Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure blood theory in Korea

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Objectiveye (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 17 August 2010 (I should be able to justify why I voted the way I did). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pure blood theory in Korea

Pure blood theory in Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Upon further reflection, a name change to Pure blood nationalism (Korea) might be in order. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey! your reference to '순혈주의' is inappropriate. Because, this '순혈주의' isn't correlation. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power overwhelming... should we call WP:SNOW soon? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! stop! use Inappropriate account, now! --Idh0854 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'또라이' is korean. This is mean offensive word. (≒ STFU) --Idh0854 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [9] "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
herp derp? Do you really have to belittle to the people who disagree with you? Komitsuki (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
You said my first vote was invalid. Komitsuki (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just from my personal experience in Wikipedia. Komitsuki (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment the reason why I voted the way I did was because this will be a constant mess. In order to not be contradictory

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):

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"[1]

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.[2][3][4]"[5][6][7] These scientific researches lead to Japan limiting the access of Japan's royal tomb from the international community.[8]

and

Borrowing from the Japanese theory of nation and race[9], Shin Chaeho located the martial roots of the Korean in Goguryeo[9], which he depicted as militarist, expansionist which turned out to inspire pride and confidence in the resistance against the Japanese[9]. 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[10] and asserted that it is the important ways to establish Korea’s uniqueness.[9] 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.[11]

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[12], making Korean the oldest civilization in the whole world based on the description of the Dongguk Tonggam (1485).[13]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html
  2. ^ Korean Impact (2001), pp. 44-45
  3. ^ Korean Impact (2001), p. 46.
  4. ^ Korean Impact (1984)
  5. ^ NYT (2003): Japanese Art
  6. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E0D91139E733A25754C0A9619C946097D6CF
  7. ^ http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln275/Jap-Kor-art.htm
  8. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html
  9. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference gries was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Andre Schmid, "Rediscovering Manchuria: Som Cj’aeho and the Politics of Territorial History in Korea," in The Journal of Asian Studies, 56, no. 1 February 1997
  11. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference stanford was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Old Choson and the Culture of the Mandolin-shaped Bronze Dagger, Kim Jung-bae
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea&oldid=379364730"