Talk:Korean nationalism

Article issues
Christian140, let's discuss issues here first. Evidently, recent conduct is not yet discussed here. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Notifying Illegitimate Barrister. George Ho (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually think the user has many, like plenty redundancies with Korean ethnic nationalism. But okay, I start with the worrisome changes (diff) :

"According to Robert E. Kelly, a professor at Pusan National University, anti-Japanese racism in South Korea stems not just from Imperial Japanese atrocities during the colonial era, but from the Korean Peninsula's division. As most Koreans, north and south are racial nationalists, most South Koreans feel a kinship and racial solidarity with North Korea. Due to this perceived racial kinship, it is considered bad form for a South Korean to hate North Korea, to run the risk of being a race traitor. As a result, Kelly says, South Koreans take out the anger rising from Korean division against Japan. This view is supported by another professor, Brian Reynolds Myers."


 * The original text doesn't mention anything like this. Also the sources later added for Myers don't support this claims. Clearly WP:V and WP:NPOV.


 * Additionally: " As most South Koreans are racial nationalists, they tend to see positive achievements, such as sporting successes, as being a result of racial characteristics, whereas negative events are attributed to the incompetence and inherent inferiority of the state." (diff) . WP:NPOV and the complete sentence is not backed by the added sources . --Christian140 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do is to wait for the editor who added the content to give his opinion. It's not an urgent BLP issue, so there is no major hurry - especially at this time of year, with people on vacation etc.
 * Important point to remember is that perhaps it is paraphrasing the source, we should be aware of COPYVIO, so perhaps that explains the differences between the sources and the content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is nothing paraphrased at all. All these contents cannot be concluded by the sources. Also, when a user adds completely unsourced content, it is on the user who wants to add it to provide sources. Moreover, WP:NOHARM states "As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes". --Christian140 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you posted the essay WP:NOHARM (that clearly states This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.)
 * How about instead of basing arguments on an essay that is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, you base them on on Wikipedia policy WP:PRESERVE (that clearly states This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.)
 * To quote WP:PRESERVE - "Instead of removing content from an article, consider:


 * Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources
 * Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact
 * Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article
 * Adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
 * Requesting a citation by adding the citation needed tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
 * Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
 * Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
 * Repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
 * Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge
 * Fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting"

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's ok, as per WP:PRESERVE - I tagged the article as requiring additional sources. Hopefully that will result in the sources that you considered to be so important. I'm sure we all agree that it's better to fix content and find sources, than to just remove content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not even shown that this unsourced content has any links to nationalism. There needs to be a proof that anti-Chinese Sentiment or territorial disputes are linked to nationalism.


 * "There are a lot of hatreds towards Chinese people and Chinese products in Korea, due to a fact that many Chinese products are "low-quality"."
 * So, this even says it is because of low-quality and not due to nationalism. Moreover, it is not a fact that Chinese products are low-quality. Additionally, Chinese products are increasingly popular in Korea: Park Su-ryon, Move over Korea: the China wave is here, JoongAng Ilbo, Dec. 17, 2016.


 * "China refers the Mountain as the Mount Changbai and refuses to recognize total sovereignty of Korean claims in the Mountain, also it isn't serious like Japan–Korea conflicts."
 * This statement let's one question the notability.

Also, the style, using "many Koreans" all the time is WP:Weasel. There is nothing to preserve since no link to the article topic is presented.

You also omitted the most important aspect of WP:Preserve:
 * "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research."

However, it is neither neutral, nor verifiable and the part about the anti-Chinese sentiment is original research. --Christian140 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What this article need is stating the state of art of the scientific discourse. This article offers not much information about Korean nationalism and instead lists trivialities and curiosities. This comment by another user summarizes the problems very well. --Christian140 (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The common way to deal with weasel words is to re-word the offending content, rather than remove huge paragraphs from the article. Your removals are borderline vandalism.
 * You have no idea what is and is not original research and/or verifiable until you discuss with the editor who added that content and find out their sources.
 * Due to the huge amount of content you continue to remove (on more than one article) and the constant vindictive ANI reports, you are very close to being reported as a highly disruptive editor. I don't think you're here to contribute to article, you are here for conflict and to promote some form of pro-Korea agenda. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest


 * I don't have to do any of this. The content is unsourced and had been added by an IP. So, contacting the user makes not much sense. You, keeping to add the content again without sources is vandalism. I clearly stated comprehensibile reasons why the content should be removed but you gave no argument to keep it. The first part is not correct and the other parts are already in the article. All of my edits were always well explained, on this article as well as on others. Your edits and edit wars are actually very questionable. --Christian140 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why you thinkWP:PRESERVE does not apply to you. Also, I'm curious as to why you think an IP editor should be treated any differently from an editor with an account. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * By now, you didn't discuss even one time on the content and did not present a single argument why the content should be kept. An IP editor cannot be contacted since the address is dynamic. And again, you are quoting WP:Preserve incorrectly. I already quoted it above: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." Not even one of the three criteria is met.


 * And for the other content, I comprehensible stated why it should be removed: WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Christian140 (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the content you are trying to remove is notable and relevant to the article & that for the content that is lacking sources, you should attempt to find sources, rather than removing potentially good content.
 * Also, you are removing content that is not lacking sources. That content is also highly notable and relevant. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh BTW. Are you very sure that it is a dynamic IP? How do you know it's not a static IP? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I can understand both sides of the dispute, and I'll start by pointing that we do have middle ground: we all agree that certain content is unreferenced, or at the very least, poorly referenced. I have added verification failed to the first bolded quote Christian outlined above ("As most Koreans, north and south are racial nationalists, most South Koreans feel a kinship and racial solidarity with North Korea. Due to this perceived racial kinship, it is considered bad form for a South Korean to hate North Korea, to run the risk of being a race traitor"), as I have checked the sources and can confirm that they do not support those claims. For the second bolded quote, "As most South Koreans are racial nationalists, they tend to see positive achievements, such as sporting successes,as being a result of inherent racial characteristics, whereas negative events are attributed to the incompetence and inherent inferiority of the state." I do find partial support in the : "Myers argued that a tradition of state "blood-based" or ethnic nationalism on a divided peninsula runs the risk of undermining loyalty to one republic and promoting loyalty to the other, competing, state... All bad things are blamed on the republic, while all good things are ascribed to the race (minjok)... both right and left still preach race nationalism." and "South Korean nationalism is something quite different from the patriotism toward the state that Americans feel. Identification with the Korean race is strong, while that with the Republic of Korea is weak"  What is not clearly stated by the source is that "most South Koreans are racial nationalists" and there is nothing about any "sporting successes" as an example (no examples of good things attributed to race are given). As such, I'd propose to rewrite the second sentence as follows: "Due to the tradition and state support for race nationalism, South Koreans tend to see positive achievements as being a result of inherent racial characteristics, whereas negative events are attributed to the incompetence and inherent inferiority of the state" I have taken the liberty of rewriting the sentence in my recent edit. As for what to do with the first one. Well, yes, ideally we woul find sources for it, but since nobody seems to be able to do so, I would support removal of that per guidelines/policies of WP:OR/WP:V, which WP:PRESERVE clearly gives priority to (content should remain only if it meets those policies). Finally, regarding other unreferenced content, I suggest we first post it here and try to find references. If we cannot, it could be removed. WP:OR and WP:V need to be respected. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Good work Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - some form of sensible compromise is likely to result in consensus. At least more likely than running to ANI/DRN with every minor content dispute. On this article, I think fixing content is a much better idea than deleting it. If a decent attempt to fix it fails, then perhaps removing content can be considered. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * How much time should be given for the verification issue? For the other part, yes, one could post it here. --Christian140 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, verification failed really means we can replace this with citation needed, since no-one is objecting by saying the content is there. And citation needed tags are removed based on editors discretion, sometimes after years, sometimes after days. Depends on how much we care. I don't think the claims are necessarily wrong, so I am ok keeping them for few months, but I am not going to object to a faster removal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought of something like seven days, considering this is the time given for AfDs. I think "citation needed" is something mainly good for older articles that were created before the  system was introduced, or when a citation simply got lost. For example when not every sentence was cited directly and then someone put more content between the sentence and the citation. And in this case here, I also doubt the content. "As most South Koreans are racial nationalists" is total unscientific statement and the race traitor claim seems dubious. Especially considering that in 2015 Shim Eun-mi had been deported for praising North Korean beer and landscape. Of course, it had been a political decision. But one that clearly raises my doubts in the race traitor statement. Also, a google scholar search remains without any results. --Christian140 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Through I'll point out that AfDs can go up to a month if there is no consensus, I will also note that I am not defending the problematic content you outlined, and I don't see anyone else currently objecting to its removal, so - sure, in few days we can cut it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you might have seen, I removed the "other unreferenced" content and added it here on the talk page, like proposed. But although the user seemed to support it, he still reverts. And adds even the parts that I already have disproven. According to the Dispute Resolution Board, a RfC could be a next step. But I am not sure if RfC is really suitable for this topic since it is well-known that unsourced content always can and should be removed. It is clear to everyone that the content should be removed if no one provides reliable sources, so, the RfC discussion would be how much time should be given? This discussion is now two weeks old and not a single source has been provided for anything. I guess it would be better to start an RfC anyways. --Christian140 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessing the current status of the discussion. Is there now anything to further discuss regarding the edits on the page Korean nationalism between December 20, 2016 and January 3, 2017? I guess yes, so I propose to outline the issue as precise as possible. Is a RfC or more guidance on V, OR and Preserve needed? Which further steps on dispute resolution should be taken? --Christian140 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the diffs since my last edit. I mostly support those edits. The unreferenced, poor English and clearly NPOV sentence "here are a lot of hatreds towards Chinese people and Chinese products in Korea" should have been nuked long time ago. The other content about China, while interesting, needs sources and could be restored with sources. I am not sure if the following that is needed (verify sources): This view is supported by another professor, Brian Reynolds Myers of Dongseo University.   Anyway, since it is easier to rewrite articles if they are shorter, I am in general supportive of removing even more content that is not on-topic / not well referenced. Maybe later this month I will find time to actually read this article and post my own in detail review. For now, frankly, I prefer to write new content from scratch (I just wrote Freedom of the press in South Korea, which I invite you to review, I nominated it for TDYK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprise if Myers has the same opinion as Kelly on this. However, I don't think this is supported by the two sources given. That's why I put this tag behind the sentence " This view is supported by another professor, Brian Reynolds Myers of Dongseo University." I think another problem of the article is reduncancy. The sentence  appears just some six sentences later again in nearly the same words. Or the part   in Nationalist histeriography. It should be either 2006 or 2007. There are also plenty of redundancies with Korean ethnic nationalism and I think it could be considered merging these articles. I guess the only reason why there are two articles for Korea is that Korean ethnic nationalism started as Pure blood theory in korea. --Christian140 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the doubled sentences. 2007 was the correct year for the latter one. --Christian140 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing text or broken phrase in Liancourt Rocks dispute section A Carbine Flash (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The end of the first sentence under the Liancourt Rocks dispute heading in the Korean_nationalism section seams to be either missing some text at the end (or has an extra word "the"), as it doesn't read correctly to me:
 * "...to Korea in the 1951."

(Apologies for not going back myself to see if there was previously text here which was deleted.)

Anti-Chinese sentiment
Although relationship between China and two Koreas are quite well, however, there is a continous dispute between both China and Korea. Koreans believe that China was the cause of the situation between North and South Korea, dated back from the Korean War. In recently, there are historical conflicts between both because of many controversy towards Goguryeo, language origins and the ancient war between China and Korea.

Mount Baekdu
In Korea, Mount Paektu is referred to be Korea's Holy Mountain due to its historical closure to Korean ancient history, however, recent conflict between Korea and China grow when China start to prepare for a Winter Olympics bid is a part of China's claim. China refers the Mountain as the Mount Changbai and refuses to recognize total sovereignty of Korean claims in the Mountain, also it isn't serious like Japan–Korea conflicts.

Gando
There is an anti-Chinese feelings over the Chinese control of Gando, because China has occupied it because of Gando Convention between Empire of Japan and Qing China, resulting with the Chinese sovereignty in Gando. Many Koreans still feel angered with China over it.

Historical controversies
Many Koreans believe China is trying to claim, or even, distort history of Korea by claiming Korea's Goguryeo as Chinese tributary state has been sparked angers from South Korea, which they believed it is China's attempt to distort Korea's history.

--18:54, 8 October 2016‎ 222.252.44.218

Proposal to remove off-topic off-topic section on 2002 FIFA World Cup
Wow, you know this is going to be bad when the paragraph starts with editorializing like "In a Cinderella story, after five consecutive World Cups without a single win, the South Korean national soccer team made it to the semifinals with an improbable series of triumphs in 2002". After unreferenced but AGF introduction, we get two sentences about how happy Koreans were and that this was related to " national pride, identity, and confidence". Well, frankly, I cannot imagine any nation that wouldn't get at least moderately happy about this, and where such feeling couldn't be tied to the vaguely described "national pride, identity, and confidence". References fail of course, as the only good one is to Gi-Wook Shin book, with no page, but I was able to trace it to page 1 (and few more in that book):. The sentence on "national pride, identity, and confidence" is pretty much directly copypasted from it, but putting that aside, the main problem with that section is it takes a tiny example (2002 FIFA) and turns it into something big, totally undue for this article (about Korean nationalism). Again, I will repeat: all nations would celebrate winning an important FIFA match. Nothing in Shin's book suggests this is an important example of Korean nationalism. I couldn't even figure out how to use this example here in a non-trivial way. I suggest removal, as I believe this making an entire paragraph of a pretty normal behavior found in many if not all nations is totally undue and irrelevant (off-topic) to this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed, given no objections for a week. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean 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://archive.li/ymvn0/2d6f348b51de2d6952d65edd223d1f5a3202c141/scr.png
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017162435/http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=27212 to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=27212

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421060416/http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/26/ to http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/26/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Korean ethnic nationalism into this article. See this talk page. 00101984hjw (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support; this is toobigtokale. Strongly interrelated topics that are difficult to disentangle. 59.5.79.44 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)