that "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." A Google Books search for "Korea" and "pure-blood theory" yields only three results: two are from books that mirror this wiki page, and one happens to mention Korea on the same page as "the racist 'pure-blood' theory of Nazi Germany." I also got no results for "sunhyŏl chuŭi," "sunhyŏlchuŭi," "sunhyeoljuui," and "sunhyeol juui." (I got these Romanizations from the infobox. Correct me if I used the wrong forms.) This lack of results suggests that the concept of "pure-blood theory" in Korea has not been discussed explicitly in English-language scholarship. In other words, I don't think the current title is directly supported by reliable sources. (I do know this is not the only possibility allowed by WP:Naming, so bear with me.)
 * [Note: because all these terms are completely absent from reliable sources, I deleted the unverifiable infobox that claimed to explain the Korean name of this topic. Madalibi (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)]

This is not over, of course, because, as the creators of this page have demonstrated, many sources show that there is a discourse of "blood," "race," and "purity" in modern Korea. '''This topic exists and it is clearly notable. All we have to do is figure out how it is discussed in a wide selection of reliable sources.' The lede gives us a clue: tanil minjok (or danil minjok'').

A search for "tanil minjok" on Google Books shows that this concept is widely discussed in English-language scholarly works, which should be our main reliable sources. (There are also a few results for "danil minjok".) A number of different translations are proposed for "tanil/danil minjok." From the two Google Books searches, I found 14 different translations from 19 different sources: "one nation" (4 times), "single people" (2), and "homogeneous nation" (2), as well as one (1) instance each of "unitary people," "the single ethnic nation," "unitary nation," "homogeneous single-nation," "pure race," "single race," "the unity of the Korean people," "homogeneous community," "single ethnic group," "a single, homogeneous ethnic people" (this is an explanatory paraphrase more than an translation), and "one people, one blood". (I'm not counting one instance of "Korean ethno-nationalism" for tanil minjok chŏngsin[?], and one German source that says "homogenen Volkes.") "Nation" is used 9 times (including one instance of "ethnic nation"), "people" 6 times, "race" twice (2); "community," "ethnic group," and "blood" occur once (1) each. The qualifiers are: "single" (6), "homogeneous" (5), "one" (5), "unitary" or "unity" (3), and "pure" (1). The word "ethnic" also occurs three (3) times.

In light of this sample, it seems that our lede has a problem. 1) Because "pure race" and "the single ethnic nation" (both cited in the lede) are only 2 of 14 available translations, there seems to be no reason to single them out for inclusion, and they cannot in and of themselves justify the wiki's title. 2) Since "pure" and "blood" are only used once each in the 14 translations I found, reliable sources do not seem to support equating "pure-blood" with "tanil minjok" as the lede does. In other words, the claim that "tanil minjok" is the direct Korean equivalent for "pure-blood theory" is not verifiable.

What I'm saying is that the title should be improved. This all depends on what the article is about. Here we have two choices:
 * 1) The article is *not* about tanil minjok after all. This means we need to remove the equation of "tanil minjok" with "pure-blood theory" from the lede, and better explain what the topic is. Then maybe we can write a new wiki somewhere on the phenomenon of tanil minjok.
 * 2) The article *is* about the phenomenon of tanil minjok in modern Korea. Because so many of our inline references discuss that concept explicitly (e.g.: note 2 [cited 4 times in the wiki] and note 5 [cited 9 times]), I think this option is obviously better. Many editors who have argued against deletion and against a requested a move to "Korean ethnic nationalism" have also agreed that tanil minjok was at the core of this topic, so option 2 shouldn't be controversial.

However, if we choose option 2, I think I've presented enough material to show that reliable sources do not strongly support the title "pure-blood theory" as an equivalent for "tanil minjok." Titles like "discourse on ethnic purity," "unitary-nation theory," or "perception of national homogeneity" would be equally valid, and perhaps less controversial. I also don't think "theory" is the right word, since "tanil minjok" is more like a cultural belief or an identity concept than an actual theory. If we use "theory" as an equivalent of "idea" or "notion," then we don't really mean theory. And if we use "theory" only to point out that this conception is factually wrong, we're using the wrong word (see Scientific theory or Evolution as theory and fact). Not to mention that our sources do not discuss this topic as a "theory," but as an "idea," a "concept," a "perception," a "myth," etc.

In light of the above analysis, would editors who have defended "pure-blood theory" agree to find a better title? Instead of settling for one of the 14 renderings of tanil minjok that I found, I propose to find a broad label that represents the "tanil minjok" phenomenon. We would then explain that this concept has been translated in a number of different ways. I think tanil minjok should belong under "Korean ethnic nationalism." I know editors have already discussed this issue, so once again bear with me for a moment.

Analysis of the sources
The strongest argument that can be made for a title is that it is supported by reliable sources (per WP:Naming). Quigley has made such an argument. As he (or she) put 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".

These are strong points that deserve to be examined. Note first that the title of Shin's book is Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: genealogy, politics, and legacy. All but one of the sources cited in support for "pure blood" actually support "nationalism."
 * The first sentence Quigley cites comes from the book jacket. The complete sentence reads: "This book explains the roots, politics, and legacy of Korean ethnic nationalism, which is based on the sense of nation based on shared blood and ancestry." Far from supporting "pure-blood theory," Shin's book seems to support adopting "Korean ethnic nationalism" as our title.
 * The second sentence as a whole is this: "Although race is understood as a collectivity defined by innate and immutable phenotypic and genotypic characteristics and ethnicity is generally regarded as a cultural phenomenon based on a common language and history, Koreans have not historically distinguished between the two. Instead, race has served as a marker that strengthened ethnic identity, which in turn was instrumental in defining the nation." Once again Shin is not discussing blood per se, but the issue of identity, under which he makes comments concerning the racial conceptions of Koreans.
 * There's no Google Books sample for the third citation, only a snippet: "... view of nation in Choson sangosa as an 'organic body' formed out of the spirit of a people... descended through a single pure bloodline." Once again, Shin mentions blood in the broader context of national conceptions.
 * This piece in the Korea Times mentions neither nationalism nor blood
 * This other one is centered on the notion of "blood purity" because many foreigners have considered it offensive.
 * Park Chung-a's piece in the Korea Times doesn't speak of the "myth of pure-blood," but of the "myth of pure-blood nationalism," where "pure-blood" is only a modifier for the main noun "nationalism."

Same thing with our other sources: Well, these are our most cited sources, and if you've had the patience to read all of this, you will probably agree that the central topic of the overwhelming majority of these sources is "ethnic nationalism." Race-based and blood-based notions are of course present, but under the broader theme of "nationalism."
 * Our most cited reference (note 5, cited 9 times) is an article by Shin Gi-wook (author of Ethnic Nationalism in Korea) that is titled: "Ethnic pride source of prejudice, discrimination: Blood-based ethnic national identity has hindered cultural and social diversity in Korea, experts say". Once again "blood-based" is a modifier for "ethnic national identity," which is the main noun.
 * "The Koguryo Controversy, National Identity, and Sino-Korean Relations Today" (note 8), is cited 5 times. It doesn't mention "blood" once, but speaks of "nationalism" throughout.
 * Note 22 (cited 4 times) is titled "Korea: How Much Should One Ethnicity be Emphasized?" Somehow, I can't access it from here, but the title says "ethnicity."
 * Note 2 (cited 4 times) is a review of Bryan Myers' The Cleanest Race. Among other things that review says, "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is not the last bastion of Marxist Leninism or of Confucian patriarchy, as it is often characterized. Rather, it's guided by a paranoid ideology of race-based nationalism, he says, holding that the Korean people are inherently purer than all others." Or: "Myers argued.... that the nation's race-based ideology has its roots in Japanese fascism." About the nation again, though these conceptions are characterized as "race-based." In any case, Myers is about North Korea, so I don't think he can be used to define our entire topic.

Searches on Google Books show that "ethnic nationalism" in Korea has been studied extensively: The exact phrase "Korean ethnic nationalism" even gets 60 hits.
 * "Pure-blood" + Korea: 390 results
 * "Ethnic nationalism" + Korea: 2,220 results

Some editors have objected that "ethnic nationalism" evokes Serbian massacres and the like. But to cite the first lines of ethnic nationalism:
 * Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations and the implied claim of ethnic essentialism, i.e. the understanding of ethnicity as an essence that remains unchanged over time.
 * The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "..nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry." Etc.

This sounds very close to the topic we're discussing! Of course the lede and the body of the article will need to discuss the specificities of "Korean ethnic nationalism": ethnic pride, myth of purity, centrality of "blood," etc. For that, we should defer to our reliable sources.

Summary of arguments; proposal
My main points have been that: So yes, I'm trying to develop a new consensus for moving this page to "Korean ethnic nationalism." The advantages of such a move are: Good day! Madalibi (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of a conception of "pure blood" and "ethnic homogeneity" in Korea is both notable and verifiable; this phenomenon deserves to be discussed on Wikipedia in whatever terms reliable sources write about it.
 * Per WP:Naming, we should name this article after the way this topic has been discussed in reliable sources.
 * Editors have agreed that "tanil minjok" is at the core of this topic.
 * As a translation, "pure-blood theory" (or just "pure blood") cannot be presented as an equivalent of "tanil minjok," because 14 different translations of that concept have been proposed. These translations mostly use "nation" and "people" as nouns, and "single," "homogeneous," "one," or "unitary" as modifiers.
 * "Pure blood" is only a sub-theme (a very important one) within a broader topic. Reliable sources discuss these blood-based conceptions under the broader label of "ethnic nationalism" or "nationalism." My claim is based on a thorough analysis of the sources cited in the article.
 * "Korean ethnic nationalism" is a good umbrella term, because it corresponds to the language used in our sources ("Korean nationalism," "ethnic nationalism in Korea," "Korean ethnic identity," and the like). I'm ready to accept a better term if other editors can propose one and show that it is central in our sources.
 * 1) Staying close to how reliable sources characterize this topic, which is at the core of WP's policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:Naming.
 * 2) Making it clear that there is no direct Korean word for "pure-blood theory" (as the infobox misleadingly implies).
 * 3) Making it clear that there is nonetheless an omnipresent discourse of blood, purity, race, etc. in modern Korea, that it has caused social problems, that it is an ideology rather than a fact, etc.
 * 4) Ending the endless cycle of reverts and counter-reverts that's been plaguing this page for so long.

The issue of "original research"
Hi again. I see that some editors have protested that substantial parts of this article constitute either original research or synthesis. The AfD has demonstrated without a doubt that this topic is both notable and verifiable in reliable sources, but doubts remain about particular sections, especially the one that is called "Evidences against the pure blood theory." Some editors have blanked that entire section many times, claiming that it was "OR" or "POV," but their edits were reverted by editors who (quite rightfully!) asked for more explanations. It's been a while since people last brought new arguments or fresh ideas to the table. Here are some.

The editor who opened this section and later renamed it "Evidences against the pure blood theory" did it in good faith and in the name of principles I personally support. I don't believe in pure Korean (or Han, or Yamato) "blood," and as a historian I find all these discourses on "purity" spectacularly naive, but as a Wikipedia editor my duty is to build an encyclopedia that neutrally represents what reliable sources have said about these topics. One of the keys to our work is to use sources that discuss our topic directly. I therefore have to agree with some concerned editors that the section called "Evidences against the pure blood theory" constitutes "original research." Here's why, sub-section by sub-section.

"Historical analysis"
The sentences on Japanese and Manchu invasions and on Koryo kings' marrying Mongol princesses are unsourced, and they seem to be an editor's attempt to refute the "pure-blood system." Unless we find sources that explicitly discuss the link between these historical events and the modern Korean discourse of ethnic purity, these sentences should be seen as WP:OR. Same thing about the discussion of a Korean swear word.

The scholarly sources I've consulted make it clear that "pure-blood theory" or "Korean ethnic nationalism" (whatever you call it) emerged in the early 20th century. These sources discuss the past to trace the origin of these modern conceptions, not to disprove the belief in blood purity. We should summarize what reliable sources have said about that belief, not try to refute it. If we try to refute it with data of our own choosing, sooner or later other editors will argue that we also need a section called "Evidence for blood purity" to present data that supports the belief. We would end up with a mess of rival syntheses and of course with an edit war.

"Genetic analysis"
The opening phrase ("Contrary to the pure blood myth...") suggests that this is once again an attempt at refutation. The abstract of the article cited suggests no link to the issue of blood or identity. Genetic studies of that sort are done all over the world. As far as I know they rarely try to discuss the issue of national identity. The conclusions of this article on genetics belong in Koreans, not here. Otherwise someone will inevitably come up with counter data to try to prove the relative homogeneity of the Korean gene pool. If we really want to talk about genetics, we should do so in a balanced way that presents both sides of the equation. I suggest we stick to what reliable sources talking about "blood purity" have said about genetics. If there are no such sources, genetics should be left aside.

"Recent trends towards international marriage"
As far as I can tell, the sources cited do not mention the issue of Korean ethnic identity. There are international marriages: so what? On the basis of this data, someone believing in Korean purity could argue that "until recently there were no international marriages, therefore the Korean people is genetically pure." It's not our job to use external data to make points about the topic at hand. If reliable sources don't use stats on international marriages to make a point about ethnic identity or blood purity, then we shouldn't discuss international marriages.

Vague unsourced claims like "Recently it has been argued that South Korean society had already become a multicultural society" should go no matter what, because "it has been argued" is typical WP:weasel.

Conclusion
A section titled "Evidence against..." invites a section called "Evidence for..." That would lead to a mess of mixed claims by individual editors, which is not what Wikipedia should be about. Instead of trying to prove or refute Korean claims about ethnic purity, we should explain how they've been discussed in reliable sources. Finding a more neutral title for our section is no solution, because all the content is presented as "evidence against." More neutral wording inside the section would also be insufficient, because this section cites no reliable source that makes an explicit link between the data presented and the issue of "pure blood" or "ethnic nationalism" (and I mean these not as exact labels, but as the names of broad topics that can be referred to in lots of different ways).

For those who worry that "blood purity" will be presented as fact, don't worry! There are plenty of reliable sources that will make it clear that the belief in Korean blood purity is not a scientific claim. "Blood purity" is a conception that shapes the identity of many Koreans. This conception has effects in real life (including xenophobia, which is already discussed in a well-referenced section). Once again, reliable sources will take care of all that.

Anyway, I think I've made a fairly strong case for deleting the section on "Evidences against..." because it constitutes original research. What do other editors think? (I know who will support deletion, so I'd particularly like to hear from editors who have so far protected this section from blanking.) Cheers to all! Madalibi (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The crux of the issue is a want of reliable sources that '[make] an explicit link between the data presented and the issue of "pure blood" or "ethnic nationalism"', as you say. It's a difficult standard for every statement made in this article. Technically you're right in that in the article's current state, those sections could be wikilawyered out of existence, and this would force its protectors to find better sources and rewrite it to a severely policy-compliant standard. I would not (and could not) prevent such a good thing for Wikipedia in the long run from happening.


 * As a side note, I really enjoy seeing an editor with your credentials putting effort into mediating disputes in an area dominated by nationalistic amateur historians. However, I have some misgivings that in this case, in contrast to your work on Joseon Dynasty, you have given those who would want to delete or stunt this article all the policy-based tools they need to do so, while giving those who would want to grow and improve this article few of the reference-based tools they need to do so. Quigley (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Quigley, and thank you for your generous response. I understand your concerns. Actually, I had them in mind when I wrote my comments, but I came to a different conclusion. Far from giving potential opponents policy-based tools to "delete or stunt this article," I think I've argued beyond all doubt that this topic (I call it "Korean ethnic nationalism") is found in such a wide array of reliable sources that it cannot possibly be deleted. And with the name I propose, the topic itself (and everything it says about blood-based conceptions of the Korean nation) cannot conceivably be called "original research." But that also means ruthlessly removing all the original research from the current text, otherwise that wouldn't be fair. As for stunting, yes, it would suck if some editors used my comments to say "see, I told you" when it suits them, and then oppose other policy-compliant edits simply because they find these edits disagreeable. But in my experience, I've found that neutrally-worded RS-based edits are easy to defend, even on controversial topics. Even emotionally involved editors tend to leave such passages alone. I think it's because they, too, agree in good faith that these passages represent reliable sources fairly.
 * Some time ago, I also proposed extensive deletions on a page because I found that the sources did not support the claims made in the text (see Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_7). After everything was deleted, I rewrote a well-referenced paragraph to replace it. This paragraph is still standing untouched after almost three years (see Genocides_in_history). I'm doing the same here. I'm starting by arguing against "OR" as strictly as possible, but my long-term purpose is to write a well-referenced text that will stand the test of time and will help readers to understand what the best sources have said about this topic. In that spirit, I'm preparing a list of sources that will allow interested editors to add lots of content to this article if they want to. I will be happy to share it when it's ready. So be optimistic, and keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources on this (or any other) topic
Quigley's comment above reminded me that it's not always easy to find reliable sources on the topics we're editing. The simplest and quickest way to find reliable info on a topic is to search free sites like Google Books (link) or Google Scholar (link). More advanced searching tools are available at http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search.

Here are examples of basic searches on Google Books (the environment is in Chinese because I live in China; try the searches on your own to get the language of the country you live in):


 * "pure bloodline" Korea: 14 hits
 * "tanil minjok": 30 hits

Adding quotation marks means that you're searching for that exact phrase. The more specific your search, the fewer hits you get:
 * Korean ethnic nationalism: 24,600 results
 * Korean "ethnic nationalism": 2380 results
 * "Korean ethnic nationalism": 64 results

Once you find a book you like, you can either read whatever parts of it are available, or do a keyword search for a particular topic you're interested in referencing. Let's take a look at Andre Schmid's book Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919. If you reach this book by linking from a search, you will already be inside the book, but if you're starting from the infopage, you can browse the book by clicking on the picture of the cover. As you scroll down Schmid's book, you'll find the "Table of contents" (important to see how an author structures a topic), the "Acknowledgments," the "Introduction," etc. In this particular book, pp. 2 to 84 are not available, so you jump straight from page 1 to page 85.

Instead of reading from cover to cover, you can also search a book for the information you need. This method is amazingly efficient. Just type the word or phrase you want to find in the box under the book cover on the left. Remember that "ethnic nationalism" will only find that exact phrase (in this case, no hits), whereas "ethnic nationalism" without quotation marks will find pages that mention both words anywhere on the page (5 hits). Be careful with spelling: there's only one hit for "Tangun," but 49 for "Tan'gun"! Unlike pdf searches where you can find all instances of "nationalism" and "nationalist" by searching for "nationalis" [sic], on Google Books "nationalis" will get you nothing. Great thing: keyword searches will find hits on pages that are otherwise not available for reading. All you get is a snippet, but it's often enough to get the citation you need.

I added a list of further readings to the end of our wiki. All titles have a link to Google Books, so you can do the searches yourselves. I hope these tools will help serious editors to find the info they need to improve and develop this page further! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazis
There are two mentions of the Nazis in the current version. The lede says that Japanese "launched a Nazism-inspired campaign" to convince Koreans that they were of the same racial stock as the Japanese, and the sub-section called "Early use" explains in more detail that the Japanese idea of pure race was inspired by the "hypothesis of Aryan race" that was later adopted by the Nazis.

No matter what we think of Korean claims of a "pure bloodline" and the like, allegations of ties to Nazism are serious. Our integrity as editors demands that we find support for these claims, or just delete them. I tried very hard to see if reliable sources could support this claim, but I failed. The most I found was that Korean nationalism was inspired by "Japanese fascism," and that after WWII race-based nationalism was discredited in Japan because it was tied to ultranationalism, and in Germany because it was tied to Nazism. I plan to integrate these quotations into this wiki eventually, but this is not the point of this section.

For now, I'm going to delete the existing mentions of Nazism because they're supported neither by the sources cited, nor by any of the sources I consulted. The sentence on Nazism in the section on "Early use" cites a work dated 1907 that has nothing to do with Korea. Primary sources can't be used like that. To support the phrase "Nazism-inspired," the lede cites Myers's book The Cleanest Race and a review of that book. Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't let you search that book. The review doesn't mention Nazism. In the spirit of WP:PROVEIT, if an editor has access to the book and can cite a passage from it that explicitly ties Korean ethnic conceptions to Nazism, please do so before reinserting that phrase. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Though this might be unrelated to what you're describing and I might be off by a few tangents, but wasn't it the case that during the height of Nazism, Korea did not exist as a nation? Back then Korea was a part of Japan, and many foreign countries considered Koreans to be Japanese; the Japanese' own governmental policy was to assimilate and integrate Koreans as "subjects of the Emperor". Having a look at the Honorary Aryan article, it did note that Hitler granted "Aryan" status to the Japanese, who were obviously not of Aryan stock; given the geopolitical situation at the time, this might have had some relevance to Koreans as well. Not that I'm arguing against what you have said; I've nothing to WP:PROVEIT, it's just something that you might or might not want to take into account whilst checking the sources. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 11:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi 李博杰. Yes, good point. During the height of Nazism, Korea was indeed part of the Japanese Empire. And it's precisely when Korea was under Japanese rule that ethnic nationalism matured there around the Japanese notion of minzoku 民族 (= minjok = minzu). Fascinating stuff. I don't know if Koreans were included under the label "Aryans of the East." The well-referenced claim in Honorary Aryans that "The distinction also supported the Japanese belief that they were superior to other Asians" suggests that they were not, but I haven't analyzed this notion in any detail, so I don't know. In any case, thank you for your suggestion! If we can find a source that discusses Koreans as "Honorary Aryans," we might have an interesting addition to this article. Madalibi (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you people something, if you say Korea was part of Japan, does that mean Korea doesn't have a culture of their own, their own written language, and their own independent history, before the Japanese occupied them by force? Answer the question specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanidentity10000 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A new lede for discussion
Hi everybody. I decided to be WP:BOLD and wrote a whole new lede for our wiki. It is divided into four paragraphs: 1) Definition and basic concepts; 2) historical origin and use until 1945; 3) significance from 1945 to today; 4) contemporary social issues. There are also lots of wikilinks to important concepts. I think this version is better referenced and more balanced than the former one, but it's certainly not perfect. If you agree to take it as a working draft (and you can certainly disagree), could we talk about remaining issues here? Do you think anything is missing? Are some parts of this topic over-emphasized? Is anything unclear or misplaced? Did I delete important information that I should have left in? Is the title all right? Are the "POV" and "expert" templates still necessary? What's next? (Or anything else you can think of.) Looking forward to hearing your comments! Madalibi (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Move page?
I argued above that sources available on Google Books and the sources cited in this wiki both justified moving this page to "Korean ethnic nationalism." I also rewrote the lede to show what this topic would look like. But I don't want to assume that silence means assent. Would other editors now agree to move the page? If so, let's do it! If not, we can work on a better title. For my part, I think "Ethnic nationalism in Korea" would be best, because it would make this wiki visible to anyone searching for Ethnic nationalism. And we could eventually write other pages like Ethnic nationalism in China and Ethnic nationalism in Japan, which would all be easy to find because they have similar titles. So it seems we have four choices: I choose option 3, which has the same topic as option 2, but with a title that is easier to find. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep "Pure blood theory in Korea"
 * 2) Move to "Korean ethnic nationalism"
 * 3) Move to "Ethnic nationalism in Korea"
 * 4) Move to another title (please specify)


 * I don't really know what the page should be moved to really. I'll wait upon others to state their ideas first. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 07:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm surprised, there's so much tumbleweed around here. Where is everyone? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 12:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was about to say the same. Should we just move the page to see if anybody reacts? If someone opposes, this will be the beginning of a WP:BRD cycle. Otherwise the naming problem will be solved. Or we can just wait for more cowboys to show up... (Cowgirls welcome too.) Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Formal move requests usually go on for at least a week, because some people only edit on certain days of the week. My own preference is 1, then 2, then 3 (with substitutions of "racial nationalism" for "ethnic nationalism" on 2 and 3, to better capture the physicality of the concept). I prefer 1 because the "pure blood" aspect is a significant enough component of Korean racial nationalism to have its own article, but Korean racial nationalism deserves its own article too. "Korean" is better than "in Korea", because the concept was partially developed by Korean exiles in Japan and China, and because PBT and PBTists like Shin Chaeho are strongly connected with irredentist movements against Northeast China and other areas outside of Korea. Two separate articles for PBT and racial nationalism could be a compromise; my principal concern is not wanting the move request to become an excuse to blank content to keep due weight on a topic as broad as racial nationalism. Quigley (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you again, Quigley! Good point about "in Korea" vs. "Korean." I agree. The main advantage of "Ethnic nationalism in Korea" would be to make this page easier to find, but all we need to do that is a redirect. I also like "Racial nationalism" because that term appears in a few reliable sources, including Shin Gi-Wook's book:
 * "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." (SOURCE: Ethnic Nationalism in Korea, p. 223.)
 * Because Shin Gi-Wook is a central author on our topic, I think "racial nationalism" deserves a redirect, and maybe even a mention in the lede. Now it seems I haven't convinced you that "pure blood theory" is not a good title! As I said before, I have no trouble with it on principle, and I agree that there is such a phenomenon in Korea (though it's not called a "theory" and there is no exact Korean term for it). I even spent several days analyzing sources to see if this title could be justified. I won't repeat my whole analysis: the point is that almost all the sources I found that discussed this blood-based conception did so under the term "nationalism" or "ethnic nationalism." I will be convinced that "pure blood" needs its own page if someone can show that reliable sources have discussed this topic separately from "ethnic nationalism." From what I've seen so far, having one wiki on "Pure blood" and another one on "ethnic/racial nationalism" would create a WP:content fork because both pages would discuss the same thing: minjok and tanil minjok, Shin Chaeho's writings, claimed descent from Dangun, the use of this racial conception to resist Japan, the ideology of racial purity in post-war Korea, claims over Manchuria, contemporary controversies about "blood," etc. Our reliable sources would also be the same. The key question for me is: can we carve out a topic about blood-based conceptions that wouldn't so obviously overlap with "ethnic nationalism," and without using sources that discuss these blood-based conceptions as "ethnic natonalism"? One possible solution would be to focus on contemporary Korea. Maybe something like "discourse of racial purity in contemporary Korea"? (Shorter would be nicer, of course.)
 * As for your concern about blanking content, could you be more specific? If you disagree with any of my edits, don't hesitate to say so. I tried to keep as much material as possible from the old lede, but maybe I carelessly deleted some important content. You also seemed hesitant about my removing the section on "Evidence against pure blood." I still stand by my interpretation on this, but I'm always willing to change my mind. Anyway, let's keep talking about this! Madalibi (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've convinced me that racial nationalism and pure blood theory are the same topic. Nevermind about the blanking thing—it was never your edits I objected to, and I was putting the chicken before the egg. I support a move to "Korean racial nationalism", and I hope this will resolve the dispute. Quigley (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we're getting close to a solution! Actually I think all three names (pure blood, racial nationalism, and ethnic nationalism) refer to the same topic. I only have a few minutes to post, so I'll keep it brief. I still propose we move the page to "Korean ethnic nationalism" because this title is better supported by reliable sources (no time to post links, but use Google Books to compare "Korean racial nationalism" and Korean "racial nationalism" with "Korean ethnic nationalism" and Korean "ethnic nationalism"), but we need a redirect at Korean racial nationalism, and the lede should start with "Korean ethnic nationalism, or racial nationalism, is...." (because Gi-Wook Shin equates these two terms, and because many scholars translate minjok as "race" or "race-nation" instead of just "nation" and "people"). So the title keeps the term that reliable sources use the most often, but the lede explains that the two terms are basically equivalent. Result: the title is unassailable, the equivalence with "racial nationalism" is well supported by several sources, and we have a strong page that nobody will ever be able to blank or attack because it will be bristling with inline citations. And we respect WP:NAMING, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, so there's just no angle from which this page can be attacked! What do you think? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pessimistic that this article can be moved to something that is appropriate. The last move attempt has proven that this page is swarming with individuals who are motivated by nationalism than reason. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cydevil38. What I see in this whole controversy is a lot of acumulated distrust and resentment between editors who have tended to polarize into two sides. Some editors think that "Korean editors" dislike this page because it points to less savory aspects of Korean identity, whereas Korean editors think that "Chinese editors" are purposely digging out the dirt without concern for balance. People from both sides end up accusing the entire "other side" of being "nationalistic." This kind of dynamics actually happens on lots of pages. It's hard to change your mind in such disputes, because changing your mind feels like you're siding with some kind of enemy.
 * But don't be pessimistic! First, the page has already changed a lot since last month. And second, there's no need to rush things. Developing a consensus can take time, but it's worth it. Only if all issues are raised and resolved can the consensus be a real long-term one.
 * Finally, I know you didn't mention any editor in particular, but if you were thinking of Quigley (again, I'm not saying you were), he has made a lot of good points on this talk page, and he has shown that he could change his mind if presented with good reasons to do so. He has also made me change my mind on many points here and elsewhere by making thoughtful points that had nothing to do with nationalism. I truly hope he will accept my proposal to move this page to Korean ethnic nationalism, not for any personal reasons, but simply because this is the title that is best supported by Wikipolicies and reliable sources, which are our only guides for deciding page content. Needless to say, siding with Wikipolicies is not siding with any "side" in particular. Best wishes! Madalibi (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the move proposal to "Korean ethnic nationalism", with the lede providing "Korean racial nationalism" as an alternative, for the all the reasons you provided. Following the terminology of sources should make the title stable. Quigley (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Quigley. I'm really happy to get your support! Other involved editors had plenty of time to discuss the proposal, so I just proceeded with the move, added the phrase we agreed to, and removed the "POV" and "Expert" tags. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Madalibi, looks like there are still references to "pure blood theory" in associated pages such as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_nationalism) and will need to be deleted. Doing so will likely extend local discussions, like the one above, across a wider swathe of territory. Hopefully such deliberations will lead to more responsible page contributions/management. Far too many Korea-related pages appear to of unsatisfactory standard, relying heavily on questionable sources, and personal anecdotes and opinions, with little regard for prevailing academic consensus here in Korea, or elsewhere. Given the rise of Wikipedia as an academic resource and the turbulent tides of contemporary historical revisionism, at times of Chinese provenance, the community needs to manage the plurality of facts and opinions presented by, at times, too enthusiastic of a crowd. Moreover, increasing overseas interest in Korea obliges the community to provide objective scholarly information and not degenerate into a semantic slug-fest motivated by politics, ignorance or spite. As a suggestion, one can start with a thorough discussion on adjectives and adverbs used. I've noticed that Korea-articles tend to employ words whose emotional combustibility far outweighs any informational merit contained therein, "pure-blood" having been discussed here. I'm not sure if there's an effort to edit articles of such within the community, but I'd be happy to volunteer part-time to contribute. Buryatrider (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

North Korean killing of babies with Chinese fathers
I rolled back this edit by an anonymous editor. I realize this is extraordinarily unpleasant material, but the source is good. The notion that killing babies of mixed parentage has no connection with nationalism is a non-starter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Great article
Great article! I saw this article several years ago and it was in pretty horrible shape, but it has greatly improved now. Everything is well-written and properly sourced. Mad props to those who helped to work on it. There's still some minor grammatical errors, but overall, it's very good. Somebody should copy some of the information on this page over to this article, which deals with a similar subject. All in all, I'll say that somebody should recommend this as a featured article. Best of regards, Illegitimate Barrister 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Korean ethnic nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/04/18/2011041801112.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://asiasociety.org/korea/south-korea-unloved-republic
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sinonk.com/2015/04/01/south-korea-as-subempire-workers-immigration-and-racialized-hierarchy/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dhseol.org/activity/ein2006_06.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28myers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Korean ethnic nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725232752/http://www.dhseol.org/activity/ein2006_06.html to http://www.dhseol.org/activity/ein2006_06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Too Much POV Bias in the Article
Too much POV bias in the article, like way too many citations of that Myers columnist guy. Newspaper editorials/op-eds are authoritative sources? Come on. The article also says something about people in SK seeing people in NK as blood brothers, sisters, family, etc. One-sided tosh. I taught in SK, and there is definitely a strong sentiment there that NKs "are not Korean." It's not the only idea, but it is there, and it is voiced. Googoogoggles (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article has these problems since its inception. Myers is definitely a very biased person: "According to Brian Reynolds Myers, a professor at Dongseo University, this was due to the racialized nature of Korean nationalism, which prevented any major uproar over the incident in South Korea due to the concept of racial solidarity with the North Koreans that many South Koreans feel." However, everyone knows that the uproar was really big in South Korea and saying there was none is simply wrong. Just searching a bit lets you find enough articles that mention the uproar explicitly:, , , [http:// www.globalresearch.ca/who-sank-the-south-korean-warship-cheonan-destabilization-of-the-korean-peninsula/19375], , . Back then, concerts were cancelled and there were no entertainment shows on TV for three weeks. I dunno how anyone could claim there was no public uproar in Korea. The article rather states the situation 40 years ago... --Christian140 (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, please gain consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there anything critical? You should gain consensus for your version. --Christian140 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, no I shouldn't. As per BRD you tried to remove something, you got reverted - it goes back to the previous version. You don't make the rules up as you go. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You refered to WP:BRD, however, you do not even abide by this rule:
 * "BRD is never a reason for reverting."
 * "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. "
 * "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD. "


 * But you reverted already 3 times, therefore, you are not following BRD.


 * The meaning of consensus is making decisions without someone harshly disagree. There was consensus before cause no one disagreed. Now, you destroyed the consensus, so, you have to state why. --Christian140 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In detail what I have removed:
 * Hwanung is the spelling that also the wikipedia article uses by the revised romanization. Also, Hangul and Hanja is not needed here, since it is in the article about Hwanung.
 * For the removal of Myers claims, see Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism. If needed, I can also give more explanations. But I think the possibilities are well explained on the talk page. Since more than two weeks, no one commented on the talk page, so, there was nothing critical in changing it.
 * I fixed the template that showed an error
 * The sentence: "North Korea is rumored to have abducted foreign women to marry to American men that defected to North Korea in order to keep these American men from having relationships with North Korean women." does not have any source at all. Also, it says "is rumored". This shouldn't be in this article. Also, the source of the following sentence does not back this claim.
 * For the other sentence, also see talk page. It doesn't belong in this article because there is no direct connection to nationalism. --Christian140 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You really don't understand do you? Putting something on a talk page, does not equal consensus. Did you contact the editors whose content you wished to remove? I'm pretty sure you didn't. Did you involve others in your discussion? Again - no, you didn't. If you want genuine consensus then you need to involve all editors are discuss things not just claim "I posted something, no one saw it, so I win"
 * You also claim that "doesn't belong in this article because there is no direct connection to nationalism." - you might be correct, you might be wrong - but why do you think that you are the one who makes that decision? Doesn't that require other editors' input and opinions? Or are you enough of an authority on the matter to tell every other editor that they are wrong, and that the content should be removed, just because you don't like it ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no such a need like contacting the authors who wrote these parts. What makes you think someone would need to do that? In fact, you steadily delete major parts from articles without notifying anyone. The only thing important is argumentation. Also, what kind of edit was this. The second sentence is even wrong and you know it: You even replied to the previous discussion. --Christian140 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What would make me think someone would need to do that? erm...basic manners? common courtesy? common sense? I'm sorry, but your blatant bias, your edits and your comments are starting to be rather disruptive. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh you had a question. "Also, what kind of edit was this."
 * It was an awesome edit, since you're asking.
 * Yes, you're correct. I did reply to a comment in the past regarding that content, and I stated that I had removed it from the lede. I didn't put it in the lede on this article, so I'm failing to see your point. Feel free to explain your point, if you think it's important.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The content is wrong and you didn't even add the source. --Christian140 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Quit edit-warring. This needs to go back to the consensus version and if you want to make changes, either get consensus here, or write something fresh with reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

3O Response: First of all, if two people are arguing about what BRD means, it means that neither person is following BRD. BRD means both parties stop edit-warring (which means one party temporarily allows The Wrong Version to remain) and discuss the edits – not the editors – in a civil manner, having regard to Wikipedia policies. Now, as regards the Cheonan incident, it's clear from that article that the South Korean response was multi-factorial, and that there was a suppression of dissent arising from the government's aversion to criticism rather than to any "pure blood theory". The articles linked to by Christian140 above seem to bear that out. I don't think the claim that there was "relatively little outrage" is sustainable in the circumstances. Brian Reynolds Myers, from his article, is a controversial anti-North Korean writer whose point of view is a minority one. In my opinion, having that big, uncritical chunk of content on that one person's theories about something he said didn't happen goes against WP:NPOV, which says that all significant views have to be represented fairly and proportionately. It might conceivably be reworded as a short, balanced statement ("Myers claimed that there was a muted response to the Cheonan incident etc"), but in the interim it should be removed altogether. The sentence beginning "The ideology also helps to maintain..." is unreferenced and should also be removed. As for the abduction of foreign women as wives for the Americans, that is referenced in the United Nations Human Rights Council report (reference 49) which appears to have been moved to the end of the following sentence. It just needs to be moved back. Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is with Myers is, he derives his whole claim from the "little outrage" over Cheonan. Usually, you would state the majority opinion and the minority opinion. However, this is an article about "nationalism" and not about Cheonan. Therefore, writing additional information like "In contrast to Myers, plenty of articles show that there was large outrage over the incident" would not be useful. That's why I removed everything.


 * You are right, the abduction thing is probaly from reference 49. Page 307 and 316 to be precise. However, the claim "to keep these American men from having relationships with North Korean women" is not in the article at all. There is no possible reason given. It just says that witnesses claim that foreign women were abducted. Therefore, this sentence is definitely. Also, linking this to nationalism is original research. This rather would belong in the article Human rights in North Korea. The second sentence. The first one is simply false. --Christian140 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See paragraph 964, p. 304: "the four deserters were later paired with non-Korean women. This suggests that at least some of the non-Korean women abducted by the DPRK were taken for the purpose of becoming (sexual) partners to non-Koreans...as a means to avoid compromising the purity of the Korean race." Strictly speaking, the report says it was to keep these American men from having children with North Korean women, but otherwise the sentence is verifiable and relevant. Note that I said the Myers content might conceivably be reworded as a short statement. I wouldn't favour having any "In contrast to Myers" sentence, and I do favour deleting the Myers content altogether in the short term. Scolaire (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Then, chonologically, this has to be put to the beginning of the section, since it has been in 1977/1978. Also, one heading has to go since there is 2.1 but no 2.2. The section does not really describe xenophobia. Also, 40 years ago is not contemporary. Therefore, in short term, I propose "Social issues" as heading. Moreover, I want to mention that the whole section is very random without golden thread. --Christian140 (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section headings are strange (what is "Reception" supposed to mean) and that the chronology is all over the place, but that is not what I was asked to comment on. I am not going to edit the article myself, and I am not going to issue any edict as to what edits should be done. That's up to you. If you can improve the article then you should do so, as long as you are prepared to discuss your edits in a reasonable manner, as you have with me. Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I made the "Social issues" part completely chronological. Still, it is actually just a list. The reception part now also could be named "pure blood theory", then the two last aspects would have to go in the Social issue part, too. Though, it's also not really fitting there. --Christian140 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you moved a lot of things around in this edit. It might have been better if you had broken it up into a number of edits so people could see what was being moved where. But I have looked at the edit carefully and it is consistent with what has been discussed on this talk page. Nothing has been removed except the three paragraphs that you and I agreed could be removed. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not everyone else agrees they should be removed. So, I guess they go back until there is consensus to remove them. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's just edit-warring now. "I guess they go back until there is consensus to remove them." But nobody else is joining the discussion, so how are you going to determine when there is a consensus to remove? You can't. So you're effectively saying you're going to keep reverting indefinitely. That's the definition of edit-warring. BRD has been followed in this case. You reverted Christian140's bold edit, and then a discussion took place. Not one single encyclopaedic reason was offered for keeping that content. Good encyclopaedic reasons were offered for removing it. So now there is a consensus, and you can't over-ride it by just saying "it was that way before". Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it's not edit warring. It's me disagreeing with the mass removal of content under the guise of putting things in chronological order. On an article that has a long standing content dispute it seems obvious not to make huge changes under deceptive/ambiguous edit summaries. To make the comment that "you're effectively saying you're going to keep reverting indefinitely." is putting words in my mouth.
 * The fact that it has been reverted shows you that the suggested changes might need to be reconsidered. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It wasn't removed "under the guise" of anything. The edit summary was "see talk page and more chronological". The discussion on the talk page was on the removal of those paragraphs and on chronology. And there wasn't a "mass removal of content" or "huge changes", only three short paragraphs removed and some shuffling of paragraphs.
 * The fact that it has been reverted shows you that the suggested changes might need to be reconsidered. Well it might, if the person reverting offered any reason for retaining the content. But you still haven't: not one single reason. So what it shows me is that you're edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Is there a specified time limit for discussions, before consensus can be assumed? "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." would seem to say that there was no consensus for the changes, as it was disputed or reverted - there doesn't seem to be a time limit mentioned. (and it certainly isn't achieved over a weekend)


 * 2. Is there some form of ownership issue on this article? "Nothing has been removed except the three paragraphs that you and I agreed could be removed." The two of you agreed to it? Erm...surely others are editing this article, and it might have been worth pinging the other involved editors to gain true consensus.


 * 3. AGF please. Don't assume that someone who disagrees with certain content is edit-warring, a little good faith in other editors goes a long way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a specified time limit for discussions, before consensus can be assumed? So again, you're saying you can revert indefinitely, because by your criteria consensus will never form.
 * Is there some form of ownership issue on this article? A very good question. The people who have taken the trouble to discuss the content have arrived at a consensus, but you're going to continue reverting because...what? Because the article owners haven't given permission?
 * AGF doesn't apply. I am quite sure you're edit-warring in good faith, but it's still edit-warring. You are continuing to revert while failing to discuss the edit, or give any reason at all why the content should remain. That's edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So again, you're making wild assumptions on what you think I'm trying to say. (**hint** - instead of making wild assumptions about my intentions, you could actually just ask me)

Oh the content. It's relevant and supported by reliable sources. That seems to fit the criteria for inclusion. Feel free to explain why you don't consider it relevant or reliable, and I'm sure we can have a highly productive discussion and eventually some form of mutually awesome resolution. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What Myers is claiming is not supported by any other sources while there are plenty of other sources that claim the exact opposite. Therefore, the reliability of Myers is disputed. This is undue weight. The statements why the content should be removed already have been made. Focus on the content and don't get personal. --Christian140 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As regards the Cheonan incident, it's clear from that article that the South Korean response was multi-factorial, and that there was a suppression of dissent arising from the government's aversion to criticism rather than to any "pure blood theory". The articles linked to by Christian140 above seem to bear that out. I don't think the claim that there was "relatively little outrage" is sustainable in the circumstances. Brian Reynolds Myers, from his article, is a controversial anti-North Korean writer whose point of view is a minority one. In my opinion, having that big, uncritical chunk of content on that one person's theories about something he said didn't happen goes against WP:NPOV, which says that all significant views have to be represented fairly and proportionately.
 * I said this 12 days ago. We could have had that "highly productive discussion" at any time, instead of a succession of catty remarks from you. Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because Myers criticizes North Korea, does not make him an unreliable source or content related to him any less notable. The fact that he is an associate professor of international studies in South Korea and is well known as a published author of books related to North Korea, make him an expert in his field. His opinions add much needed balance to the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Emma Campbell

 * Emma Campbell from the Australian National University argues that the conceptions of South Korean nationalism is evolving among young people and that a new form is emerging that has globalised cultural characteristics. These characteristics challenge the role of ethnicity in South Korean nationalism. According to Campbell’s study for which she interviewed 150 South Koreans in their twenties, the desire for reunification is declining. However, these who are in favor of a Korean unification state reasons different from ethnic nationalism. The respondents stated that they only wanted unification if it would not disrupt the life in the South or if North Korea achieves economic parity with the South. "A small, but not insignificant, number of young people offered support for unification on the condition that it did not take place in their lifetime." Another reason stated for the wish for unification was the access to North Korea’s natural resources and cheap labor. This notion has been further elaborated by the meaning of uri nara (my country [sic!]) for young South Koreans, which only refers to South Korea for them instead to the whole Korean peninsula. Campbell’s interviews further showed that many young South Koreans have no problems to accepting foreigners as part of uri nara.

I wrote a small part based on one empirical paper. This could be placed directly after. The article is very good in general, also showing the history of Korean nationalism and is especially valuable when seeing how old the cited literature in this wikipedia article is. --Christian140 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Names
Any objections to adding 'race nationalism' and 'blood nationalism' terms to the lead? They are used in, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, established terms should be used. The author could alter terms only to achieve some variety. From a Google Scholar search, I would not say that these terms seems established. race, blood compared to ethnic, racial. The term "blood nationalism" appears a few times, though, often regarding Japan and China. Same goes for the term "pure-blood nationalism" which seems to be more established, though. --Christian140 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Names
Any objections to adding 'race nationalism' and 'blood nationalism' terms to the lead? They are used in, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, established terms should be used. The author could alter terms only to achieve some variety. From a Google Scholar search, I would not say that these terms seems established. race, blood compared to ethnic, racial. The term "blood nationalism" appears a few times, though, often regarding Japan and China. Same goes for the term "pure-blood nationalism" which seems to be more established, though. --Christian140 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Names
Any objections to adding 'race nationalism' and 'blood nationalism' terms to the lead? They are used in, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, established terms should be used. The author could alter terms only to achieve some variety. From a Google Scholar search, I would not say that these terms seems established. race, blood compared to ethnic, racial. The term "blood nationalism" appears a few times, though, often regarding Japan and China. Same goes for the term "pure-blood nationalism" which seems to be more established, though. --Christian140 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Retention of content
It is suggested that the following paragraphs in the Reception section are POV and/or undue weight. Should they be retained? Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

After the North Korean military sank a South Korean naval ship in 2010, there was relatively little outrage over the incident in South Korea. According to Brian Reynolds Myers, a professor at Dongseo University, this was due to the racialized nature of Korean nationalism, which prevented any major uproar over the incident in South Korea due to the concept of racial solidarity with the North Koreans that many South Koreans feel. In a New York Times editorial over the incident, Myers contrasted the racialized nature of South Korean nationalism with the civic nature of American nationalism, stating that South Korea's antipathy over attacks by North Korea was potentially dangerous to the national security of South Korea. He stated that:

The ideology also helps to maintain a strongly held conviction amongst many Koreans, which posits that both South and North Koreans are all brothers and sisters of the same blood-family and reunification is the ultimate goal. [Removed outside of the RfC.]

Survey

 * Delete. As regards the Cheonan incident, it's clear from that article that the South Korean response was multi-factorial, and that there was a suppression of dissent arising from the government's aversion to criticism rather than to any "pure blood theory". These articles bear that out:, , , [http:// www.globalresearch.ca/who-sank-the-south-korean-warship-cheonan-destabilization-of-the-korean-peninsula/19375], , . I don't think the claim that there was "relatively little outrage" is sustainable in the circumstances. Brian Reynolds Myers, from his article, is a controversial anti-North Korean writer whose point of view is a minority one. In my opinion, having that big, uncritical chunk of content on that one person's theories about something he said didn't happen goes against WP:NPOV, which says that all significant views have to be represented fairly and proportionately. Scolaire (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but shorten, move excess to ROKS Cheonan sinking. I don't see why Myers view should be removed, he is a reliable academic, but we should also consider WP:FRINGE. I don't think we need to quote him here. The fist sentence should make it clear that the "relatively little outrage" is his view, not a neutral fact. The quote at the end can be removed, it is already summarized in the prior paragraph. I'd suggest adding links to ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but if his opinion is a minority one, that should be reflected in the amount of space his opinion is given on the article. And yes, of course opinions should be clearly shown as opinions, not facts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is NPOV. The article is stated as opinion piece and his arguments are personal. He is talking about his students and his personal experiences in Berlin. This is clearly not a scientific article. However, the overall theme "that ethnic nationalism could be a driving force of the wish for a unification with the North" is well discussed in the literature. The wikipedia is not a trash can for everything one finds on the internet. The objective is to show the state of art of the scientific discourse. The Myers opinion piece becomes is irrelevant among the amount of literature. While, apparently, Shin (2006) believes that ethnic nationalism is the reason for the desire of reunification, Kim (2006), Jager (1996, 2003) and Campbell (2015) disagree. Also, Campbell (2015) challenges in her work even that the desire for a unification still exists. Therefore, the paragraph is UNDUE and should be deleted. --Christian140 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you are busy, Christian140, but if you could add this to the article, even without expansion, it would be quite helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the first half Reliably sourced and accurate to said source. For brevity and weight purposes I say cut the direct quotation. The sentence beginning In a New York Times editorial is Americocentric and off-topic, since this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, and this topic is not specifically American. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep revision - per in threaded discussion. Jr8825  • Talk  00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Keep revision below, which seems much more concise (passing WP:UNDUE, neutral, and correct than the original above. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * There is no doubt that the author has a point of view problem.... thus his input into this article should be negligible. --Moxy (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

, Can you suggest a text for your stripped-down sentence? If we had something short and to the point that satisfied NPOV and UNDUE, we could probably end this RfC early. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd go with what follows: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

After the North Korean military sank a South Korean naval ship in 2010, there. Brian Reynolds Myers, a professor at Dongseo University, argued in a New York Times editorial that there was relatively little outrage in South Korea over the Cheonan incident in 2010, and that this was due to the racialized nature of Korean nationalism, which prevented any major uproar over the incident in South Korea due to the concept of racial solidarity with the North Koreans that many South Koreans feel.


 * I feel we could be briefer than that. Even the part you have retained is unnecessarily convoluted. It seems to say that Myers saw little outrage because of ethnic nationalism which led to little outrage because of ethnic nationalism. On the other hand, it needs to be brought out a) that Myers was talking about the absence of riots or street protests, as opposed to official outrage, and b) that he did also cite fear of an escalating military conflict as another factor. I think this could be dealt with by adding the words "public" and "partly" in the relevant places. Also, Myers is named and linked in an earlier section, so "professor at Dongseo University" could be moved up there. I suggest therefore:
 * B.R. Myers argued in a 2010 New York Times editorial that there was relatively little public outrage in South Korea over the sinking of the Cheonan that year, which he attributed partly to a feeling of sympathy towards North Korea resulting from a closer identification with the Korean race than with the South Korean state. [1]
 * Thoughts,, , ? --Scolaire (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fine with this further shortening. I do think that reliable newspapers editorials deserve a mention, as long as we attribute them properly to indicate they are more POVed than academic research would usually be - and I think this quote is clear enough about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go for the first version myself, but I see no major issues with either. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Koreans outside the Koreas
Some discussion of the ethnic Korean populations in China and Russia would be relevant here - they come from outside the two Koreas, but are indigenous to certain territories adjacent to North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.138.45 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)