Jump to content

Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kuebie (talk | contribs)
1,607 edits
→‎infobox: new section
Kuebie (talk | contribs)
1,607 edits
Line 85: Line 85:


I've kept saying 순혈주의 is an invented term but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. I'll be removing it, unless someone has some sort of empirical evidence to its existence and usage. [[User:Kuebie|Kuebie]] ([[User talk:Kuebie|talk]]) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've kept saying 순혈주의 is an invented term but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. I'll be removing it, unless someone has some sort of empirical evidence to its existence and usage. [[User:Kuebie|Kuebie]] ([[User talk:Kuebie|talk]]) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

== counterarguments for a nonexisting argument ==

It's an ideology, a concept. Not based on pseudoscience or something. [[User:Kuebie|Kuebie]] ([[User talk:Kuebie|talk]]) 03:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:14, 13 August 2011

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 57 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure blood theory in Korea → Korean Ethnic Nationalism – Relisted Alpha Quadrant talk 23:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The current title is in gross violation of NPOV, making constructive contributions to the subject matter very difficult and emotionally repulsive. This has lead this article to being not just being uninformative, but worse, being very biased and misleading. Much of the reliable sources, for example those of Gi-wook Shin and Peter Gries, used the concept Korean ethnic nationalism without a single mention of Pure blood theory. I propose a rename of this article to Korean ethnic nationalism, a concept that much better reflects the reliable sources, academic consensus and discourse, NPOV, and under which constructive contributions can be made by all parties. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Sounds reasonable, but should be lowercase as it is not a proper noun—Korean ethnic nationalism. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Cydevil38 about renaming the title of the article...using a phrase like "pure blood" is redolent of Nazism, Aryan white supremacy and the Third Reich and doesn't encourage constructive edits. Sleetman (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check out WP:CENSOR. I think fan death is even more outrageous than this but Wikipedia should not euphemise titles just to spare feelings. —  AjaxSmack  17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article denotes the belief of an ethnic theory, and so the current title does not represent any inaccuracies. I don't see how the title can be related to Nazism; the concept of "blood" is common with any ethnic theory. The article isn't centred along nationalism specifically, but rather as a result of such theories. Mind you, belief in a theory does not make it a fact; I believe having "theory" in the title is crucial, so that readers don't obtain the wrong idea and actually believe the theory to be a fact. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Actually, the measure of reliable sources use the terminology of blood and race rather than the terminology of ethnicity and nationalism. The idea of "the cleanest race" is how Brian Meyers puts it. Gi-wook Shin notes that the feeling is a "sense of nation based on shared blood and ancestry" with a heavy emphasis on "race understood as a collectivity defined by innate and immutable phenotypic and genotypic characteristics". Fundamentally, according to Shin, the Koreans see themselves as "an organic body formed out of the spirit of a people ... descended through a single pure bloodline". Pieces in the Korea times talk not of nationalism but "blood purity"; and the supposed homogeneity of Koreans (even featured in Koreans Wikipedia article) and their pride in that homogeneity is common knowledge. Park Chung-a speaks of a "Myth of Pure-Blood". Yes, the concept is quite distasteful, but Wikipedia documents all kind of concepts and should not water them down for the benefit of nationalists of any stripe. Quigley (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Korean ethnic nationalism" is too ambiguous to describe this article. However the concept is called "tanil minjok" (pure race), so the title may be more appropriate to "Pure race concept in Korea". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The terms theory, concept and hypothesis are all synonyms, and I'm fine with any of those. I also wouldn't mind if blood was replaced with race either. However, I do not believe that "Korean ethnic nationalism", as suggested by Cydevil38, adequately describes the topic. "Ethnic nationalism" sounds more like something relating along the lines with Serbians killing Croatians because they are Croatians; not only is it vague, but does not relate well to the article which is centred along the idea of racial purity and how the Koreans are a homogenous people. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, so allow me to provide a simple introduction for you. This book has sought to account for the origins and politics of Korean ethnic nationalism in the twentieth century. Ethnic nationalism, here, has meant that which involves emphases on descent and race, that is, on biology. As such, it can also be called racial nationalism. .. Nation, I argue, is a social and historical construction, not an eternal or natural one. As such, nation or national identity is in flux - constantly challenged, contested, reformulated, and transformed. from Ethnic Nationalism in Korea by Gi-wook Shin. The Korean term you use to describe this subject matter, danilminjok, can be more accurately described as "one nation" or "one ethnicity". A more appropriate term for race is injong. As for pure blood theory, which this article describes as soonhyuljooeui(순혈주의) in Korean, is even more ambiguous as the word is more frequently used as group/organizational exclusivity in Korea, rather than this so-called "pure blood theory". As such, if this "pure blood theory in Korea" is to be used, it would require a disambiguation page. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that "theory" should not be part of the name of the article. (But "hypothesis" might work). As opposed to some colloquial uses uf the word theory, it implies that we are dealing with a scientific concept, not simply an assumption. The scientific pretentions, conveyed by "theory", may make the concept more difficult to deal with in an NPOV and encyclopedic manner. The title should imply that this concept is an assumption or (at most) a hypothesis. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title may not be ideal but Korean ethnic nationalism does not accurately reflect the core content of the article. Also, we could consider merging this article with Korean nationalism. I think the two are better left separate but at least some of the content not directly related to this topic could be moved there. —  AjaxSmack  17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Ethnic nationalism is a widely researched concept, whereas as pure blood hypothesis is an offensive neologism created by some Wikipedia editors. Most of the reliable sources cited here are about ethnic nationalism, not pure blood hypothesis.If framed in the concept of Korean ethnic nationalism, this article can be worked to deal with the subject matter from a neutral point of view and scientific understanding. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Don't double-!vote. A nom also counts as a !vote, and is misleading for others. Refactored to reflect this. Never mind. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not always true that a nomination equals support. I have nominated several moves simply to try and establish a consensus while not necessarily supporting a new name. On the flipside, does it really hurt to show support for ones own nom? —  AjaxSmack  15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The fact that this isn't a school of thought, or an area of study, or a class you can take at your local college, while 'Korean ethnic nationalism' is something actually tangible and not completely made up by user:Winstonlighter. Kuebie (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to point out that there is no such thing as 순혈주의/純血主義 in the Korean lexicon. Kuebie (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KiloT 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a title

  • I'm reading the above discussion, and it's hard to see any kind of consensus, or clear solution. The current title is very bad from at least one perspective, and not necessarily ideal from any perspective. The proposed alternative is liked by some, but according to others, "is too ambiguous to describe this article," and "does not accurately reflect the core content of the article".

    That doesn't give us any very appealing choices, so what else is there? Can we brainstorm a handful of name alternatives, and see what people think? Perhaps an RfC would be in order? What is our way forward from here? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What this article needs is either some more attention from neutral editors to settle the dispute, or we can go along with the proponents of the "pure blood theory" idea, and treat "pure blood theory" and "Korean ethnic nationalism" as separate concepts, which should also mean that books that mainly deal with Korean ethnic nationalism should not be cited as they do not support the overall contents of this article. What Shin's and Grie's works deal with is a form of nationalism that is quite common in the world, and they try to analyze how this particular ethnic nationalism is given form. As for Myer's, his book particularly focuses on how ethnic nationalism turned out in North Korea, which took a more extreme form than in South Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that some of this article might be split into a separate article on Korean ethnic nationalism? And then this one could focuses on the specific meaning of the phrase "pure blood theory" intended by users of that term? Am I understanding you correctly? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left notes on the talk page of all three WikiProjects with banners on this talk page. Perhaps we'll get more input that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subject matter of the reliable sources

I think some of the editors here have a very poor understanding of the subject matter that the three most often referenced reliable sources, the works by Myers, Shin and Gries, in this article deal with. The subject matter for all these authors are nationalism. Ethnic homogeneity is one of the essential features of ethnic nationalism, and this so-called "pure blood theory" is a poor neologism that some editors came up with to describe this feature. There is rarely any mention of this neologism in the academia, and if it is, it's framed within the concept of ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism, ethnic homogeneity, and the arguments for and against them in the framework of historiography are common around the world, and the topic is dealt with extensively on the Wikipedia. The neologism pure blood theory is a poor description of this concept that takes the subject matter out of the conceptual framework under which most reliable sources are framed in. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis and Intention

It is interesting that Winstonlighter created the following interwikis connected to this disputable document: es:Teoría de la sangre pura en Corea, fr:Théorie du sang pur en Corée, vi:Chủ nghĩa huyết trong Triều Tiên, zh:朝鮮純血主義 for a short period. What is your purpose to create this kind of documents around various interwikis? Were you willing to describe or advtertize disadvantages in Korea?

Also, @Winstonlighter: I don't think Pure blood theory(純血主義) is the unique term used in Korea. This theory is also a controversy in China. Again, there is also a strong "pure blood theory " in China. You had to create Pure blood theory first then deal with the theory in the other countries, leading to be regionally unbiased. Then you can also create a branch doc like 中国的純血主義 (Pure blood theory in China) because you are well aware of Chinese and you are much interested in the theory according to my investigation of your edits. --Ykhwong (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? Winstonlighter has been inactive at this page for months now. You might as well be talking to the wind. You should head for his talk page if you want to talk to him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked him to read this section on his user discussion page. Ykhwong (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to get back late. I think that the Chinese nationalism is based on the sense of humiliation and glory rather than the pure ethnicity. (see Pure-blood Chinese Han ethnicity vanishes on the China Communist's mouthpiece.~
This is the first article I wrote for wikipedia and I think you can say that I wanted my article to be found in different wikis. You will make fool of yourself by assuming a bad faith on it. This makes me think of a guy who has tried to suppress the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in the Chinese wikipedia. Wikipedia should hold a neutral position on judging whether an article is negative and positive, it only must be neutral. --Winstonlighter (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research claim

Despite the original research tag in the main article, there is no phrases tagged as original research in the article and no discussions regarding original research in the talk page. Therefore I remove the original research tag from the main article. Hkwon (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

I've kept saying 순혈주의 is an invented term but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. I'll be removing it, unless someone has some sort of empirical evidence to its existence and usage. Kuebie (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

counterarguments for a nonexisting argument

It's an ideology, a concept. Not based on pseudoscience or something. Kuebie (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_ethnic_nationalism&oldid=444558524"