Talk:Korean nationalism/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Korean nationalism is being edited in conjunction with Talk:Korean pride, keeping an eye on avoiding content overlap and maintaining two distinct article identities, as merging was an idea oft suggested during Korean pride 's Votes for Deletion (VFD) discussion. (VFD discussion result was: no consensus) --Yonghokim 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Japan-Korea is NOT correct. Korea-Japan is right. It's common sence of today. I wonder why you English speakers always wrong about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.111.68.86 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We use alphabetization. So Japan-Korea is correct. Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This reads like something written by a high school student for a term paper, and one that wouldn't even earn a good grade. This is not an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.251.12.2 (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeating once again, an oft repeated sentiment, this page is very NPOV. Perhaps one of the most NPOV pages i've seen on the site. The whole page reads like an argument between anti-koreans and pro-koreans, under a thin pretence on both sides of sounding professional and "encyclopedic". In addition, the page is messy, confusing, and not helpful in any way. I think a vote should be put up for its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiaren (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is written from a serious anti-Korean slant, needs to be NPOVed. --Ce garcon 08:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

npov. an impossiblity that deludes both writers and readers. better to simply state a point of view and be responsible for it. for example, beauty is neither universal nor objective. meaning does not derive from the object, but from the viewer.

as stated by John Berger, "out of true with the present…assumptions obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there, waiting to be discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is." history is, however, waiting to be constructed for what people want it to be. so lets be upfront about what it is we see and what ideas provide guidance. it also makes life more interesting.

but aside from all that, i agree with the poster that some the earlier stuff on korean nationalism was shallow and unreflective. user = hongkyongnae (만세!)

Wikipedia HAS to be NPOV. This entire article claims that Korea is a weakling, third world nation that couldn't stand up to Japan for the lives of their people. In fact, I think we should delete this entire article. The very fact that there is an article named Korean Nationalism is highly POV.

by hongkyongnae... responding to the above paragraph: to simply state that wikipedia "has to be npov" without addressing (1) the impossiblity of npov, (2) any sophisticated justification of why it "HAS" to be, leaves readers with little more than an assertion, and far less than an logical and compelling argument.

taking the second point, that the existance of an article on KN is "pov." then, with your own logic, would not the absense of such an article also be "pov"? wikipeda, and the world in general, would benefit by more reasoned discussion and fewer flat assertions.

I'll respond briefly to the above comments before making my own. One of the highest ideals of Wikipedia (if you don't believe in those, why are you working here?) is to create each article to not reflect a particular point of view on the topic, but to include various facts and opinions without showing bias towards or against any of them. The shorthand for this ideal is NPOV, Neutral Point of View. An example of this would be an article on Aryanism. Someone who believes that "the Aryan race is superior" might include that statement in the corresponding article, but later editors, reading that statement, would modify it to be NPOV, thusly: "Followers of this ideology believe that 'the Aryan race is superior.'" This statement, rather than being heavily biased towards Aryans, states their opinion, but identifies it as an opinion, while avoiding value-judgments regarding such a statement. It is a description, not an assertion. That is what NPOV is supposed to do and to be. It is neither impossible nor terribly difficult if one is willing to take some time and thought.

I guess that wasn't as briefly as I was planning. Now my comment: it appears that in the last year or so, this article has undergone some changes to improve it, making it less NPOV than it was when Ce Garcon put his comment on this talk page. However, I believe that more cleanup and rearranging is necessary, and, what's more, it needs to be finished. The article starts somewhere (without a general description first) and has an introduction, a description of a few things (one period in particular), and then suddenly stops. I will do what I can with what is there, but someone who knows more about this subject than I do (which is basically nothing) had better help finish this.

Overall, though, this article belongs in Wikipedia, it just needs to be helped out. --Cromwellt | Talk 00:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

first, please forgive my inability to figure out how to post on this page. i simply "edit." second, thank you for your post cromwellt. my response to your thoughtful post is first, does a person need to agree any group's "highest ideal" inorder to speak? and, i believe if we extend this argument, you can see how it might actually run counter to wikipedia's goal... inclusion of a range of ideas that indeed differ.

second, NPOV is a bit of an oxymoron, which is why i may not have read it correctly. as stated by you, it is not "a" point of view. but, is it "neutral" in that no side is omitted and all are included. but more importantly, who is to say (how is everyone to decide) when "neutrality" has been achieved? is by simple majority? what if the majority states one article is npov one day, but either the group in the majority or the views of the same majority, shift? dicey stuff indeed.

final point, your point, "each article to not reflect a particular point of view on the topic, but to include various facts and opinions without showing bias towards or against any of them." not always possible, is it? when mutually exclusive views are housed within the same "argument" it becomes contraditory, no? and it seems that the real process here is not simply about inclusion. it is equally (or more) about exclusion. that is the point of the process i believe.

however, i do understand and agree with the underlying principle behind this last point. open debate and exchange of views so as to enable people to participate, learn, teach, and change. i am less concerned with any answer than i am with the process of questioning. perhaps we agree there.

hongkyongnae - 10/13/05

Someone needs to create a new section about modern day nationalism: anti-Japan protests about Yasukuni shrine visits, etc. I added an expert request to the top of the page, and marked the bottom of the page as a stub. This whole article is too brief and is missing alot of information. --202.7.166.168 06:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

theoretical approach

1. Korean Nationalism as Ideology (adapt from Nationalism

   from here take a historical approach

2. National Consciousness (describe history and politics)
   • Japanese imperial rule, donghak, daewongun
3. National Liberation Movement (describe movement and action)
   • talk about 임정, 단선반대, 통전
4. Talk about "ethnic" nationalism
   • some more theory here
5. Talk about "Statolatrist" nationalism (Gramsci, Fascism)
   • talk about the ghost of developmentalism
6. Incorporate the two in the context of Korean politics and polity
   • give case studies: DLP, Dokdo, Korean pride, the 386 approach to the national question

hello, i am still not sure how to respond in talk section yet. so forgive me if i an not following proper form.

i agree this section needs a major rehaul, one that involves placing a central theoretical thread through all parts, thereby creating a coherent flow from start to finish. maybe i will do so someday, but not now. i would be happy to help out someone else.

what i propose here is simply an invitation for like minded wikipedians (wikipedites???) to begin a conversation on this important topic... define our terms, divide up areas for a division of labor, etc.

to that end, suggestion #1, KN as an ideology, i disagree with notion. nationalisms are really forms of identity, filled with irrationalities, myths, emotional pre-preferences, myths, and desires. they are often illogical, incoherent, and since they are ultimately narratives on personal identity, even among koreans there are multiple discourses on what is/should be "the" korean nationalism. factors such as gender, epoch, region, disporic location, state vs non-state, all these and more create a complex set of definitions on what "korea identity" should be.

perhaps it is best to look at nationalism in korea, see some of the more prominent discourses now and in the past, and identify who promotes which version, and why? also, modern national identities on the peninsula are obviously as divided as the nation itself. are south koreans "less korean" since they do not fit with the north's ideas? are north koreans "less korean" since they do not live according to the south's ideas of what is korean?

also, who has the authority to decide what is "korean" and what is not? governments? citizens? and what do we do with competing claims?

so, first i think we need to define our theoretical approach to national identity, then identify the major discourses/forms of it we see in korea, and why these forms. for now, maybe we could consider ideas by benedict anderson, homi bhabha, hobsbawm, and chatterjee?

whew, that is alot i know, but perhaps it will get many of us thinking along similar routes. Hongkyongnae 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nationalism in Korea may be seen as one form of third world nationalism. Third world nationalisms are fundamentally at odds with the first world nationalisms seen in nations such as the United States, Britain, Germany, and other former colonial powers. First world nationalism, by its definition, assumes privilege and entitlement, and often is imperialist. Third world nationalisms, by contrast, occur in those nations that have been colonized and exploited."

How is it that this paragraph been able to stay up here for as long as it has. Wikipedia's function is to inform unbiased information, yet tt's obviously rooted in emotion and opinion rather than fact and research. and it's in the introduction! Does someone want to replace this with real content?? CatherineKim (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why everyone asks for permission to delete something. Unless it is a very debatable topic, delete it if its biased without any kind of citation. So delete it! Good friend100 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, the above statement is pretty mild and accepted by many academics. that the world is filled with inequality that has produced both domination and resistance is not a particularly "biased" statement.Hongkyongnae (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your suggestion, cause Korea is NOT third world. Korea has been always one of the most progressive country of the world. But Japanese occupation take force every thing from Korea. It is not fare that you judge without from Japanese extremely EVIL influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.111.68.86 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes and small contributions including a brief introduction and origins section, as well as a history section which will be filled in the upcoming days. if anyone is interested in repairing the overall negative tone and information(for a more NPOV), please do! Overall the entire article needs to be restructured, it reads like random bits of information thrown on the page. Suggestions? CatherineKim (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure who the author of the very opening sentence is, but he or she seems to root korean nationalism in a distinctly post-liberation korea. by mentioning nk and sk as they do, they seem to leave out all those koreans who lived and included ideas of a korean nation PRIOR to nk and sk.

this, again, is a key problem. from what timepoint and persepctive are the authors here speaking? without greater reflexivity this entire article will not go very far. Hongkyongnae (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ethnicity is not "blood" as stated in this section. as written, the section's theoretical assumptions are fatally flawed. i believe the author wished to say "race" which is NOT the same as ethnicity. the former is often considered to be bound by biology, while the latter is considered more cultural in origins. while some blurring/overlap occurs, what is stated in this section is wrong, dead wrong. therefore i will remove it. this is what happens when you allow "anyone" to be an editor. Hongkyongnae (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. why is this article allowed to speak of "korea" as if there were only one form of nationalism? the issues and views here are overwhelming South Korea. they should be noted as such when appropriate. but again, at the heart of all this is the mistaken assumption that nationalism is unified, and in particular, that nationalism in korea is singular. the page needs to be reinvented as "nationalisms in korea." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkyongnae (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the wording in this article is confusing; for instance, the part which states that feminist and "queer" organizations are being "bent down." This is probably due to Korean idioms being directly translated into English and ESL people making many of the contributions to this article. When I have time, I'll try to fix this, but I hope others will assist me. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd post here before it turns into an edit war :). Recently, different people have been adding a line or two about there being a cheating scandal in the 2002 World Cup with the aim of keeping Korea in it, and then getting reverted. I am the most recent reverter, and I wanted to explain why. The most recent one is this:

Serious allegations of cheating in order to ensure that South Korea remained in the tournament have been put forward (see Byron Moreno and Gamal Al-Ghandour) ^{[1] [2]}

A more recent change has been proposed, see below

It has a source, and at face value, it seems perfectly cromulent to me; however, I believe this is not on topic in an article about Korean nationalism. As far as I can tell, the refs were not Korean, and it's doubtful the cheating, if true, could have been motivated by nationalism, so this isn't really relevant. If there were a Korean nationalist reaction to the allegations, that might be on-topic, but thus far I don't see how it belongs here. I would encourage those who have been working on this addition to take it to the article on the 2002 FIFA World Cup and see what the editors there think. Here, I am afraid that it is off-topic and takes away from the article's focus on Korean nationalism.

-- Joren (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I know nothing at all about soccer and am not making a judgment on the scandal's truthiness :)

Currently, Sennen goroshi constantly insisted with his own interpretation. I also read this, and think that it is just disparage article, not having neutrality principle. It should seem condemnation editorial than neutrality article. Why do you persist what basis it is reliable continually?--Historiographer (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As Joren explained, the alleged scandal has no place in the article "Korean nationalism".

First, the alleged scandal is only a "suspicion" and "controversy" among some soccer fans and not a verified fact. FIFA, the official and final authority concering World Cup game decisions, has never reversed decisions in South Korean games or penalized the two referees because of their actions. Without established evidence, the allegation sounds like losers' complaints to me.

Second, even if there were intentional wrong decisions in these games, it should be verified that Korean nationalism caused the bad decisions, regardless of referees' nationality. Otherwise, the alleged scandal has nothing to do with the article topic. Of course, there is no evidence the referees were bribed by Koreans or in any other way motivated by Korean nationalism.

Keeping this completely off-topic contents can be only considered an attempt to disparage Koreans for some reason. The alleged scandal is a popular topic among some Korean-haters in Japan, whose soccer team was defeated in the round of 16 in 2002 FIFA World Cup, despite of co-hosting the game with South Korea. Indeed, it is a main topic for Manga Kenkanryu, a Japanese manga created to disparage Koreans in the views of right-wing Japanese nationalists. Is it a coincidence that User:Sennen goroshi, the adder of the off-topic contents happens to be from Japan (according to the user's talk page) and have made numerous anti-Korean edits in Wikipedia?

The contents on the alleged scandal should be either deleted or moved to another relevant article, as it is a violation of WP:TOPIC. Not all information cited a source is relevant information for an article and/or immune from proper editing. ("If it is cited, leave it alone"? Wikipedia has no such rule.)WP:TOPIC suggests to be bold in deleting irrelevant information. But in order to avoid an edit war, I would rather gain a consensus and request for a mediation.Hkwon (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Read it, learn it, love it. I agree with you both that this cheating scandal is probably off-topic (and you raise some good points), but it crosses the line to assume bad motives about a fellow editor. "...can be only considered an attempt to disparage Koreans" is not the only reason someone might want this change. Sennen goroshi is just another editor who wants to improve Wikipedia. If we cannot agree to try to trust each other, then we have no encyclopedia. At the very least, this editor modified his (or her) addition in response to my concern that this had nothing to do with nationalism; this indicates they may be open to compromise. I hope we all are :) In his last edit, Sennen goroshi expressed an interest in how the Korean media might have been reacting to the scandal, which could be on-topic. So let's talk about it and see where it goes.

The Wikipedia guideline calls for WP:Bold, revert, discuss. This change was added, it was reverted multiple times, it is now time for discussion. I am moving the proposed edit here, so we can discuss whether it will work and/or any proposed alternatives before adding it back to the article. Please refrain from edit warring.

-- Joren (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that I am from Japan? I would say a better phrase than coincidence regarding where I am from would be "none of your business" - this article does not relate to Japan, it relates to korea. If you have something to say regarding my chosen nation of residence, feel free to keep it to yourself. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To Sennen goroshi: I could care less about where you are from unless it has something to do with this discussion. I am pointing out the fact that you, a Japanese or at least a current resident of Japan, keep adding irrelevant contents disparaging Korea concerning 2002 FIFA World Cup and that such behavior has been known to be typical for small number of Korea-haters in Japan. And it is one of the reason I cannot assume good faith from this disruptive editing behavior. I haven't and don't have intention to personally attack you or Japan, which is not even worth my time. "If I have something to say, Keep it to yourself"? Are you oppresing my freedom of speech? Hkwon (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be taking it too personally. When reading Sennen's comments, I took "keep it to yourself" to mean, if you're gonna attack him based on where he lives, keep it to yourself. You already have said you don't care about attacking him for where he lives, so you two are in agreement on that.

For what it's worth, the referee cheating scandal, if true, would be far more disparaging to the FIFA organization than to South Korea. No one is saying South Korea even participated in the scandal. There is no shame in playing soccer to the best of your ability under refs you have no control over. What is more interesting to me is whether/how Korean nationalism would react to this scandal. Otherwise I don't see its relevance here in this article. However, it is not disparaging to South Korea. They had no control over any of this, even if it is true.

Everybody should step back, take a deep breath, and assume good faith. Yes, it's still possible, and less stressful all around.

-- Joren (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Workspace for proposed changes

Ok, this is the current edit as proposed by User:Sennen goroshi. Let's try to consider whether/how it might be modified to better fit the article. Of course, it may or may not belong here at all, but try to be open-minded to both possibilities. Please respond with your comments and/or your own proposed modifications.

Serious allegations of cheating in order to ensure that South Korea remained in the tournament have been put forward (see Byron Moreno and Gamal Al-Ghandour) ^{[cs 1] [cs 2]}, with Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, commenting "How can we forget these moments and these feelings. It is no longer a miracle".

1. ^ [1]
2. ^ [2]

-- Joren (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment.

Here are my first impressions:

• It's not in 2002 FIFA World Cup. This is my biggest concern. If the scandal does not merit mention in the article about the 2002 World Cup, then why does it merit mention here?
  • I would be completely fine with someone adding this change to 2002 FIFA World Cup and (if it stands there), I would not have this concern any longer. At least let's be consistent; it's either notable or not, we can't have both :)
• Korean nationalist or media reaction - this is a plus that might make it on-topic. I have concerns about (source #1) the Telegraph's objectivity in this instance, but their citation of Chosun Ilbo seems legit. I would prefer a direct citation of Chosun Ilbo or any other Korean media, if possible, but I wasn't able to find anything by Googling the English version of the newspaper.
  • If one chooses to use the Telegraph's assertion that Korean media airbrushed out the cheating, that will require more sources to verify that. So far, no one's proposed this.
  • If we keep the focus on Korean reactions, then source #2 (the Independent) is probably not relevant, since it doesn't talk about it. Source #1 (the Telegraph) does, but only briefly. It would be good to have another source that devotes more time to covering Korean media and/or nationalist reaction to the scandal, if possible.
• Too much detail. The current proposal gives too much time to the scandal itself instead of to the Korean reaction, which serves to distract from the section's focus on nationalism. Perhaps it would be possible to cut out the first sentence and have the second sentence read something like this? The Chosun Ilbo reacted with disappointment to allegations of a cheating scandal favoring the Korean team, commenting "How can we forget these moments and these feelings. It is no longer a miracle".
  • Again, I would make the point that these details should be moved to 2002 FIFA World Cup. I understand they are important to give background to the scandal, but that is a job for the 2002 World Cup article. If we reference the scandal here, it should be brief, and should focus on only the aspects related to nationalism.

These are just my thoughts. Would appreciate everyone else's, as well as any proposals you may have to resolve these and any other concerns you may have. Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article again, in order to remove a lot of the random terms of praise for korea's heroic battle in the world cup (or cheating in the world cup) If the article warrants anything regarding the world cup, then I will add the negative part of the world cup (korea winning games due to cheating) as balance. I think I have made the entire section a little less POV with my edits. I rock !! カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sennen, thank you for coming here. I went to the trouble to bring this to discussion because I believe it is important to seek agreement between everyone over changes like this. It does not help this process when edits are made unilaterally without seeking consensus. It's great to be bold - the first time. Now, instead of having everyone continually reverting and changing, we must talk about it. Could you please participate in reaching consensus here and try to address some of the objections that have been raised? In particular, why is this scandal not even covered on 2002 FIFA World Cup? Why should it be covered here, if not there? -- Joren (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that it was covered in the 2002 World Cup article, but an anon IP removed it, therefore instead of removing all references to this cheating in this article, it should be added to the 2002 World Cup article. My main point on this article is that if people want references to the 2002 World Cup on this article, it must have some balance. References to the 2002 World Cup can either be removed (both positive and negative comments) or the previously overly positive comments, can be balanced with correctly cited negative comments that show the 2002 World Cup was not entirely a major source of pride for south korean nationalism, there was a balance of pride due to their victories and shame due to the cheating. I consider inserting comments to ensure balance to be better than deletion, but if there are continued comments along the lines of "this isnt the World Cup 2002" article, I am tempted to simply remove the entire section and have nothing related to the World Cup on this article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Why do we always have some sort of problem with each other? Don't answer it, it's a rhetorical question. There is really no reason to shadow me Sennen. This isn't even about Korean/Japanese relations. Look, the only people that are still butthurt about the call are the Italians and weirdly the Japanese. There's no "shame", no cheating, just Sennen being the overly Korea obsessed editor he always is. Feel free to compile various still shots with ominous music playing and upload to some video site but please don't drag this shit here. Thanks.

btw I don't care if the 2002 world cup section is included or not. Hell remove it if it will avoid a long drawn out headache with Sennen and co. Akkies (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sennen has just copied and pasted his edit to the 2002 World Cup article. Dood, that's not helping your argument at all. Akkies (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Assume good faith. 2. Don't use this talk page to rant and/or make personal attacks. 3. Don't accuse me of shadowing you and then follow me to the World Cup 2002 article and revert me. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've exhausted every good faith assumption I've had of you over my time on wikipedia. You're just very ehh and needlessly confrontational. Sorry. Akkies (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you find me editing articles and adding correctly cited facts to be controversial. All I can suggest is that you either learn how to coexist in a polite manner with me, or edit articles that I am not editing - either of those suggestions would result in your time on wikipedia being far less stressful. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not stressful. It just always happens to be you. And I'll gladly remove any nationalistic slandering material you masquerade as fact. Akkies (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how any criticism of Korea even when correctly cited is viewed as slander and nationalistic by you and your kind. Sorry, I will change my edits to "Korea should have won the World Cup, and they are so much better than all countries (especially Japan) Korea number 1 !!!" カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See this is what I mean when I mentioned psychological projection eariler. I don't think or have implied "Korea is better than all countries", really (actually I'd be lying, but more in that "the man without a country" kind of way, no arrogance involved). But you obviously see me as such and fine, I don't care. Akkies (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sennen, thanks for your reply. I would continue to encourage you to go to the 2002 World Cup article and keep trying to get a discussion about it. As for this article, no, it isn't the 2002 World Cup article. However, we do have a section on the Cup, because it relates to nationalism. So since we're talking about a 2002 World Cup section in an article about nationalism, it seems sensible that only the parts of the scandal that explicitly relate to nationalism belong here, without giving regard to either view point. If Korean nationalism played a (cited) role in the refereeing, great, it can go there. But so far it seems like the only relevant tidbit is the Korean media's reaction to the scandal, which unfortunately we don't have so much information on other than the couple of sentences from the Telegraph. If we had better sources, it would be great to be able to say there were allegations of a scandal, here's how the press and the masses reacted, motivated by Korean nationalism, but so far I don't think we have enough to go on.

As for your current edit, the sentence about the scandal seems to cover just the bare necessities; that's better and less distracting. Thanks for modifying it in response to feedback. Again, I wish you had sought consensus and proposed it here prior to making that edit, but the edit itself isn't so bad. However, we still need some meat on these bones in the way of some cited claims about how these events intersected with nationalism. Otherwise it's just fluff, like that unsourced mess about the shared identity and the blood lines was.

-- Joren (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) (I'm quasi-wiki-breaking, so I may not respond right away)

I pointed out the problems of adding the alleged soccer scandal to this article and suggest for a consensus building for this matter 2 days ago. And now I found comments in this section including mine are all crossed out. It might be a Wikipedia rule I don't know, but I don't understand the meaning of this and would like a explanation. Does this mean an administrator has made a decision, this discussion is officially closed, a consensus has been reached, a mediation was successful, or what?

I am glad the scandal piece is out of the article in the current version, but unhappy about the current "2002 FIFA World Cup" section as it is full of puffery NPOV contents praising Korea and its soccer team. They might be quoted from somewhere, but very subjective contents that certainly do not fit as an encyclopedia article.

After I get an explanation on what happened to the previous discussion, I would like continue the discussion and/or edit this section to make it more objective and relevant to the topic of "Korean nationalism".Hkwon (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... crossed out? Sorry, but I don't see any of that... I went through the page's history and I saw your edits before and again just now: [5], [6], and the edit for your post just now, [7]. As far as I can tell, those are the only three edits you've made to this page recently, and they all still stand. Are you thinking of another Talk page, perhaps? It seems this dispute between Sennen and Kuebie originated on another page...were you a part of that one as well?

No administrator's decided anything as far as I know. Consensus is needed, badly; however, it is hard to do that when not everyone is willing to talk about it. P.S. Current version as edited by Sennen still has the scandal, but cut down a bit. I didn't want to revert him because I didn't want to take part in an edit war, but I wish he had proposed it here first. I came back after a break and see Sennen and Kuebie have filled up the talk page. I'm editing only intermittently, as I have IRL priorities.

-- Joren (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by 'crossed out' was all texts are literally crossed out with horizontal lines (linethrough), not deleted. It's not only my comments; all comments in this section and the previous section except the first two lines. Now I see Joren's comments saying he/or she doesn't see any crossing out is crossed out too! The page looked normal in the preview. I've never experienced this before, and wonder it is only happening to me. Hkwon (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried viewing the page in Internet Explorer, and now I see the same thing you see. Apparently Internet Explorer does not render <del>blah blah blah</del> correctly in this case. I'll see what I can do.

-- Joren (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, see if it's fixed now.

-- Joren (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Hkwon (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

this section has discussed mostly about problems of crossed-out contents and its solution so far, against its original purpose. I am changing the title of this section to "Problems of crossed-out contents in the talk page" and will create another section for discussion for the issue "2002 World Cup cheating scandal keeps getting added". For the time being, if anyone has any problems like contents appear crossed out, please let me know. Hkwon (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been an editing war between User:Sennen goroshi vs User:Historiographer and other users since May 23, 2010, reverting each other's edits 12 times so far. On May 31, I proposed a consensus-gathering effort before any more edits and the user Joren, who seems to be the most objective mediator concerning this issue, even provided a workspace for proposed changes. But it seems that the warring editors just don't care.

This edit war is a complete violation of WP:EW and to my knowledge and experience, most likely will end with either one or both of them blocked from Wikipedia for a certain period of time, which is an embarassing blemish as a Wikipedia editor. Furthermore, this editing war behavior means both party in the war consider Joren and me pretty much as a worthless crud. I don't know about Joren, but I will deal with this disrespect with any means allowed to me if the editing war continues, perceiving it as a personal insult to me. I will starting with my own reverting, Vandalism reporting WP:VANDAL, administrator mediation Wikipedia:Mediation, page protecting WP:RFP and user blocking WP:BLOCK. I have experiences of getting favorable decisions to me in similar cases before and I can do it again.

I strongly and politely, once again, propose that both parties refrain from make any more editings to this section, no matter who has made the last edit. Making one more edit does not make you a better person than your opponent on this issue. (more like someone with nothing better to do than raising a fruitless edit war, (without a clear, reliable counter-evidence) in an online discussion) Hkwon (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite clear to me, there are clearly relevant and correctly cited facts - if someone wants to remove these facts then the burden of obtaining consensus is theirs. If they obtain true consensus to remove these facts, then I shall consider this issue over, if they continue to disrupt wikipedia by removing these facts without consensus, then I view their edits as vandalism. Wikipedia is about balance, you cannot include a section on the World Cup and imply that it was a wonderful time for Korea and Korean nationalism based on their performance in the World Cup, without including the fact that people were highly annoyed that their progress was due to some really suspect refereeing. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi has agreed to defer to a consensus. I strongly insist all other users involved in this issue to do the same. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind if Korean team is the greatest soccer team in the world or couldn't win one game in World Cup. Let's gather a consensus whether what content should be in the article and what should not. Hkwon (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps asking for some third parties to contribute would be a good idea. I have no desire to see all the usual names (pro/anti-Korea, pro/anti-Japan) etc come here and try to claim consensus, due to weight of numbers, based on their own nationalistic ideas. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

After my warnings, the warring editors User:Historiographer and User:Sennen goroshi, despite deferring to a concensus, added more contradicting edits regardless of discussions in talk page, like they just don't give a care. Do you two think adding one more edit means you have won? Please grow up. I am requesting for a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Let's see the result. Hkwon (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct. The last edit made to the article was 11:29 June 6 by Sennen. The agreement to respect consensus was obtained 11:36 June 6. Therefore, Sennen did not edit the article in contradiction of this agreement. Yes, I felt like he was not respecting/seeking consensus prior to this, but I will defend him in this; he did not make any edits to the article after posting his comment at 11:36.

-- Joren (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

erm...my last edit on this article was at 11.29 - I expressed a desire to obtain consensus rather that continue the current edit/revert cycle at 11.36 and suggested that we obtain a neutral third party to contribute at 11.52 - most certainly did not add "one more edit" since my talk page comments. On the other hand, Historiographer has not contributed to this talk page since May 30th - but is more than happy to contribute with his reverts. Read between the lines and decide for yourself where the problem lies. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: I suggested for a consensus-gathering without any more editing at 14:19, 31 May 2010, and Joren provided a workspace for proposed changes at 16:21, 31 May. You expressed your desire to obtain a consensus at 11:36 am, 6 June 2010 according to the talk page log.

You have made 4 edits in the controversial section "2002 FIFA World Cup" between 16:21, 31 May 2010 and 11:52, 6 June 2010 according to the article revision log, whether they were motivated by other edits or not. I don't know if you intend to add "one more edit" or not, and what you mean by "read between the lines", but the fact is that you have made controversial edits between those times, despite of suggestions from me and Joren. If I were you, I would make more effort to establish a consensus favoring your opinion instead of arguing who made the last edit violating WP rules. I've already requested for a page protection; so let's see what administrators decide. Hkwon (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Duh..look again. I edited the Korean Nationalism TALK PAGE at 11.52 - I edited the Korean Nationalism TALK PAGE at 11.36. Not the article, the talk page. Do you need me to take a screenshot of the log and explain in even more clear terms what the difference between editing the article and editing the article talk page is? If you don't know what then I apologise, it is my mistake, I assumed as you have a userbox on your page with "This user is able to contribute with a professional level of English." that you would be familiar with well known English idioms - this seems not to be the case. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/read_between_the_lines カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: You said "I edited the Korean Nationalism TALK PAGE at 11.36. Not the article, the talk page." (You don't need to use bold fonts like you are shouting, by the way.)

I said "you expressed your desire to to obtain a consensus at 11:36 am, 6 June 2010 according to the TALK PAGE log". Did I say anything about the article?

And your argument (whatever that means) does not change the fact you have made 4 edits in the controversial section "2002 FIFA World Cup" between 31 May 2010 and 11:52, 6 June 2010 in the article page, despite the proposal from me and Joren to gather a consensus. Don't bother to take a screenshot; here comes the article log:

(cur | prev) 11:29, 6 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,257 bytes) (yet again. Correctly cited and relevant facts have been removed. If you have a reason for this, take it to the talk page.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:56, 6 June 2010 Historiographer (talk | contribs) (24,132 bytes) (→2002 FIFA World Cup: Your comments are quite intelligent slander. You deserves the highest praise.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:44, 6 June 2010 Hkwon (talk | contribs) (24,257 bytes) (→Virginia Tech massacre: Added more info) (undo)

(cur | prev) 08:29, 6 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,188 bytes) (sorry, I don't understand your edit summary and see no reason for the revert. If you find it hard to communicate in English perhaps someone can help you ,don't forget there is a Korean wikipedia.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 13:28, 5 June 2010 Historiographer (talk | contribs) (24,066 bytes) (Its contexts just doesn't regarded logical.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 16:26, 1 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,188 bytes) (→2002 FIFA World Cup) (undo)

(cur | prev) 16:22, 1 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,187 bytes) (lots of peacock terms removed, section made smaller and more about facts than opinions.) (undo)

What part of "you have made 4 edits between May 31 and June 6, 2010" don't you understand? Furthermore, you are the one who made the last edit in an edit war. You ridiculed me with my English fluency. Now I could ridicule you for the same reason and others, but I won't as I am a mature person. And I advise you to specify dates and year when you say times of a day to avoid confusions. Hkwon (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: Since you doubt my fluency in English, let me clarify my educational credential, a personal information I don't normally like to talk about in public. I have studied in a leading American college in my major field and received a graduate degree. I don't know how much English education you have received, but you probably don't need to refer me to an English dictionary to look up an idiom of which meaning a middle school student can understand. Hkwon (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to correct this; his last edit was June 6 11:29, not 11:52, and he agreed to seek consensus at 11:36. It's ok, it's an easy mistake to make when you're looking at the watchlist instead of the article history page. It has nothing to do with English fluency; I myself have been in danger of making that mistake as well! I can understand why Sennen is upset, and I can also understand why it would be easy to confuse the timestamps from the watchlist.

-- Joren (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected till June 13 per my request. Let's hope we can gather a consensus concerning the section and avoid another edit war. Hkwon (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What part of "you have made 4 edits between May 31 and June 6, 2010" don't you understand? Furthermore, you are the one who made the last edit in an edit war. You ridiculed me with my English fluency. Now I could ridicule you for the same reason and others, but I won't as I am a mature person. And I advise you to specify dates and year when you say times of a day to avoid confusions. (By the way, it's 11:52, not 11.52 and 11:36, not 11.36 like you wrote. Does any month of a year have a 52nd day?) Hkwon (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's take a look. I will use a direct quote from you. "You have made 4 edits in the controversial section "2002 FIFA World Cup" between 16:21, 31 May 2010 and 11:52, 6 June 2010 according to the article revision log" so your above edit is not quite true, is it?

Why in your above rant did you decide not to quote yourself directly and include the times that you accused me of making edits between?

The reason I highlighted the fact that at 11.36 and at 11.52 I edited the TALK PAGE not the article, is that you seemed to be rather confused and unable to tell the difference between talk page edits and article edits. duh.

I am so pleased for you in being able to correct my English, it must have given you such a warm feeling when you noticed that I was putting 11.52 instead of 11:52 - well done !! However, if you had taken the time to look at my user page and if you were aware of such things, you would have noticed an attractive coat of arms, comprising three golden lions - that is the Coat of arms of England - which would have informed you that I am English, therefore a speaker of British English - in British English we use a full stop between hours and minutes, rather than the colon that Americans use. This seems a little harsh to say, but it seems you were wrong in absolutely everything you typed, but that is OK, I don't mind. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as you are so proud of your amazing English language ability, I'm sure you don't need me to point out that in your sentence "Since you doubt my fluency in English, let me clarify my educational credential, a personal information I don't normally like to talk about in public." you should have typed "personal information" rather than "a personal information" as information is an uncountable noun. As I already stated, I'm sure you didn't need me to correct you, as you are so confident in your English ability. Oh yeah, "of which the meaning a middle school...." rather than "of which meaning a middle school....." - but of course you already knew that, didn't you? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

Ok, it seems clear to me Hkwon made a mistake in believing that Sennen had violated his agreement to respect consensus. Confusing the article and the talk page timestamps is easy to do when you're looking at a watchlist instead of a page's edit history. It can happen, even to those who are fluent in English (I've almost done it a couple times). So let's not snipe on Sennen or Hkwon about this or about English-speaking ability, ok? Just be aware it may be difficult to communicate with each other.

Consensus

I think it was a good idea to request protection. This will allow us to work out a consensus proposal, as originally intended. It seems like thus far, the two sides are talking past each other. Historiographer (and to some extent Hkwon) have expressed that the proposed addition is disparaging to Korea. Sennen has responded that it is correctly cited, so it can stay, and that POV requires both sides be presented. I find both of these positions to miss the main point (please forgive me if I have mischaracterized any of your positions)

On-topic and Neutral Point of View

The main topic is Korean nationalism, so whatever is in the World Cup section has to be relevant to that.

• A brief synopsis of the Korean team's rise to fame makes sense, but only if it leads to an assessment of how Korean nationalism interacted with this rise to fame.
• A brief synopsis of the scandal makes sense, but only if it leads to an assessment of how Korean nationalism interacted with this scandal.

This is NPOV. Not that both sides get "equal time", but that the same standard is equally applied. If anything at all is added, no matter what side, it must be relevant to the article's topic and not detract from the overall flow. There is no requirement that equal time be given to both sides regardless of merit or notability. SEE: Not giving WP:UNDUE weight does not mean giving both sides equal time or asserting that both sides are WP:VALID. WP:FRINGE theories has bearing on this as well.

Status

Sennen is seeking discussion on the 2002 FIFA World Cup page about possibly including the scandal there; that's a start. However, I am still concerned that we simply don't have enough sources about Korean nationalist reactions to the scandal to justify including anything at all. A single comment from a Korean newspaper that "it is no longer a miracle" (while very poignant) does not really say anything about how the Korean sense of national identity might have been affected. I would like to see more citations that cover this topic. English-language Korean sources would be great. For example:

• Did pride in being Korean lead to refusing to believe that there could have been cheating?
• Did the scandal affect Korean's perceptions of themselves?
• Was there a nationwide emotional response to the allegations?
• How did the Korean media cover the allegations?

I am hopeful that sources that address this need can be found and we can add something about it, because it would be an interesting topic to have a well-researched synopsis of in the article. -- Joren (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem - in a reasonably large section of the article, there is one line stating that there were some allegations and there is one quote from the Korean media regarding the impact the allegations made. It is not the world cup 2002 article, hence I did not go into major detail regarding the allegations of cheating. The quotation itself makes it all relevant, the fact that the quotation is from a major Korean source makes it very relevant. It also adds balance, it is very easy on any article relating to patriotism, to be overly positive, especially when the article is written by nationals of that particular nation - this leads to the article having a lack of credibility and makes it seem like a blog or a press release. It is relevant (It states that Korea's world cup is no longer the miracle it once was) It is perfectly cited. It is not overly long. It adds balance and credibility to the article. I do not see one valid reason for removing it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the allegations of cheating don't need much detail. You're also right about it being easy to be, err, vicariously patriotic on articles about patriotism. However, one point the "positive" notes make is how the sense of identity as a Korean people was a factor in banding together behind the team. This is a point that I wish the "negative" side would also delve into; how does the allegation of cheating affect the Korean people as a whole? The Telegraph doesn't really connect the two; hence, the questions above. Any ideas for sources that could address this?

-- Joren (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To Joren

I respect you as the most neutral and patient mediator in this discussion. But I believe it was your misunderstanding that you commented at 01:14, 7 June 2010, implying my comment was a mistake. I know Sennen goroshi's last edit on the article page was made at 11:29, not 11:52 on June 6, as I am the one who copy-edited the article revision log here. You and Sennen goroshi talk like as if the first suggestion for conensus gathering was made at 11:36 on June 6. But in order to avoid an edit war, I would rather gain a consensus and request for a mediation.Hkwon (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably my mistake to use the word "deferring to a consensus" in my comment at 11:47 on June 6 - I apologize for that - as Sennen goroshi has not actually said "I defer to a consensus" or explicitly expressed a similar intention in any of his/her comments so far. But I have already suggested for a consensus gathering on May 31; and User:Sennen goroshi has made 4 more edits since. So what do you need to defend him/her for?

I defend everyone regardless of POV, if there is anything worth defending. It does not matter who the person is. I've defended both of you so far. Yes, you and I both made calls for consensus a long time ago and Sennen and Historiographer both ignored them. However, you did make a comment ("After my warnings, the warring editors User:Historiographer and User:Sennen goroshi, despite deferring to a concensus, added more contradicting edits regardless of discussions in talk page, like they just don't give a care.") that made it sound like you were accusing him of editing after making his pledge to respect consensus. That was also how he understood your comment. Apparently it was a miscommunication; it happens, no big deal. It's something that is bound to happen on an article with so many nationalities coming together to talk about it.

-- Joren (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you would defend any editor objectively unless there is an obvious reason. It is true that I made a comment at 11:47 on June 6 which could be misinterpreted that it was the first time I suggested for a consensus-gathering. My apologies again. I just hope that this time all editors reach a consensus and that there won't be another edit war again. Hkwon (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To user:Sennen goroshi

I) You pointed out that my comment "it's 11:52, not 11.52" like you are an expert of British English. First, I was in the middle of editing my comments, and the final version of my comments, before anyone's further edit (including yours), does not include anything about using a period or colon for a time of a day. Take look at this discussion page; is there any mention of time unit except yours? I hope you have not become so desparate that you needed to scrape other editor's mistake during his/her editing process from past logs. Besides, I don't know what kind of British English education you have received, but BBC and Times both use time:minute format now. Try to catch up with the progress.

II) A quotation from Sennen Goroshi: OK, let's take a look. I will use a direct quote from you. "You have made 4 edits in the controversial section "2002 FIFA World Cup" between 16:21, 31 May 2010 and 11:52, 6 June 2010 according to the article revision log" so your above edit is not quite true, is it?" Let me show you the article log again. It's 4 edits, isn't it?

1st edit (after 16:21, 31 May 2010): (cur | prev) 16:22, 1 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,187 bytes) (lots of peacock terms removed, section made smaller and more about facts than opinions.)
2nd edit: (cur | prev) 16:26, 1 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,188 bytes) (→2002 FIFA World Cup)
3rd edit: (cur | prev) 08:29, 6 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,188 bytes) (sorry, I don't understand your edit summary and see no reason for the revert. If you find it hard to communicate in English perhaps someone can help you ,don't forget there is a Korean wikipedia.)
4th edit (before 11:52, 6 June 2010) (cur | prev) 11:29, 6 June 2010 Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (24,257 bytes) (yet again. Correctly cited and relevant facts have been removed. If you have a reason for this, take it to the talk page.)

III) I've already revealed my educational background in my discussion with you against my will. If you a follower of Japanese culture, shouldn't you reveal your educational background too according to Japanese tradition of self introducton, if you treasure Japanese tradition so much? Since you brag so much about your fluency in British English, are you an Oxford graduate or Cambridge graduate, or what? You say you proudly show Coat of arms of England in your talk page, but the symbol is defunct since 1340 (Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom). Are you an unknown successor of Richard the Lionheart, the last English monarch to use the symbol? Let me quote a sentence from one of my favorite book: "Be a proud citizen and do not attempt to add an aristocratic touch with the aid of signet or family cort of arms...to which you don't belong" (Roetzel, B. (1999). Gentleman. Cologne, Germany: Konemman. ISBN 3-8290-2029-5).

IV) Thank you for pointing out my two mistakes in using articles, as I don't have enough time to check grammar errors in other user's edits word to word. Though I wonder what they have to do with the discussion on "Korean nationalism", and you suddenly started to talk about English fluency of contributors. Have you heard about an expression "grammar nazi"? Hkwon (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

V) This article has been edit-protected due to an edit war between you and another user. Any meaningful contribution to the article is blocked at least 50% because of you. This incident hurts your reputation as a reasonable Wikipedia editor. If I were you, I would have some time to remorse yourself as a troublemaker and make some efforts to participate in reasonable mediatation of disputes in this article, instead of talking like you are an objective 3rd person and disparaging other editors.Hkwon (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

vii) I advise you not to mess with me any more. as it is to your interests. So far we have encountereded each other only on few articles. I don't take personal attacks to me lightly, such as "none of your business", "your kind", "unfamilar with well known English idioms", "wrong in absolutely everything you typed". The next time you personally attack me again (even they are allowed under WP rules.) or make disruptive editing on articles I am involved with, I will take it as the last straw, start to challenge every one of your edits recorded in your contribution page, with reliable, verifiable source you could not find so far, and request to block you/your edits for any reasons I can find according to WP RULES. I have done it before several times and I can do it again. Currently I have a lot of free time and willingness to squash my opponents in online debates. There have already been two articles officially protected per my requests due to edit wars involving you, and there are several others waiting for protections/other consequences in my opinion. This is not a threat but a friendly warning. Hkwon (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So, just to make this clear - are you suggesting that the next time I comment on your ability as an editor, you will follow me and my edits, with the intention of getting me blocked? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't made any behavior against WP rules (and net etiquette maybe), you don't have to be scared of anything and don't need to ask such a question to me, no matter what kind of comments you make or who follows your trail. I don't have an authority to block you from Wikipedia, even if I wanted to. Let me just say again I don't take personal attacks to me lightly and have some experience of payback against such attackers. Hkwon (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it seems as if you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by challenging my edits "every one of your edits recorded in your contribution page" based on the fact that I made those edits, rather than the individual merit of the edit. It also seems that if you are offended by a comment of mine, even if it falls within Wikipedia civility guidelines "even they are allowed under WP rules" you will disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to get me blocked from editing, just because I commented that you were incorrect, etc. May I suggest that you concentrate on editing Wikipedia, rather than concentrating on me? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To user: Sennen goroshi: It's OK. But

1) I've already said "This is not a threat but a friendly warning".

2) I have never been a disruptive editor in Wikipedia or called so by anyone. But I know at least a few incidents in which you were called a disruptive editor.

3) I could not challenge any of your edits if they are correct. Even if I did, it would be reverted anyway.

4) A proper person should not offend others online or offline, regardless of WP rules or guidelines.

5) I do not have an authority to block you even if I wanted to.

6) I am not concentrating on you and have no such intention if you don't keep challenging me.Hkwon (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you call it, a threat is a threat. I will challenge you, especially when you comment about me and my actions and you are wrong. I am not here to be offensive or inoffensive, I am here to edit Wikipedia, why don't you be a good boy and do the same? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. It's on.Hkwon (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to solve this problem. We can move the section on 2002 World Cup games including any controversial contents relating to another an exiting article on 2002 FIFA World Cup or a new article, maybe titled "Korean team controversies in 2002 FIFA World Cup", or remove it. The section was not very relevant to this article and had many peacock terms and non-NPOV terms anyway. It remains true that the contents on alleged scandal, how "perfectly cited" or short they are, are irrelevant to Korean nationalism, the topic of this article. (See above). Does anyone present a persuasive evidence that the alleged scandal is related to Korean nationalism?

I've read that user: Joren and user: Sennen goroshi talk someting about Chosun Ilbo article saying "it is no longer a miracle". But as of 10:27, June 8, 2010, there is no link in the article to such a document from Chosun Ilbo. (I didn't delete any links, in case someone accuses me for it.) Hkwon (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's one reason I didn't think the addition had enough good sources. We are quoting the Telegraph, which is quoting Chosun Ilbo. It is not a direct citation, but a secondary citation. As it is, I still don't think we have enough material linking this to nationalism to keep this here. IMHO, we certainly do not have enough material on this topic to justify a whole new article O_O -- Joren (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Contents on the alleged scandal has been deleted from the article 2002 FIFA World Cup for now. But on the articles for Byron Moreno and Gamal Al-Ghandour, who were referees involved in Korean games in question, plenty of scandal-related contents remain including a rumor about a referee receiving a Korean car for his decision (another Telegraph article of which source is not verifiable) . So I think it would be easy to create an article on "Game-fixing scandals for Korean team in 2002 FIFA World Cup", although I would recklessly rebut any groundless claims in such articles. Hkwon (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The cited quote in full was from the Telegraph .... What's not normal is to have the outcome of a multi-million pound sporting event determined by a series of abject and baffling decisions which render the final score a travesty. The Spain-South Korea result was the most objectionable in recent World Cup history. It left a rancid smell over the semi-finals and destroyed what romance there is in South Korea's unlikely march to the penultimate round. Now, no one with a conscience can take pleasure from observing the happy hell that the Red Devils have created for themselves in their stadiums.

Disgracefully, Korean TV airbrushed out the many outrages from Saturday's match, and kept their cameras fixed instead on the disturbing smirk of Guus Hiddink, South Korea's coach. Their coverage was more appropriate to communist North Korea, and was an apology for TV journalism. Yesterday morning, the Korean daily, Chosun Ilbo, chirped: "How can we forget these moments and these feelings. It is no longer a miracle."

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: "Baffling decisions which render the final score a travesty", "Rancid smell over the semi-finals", "Happy hell the Red Devils created", and "Disturning smirk of Guus Hiddink."...Now you finally reveal what you really wanted to say. You poor thing...You are one of player-haters who could not take Korean team's progress in 2002, aren't you? You just couldn't take it, could you? (Why didn't you say it earlier? I didn't think you would fold this quickly with some psychological challenges from me, though.)

It is OK. Soccer game does not mean everything in the world. And maybe Japanese soccer team will have a better result in the future if they try harder and get a good coach like Guss. But it does not give you a good reason to disparage the Korean team. Hkwon (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Duh...I am sure it makes you very happy to assume that comments such as "Baffling decisions which render the final score a travesty", "Rancid smell over the semi-finals", "Happy hell the Red Devils created", and "Disturning smirk of Guus Hiddink." were made by me, due to some psychological challenges from you - I guess as you consider this to be some sort of Internet game in which you are showing your "willingness to squash my opponents in online debates" that made you feel great.

Sorry to spoil your moment, but

What's not normal is to have the outcome of a multi-million pound sporting event determined by a series of abject and baffling decisions which render the final score a travesty. The Spain-South Korea result was the most objectionable in recent World Cup history. It left a rancid smell over the semi-finals and destroyed what romance there is in South Korea's unlikely march to the penultimate round. Now, no one with a conscience can take pleasure from observing the happy hell that the Red Devils have created for themselves in their stadiums.

Disgracefully, Korean TV airbrushed out the many outrages from Saturday's match, and kept their cameras fixed instead on the disturbing smirk of Guus Hiddink, South Korea's coach. Their coverage was more appropriate to communist North Korea, and was an apology for TV journalism. Yesterday morning, the Korean daily, Chosun Ilbo, chirped: "How can we forget these moments and these feelings. It is no longer a miracle.

is, as I already explained, a direct quote from the Daily Telegraph ie. NOT MY WORDS - I was merely responding your comment that the "How can we forget these moments and these feelings. It is no longer a miracle" line was no longer available on the Chosun Ilbo website.

I just thought that I should point that out, not to burst your bubble or anything... have a nice day. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. Sure, they were just some phrases quoted by you (did I say they were your own words anywhere in my comments?), which did not reflect what you truly wanted to say at all. I don't think you needed to defend yourself so hard using bold fonts + capital letters several times like you are shouting, but I understand. Now I don't feel great or bubbly but sympathetic. You have a nice day too. Hkwon (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

comment - Sennen, in the future, it would be good to at least use italics or quotation marks, and have the quotation at the same indentation level; otherwise it just invites confusion to have them at different indentations and no marks or anything to tell you its a quote. If I had not read the article earlier, I would not have known that the whole thing was supposed to be a quotation either. Another miscommunication; carry on then, it happens.

-- Joren (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

At least have the honestly to admit when you make a mistake. You made a mistake regarding the time of my edits, you made a mistake when you criticised my usage of British English and you made a mistake when you assumed those words were mine. I was giving you the quote from the Telegraph in full, as there was no direct quote from the Chosun Ilbo website, and you were wrong in thinking they were my words and sentiments. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To User: Sennen goroshi: Geez, talking about not taking a hint...I am flattered that you tell me I am honest. But,

1) I did not make any mistake regarding the time of you edits. See my comment 15.2.(ii) on this discussion page which you failed to rebut.

2) I did not make any mistake regarding your usage of British English. See my comment 15.2.(i) which you failed to rebut.

3) I did not make any mistake in assuming any quoted phrases as your own words. See my comment at 19:41, 8 June 2010 which you failed to rebut.Hkwon (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Duh... When did I defer to consensus? Duh. Just you asking for consensus, does not mean I have deferred. I stated that I wish for their to be consensus and after that time, I refrained from editing the article. You were wrong.

You attempted to criticise my British English, because you were unaware of the usage of a full-stop in British English for time - as someone British, I have the choice of using American English or British English online, just because the BBC uses one format, does not make the other format incorrect. You were wrong.

You assumed they were my words and called me a "player hater" or something equally childish, based on that assumption. You were wrong.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This has become a flame war. Enough. You both seem to want to provoke each other. This isn't a formal debate, not every comment requires a rebuttal, not every mistake requires blame or justification, this isn't a court room and we're not on trial. This is Wikipedia. It would appear WP:Assume Good Faith has been completely lost on this entire discussion.

-- Joren (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to strike through this bullshit and get back to discussing the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't involve in a flame war unless someone else starts one against me. I am willing to stop it as a neutral mediator suggested me to. Well, I still have plenty to say in this rather personal debate, but let me stop it here. By the way, I don't think it is proper to use a swear word like "bulls**t" in a Wikipedia talk page.Hkwon (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, then we've all agreed this will stop. Let's get back to work on the article, then. Sennen, any progress finding sources that could describe these cheating allegations' link to nationalism? I did some Googling yesterday, but I'm afraid I did not find much that explicitly links them. How about you?

-- Joren (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

it seems a bit too much to make the half of article just a list of specific events, disputes or sentiments over a particular country.

The section on 2002 World cup fervor would be very useful if it also discussed how nationalism in Korea helps develop patriotism and included more events such as the 1997 Asian crisis in which many Koreans came forward to donate gold for a public good cause． In the section about Virginia Tech massacre, it'd be illustrative to discuss how the strong sense of collectivism plays a role in this case and Hwang Woo-Suk case. Also is it really important to make the land dispute section at such length? --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(No) I, as an editor who has been deeply involved with this article, say the alleged scandal should not be included in the article for the reasons discussed above. Hkwon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should remain as it is relevant and cited. The source is reliable and removal stinks of nationalistic whitewash. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually question the usefulness of the source (Telegraph); it asserts that Korean TV airbrushed the whole thing but doesn't assert how or cite any sources. The quotation from the Korean newspaper is nice, but doesn't actually link it to nationalism. We can't yet link the two based solely on the quote without failing WP:SYNTH. I know we don't link the two right now, so it doesn't technically fall under synthesis, but in order to include it in this article, we have to link the two somehow. This is why I'm pressing for better sources that would let us link the two without being considered WP:OR; I fully expect the sources are out there, but thus far my Google-fu has failed me. Any thoughts?

-- Joren (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, all quoted materials are not always relevant to all Wikipedia articles (WP:ROC). The Telegraph article does not show any verifiable relationships between Korean nationalism and the alleged scandal. (Because there aren't any, in my opinion.) Let's say that Korean media airbrushed and banned all information on the alleged scandal; It still does not prove any relationships between Korean nationalism and the scandal, unless someone can show the top-level decision maker of Korean media, the airbrusher, and/or the banner (if such things indeed happened) is motivated by Korean nationalism. Hkwon (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. Conspiracy theory is all it is. Akkies (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-organization and cheating allegation removal

Haven't heard from anyone for a few days; seems like most of the consensus is that it doesn't belong here right now. Kuebie has removed it; I think it is fair to do so, but I did not believe a wholesale revert was called for, so I took the opportunity to reorganize some of the 2002 World Cup section to make it flow better. it is now shortened to two paragraphs; one about the World Cup and fan reactions inside South Korea, and one about worldwide Korean reaction to the games (including the bit about North Korea's congratulatory message). It continues to be my opinion as well that the cheating scandal, when properly linked to South Korean nationalism, would have a place in this article. For now, I believe the link has not been adequately proven, so I'm not going to reinstate it at this time.

Removed/off-topic

I also took out the stuff about the Korean fans' unity being due to an identity based on bloodlines and ancestry; that really needed a source and didn't have one. I mean, has anyone set about actually proving that Korean soccer fans derived their sense of identity from their common ancestors? It's much easier to prove nationalism may have something to do with ancestry than it is to prove soccer fans specifically were motivated by it. I doubt we can find a source for that assertion, so I think it's better just to cover bloodlines and ancestry in the previous section, "Ethnic nationalism", which already talks about it and already has sources :).

The bit about the South Korean team foundering after 2002 has been marked as possibly off-topic; I didn't want to delete it without asking for some consensus. In my opinion, the single sentence about the K-League floundering doesn't really have anything to do with nationalism. -- Joren (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joren's edits and his/her opinion that the K-League bit should be removed. I would also like rephrase some potential NPOV expressions like "improbable series of triumphs" and "fervent displays of Korean unity and pride" or make them full quotes, but am not sure how to do it well. Hkwon (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The second example would probably be better as a direct quote, yes. The "improbable" bit though... how is it an NPOV concern? Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's an opinion. Akkies (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I to understand there are people who would disagree with the idea that it was unlikely for a team with no victories for five cups straight to rise to the semis like that? I'm curious whether there's a POV that objects to that (if there is, I don't want to discriminate against it, but it would surprise me). It seems odd not to include something that at least gives the non-soccer-literate reader (I put myself in this category as well) some idea how much of a shift it is from losing for five cups straight to going to the semis.

For what it's worth, those quotes are actually rephrased versions of what was already there in the version which you (Kuebie) reverted it to, so I wasn't figuring on you having a problem with it. Your version had "make an improbable run to the semifinals", and I was trying to avoid changing the tone too much and I wanted something that would make it flow. I'm not a fan and I know pretty much nothing about soccer, so my POV, such as it is, is more of a distant, uninterested one, so if you've got suggestions for alternatives, please make them.

-- Joren (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't catch it until Hkwon mentioned it. In any case, improbable just sounds opinionated. Attaching "despite" to the end of sentence would be better in expressing a David and Goliath story. Akkies (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well feel free to be bold and make the edit then. (I'm still wondering what opinion is being heard from "improbable"... a positive one? A negative one? Who does it affect, Korean fans? Other fans?)

-- Joren (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind. Hkwon can remove it if he wants to. Akkies (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for Joren's editing efforts. I don't have any strong opinions concerning this section if the scandal bit is removed. I was just personally making suggestions on some expressions and am generally OK with the current version. I am not willing/able to make any more changes myself since I could not come up with any better-sounding expressions as I said. Hkwon (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to explain further some changes I've made.

1. I removed the Lonely Planet source, because it was being used to support a claim it doesn't appear to even address. The claim is: "During the period of resistance to the Japanese rule, and after independence as well, the pure blood theory, a notion that Korean people are the purest race of a single ancestor, took root and gave Koreans an impetus to national pride^[3]" The closest thing I could find on page 46 is "Koreans are proud of what they see is a pure bloodline (even if historical evidence suggests otherwise)." Note that it doesn't even address WWII, Japanese rule, etc. All it says is that Koreans are proud of their bloodline; it is not making the claim that it developed during Japanese rule and independence, or that it gave impetus to national pride. For this reason, I have removed the source. For those interested, the source is actually called "Lonely Planet: Korea" and it can be found by searching ISBN 978-1741045581. Will continue looking through sources.
2. The UC Berkeley article [8] is actually about a book by Brian Myers, "The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters (Melville House, 2010)". The article itself isn't asserting these claims, instead it is asserting that Brian Myers is making these claims, so I've edited it to note that these claims come from his book. Also, the article did not appear to make mention of Germany or Nazi-ism at all. Finally, the article is specifically about North-Korean state-sponsored racial ideology, rather than about pure blood theory in general.
3. The Stanford source [9] also does not appear to address the claim that pure blood theory came from Japan or that it was influenced by German Naziism. (In fact, the Stanford source actually argues that ethnic identity was used as a tool to resist the Japanese). For this reason and the reasons above, I have removed the claim that Korean pure blood theory was influenced by German Nazi ideology.
4. Also removed some of the historical reconstruction section that was depending on a blog post, a newsgroup post, and a Youtube video to support the idea that Korea has been reconstructing history to promote its own identity. I believe it is better to say that Korean nationalists have attempted to recast history, but even that is going to need a source. As far as the individual claims/documentaries, while I've seen the claim that Korea invented Chinese characters, I still don't know that it's WP:Notable enough to belong here. Did it ever get any mainstream (preferably WP:English press coverage? (if it did, I'm sure it would be most interesting, please let me know if you can find it). For now, I left in the section about North Korean archeology, because it seems like it could be plausible and notable, but it really needs a source and I may end up deleting it if it doesn't get one.

 Done - Looks like the IP address rewrote that section and added some new sources. I don't have the ability to verify them, but looks cromulent to me :) Thanks for the help!

-- Joren (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done editing for now. Please suggest changes, any mistakes or errors I may have made, ways we can improve it, etc.  :-)

-- Joren (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Things that need to be done

1. Still concerned about the Stanford source [10], which is actually an op-ed (opinion piece) from the Korea Herald. It is written by "Gi-Wook Shin - Director at Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center", whose page can be found here: [11] He seems to be well qualified to talk about Korean nationalism, and his writing doesn't seem anything like WP:Fringe to me, so for now, I think the source is ok... However, in the future I would like to see it replaced or augmented with a more specifically scholarly/historical source.
2. Sources need to be standardized, using {{cite}} templates and more specific information (e.g. quotations, page numbers, etc.)

-- Joren (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a very congenial decision, Joren.--Historiographer (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Joren's recent change, along with the Googling that supports it, is most welcome. May I suggest some work in addition to Google? See: WP:GOOGLETEST for other methods/search engines AND the WP requirements of verifiability, notableness, and neutrality. My concern is the poor usage of the word "theory" when describing the notion. It is adding some sort of creditability to the notion when actually the theory has not even been defined as a testable hypothesis.--S. Rich (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but I changed my mind after that edit and simply removed the word "theory" altogether, as I realized it seems to be more common to say "pure blood" without any other words at all. Thanks for the note, and thanks for (indirectly) reminding me that I haven't followed up on my original post in this discussion topic!

-- Joren (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

... and founding ancient civilizations. That could be nationalism .

(even one Korean i chatted with in Youtube and a classmate (same race as him) thought that these nationalists were mad.)

--Yjfstorehouse (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjfstorehouse (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 

The page formerly named "pure blood theory" was renamed "Korean Ethnic Nationalism" last fall. The change was implemented after much discussion, more healthy than not, among contributors to that page. Similarly, I suggest that all references to "pure blood theory" be stricken from this page in favor of "ethnic nationalism." The translation of "pure-blood" from "단일민족" is poor, if not biased, and reflects more on the contributor than it does on the subject. Similarly, far too many Korea-related pages appear to of unsatisfactory standard, relying heavily on questionable sources, and personal anecdotes and opinions, with little regard for prevailing academic consensus here in Korea, or elsewhere. Given the rise of Wikipedia as an academic resource and the turbulent tides of contemporary historical revisionism, frequently of Chinese provenance, the community needs to manage the plurality of facts and opinions presented by, at times, too enthusiastic of a crowd. Moreover, increasing overseas interest in Korea obliges the community to provide objective English-language scholarly information and not degenerate into a semantic slug-fest motivated by politics, ignorance or spite, as evidenced in the farcical discussion here on alleged misconduct in international sporting events. Inasmuch as this is a Herculean endeavor, one can start small, one word at a time. I've noticed that Korea-articles tend to employ words whose emotional combustibility far outweighs any informational merit contained therein. I'm not sure if there's an effort to edit articles of such within the community, but I'd be happy to volunteer part-time to contribute. Specifically, identifying/flagging questionable words and presenting alternatives for the deliberation of the community. Buryatrider (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: The 3RR rule applies to this article. Just because you think you have some moral crusade to support, does not mean you can blatantly ignore 3RR and not get blocked from editing for doing so. Rules apply to everyone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You just added more unreferenced content. --Christian140 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Does that exclude you from the 3RR rule? I was just formatting the source to add to the article. You removed my content 60 seconds after I added it. Great move. Break 3RR because you couldn't wait more than 60 seconds for source? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided to start from the bottom wis th my review of this article, and already, a major headache. The Greater Korea section seems to be mostly off-topic here - nothing clearly connects it with Korean nationalism. I thought about suggesting a split, but it doesn't seem like there are good sources for this. Yes, the term is used in various contexts, but excluding games and ficiton, even in cited sources there is not much consistency. The concept is briefly mentioned in Anthony Pecotich; Clifford J. Shultz, 2nd (27 December 2005). Handbook of Markets and Economies: East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 363–. ISBN 978-0-7656-3699-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link), but it is a brief mention. The mention in Ian Jeffries (17 June 2013). North Korea: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments. Routledge. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-1-134-29033-8. is so brief the source is pretty much useless. I checked Google Books and other sources, but I couldn't find a single source discussing this in more depth. And that's pretty much all this section has for that term. It next has one source for Korea Proper ([12]) but the entire sentence is OR - the claim that this term, Korea Proper, is nationalist, is not backed up by the source. Skipping over unreferenced claims, we get a section on 'Manchuria and Gando Disputes' which is referenced to a news article (through by an academic). For now, I'd suggest deleting the Greater Korea mess and moving the 'Manchuria and Gando Disputes' subsection to 'Particular issues' section. Any objections here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No objections. For Lankov, I also found the article China's Korean Autonomous Prefecture and China-Korea Border Politics in which the term "greater Korea" also is mentioned and Yun (2016) mentions: "While some go so far as to claim that Koreans and Manchurians were of the same ethnic origin, the notion of “Greater Korea” encompassing a large swath of Manchuria has so far been confined to a nationalist fringe."[13] --Christian140 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved, rewritten with your sources: [14]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Another off topic OR. It starts with uncited claim that "Ethnic nationalism is often cited as a reason why the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech...". Then we get a book cite (no page) that has no direct relevance to the massacre, followed by a sentence citing a newspaper ([15]) which doesn't mention nationalism at all (clear OR and off topic). Then, another uncited sentence, followed by a newspaper that again does not mention nationalism ([16]). In other words, a total disaster of an OR/off topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The quote does indeed exist on page 13, though, neither the words "Shooting" nor "Virginia" appears in the book. So, there is no chapter about the incident in the book. I am not sure how Ohmynews is organized these days, but generally it was a website similar to Wikinews. I would be very reluctant to cite these "newspapers". --Christian140 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed, since there are no objections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)