Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It is a sensitive issue, and care must be taken that it becomes a balanced, neutral article. However, the subject matter is clearly notable, and having an article on the subject would greatly benefit the encyclopedia. Closing an emotional discussion is never easy, even less so with canvassing going on, but I believe that the arguments to delete the article all come down to bad sourcing, where it has been shown that good sourcing is possible, and being an indisciminate list, which the content of the article shows it is not. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a day of deletion review, I have chosen to relist the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean cultural claims

[edit]
South Korean cultural claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is a collection of every pieces of rumor on Chinese online and it does not meet the quality of encyclopedic articles. Caspian blue (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a direct translation from an article from the Chinese Wiki. This article was made to describe Korean claims of other cultures; there was no prior article relating to such a topic, and so I have decided to copy and translate the Chinese Wiki article word by word onto the English Wiki. Yes, there are some poor claims, and bad info, but these can be removed and so information which is credible can be keeped (I repeat, this article is exactly as is from its original Chinese article. I have not edited/added/removed anything.) This article can be improved, maintained to meet standards, and with irrelevant/poor information removed. Additional/more credible sources can be cited for claims which are poorly cited. I acknowledge that some claims may be not wiki-worthy (e.g. the claim about Michael Phelps), and so such claims can be removed. Note that some claims are merely internet rumours, however some may be considered serious. Regarding the Hanzi and Confucius claims are very serious, where the Chinese government has intervened, and in the case of Confucius, the South Korean government has even applied to UNESCO for international recognition. Additionally, since there are articles for Internet memes, Internet hoaxes and Internet phenomenon, why is a page specifically related to a certain branch not "worth" mentioning? Additionally, this article's Chinese, Japanese and Korean counterparts were never nominated for deletion. People do recognize the seriousness of some of these issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 03:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say such false info. The dubious article at Korean Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With so far a larger majority to "keep", 3 to 2, however that does not even matter, that does not change my point that this article can still be edited. I would also like you to consider WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact does always matters to anything to measure something, and you said the lie or false claim in such assertive tone, according to this this article's Chinese, Japanese and Korean counterparts were never nominated for deletion.. More importantly this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. I think you also have to brush up WP:POV, WP:SYNTHESIS.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, edit, rather than delete. You can do it if you want to. You can take the initiative of fixing POV. You can remove uncredible info. Regarding notability, if it was notable on the JP Wiki, why isn't it notable here? The JP article has had many edits, and has lasted a long time without scrutiny. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like you to consider your own personal bias. I can see that you are Korean and so perhaps the decision should be made by someone else. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not intentionally expose my account there and don't judge the nomination based on my ethnicity. That constitutes personal attacks The decision should be made by someone else? What are you implying? I have not even noticed such article at Korean Wikipedia until you created the nominated article at English Wiki.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Korean article aside, there is also much information from respective Chinese and Japanese Wikis, with a large amount of information, regarding the issue, and so one cannot deduce "the issue does not exist" (I am not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out). If the text is not NPOV, then edit it, that is what wiki is for. If it seems rubbish, delete it. If it is good, keep it. Deleting the entire article does not help anyone. Stubbify it if you really want to. I currently don't have the time to edit/clean the article, as I have said earlier I am only responsible for translation of the Chinese Wiki. Instantly assuming bad faith does not help anyone, and reckless deletion does not follow the entire purpose of Wikipedia, where people share their knowledge and ideas. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I am sorry if I have committed a personal attack. I was only trying to point out that the two of us may have our own, separate thoughts. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could I notice the article? It appears on newest articles section of the Korean project notice board. Your other new article Anti-Korean sentiment is well-referenced and noteworthy, but this article is not.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People only search for an article if they look for it. Depending on what one is searching for, they might or might not find it noteworthy. Personally I don't care on topics such as Britney Spears and makeup, but someone else may, similarly, others might not be interested in Unit 731 or Second Sino-Japanese war, but I am. Additionally, how could people notice the JP article? So many different people have been editing that article, can it be unnoticed? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've checked every new articles appeared on the beard because new articles regarding Korea are only a few per day or week.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, I have taken the initiative of gradually removing non-Wikiworthy points and refurbishing the article. I hope you can help in improving the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are same complaints toward Japan (kimuchi incident), and China (plagiarism) existing in South Korea, but I don't think that such collections are a notable subject to have its own article. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then can it be stubbified and placed at the end of an existing article, briefly? Such as Korean nationalism or Internet etc etc? If it is "not notable" as an article, it should still be briefly mentioned elsewhere. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can add needed info to Anti-Korean sentiment.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that your job? I don't see how it is my responsibility to notify all 200 Wikipedias. If there were German, French equivalents, would I have to make all 200 edits? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There. Korean wiki has been notified. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be coy. You know that the subject of the article favors Japanese and Chinese side in your defense and disdains South Korea. You did not realize what mistake you committed. That is pretty sad. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you do not realize that someone from JP Wiki is able to write on the issue, note how I was asking if anyone could "improve an article", note how there is no whistleblowing used, no calling for revolution, no preparation for invasion. In this circumstance the most logical move would be to search for people capable of doing the job; that is to improve the article to "standards". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is called canvassing. You should learn the same lesson from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal in which editors already well explained about inappropriateness of such behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You contradicted yourself in your edits:
"As more and more rumours surface from ramant nationalism, various Chinese and Japanese websites ironically see these claims as a joke, although Koreans do not believe the same" I see that you put this in one section, but later you added "KBS claims that such people are not in the main stream and that they are even laughed at in Korea"
Which is it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It is not me who added the sentence "As more and more rumours surface from ramant nationalism, various Chinese and Japanese websites ironically see these claims as a joke, although Koreans do not believe the same." It is by Benlisquare, who started this article[1]. I don't want you to lay false charge against me. And I have just removed the sentence because it can only be an original research. I am thinking of using only reliable sources. Reliable sources I am thinking of are famous South Korean mass media such as Chosun Ilbo, famous Japanese mass media such as Mainichi Shinbun, books by Shunpei Mizuno, official websites of famous organizations such as All Japan Kendo Federation.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "As more and more rumours surface from ramant nationalism, various Chinese and Japanese websites ironically see these claims as a joke, although Koreans do not believe the same." This is a direct translation from Chinese Wiki. See it for yourself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why should the English Wikipedia hold such all jumble of the "jokes" from Japanese and Chinese website as a form of article? Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDEDIA.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it widely accepted in the Chinese and Japanese ENCYCLOPEDIAS? Are they not encyclopediae too? Are their authors not human? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standards of "appropriateness differs from each Encyclopedia. I believe those are not quality articles to become "real encyclopedic materials". Besides, I looked through the talk page of Japanese article, Michael Freidreich deeply involves in editing the articles, and editors there pointed out on his editings.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not talk as if other editors were against me on the Japanese wiki talk page. I have tried really hard to maintain its neutralness. The Japanese version was full of prejudice toward Korea and it had no reliable sources before I started to edit it[2]. I removed the unreliable sentence too [3]. I am writing the article not from prejudice toward Korea. I believe I am writing truth, citing reliable sources. If there are sentences which is unreliable, we can discuss it on the talk page. I find no reason to delete the whole article. And it is true that I have edited the Japanese version of the article many times, but so what? Does it have anything to do with this discussion? You have said that other version of wikipedia are irrelavent to the English version, haven't you? I know that Koreans are not happy to read the article. But I believe that I have cited only reliable sources and what the article says is true.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the creator only exposed my account which is absolutely unrelated to the discussion is to claim that I'm Korean so definitely biased to the subject. Besides, the Benlisquare keeps resorting to "other articles at the (initially three) two language Wikipedia" to justify his claim for keeping the article in question. That's different.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - The article is notable enough for Wikipedia IMO, although it needs a serious cleanup. The grammar and spelling is atrocious in some sections, and the Chinese external links are not of any real use to 98% of the article's potential, primarily English-speaking readers. Also, some "claims" listed seem to be far from notable. (Such as the soccer one; seriously, it was mentioned just once on some website and then deleted. It was probably a mistake and not a serious claim of any kind.) --ざくら木 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources seem to be blogs and editorials. The very first source if you click on the link says OPINION on the heading. --Objectiveye (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment They are not blogs. Most of the sorces are of major Korean mass media, such as Chosun Ilbo, Dong-a Ilbo and JoongAng Ilbo. Editorials from newspapers, of cource, can be used as information sources. The very first source is not an opinion by an oridinary internet user but one by an editor of Dong-a Ilbo. Besides, there are words "According to Oh Myung-chul, an editorial writer of Dong-a Ilbo." As long as there are those words and the information is from Dong-a Ilbo, which is a major Korean newspaper, I am sure that it can be said to be reliable. Some information is from books by Shunpei Mizuno, who lived in South Korea for 15 years and was a professor at Chonnam National University. He must be very well-known in South Korea too. I believe his books can be reliable sources. What Objectiveye said above cannot be a reason to delete the article.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first is a forum (of the sources I have given, copied from the Chinese Wiki), to give an example of such an internet rumor. The rest are articles from media sources. As I have said time and time again, if you find a word, sentence, line, paragraph or source that is ill-worthy of mentioning, scrap it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources, the Hwanguk claim is supported by a KBS documentary; the Confucius and Hanzi claims are backed by various Korean newspapers, such as Chosun Ilbo, as well as Chinese media such as XINHUA. References given are also from official mainstream Chinese news agencies. Numerous relevant Japanese topics also have their newspaper sources. Thus you cannot say that all of these claims are fabricated by blogs, forums and editorials. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the whole KBS documentary myself. The youtube video only shows the introduction part where the documentary introduces Hwandangogi to the audience. The documentary goes on to refute the authenticity of Hwandangogi to the conclusion that its authenticity is dubious and it is likely to have been forged in the 20th century. This kind of blatant misinformation throughout the article is another reason why this article should be deleted. Cydevil38 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while most of the examples seem to be sourced, although poorly at times, the article claims that these examples are all connected and not random in nature and show a pattern of Korean nationalism. This strong claim is not backed by sources, but is suggested by the choice of random examples. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    >This strong claim is not backed by sources, but is suggested by the choice of random examples.
    It's not true. [This website] backs the claim and mentions the connection of the examples, using the word "uriginal" (uri(our)+original). I quoted a comment from a professor working on this issue. "Professor Masami Oiso at Shizuoka University, Japan, says that this is happening because Koreans have the sense that they can say anything especially to Japan, treating it with distain." Mainichi Sinbun states that "Koreans were regarded by Chinese as a country that claims Chinese cultuer as if it were Korean culture." There is another professor who has been working on this issue, Shunpei Mizuno. He states that this issue is not randam and shows a patten of Korean nationalism. I'll quote his book as soon as possible. Anyway, the claim that those examples are connected is backed by sources.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Koreans' steal of other countries' culture trigger backlash over Korea, often in China and Taiwan. The information about stealing is sometimes true, and sometimes false, though. Media in each country often reports such things. Thus, those phenomenon is worth describing in an Encyclopedia.--Mochi (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refrain such insulting languages, otherwise, closing admin may ignore your opinion. There is no need to show your anti-Korean sentiment. I've seen that enough per your history. I'm saying a summary to you. Look whose talking? (ex. Japanese attempts to register "kimuchi", the Japanese pronunciation of kimchi as to Britannica and etc, packaging Korean food as Japanese food via Japanese restaurant chains, and many unreturned smuggled thefts of cultural properties by Japanese) These are so truths so must be worthy to have its own article according to your logic.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting, however if my comment disturb this talk page, that is not what I hope. When UNESCO designated Gangneung Dano Festival as "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity", Chinese people were confused, because it is a local version of Duanwu Festival. Even the People's daily reported about it [5].
It is well-known kimchi is a Korean food in Japan. Japanese people imported Japanese-style kimchi (It is not so fermented as Korean one) with Japanese-style romanized name. Your example is in the wrong place.--Mochi (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're unnecessarily rude to say such. No, whether Japanese people well know about kimchi being Korean food or not, Japanese had tried to register kimuchi as "Japanese own food" to Britannica and some World Food Association as if that is authentic over kimchi. Every Korean well know about the incident and got enraged. Rather your example is wrong because Koreans did not register "Dano" to UNESCO but just a local festival of Gangneung. That is like an unique type of "Christmas festival" enjoyed by some part of the Western regions. Yule is another name for Christmas in Scandinavia, so visitors go Denmark or Sweden to enjoy their characteristic festivals. So if you want to focus your argument, please do not drag off-topics such as anti-sentiment and nationalism.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion on kimchi is irrelevant here. I would like you two to have a quarrel not here but your own talk pages.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article seems extremely self-contradictory. These claims are suppose to be real, but all the sources are blogs and editorial. Rumors are being mixed in with differences in evaluation. This is going to cause a problem where all differences in evaluation with Korea will get mixed in with anti-Korean rumors and then be put in to this article. The Korean references in this article are stating some of these blogs were set up by people from other nations and not by Koreans. What is happening here? You have to put in the Michael Phelps claim to show that it wasn't the Koreans who posted these blog claims, but if we do that all we are doing is creating a gossip blog/site. Maybe we should put this into the anti-Korean article. --Objectiveye (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Through my judgement, I removed the Michael Phelps claim copied from the Chinese Wiki becuase it appears to be rubbish. This page shouldn't be merged; it has an entirely different topic and thus deserves a page of its own. Additionally, merging it to another page (e.g. Anti-Korean page) will only bring contraversy to that page, I personally would not like the chance of any other article, such as the Anti-Korean page, deleted because of this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's make a rule. "Votes by those who have not edited English wikipedia for more than 50 times, by those who entered English Wikipedia within a month and by IP address users are not to be counted." How about it?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, policy-based arguments will be taken into consideration, and others will not be. It's not a pure head count. DGG (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite completely, if someone can be found who knows the sources and can be trusted to rewrite in a NPOV manner. At present the article content appears self-contradictory, or at least confusing. The title will in any case need to be changed, because the word "claims" in it is inherently not NPOV. DGG (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we use this article and it has references by legitimate scholars and not blogs/editorial/news talking about how these blogs are causing problems, then we have to put in a paragraph into each of the main articles that Koreans are claiming. For example if the Michael Phelps thing was truely studied by Korean scholars and they made these claims, then we would have to put in the Michael Phelps article a paragraph about him being Korean and link it to this article. And the paragraph on the claims in the other main articles have to be taken as a serious and legitimate claim since only claims made by what most scholars and mainstream believe in can make it in to this article. Otherwise, if the claims are not taken seriously, then all we have is a site/article of rumors and blogs, that may be used later to discredit legitimate differences between Korea and other nations. I don't know if that is going to be possible or NPOV and like the person above stated ("claims" is inherently not NPOV) --Objectiveye (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that article have any relation to this? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Korean_cultural_claims&oldid=1068840645"