Talk:Racism in South Korea/Archive 1

Really?
...Really? This is it? When I opened up an encyclopedia page purporting to have information on racism in South Korea, I was hoping for something a little more in-depth than a bunch of anecdotes I could have heard by visiting a bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.232.168.193 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty disappointing that the article is very small, considering the extremely widespread nature of racism in South Korea. I'll try to expand the article a bit. Best of regards, Illegitimate Barrister 12:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are too many rape, sexual assault, violence, theft and murders committed by foreigners and ethnic minorities in Korea. There are too many victims and sufferers who are unknown among the foreign community. Massyparcer (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Yes, we have to stop those Negroid savage sons of Ham from raping our pureblooded Korean women!" Do you realize how ridiculously racist you sound? Even Neo-Nazis aren't this blatantly racist; they at least try to dress up their racism in polite language. I think it's pretty obvious you have a clearly racist POV-pushing agenda here and am not even going to bother to try to reason with you. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic issues, not racism
Quoting Illegitimate Barrister's claim that "What the Japanese article is named is irrelevant", unlike Western countries, there is technically no such thing as "racism" in South Korea - the term does not legally exist since everyone is categorized as Korean. This may sound strange to people from the West, but it is a common misunderstanding. The situation is exactly the same as Japan where also everyone is regarded as Japanese. See This is why this article has been moved to Ethnic issues in South Korea to bring it in line with the legal definition and status in South Korea, just like Ethnic issues in Japan. I have also restored all relevant sourced contents that the editor has removed. There are too many misleading and irrelevant claims based on dubious sources and original research. Constructive criticism is always welcomed but this article has way too many contents violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V, as the above unsigned editor has pointed out, reading more like a rant from angry English teachers and their personal feelings against South Korea, which is why unsourced or irrelvant comments have been removed to bring it in line with Wikipedia editing standards. Massyparcer (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "there is technically no such thing as "racism" in South Korea... everyone is categorized as Korean". Wait, WTF? Are you freaking serious? There are no non-Koreans in South Korea? That's even more ridiculous than your assertion that there is no racism in South Korea. That is absolutely false, since we have reputable and reliable published sources stating that there is a lot of racism in the country towards non-Koreans (particularly Africans and blacks). I myself have also visited the country many times and encountered a lot of racism from the locals as well. You seemed to removed the cites stating that racism in a South Korea is a problem and replaced it with unsourced assertions that there is no racism and that any racism there is is the fault of the victims. Promoting racism on Wikipedia is not something that is done, especially when such racist statements are not backed up by sources and are in fact contradicted by reliable sources. This is probably one of the most blatant and brazen promotions and defenses of racism that I have encountered in my years of editing Wikipedia and I am shocked and appalled to be quite honest. Racism is racism; it's not dependent on what any law says. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have said "technically" - Because like Japan, there is no law regarding racism in Korea, hence there cannot technically be racism in that country. That is of course not say there is practical racism, which is an entirely different matter and I completely agree with you on that. Korea of course has ethnic issues just like any other country. The term "racism" does not exist in Korean - The closest thing it is referred to is at best 인종차별 (ethnic discrimination), which is itself unofficial, which is why the name of the article is completely inappropriate, putting an American/Western terminology in a completely different foreign country. Before attacking another editor personally on Wikipedia, I suggest you learn Assume good faith and learn some basic English - It seems your English is not exactly native speaker level and you are unfamiliar with the Wikipedia editing procedures, let alone the local laws of Korea and Japan. If there are unsourced "assertions", then put a citation needed tag, although most of what has been edited here is heavily sourced from real people's experiences. Your accusation that I claim there's no racism or "promote racism", is a personal attack and groundless, if you look at the editing history. Wikipedia allows all reliable sources to be published - Regardless of whether it is contradicting or controversial. See WP:V. The whole discussion is not about practical racism in Korea but about the local law of Korea - Racism DOES NOT exit in Korean law - Please get acquainted with the Korean law instead of applying your Western/personal view about racism to another foreign country. Also, please refrain from recreating the article Racism in South Korea, which is a duplicate and redirect to this article. This article is not a forum to post complains about every individual personal feelings, as multiple editors have pointed out, it needs to be made professional like Ethnic issues in Japan. Massyparcer (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

POV tag
Not really sure where to start with this. I've added a POV tag to one section of the article, but it's a bit more than that. Sure there may be some ethnic issues in Korea, but the IP editor above nails it with "a bunch of anecdotes". The following quote sums up the problems I've tagged quite well: "As a result of the lack of pretty women in the West". Much of the problematic content seems to be sourced to one blog, which I suggest may not be a good source to use for this article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed that quotation you have mentioned, and the POV tag as a result since it is inappropriate to tag the entire article just for one quotation. I think it would be more helpful if you pointed out specific parts you think violate a certain Wikipedia policy. The contents are sourced to multiple blogs, news articles and books. Wikipedia states the good, well published blogs are suitable sources for Wikipedia articles under WP:V. Ethnic issues inevitably involves many personal cases, which is why blogs have been used here. Massyparcer (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that describing it as trolling really indicates a good understanding of the extent of the problems in this article. Blogs are not acceptable sources (WP:RS). Describing English teachers as perverts is not acceptable. Describing an 'unfortunate' contrast with how 'a Western man' thinks ("I must have a one-time sexual intercourse with her") is really off the scale. Multiple problems persist in this article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to WP:V, "several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". I will be removing contents citing blogs that are from more ambiguous sources. I have removed the sentences and phrases you have mentioned above. Rather than labeling it as simply "trolling" and leaving it at that, it would be more constructive and helpful if you specifically named sentences or parts in this article that violate a Wikipedia policy. Massyparcer (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is fucking awful!
blogs and youtube are given as reliable sources? is this a joke? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, please mind your words. Calling it "F***ing awful" is not constructive. Only some sections cite blogs and youtube as their sources. Some of the youtube videos are direct broadcasts of major national media. As I have mentioned before, a good, well published blog can be used as a reliable source under WP:V. Having said that, I have removed some of the contents that have more ambiguous blogs as sources along with youtube videos. Massyparcer (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

oh. and why are all the statistics compared to those of Japan? Is this article about Korea, or is it about comparing Korea to Japan? 14:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)
 * Comparison with Japan is important since the two are culturally and socially similar when it comes to ethnic issues along with Korea's history of being part of the Empire of Japan in the past. Having said that, I have removed some unnecessary comparisons that you mentioned. Massyparcer (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say that comparing the two is a bad idea for the following reasons...

1. While I agree that the two nations are culturally similar, we are not here to say what is important, we are here to give relevant facts, related to the article. Comparisons between the two nations would be far better in an article concerning both nations.
 * I agree with you on that matter. Comparisons should always be related to the article. Massyparcer (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

2. Most of the comparisons were not talking about the influence of Japan on Korea (or vice versa), they were just a seemingly random statistic with a "this is less than x% in Japan" - you might as well compare it to North Korea or China. These stats just seem like a cheap way for one nationalistic editor, to score points for their favored nation.
 * They were not random - The section was about physical attractiveness and how conscious Korean people were about it. Which resulted in major ethnic issues in that country. Comparison with Japan is more appropriate because of the economic, political and historical ties with the two. North Korea or China are not democracies to begin with. But I agree, the stats may bring undue attention from nationalist editors, so I will remove them for the sake of maintaining neutrality. Massyparcer (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

3. Once you start comparing Japan with Korea, you leave the article open to all the nationalistic editors from both nations, and run the risk of turning it into another fuckfest like the Takeshima article - without the nationalistic attention, it has a far better chance of remaining neutral.
 * I agree but please mind your words - calling it "***fest" is not appropriate in this discussion. Massyparcer (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Even though the Japanese Empire certainly influenced South Korea, you can say that about 100s of Empires throughout history. I don't see articles concerning modern day India, with comparisons to the United Kingdom, despite India being a British colony in the past. I don't see articles comparing modern day Philippines to Spain, etc,etc.
 * Korea is different from European countries when comparing historical ethnic issues. You see, much of the racist ideas were introduced by the Japanese to the Koreans - This case is definitely different and I think you are looking at this at a too Western perspective. Massyparcer (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

5. The only relevant stats concerning Japan and Korea would be along the lines of "during the Japanese occupation of Korea, X was at Y%, after Korea gained independence, X rose/fell to Z%" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, limited, relevant comparison with Japan is fine and important in some cases. Having said that, I will remove statistics that may cause unnecessary nationalist attention. Massyparcer (talk)
 * A tiny minority of blogs can be used as relevant sources. If it was the blog of a renown authority of a certain subject, then if dealt with carefully, then maybe. But, the blog of some random expat in Korea, is not what I would call a reliable source under any circumstances.
 * If there is a youtube video of something notable, then it will be in the press elsewhere.
 * If the only source that can be found is a youtube video, then it does not meet the criteria of notability.
 * If something is notable (especially national media) then there will be numerous sources available online. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you on this matter. I have already removed all blogs of expats in Korea along with those youtube videos. Massyparcer (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this article, the more I am convinced that it is the most POV pushing, badly sourced, and biased article on Wikipedia. It isn't about ethnic issues, it's a 500 paragraph attempted justification for not having a perfect attitude towards foreigners. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this. It's definitely not constructive to claim that this article is not having a "perfect attitude" towards foreigners since it is after all, an article about Ethnic issues in South Korea. The article is not meant to write positive things about foreigners in Korea - It is about writing problems and issues with them. Massyparcer (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, thank you very much SpaceCowboy. Before, the article stated that racism was a big problem in South Korea, and this was backed up by reliable sources to that effect. After, the article basically is basically unsourced allegations of "There is no racism in South Korea. Any racism there is is the fault of the victims for not kowtowing to the Korean master race!" Not only is this blatantly racist as all hell, but it is not backed up by any reliable sources, and it's pretty much contrary to what I have seen while I visited South Korea. While in South Korea, I saw a huge amount of racism. I know it's anecdotal, that my personal experiences are "original research", but they pretty much line up with all the reliable sources that have been published on the subject; what I saw correlates with the reliable sources on the subject. But, the reliable sources that state racism in South Korea is a big problem have been removed, probably because the remover did not like them. The straight-faced claim that there is no racism in the country is the most maddeningly laughable thing I've seen on Wikipedia yet. I mean, that is the very definition of POV-pushing. Take for example, the election of a Philippine woman in South Korea was taken as proof that there is no racism in the country and everything is well and good. But what was left out or rather, sickeningly removed rather, and backed up by a reliable newspaper source, was that said woman was brutally insulted by bigoted South Korean racists! Basically, the article is saying that racism in South Korea does not exist, and if it does exist, is a good thing because those goddamn blackies deserve it. Could you imagine if somebody went to the 'Racism in South Africa' article and did the same thing? There'd be hell to pay! That's why I was so shocked and appalled, since the article has been turned into a blatant justification of racism. Even the neo-nazi editors here try to be a bit more discreet in their racist POV editing. If you want to promote racist views, a neo-nazi website is your place. Wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. – Illegitimate Barrister, 09:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, you are missing the point of this article - It is about Ethnic issues in South Korea, not about general racism that is going among Koreans. We have discussed before in a separate section here, see Ethnic issues in Japan. Seeming that that you don't have a problem with that article, but constantly having a go at this one reminds me of an unnecessary nationalist agenda here. Your allegation that it is "unsourced" is of course completely false - Look at the amount of sources in this article right now. Major national and international media along with books have raised the problem of many ethnic issues in Korea that have not been covered at all previously. There was no mention of "any racism being the fault of the victims" - I don't understand why you are inventing nonsense out of the air. If you look at the edit history, some of them have been removed because they were irrelevant, again read the title of this article. It goes contradictory to your claim that they have been removed because the "editor didn't like them". It seems immature to think like this. Perhaps the biggest problem with you is your constant violation of No personal attacks - Name calling editors a Nazi is a very strong personal attack - See No personal attacks. Your allegations that there are promotions of racism in this article are clearly groundless given that every single ethnic issue in this article are objective facts of crimes committed by foreigners in Korea. Please learn to WP:Assume good faith. I think you should definitely be more ashamed of yourself trying to cover up so many victim's sufferings in Korea by mass blanking them. Massyparcer (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SpaceCowboy and Zzuuzz are right. This article was fucking awful. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

revert to old version.
User:Massyparcer, I've reverted to a version prior to your edits on the article. With all due respect, I think your changes reduced the quality of the article hugely. More importantly, they were made without clear consensus from other editors, so I've returned it to a stable version supported by consensus. I suggest that before any content is added/removed/changed from this version, the talk page is used and consensus is gained. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I support SpaceCowboy's actions to this effect. – Illegitimate Barrister, 10:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SpaceCowboy, I am very happy to remove the poor sources for better ones and removing POV language but mass wipeout? Seriously? I thought you would be better editor than that. The comparisons with Japan and unreliable blog sources are gone. The only blog sources left are one published by the Los Angeles Times and one from a university professor publishing for a major Newspaper in Korea. All Youtube sources are gone as well. I'm not sure what you mean by claiming that my changes have "hugely reduced quality" of the article. Sounds very personal and subjective. Can we be more specific on this? Given that your old revert is merely a couple of anecdotes of expats' personal feelings about Koreans, which another editor already dismissed as "something you could hear at a bar", the quality of this article has improved significantly, with far more serious ethnic issues and crimes in the country being highlighted. If you think that it is biased, you can always add sourced contents to prove otherwise. But mass removal of sourced contents is unfortunately not constructive. I have put back the sourced contents, along with the name of this article, which was already discussed before in a separate section. If you want to help and be constructive, bring some new relevant sources and point out specific issues in this article instead of wiping out the entire article at your will. It is a real shame and disappointment that you are trying to cover up so many victim's far more serious sufferings in Korea by mass blanking them. Massyparcer (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously think that having comments like the following in the article is acceptable?
 * It's not about your personal opinion on whether something is acceptable or not, which would constitute to WP:OR - You may not like what you are reading (and I agree, most of it is indeed horrific crimes) but look at the sources, these are direct quotes from the articles and valid as per WP:V. We cannot cover up the truth and remove them at your will by simply because you don't find it acceptable. Anything not will be removed of course, as per WP:V. Massyparcer (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"While there are some who are genuinely interested in experiencing a new culture, a large majority of Western men come from economically poor backgrounds[46] with academic degrees rarely getting them a good job back at home and having been largely rejected by their own society and women?
 * You need to read the source. The cited book stated that the majority were from economically poor backgrounds. I have changed it so that it reflects the source more. Massyparcer (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Murder of Korean girls by American tank" (murder? sounds kinda POV to me)
 * If it sounds POV, let's change it to death then. Change done. Massyparcer (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to start. Wow. Just fucking wow. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Many Western men had the intention of having sexual intercourse with as many Korean girls as possible, "boasting loudly of having sex with countless Korean women in vulgar terms""
 * It's an exact quotation from the source. Though the editor at the Korea Times did say that "they were also trying to sleep with local girls, probably with as many as possible.", so I will be reflecting this more directly in the article. Massyparcer (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"many reports of Western man impregnating Korean girls without permission"
 * That's what the source said word for word. But since they didn't quote a specific number, I have removed the word "many". Massyparcer (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

When there is a content dispute, then as per wikipedia rules, it is reverted to a previous stable version. As per the talk page, it is really obvious that your changes to the article did not have consensus, with many editors criticizing your changes. It goes back to the last stable version, and from that version we can modify it by using the standard BRD process. If you change the article and people agree with the change, it is considered to have consensus, if people don't then you propose/discuss changes on the article talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is why I am asking you to follow the Wikipedia rules of BRD in the edit history because until you turned up a couple of days ago and started mass wiping out this article at your will (which would constitute more to Disruptive editing), this article has remained stable for a very long time - All the way back to 20 January 2016. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I thought you would know not to abuse BRD as an excuse for wiping out entire articles at your will. "Many editors" - You mean you and Illegitimate Barrister who I'm not sure is even a constructive editor given that he was personally attacking me as a Nazi and making groundless accusations of racism. But even he agreed that "Reliable sourced content should be on the article" when you asked him what should be on this article. I definitely agree with you that this goes back to the last stable version, and from that version, modifying it by using the standard BRD process. You need to come up and propose changes to this article if you want to be constructive but persistent mass wiping out of this entire article at your will is considered Disruptive editing in any circumstances. Massyparcer (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is (was) issues that non-koreans experienced in korea. As the ethnic issues in Japan article is being brought up as an example, actually take the time to read it. It isn't a huge list of excuses as to why racism doesn't exist and how all foreigners come to japan because they want to get laid, because girls back home are ugly. The edits made to this article are a real bad joke.
 * I think you need to get acquainted with the local situations of ethnic issues in either Japan or Korea. They have the exact same laws - Citizens are all considered Japanese or Korean and as such there cannot technically be legal "racism" as we know it from the West. I don't see why you are making groundless allegations that this article is "making excuses as to why racism does not exist" - None of the issues raised in this article make any such references and at best show a very covert and prevalent racism going on between certain Western men against Korean women. I don't think you have even taken the time to read this article - Nowhere in this article does it say that " all foreigners come to korea because they want to get laid, because girls back home are ugly". You need to stop inventing nonsense out of your head. Maybe that's what you're believing this article to be but dismissing it as a "real bad joke" is not constructive and is your own narrow personal opinion which constitutes to violating WP:OR. You do not seem familiar with either ethnic issues in Korea or Japan and quite frankly, if the cited sources are of any truth, there are way more serious crimes committed by foreigners in Korea than Japan. Massyparcer (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was zero consensus for the changes. The sources were awful. There was no relevance to the article. It was a really really bad whitewash with an obviously very pro-korean/anti-foreigner agenda. I really was not joking when I said it was the worst article on wikipedia. The bias was so fucking blatant. Of course every editor has their personal opinions on subjects like this, and this is reflected in our edits. We might disagree if a minor point is notable, or if a source is reliable or not, but this was not the case in this article. There was nothing subtle about the changes, if you think the article is a little too negative in regards to racism in korea, then the correct thing is to try to find sources that introduce a balance, and follow the correct BRD procedure to introduce them into the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More importantly, there was zero consensus for your mass wipe out of this article. Those "awful sources" are now gone and only relevant ones are included in the article now, if you have bothered spending your time to read it again. I don't think you are familiar with the situation that is going in Korea right now with foreigners before claiming that it is a "pro-korean/anti-foreigner agenda". You need to seriously take the time to read the sources. I don't think it really matter what you think about this article is the worst or not. Very subjective and blatant violation of WP:OR. And you seriously need to mind your words - I have raised this multiple times but saying "****ing blatant" simply is not constructive. As I have stated multiple times, if you think the article is too much about crimes committed by foreigners and "wish" there was more crime committed by Koreans against foreigners, then the correct thing is to try to find sources that introduce this balance (though I'm not sure if they are anywhere near as serious as what has been going on the other way round), and follow the correct BRD procedure to introduce them into the article instead of mass wiping out the article at your will. Now I have done some of that work by adding contents from reliable sources from the previous revert so it is up to you now to add more if you think it is biased, because if anything, your revert is way more biased and poorly sourced than the current stable one, with way too many from outdated blogs and even irrelevant and factually incorrect topics (North Koreans are also Koreans - They are a single ethnic group). It suggests you haven't even read the article before reverting it. However, you need to stop trying to find nonsense excuses to mass wipe this article by violating Disruptive editing and cover up all the serious crimes and face the facts and reality of ethnic issues in South Korea. Calling it "awful", "bad whitewash", "worst article", "fucking blatant" is a direct violation of Civility. It really is immature to delete everything in this article just because you don't like what you are reading. Massyparcer (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, really this article is fucking awful again, following the recent additions by Massyparcer. I'll discuss some specific issues below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please. You need to stop violating Civility by calling it "****ing awful" and respect No personal attacks. Massyparcer (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Some specific issues
Let's get to some concrete issues. I can see two obvious places to start:
 * 1) Broadly, the lists of crimes. Most of this article now consists of incidents of crime. Some example section titles: Itaewon murder case, Death of Korean girls by American tank, Nigerian refugees, Sexually harassing children, Smuggling in illegal drugs... My first question, how are these ethnic issues?
 * How is it not an ethnic issue? That's very ignorant and looks like you are trying to turn a blind eye to some very serious ethnic issues in Korea. The crimes are the most serious and largest among ethnic issues of any country - Read the statistics and the sources. These are the biggest issues handled in the media because they are caused rarely within the Korean society but much more so (to the shocked Koreans) by foreigners. Nigerian refugees that commit crimes are a major cause of ethnic issues in South Korea, along with English teachers harassing children and smuggling in drugs. The American tank case lead to massive protests from thousands against American soldiers' and anti-American sentiment in general. It was a major ethnic issue that still has substantial legacy left behind. They are all the main reasons of concern and causes of ethnic issues in the country. It's really important to look at why ethnic discrimination in a certain country happens, instead of simply criticizing why people behave in a discriminating way. I have added explanation and clarification as to why these crimes are a major ethnic issue in Korea. Having said that, I agree with you that the Itaewon murder case is less relevant and I have removed it. Massyparcer (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only an "ethnic issue" if ethnicity is all you think defines everything about a person, which is, of course, something only nationalistic racists like yourself do. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 2) As I mentioned previously, the sexual generalisations are just appalling. In the section titled Major issues with Americans and people of European descent, two references suggest, in brief, that their "main interest being in having as many one night stand affairs with Korean girls as possible". One reference is an opinion piece (not a reliable source) which doesn't translate well. The other source, the piece in the Korea Times, provides two choice quotes: a) "I also saw many expats who took their jobs very professionally and their relationships (with mostly Korean women) very seriously. Many of them had even settled down with kids", and b) "There were Korean and Korean American instructors who were just as sexually voracious and morally decrepit.". This is manifestly misrepresented in this article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, there was a section below which stated that the majority were sensible Western men, but I guess you forgot to read it. I have completely removed this section. Massyparcer (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This issue is simple. Massyparcer added a lot of content, the suitability of that content is disputed. I suggest that the disputed content was added without any consensus, and that every single editor contributing to the talk page (apart from Massparcer) has stated that these inclusions are unsuitable. Therefore, Massyparcer has the burden to prove that her additions to the article were supported by consensus, and that there is no clear consensus to remove that content. If she can't prove both of those points to be correct, that as per wikipedia guidelines, the article gets reverted to the most recent stable version (ie. before massyparcer added anything) and further additions are dealt with using BRD. That's not my opinion, that's just the way that wikipedia works.
 * The above doesn't even question the validity of the added content, that is another huge issue. But, until such time as additions gain consensus, the article gets reverted to a stable version. Massy, if you don't like the stable version then I suggest you ask in dispute resolution or somewhere similar, and maybe they will approve the fucking awful version. I doubt it, but constantly reverting, dispute clear rules on consensus is not the way to deal with this. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that according to WP:Consensus, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." I'm not sure whether you and the other editors' dismissal of this article as simply "fucking awful" has any weight to a "consensus" that you claim, let alone a blatant violation of WP:Civility.

Until you turned up a couple of days ago and started mass wiping out this article at your will (which would constitute more to Disruptive editing), this article has remained stable for a very long time - All the way back to 20 January 2016. According to WP:Consensus, "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." SpaceCowboy's continued mass wipeout and revert to a factually incorrect and poorly sourced version is a direct violation of WP:Consensus itself, given that it states that "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". Massyparcer (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's not actually true, is it? Judging from the talk page discussions in which all other editors objected to your content, it wasn't very stable, was it? Nice of you to quote "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." They objected. Therefore how can you claim consensus? Also, nice of you to quote "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". - as you are obviously ignoring talk page discussions. Neither of those points apply to me, but they most certainly apply to you and your edits.

BTW wikipedia civility allows us to say fuck and cunt, we just can't call other people fucking cunts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume from your experience (with both your current account and sockpuppet account(s)) that you actually know how wikipedia works. Your edits have gone from being a slight content dispute, to disruptive editing, due to a total disregard of wikipedia rules regarding consensus, reliable sources and NPOV. Please modify your attitude. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there have been objections to certain parts of the article (which has been/is being resolved if you haven't looked at the discussion above), but there was zero consensus on wiping out the entire article - In fact, all the way back to 20 January 2016. So if you want to revert it, you would have to go back to the version where nobody objected. Clearly (if you have bothered to look at the edit history) nobody has objected to this version until very recently you turned up and mass wiped out this article. So how is this not a consensus?

That's not even touching your current disruptive editing given that WP:Consensus explicitly says that The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. How good of quality have you contributed to the talk page discussion other than constantly dismissing it as "fucking awful". Does it even count given that WP:Consensus clearly states that "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Your silly and immature talk on this talk page is absolutely appalling, full of personal attacks and violation of WP:Civility.

I'm sorry but nowhere in WP:Civility says you can say fuck and cunt, does it? Massyparcer (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no point discussing this with you. You have zero respect for wikipedia guidelines, you have no desire for neutrality, you merely wish to push your nationalistic POV onto as many articles as possible, and you are abusing multiple accounts, to circumvent wikipedia rules. All I can ask, is that your next block is indefinite, so decent editors can continue with improving wikipedia, without the distractions that you provide. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh really. It's clear that SpaceCowboy has a personal agenda with me for some reason in terms of making groundless accusations. He completely ignores the WP:Consensus which states that quality is more important than a minority or majority view and that his dismissal of the article as "fucking awful" doensn't really count. He has a history of personally attacking me and constantly violating WP:Civility. At Health in South Korea, he was accusing me of sockpuppetry with no evidence, this time ironically violating the BRD rule to gain consensus (which he ironically emphasizes a lot here, using it to his personal convenience it seems whenever it suits him) and instead reverting to an edit war. And then he for some reason wiped out International rankings of South Korea and is now accusing a seemingly decent editor of sockpuppetry with me simply because he has restored the page back to normal from his complete wipeout. His disruptive behavior has seemingly no end. Massyparcer (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't make me laugh. You've already been blocked once for using a sock puppet account. The evidence points to you doing it again. If you don't like being accused of sock puppetry, then I suggest that using the YJAX sock puppet account, wasn't a great idea. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Move
do you support moving this to Racism in South Korea? All other country articles (Racism in Israel, Racism in Russia, Racism in Italy ...) seem to be named this way. It's also a it more focused in scope. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would have no issues if the article was named Racism in South Korea, if it is an established wording for other similar articles, then maybe it would be best. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I requested to Requested moves/Technical requests because I tried but failed to move to Racism in South Korea.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. It should have never been moved in the first place. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)