Talk:Korean nationalism

Anti-Chinese sentiment

Main articles: China–North Korea relations and China–South Korea relations

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

Mount Baekdu

Main article: Paektu Mountain

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

Gando

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

Historical controversies

Main article: Northeast Project

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

--18:54, 8 October 2016‎ 222.252.44.218

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge: unanimous consensus between three participants. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Korean ethnic nationalism into this article. See this talk page. @Benlisquare, Madalibi, and Notendiesonmyplate: 00101984hjw (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

It has been 2 months. We should get started with this. Please someone lay out the clear directions as to how to even approach this. Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:MERGECLOSE, if no more editors join the discussion, we should close it and start the merge process. The sheer lack of participation is quite surprising, considering this is a contentious topic. Nevertheless, I think an unanimous vote from three participants would be enough to close the discussion.

@Seefooddiet Any thoughts on closing merge? I have no experience with merging articles yet and I think you might know better.

As for merging, per WP:MERGETEXT, we can start by merging WP:CONTENTFORKs together. The #History and #Social Issues section from Korean ethnic nationalism have a lot of forks with the #History, #Ethnic nationalism, and #Particular issues sections of Korean nationalism, so a good amount of content could be merged together there. Especially with ethnic historiography and Shin Chae-ho. Just don't delete any unique piece of content as long as it's sourced.

The lead section would be somewhat challenging, but since Korean nationalism already states the two different ways Korean nationalism can be viewed from, a partial rewrite would do the job. I suggest we separate the lead into four paragraphs with the following subjects for now: [overview] - [history] - [ethnic nationalism] - [criticisms to ethnic nationalism and state-based nationalism]. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume this merge should happen.

I feel confident I would be able to do it. But I'm busy atm with the MOS revision, programming a romanization module, and some IRL stuff. I can probably get it done within 1-2 months; it's an important project. Otherwise, if anyone else is willing to take this up please feel free to.

I'll withhold from analyzing how to do it for now; saving my brain power for those other projects. seefooddiet (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I can go ahead and close the discussion, but I'll be somewhat busy as well with irl stuff for the next 1~2 weeks or so. @Notendiesonmyplate would you be able to start with the merge yourself? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that I am also busy myself and that I don't know how to start this merge myself. Reason why I asked for clear directions is for a guideline. Nonetheless, I'll try. Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Korean nationalism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Korean nationalism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Park":

• From Korean ethnic nationalism: Park, Chung-a (August 14, 2006). "Myth of Pure-Blood Nationalism Blocks Multi-Ethnic Society". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on July 25, 2011. Retrieved July 25, 2011.
• From Park Chung Hee: "The Encyclopedia of the Cold War: A Political, Social, and Military History: Park Jung Hee (1917–1979)". American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved March 24, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Korean nationalism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Korean nationalism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The Korea Times":

• From Korean ethnic nationalism: "Korean Blood, Real and Imagined". 3 July 2009.
• From Korean reunification: "Unified Korea to Exceed G7 in 2050". Korea Times. 2009-09-21. Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Recurring issues

Since the merger is complete I believe it should be adequate we discuss some issues over this article before making any further revamps.

Some major contentions I see:

1. Is this entire article (or at least the #State-aligned nationalism section) a WP:UNDUE (or WP:POV) issue? I have seen numerous accusations, both inside and outside the wiki, that this article and Korean ethnic nationalism, which was recently merged into this one, are biased. There used to be an entire rant section on NamuWiki's article on the English Wikipedia just because of these two articles (apparently someone just wasn't WP:BOLD enough to make the changes on their own) and has been used as evidence to Wikipedia's apparent "anti-Korean bias" ([1]).

So anyways, back to the point. It does appear to me that a large portion of references here are from B.R. Myers, Andrei Lankov, and Shin Ki-Wook. Myers and Shin have been described as 'conservative' scholars, and they are definitely critical of ethnic nationalism([2], [3]). However, all of these scholars do have a well-established position as experts on Korean affairs, which is why I urge editors to not delete any source from these scholars. If there is consensus that this article does have a bias/undue weight issue on conservative opinion then I will tag it with {{undue weight}} or {{unbalanced}}. What we could do then is to clarify which opinion came from whom, and add opinions from scholars who have a positive view on ethnic nationalism. What we should NOT do is delete sentences or sources from Myers, Shin, Kelly, or Lankov without consensus.

2. In the case of Korean sources, should 'minjok, be translated as "nation" or "race"? It appears to me that the term minjok-juui(minjok-ism) is translated as "nationalism" in many sources, and the translation of minjok as "race" mostly derives from a conservative viewpoint. ([4], [5]). Nevertheless, we should meet a consensus on this before someone else is accused of whitewashing the article. A third option here would be using the term minjok itself without translation.

3. Did the term minjok originate from the Japanese cognate minzoku? Or did both terms germinate spontaneously in the two countries during a similar time period, with minzoku predating minjok? The article vaguely says that minjok is a term that had been coined in Imperial Japan ("minzoku") in the early Meiji period, and I cannot find the source of this claim.

@Korean National History, Notendiesonmyplate, Seefooddiet, Illegitimate Barrister, and Joren: pinging recent and major contributers. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I've heard the same, and before my revision a while back the problem was definitely worse. Korean editors tried to rightfully but sloppily tone down the article, but it was being guarded by POV leaning editors who used any of the sloppiness as an excuse to maintain the POV. Honestly even after the merger it still reads POV, like it's angrily harping on the topic. I do think you should tag it as WP:UNDUE. It needs to be cut down in length; it's also pretty repetitive.

2. "Minjok" is hard to translate, maybe could provide both translations. I don't think we should be worried about appearing to whitewash the article, given that the previous article was redwashed with POV.

3. Idr the source I read it in, but I'm fairly certain that the Korean concept came from the Japanese. I'll look up the source in near future.

Now that the MOS is finished, I may just take the task up of revising this myself. Just need to find energy to do it. Waiting for this to all go through committee will take a lot of time. seefooddiet (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Undue}} has been tagged. I try and work on this if I have the time but I'll need to find academic sources first. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Giving it a shot, but the problems run really deep. Nearly every sentence has issues where subjective arguments that aren't directly in the source are being extrapolated upon. This issue is so systemic and the topic so contentious that scrapping most of it and rewriting it may be better. Can't trust anything being said. At present, the writing seems actively harmful to me. seefooddiet (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll strike the talk page with {{controversial}} for now. - 00101984hjw (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an entire reliance on Myers, who have blatantly stated on his articles that they are opinions, in this article alone. Things from his opinion pieces are just stated as facts, whether his observation of both Koreas' societies are accurate or not. Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, even the word "reliance" is lightly putting it. Basically every quote, every "explanation", every opinion is from Myers. The worst part of it all, is that anything from Myers is just written here as if it's just a fact. He literally puts whatever he wrote under "opinions". As a matter of fact, the name Myers appears on this article for about a good 20 times even before I edited the North Korean section. This is unprofessional at best. Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than pour time into trying to fix everything, I'd recommend being more liberal with deleting offending bits, given how contentious this topic is. It's not worth the time to fix everything, and the writing is often difficult to fix.

I suspect a good chunk of this article is attributable to a user who's been sockpuppeting and editing on this topic for years. Their writing consistently has these issues. Has been frustrating to deal with them. seefooddiet (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

New related article: Koreacentrism

Folks watchlisting this may be interested. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Article needs a nearly complete rewrite

I just tagged it with WP:OR after flipping around the rest of the article. Basically every sentence in this has problems and fixing them would effectively mean rewriting the article anyway. Given that some of the topics are really contentious, the state of the article is especially unacceptable. This article (Korean nationalism) got around 20,000 views in the last year.

I may stop my attempts to fix what's already here, and start giving a total rewrite a shot by using the existing sources in the article myself. It may be shorter but it'll be tighter writing. seefooddiet (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You may be write. In my experience, collective process can only take us so far; in the end articles need attention from one person, occasionally a small, dedicated group, otherwise they are a bigger or smaller mess. Good luck with the rewrite _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Not enough energy to do the rewrite lately; may not end up doing it. At least managed to tone down the article some more. I may keep chipping away at it. seefooddiet (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you think an intensive revamp could fix the thing? Or is it an inevitable WP:TNT case? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

An intensive revamp would basically be a rewrite, so I think basically TNT. seefooddiet (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, TNT = deletion, I don't think we need to delete this. No prejudice to see this being replaced by a better article, but I'd oppose deletion at AFD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't read that essay close enough. Yes total rewrite instead of something like a deletion. On the other hand, I do feel uncomfortable with the current content of the article because it feels actively harmful. But deletion until revision isn't the solution. seefooddiet (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)