Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure blood theory in Korea


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SPA votes aside, the keep votes are more based in policy (significant coverage in independent sources exist), while the delete votes are more like "needs work to remove OR" and "this is anti-Korean".  — fetch ·  comms   01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pure blood theory in Korea

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no such thing as a Pure "Korean" blood theory. The subject has never existed. The article itself is a synthesis and interpretation of topics relating to ethnic nationalism in Korea. Basically a POV-content fork of Korean nationalism. And by interpretation, I mean everything about the article is borderline original research. Akkies (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hyperbolic swastika aside, this appears to be a well done article. The argument of the nominator that "the subject has never existed" seems to be belied by at least two and probably more cited sources in the article, including THIS ONE. I think there might be grounds for giving this the NPOV once-over twice, but I certainly don't think this is a subject that has "never existed," nor do I think that it is a matter that lies outside of an encyclopedia's purview. Carrite (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, a name change to Pure blood nationalism (Korea) might be in order. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current title touches the point of this article well and it's a theory after all, nationalism is just a segment of this. --LLTimes (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The argument of the nominator seems unfounded by searching keywords such as korea cleanest race, korea pure race, korea pure bloodline, korea blood purity and 순혈주의 純血主義 (pure-blood-ism). The Korea Times, the oldest english newspaper in south korea had a series of articles on concepts of blood purity. See also articles from NY Times and this one archived by the Asia-Pacific Research Center of the Stanford University. B.R.Myers also wrote a book on this topic The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. (ISBN 1933633913)
 * The search result actually shows that the pure blood issue is widely discussed in the korean society under the names of "pure blood", "pure race", "single race" (danil minjok), "single nation" which are collectively called "pure blood theory" and "pure blood hypothesis" in the disputed article.
 * Maybe the name can be changed to "pure blood concept in Korea", "pure race hypothesis in Korea" or "pure blood issue in Korea" if a word "theory" is not scientifically accurate to discuss a topic related to fringe science ?
 * The history of revision also doesn't support that the nominator's observation that the topic is a fork from Korean nationalism. This one records the pure-blood related issues such as its origin of the notion, genetic analysis, discrimination on mixed blood, intermarriage's impact on "pure blood notion". --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! your reference to '순혈주의' is inappropriate. Because, this '순혈주의' isn't correlation. -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep as per above sources exist and the article is well written. Derild  49  21  ☼  22:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources exist and pretty well written with few minor adjustable errors --LLTimes (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be well sourced. The topic is at least as legitimate as fan death (not that I'm suggesting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, lol). Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: well sourced, informative as an encyclopedic article should be, and if you believe there are synthesis issues, room for improvement is not an excuse for deletion. Additionally, I question the nominator's intentions, given my previous experiences with the said user: so when a controversial article comes up, it's generally fine, but when it's about Korea, it must be destroyed with fire? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above: well sourced. It is mentioned in this article and it is also well sourced.,  and . Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Power overwhelming... should we call WP:SNOW soon? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. The title name may be changed as per User:Winstonlighter. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although the subject might not be that flattering for some, it seems to be neutral and backed up by reliable sources. I cannot find any valid reason for deleting this article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! stop! use Inappropriate account, now! -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * '또라이' is korean. This is mean offensive word. (≒ STFU) -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Korean word "또라이" literally means "Stone-head jerk". It is very bad, offensive word. So, can you erase that word from your sign? - Chugun (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete This document isn't NPOV. Because, This is just non'korea'cal opinion of connected japan people. Therefore, need delete. Thank you. -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Japan people are not fit to edit? See WP:PILLAR. Also, have you got any evidence to prove your claim that Japanese people have edited the page at all? I find your argument a bit odd. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete What's the matter? Is it just ANTI-KOREAN document? i can't understand why this is must keep.-- — Saehayae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * User:Saehayae is a WP:SPA, who has made very few edits prior to this !vote, as evident from Special:Contributions/Saehayae. I also suspect of meatpuppetry going on, but I won't follow on that until I have further evidence. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weakly Delete This article has some problems(such as NPOV, OR, SYN). I feel that this article explains all Korean has pure blood theory - in fact, some people only, not all. - Chugun (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC) change
 * I suggest this opinion is based on a misunderstanding of our deletion policies. Concerns that articles lapse from WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH should be taken seriously.  But if the topic itself is notable, then the deletion policies say that the NPOV or SYNTH concerns should be addressed through removing or rewriting the specific passages that lapse, through wikitags, or through discussion on the article's talk page.  If that fails, the issue should be escalated to a fora like WP:NORN.  Other respondents have asserted above that this topic is widely discussed.  If they are telling the truth that establishes the notability of the topic.  I strongly believe that it there are WP:RS there is no topics that can't be covered using a neutral point of view, given enough collegial, good faith effort.  If the topic is notable, but our current coverage is biased, then address the bias on the talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete It's WP:SYN. Although the sources are reliable, the conclusion is an orginal research. --Awesong (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete It is an original research. Also, the references published by Korean scholars are very unreliable. As Chugun said, the myth of pure blood is not common belief among the South Korean people. --Mintz0223 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Frankly it doesn't matter what fraction of the Korean people believe in this theory -- if WP:RS have written about it it merits (neutrally voiced) coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Original research conclusion, Who came up with this wacky idea. If we leave this in we need to bringing in the Japanese Imperial Family and how they are Korean, see the Kufun period article from national geographics which show how the Japanese will only let monitored people in designated areas in the tombs after Korean clothes and artifacts were found earlier. If we add that Japan's Royalty should be considered Korea's pure line, This will open a can of worms. it will be too much. --Objectiveye (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is most definitely not original research or synthesis; a cursory examination of the 32 sources will tell you that much. It is an important and oft-mentioned topic in Korean nationalism, contemporary race relations in Korea, and outsiders' study of North Korean propaganda. Quigley (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is never oft-mentioned topic about Korean nationality. In fact, the term '순혈주의' is used only when criticizing discrimination against 'mix-blooded' people. No Korean historians admits that the Koreans are really homogeneous. Also, many references of the sources, especially in this section, distorted major debation in Korean society. Jung Suk-keun, and Handan chronicle, are not reliable sources. Handan chronicle was decreed as fake at least 20 years ago, and Jung Suk-keun and few other 'out of the current system' historians are unreasonably claiming childish hypotheses, e.g. "Chinese letter was made by Eastern Barbarians(東夷,동이), who are the ancester of Korean!" Of course, Common historian did never accept their claim. --Mintz0223 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is a silly article that should be deleted but if you guys keep it, the 20 to 30 year old theories that people in Korea do not believe should probably not be used. In addition, If Koreans believe they are the superior race, then the subordinate concept would not make sense. We have to bring in references about superior beliefs, I think it will be a mess, but when you edit please keep in mind the article believes Korean superior pure race stuff, so subordinate would contradict the article. And please do not censor or delete references. Rewording may be better keeping in mind the article is about Koreans believing in superior pure race. --Objectiveye (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Objectiveye, I'm concerned of some your edits on the article. While you vote for deletion, you keep adding endless crank history and put them as a "fact" in the article, which may really turn out to be a reason to support the deletion.
 * By providing this NationalGeographic article, you proclaimed that "historical evidence has pointed to Korea being the original bloodline for the Japanese Royal family from its inception."  Not only is the tone wrongly put, I actually don't see how this part of content developed the pure blood theory in Korea. Maybe you need more explanation on the talk page before insisting to put these contents that apparently weaken the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't make the Japan issue and Korean superiority beliefs separate, because it is a continuation from WWII Japanese Occupation and their 20th century idea. While Japan believe they were pure by changing the date of Jingu from the Korean line of 4 or 5th century to 1st or 2nd century. In addition to moving the monument in Manchuria to Korea and changing Gojoseon to myth (which is also debated). If you are to believe this article that Koreans believe they are the pure superior race, then they would use all the archeological evidence pointing out Korean links with ancient Japan. Koreans would point out their superiority (If that is what they believe) That would be the only way for this theory to make sense. If Koreans do not clarify why they are superior to Japan this article is just some anti-Korean POV article made by a Japanophile. It wouldn't even make sense. No superior race would beleive they were subordinate to someone else with out clarifying the issue. And if you look at the article by Winstonlighter, Gojoseon history is stated to be a myth (Which is not true and is debated). But Winsonlighter wants to take out the section about Koreans bloodlines for Japan's Royal family because it is debated. Winstonlighter you cannot leave in one debated information but decide to delete another debated information. (That is censorship) That would be censoring certain information to make a POV article. You just can't have one withouut the other. Koreans cannot believe they are superior without justifying the Japanese occupation with evidence of Korean superiority. You can find article which state that Koreans never had a war with Japan in 1910 and it was a cowardly con job, in occupying and annexing Korea and that is why Koreans still believe they are superior or something like that or you can find articles about Western weapons which the West only traded with Japan and that is why they caused so much Damage in NE Asia, but without these weapons the Koreans believe Japan is still the Wokou and inferior. With these archeological evidence Koreans point out the inferiority etc or how ever you want to word it. You cannot have one without the other, they cannot be separated because you would be contradicting yourself in the article. If Koreans truly believed they were superior, Japan's introduction of this concept in the 20th century to this pure superior race bloodline would have to be explained and why Koreans still believe they are a superior pure race. I say delete the article, but if it is kept, this has to stay to make sense. I have no problems with you guys editing my stuff. I just wanted to correct the contradictory POV tone of the original article. When you edit please keep in mind you are in an article stating the Koreans superior pure bloodline is believed, so they would never be subordinate to anyone else without an explanation, and that is when all that Jingu stuff start to come in and not knowing why Japan limits the access of their Royal tombs, etc. Cannot have one without the explanation of superiority belief. Try rewording it in a way that makes sense to why Koreans are superior pure race etc. or just delete it altogether. Thanks --Objectiveye (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't complain that the Japanese and Westerners introduced the concept of racial purity to the Koreans. Komitsuki (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also South Korean public has an exceptionally huge problem with its own mass medias. So any news from South Korea has unusually big negative impressions outside of South Korea. This is a problem that Japanese and Chinese media faces too. Komitsuki (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * delete This will breed massive amount of racist trolling in other English language forums. Komitsuki (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not a valid argument for WP:DELETION. See also Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: inb4 WP:CANVASS, and WP:SPA. You should all be aware that this is not a !vote; WP:CONSENSUS is made from collecting arguments together, not by numbers. If someone told you to come here, then I suggest to cease in your partisanship. So far I have seen few of the delete !votes with a subjective discussion; they're all "this is an attack page against Koreans, this is an outrage". I seriously do not know what to say. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From where have all these WP:SPAs all popped out of nowhere? None of these editors have been active since their votes, and they've all just arrived overnight. I suspect that forum shopping is going on by some editors in a bid to garner votes. And then there is the calling foul regarding WP:OR, which completely ignores a wide number of references given. I suspect that people have just been instructed to shout WP:OR! WP:OR! by others without really knowing what they're talking about. I guess it's one of the "easy way out arguments" that have been spread amongst people in forums. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * herp derp? Do you really have to belittle to the people who disagree with you? Komitsuki (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah "herp derp" seems kind of rude. I hope this doesn't end up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2channel like all that other stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectiveye (talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on, be nice. I just got back from an argument about the 2010 Australian Federal Election on /int/, at least give me time to readjust my attitude. Plus, I've backtraced my words after I realised that they were unnecessary, I'm human, and God never made these vile creatures perfect. Don't tell me that you're a perfect specimen of humankind. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * delete: Well, I don't see anything wrong with deleting it. Many anti-Chinese articles were deleted right before the Beijing Olympics. I don't like the idea of fueling anti-Korean racism despite I have a minor Chinese connection. If you watched a documentary from the national TV station, KBS (Korean Broadcasting System) a while ago, it argues and accepts the fact that 40% of Koreans have non-Korean ancestry in their surnames. Hypocritically the dictator, Park Cheong-hee, who promoted Korean racial purity considered himself as a Japanese due to his allegiance with the Japanese Empire; the Japanese Empire that promoted modern pre-WWII Japanese values of racial purity. The whole racial purity of Koreans isn't even 100% approved by the today's public but as a reaction to Japanese racial purity in the past and today's political mentality stemmed from the Cold War. So I find it very ridiculous to argue about this. Komitsuki (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't double !vote. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You said my first vote was invalid. Komitsuki (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Quote: "Many anti-Chinese articles were deleted right before the Beijing Olympics." - Where? Wikipedia? Source? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just from my personal experience in Wikipedia. Komitsuki (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For one, they don't get deleted for no reasons, as most deletions are viewed and contributed by admins too as well as other members. And certainly that is not a reason to delete this article either.--LLTimes (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "no reasons" or "with reasons" in my previous comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Komitsuki (talk • contribs) 07:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we add this (You guys can reword it)

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

Anyways we have to fix these obivous contradictions --Objectiveye (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * References


 * Objectiveye, many users have also expressed that many of these points are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Things about the Japanese Imperial family belong in the Japanese Imperial Family article. Things about historical claims belong in the Korean nationalism article. This article should solely stick to the direct topic, and its effects on Korean society. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is relevant, If as the article claims Koreans feel they are the superior race, this will not be subordinate. In the 70s when the Japanese stopped all foreign archeologists from analyzing the Royal tombs the Koreans would have used that to justify their superiority (If that is what they believe, I will re-word these references later once all the voting is in, but you get the idea) Superior race will not leave subordinate idea alone and that is why the Japanese imperial family stuff belong in this article. We can also link it to the Japanese royal family article itself.


 * We can just merge this with the nationalism in Korea article or we can correct these contradictions. A superior race will explain why they are not subordinate. And even if Korea is 6000 years old they are still younger than China because of the 6000 BC culture would make them 8000 years old. See how this is a contradictory statement. This is highly analogous to the 600 BC or older claim in Japan. We should delete the article altogether or related to the Japanese history of pure race as well.

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


 * We have to fix these contradictions, or this article will appear to be made by some Japanophile editor with too much time on his hands with too much hate in his heart. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This data is most people claim korean histroy is 6000 years. But, this isn't true. Only some people claim 6000 years. Therefore, this data is WP:NOR. -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * One, how is this relevant to Pure blood theory in Korea? Two, where in this article, or in this discussion, has anyone claimed that Korean culture goes for 6000 years? (Protip: Try CTRL+F.) --  李博杰   | —Talk

contribs email 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether Korea is 6000 years old or not doesn't even matter when the statement in the article doesn't make sense. Even if Korea was 6000 years old, Anyone who studied E Asian history knows that is not the oldest, A quick search of History of China will show 6000 BC cultures. If you are going to put up a controversial article like this at least try not to make such lazy mistakes. It doesn't even matter if Korea is 6000 years old. We need to focus and explain why Koreans believe they are the superior pure race. Is it because they are the progenitors of Japan's Elite, etc....Make article make some sense, or just delete the article or merge it with another.--Objectiveye (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * References of Pure blood theory in Korea. -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And, korean people isn't claim 'making korea' of Chinese character. This's claimed to Hwandan Gogi need people.(No most people!) -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * English, do you speak it? Nobody here is talking about Hanja, Hwandan Gogi or anything else. Nobody is claiming that Korea is 6000 years old. I don't know where you're getting all these WP:NOR arguments from, when nothing has been said by anyone within this page. This article is about 순혈주의, if you have "WP:NOR" concerns about Hanja and Hwandan Gogi, this isn't the place to start a war of words. We are talking about how mix-bloods such as Hines Ward are perceived in Korea. We are talking about how Koreans see themselves from a racial point of view. All that you are referring to does not match with what is being brought across in this article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he types in English. He is pointing out the fact that not all Koreans are collectively racist by showing a rather different example. Komitsuki (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware that he types in English, but how is what he saying relevant to the topic at hand? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he's a Korean who criticized against Korean superiority. Korean "pure blood racism" goes hand in hand with Korean superiority. And as he was criticizing Korean superiority, he criticized Korean "pure blood racism". Komitsuki (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pure blood theory ≠ supremacy. Pure blood theory refers to the notion that the Korean race has minimal intermixing; that clearly has nothing to do with supremacy. Being pure-blooded does not make one superior. The two notions are different. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But the majority of Koreans believe in both Pure blood theory and supremacy hand in hand, kinda like a product of Japanese education and social situations. Komitsuki (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You just contradicted your earlier statement. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really when I'm only pointing out what they believe in. I didn't say that I agree with the pure blood theory. Komitsuki (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you are one person. How else do you think these ideas have come about? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, Korean pure race theory is a para-political choice in protest against "old Japanese race theory" that Koreans and Japanese are hypothetically same race-nation. This was unfortunately promoted in South Korea by an undemocratic dictator. Komitsuki (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "This was unfortunately promoted in South Korea by an undemocratic dictator" - True, true, I 100% agree with you on that. But that then means that this theory does indeed exist right? Thus, it is not an argument that "this theory does not exist/is invalid", right? Then, there is no need for deletion. If you now have a look at the article, I have chemo'ed the cancer, so there is no more of this controversial historical business. In the case where you might still believe there are minor WP:OR problems, they can be fixed, and thus, again, deletion is unnecessary. Agreeable? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have told me that "you do not believe in this theory" and that "this theory is wrong", although "it does exist, introduced by (Park Chung-hee)". Not in exact words, but you implied those, right? Things aren't deleted from Wikipedia if people consider them to be wrong. Many people consider Nazism wrong, but that page has not been deleted. Same with Communism, White Power movement, polygamy... do you understand what I'm saying? Being disagreeable does not warrant for deletion. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * delete I think some china-related-people are insisting this document should not be deleted. Also this article is not neutral.Realidad y Illusion (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Chinese people doing xyz to an article" is not an excuse for deletion, it is a form of racism, and a violation of WP:PILLAR. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have another opinion, sincerely.Realidad y Illusion (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see "WP:NOR" being thrown around alot, but no one has yet been able to explain why that is so. Can someone actually please point out where the violations are, so they can be improved? It's better to contribute positively rather than killing everything with fire, is it not? If these nationalist newcomer editors are really as passionate in perfecting an encyclopedia article as one might claim, than that would most certainly be the case, no? If something has a chance of being fixed, then WP:AFD is not necessary, and the "problem" is not an excuse for deletion. WP:SOFIXIT definitely applies here. Accuse me of WP:ABF all you want, but I honestly don't know how I can WP:AGF anymore, given the current situation. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Alternative Suggestion: Make a new article called "Racism in East Asia". Incorporating "Pure blood theory in Korea" with Japanese Nihonginron, etc, or racial issues in China, Korea, and Japan into a single article. Because of the unfortunate late 19th and 20th century geopolitics in the past, I think all of these countries have inter-related form of racism. Komitsuki (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Japanese sentiment in China, Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment in China, and Sinophobia. I think there is enough East Asian racism on Wikipedia. And suggesting to merge those together would be absurd, as the articles are long enough already. Also, Pure blood theory in Korea is a separate concept; why merge it with "East Asian racism"? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really big announcement: I have chemo'ed the cancer that has plagued this article. Now that all of the above arguments have been rendered null and void, I'd like to know what your excuses now are. inb4 "WP:OR because it's an anti-Korean page written by Chinese" --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just call it Racism in Korea, disassociate with Nazi race theories. Komitsuki (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But to does not directly address racism in Korea. It is an article about a pure blood theory. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But it does address racism directly or not. Plus, racism in Korea has a very political origin. Komitsuki (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be that you probably find this sensitive, because you consider Nazism wrong, or taboo. Let's get this straight. Nobody is saying that Koreans are Nazis. The article is stating that the Japanese introduced a concept which involved Koreans, and they themselves were influenced by the Nazi Germans, and Park Chung-hee later expanded on the idea, but nowhere does it say that Koreans = Nazis. Right? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really per se. The Japanese pure blood theory (which influenced "Korean pure blood theory") has its origin in pre-Meiji Japan Kokugaku, that later influenced Nihonjinron. Komitsuki (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I stress again, this article is not about racism in Korea. It was never intended to be that kind of article. If you want a "racism in Korea" article, feel free to be WP:BOLD and write one yourself. However, this article was intended to address this pure blood theory. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But why does this article also addresses racism in Korea? It could be an expandable topic other than the pure blood theory stuffs. Komitsuki (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, why? Are you trying to cover up something that you don't really like, by mixing it in with something bigger? Do you believe that this is "embarrasing" for you, or for Korea? I'd like to know an actual reason, other than a gut feeling that you think it will be a wonderful idea. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not covering it up. Because it's a darn concoction with the current racist trends in Korea. Komitsuki (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per existing sources. But possibly rename to Korean ethnic nationalism or Korean ethnocentrism or something similar. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to rename this Racism in Korea. As a Korean, not all Koreans are racist, nor think badly of China (HK, Macao, and Taiwan) or Japan. It is the internet alright and sometimes we have unfortunate flamewars. Komitsuki (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that does not mean that there is no pure blood theory. And that does not mean that an article should be made about it. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree this as a part of the whole racism topic. Komitsuki (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why WP:MERGE it into "racism into Korea" when the topic is clearly distinct enough? Why not merge Dangun into Korean mythology? Why not merge Miracle on the Han River into Economy of South Korea? Why not merge Hangul into Korean language? Why not merge Hanja into Chinese character? You don't have double standards like that, right? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with that proposed merge. If you read the sources, this topic is not always discussed in the context of racism - although Korean ethnocentrism may cause racism, that is not always the end-result.  In essence, this topic is larger than the issue of racism in Korea.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Because in today's Korea, 純血主義 is a very minor topic. Komitsuki (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In today's Japan, Chikan is a minor topic, yet we have an article on it. In today's China, konghanzheng is a minor topic, yet we have an article on it. Being minor is irrelevant. We have articles on List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters, for crying out loud. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take me wrong. I only saying that the pure blood theory and racism are so intertwined in Korea. Komitsuki (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's say it like this: pure blood theory is a part of the history of "racism in Korea". Komitsuki (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just take a little time to look through some of the sources. Korean ethnocentrism is not only about racism. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. But please do notice that Koreans still have a very uneasy relationship with its past. They don't usually deny it per se, but more like continuously being rolled over by many politically historical issues in par with bad Korean authorities that seem to be pro-American and opportunists. Especially right after the Korean War. Komitsuki (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Implying that it's not the same for China (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution) and Japan (Japanese militarism)? Every country has got one. Anyways, we're starting to get off track here. Regardless of whether or not it's a bad thing from Korea's past, it doesn't solely revolve around racism, as said above. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Park Cheong-hee was probably the worse leader in Asia in terms of diplomacy. Worse than Mao. Park Cheong-hee is the reason why Korea today is so screwed up. And brought discrimination policies against Chinese people living in Korea but it's getting improved today after President Roh. He should had become the minister of finance and economy instead of a dictator. The more you know. Komitsuki (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic is obviously a controversial one. If you have concerns about the content of the article, there are a couple of things I would suggest you do to improve the article: 1) scrutinise the sources that are used for the article for WP:SOURCES, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:UNDUE. Just because information can be found on the internet, doesn't mean that information ought to be used here in WP. And some of that information may be presented in this article as fact when it could just be the opinions of a few. And 2) delete content that is not attributed to any reliable sources at all.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My english is so bad. But I want to speak. Therefore, I will speak korean. Sorry. 李博杰님께서 얼마나 한국에 대해 알고 계시는가는 알지 못합니다. 다만, 하나 중요한 것은 저기에 걸려있는 한국어 각주와 한국 뉴스 각주의 내용들은 모두 한국에서 정상적으로 받아들여지지 않는 것입니다. 그걸 알고 계십니까? 그것을 각주로 하였으며, 또한 'Xenophobia'은 몇 %의 한국인의 생각이라고 보시는 지는 몰라도 이것은 명백한 '독자 연구'입니다. 그리고 히틀러랑은 무슨 연관이랍니까? Thank you. -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Translation(not exact, but same meaning): I don't know how much 李博杰 knows about Korea. But, most Korean regards that those cites and references are abnormal. Do you know that? And I don't know 'Xenophobia' thinks how many Korean think like that, but it is clearly OR. There's no relation with Nazi. - Translated by Chugun (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nazi and Korean Pure blood theory have "no" relation absolutely. Very unneutral page. -- — NuvieK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Before you start talking about Nazism, have you even read the article, and the relevant section you are talking about? Where does it say that the Korean pure blood theory directly spawns from Nazism? Where? Tell me. Give me a quote, and if it exists, it will be promptly fixed. If you can't find a quote, then move on to a different argument. Everyone's been using the same arguments, even though such a claim is nowhere found within the article. The article states that Nazism influenced the Japanese to formulate an ideology to justify annexation; that in no way implies that the blood theory comes from Nazism. Are you even reading it in the correct context? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an underhanded tactic but if you look at the article it has a large picture of Hilter and Nazi innuendos. The article may not directly state it, but you can tell how unneutral the original editor was. Considering the original editor made the article appear as if Koreans were superior pure race, but at the same time left the idea they were subordinate to Japan without an explanation of how Koreans can consider themselves superior without clarifying this. Then you have the Nazi pictures in addition to a sarcastic quote stating this would make Gojoseon the "Oldest civiliation in the World" Knowing full well a simple study of East Asia or Egypt will show you this sarcastic remark was made by a person who didn't study E Asian history at all. Even if Korea was 6000 years old they will not be the oldest. 2333 BC, is young when compared to the 6000 BC Chinese civiliations and in Egypt they were writing in 3500 BC. Why would this reference think that Koreans were odd for thinking 2333 BC and why would he write this would make Korea the oldest in the world (ha ha unbelievable, or something in that context. If your going to try to make fun of someone at least get the facts rights) This article needs to fix these odd innuendos. I think we should merge it with Nationalism in Korea or clarify this superior/subordinate issue. Otherwise it comes off as if a Japanophile who dislikes Korea wrote this. --Objectiveye (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where, within this article, does it say that Korea was x-thousand years old? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, so there's this one line about the Dongguk Tonggam. Removed for cancer-treating purposes. Can we leave this thousand-year history talk now? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, let's have a look at your points:


 * 1) It is an underhanded tactic but if you look at the article it has a large picture of Hilter and Nazi innuendos - the image isn't even considered large at all; it's barely larger than all other images on that page. Why is inclusion of that image controversial? The paragraphs, and the caption, do not say "Koreans are Nazis", it refers to the Japanese assimilation policies. Also, if you look up Wiktionary, innuendo refers to a sexual implication. I personally don't find Hitler eroticating.
 * 2) Considering the original editor made the article appear as if Koreans were superior pure race - how is that so? The original article described the facts; it never claimed them to be true. The Gundam 00, Starcraft and The Host (film) articles does not claim the story to be true, yet it describes it in great detail. How, I ask you, does the article claim that Korea is all-superior?
 * 3) I think we should merge it with Nationalism in Korea - already addressed above, with verhment opposition.
 * 4) Otherwise it comes off as if a Japanophile who dislikes Korea wrote this. - what is this I don't even. How does Japanophilia have to do with any of this? I don't understand how criticising or reporting about Korea makes you a Japanophile. The African-American rapper Ice Cube wrote a song called Black Korea, which attacked Korean-American storeowners for overcharging African-American customers; is he a Japanophile?
 * With sincere confusion, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the African-American rapper doesn't include the idea that Korea is subordinate to Japan, then sing Koreans are the Superior pure race. Only someone with Japanophile tendencies will try not to clarify this. In the 1990s when the US asked Japan to stop unfair trade practices and stop manipulating their currency the US president Bush went to Japan to get a good faith agreement with Japan. 3 months after the agreement, Japan went back on their word on currency manipulation. This caused people in the US to call Japan back stabbers, and caused many people to smash a Japanese car and burn Japanese electronics, but just like the African-American rappers that incident has nothing to do with this discussion.
 * You probably need to look up innuendo not sexual innuendo. Innuendo dictionary dictionary definition; Merriam-Webster = definition similar to insinuation; to use of such illusion.
 * If you believe you are superior you will not leave the idea of subordinate alone without explanation.
 * Most people do not like being linked to Nazis, the only countries who probably can be linked are Italy and Japan, the rest of the world (no matter how small the picture or in whatever context) do not like the Nazi innuendos --Objectiveye (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete It is so unjust article based on anti-korean sentiment. Furthermore, most users of a supporting this article are known as a anti-koreans.--Historiographer (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Be careful deleting articles based on nationalist sentiments and accounts inactive and not participate in discussion with sole purpose for voting. Sammyy85 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.