Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination)


 * 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  delete  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

South Korean cultural claims
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I closed this AfD just recently as a keep, however, at deletion review it turned out that wasn't really supported, and relisting it would be preferable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We cannot make the decision only by the number of Delete and Keep because people may cast their vote regardless of whether what the article says is true or not, but in regard of whether this article is favourable to Korea or not. Some says these claims are only rumours, but they aren't as you can see from the fact that the theory that samurai derives from Korea is reported by Chosun Ilbo, a Korean leading newspaper.  Even if they were rumours, we can state them as long as they are so big that mass media such as newspapers pick them up.  For example, there was a rumour that Paul McCartney was dead.  It was only a rumour but so big a rumour that wikipedia has a page which explains it (see Paul is dead).  Even if the examples in the article were rumours (I don't think they are, though), they are so famous that they made the relationship between China and South Korea worse.  Whether the examples are rumour or not cannot be the reason for deletion since they are so big.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Synthesis, not neutral, etc. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any information in this article that is valid and backed up by authoritative sources should/could already be included in the appropriate articles on South Korea, China, and their cultures (note: I am not suggesting a merge). As I see it, this is just one big troll magnet for cultural warriors and not a coherent encyclopedic topic. As written, it is an argumentative essay. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a coherent topic because there is even a word, uriginal or Korea-Origin Theory, which express them as a whole. Shunpei Mizuno, a Japanese professor has been working on this issue, dealing the claims as a coherent topic.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification by example: if a case can be made for the derivation of Judo being Korean, that case should be made in the Judo entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, the issue is a coherent topic. There are even some professors who are working on it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

-- — Propastop (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fictional movies can't be a source, a couple of your links state China was the origin, then you got a source pointing out the similarities between the two cultures, would that be a claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep While there may be specific entries where examples of this could be discussed, the fact is that there is a general series of claims and such and that there are sources discussing the collection of claims and the larger cultural phenomenon. In that context, it doesn't make sense to split it up because that material can't go anywhere. Hence, keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. This article is a collection of internet rumours and fringe theories claimed by individuals or individual organizations, blog entries, posts in internet forums, youtube videos, and other non-reliable sources. Based on such sources, the article engages in original research and synthesization. Also, I believe many issues in this article can be much better covered in Anti-Korean sentiment, another article created by User:Benlisquare, since there has been extensive attention from the media and academdia on anti-Korean sentiments in China caused by the same rumours in this article. Note: By this, I don't mean a merge. There's a difference between analyzed information and a simple collection made by a Wikipedia editor. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I find no blogs or posts in internet forums in the article. Which one are you referring to? I have just removed the youtube video and added some detail about the Confucius dispute. Which source are you saying is unreliable? Please tell me.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork over Japanese and Chinese culture. Also it looks like it has a bunch of OR in it but I can't be positive. Tavix (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like a bunch of hearsay. Kuebie (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and rewrite, preferably by someone not previously involved--I hope it won't be necessary to say someone who understands Korean and Japanese culture and sources, but comes from a third country. Sure it contains some OR and a good deal of disputed POV, but those are questions to be resolved by editing. DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Difficult to re-write in NPOV manner. Blogs/editorial and news about how the blogs are causing trouble; seems like we are writing about rumors. Also the article contradicts itself. The top states Koreans take this seriously and the bottom of the article states Koreans do not. --Objectiveye (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What Objectiveye says above is not true. S/he talks as if the sources are blogs but there are actually NO BLOGS AT ALL.  S/he says "article contradicts itself" but his/her explanation does not make sense.  The article does not say about how seriously Koreans take these claims at the top of it.  What it states at the bottom is that "KBS states that only few Koreans take Korea-Origin Theory of Chinese characters seriously."  It is only KBS's state and about the Chinese characters only.  For example, the false theory that samurai derives from Korea is taken so seriously that they even made a film and Chosun Ilbo reported that it is true that samurai derives from ssaurabi.  I find no contradiction in the article.  If you tell me what contradiction the article has, I can modify it right away.  What s/he says is a false accusation because the article is unfavourable to Korea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keepThis article shows relevant information on S. Korean Cultural Claims, within Japan, China and other Countries.--Propastop (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You tried to make to hold irrelevant and unreferenced materials to stay with your dishonest statements and false accusations. So where is the evidence that South Korean governments advocate such rumors that you insist? Besides, your edit count was just one before the first AFD opened.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE I've said enough rationales why the article compiled with WP:SYNTHESIS and rumors should be deleted. There is no evidence that majority of South Koreans culturally claim such rumors which have been actually coined by Japanese and Chinese based on their anti-Korean sentiment. Moreover, given that any trying to clean up the article and to make WP:NPOV is impossible because many single purpose accounts refuse to cooperate but even try to hold irrelevant matters (such as Aesop's fables) and unreferenced disdainful allegations (governmental involvement). Some of contents should be integrated to Anti-Korean sentiment.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you say this and this and this and this and this and this were made up by Chinese and Chinese?! Do you really think so? Although they are from Korean newspapers and a Korean association? What you have said is not true.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fictional film was created because there is a belief that samurai is derived from Korea (see ssaurabi). Chosun Ilbo even states that "the film is rests on the primise that the spirit of ssaurabi developed as the spirit of samurai, based on the historical fact that people from Baekje pioneered Japan and introduced culture to it" (映画には、三国時代、百済人が日本を開拓して文物伝播した歴史的事実を土台に、サウラビの魂が日本の侍精神に発展したという前提が込められている). Even if this website says that Yusul is originated in China, it states that Judo was introduced by Korean to Japan during the era of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. But actually it wasn't (see Jujutsu).  Even if the website does not state that the origin of Judo is not Korea but China, it clearly states that Judo was introduced by Korea and it is a "cultural claim", indeed.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

*:If the article has a validity, we don't need this second round of the deletion discussion and third party people say delete. Yes, the Japanese biggest forum 2channel in which you're deeply involved cooks up such bashing rumors such as uriginal. That is not even new.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who added irrelevant materials to the article (still, the samurang is not referenced and the article has references from totally unreliable sites), so what you're saying is not even true. Uriginal that you've tried to insert is also from a blog. The Japanese editions of South Korean newspapers have different characters, so don't mislead the discussion. You already did to Articles for deletion/Uriginal.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I don't think the material was irrelevant, you removed it, didn't you? I did not revert your edit.  Why do we have discuss it more?  Samurang is not sourced in this article, but it is sourced in its own article.  What do you need more?  This website shows only that the word, uriginal, is used by a university professor.  The existence of the word is sources with this one.  I don't get why you say the Japanese edition of South Korean newspapers have different characters.  Why do you say it is misleading?  They are in Japanese but they sure are written by Koreans and published by Korean newspaper service.  What you say does not make sense.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced and all the sources are reliable because they are from major newspapers, major organizations and books written by a Japanese professor who has been working on this issue. There's no reason to delete it. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE Purely Original Research. this article consisted by Internet rumor. also this rumor made by Japanese and Chinese internet user for insult korean. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IP address users' vote cannot be counted. Sorry.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IP address users' vote cannot be counted??? what wikipedia guideline say it? 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He is using WP:TW.vandalism.--Propastop (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Propastop is using WP:TW.vandalism. unexplained tage delete. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Propastop (Your name, "Propaganda stop" seems to ring a bell too much). How did you figure out to use Twinkle as a newbie? (I'm very amazed by the ability) Besides, the article is accused for holing sythesis and unverified claims, so the tags are very legitimate to stay. Interestingly, you tried to copy behaviors of . The editor was warned by admins accordingly.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * stop Personal attack.my name is propas top.--Propastop (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who should stop personal attacks. I've been through enough by YOU. Also, you called the anon as "vandal", which is a serious personal attack and totally uncalled accusations. Propas top? Does it even have a meaning? --Caspian blue (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop Personal attack.my name is propas top. Apologize to me,--Propastop (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who should stop such personal attacks to people and should apologize for your lying my edits and calling me "liar". Sincere apologies should be required.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who should stop such personal attacks to people and should apologize for your lying my edits and calling me "liar". Sincere apologies should be required.AND my name is propas stop.Do not personl attack for your imagination.--Propastop (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you plagiarizing my warning to you? Do not personl attack for your imagination. --> This is another personal attacks. Do not continue such harassment.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete. The article is sourced. If anything is poor, the people who want to delete should point out what is poor in the talk page. I'm afraid some people are trying to hide what are widely reported in Japan, China, and Taiwan.--Mochi (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE This unjustified strike is purely done by and "newbie"  in disregard to the admin's judgment. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS.--Propastop (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop nonsense and do not taint the discussion page. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Caspian Blue, please provide sources that I'm participated in bashing rumors in 2ch. You are insulting me.--Mochi (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one insulting me.I'm afraid some people are trying to hide what are widely reported in Japan. I did not say that you're making the rumors but the 2channel do. Please differentiate carefully. You admitted that you're involved in 2channel forum, so followed me for a while. That is so true.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is insulting ? My afraid comes from people who are trying to hide something. If you are not, you are not concerned. About 2ch, I and "bashing rumors" (I don't think things are not "rumors".) do not relate, but you wrote as if I and "rumors" relate in some way, that means you are disturbing the talk page here. Please stop such behaviour.--Mochi (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mochi, I have never said that you're making the rumors, but 2channel does. So please stop falsely accusing me any more and don't use inflammatory languages. If you're not colluding with the 2channel, that is no concern of yours. You previously said that you enjoy leaving your opinion to the 2channel page and you translated your own comment at the forum indicating me. You once wiki-stalked me for a while and you admit it at ANI. So what is your problem to say the truth? I only said the current situation coined by the Japanese forum and the ongoing meatpuppetry. Why are you contracting yourself? --Caspian blue (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ? it is easily find that Japanese 2ch user make tag edit for this. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Canvassing and meatpuppetry going on. So the 2channel's involvement and harassment are still affecting the AFD. This is so typical and pathetic movement. My ID and other Korean editors are listed on the Japanese forum and have been chased by them again. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Propas top, you can explain why I'm referred to as "kimchi"? --Caspian blue (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you talk about? You said my name is propaganda. Give me the source.Apologize to me--Propastop (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - if we delete all rumours and unsourced POV statements not much is left of the article, and in any case I am afraid that given the edit warring/canvassing going on right now it will not be possible to rewrite the article in a neutral manner. Better to delete and hope that one day someone will start this article again in a NPOV manner, that is, if the topic is even notable at all. At the moment that does not seem to be possible, hence delete. Much better than having this article in its current form and attracting a kind of editor we surely do not want here at Wikipedia. Not to mention that in its current form the article is a disgrace for Wikipedia, as it is mostly an attack page. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per all of the above; WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There Korian's　social ecology is　very valuable in posterity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.2.254.99 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — 121.2.254.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.MakesintoJp (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep　No problem!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.208.156.129 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — 202.208.156.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.MakesintoJp (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep off course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.30.43.209 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — 125.30.43.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch.MakesintoJp (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

*keep　This article is important for understanding the South Korean.--Aipiee (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This Japanese IP anons who have not any contributions in English Wikipedia before the AFD. This is ridiculous obvious canvassing/meatpuppeting. Well, this kind of disruptive meat/sockpuppeting only weight in the deletion of the article--Caspian blue (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is active WP:CANVASSing at 2channel targeting this article, this AfD and some of the involved editors. Visual evidence:    Cydevil38 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "Keep" was decided to this article recently. These articles are in Korean influence on Japanese Culture and implications. This article relates to Korean influence on Japanese Culture. Korea insists on the origin of the Japanese culture though the Japanese culture received a deep influence of a Chinese culture. And, inconvenient information is deleted by their political campaigns. This text might be profitable to explain of the Japanese and Chinese disliking Korea.--Eichikiyama (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, political campaigns that delete inconvenient information, I guess we should be grateful that we have all those Chinese and Japanese that counter these campaigns and expose the truth about Koreans and their audacious claims. Novidmarana (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * new IPs and new account are invalid. they are sock. or tag ediotors of 2ch. MakesintoJp (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sockpuppet of Totsutaix, see this diff. Novidmarana (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

-* Delete - Article consisted by Original Research. and Individual person's claim can't be a official claim of south korea. MakesintoJp (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting support.svg|14px]]Keep - Regarding notability, refer to Chinese and Japanese Wikis. Regarding verifiability, refer to newspaper sources. Regarding seriousness, refer to the argument regarding the ROK and PRC government interventions as described in the 1st AFD nomination. Additionally, consider WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - and please as soon as possible. If all unsourced statements are deleted not much substance remains, and this is even ignoring the serious POV problems that make this page look like an attack page on Koreans. All we have is basically a statement of one professor Masami Oiso, claiming that there is a pattern of unjustified South Korean cultural claims (horrible article title anyway). Everything else in the article are examples and related statements that by virtue of being included in this article suggest that there is indeed a broad pattern, but do not have solid citations that show that this indeed a case. in fact, this article is a prime example for demagogy. Novidmarana (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder which piece of information you are calling "unsourced." I see no unsourced information there.  It is not only Masami Oiso who's working on this issue but also Shunpei Mizuno, and his comment is also available in the article.  The article is not demagogy and all of the information on the list is sourced.  Even if they were rumours, we can state them as long as they are so big that mass media such as newspapers pick them up.  I already stated the case of Paul is dead above.  Another example is a rumour that Hitler was a Jew.  The rumour was never confirmed but the information is in Adolf Hitler's page.  We have sold citations that show that there indeed exist "rumours" (I don't think they are rumours, though) that Koreans believe samurai, kendo, judo and kabuki are from Korea.  So, how about changing the name of the article into "Conflics over South Korean Cultural Claims" or something like that?  There sure is so big a conflict that even the Koream ambassador had to refer to it (according to Yahoo News) (The Korean ambasador claimed that it was a false report that Koreans believe that Sun Yat-sen was Korean.  Yahoo News states that "the reason why such a false rumour spread was that Chinese people have an image of Korea as a country which steals history and culture.").--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "(according to Yahoo News) (The Korean ambasador claimed that it was a false report that Koreans believe that Sun Yat-sen was Korean. Yahoo News states that "the reason why such a false rumour spread was that Chinese people have an image of Korea as a country which steals history and culture.")."
 * Ok, confirmed. it is not made by Korean. It is made by Chinese. What relation with korean? Korean did not made such claim. article title change as a 'Chinese made Hoax Toward Korean'.Nightrainbowfan (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not serious, are you? I changed the article to a version that reflect that all this rumours are just that, rumours, and you promptly started whining on my talkpage about my edit (that btw, has been discussed by other editors on the talk page). You claim all the time that there are solid citations, but then why do you insist on a version of the article that treats it is a fact that Koreans make these claims. It is rather disgusting to see that you say one thing here, and another thing on the article page. Novidmarana (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not serious, are you? >I changed the article to a version that reflect that all this rumours are just that, rumours. The case of Confusius was rumour, indeed. But the cases of Samurai, Kendo, Judo and Kabuki are not rumours. There are souces from Korean websites. It is a fact that Koreans make these claims.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, as has been shown above, it was a US organization who made the claim that Judo has a Korean origin. What rather proves my point, that this article attempts abuses all this examples to make a point. You need for that all these examples are indeed examples for Korean falsely claiming aspects of other cultures as their own due to nationalism. Novidmarana (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. it was a US organization who made the claim that Judo has a China origin. I don't know this orginization is represent to all korea Judo. "Yudo is a traditional military art. It came to Korea from China as a system of unarmed combat during the Koryo Dynasty." However according to Korea Judo association, I can't find such claim that it originated from Korea. It is a Japanese made Interner rumor. Nightrainbowfan (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an account made on September 20, 2008. --Eichikiyama (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

-- — MakesintoJp (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - purely content pov forking article. Appear publicly (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an account made on September 20, 2008. --Eichikiyama (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

-- — Appear publicly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

-- — Nightrainbowfan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete -- No academic source, personal claim, POV fork from blog or unclear rumor or Internet meme. Nightrainbowfan (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without some substantial reliable sources I do not think it is possible to write an encyclopaedia article about this kind of largely internet based rumour/meme/argument whilst still presenting the information in a neutral way and keeping the article free of original research. Guest9999 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While some of the issues discussed in the article are notable and supported by sources, the overall tenor of the article is so poor that it cannot be salvaged.  --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

* MUST KEEP - very important article to show world the lies of Koreans that do as if Japanese culture and civilisation is all invention of koreans. So must keep this article otherwise it will be clear that english wikipedia is biased and racist against Japan. Jirominami (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC). — Jirominami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Question -- Even articles that showed sources of news site (e.g., The Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo) are original research ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC) — NAZONAZO (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: Jirō Minami was a Japanese war criminal. Novidmarana (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete still The article CLAIMS that Japanese sources CLAIM that Koreans CLAIM that certain things originate from Korea. Lets thing about the level of weasel-wordyness just in the first paragraph of the article. This is more than an article about a sourced but unsubstantiated (or even false) claim such as the "Paul is dead" meme cited above. It is a second or third level set of claims, claims about claims (meatclaims?). "Korean origin theory" in Google scholar gets 5 hits all about ginseng. "Korea-origin theory" (the term used in the article) gets a massive ZERO Google scholar hits."uriginal" gets lots of hits but as a mispelling of "original" and non related to Japanese claims about Korean claims. "uriginal Korea" gets 4 google scholar hits, none relevant.  The article is synthetic and fundamentaly problematic with respect to a neutral point of view. A feast of weasel words.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then say please, if Koreans steal our culture why think that this is not true. Many newspaper report, professors and many internet users in Japan found out about Korean lies. Wikipedia must have this information so that the world can judge and see true nature of koreans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirominami (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Jirominami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your comment illustrates the problem with the article. Wikipedia is for verifiable information - this article will just serve as a place for people to have arguments. As a debate topic on a forum or on a blog it may have some merit but Wikipedia is neither. Nick Connolly (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Why delate my question ? My contributions are few ? I don't vote, only have questions .--NAZONAZO (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, horribly POV sythesis, and unsalvageable in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist flagwaving.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC).
 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_comment.svg|14px]]Comment - Just to note that, it is very hard to eliminate POV as only certain users are capable of editing. The only "sides" that are capable of editing are those affiliated with Japanese and Korean sides. Even the Chinese Wiki is mostly edited by people from Taiwan, and overseas Chinese, since Wikipedia is blocked in China. Thus it is almost impossible to obtain an equal POV from all sides. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Benlisquare sounds a little bit less concernced about NPOV at Novidmarana (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Having visited both Korea and Japan I find their (general) dislike of each other very sad, since I like them both. The Koreans do make a lot of claims. I should mention that North Korea makes the same claims as South Korea, and even more strongly. I don't know why the article singles out the South Koreans. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. I like the Chinese too but haven't visited their country yet.
 * Second comment Lots of countries around the world make the same kind of absurd claims that the Koreans do. For instance the Irish claim to have founded European civilization. I really think the Chinese and Japanese (two of the greatest and most important cultures in the history of the world) should chill out a little about this. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, quite often these claims are not even absurd - just ask a Brazilian, an American or a German who invented the airplane. You will probably get three different answers (Alberto Santos-Dumont, Wright brothers, Otto Lilienthal), and all of these three answers are right in some way, and definitely not absurd. I suspect that this is the case with the alleged Korean claims here, although the article certainly gives the impression that Koreans deliberately choose to falsely claim inventions or cultural achievements as their own. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've been trying to make a similar one which is buttressed by your comment. There is no article on Brazilian cultural claims, but in the airplane article Alberto Santos-Dumont appears to be relevantly and accurately included in the History section of the airplane article. That is as it should be in my opinion. Editors can attempt to include claims in appropriate articles dealing with the individual notability and verifiability of individual claims on a case by case basis. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Still (with the re-listing note above not sure if I'm supposed to weigh in again). This article is unambiguous POV culture warrior troll bait (again). Its whole premise belies any attempt at objectivity. Note this article is "about" certain cultural claims. If a specific claim is notable and verifiable (e.g., Judo was originally Korean) editors should work on that relevant article (e.g., Judo). Note 1: I have no stance on the Judo issue, I use it as an example only. Note 2: I am neither Korean nor Japanese but have briefly visited both countries and I confess a predisposition to Korean cuisine. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV warring subject, and an article that is built out of morsels, original research by "synthesis" turned ugly. It's a wonder this hasn't turned into various XYZ views of ... forks yet. Equendil Talk 11:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2channel canvassing and tag-teaming is going on other Korean-related articles. This kind of childish and disruptive on/off-wiki activities should be stopped.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I've heard of this phenomenon, but verifying it is difficult, especially with the non English sources. In addition, the article as it stands is an edit war battleground using what devolve into primary sources: in other words its essentially original research. If we don't delete it, we should probably wipe it down to a stub and start over on a new title. --Tznkai (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Again -- Even articles that showed sources of news site (e.g., The Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo) are original research ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.ditto.--Doronpa (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Doronpa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I sat out the first AfD, confident it would go, and was surprised it was saved... Anyway: Thinly disguised OR, POV-pushing through Undue Weight, Synthesis, etc, etc., etc. First, the article is mis-named. It should be something like "Nationalistic Chinese and nationalistic Japanese claims of Korean claims of cultural superiority, and a few scraps dug up to justify these claims"... which would be more accurate, and make it more clear what hogwash the article is. I was raised close to Japanese people and culture, and I lived in Korea for a few years. I spoke with many very nationalistic people there, but never heard the kinds of claims presented in this article. However I did hear many claims about the Japanese people from these people which I knew to be totally false. Should we group together some of this nonsense and present it as a "Japanese cultural claims" article? No, it would be just as wrong as this one, and if we have one, I'll gladly vote to delete it too. I asked my (Korean) wife about the claim in this article that Koreans (some) think that Chinese characters originated in Korea. She had never heard of anyone who thinks this, and asked me why-- if such lunatics do exists-- am I reading such fringe views in an encyclopedia? This kind of baiting and smearing goes on between Japan, Korea and China constantly, and no encyclopedia worth the name would give any of these claims the benefit of an article. The article in question states continuously that these claims of cultural superiority are fabricated by anti-Korean Chinese and Japanese websites, and a few right-wing "scholars". Hence giving these claims any merit by presenting them in an article as "Korean cultural claims" is a borderline hoax. The only use this material could possibly have is as a small part of an article on Chinese and Japanese nationalism. But it is questionable even there, since these are such fringe, petty hoaxes... Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreadable, worthless piece of POV drivel. Even if the title and scope of the article didn't already implicitly contain a POV-forkish/WP:SYNTH perspective, the article would still be factually unsalvagable: given the present state of our Japanese and Korean editor population and the intensity of POV-warring in that field, there is not the slightest chance that we can get anything remotely adequate written on such a topic within the next thousand years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No adequate sources are provided for the claims in this article. These are not actual Korean beliefs that can be cited to Korean authors. This is what some people in other countries *think* that Koreans believe. This is hopeless. And yes, I agree with Future Perfect's comment too. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. the topic is interesting, and i hiope it gets coverage somewhere on WP (a Korean culture article?), but the amount of warring over this shows that this will never be a viable article. The dubious sourcing is at most enough for a few sentences somewhere, not an article.Yobmod (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Canvassing going on by Benlisquare via http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-2584-1-1.html. Novidmarana (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Canvassing. This isn't just any canvassing, this is a concerted effort to game wikipedia. The link gives a step by step script in how to engage on wikipedia. E.g., "Now, in the deletion discussion, the more votes we have for 'keep', the more likely our articles won't be deleted by China-haters. The more people the better, HOWEVER change your text; don't make each person's entry just like the other; this gets BORING and people might realize that they are up against an army of 'yes men'. ONLY USE ONE ACCOUNT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BANNED. We need more PEOPLE voting for us, not more ACCOUNTS, or we would have done that earlier. WRITE ONLY IN ENGLISH, otherwise you may be banned. I am asking you of this plainly becuase there are more China-haters on Wiki than there are Chinese; since we are outnumbered, our articles are trashed while others spread their propaganda."For the record, I'm not a China hater or Korea hater, nor am I Chinese or Korean. My Delete recommendation (not vote) is based on the observation that this article is inherently POV and unsalvageable. The quality of this "canvassing" approach leaves me appalled. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reported at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Novidmarana (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt, page is an unsalvageable wreck which attempts to synthesize a controversy out of a bunch of nationalist trolls linking together unrelated disputes on history. I'll note that the controversy looks like it may soon become notable, however, so I'm not against an article on the subject at a later date if it was written by someone who wasn't personally involved in the argument. I do not believe that keeping the page around towards that eventuality is preferable, however, and any new version should be cleared prior to insertion in the mainspace. --erachima talk 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt immediately, and let's have a couple of RFCU to go with it on some of these IP's. Let's not even talk about all the way the article mangles WP:OR and WP:SYNTH AND WP:NPOV, the sources aren't even close to reliable. The J-cast article is, at best ambigious and I don't see the whole "uriginal" in that article. The Kendo association is just some website, and hardly reliable as it has a completely biased stake. I'm amazed as some of the claims purported to be "referenced" here and the article is -- regardless of the "truth" of the claims -- not encyclopedic. As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese are in the right as far as the issue goes, but this isn't the sort of debate that can be carried out in an open editing environment and the article topic will ALWAYS be a controversial mess with dubious sourcing. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:15, 26 September 2008 (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.