Jump to content

Talk:Koreans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.16.45.30 (talk) at 01:58, 11 May 2011 (→Disclaimer Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Collage

The Korean people.jpg was deleted due to some copyright violation. The article is currently sporting individual portrait images, making the infobox a little messy looking. I personally don't agree with putting up ethnic group representation images, but if we're going to have one might as well do it right. So let's get some names on who or what should be in the infobox. It doesn't have to be a collage of various famous people, maybe a place or a crowd like the one in the Dutch people article. If there's no response then I'm just going to assume that you guys don't care, and I'll do it by myself. Akkies (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this convo like 8 months ago. Talk it out here. Akkies (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porting this page to Korean People: Korean vs Koreans

It's already disturbing and unsettling enough that Korea has to be called Koreas for now, since world war II, for those who truly care about Korea Peninsular and the people sharing the same heritage for more than 5000 years. To call Korean people as Koreans, is not even grammatically correct, and is ethnically discriminative. This is more than just a bad grammar mistake, the side effect of this mistake is pervasive in many Korean people's heart. And yet the mistake has been all around from wikipedia, then to main stream media, then some books, websites, etc. Wiki editors, let's fix it, from here.

There are too many articles as I just found at wiki that are repeating this mistake, like, Koreans in Japan, Koreans in China, Koreans, Koreans...

The only solution I can think of now is to port the content to the right place, and redirect the previous ones to new ones, as you don't know how they are referenced from other articles.

Therefore, I created new page Korean People and moved content overthere. Any thoughts? Clari 2010 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clari 2010 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete nonsense. Plurals in English are formed by adding "s" to the end of the word, except where the word already ends with a similar sound. I have no idea how you conclude that this is "ethnically discriminative". cab (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, there's no plural format of Korean in dictionary. Korean, in Merriam Webster, is defined as native of Korea. Likewise, there's no plural of Chinese (Chineses) Japanese(Japaneses) etc. Clari 2010 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are incorrect, and show that your grasp of the English language is low. Plurals never have entries in dictionaries, other than sometimes a brief mention of how the plural of a word is formed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plural for Korean

Like most ethnic group, Korean doesn't have a plural in English dictionary. In Merriam Webster, Korean, is defined as native of Korea. There's no entry of Koreans. Likewise, there's no plural of Indian(s), Chinese (Chineses) Japanese(Japaneses) etc. This mistake is not quite tolerable. Clari 2010 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some printed dictionaries do not include plurals to save space. That does not mean the plural of the word does not exist. And like I've already told you, words ending in "s" sounds aren't pluralised in that way, whereas other words are. Your line of questioning is rapidly devolving into trolling and disruption, and wasting everyone's time. cab (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There will never be an entry for a plural in a dictionary, though the dictionary might give the correct pluralization in the singular entry. I have undone all of your incorrect page moves. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest move Koreans to Korean people: there is no plural Koreans in web-based, or printed dictionaries.

Even in web based dictionaries, there's no such term Koreans. To so strongly back a possibly mistake is itself suspicious. After all, to move Koreans to Korean people, which is more grammatically safe and ethnically acceptable, shouldn't cost much or hurt anybody's feeling, I hope Clari 2010 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Koreans" is the correct pluralization. If you don't think there is such a term, then your grasp of English is tenuous at best. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean, when referring to people, is plural. Just like, Chinese, Japanese,Vietnamese, etc. My English is not 100% perfect for sure, but your comment is very close to a personal attack, seriously. Clari 2010 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. "There are two Chinese" is correct. "There are two Korean" is incorrect. cab (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koreans or Korean People

I don't understand why some folks are feeling so strong with changing the title from 'Koreans' to 'Korean People', while articles with title Chinese People in.. Japanese People in.. are well accepted consensus at wiki. As a Korean, "Koreans" does sound somewhat discriminative, especially there are presently two Koreas for politically reasons. But ethnically, there's one Korean. Korean can be used as plural, in English. Korean, when referring to people, is plural. Just like, Chinese, Japanese,Vietnamese, etc.

In the community of Wiki, I hope people won't consider this move suggestion(a good-faith well intentioned proposal) malicious. And to ill-consider a good faith effort to make a more reasonable change for millions of Korean people all over the world making contributions is more than surprising to me.

Can the title be changed from Koreans to Korean People?

Thoughts? Clari 2010 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time: this has nothing to do with the division of Korea or ethnic discrimination or whatever other unrelated matter you want to broing into it. This is simple English phonology. Ethnonyms ending in nasal consonants like "n" (most of them: German, Finn, Russian, American, Mongolian), stop consonants like "k" or "t" (Evenk, Scot, Inuit, Slovak), or liquid consonants like "l" (Pole), are pluralised by adding an "s". Ethnonyms ending in affricate consonants or fricative consonants like "z" (Chinese, Japanese), "ch" (Dutch, French), "sh" (English, British, Irish) are not pluralised using "s". People reacted "strongly" about this matter because of how you responded when you were told you were wrong. Instead of sitting back and having a think, you went and made nearly thirty page moves and ungrammatical edits which took us half an hour to clean up.
Note further that on Google Books you can find 530 books with the word "Koreans" in their title ([1]; more than twice as many as have "Korean people" in their title [2]). These books were written and edited by university professors, renowned journalists, professional book editors, and government bureaucrats, consisting of Americans, Koreans, Britons, and people of other nationalities. Regardless of what level you think your English is, it is quite arrogant of you to claim that all of these people who use the word "Koreans" are wrong and racist and you're the only one who knows what's right because you looked in the dictionary and didn't find the word "Koreans". cab (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the 3rd time, suggest to move to Korean People

After all, anything wrong with title Korean People, or Korean People in?

If you understand Chinese or Japanese is plural, and knowing that "Chinese People in.." or "Japanese People in.." are well accepted trend at wiki, I hope you understand that's the way they wish to be called - nothing wrong with it.

With the same welcoming spirit, I don't see why the wiki community should hold such an unbelievable strong stance against the title "Korean People". It's much better trend, more friendly and less discriminative. And there's nothing wrong with it.

Korean or Koreans: in terms of grammar, true, if you dig hard enough to back the term "Koreans" with some evidence, you probably won't be disappointed. But there are many options to pluralize names of people. To use the root alone is certainly an available option. English is evolving, trend is made, each country and each term has its own story.

When dealing with such kind of articles, please remember it is also a humanitarian work, not just some rigid grammar work - not to mention, Korean People is correct grammatically. If you can accept Chinese People title, Korean People title is also justifiable.

Clari 2010 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not proven any way whatsoever that the term "Koreans" is "discriminative" or "less friendly". Somehow the Canadians, Mongolians, and Czechs are not complaining about their "s". You just keep repeating the same tired comparison to "Chinese people" or "Japanese people". It's been explained to you five times now that those are not analogous examples. Enough already. cab (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve, out of good intention: Korean People is much better than Koreans. It does sound more friendly. In terms of Candadians, Mongolians, Germans, Czechs, Russians, etc, I thought about it, wondering if anybody from there would care. But I certainly wouldn't refuse a proposal to change it to Canadian People, Czech People etc if someone feels strong about it and make a proposal to change. If it's the way certain people wish to be called, which is not grammatically wrong, sounds more friendly, and also there are precedences to justify the proposal, why taking such a rigid stance over a humanitarian proposal like this at wiki, after all, wiki belongs to the public. Clari 2010 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Notable people representing Koreans

I've updated the infobox with a mosaic of notable Koreans. It's much more cleaner looking and aesthetically pleasing than the previous mess of pictures. The following are rationales for the inclusion of each picture, and what they represent:

Any suggestions? I understand there's an objection to include a ruthless dictator like Kim Jong il or Kim il-Sung or their related ilk, but I also think there there needs to be someone representing North Korea, which is an important part of Korean history, regardless of how brutal dictators have been. It may not be Kim il-Sung, but it does need to be someone.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Chinese are quite sympathetic towards North Korea for various reasons, but putting a dictator as representative of a group of people is in bad bad taste. Equivalent to other controversial figures such as Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler. 24.22.232.108 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's in seriously bad taste. Please be civil and avoid discriminatory generalizations. I'm Canadian first and foremost, so that ad hominem remark doesn't even apply. This may be a politically sensistive issue, but someone should represent North Korea, which is part of Korean history, whether or not the dictator is brutal, and he is. And keep in mind, I agree that figures like Mao Zedong should not be included, which is why I ignored him in the Han Chinese collage, but I did include Deng Xiaoping, since there needs to be some representation of a certain period of history, regardless of how objectionable.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced him with Kim Yong Nam. He still acts as a representation of North Korea, while being much less controversial. Please keep a cool head and avoid disparaging generalizations of another user's ethnicity, I perfectly understand that this is a contentious topic, but we must approach it with civility, patience, and mutual understanding. And plus, it's not like I added his son, who is comically just as cruel and brutal as he was. --Hongkongresident (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows Kim Yong Nam? I don't know who he is. Nominal representation is not a real representation. It's tough job to select several persons to represent for a country. In my opinion Kim Il Sung could represent North Korea. We don't need to care he is evil or not. We have to ask the question 'Is he a symbol in general?'. --Cheol (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt many people know who Empress Myeongseong is either. That doesn't change the fact that they're considered significant people, even if they're not widely known. If this was based purely on popularity, it would be filled with pop stars and athletes. And no one wants that. --resident (talk)00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you have any suggestions for a replacement? I was thinking someone from the Goryeo period, but I don't know who. --resident (talk)00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule that says that there must be a picture representing an ethnic group. And looking at the long history of edit-warring regarding this very issue, just do away with it all. Leave it blank, much more cleaner imo. Who cares if it doesn't conform to other articles. See examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koreans#collage Akkies (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kuebie. The only reason I created a new collage was because the previous collage looked messy and unorganised, taking too much space in the infobox. But perhaps no collage is a better solution. I support keeping it like this to avoid any future controvery.--resident (talk)00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fear the controversy. It's a way of progress. But just be careful to do it creative and productive. Go, go, go! --Cheol (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large Koreatowns?

I notice that there is a reference to Large Koreatowns can also be found in Australia, ... This appears to be uncited, and is to my knowledge incorrect. There are certainly areas in Sydney where Koreans tend to live, but in no way are they what is presumably meant here by "koreatowns" - i.e. areas that are predominantly Korean ethnically and culturally. I clicked through to the Koreatown page and the descriptions there are equally incorrect.

Any objection to removing the text? 129.78.32.23 (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer Discussion

Discuss why or why not the disclaimer which has been posted under "Origins" should or should not exist. Explain.

"The ethnic origins of Koreans are highly debated. Various sources claim origin from Southeast Asia, China, as well as Mongolia. Therefore the information provided here is by no means definite.[17][18][19][20][21][22]"

I have offered multiple sources to back the validity of such claims. The most evident being that a simple google search of basic Human migration patterns showing no evidence for the Altaic Language=Ethnic origins theory. On the contrary, multiple results show a migratory pattern from SE Asia and from mainland China, which all originated from Africa.

In fact, only on this Wikipedia article have I seen more claims for the Altaic-theory than I have for the traditional human migratory patterns.

I do not mean to offend anyone. I do not say it is definite that any of the ethnic origins is true. But I have, through extensive research, come to the conclusion that: 1) Ethnic origins of Koreans are highly debated 2) There is more evidence for the traditional migratory patterns than their is for the Altaic theory 3) The evidence of the Altaic theory is usually extremely hard to find*; the incidences I usually find them are on Youtube videos, Korean blogs, and various Korean source. On the other hand, the traditional origins map can be found with a basic search.

For example; one of your MAIN sources for the Altaic theory is: Nelson, Sarah M. (1993). The Archaeology of Korea. Cambridge University Press. pp. 6. ISBN 0521407834. However, upon doing an Amazon book search, the word Altaic is mentioned only twice in the entire book and none of them pertain to origins or ethnicity. But because I am open to different opinions, I will not call it out as fake or lies. These ideas are all possible: even the Altaic theory.

Now, I do not wish to delete any of the information on Wikipedia about the Altaic origins of Koreans, nor do I want to overshadow the Altaic origin with my own section on extensive research of the Genographic Project of National Geographic or various other reputable sources where the Google searches are linked to. However, I feel the disclaimer must be there for the validity of Wikipedia. When Wikipedia articles differ so much from other surrounding sources, I can only feel that it is being biased and seen through only one perspective. I am not one for bias; I am not a Chinese Nationalist; if I was I would not accept all three origin scenarios as possible. On the flip side, Koreans should not be too quick to discard the scenarios they do not find appealing (though I don't understand why it matters where and how we got from Africa to where we are today).


Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason reiterated is because there is no debate on the subject.KaraKamilia (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The vast sources I give point to an obvious debate. In fact, a debate so significant, that more evidence points to a Southern genetic route. "There is no debate" is not a sufficient counter reason. It employs the logical fallacy of "begging the question". For example, one can not use "he did not lie because he is an honest guy" as a reason to why a lier did or did not lie. Simply because "honesty" is the thing in question. Like wise, you can not say that "there is no debate" as a reason to why or why not there is a debate. Please give me a reason. Repeating a false opinion (against contrary general evidence) over and over again doesn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about the mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups found in test samples. A debate would imply that there are contradictions. Your very first edit, "The most popular theory is that Koreans were direct descendants of the Han Chinese people (specifically the Northern Han)." [3] is a clear example of POV soapboxing. "unexplained blanking" is not a reason to revert others when there have been multiple editors that have taken out your disclaimer. Please desist with the persistent editing. KaraKamilia (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that specific research is debated. Only that there are multiple research with equal validity that point to contrary evidence. In fact, I would argue that they are more valid, coming from projects like the National Geographic Genographic Project. And there is many many more abundant sources. If you would simply acknowledge the results coming from simple random non-stratified source selection rather than only the Korean viewpoint (which I for the love of God, can't seem to find anywhere except on Korean sources). Google search returns almost 60% results as "debatable" results. And in fact hardly any of the "Altaic" theory except for language. How one can possibly ignore that and end up believing solely on the theories they wish to believe is beyond astounding to me.

In the beginning, I had written that as you said that "the most common belief is that Koreans originated from Han Chinese". I had written that based on public/mass beliefs. For example, ask a random sample on where people think Koreans originate from and the majority will say China. The reason why I had decided to alter that to a simple disclaimer is BECAUSE I realized that the mass beliefs differ vastly from belief of the scientific community. However, even in the scientific community, there is extremely high preference to a Southern or Chinese route of migration. I am a sensible person. When I realized mentioning mass beliefs was not the fairest thing to do; I changed it to a simple disclaimer. I believe my disclaimer is fair. I do not mention the fact that more sources point to a Southern route. I do not delete the previous information about Altaics and replace it with my own. I do not even overshadow the Altaic theory with paragraphs on contrary evidence (which I have no doubt that no matter how much I supply it with proof and source, will be deleted). I simply wish for a "debate" to be acknowledged. I believe that is extremely fair.

You mention how there are various people lobbying to remove the disclaimer. And I understand that. I am well aware of that. This page is run by Koreans. You are Korean (I love Kara). KoreanWorld1 is Korean, KoreanProfessor is Korean, ASCE is Korean, AltaicMania is Korean, and almost all of the people lobbying for the removal of the disclaimer is Korean. But do you know the nature of most of these Koreans? Search AltaicMania up. He is also known as ManchuriaHistory on Youtube and posts highly offensive videos claiming Mandarin, 60% of Chinese Dynasties are in fact Altaic. He claims that Chinese are in fact Australian Aborigines who were dominated by Altaics and thats how we look today. Thats the kind of people that are lobbying against this disclaimer. For example, another edit I make to this page that also keeps getting deleted is that "Koreans are related linguistically to Altaic-Speak tribes" keeps getting changed to "Koreans descended from Altaics". Altaic is a language group and a highly debated one at that. It is not in anyway related to ethnicity. Yet your "reasonable" lobbiers somehow dislike that; and therefore keep altering it. Show me one source where it says Altaic is anything but a language group. The source that was after that "Koreans are descended from Altaic tribes" only mentions Altaic three times in the entirety of the book; none of which had to do with race (only about cultural influence). If this doesn't show you that the intent of these lobbiers isn't to show truth but rather to simply outright promote the Altaic and Pan-Turanism, then I don't know what will. Why do you think they care so much that I add the word "linguistically" to clarify? So yes. I understand there is a bunch of lobbiers against me; but this whole page is run by Koreans. And they are the Koreans I am well familiar with. Only about 15 people on the entire internet make up the vast majority of these people through multiple accounts. And they constantly are the "sources" for each other.

For the sake of Wikipedia's integrity, do not make this Wiki page another one of those Youtube videos. Do not make it another one of those Korean blogs. Do not make it another instrument of Pan-Turnaism, Altaic supremacy, Korean nationalism. I know this way too much from Youtube. Make Wikipedia a reflection of the net result of a various selection and sampling of reliable sources. That is what Wikipedia is for. Promise me this and I will promise that if a Chinese nationalist comes in and declares outright that Koreans come from China, I will fight against him with you. But for now, let the much needed disclaimer exist.

Until then, I will continue to repost the disclaimer. It has validity. It has sources. But I will still listen until you can debate why more source that are more credible and well known point to a M174 migration from SE Asia or China as compared to the Altaic theory which most sources state as solely linguistical. If you can and offer proof from non-Korean source, I will be glad to delete the disclaimer once and for all. I am not against Koreans being Altaic. If they were truly found to be Altaic I would not disagree. However, as the current condition stands, they have not been found to be ethnically Altaic. The entire tone of this determined Altaic argument when there is a lack of evidence relative to contrary evidence is one of a Korean superiority complex. That somehow it is better to be related to a more Northern, less African lineage as compared to the "Austro-Chinese" lineage. If that attitude didn't exist, why would there be equal number of "reputable sources" claiming Han Chinese originated from Australia or the South when they originate according to the more reliable sources from the Yellow River. If you learned Chinese history you will know that our earlier Dynasties were all based in the North (as far up as Korea) and migrated downward replacing native Miaos, etc of the South. But this attitude exists. We saw it in Japan before WW2 claiming they were of unique descent because they were an island nation. We now see this from a newly modernized Korea. Want to bet that in 30 years when China has caught up in modernization this Altaic theory will diminish much like the Japanese denial of a Korean/Ainu/Taiwan admixture diminished after the neighboring countries grew to respectable conditions? It is all about attitude not truth. And it is this attitude that is fighting so hard to remove the simple harmless and valid disclaimer. It is this attitude that prevents me from even suggesting that Altaic is not an ethnic composition. People in Finland speak an Altaic language. Are they the same? People who share the Indo-European language group span from Europe to India to Persia. Are they the same?

1) The disclaimer is not invalid and has multiple GENERAL sources backing it up. 2) It SHOULD not be offensive except to those who adamantly wish to view Koreans as a higher race farther from Africa and China.

Therefore it will be kept. Bring me up to an admin if you feel it isn't correct. I will easily challenge that. But there is too many of you guys for me to try to ban. And trust me, you guys come back with multiple accounts anyways.

Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "disclaimer" (which I also think highly inappropriate for a encyclopedia) seem to be the product or a direct response of an off-wiki frustration. Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Perhaps it would be better if your edits weren't agenda driven. However, you're welcome to publish your findings and theories on to a private channel, say a personal website. Cheers.KaraKamilia (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting increasingly impatient with the fact that you never address the main point of why or how so much contrary evidence to the Altaic theory can exist if there was no "debate". In all of your "rebuttals" all you do is attack my agenda personally without even acknowledging the facts I have presented. There is no agenda. Saying there is a debate when there is a debate isn't an agenda. I am not promoting ANY theory, just that there is contrary evidence. You on the other hand are promoting one theory over the other valid theories. Who has an agenda sir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirusagi32 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is partially motivated by frustration doesn't make it not valid. If one is frustrated at someone who thinks, say..."Americans invented everything", can he or she argue that "Americans DIDN'T invent everything". Or is that to you being "agenda-driven". In order to be "agenda-driven", one has to either twist the facts, present false facts, or hide facts. I have done neither. I have not twisted the facts. The links are pretty darn straightforward and I don't know how you can simply ignore them without even attempting to explain why they are there. I have not presented false facts, unless you think that 60% of the top searches on Google are more false than results on a Korean news article on Koreans. And I, above all, have not hidden any facts. I acknowledge the Altaic theory. If I were agenda driven, would I even give the Altaic theory a chance?

Now reflect back onto yourselves. By hiding sources, links, a disclaimer to show contrary evidence without any reason. What are you guys doing? Being "agenda-driven"?

I have called for an admin to review this debate and see what they think. Thank-you very much.

And if you think that a "disclaimer" is not formal for an encyclopedia article, then I will make a whole new section with paragraphs of information regarding the issue to replace a simple disclaimer. Would that be better? Or would you opt to delete that "agenda-driven" passage with sufficient sources as well?

Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirusagi32 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my original reply was that there isn't a "debate on the subject." Rather the article talks about the various SNP markers found in test samples. Hope that cleared up the misunderstanding. KaraKamilia (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look I said there is debate on the entire Korean origins topic. Thats why I put the disclaimer at the top of the Origins section. I don't think there is debate on the validity of the study mentioned. But the fact that there are multiple studies (when DIFFERENT genetic markers are looked at) that point to different answers. Point being, the overall origins of Koreans are debated. Even though some evidence (as mentioned by the study written) point to Altaic theory, there are others such as the National Geographic Genographic Project that point to an entirely different route when Male M174 markers are observed. The fact that 60% of these results show differing results and NONE of them are from the Altaic study done on Wikipedia, shows there is a "debate" on the study as a whole, even though the individual studies aren't "fake". And thats why the disclaimer is needed. Point being is genetics is complicated. There is no one answer or a straightforward approach. Yet those who wish to make it "simple" and state that Koreans are in no way related to SE Asians, Chinese, etc and are solely related to Mongolians are extremely agenda-based. The lash-back even at the clarification of Altaic as a language group points to how DETERMINED the Koreans here are on to solidify the issue on their beliefs. And I can only get a racist connotation and motive from this determination. I am not surprised. Most of the people here are people I am well acquainted with. The same Pan-Turanists who vent the same ideology on other forums. You, actually responding and trying to debate me, automatically puts you at a higher end than those others. I respect that. But you also need to respect that I am not trying to soapbox a position. I am not trying to claim any one belief as right. I simply don't want Wikipedia to turn into another one of those biased Korean websites. I want it to reflect the various other major sources on this matter. Did you know this Wikipedia article is the ONLY major source I can find that supports this theory. It obviously shows bias.

Kirusagi32, the sources you included with your "disclaimer" were just maps (specifically, simplified Y-DNA maps). It does not point to a debate or an area of study. Now if that isn't reason enough to delete it, here is a rebuttal: "That haplogroup is estimated to be approximately 35,000 to 40,000 years old, or about the same as the age of the split between the most common haplogroups among Europeans and American Indians. So, if you want to say that Koreans are the same as Han Chinese, you will have to agree to saying that Taiwanese aborigines and Munda people are also the same as Han Chinese and that Dutch people are the same as Maya. Do you think there was any such thing as "Korean" or "Chinese" 35,000 to 40,000 years ago? Ebizur 03:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)" Cheers. KaraKamilia (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I give may be the basic image results from Google searches, but that is my way of demonstrating how widespread the debate is. A simple article does not prove my point as well as the fact that 60% of those images point to contrary evidence. And please explain to me your logic behind the "If Koreans are Chinese, then Mayans are Dutch" theory. It was unclear and I did not follow that at all. The map is of previous migration. It is pretty straightforward. It is completely different than the Altaic theory. Why would it differ so much? And again, I must point out I am not preaching a "Chinese is Korean theory".

I need more clarification on your logic behind your response. I will reply when I fully understand what you are suggesting. Thank-you.

Please see WP:SYN and WP:OR. A google image search is not evidence of "how widespread the debate is." And M174 (for example) is a haplogroup that is older than 40,000 years. KaraKamilia (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will not use a "Google Search" as evidence. However, a Genetic Map is another form of data just like a report. How can you disregard those results. The Google Search simply enhances that those results are quite abundant.

Read this. Its about Koreans discussing their origins. See, I have respect for these kind of Koreans. They actually acknowledging the complexity of the Korean origin who come from a mix of Chinese/Northern/SE Asian etc. Thats my position on the topic as well. That is why the disclaimer is needed. http://asianfanatics.net/forum/topic/686965-origins-of-korean-people-and-relation-to-other-asians/

The forum provides a lot of "evidence" as you say that there is a great debate. And that the Altaic theory is not even close to being set in gold. It is as far as being set in gold as the Koreans are completely Chinese theory is. Both are completely BS and anyone supporting them would definently have an agenda. So now tell me why it is so offensive when a challenge to the pure Altaic theory is presented? It really shouldn't be.

And please go over your logic again with the Dutch=Mayan theory. I would like to hear it out.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koreans&oldid=428515459"