Talk:Koreans/Archive 1

Korean Uzbekistanis
I know, I know, there is a conflict between the 2 figures: I took the information in 2 different sources. If anyone can sort it out, thanks. olivier 04:35, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 450,000 ethnic Koreans reside in the former USSR
 * 1,123,200 in Uzbekistan


 * The government (?) of Uzbekistan gives the number of Koreans as 240,000 . I take the first number is correct. However, some of the Koreans there might no longer be considered /consider themselves as such... Kokiri 18:25, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this 1million+ estimate is complete crap, and am removing it.XmarkX 08:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

other countries
You guys are not even saying what the other Koreans do once they get into foreign land and what jobs they take just to live in the land. It's big news but recently sex trafficking is a big thing now for younger ladies in South Korea. Alot of these illegal act are popping up in America and even secretly around other parts of the world. It's really sad but then again it's by means of getting paid.

I have added other countries: N/A, just to give the (correct) impressions, that Koreans are not only to be found in a few countries, but in many others, too. Kokiri 18:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Concerning the preceding paragraph: you could say the same thing about Chinese or Russian or Polish or Filipino or practically any other group of women around the world, but it seems a bit irrelevant when talking about the ethnic group. Of course, sex trafficking of Korean women happens, but including it in an article about the ethnic group as a general would give it unnecessary emphasis. Even adding that into a hypothetical article about overseas Korean economy activity would also give it undue emphasis given the fact that such a tiny portion of the population that engages in it. In fact, the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/) doesn't have a "trafficking in persons" under "Transnational issues" statement for South Korea - which it should if Korea was a major international source point for prostitutes.


 * For example, legalized prostitution occurs in Belgium, but would it really be necessary to include that into an article about Belgium itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.231.67 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2006

Source
I know that it would be a shameless ripoff... but the website http;//www.kimsoft.com/ has quite a good article about Koreans at http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/go-chosun.htm. The website says that all of the servers' content may be redistributed and copied at will. Couldn't we incorporate this text into this article? --Ce garcon 18:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure articles aren't worthy of us "ripping it off", if it's full of fringe theories about the impact and origin of the Koreans and claims like: "Koreans have the least body order [sic]...The blacks are the smelliest and the whites are the next smelliest. The Mongoloid has dry earwax while the others have wet earwax." --Menchi 19:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it's perfect (that part is particularly absurd), but surely a great deal of it is useful content. And also free for us to use. --Ce garcon 19:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That it's "free to be redistrubuted" is often the sign of groups having the agenda to propagate their specific viewpoints. Once the credibility has been damaged (and in this case, severely so, just by reading the first 2 paragraphs), we don't know what, if any, part of the rest of the stuff can be trusted. Just glancing thru the rest of the article, I saw its claim about an ancient Korean king conquering "much of China" in 2000 BC -- another fringe theory, one I never heard of. So, despite its pretty maps and photos, we'd be wasting time to try to inspect the rest of that unreliable article. I know I won't bother. It's best to assemble info from other accurate and unbiased sources. --Menchi 20:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following source can be cited for "Tungus-Altaic lineage" and related ethnic groups.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500279748/sr=8-1/qid=1151291905/ref=sr_1_1/002-8720684-7432002?ie=UTF8

KOREANS ARE RELATED TO " ALTAIC" GROUPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Korean language
In the text of the article Koreans, it is said that there are around 70 million Korean speakers of the Korean language. In the table in the article Koreans, it states that 71 million Koreans speak the Korean language. In the article Korean language, it says that there are, in total, 78 million speakers of the Korean language. Does that mean that there are 7 million non-Korean Korean language speakers in the world? - 68.72.139.128 01:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Korean Population 80 million if you include 7 million ( Oversease Koreans). You will have 87 million Koreans.
 * How can Korean speaking population be 73 million. The numbers don't add up. Please correct the fact please.
 * Total Korean populations and total Korean speaking population is 87 million.


 * We have multiple, detailed sources that say the total number of Koreans (Korean peninsula + overseas) is 77.6 million. Some Wikipedia articles round this up to 78 million. Some sources result in lower totals. If anyone wants to argue for using a number which matches the inflated figures that some editors (who type in all caps) seem to insist on, they will have to provide sources and arguments for why those sources are better than the ones we have.


 * A separate issue is how many (overseas) Koreans don't speak Korean (e.g., second generation Koreans), and how many non-Koreans (like myself) speak Korean. I don't think we have any sources for either of these. Nevertheless there are certainly at least a small number of each. They would influence the total in opposite directions, so they would partly cancel each other out. Based on my experience living in Korea for a number of years and noticing the number of Western faces on the streets (not a huge number; I might compare with the greater numbers I saw even in much smaller cities in Japan), it would be very hard to convince me that the number of non-Korean speakers of the Korean language is more than the number of Koreans living overseas who don't speak Korean. Of course, if anyone can find sources to prove me wrong, they are most welcome to revise the relevant articles. - Do c  t  orW  05:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1) South Korean Population: 49,044,790 Speak Korean. ( Wikipedia 2008), North Korean Population: 23,790,000 Speak Korean. ( Wikipedia 2008), Korean Overseas Population: 7,044,716 Speak Korean. ( Korean Overseas Government 2008). Korean Speaking Population: 79,879,906.

Koreans Speaking Korean as ( L1): 79,879,906. Koreans Speaking Korean as ( L2): 10,301,725-6,638,338 ( Korean Mixed/ Half Koreans, North Korean Political Refugee, Korean Orphans: USA, CHINA, Russia, Japan, Middle East, Latin America, Africa, South East Asia). Korean Total Population: 89,692,956- 85,988,609 Million Koreans. Not 77.5 million or 78 million. 1995 Population is out of date. In 2008 Korean Total Population or Korean Speaking Population around the world is 85-89 Million Koreans.

Korean Speaking Population: South Korea: 50,044,790 + North Korea: 25,790,00+ Overseas Koreans: 7,044,716 (2008) = 82,879,716 Koreans/ Korean Speaking Populations.

Organization
I hope someone improves this article. - 69.212.70.138 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Stuff about Non-Koreans
With all due respect, I think this article is enough of a mess already, and does not need additional information about non-Koreans. Information about immigrant communities in the Koreas should go in the relevant articles, Demographics of South Korea and Demographics of North Korea. Any objections? -- Visviva 29 June 2005 10:06 (UTC)
 * I agree that the information about non-Koreans should be removed from this article. However, because I'm currently editing from a place which cens*rs the Internet in a maddeningly arbitrary manner, I cannot edit this article at all. Could someone else do the work, please? --Iceager 03:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Picture
Has somebody a picture? I think, one of a Korean family with all generations would be great. -- 84.59.205.91 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

-- Tall nose bridges are not something usually associated with Tungus peoples.


 * I think whoever wrote that passage was probably intending to refer to the Manchus, who do tend to have rather tall nose bridges and look somewhat similar to some Koreans or even Japanese. Although the traditional languages of the Manchus and the various other Tungusic peoples are all classified by linguists as members of the Tungusic language family, the genetic relationship between these various ethnic groups is not entirely clear, and the Manchus seem racially rather distinct from e.g. Evenks, Evens, and other Northern Tungusic peoples. Ebizur 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Data box
South Korea: 49,044,790 July 2007. http://www.historycentral.com/nationbynation/korea/population.html. North Korea: 25,500,000 June 1993. http://lcweb2.loc.govlcgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstudy:efield (DOCID+kp0035). Korean Overseas: 7,932,671 2009: Korean Overseas Network site.

Korean total population 82,477,461 Million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Populations (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be outdated, South Korean population is 48,422,644 (July 2005 est.) according to the CIA World Factbook. Shawnc 04:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Korean people in Mexico
Yes, I heard of Koreans in Mexico. But lets not include. Tell you the truth. Koreans and Mexicans have bad blood. It has history. L.A. Riot etc. I think Koreans in Brazil, Argentina is better.

Although it's still not too big, there is a Korean community in Mexico. I'm from Guadalajara, and as far as I know, the place where most Korean-Mexicans live is precisely Guadalajara. I've read a couple of newspaper articles about the topic, and I've also seen many Koreans hanging around many CNC's, a local franchise of cybers with Counter Strike running on their machines. (On a side note, the first time I went there I, back then a 17 year old guy, was totally pwned by a 12 year old Korean kid who seemed to be called Young Gu). I also have a couple of Korean friends who arrived here on middle school and soon integrated into our society.

So, I suggest some content about Korean Mexicans should be added. Who agrees with me? --Da nuke 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, there should be a mention of Henequen (nickname for Korean-Mexicans)...they moved to Mexico over hundred years ago...they even made a movie about them in Korea Luckyj 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already an article on this subsection of the global Korean diaspora: Korean Mexican. I did some editing, but doubt if it's completely verifiable or properly sourced. Koreans lived in Mexico for over three centuries, though the majority of the over 50,000 Mexicans of Korean descent are recent immigrants in the late 20th century (about 30,000 live in Mexico City alone). + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

structure
==History== Main articles: History of Korea, Division of Korea, History of North Korea, History of South Korea ==Geography== Main articles: Geography of Korea, Korean Peninsula ===North Korea=== Main article: Geography of North Korea ===South Korea=== Main article: Geography of South Korea ==Culture== Main articles: Culture of Korea, Contemporary culture of North Korea, Contemporary culture of South Korea ===Language=== Main articles: Korean language, Hangul ===Religion=== Main articles: Religion in Korea, Christianity in Korea, Korean Buddhism, Korean Shamanism ===Literature=== ===Arts=== ==Institutions== ==Classification== ==See also== ==References== ==External links==

"Mongoloid"
My edit summary was mistyped, but my point is that the term "Mongoloid" in this article is a reference to physical anthropology, q.v. Northern Mongoloid. Substituting "East Asian" for "Northern Mongoloid" thus changes the meaning of the article. If anthropologists still use this classification, it should be kept; if not, then I certainly have no objection to updating the language, but the term as used here does not seem to be intentionally offensive. -choster 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is outdated and not agreed upon. Carleton S. Coon defined the "mongoloid" group. He used his own arbitrary specifications to define it. Most biological anthropoligists reject the idea of biological race in favor of clines of genetic distance. There were many definitions of who was included in the mongoloid race. Some used eye shape. Some skull shape. Even though most East Asians have inner eyelid folds some do not. Even though many East Asians have broad skulls some do not. These physical qualities vary from individual to individual. Carleton S. Coon used his own opinion to define who was a mongoloid. -- User:Dark Tichondrias14:05, 29 March 2006 (PST)


 * The so-called "Mongoloid" racial category is actually the most spurious and least likely of all the "traditional races" to represent a true phylogenetic entity. The fact that human groups so widely separated both geographically and temporally as the Khoisan of southern Africa, Polynesians of Oceania, and Amerindians of the Americas have often been lumped together under the category of "Mongoloid" should suggest to anyone with half a brain that the category is very likely to be illusory. Ebizur 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where's the reference that Khoisans are Mongoloids? 86.183.0.173 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Koreans and the Han Chinese
1) Koreans ( Chosun ) 2) Chinese ( han chinese) 3) Japanese ( Yamato)

Koreans and Chinese are not related. Koreans are related to Mongol-Manchurian groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreajapanhistory (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Koreans related to Han Chinese??? You better do some research. In my research tells me it does not relate. Why?? Han Chinese build " Great Wall of China". It separates between China and Manchuria. Manchurians and Koreans have historical and tribal kinship but with Han Chinese. It doesn't. Thats historical reality.

It is really doesn't matter much whether koreans genetically or culturally related to chinese or not. It would be better off for both to exclude the koreans from chinese culture sphere, due to korean nationalist fever. indeed, identify them with japanese and turks is historically more correct.

There have been several studies linking the Korean genetic relationship with Han Chinese. Do a Pubmed and Google search. User Appleby has been repeatedly removing the Han Chinese entry in the "possibly related ethnic group" section of the yellow box. That is Korean (or Great Altai) Chauvinism and extremely POV. The Han Chinese relation for ethnic Koreans is AT LEAST as strong as the Mongolian, Tungusic, and Tibetan relation. Linguistics is not the sole barometer of ethnic groups. 128.135.36.159 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * please provide reputable sources, per WP:V. thanks. Appleby 20:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I will, but where is said reputable sources for the Korean relations with the Japanese or Manchurians? Your double standards are glaring. I have removed all entries under the "related ethnic group" section for the time being.  128.135.36.159 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the Joong-ang Daily article reference in Japanese people article for Korean relatedness to Japanese. Also, check Yayoi and Jomon pages for further references., , etc. Deiaemeth 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez people make it so much more complicated than it really is. My 2 cents come on guys all east asian probably came from the same central asian source and then they probably just branched out. Comparable to western Europe during the dark ages, barbarians may have had minor contributions to the already large population of the Korean peninsula for the ages. Anyway, the Korean language is a language isolate and could have been around for thousands of years since migrants reached the are from China. The Koreans are not so similar nor different from any other race in this world.


 * Where are the Manchurian citations? Ethnicity is multifaceted: it is genetic, linguistic and cultural. Koreans have been a Confucian agricultural society for nearly as long as the Han Chinese and far longer than the Japanese. Manchurian records from the 1600s specifically DENY any genealogical relations with the Koreans.


 * Linguistics and genetics are two very separate things. The Korean language may possibly be Altaic (even this is contentious) and the Han Chinese language is Sino-Tibetan, but a fundamental tenant of linguistics is that these differences do not reflect the actual genetic makeup of the populations speaking them.  The Koreans today are closely related to the Han Chinese in both genetics and culture.  That is more than enough to put the Han Chinese as a "possibly" related ethnic group.  The Korean people were directly related to the early migrants coming north from China.  Bordering peoples have infulenced the genetic makeup.  The refusal to put Han Chinese there (at the same time eagerly adding Manchurians and Japanese) is nothing but POV Korean Chauvinism and revisionism.


 * Study of Korean Male Origins (abstract)


 * Sunghee Hong, Seong-Gene Lee, Yongsook Yoon, Kyuyoung Song
 * University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-ku, Seoul, Korea


 * Population studies of genetic markers such as HLA variation and mitochondrial DNA have been used to understand human origins, demographic and migration history. Recently, diversity on the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) has been applied to the study of human history. Since NRY is passed from father to son without recombination, polymorphisms in this region are valuable for investigating male-mediated gene flow and for complementing maternally based studies of mtDNA. Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of Korean. By using 38 Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism markers, we analyzed the genetic structure of 195 Korean males. The Korean males were characterized by a diverse set of 4 haplogroups (Groups IV, V, VII, X) and 14 haplotypes that were also present in Chinese. The most frequent haplogroup in Korean was Group VII (82.6%). It was also the most frequent haplogroup in Chinese (95%) as well as in Japanese (45%). The frequencies of the haplogroups V, IV, and X were 15.4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. The second most frequent haplogroup V in Korean was not present in Chinese, but its frequency was similar in Japanese. We have tried to correlate the Y variation with surname to determine how well the clan membership corresponds to Y variation. There were 37 surnames in our sample but genetic variation structure did not correlate with surnames.


 * This is a rebuttal made by another Wikipedian in the Han Chinese article. "That study is terribly outdated and should no longer be considered as informative. Please refer to the [|discussion on this topic] at the Chinese Culture Forum at Asiawind. The Group VII that that old study refers to is now known as Haplogroup NO, which is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the Finns, Munda, and Taiwanese aborigines as well as the Han Chinese and the Koreans. That haplogroup is estimated to be approximately 35,000 to 40,000 years old, or about the same as the age of the split between the most common haplogroups among Europeans and American Indians. So, if you want to say that Koreans are the same as Han Chinese, you will have to agree to saying that Taiwanese aborigines and Munda people are also the same as Han Chinese and that Dutch people are the same as Maya. Do you think there was any such thing as "Korean" or "Chinese" 35,000 to 40,000 years ago? Ebizur 03:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)" Cydevil 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, check the Japan Times article linking some members of Japanese Yayoi to the Yangtze Region of China.

Korean disrelationship with the Han Chinese

Article Origin of the Koreans: A population genetic study N. Saha, J. S. H. Tay Department of Paediatrics, Division of Human Genetics, National University of Singapore, Singapore 0511
 * Naus 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

no need to get excited, i was just asking for references. the general flow of migration from northeast asia (mongol/manchu) to korea (& thereafter, broadly speaking, to japan) is widely accepted, pretty much common knowledge, but i was under the impression that while there certainly was extensive interbreeding and cultural exchange with han chinese, there wasn't a close "ethnic" relationship, depending, of course, on the definition of "ethnic" and "relationship." it's news to me, & apparently to the editors who have edited this article for a long time. again, if the scholarly consensus is that there is an ethnic relationship, that's great. Appleby 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's been some edits and reversions made recently on this issue. All this genetics stuff about Y chromosome polymorphism studies doesn't seem very helpful unless there's a geneticist among us who can interpret this stuff. In any case, genetic relatedness doesn't mean ethnic relatedness. Genetic relateness has had no effect on formation of ethnic identities and probably occurred long before any notions of ethnicities or nationalities were formed.  On the other hand, linguistics is pretty darn important in formation of ethnic identities.  For some reason, there's always a sharp distinction made between Koreans and Han Chinese academically and historically.  Even in China, there is a sharp distinction between Han Chinese and ethnic Korean Chinese who have been living together for hundreds of years.Melonbarmonster 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See Also: Lelang Commandery, Daifang Commandery

Koreans related to Han Chinese????

1) Define what is Han-Chinese??, Han-Chinese are mixed between Altaic People, Han-Chinese were conquered by Mongolian and Manchu for 4,000 Thousand years, If Koreans and Han-Chinese ( If there is a such a thing called " Han-Chinese" which I seriously doubt. Han-Chinese are mixed blood from several tribes) share similiar DNA because Han-Chinese were annexed and mixed with Altiac People which includes ( Koreans, Manchu, Mongolians). In reality Koreans look more Mongolian-Manchurian ( Altaic) People rather then Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Koreans are furtherest from Han Chinese than any other East Asians, even Japanese & Mongolian are lot closer to Han Chinese. Also, Koreans don't have any relations with Japanese or Mongolian, Japanese have been distorting to look like Koreans were under Japonic people. Largest percentage of Koreans are closer to Tungusic people like Jurchen and Manchus. --Korsentry 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Koreans are related to ( Altaic Group: Koreans, Mongolians, Manchurians, Japanese, Ainu, Turkish). Han-Chinese or Chinese are also mixed with Altaic groups. If anyone thinks Chinese have Korean blood consumption probably this is biggest reasons Chinese have been mixed or annexed by Koreans, Mongolians, Manchurians for centures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea1times (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Come off it. If you have many photographs of ordinary Chinese, Korean and Japanese, do you think people could tell them apart 100% of the time? Of course not. The (modern) Chinese, Koreans and Japanese all came from the same ancestral stock before they became the Chinese, Korean and Japanese of today. Indeed they still have essentially the same appearance, and no they do not look like the Turks of Turkey. Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules of genetics to say that the same mutation did not occur separately and independently, nor that mutations indicate that present individuals are not from the same ancestral population. 86.183.0.173 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Koryosaram
How outdated is the (Soviet?) term 고려사람/Корё сарам? The Russian 2002 census lists only five “Корё сарам” as opposed to 148,534 “Корейцы”. Wikipeditor 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Continuing this discussion at Talk:Koryo-saram. cab 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups
202.156.6.54 keeps on adding 'northern Han Chinese' to related ethnic groups. There are no reputable sources that verify this kind of relationship. Ethnic relationship with Han Chinese is best represented by 'Dongyi'. To quote Gina L. Barnes, "Protohistoric ethnic groupings in the Central Plain region. This modern reconstruction places the Dongyi, who were perhaps related to the Bronze-Age population on the Korean Peninsula, in the coastal areas, with the Yellow River drainage occupied by the 'true Chinese'(Hua Xia)."

I don't think Japanese really belong in the groups.


 * Northern Han Chinese are more closer to Mongolian, it's shame to labeled them as han Chinese stock because their bulk of other Han Chinese have very different genetic makeups. --Korsentry 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

contents added under Koreans in China section.
I added info about South Korean expats and NOrth Korean refugees in Korean in China section.link of "wudaokou" and "wangjing" need to be fixed (i am a noob).some numbers require verification. Thanks. Shenya

Korean people outside of Korea --- split to new article?
Anyone object if I split this section out to a new page? I think Ethnic Korean (which currently redirects here) would be an ideal location for it; the term has 428 hits on Google Books, and not a single one of the top 100 use the term to refer to Koreans in Korea, only Koreans outside of Korea. (This matches some usages within Wikipedia; e.g. Ethnic German vs. German people; Ethnic Chinese vs. Chinese people. But not others, e.g. Ethnic Japanese).

Alternatives: Overseas Korean gets some hits (75 on Google Books), but it doesn't seem to be as popular a term. It also might be prone to misunderstanding (e.g. should Koreans in Northeast China really be called Overseas Koreans, or just "Overland Koreans"? Then again, Ethnic Chinese in Korea are often referred to as Overseas Chinese; but most of them came from Shandong on the mid-northern coast, so they probably actually did travel over water to reach Korea). Comments? cab 03:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no one objected for 4 months so I decided to be bold. It's currently at Gyopo; if anyone thinks there's a better way to title the page, your suggestions are welcome at Talk:Gyopo. cab 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever keeps revering the table, stop adding countries that have less than 4K Koreans- the chart is too long & someone can always reference the Gyopo article for a detailed listing.66.27.215.103 (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

on Korean "homogeneity"
Lets be honest and level headed. Chinese are mixed between many different tribes. But they all speak Chinese and eat Chinese food. Koreans absorbed many tribes living in Manchuria and Siberia during ( Ko-Chosun, Korguryo, Paekje, Shilla, Kaya) Kingdom. Plus Koreans had many wars in the past with China, Monghol , Japanese during ( Chosun Dynasty). In the end they are all Koreans. Speak Korean and eat Korean food. Japanese are mixed between Koreans and Ainu. In the end they speak Japanese and eat Japanese food. Koreans are homogeneous regarding too language and culture. It's really really amazing that Koreans had so many wars in the past but still Koreans exist in this modern world. What is Korean history and Korean nationalism?? Like Past and Present what forms Korean identity it always has been not becoming " Chinese", "Monghol", "Japanese", "Russian", and "American". Thats Korean ethnocentrism and Korean racial identity. Not to be aborbed by China, Japan, Russia, USA. Korean history is based on preserving Korean culture and language. Not race. For example, Korean men must marry Korean woman to carry on Family lineage whereas Korean woman can marry whomever she prefers ( China, Japan, Russia, USA) but again in the end. Even though the children becomes half Korean. In the end they are Koreans.

I'm not so sure how "homogeneous" Koreans really are... Whether or not people want to admit it, and whether or not they realize it, today's Koreans are in fact, like most (if not all) peoples of the world, a rather mixed people. They are the result of hundreds if not thousands of years of intermarriage between at least three different peoples - the Silla (Sinla), Koguryeo, and Paekche peoples, and they probably absorbed a certain amount of Parhae (Bohai), Jurchen-Manchu, and even Chinese, Japanese, and Mongols as well. And who knows what ethnolinguistic groups were not even mentioned in the early historical chronicles! I would advise against using the term "homogeneous" to describe any ethnic group... --149.159.2.216 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I am sure that Koreans are not homogeneous, despite what the propaganda in both the north and south say. Textbooks here in Korea tend to omit evidence pointing otherwise, so I cannot blame Koreans for believing in their homogeneousness, despite its affront to common sense and the history of the peninsula that the discussion above mine alludes to. I also object to the use of terms in the first paragraph like "only a few minorities" as the most recent marriage rate between Koreans and foreigners was 12% last year according to census records in the south. In the north multitudes of north Korean women are sold as wives to the Chinese. Not only is Korea not homogenous now, it never has been, despite what all the school kids here are required to learn in school.Bigblair 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

also, how is "The idea of multiracial or multiethnic nations, like India or the United States, strikes many Koreans as odd or even contradictory." passed off as fact in this article? Sounds like more of a person's opinion.


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

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Korean people → Koreans — Tried to take this the other way on Talk:Greeks, but was opposed on the basis that we should use the most common name and only use "people" when the disambiguation is necessary. In this case, it is not - and "Koreans" by the Google test, shows up far more times than "Korean people". Bssc81 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.
 * Support as per above. --Bssc81 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Serge 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese etc are all disambiguation pages, because they are both nouns (people and language) and adjectives (Japanese animation, Chinese food, Taiwanese... McDonald's toys). Korean people shouldn't be singled out and moved to Koreans, especially when the term is plural, which is going against the guidelines of naming conventions (using singular nouns). Nevermind, just read the discussion at Talk:Greeks. --Wirbelwind 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Koreans is better and more common. Good friend100 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, I guess. Nothing wrong with the current title, but the case for the move seems fairly strong.  -- Visviva 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above.--Rudjek 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments:

Google test results
Results 1 - 20 of about 707,000 English pages for "korean people" Results 1 - 20 of about 5,670,000 English pages for koreans Not even close. A no-brainer. --Serge 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved back to "Korean people"
I think it should be moved back to "Korean people", as that seems to be the standard (Japanese people, Chinese people, Taiwanese people, and that is what it says in the article ["Korean people" not "Koreans"]).  moo cows rule talk to moo 07:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3 pictures
The three pictures for the illustration of the article could have some work. Firstly, the images of Koreans should be more direct to their face and secondly, do we really need the Korean president's face on there? It tends to promote him and his position as president. There really is no need to have him there. There are hundreds of other good, quality images of Koreans. Good friend100 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are there photos of celebrities on the bottom row? That's just embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.11.203 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We need more new pictures --Korsentry 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Related ethnic groups
Those who can read Korean please check this out: news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSS2D&office_id=020&article_id=0000380181&section_id=105&section_id2=228&menu_id=105 Rttrt 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the body of the article bears this out especially in the origins sectionMelonbarmonster 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This study is not yet published, so nobody can verify what haplogroups and subclades were found. Following the Wikipedia:Verifiability criterion, this particular article should be ommitted until the study is published. Cydevil 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Korean Population (2007) is 7,932,671. Korean total population need to be updated. Korean total population (2007) South Korea: 48,379,392 + North Korea: 24,479,088 + Overseas Koreans 7,932,671 = 80,791, 151 ( 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreans1koreans (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Origins Section
There's have been attempts at edits of this section without discussion. The title's been also edited without discussion. Please use this space to propose future changes and gain consensus instead of reverting each other's edits for the Origins section.Melonbarmonster 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Generalondal changed the title of this section recently without consensus due to a minor disagreement regarding a blurb about Japan relatedness which we're stilling trying to work out. We should work out the disagreement about adding Japan relatedness in first sentence first instead of changing title. Relatedness seems to be a whole different can of worms wrought with difficult nationalism issues that can't be dealt with fairly this early section.


 * As for Cydevil edits regarding Yan states, there are many other "ingredients" that have been added to Korean identity besides the Yan states which are not being mentioned in this section. It seems inappropriate level of detail for a section on Origins of Koreans to get into this issue in the first place or to just mention Yang influences here. There are many migrations of populations that have occurred in recorded history when ethnic and linguistic identities were already in place.  Perhaps an objective description can be added to later sections dealing with Homogeneity but it's out of place in the Origins section and also disrupts readability of this section.Melonbarmonster 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought there was much more significance in migrants from Yan state than other mere "ingredients". And what are your grounds for editing out all of my contributions? Have it your way with the Yan state. I think the Origins section here can afford much more detail.cydevil
 * I thought Koreans claim Go-chosun lineage instead of any sort of source migration from Yan. After I edited your Yan stuff, there was only the "successive waves of migration" portion which didn't really flow with original text on its own. Your ref to xiajiadian has the same problem as your mention of Yan. Again, my general feeling on this is that contentious issues of national identity should be left out. There's no authoritative consensus on ancient history regarding this stuff and that kind level of detail in inappropriate for wiki because you can't do justice to it in a paragraph or two.
 * I had no problem with your "waves of migration" portion but your link to xiajiadian as "western manchuria" is highly problematic for me since those guys were around for 400 years and it makes no sense to claim that they're a source for proto-koreans. I also don't see how it makes any sense to claim successive waves of migrations from neolithic to bronze age when xiajiadian existed after both the neolithic and bronze age. These China related claims are extremely contentious and don't belong on this article in my opinion. At least please discuss them here before making these additions. Melonbarmonster 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying to maintain complete NPOV by excluding any claims from Korean scholars that may be a contenious subject. Perhaps I was too neglectful of the Korean perspective. If you want to go along with the mainstream and official perspective of Korean scholars on Korean origins, I propose changing Korean peninsula to "ancient Korea" or "Korean peninsula and Manchuria" with a link to the Liaoning bronze dagger culture or Gojoseon article. Citation on Gina Barne's book should be moved to "south-central Siberia", while the citation on the Korean book should remain at the end of the sentence.cydevil

Relatedness
I agree with other editor's view that this info should be left out of the info box on the right side of the article. Japan relatedness is already dealt with in the body of the origins paragraph and should not be repeatedly stated.

Please do not make unilateral edits or revert other people edits without explanation or discussion on this page. Such reverts are a violation of WP:EW.Melonbarmonster 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Relatedness in Info Box
Do we need a relatedness section in the Info Box? It's been mentioned that Chinese and Japanese articles don't have relatedness sections. What's the reason for having this and is it really informative? I think issue of relatedness is too complicated and contentious to really be able to convey in a meaningful way in an info box. I'm for just getting rid of that section. It's difficult if not impossible to be NPOV with this section in my opinion.Melonbarmonster 07:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It quite well confirmed by historians, archaeologists and linguists that modern Koreans are descended from Altaic speaking migrants from southern Siberia. The info box reflects this widely accepted POV. It doesn't matter whether or not different articles don't have relatedness section, not to mention Han Chinese does have a relatedness section. If the source of contentions is in Japnaese or Han Chinese, then leave both of them out. This relatedness section in the info box has been included in this article, so before unilaterally removing it, please consult the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Dude, this was someone else's suggestion. That other editor made the edit.  I agreed and fixed your reversions.  You're the one disagreeing and making unilateral edits.  I started this discussion section and you finally commented after reverting a couple of times. It's not a pressing issue for me one way or another but in light of the convoluted issues involved with ethnic "relatedness" this section doesn't offer anything helpful and is oversimplistic.  Why are you so adament about including this in the info box?  If you have any pressing reasons, please share. btw, no one's arguing about altaic speaking relatedness, etc.. Stick to the issue please. Thanks.Melonbarmonster 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one making unilateral edits to a content that has been included in the article for quite some time. Please build a consensus before you make any such changes. Most articles on ethnicities have this info included in the box. You provide no basis for taking it out. If you wish to dispute this, do so here and build a consensus. As I've said, the relatedness info is confirmed by historians, archaeologists and linguists and follows the NPOV rule.
 * Dude look at the date of this section that I started...Melonbarmonster 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And look at the date of my reply. There is no consensus, so unless you address those points I've made, the relatedness section will stay. 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very regrettable the relatedness info box became a cause for inclusion of "Koreans" in the "lamest edit wars" article. The current relatedness info box has direct relevance to the contents of the article, and it serves its intentional purpose as providing a succint summary of the contents of the article. Any further reversions or edits must address the current issues beforehand to maintain NPOV. Cydevil 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about it??? You were reverting other editor's edits long before that and only responded to this section 5 days after I put it up. 3 editors have expressed support for deleting this.  If you disagreed then you should've opened up discussion in this talk page instead of reverting people's edits.  Who's needs to seek consensus??? Give me a break. You can spin and rabidly revert everyone's edits and ignore their opinions if you want. Go ahead... just don't feign surprise when other people think you're being ridiculous. Melonbarmonster 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did those editors say anything in the discussion before making those edits? What is the basis of their eidts? And number of editors do not necessarily justify such edits. NPOV does. Look, I've made my points. Address those points directly, and avoid any further pointless editing war. Cydevil 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one reverting everyone's edits here. Since you're the only one so rabidly stuck on this, you're the one who needed to seek consensus. There are three editors who are supporting this change.  We agree.  If you don't, you need to raise the issue in the talk page instead of unilaterally reverting edits you don't like. You haven't made any points that's relevant to the disagreement at hand. There's no disagreement of facts here buddy. It's a matter of layout and clear presentation of facts. That's why it's so ridiculous that you're so rabid on keeping this. Good grief.Melonbarmonster 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets see them show their support here, and explicate their basis for deleting that infobox. I've made my points that directly address the disagreements.
 * 1. Other articles not having a relatedness infobox does not concern this article. Also, one of the articles mentioned in fact does have a relatedness infobox. Han Chinese
 * 2. That modern Koreans are descended from Altaic speaking migrants from southern Siberia is widely accpeted by historians, archaeologists and linguists. This is also reflected in the article of the same topic(Korean people/한민족) in Encyclopedia Britannica and Doosan Encyclopedia.
 * 3. The relatedness infobox fulfils its intended purpose by providing a succint summary of the contents of the article. Cydevil 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, you're pissing into the wind.Melonbarmonster 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Relatedness in Info Box
208.179.17.3 added the following claim: "These physicalities and genotypical manifestations can be compared to the other native ethnic groups of East Asia: the Japanese, Ainu, and Han Chinese." I find that claim unreliable, as there is no citation provided and the fact that Ainu have very different physicalities and genotypical manifestations from other East Asians or "Mongoloids". 208.179.17.3 should provide a legitimate source if this claim is to be included in Wikipedia.


 * The Ainu are very similar both physically and genotypically to the Japanese. If you don't want to consider the Ainu as "Mongoloids," then you should exempt the Japanese from that category as well. Ebizur 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that Ainus, and of course Japanese who mixed with proto-Ainu(Jomon) extensively, have distinct physical characteristics and also in y-chromosome lineages(haplogroup D). Cydevil 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is actually a plethora of studies that clearly demonstrate that there is something genetically "weird" about the populations of the Japanese Archipelago, including both the Japanese and the Ainu. All I was trying to say to the user who started this thread was that he shouldn't throw a tantrum over the inclusion of the Ainu in a list of "native ethnic groups of East Asia" along with the Japanese and the Han Chinese. All three of these ethnic groups are, at least on a historical timescale, "native ethnic groups of East Asia," and what's more, there is really not much difference between the Ainu and the Japanese in general. The differences that do exist between the Ainu and the Japanese are probably due to differential sources and amounts of admixture. The Ainu appear to have received admixture from the Nivkhs or a population closely related to the Nivkhs, as suggested by various cultural, linguistic, and genetic elements shared between the Nivkhs and the Ainu, such as bear worship, Y-chromosome Haplogroup C3-M217*, and a large amount of mtDNA Haplogroup Y. The Japanese, on the other hand, appear to have received admixture from some group, now extinct on the continent, that was closely related, but not identical, to the proto-Koreans, as shown by the fairly large amount of Y-chromosome Haplogroup O2b1a-47z among the Japanese and Ryukyuans. (Koreans do not have O2b1a-47z in any substantial quantity, but they do possess a high frequency, over 30%, of the "ancestral" paragroup, O2b1*.) Both Koreans and Japanese also seem to have a detectable amount of (proto-)Chinese admixture, but it is still very unclear how significant this (proto-)Chinese influence might have been. Anyway, my point is that the (post-Nivkh?-admixture) Ainus and the (post-Korean?-admixture) Japanese are really not very different from each other, although the degree of admixture into the proto-Japanese might have been somewhat greater than the degree of admixture into the proto-Ainus (but even this is unclear, especially considering the small population size of the Ainus and likely effects of genetic drift). You also have to consider the fact that the proto-Nivkhs were not really the same as the proto-Koreans, and therefore the admixture into the proto-Ainus and the admixture into the proto-Japanese should have had different effects. Ebizur 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, another thing that I think should be pointed out to that guy who is whining about including the Ainu in a list of native ethnic groups of East Asia is that the Japanese are, in fact, even weirder than the Ainu in many respects. For example, the Japanese have a reversed distribution of ABO blood types compared to continental East Asian ethnicities: the Japanese have a very high frequency of ABO blood type A, which is a characteristic of aboriginal Australian populations and populations of Central and Eastern Europe. The Ainu, on the other hand, have a rather high frequency of ABO blood type B, which is a typical characteristic of those so-called "Mongoloid" populations with which that user is so loathe to associate the Ainu. The Japanese also possess a Y-chromosome haplogroup, C1-M8, that is specific to the Japanese and has not been found among any other population of the entire world, although it appears to be ultimately related to the aboriginal Australian Haplogroup C4 and the South Asian Haplogroup C5. For that matter, even the (probably) Korean-related Haplogroup O2b1a-47z is essentially a Japanese-specific clade, and the "ancestral" paragroup of which Haplogroup O2b1a-47z is one subset, namely Haplogroup O2b1*, is found only among the Koreans and the Japanese, which makes both the Koreans and the Japanese somewhat "weird." So please stop trying to emphasize the "uniqueness" of the Ainu; I am not denying that they are an interesting isolate population, but the Japanese are at least as much so. Ebizur 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm the one who started this thread. I forgot to add the user info there. Perhaps I was wrong that only the Ainus are unique, I just always had this thought that Haplogroup D is best represented by the Andaman Islanders, and that the differences in physical traits between Ainus are a result of admixture with "Mongoloids". Anyways, if you feel that the passage is accurate, I won't object in including it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
 * And what do you think about the passage on genetics? I think that passage needs either some citations or deletion so we can get rid of that citation thing on the top of the article. Cydevil 09:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This who discussion is sorta petty...its as if your trying to spot an Irishman among Germans or Greeks amongs Italians...they are more or less the same-dont worry about the specifics! -An anons two cents... 69.19.14.29 (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn people...just omit the relatness section and let people who want to be nitpicky about it research the genetics themselves-either that or simply put "other Asian peoples" or something...Wikipedia is usually used by people trying to get a broad overview of a topic-and not meant to delve into the nitty gritty details of Short tandem repeat plots, SNPs, and Y and mt DNA junk. It is almost useless to the layman anyway.

WP:LAME
Dokdo Island, is Korean Land. The name should be labeled " Dokdo Island" not some French name. This is so wrong!!!! Korean government must step in make this correction as ASAP. Its called " Dokdo Island" not Liancort Rock. It's called Dokdo. Wikipedia doing terrible job giving misinformed information.


 * Lamest edit war??? So freedom of speech is lame?? then American democracy should be lamest thing ever happened to the world civilization. Why? are you finger pointing at Koreans. You should be the one to blame. SO YOUR THE LAMEST THING HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA'S INVENTION. DON'T BLAME ON KOREANS.!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherjjlee (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 February 2007

Assistance from wp:ko
What is the exact issue here? I would like to know what the problem is. Good friend100 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was about whether or not Relatedness in Info Box should be included in this article. As it seems, the issue is resolved. Cydevil 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Cydevil just out reverted me and some other editors and I didn't want to bother with the 3RR and reporting it and crud. I wouldn't call it an Ethnic feud though. User:Melonbarmonster|Melonbarmonster]] 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a Really bad picture
Of Koreans It should be like the Chinese one with multiple people. Jegal 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its nice, it shows technological development of koreans nowadays. --– Emperor Walt  e r Humala  · ( talk? ·  help! ) 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture?
Lee Myung Bak = Every Korean in the history of mankind and the universe in general? Surely not... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.94.54 (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * THat friggin picture has to go.melonbarmonster 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with Lee Myung Bak. Anyways, he better become president of Korea, I hope our South Korean friends are not stupid again to pick some communist sympathizer like President Noh. Good friend100 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally do insist on changing the picture from a disputable current politician to historical figures of Korean history. I am a Korean, and in my blog, I criticized absurdness of the selection of the picture and updated an alternative suggestion of the picture in http://ilchui.tistory.com/68 . In case you don't know, the basic argument I used is that a politically sensitive figure cannot be used as a representative picture of Korean race, because he is one of the leading candidates of Korean Presidency, and each figures of my alternative are, from the left, Dangun, Gwanggaeto the Great, Sejong the Great, and Kim Gu. Jbo1016 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete above two sections
Per WP:DENY, I'd like to propose removing the above two sections from this talk page, seeing as various Korean and Russian speaking editors showed up at the AfD and all agreed it was a massive hoax. This will also prevent the made-up terms from getting indexed by Google and lending more currency to this hoax. Objections? cab 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there was no objection, I have gone ahead with this. cab 07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Koreans? not Korean people
most other ethnic group articles are "-corresponding adjective- people"... shouldn't this be, also. Does wikipedia have a convention on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.99.12 (talk • contribs).
 * See . It was made on the grounds of using common names, which I thought was slightly ridiculous, but anyway ... some articles are at Xyz people because Xyz cannot be pluralised (e.g. Chinese people rather than "Chineses", French people rather than "Frenches"); others are not because they are pluralisable, like Russians and Greeks. Koreans falls into the latter category. cab 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Probably"?
"Most Koreans live in the Korean Peninsula and speak the Korean language. Korea's population is probably the world's most homogeneous ethnically and linguistically"

Does Wikipedia really need such uncertainty? Normal encyclopedias define facts, not a chance; dispute whether to keep, or to omit completely.

--Shogunpk 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Korean relationship with Mongolians:

Article

Origins of the Koreans: A population genetic study

Abstract

A population gentic study was undertaken to investigate the origins of the koreans. Thirteen polymorphic and 7 monomorphic blood genetic markers (serum proteins and red cell enzymes) were studied in a group of 437 koreans. Genetic distance analyses by bith ckuster and principal components models were performed between koreans and eight other populations ( Koreans in China, Japanese, Han Chinese, Mongolians, Zhuangs, Malays, Javanese, and Soviet Asians) on the basis of 47 alleles controlled by 15 polymorphic loci. A more detailed analysis using 65 alles at 19 polymorphic loci was performed on six populations. Both analyses demonstrated genetic evidence of the Koreans from the central Asian Mongolians. Further, the Koreans are distant from the Chinese and are more closely related to the Japanese. The above evidence of the origin of the koreans fits well with linguistic and ethno historic account of the origin of the koreans and the Korean language. The minority Koreans in China also maintained their genetic identity. - Sinclair 8/7/2007

Pictures?
May we include more pictures of ethnic Koreans, such as Minka?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Although, no one seems to be discussing this, at least one user doesn't think the Minka picture is appropriate. I'll concede it's a little disturbing that Minka is the first ethnic Korean I could think of, but if that pic is no good, can we have at least have some pictures of some ethnic Korean people?  It would brighten up the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a little disturbing. I'll try to come up with someone more appropriate. BTW, thanks for introducing me to this porn star. lol Cydevil38 13:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to avert an edit war, after the most recent removal of the photo by an anon, I put in one of Yuliy Kim instead. One of the few free photos of a famous overseas Korean that I'm aware of (same one we're using on the Koryo-saram article). Either of the ones on Korean American would work too, I guess; but since most enwiki readers are already know about the Korean American community and Michelle Wie, I figured it would be better to pick someone representing the 70% of Korean emigrants who don't live in the US. cab 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good choice, cab. Cydevil38 09:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that one apparently wasn't actually free; uploader mistagged it, someone finally found out, and it got deleted from commons as a copyvio. Anyone got any better suggestions? cab 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Korean-Manchurian descents
Koreans have been settling in Manchuria for centuries. Modern day settlement traces during 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th century. Korean-Manchurian descent is about 100,000,000 millions scattered across Manchuria and Russian border. In reality it is not wild assumption. Chinese communist government try to unite all people in China with communist regime. Chinese communist government tries to simpifly the group Han-Chinese in reality majority ot them are actually Korean-Manchurian population is about 107,430,000 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean Manchurian descents meaning Manchurians that have Korean blood numbers 107,430,000 millions scattlered all over North East Manchuria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.51 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This kind of wild assertion desperately needs a reliable source. The amount of Korean migration to northeast China amounted to a few million people in the late 19th and early 20th century. How exactly do they have 100 million descendants? cab (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Korean-Manchurians: Manchurians with Korean blood or Manchurian Korean descent is about 107,430,000 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonjj (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, instead of pasting this onto a bunch of talk pages, why don't you cite a reliable source which contains this information (if any source like that exists)? And please add your new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not in the middle, and sign using ~ . cab (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese and Korean scholars now say that Korean-Manchurians or Manchurian Koreans descents are scattered all over North East China or China. The population numbers around 107,430.000 million. I would like to include this information as part of Korean descent populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonjj (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the third time, please sign your posts and add new comments at the bottom of the page instead of in the middle. And this information cannot be included unless you tell us what book or academic paper said it. cab (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

KOREAN-MANCHURIAN DESCENTS ARE ABOUT ( 107,430,000) THEY ARE LOCATED IN NORTHEASTERN PART OF KOREAN PENINSULA/ MANCHURIA. KOREANS BEEN MIGRATING TO MANCHURIA DURING 6TH,7TH,8TH,9TH,10TH,11TH, 12TH,13TH,14TH,15TH,16TH,17TH,18TH,19TH CENTURIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations
Hi, could someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject (and perhaps an ability to read Korean sources, as I am unable) please check the accuracy of the figures in the infobox? I was fact checking this edit but this source in the infobox contradicts it and also a lot of the other figures too. It would appear that they were changed way back in June 2007 here to match the figures in the Korean diaspora article, but as far as I can see they are unsourced. Also, a quick google search found this which has similar (although slightly different) figures to the above source. I don't want to change it myself in case there is a source matching these updated figures which I cannot translate/read? Kind regards, ascidian  | talk-to-me  22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the figures to reflect the source as there was no response here. regards, ascidian  | talk-to-me  15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected
The page is now protected for 7 days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ive already trimmed down my version, removing the word "Chinese", but apparently they can't even stand to have the mention of a Chinese y chromosome haplogroup on this article.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your reason for adding Chinese y chromosome into Koreans? Approx. 25% of modern Koreans do share some common ancestry with Northern Chinese; but this doesn't mean they are 100% Han Chinese. Through out the time and isolation, the remains of this chromosome is irrelevant to Koreans. Modern Chinese population is largely Southern origins of Chinese, these Northern Han Chinese are result of mix of various Northern people. Han Chinese were not able to travel beyond the great wall of China even during Manchu Dynasty. It's only about 100 years ago, Han Chinese were settling down on beyond the greatwall. If Koreans do have Chinese y chromosome then Chinese people also have Korean chromosome as well, but Chinese DNA studies don't mention this at all. Double standard don't you think? Korsentry 06:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WRONG- the study explicitly mentions SOUTH TO NORTH MIGRATION chinese chromosomes. and the chromosome mentioned IS southern chinese. during the han dynasty, its documented that chinese colonized manchuria and koream and vietnam, your little "theory" about chinese settling only about 100 years ago is totally wrong. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's kind of their habit. They feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they hear that we're kin (which is absolute rubbish). Kuebie (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * pray tell kuebie, have you discovered a new feature that chinese people can do? somehow grow fuzz and and elevate body temperature magically?Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go over the talk page as to why such information is not needed. This has been discussed to death already. Kuebie (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and i never said koreans were descended from chinese. i was stating the study, which mentioned southern, not northern chinese chromosomes.

stop whining
chinese immigrated into korea when it was under chinese control during the Han Dynasty, and divided into 4 commandaries, Lelang being one of them. Emperor Liu Bang forcibly transported 40,000 Chinese peasants to colonies in Lelang and other commandaries in Korea such as Luolang(Pyongyang). Emperor Han Wudi encouraged intermarriage with local peoples.


 * The fortunes of Lelang waxed and waned with the fluctuations in the political stability of the central Han government. During its first two centuries, the commandery headquarters appears from its tomb remains to have been a prosperous community, whereas by AD 190 the local administration was bankrupt due to the declined of the Han court. At this time, many of the Mainland residents of the commandery appear to have fled, their places taken by an influx of local peoples. Gina L. Barnes. The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is whining except you. It's hilarious how you people desperately try to associate with Koreans. This isn't the first time either. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koreans#Koreans_and_the_Han_Chinese Kuebie (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no, you two are appreantly whining, #1, i removed the word chinese, and since you say it ISNT chinese anyway, you wouldnt have a problem with that DNA on this article, #2 the next thing said "from china, to korea, to japan", it didnt say, "CHINESE", #3, i ust opwned korsentry on his statement that chinese never settled past the great wall till 1100 years ago, #4, find a non korean, and non chinese source to refute the study, #5, the part of the study about koreans was conducted in korea by a korean, unless some chines person magically had a korean name.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wah wah. Kuebie (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kuebie as per wikipedia civility guidelines, please modify your tone or find yourself the subject of an ANI report that will suggest that you are blocked from editing - constructive comments are more than welcome, however your comments are argumentative and not acceptable. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Haplogroup O spreading from Southeast Asia to Northeast Asia is a contested theory. Research on this particular subject matter is still on-going and inconclusive, so I suggest leaving out claims based on genetics or at least provide all sides of the story. Here's some more recent research that contradicts the study posted by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

KOREANS BELONG TO " ALTAIC GROUPS" ( KOREANS, MONGOLIANS, MANCHURIANS). NOT CHINESE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This page seriously need UPDATES!
About Korean people require serious updates, full demography and DNA analysis needs to be added. S Korean Human genetic project is just finished last year, we need to add the analysis to show Koreans are diverse people.--Korsentry 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

"Names" section
Since this article refer to ethnic Koreans, not just the ones within North or South Korea, just wondering if the "names" section should also include what Koreans call themselves in Korean outside of those national boundaries where there is a significant population? Am thinking "Koryo-saram" in central Asia, and "Joseonjok" as in the PRC. They're both what those ethnic minorities in these countries call themselves, and both roughly translate to "Korean people" in Korean. Phonemonkey (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no plural for Korean
Like most ethnic group, Korean doesn't have a plural in English dictionary. In Merriam Webster, Korean, is defined as native of Korea. There's no entry of Koreans. Likewise, there's no plural of Indian(s), Chinese (Chineses) Japanese(Japaneses) etc. This mistake is not quite tolerable. Clari 2010 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Some printed dictionaries do not include plurals to save space. That does not mean the plural of the word does not exist. And like I've already told you, words ending in "s" sounds aren't pluralised in that way, whereas other words are. Your line of questioning is rapidly devolving into trolling and disruption, and wasting everyone's time. cab (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There will never be an entry for a plural in a dictionary, though the dictionary might give the correct pluralization in the singular entry. I have undone all of your incorrect page moves. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 15:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggest move Koreans to Korean people: there is no plural Koreans in web-based, or printed dictionaries.
Even in web based dictionaries, there's no such term Koreans. To so strongly back a possibly mistake is itself suspicious. After all, to move Koreans to Korean people, which is more grammatically safe and ethnically acceptable, shouldn't cost much or hurt anybody's feeling, I hope Clari 2010 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. "Koreans" is the correct pluralization. If you don't think there is such a term, then your grasp of English is tenuous at best. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Korean, when referring to people, is plural. Just like, Chinese, Japanese,Vietnamese, etc. My English is not 100% perfect for sure, but your comment is very close to a personal attack, seriously. Clari 2010 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. "There are two Chinese" is correct. "There are two Korean" is incorrect. cab (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Koreans or Korean People
I don't understand why some folks are feeling so strong with changing the title from 'Koreans' to 'Korean People', while articles with title Chinese People in.. Japanese People in.. are well accepted consensus at wiki. As a Korean, "Koreans" does sound somewhat discriminative, especially there are presently two Koreas for politically reasons. But ethnically, there's one Korean. Korean can be used as plural, in English. Korean, when referring to people, is plural. Just like, Chinese, Japanese,Vietnamese, etc.

In the community of Wiki, I hope people won't consider this move suggestion(a good-faith well intentioned proposal) malicious. And to ill-consider a good faith effort to make a more reasonable change for millions of Korean people all over the world making contributions is more than surprising to me.

Can the title be changed from Koreans to Korean People?

Thoughts? Clari 2010 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the third time: this has nothing to do with the division of Korea or ethnic discrimination or whatever other unrelated matter you want to broing into it. This is simple English phonology. Ethnonyms ending in nasal consonants like "n" (most of them: German, Finn, Russian, American, Mongolian), stop consonants like "k" or "t" (Evenk, Scot, Inuit, Slovak), or liquid consonants like "l" (Pole), are pluralised by adding an "s". Ethnonyms ending in affricate consonants or fricative consonants like "z" (Chinese, Japanese), "ch" (Dutch, French), "sh" (English, British, Irish) are not pluralised using "s". People reacted "strongly" about this matter because of how you responded when you were told you were wrong. Instead of sitting back and having a think, you went and made nearly thirty page moves and ungrammatical edits which took us half an hour to clean up.


 * Note further that on Google Books you can find 530 books with the word "Koreans" in their title (more than twice as many as have "Korean people" in their title ). These books were written and edited by university professors, renowned journalists, professional book editors, and government bureaucrats, consisting of Americans, Koreans, Britons, and people of other nationalities. Regardless of what level you think your English is, it is quite arrogant of you to claim that all of these people who use the word "Koreans" are wrong and racist and you're the only one who knows what's right because you looked in the dictionary and didn't find the word "Koreans". cab (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For the 3rd time, suggest to move to Korean People
After all, anything wrong with title Korean People, or Korean People in?

If you understand Chinese or Japanese is plural, and knowing that "Chinese People in.." or "Japanese People in.." are well accepted trend at wiki, I hope you understand that's the way they wish to be called - nothing wrong with it.

With the same welcoming spirit, I don't see why the wiki community should hold such an unbelievable strong stance against the title "Korean People". It's much better trend, more friendly and less discriminative. And there's nothing wrong with it.

Korean or Koreans: in terms of grammar, true, if you dig hard enough to back the term "Koreans" with some evidence, you probably won't be disappointed. But there are many options to pluralize names of people. To use the root alone is certainly an available option. English is evolving, trend is made, each country and each term has its own story.

When dealing with such kind of articles, please remember it is also a humanitarian work, not just some rigid grammar work - not to mention, Korean People is correct grammatically. If you can accept Chinese People title, Korean People title is also justifiable. Clari 2010 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you have not proven any way whatsoever that the term "Koreans" is "discriminative" or "less friendly". Somehow the Canadians, Mongolians, and Czechs are not complaining about their "s". You just keep repeating the same tired comparison to "Chinese people" or "Japanese people". It's been explained to you five times now that those are not analogous examples. Enough already. cab (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to improve, out of good intention: Korean People is much better than Koreans. It does sound more friendly. In terms of Candadians, Mongolians, Germans, Czechs, Russians, etc, I thought about it, wondering if anybody from there would care. But I certainly wouldn't refuse a proposal to change it to Canadian People, Czech People etc if someone feels strong about it and make a proposal to change. If it's the way certain people wish to be called, which is not grammatically wrong, sounds more friendly, and also there are precedences to justify the proposal, why taking such a rigid stance over a humanitarian proposal like this at wiki, after all, wiki belongs to the public. Clari 2010 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Notable people representing Koreans
I've updated the infobox with a mosaic of notable Koreans. It's much more cleaner looking and aesthetically pleasing than the previous mess of pictures. The following are rationales for the inclusion of each picture, and what they represent:


 * Kim Dae-jung: Representing South Korea
 * Yu Gwan-Sun: Representing March 1st Movement
 * Kim Gu: Representing Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea
 * King Sejong: Representing the height of the Joseon Dynasty
 * Yun Duseo: Representing Korean Art
 * Yi Sunsin: Representing the military history of Korea
 * Eulji Mundeok: Representing the Three Kingdoms of Korea period
 * Empress Myeongseong: Representing the end of the Joseon Dynasty and Korea during the First Sino-Japanese War
 * Kim Yong Nam: Representing North Korea
 * Jang Youngsil: Representing the science and technology of Korea

Any suggestions? I understand there's an objection to include a ruthless dictator like Kim Jong il or Kim il-Sung or their related ilk, but I also think there there needs to be someone representing North Korea, which is an important part of Korean history, regardless of how brutal dictators have been. It may not be Kim il-Sung, but it does need to be someone.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that the Chinese are quite sympathetic towards North Korea for various reasons, but putting a dictator as representative of a group of people is in bad bad taste. Equivalent to other controversial figures such as Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler. 24.22.232.108 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that's in seriously bad taste. Please be civil and avoid discriminatory generalizations. I'm Canadian first and foremost, so that ad hominem remark doesn't even apply. This may be a politically sensistive issue, but someone should represent North Korea, which is part of Korean history, whether or not the dictator is brutal, and he is. And keep in mind, I agree that figures like Mao Zedong should not be included, which is why I ignored him in the Han Chinese collage, but I did include Deng Xiaoping, since there needs to be some representation of a certain period of history, regardless of how objectionable.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replaced him with Kim Yong Nam. He still acts as a representation of North Korea, while being much less controversial. Please keep a cool head and avoid disparaging generalizations of another user's ethnicity, I perfectly understand that this is a contentious topic, but we must approach it with civility, patience, and mutual understanding. And plus, it's not like I added his son, who is comically just as cruel and brutal as he was. --Hongkongresident (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who knows Kim Yong Nam? I don't know who he is. Nominal representation is not a real representation. It's tough job to select several persons to represent for a country. In my opinion Kim Il Sung could represent North Korea. We don't need to care he is evil or not. We have to ask the question 'Is he a symbol in general?'. --Cheol (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt many people know who Empress Myeongseong is either. That doesn't change the fact that they're considered significant people, even if they're not widely known. If this was based purely on popularity, it would be filled with pop stars and athletes. And no one wants that. --resident (talk)00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do you have any suggestions for a replacement? I was thinking someone from the Goryeo period, but I don't know who. --resident (talk)00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no rule that says that there must be a picture representing an ethnic group. And looking at the long history of edit-warring regarding this very issue, just do away with it all. Leave it blank, much more cleaner imo. Who cares if it doesn't conform to other articles. See examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koreans#collage Akkies (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kuebie. The only reason I created a new collage was because the previous collage looked messy and unorganised, taking too much space in the infobox. But perhaps no collage is a better solution. I support keeping it like this to avoid any future controvery.--resident (talk)00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't fear the controversy. It's a way of progress. But just be careful to do it creative and productive. Go, go, go! --Cheol (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Large Koreatowns?
I notice that there is a reference to Large Koreatowns can also be found in Australia, ... This appears to be uncited, and is to my knowledge incorrect. There are certainly areas in Sydney where Koreans tend to live, but in no way are they what is presumably meant here by "koreatowns" - i.e. areas that are predominantly Korean ethnically and culturally. I clicked through to the Koreatown page and the descriptions there are equally incorrect.

Any objection to removing the text? 129.78.32.23 (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Porting this page to Korean People: Korean vs Koreans
It's already disturbing and unsettling enough that Korea has to be called Koreas for now, since world war II, for those who truly care about Korea Peninsular and the people sharing the same heritage for more than 5000 years. To call Korean people as Koreans, is not even grammatically correct, and is ethnically discriminative. This is more than just a bad grammar mistake, the side effect of this mistake is pervasive in many Korean people's heart. And yet the mistake has been all around from wikipedia, then to main stream media, then some books, websites, etc. Wiki editors, let's fix it, from here.

There are too many articles as I just found at wiki that are repeating this mistake, like, Koreans in Japan, Koreans in China, Koreans, Koreans...

The only solution I can think of now is to port the content to the right place, and redirect the previous ones to new ones, as you don't know how they are referenced from other articles.

Therefore, I created new page Korean People and moved content overthere. Any thoughts? Clari 2010 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clari 2010 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is complete nonsense. Plurals in English are formed by adding "s" to the end of the word, except where the word already ends with a similar sound. I have no idea how you conclude that this is "ethnically discriminative". cab (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

However, there's no plural format of Korean in dictionary. Korean, in Merriam Webster, is defined as native of Korea. Likewise, there's no plural of Chinese (Chineses) Japanese(Japaneses) etc. Clari 2010 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your examples are incorrect, and show that your grasp of the English language is low. Plurals never have entries in dictionaries, other than sometimes a brief mention of how the plural of a word is formed. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe "Korean" became "Koreans" due to there are two Korean nationalities (North & South), Clari's claim does have point, Koreans should be just called "Korean", for language it should be "Korean language" and for people it should be "Korean people". This "Koreans" is modern description of "Korean people".--KSentry(talk) 12:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)