Talk:Koreans

Korean: [Start] Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help); Hanja: [Top] Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help)

Korean Uzbekistanis

I know, I know, there is a conflict between the 2 figures:

• 450,000 ethnic Koreans reside in the former USSR
• 1,123,200 in Uzbekistan

I took the information in 2 different sources. If anyone can sort it out, thanks. olivier 04:35, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The government (?) of Uzbekistan gives the number of Koreans as 240,000 [1]. I take the first number is correct. However, some of the Koreans there might no longer be considered /consider themselves as such... Kokiri 18:25, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think this 1million+ estimate is complete crap, and am removing it.XmarkX 08:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

other countries

You guys are not even saying what the other Koreans do once they get into foreign land and what jobs they take just to live in the land. It's big news but recently sex trafficking is a big thing now for younger ladies in South Korea. Alot of these illegal act are popping up in America and even secretly around other parts of the world. It's really sad but then again it's by means of getting paid.

I have added other countries: N/A, just to give the (correct) impressions, that Koreans are not only to be found in a few countries, but in many others, too. Kokiri 18:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the preceding paragraph: you could say the same thing about Chinese or Russian or Polish or Filipino or practically any other group of women around the world, but it seems a bit irrelevant when talking about the ethnic group. Of course, sex trafficking of Korean women happens, but including it in an article about the ethnic group as a general would give it unnecessary emphasis. Even adding that into a hypothetical article about overseas Korean economy activity would also give it undue emphasis given the fact that such a tiny portion of the population that engages in it. In fact, the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/) doesn't have a "trafficking in persons" under "Transnational issues" statement for South Korea - which it should if Korea was a major international source point for prostitutes.

For example, legalized prostitution occurs in Belgium, but would it really be necessary to include that into an article about Belgium itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.231.67 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Source

I know that it would be a shameless ripoff... but the website http;//www.kimsoft.com/ has quite a good article about Koreans at http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/go-chosun.htm . The website says that all of the servers' content may be redistributed and copied at will. Couldn't we incorporate this text into this article? --Ce garcon 18:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure articles aren't worthy of us "ripping it off", if it's full of fringe theories about the impact and origin of the Koreans and claims like: "Koreans have the least body order [sic]...The blacks are the smelliest and the whites are the next smelliest. The Mongoloid has dry earwax while the others have wet earwax." --Menchi 19:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's perfect (that part is particularly absurd), but surely a great deal of it is useful content. And also free for us to use. --Ce garcon 19:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That it's "free to be redistrubuted" is often the sign of groups having the agenda to propagate their specific viewpoints. Once the credibility has been damaged (and in this case, severely so, just by reading the first 2 paragraphs), we don't know what, if any, part of the rest of the stuff can be trusted. Just glancing thru the rest of the article, I saw its claim about an ancient Korean king conquering "much of China" in 2000 BC -- another fringe theory, one I never heard of. Also, it claims Bohai Kingdom was a Korean nation, whereas most scholars now believe the Bohai people was neither Korean nor Chinese. The claim that Sumerians are Korean descendents is pretty farfetched too. So, despite its pretty maps and photos, we'd be wasting time to try to inspect the rest of that unreliable article. I know I won't bother. It's best to assemble info from other accurate and unbiased sources. --Menchi 20:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

www.kimsoft.com is a pro if not official (forget which one) DPRK site.......NORTH KOREAN propoganda

The following source can be cited for "Tungus-Altaic lineage" and related ethnic groups.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500279748/sr=8-1/qid=1151291905/ref=sr_1_1/002-8720684-7432002?ie=UTF8

Korean language

In the text of the article Koreans, it is said that there are around 70 million Korean speakers of the Korean language. In the table in the article Koreans, it states that 71 million Koreans speak the Korean language. In the article Korean language, it says that there are, in total, 78 million speakers of the Korean language. Does that mean that there are 7 million non-Korean Korean language speakers in the world? - 68.72.139.128 01:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Save

Koreans
Total population:	74,616,714 (est.)
Significant populations in:	South Korea: 47,470,969 North Korea: 21,687,550 United States: 2,057,546 China: 2,043,578 Japan: 660,214 Former Soviet Union: 486,857 Canada: 110,000 Latin America: 100,000
Language	Korean speakers: 71 million
Religion	Nonreligious, Christian, Buddhist, Indigenous, other
Related ethnic groups	Possibly the Japanese, Manchurians, Mongolians.

Organization

I hope someone improves this article. - 69.212.70.138 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Stuff about Non-Koreans

With all due respect, I think this article is enough of a mess already, and does not need additional information about non-Koreans. Information about immigrant communities in the Koreas should go in the relevant articles, Demographics of South Korea and Demographics of North Korea. Any objections? -- Visviva 29 June 2005 10:06 (UTC)

I agree that the information about non-Koreans should be removed from this article. However, because I'm currently editing from a place which cens*rs the Internet in a maddeningly arbitrary manner, I cannot edit this article at all. Could someone else do the work, please? --Iceager 03:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Has somebody a picture? I think, one of a Korean family with all generations would be great. -- 84.59.205.91 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Tall nose bridges are not something usually associated with Tungus peoples.

I think whoever wrote that passage was probably intending to refer to the Manchus, who do tend to have rather tall nose bridges and look somewhat similar to some Koreans or even Japanese. Although the traditional languages of the Manchus and the various other Tungusic peoples are all classified by linguists as members of the Tungusic language family, the genetic relationship between these various ethnic groups is not entirely clear, and the Manchus seem racially rather distinct from e.g. Evenks, Evens, and other Northern Tungusic peoples. Ebizur 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Data box

It may be outdated, South Korean population is 48,422,644 (July 2005 est.) according to the CIA World Factbook[2]. Shawnc 04:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Korean people in Mexico

Yes, I heard of Koreans in Mexico. But lets not include. Tell you the truth. Koreans and Mexicans have bad blood. It has history. L.A. Riot etc. I think Koreans in Brazil, Argetina is better.

Although it's still not too big, there is a Korean community in Mexico. I'm from Guadalajara, and as far as I know, the place where most Korean-Mexicans live is precisely Guadalajara. I've read a couple of newspaper articles about the topic, and I've also seen many Koreans hanging around many CNC's, a local franchise of cybers with Counter Strike running on their machines. (On a side note, the first time I went there I, back then a 17 year old guy, was totally pwned by a 12 year old Korean kid who seemed to be called Young Gu). I also have a couple of Korean friends who arrived here on middle school and soon integrated into our society.

So, I suggest some content about Korean Mexicans should be added. Who agrees with me? --Da nuke 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

structure

==History==
Main articles: History of Korea, Division of Korea, History of North Korea, History of South Korea
==Geography==
Main articles: Geography of Korea, Korean Peninsula
===North Korea===
Main article: Geography of North Korea
===South Korea===
Main article: Geography of South Korea
==Culture==
Main articles: Culture of Korea, Contemporary culture of North Korea, Contemporary culture of South Korea
===Language===
Main articles: Korean language, Hangul
===Religion===
Main articles: Religion in Korea, Christianity in Korea, Korean Buddhism, Korean Shamanism
===Literature===
===Arts===
==Institutions==
==Classification==
==See also==
==References==
==External links==

"Mongoloid"

My edit summary was mistyped, but my point is that the term "Mongoloid" in this article is a reference to physical anthropology, q.v. Northern Mongoloid. Substituting "East Asian" for "Northern Mongoloid" thus changes the meaning of the article. If anthropologists still use this classification, it should be kept; if not, then I certainly have no objection to updating the language, but the term as used here does not seem to be intentionally offensive. -choster 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is outdated and not agreed upon. Carleton S. Coon defined the "mongoloid" group. He used his own arbitrary specifications to define it. Most biological anthropoligists reject the idea of biological race in favor of clines of genetic distance. There were many definitions of who was included in the mongoloid race. Some used eye shape. Some skull shape. Even though most East Asians have inner eyelid folds some do not. Even though many East Asians have broad skulls some do not. These physical qualities vary from individual to individual. Carleton S. Coon used his own opinion to define who was a mongoloid. -- User:Dark Tichondrias14:05, 29 March 2006 (PST)

The so-called "Mongoloid" racial category is actually the most spurious and least likely of all the "traditional races" to represent a true phylogenetic entity. The fact that human groups so widely separated both geographically and temporally as the Khoisan of southern Africa, Polynesians of Oceania, and Amerindians of the Americas have often been lumped together under the category of "Mongoloid" should suggest to anyone with half a brain that the category is very likely to be illusory. Ebizur 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Koreans and the Han Chinese

Bold text

Koreans related to Han Chinese??? You better do some research. In my research tells me it does not relate. Why?? Han Chinese build " Great Wall of China". It separates between China and Manchuria. Manchurians and Koreans have historical and tribal kinship but with Han Chinese. It doesn't. Thats historical reality.

It is really doesn't matter much whether koreans genetically or culturally related to chinese or not. It would be better off for both to exclude the koreans from chinese culture sphere, due to korean nationalist fever. indeed, identify them with japanese and turks is historically more correct.

There have been several studies linking the Korean genetic relationship with Han Chinese. Do a Pubmed and Google search. User Appleby has been repeatedly removing the Han Chinese entry in the "possibly related ethnic group" section of the yellow box. That is Korean (or Great Altai) Chauvinism and extremely POV. The Han Chinese relation for ethnic Koreans is AT LEAST as strong as the Mongolian, Tungusic , and Tibetan relation. Linguistics is not the sole barometer of ethnic groups. 128.135.36.159 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

please provide reputable sources, per WP:V. thanks. Appleby 20:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will, but where is said reputable sources for the Korean relations with the Japanese or Manchurians? Your double standards are glaring. I have removed all entries under the "related ethnic group" section for the time being. 128.135.36.159 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the Joong-ang Daily article reference in Japanese people article for Korean relatedness to Japanese. Also, check Yayoi and Jomon pages for further references. [3], [4], etc. Deiaemeth 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez people make it so much more complicated than it really is. My 2 cents come on guys all east asian probably came from the same central asian source and then they probably just branched out. Comparable to western Europe during the dark ages, barbarians may have had minor contributions to the already large population of the Korean peninsula for the ages. Anyway, the Korean language is a language isolate and could have been around for thousands of years since migrants reached the are from China. The Koreans are not so similar nor different from any other race in this world.

Where are the Manchurian citations? Ethnicity is multifaceted: it is genetic, linguistic and cultural. Koreans have been a Confucian agricultural society for nearly as long as the Han Chinese and far longer than the Japanese. Manchurian records from the 1600s specifically DENY any genealogical relations with the Koreans.

Linguistics and genetics are two very separate things. The Korean language may possibly be Altaic (even this is contentious) and the Han Chinese language is Sino-Tibetan, but a fundamental tenant of linguistics is that these differences do not reflect the actual genetic makeup of the populations speaking them. The Koreans today are closely related to the Han Chinese in both genetics and culture. That is more than enough to put the Han Chinese as a "possibly" related ethnic group. The Korean people were directly related to the early migrants coming north from China. Bordering peoples have infulenced the genetic makeup. The refusal to put Han Chinese there (at the same time eagerly adding Manchurians and Japanese) is nothing but POV Korean Chauvinism and revisionism.

Study of Korean Male Origins (abstract)[5]

Sunghee Hong, Seong-Gene Lee, Yongsook Yoon, Kyuyoung Song

University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-ku, Seoul, Korea

Population studies of genetic markers such as HLA variation and mitochondrial DNA have been used to understand human origins, demographic and migration history. Recently, diversity on the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) has been applied to the study of human history. Since NRY is passed from father to son without recombination, polymorphisms in this region are valuable for investigating male-mediated gene flow and for complementing maternally based studies of mtDNA. Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of Korean. By using 38 Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism markers, we analyzed the genetic structure of 195 Korean males. The Korean males were characterized by a diverse set of 4 haplogroups (Groups IV, V, VII, X) and 14 haplotypes that were also present in Chinese. The most frequent haplogroup in Korean was Group VII (82.6%). It was also the most frequent haplogroup in Chinese (95%) as well as in Japanese (45%). The frequencies of the haplogroups V, IV, and X were 15.4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. The second most frequent haplogroup V in Korean was not present in Chinese, but its frequency was similar in Japanese. We have tried to correlate the Y variation with surname to determine how well the clan membership corresponds to Y variation. There were 37 surnames in our sample but genetic variation structure did not correlate with surnames.

This is a rebuttal made by another Wikipedian in the Han Chinese article. "That study is terribly outdated and should no longer be considered as informative. Please refer to the [on this topic] at the Chinese Culture Forum at Asiawind. The Group VII that that old study refers to is now known as Haplogroup NO, which is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the Finns, Munda, and Taiwanese aborigines as well as the Han Chinese and the Koreans. 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)" Cydevil 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, check the Japan Times article linking some members of Japanese Yayoi to the Yangtze Region of China. [6]

Naus 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

no need to get excited, i was just asking for references. the general flow of migration from northeast asia (mongol/manchu) to korea (& thereafter, broadly speaking, to japan) is widely accepted, pretty much common knowledge, but i was under the impression that while there certainly was extensive interbreeding and cultural exchange with han chinese, there wasn't a close "ethnic" relationship, depending, of course, on the definition of "ethnic" and "relationship." it's news to me, & apparently to the editors who have edited this article for a long time. again, if the scholarly consensus is that there is an ethnic relationship, that's great. Appleby 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's been some edits and reversions made recently on this issue. All this genetics stuff about Y chromosome polymorphism studies doesn't seem very helpful unless there's a geneticist among us who can interpret this stuff. In any case, genetic relatedness doesn't mean ethnic relatedness. Genetic relateness has had no effect on formation of ethnic identities and probably occurred long before any notions of ethnicities or nationalities were formed. On the other hand, linguistics is pretty darn important in formation of ethnic identities. For some reason, there's always a sharp distinction made between Koreans and Han Chinese academically and historically. Even in China, there is a sharp distinction between Han Chinese and ethnic Korean Chinese who have been living together for hundreds of years.Melonbarmonster 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Koryosaram

How outdated is the (Soviet?) term 고려사람/Корё сарам? The Russian 2002 census lists only five “Корё сарам” as opposed to 148,534 “Корейцы”.[7] Wikipeditor 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion at Talk:Koryo-saram#Autonym. cab 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

202.156.6.54 keeps on adding 'northern Han Chinese' to related ethnic groups. There are no reputable sources that verify this kind of relationship. Ethnic relationship with Han Chinese is best represented by 'Dongyi'. To quote Gina L. Barnes, "Protohistoric ethnic groupings in the Central Plain region. This modern reconstruction places the Dongyi, who were perhaps related to the Bronze-Age population on the Korean Peninsula, in the coastal areas, with the Yellow River drainage occupied by the 'true Chinese'(Hua Xia)."

I don't think Japanese really belong in the groups.

contents added under Koreans in China section.

I added info about South Korean expats and NOrth Korean refugees in Korean in China section.link of "wudaokou" and "wangjing" need to be fixed (i am a noob).some numbers require verification. Thanks. Shenya

Korean people outside of Korea --- split to new article?

Anyone object if I split this section out to a new page? I think Ethnic Korean (which currently redirects here) would be an ideal location for it; the term has 428 hits on Google Books, and not a single one of the top 100 use the term to refer to Koreans in Korea, only Koreans outside of Korea. (This matches some usages within Wikipedia; e.g. Ethnic German vs. German people; Ethnic Chinese vs. Chinese people. But not others, e.g. Ethnic Japanese).

Alternatives: Overseas Korean gets some hits (75 on Google Books), but it doesn't seem to be as popular a term. It also might be prone to misunderstanding (e.g. should Koreans in Northeast China really be called Overseas Koreans, or just "Overland Koreans"? Then again, Ethnic Chinese in Korea are often referred to as Overseas Chinese; but most of them came from Shandong on the mid-northern coast, so they probably actually did travel over water to reach Korea). Comments? cab 03:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one objected for 4 months so I decided to be bold. It's currently at Gyopo; if anyone thinks there's a better way to title the page, your suggestions are welcome at Talk:Gyopo. cab 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

on Korean "homogeneity"

I'm not so sure how "homogeneous" Koreans really are... Whether or not people want to admit it, and whether or not they realize it, today's Koreans are in fact, like most (if not all) peoples of the world, a rather mixed people. They are the result of hundreds if not thousands of years of intermarriage between at least three different peoples - the Silla (Sinla), Koguryeo, and Paekche peoples, and they probably absorbed a certain amount of Parhae (Bohai), Jurchen-Manchu, and even Chinese, Japanese, and Mongols as well. And who knows what ethnolinguistic groups were not even mentioned in the early historical chronicles! I would advise against using the term "homogeneous" to describe any ethnic group... --149.159.2.216 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Korean people → Koreans — Tried to take this the other way on Talk:Greeks, but was opposed on the basis that we should use the most common name and only use "people" when the disambiguation is necessary. In this case, it is not - and "Koreans" by the Google test, shows up far more times than "Korean people". Bssc81 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support as per above. --Bssc81 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Serge 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese etc are all disambiguation pages, because they are both nouns (people and language) and adjectives (Japanese animation, Chinese food, Taiwanese... McDonald's toys). Korean people shouldn't be singled out and moved to Koreans, especially when the term is plural, which is going against the guidelines of naming conventions (using singular nouns).Nevermind, just read the discussion at Talk:Greeks. --Wirbelwind 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Koreans is better and more common. Good friend100 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I guess. Nothing wrong with the current title, but the case for the move seems fairly strong. -- Visviva 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above.--Rudjek 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Google test results

Results 1 - 20 of about 707,000 English pages for "korean people"
Results 1 - 20 of about 5,670,000 English pages for koreans

Not even close. A no-brainer. --Serge 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

3 pictures

The three pictures for the illustration of the article could have some work. Firstly, the images of Koreans should be more direct to their face and secondly, do we really need the Korean president's face on there? It tends to promote him and his position as president. There really is no need to have him there. There are hundreds of other good, quality images of Koreans. Good friend100 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Those who can read Korean please check this out: news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSS2D&office_id=020&article_id=0000380181&section_id=105&section_id2=228&menu_id=105 Rttrt 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the body of the article bears this out especially in the origins sectionMelonbarmonster 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This study is not yet published, so nobody can verify what haplogroups and subclades were found. Following the Wikipedia:Verifiability criterion, this particular article should be ommitted until the study is published. Cydevil 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Origins Section

There's have been attempts at edits of this section without discussion. The title's been also edited without discussion. Please use this space to propose future changes and gain consensus instead of reverting each other's edits for the Origins section.Melonbarmonster 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Generalondal changed the title of this section recently without consensus due to a minor disagreement regarding a blurb about Japan relatedness which we're stilling trying to work out. We should work out the disagreement about adding Japan relatedness in first sentence first instead of changing title. Relatedness seems to be a whole different can of worms wrought with difficult nationalism issues that can't be dealt with fairly this early section.

As for Cydevil edits regarding Yan states, there are many other "ingredients" that have been added to Korean identity besides the Yan states which are not being mentioned in this section. It seems inappropriate level of detail for a section on Origins of Koreans to get into this issue in the first place or to just mention Yang influences here. There are many migrations of populations that have occurred in recorded history when ethnic and linguistic identities were already in place. Perhaps an objective description can be added to later sections dealing with Homogeneity but it's out of place in the Origins section and also disrupts readability of this section.Melonbarmonster 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was much more significance in migrants from Yan state than other mere "ingredients". And what are your grounds for editing out all of my contributions? Have it your way with the Yan state. I think the Origins section here can afford much more detail.cydevil

I thought Koreans claim Go-chosun lineage instead of any sort of source migration from Yan. After I edited your Yan stuff, there was only the "successive waves of migration" portion which didn't really flow with original text on its own. Your ref to xiajiadian has the same problem as your mention of Yan. Again, my general feeling on this is that contentious issues of national identity should be left out. There's no authoritative consensus on ancient history regarding this stuff and that kind level of detail in inappropriate for wiki because you can't do justice to it in a paragraph or two.

I had no problem with your "waves of migration" portion but your link to xiajiadian as "western manchuria" is highly problematic for me since those guys were around for 400 years and it makes no sense to claim that they're a source for proto-koreans. I also don't see how it makes any sense to claim successive waves of migrations from neolithic to bronze age when xiajiadian existed after both the neolithic and bronze age. These China related claims are extremely contentious and don't belong on this article in my opinion. At least please discuss them here before making these additions. Melonbarmonster 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to maintain complete NPOV by excluding any claims from Korean scholars that may be a contenious subject. Perhaps I was too neglectful of the Korean perspective. If you want to go along with the mainstream and official perspective of Korean scholars on Korean origins, I propose changing Korean peninsula to "ancient Korea" or "Korean peninsula and Manchuria" with a link to the Liaoning bronze dagger culture or Gojoseon article. Citation on Gina Barne's book should be moved to "south-central Siberia", while the citation on the Korean book should remain at the end of the sentence.cydevil

Relatedness

I agree with other editor's view that this info should be left out of the info box on the right side of the article. Japan relatedness is already dealt with in the body of the origins paragraph and should not be repeatedly stated.

Please do not make unilateral edits or revert other people edits without explanation or discussion on this page. Such reverts are a violation of WP:EW.Melonbarmonster 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Relatedness in Info Box

Do we need a relatedness section in the Info Box? It's been mentioned that Chinese and Japanese articles don't have relatedness sections. What's the reason for having this and is it really informative? I think issue of relatedness is too complicated and contentious to really be able to convey in a meaningful way in an info box. I'm for just getting rid of that section. It's difficult if not impossible to be NPOV with this section in my opinion.Melonbarmonster 07:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It quite well confirmed by historians, archaeologists and linguists that modern Koreans are descended from Altaic speaking migrants from southern Siberia. The info box reflects this widely accepted POV. It doesn't matter whether or not different articles don't have relatedness section, not to mention Han Chinese does have a relatedness section. If the source of contentions is in Japnaese or Han Chinese, then leave both of them out. This relatedness section in the info box has been included in this article, so before unilaterally removing it, please consult the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Dude, this was someone else's suggestion. That other editor made the edit. I agreed and fixed your reversions. You're the one disagreeing and making unilateral edits. I started this discussion section and you finally commented after reverting a couple of times. It's not a pressing issue for me one way or another but in light of the convoluted issues involved with ethnic "relatedness" this section doesn't offer anything helpful and is oversimplistic. Why are you so adament about including this in the info box? If you have any pressing reasons, please share. btw, no one's arguing about altaic speaking relatedness, etc.. Stick to the issue please. Thanks.Melonbarmonster 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making unilateral edits to a content that has been included in the article for quite some time. Please build a consensus before you make any such changes. Most articles on ethnicities have this info included in the box. You provide no basis for taking it out. If you wish to dispute this, do so here and build a consensus. As I've said, the relatedness info is confirmed by historians, archaeologists and linguists and follows the NPOV rule.

Dude look at the date of this section that I started...Melonbarmonster 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And look at the date of my reply. There is no consensus, so unless you address those points I've made, the relatedness section will stay. 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very regrettable the relatedness info box became a cause for inclusion of "Koreans" in the "lamest edit wars" article. The current relatedness info box has direct relevance to the contents of the article, and it serves its intentional purpose as providing a succint summary of the contents of the article. Any further reversions or edits must address the current issues beforehand to maintain NPOV. Cydevil 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about it??? You were reverting other editor's edits long before that and only responded to this section 5 days after I put it up. 3 editors have expressed support for deleting this. If you disagreed then you should've opened up discussion in this talk page instead of reverting people's edits. Who's needs to seek consensus??? Give me a break. You can spin and rabidly revert everyone's edits and ignore their opinions if you want. Go ahead... just don't feign surprise when other people think you're being ridiculous. Melonbarmonster 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Did those editors say anything in the discussion before making those edits? What is the basis of their eidts? And number of editors do not necessarily justify such edits. NPOV does. Look, I've made my points. Address those points directly, and avoid any further pointless editing war. Cydevil 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one reverting everyone's edits here. Since you're the only one so rabidly stuck on this, you're the one who needed to seek consensus. There are three editors who are supporting this change. We agree. If you don't, you need to raise the issue in the talk page instead of unilaterally reverting edits you don't like. You haven't made any points that's relevant to the disagreement at hand. There's no disagreement of facts here buddy. It's a matter of layout and clear presentation of facts. That's why it's so ridiculous that you're so rabid on keeping this. Good grief.Melonbarmonster 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets see them show their support here, and explicate their basis for deleting that infobox. I've made my points that directly address the disagreements.

1. Other articles not having a relatedness infobox does not concern this article. Also, one of the articles mentioned in fact does have a relatedness infobox. Han Chinese

2. That modern Koreans are descended from Altaic speaking migrants from southern Siberia is widely accpeted by historians, archaeologists and linguists. This is also reflected in the article of the same topic(Korean people/한민족) in Encyclopedia Britannica and Doosan Encyclopedia.

3. The relatedness infobox fulfils its intended purpose by providing a succint summary of the contents of the article. Cydevil 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, you're pissing into the wind.Melonbarmonster 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Relatedness in Info Box

208.179.17.3 added the following claim: "These physicalities and genotypical manifestations can be compared to the other native ethnic groups of East Asia: the Japanese, Ainu, and Han Chinese." I find that claim unreliable, as there is no citation provided and the fact that Ainu have very different physicalities and genotypical manifestations from other East Asians or "Mongoloids". 208.179.17.3 should provide a legitimate source if this claim is to be included in Wikipedia.

The Ainu are very similar both physically and genotypically to the Japanese. If you don't want to consider the Ainu as "Mongoloids," then you should exempt the Japanese from that category as well. Ebizur 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Ainus, and of course Japanese who mixed with proto-Ainu(Jomon) extensively, have distinct physical characteristics and also in y-chromosome lineages(haplogroup D). Cydevil 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is actually a plethora of studies that clearly demonstrate that there is something genetically "weird" about the populations of the Japanese Archipelago, including both the Japanese and the Ainu. All I was trying to say to the user who started this thread was that he shouldn't throw a tantrum over the inclusion of the Ainu in a list of "native ethnic groups of East Asia" along with the Japanese and the Han Chinese. All three of these ethnic groups are, at least on a historical timescale, "native ethnic groups of East Asia," and what's more, there is really not much difference between the Ainu and the Japanese in general. The differences that do exist between the Ainu and the Japanese are probably due to differential sources and amounts of admixture. The Ainu appear to have received admixture from the Nivkhs or a population closely related to the Nivkhs, as suggested by various cultural, linguistic, and genetic elements shared between the Nivkhs and the Ainu, such as bear worship, Y-chromosome Haplogroup C3-M217*, and a large amount of mtDNA Haplogroup Y. The Japanese, on the other hand, appear to have received admixture from some group, now extinct on the continent, that was closely related, but not identical, to the proto-Koreans, as shown by the fairly large amount of Y-chromosome Haplogroup O2b1a-47z among the Japanese and Ryukyuans. (Koreans do not have O2b1a-47z in any substantial quantity, but they do possess a high frequency, over 30%, of the "ancestral" paragroup, O2b1*.) Both Koreans and Japanese also seem to have a detectable amount of (proto-)Chinese admixture, but it is still very unclear how significant this (proto-)Chinese influence might have been. Anyway, my point is that the (post-Nivkh?-admixture) Ainus and the (post-Korean?-admixture) Japanese are really not very different from each other, although the degree of admixture into the proto-Japanese might have been somewhat greater than the degree of admixture into the proto-Ainus (but even this is unclear, especially considering the small population size of the Ainus and likely effects of genetic drift). You also have to consider the fact that the proto-Nivkhs were not really the same as the proto-Koreans, and therefore the admixture into the proto-Ainus and the admixture into the proto-Japanese should have had different effects. Ebizur 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, another thing that I think should be pointed out to that guy who is whining about including the Ainu in a list of native ethnic groups of East Asia is that the Japanese are, in fact, even weirder than the Ainu in many respects. For example, the Japanese have a reversed distribution of ABO blood types compared to continental East Asian ethnicities: the Japanese have a very high frequency of ABO blood type A, which is a characteristic of aboriginal Australian populations and populations of Central and Eastern Europe. The Ainu, on the other hand, have a rather high frequency of ABO blood type B, which is a typical characteristic of those so-called "Mongoloid" populations with which that user is so loathe to associate the Ainu. The Japanese also possess a Y-chromosome haplogroup, C1-M8, that is specific to the Japanese and has not been found among any other population of the entire world, although it appears to be ultimately related to the aboriginal Australian Haplogroup C4 and the South Asian Haplogroup C5. For that matter, even the (probably) Korean-related Haplogroup O2b1a-47z is essentially a Japanese-specific clade, and the "ancestral" paragroup of which Haplogroup O2b1a-47z is one subset, namely Haplogroup O2b1*, is found only among the Koreans and the Japanese, which makes both the Koreans and the Japanese somewhat "weird." So please stop trying to emphasize the "uniqueness" of the Ainu; I am not denying that they are an interesting isolate population, but the Japanese are at least as much so. Ebizur 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one who started this thread. I forgot to add the user info there. Perhaps I was wrong that only the Ainus are unique, I just always had this thought that Haplogroup D is best represented by the Andaman Islanders, and that the differences in physical traits between Ainus are a result of admixture with "Mongoloids". Anyways, if you feel that the passage is accurate, I won't object in including it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

And what do you think about the passage on genetics? I think that passage needs either some citations or deletion so we can get rid of that citation thing on the top of the article. Cydevil 09:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME

An entry from Koreans appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.

Wikipedia

Lamest edit war??? So freedom of speech is lame?? then American democracy should be lamest thing ever happened to the world civilization. Why? are you finger pointing at Koreans. You should be the one to blame. SO YOUR THE LAMEST THING HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA'S INVENTION. DON'T BLAME ON KOREANS.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherjjlee (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Assistance from wp:ko

What is the exact issue here? I would like to know what the problem is. Good friend100 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It was about whether or not Relatedness in Info Box should be included in this article. As it seems, the issue is resolved. Cydevil 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Cydevil just out reverted me and some other editors and I didn't want to bother with the 3RR and reporting it and crud. I wouldn't call it an Ethnic feud though. User:Melonbarmonster|Melonbarmonster]] 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a Really bad picture

Of Koreans It should be like the Chinese one with multiple people. Jegal 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its nice, it shows technological development of koreans nowadays. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Lee Myung Bak = Every Korean in the history of mankind and the universe in general? Surely not... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.94.54 (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

THat friggin picture has to go.melonbarmonster 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with Lee Myung Bak. Anyways, he better become president of Korea, I hope our South Korean friends are not stupid again to pick some communist sympathizer like President Noh. Good friend100 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I personally do insist on changing the picture from a disputable current politician to historical figures of Korean history. I am a Korean, and in my blog, I criticized absurdness of the selection of the picture and updated an alternative suggestion of the picture in http://ilchui.tistory.com/68 . In case you don't know, the basic argument I used is that a politically sensitive figure cannot be used as a representative picture of Korean race, because he is one of the leading candidates of Korean Presidency, and each figures of my alternative are, from the left, Dangun, Gwanggaeto the Great, Sejong the Great, and Kim Gu. Jbo1016 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)