Talk:Koreans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Disclaimer Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article talks about the mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups found in test samples. A debate would imply that there are contradictions. Your very first edit, "The most popular theory is that Koreans were direct descendants of the Han Chinese people (specifically the Northern Han)." [1] is a clear example of POV soapboxing. "unexplained blanking" is not a reason to revert others when there have been multiple editors that have taken out your disclaimer. Please desist with the persistent editing. KaraKamilia (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And please go over your logic again with the Dutch=Mayan theory. I would like to hear it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS. Internet forum postings are largely not acceptable as sources. I think the analogy is quite self-explanatory, although you are welcome to contact the person I quoted for a step-by-step deconstruction. KaraKamilia (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and here is one of the links provided in the forum. Please read over it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2615218/?tool=pmcentrez

And that is the general consensus of most researches. So why does this Wikipedia article differ so differently and filter out the other 60% of the story? Tell me. If I were to use that source as my basis for writing another additional section to the Koreans page, how long do you think it would last before it got blanked out? By my guess, it would be a matter of hours, as quick as my disclaimer was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That source is already used in the article. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans#cite_note-Jin2009-26. KaraKamilia (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is funny. Because only the part of the source talking about Altaic roots were used. While the SE Asian lineage was left out. Weird huh?

Bottomline, isn't it now obvious that there IS debate on the issue. And that Koreans don't come purely from Altaics; which isn't even a racial construct to begin with. There is stark amount of evidence for other theories. Especially when tracking Y-Chromosome. So my question is...why isn't the other 60% of the story in this article or even acknowledged in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rice agriculture is a actually attributed to southern migrants such as Hmong people, which is in article. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans#Y-DNA_haplogroups. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding. KaraKamilia (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I had overlooked that bit. I apologize. However, such a small concession still does not represent both cases equally or fairly like they should. When looking at Y-Chromosomes, a SE root is clear. When looking at mtDNA, a more NORTHERN root is shown (I hate using the word ALTAIC, because using it implies the language construct is an ethnic group). When looking at successive wave histories, a more Chinese origin appears.

http://thormay.net/koreadiary/koreanrace.html

See here, where it describes 3 major waves that defines Korea. One from Tungic. A later one from Shandong, China (Northern China) and a third from Southern China.

So I will agree to remove the disclaimer since a disclaimer is informal. BUT, I need all three cases to be represented fairly somehow. And I need, I stress, for the term "Altaic" to be removed (and replaced with Northern or NE Asian) or at least specified as a language construct. As long as Altaic is used to describe race, I cannot help but feel a racial vibe. Altaic is not a race. Central Asian Turks are about as related to Koreans as Southern Chinese are, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. Self-published articles cannot be verified for reliability. The intro mentioning that Koreans are descended from Altaic speaking tribes (all fully sourced mind you) will not be removed just because you don't like it. The article gives all the relevant information on the various haplogroups found in test samples. You still haven't proved that there is a "debate" nor have given evidence of Koreans having descended from people from "Southeast Asia, China, as well as Mongolia." Sir you have no leverage. I don't see why I have to negotiate with an single-purpose account. Sorry, for being blunt. But cordiality takes a toll when conversing with a person who clearly has a chip on his shoulder. KaraKamilia (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How did I not prove that there is a debate? What was all this talking for? What were all my links for? You didn't even begin to refute those. You miss the main point of this entire thing: why IS there contrary evidence if there is no debate? All you did was ignore them. And now you are trying to pull off like I had no basis and you had the basis. You sir had no leverage. This can be seen by a lack of action to refute any of my sources and claims. If 10% of the sources point to differing opinions than this article, there is a debate. And there is over 60% pointing to a differing opinion. CLEARLY a debate. I've responded to everyone of your points. You've responded to none of mine. Clearly I am not the one with no leverage.

I am not asking the "Altaic ethnic group" to be removed "simply because I don't like it". I am asking the part about being "descended from Altaics" removed because Altaic is a language group. And obviously language is not necessarily transfered through genetics. It would be a leaping generalization to take "Koreans are in the Altaic language family" and turn it into "Koreans are descended from Altaics". Altaics is not even a race. Its a language construct. And it is a HIGHLY debated one at that. Most linguists believe Korean and Japanese to be isolate languages. Indo-European is also a language construct and Indians and Europeans are not genetically the same. So no. It is not because I don't like it. There are PLENTY of legitimate reasons to remove it. And you say that this Altaic Ethnic group is backed by a legitimate source. What source? The book that was sourced only mentions Altaic 3 times; NONE of which has anything to do with anything BUT culture.

On the other hand, the disclaimer should not be removed simply because "you don't like it". If you have another reason for wanting it removed other than "you don't like it" please do say so! Like I have been asking for the past few days! Explain to me why there is a pluthera of countering data. Explain sir. Explain!

I will have a moderator check this debate soon and make a desicion. Please do not waste my time by declaring that "I have no validity". One must explain and disprove first rather than simply declare. Thank-you. (PS- I had lessened my serious tone in the last few responses seeing that you had too. I can't believe you took that to your advantage to claim that I was in a low leverage situation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you haven't proved anything. Your first source was google image search, a forum post, and then a self-published article, all in violation of WP:SPS,WP:SYN and WP:OR. Random statistics like 60% which you make up is not in any way shape or form a barometer of anything. The sentence you want removed is sourced to the brim. There is absolutely no reason for it to be removed. Your "disclaimer" is however, content that is unsupported by evidence and the very sources it attributes to. KaraKamilia (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's going tobe any DNA analysis, then there's must be including both detailed Y-chromosome and mt-DNA results Koreans are basically 90%plus NE Asian. O3-M122 is not specific Han Chinese gene marker, all Asian have this, O3d aka O3a4 marker is Han Chinese specific marker but Koreans have none of this marker suggesting, Koreans are Altaic.--KSentry(talk) 03:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not use any self published data. That was not written by me, it was written by a Caucasian in 2001. And I am not using it as a source in Wikipedia. I am using it to prove a point to you right here. Graphical sources do not violate Wikipedia guidelines. The majority of my sources are graphical. The google search simply serves to prove to you the abundance of these sources. The 60% statistic again was not published, it is only to you. And how do I know of 60%, I simply used the Google search statistics. I counted those pointing to contrary evidence over those to supporting evidence. And trust me, 60% is an understatement. But again, the stat is only to prove a point to you. I will not use it as firm fact on Wikipedia. If thats not enough, I have also given you a written report, which was found in the Wikipedia page BUT only the part supporting the Altaic theory. What about you guys? The source for the Altaic theory "Sarah Nelsons" book is completely false. Talk about violating Wiki guidelines. As I have explained, none of what I have posted, with the exception of the Google Search to show abundance, violated anything. Again you are missing the point. Refute why there is existing counter data if there isn't a debate. Don't simply declare I am violating guidelines or have no back to my claims even though you can't seem to refute the data I am giving you. Please, just face the facts and disprove them the traditional way. It should not be hard if there is "no debate". Go on!

And Korean Sentry, when looking at Y-Chromosomes, the origins of Koreans are predominately found to be SE Asian. Thats, along with successive Chinese waves, is the whole basis of my argument and can be found in the multiple sources I give. And Altaic, again, I must stress is not a genetic grouping. How can one be "Indo-European" race, etc.

I am wasting my time on this futile debate with you guys. If you are to make a response. Please please PLEASE include the answer to this one question: Why IS there countering sources when there is "no debate"? These sources include graphical and reports. The abundance and acceptance of these is shown by the simplest of the search results. Some of them are as valid as coming from National Geographic. The ongoing academic discussion on forums also demonstrate...well a debate. So just answer that one question. Again, I have addressed all of your points and you have ignored my main point. If not, we are just waiting for a moderator to decide. I'm tired of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is these baseless declarations that get me ABSOLUTELY frustrated: "The sentence you want removed is sourced to the brim. There is absolutely no reason for it to be removed. Your "disclaimer" is however, content that is unsupported by evidence and the very sources it attributes to."

1) I just finished saying how Sarah Nelson's book and the other sources supporting the sentence had NOTHING to do with ethnic groups. You can check for yourself. So how can you simply reaffirm yourself that it is "sourced to the brim". Is my logic falling on deaf ears? 2)I have explained why my statement has validity over and over again. So rather than simply affirm that "it is unsupported by evidence and the very sources it attributes to", actually directly refute my arguement please?

Wikipedia runs on properly sourced materials. See here WP:SOURCES. The problem is Kirusagi32, NONE of what you are saying are properly sourced. Absolutely none of it. The last source you directed me to was a self-published article on a personal website, there is no way to fact-check. So yes, it is in violation of WP:SPS. And truthfully, the rest of your posts seem to be the rantings of frustrated nationalist. KaraKamilia (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Since you have missed your last chance to actually refute my points, we will wait for a moderator. You again have yet again attacked me personally. I am not a nationalist. I am not for the opinion of a single country, like you are for Korea. If being "properly sourced" is the only problem, I can easily source them correctly. Graphics can be used. The report I linked to can be used. You are missing the point again. Even without the self-published article (which I found on the first page of a google search of Ethnic Origins of Koreans), I can draw on the abundant various other sources and my case stands firm. And its a case that for whatever reason you have not and probably will not ever get to refuting. And so we wait. You have to realize my case is not "Koreans come from China or Koreans come from SE Asia". My claim is "there is a debate". How much evidence do I need for you to not be so ignorant of a prevalent debate. Higher than 60% contrary search results? More reports? More credible sources than National Geographic. My claim needn't that much sources to be valid. But whatever, since this is going nowhere, we wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the whole point, you haven't given me proof of a debate. If it's that easy to find (you say 60% of searches gives such results), then by all means present them. Cheers. KaraKamilia (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Has everything been falling on deaf ears?! What have I been saying and linking to this entire time? Please read back on everything I have written again. I don't want to rewrite anything. Yes, they were easy to find. And yes I have given them to you!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=human+migration+map&cp=17&qe=SHVtYW4gTWlncmF0aW9uIE0&qesig=R-P7CzOl-jwCFl-c-j8FMg&pkc=AFgZ2tkdoVRqqtuyMqduiNrFT8nArVwZdgc4m1eaasSfp-PRn5kTYb3AqXSYCVzC6zgus5eVJRyS_Nmr96K7NHpeTETKPtiVBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=683

Go ahead, pick a RANDOM picture. Go on! I will tell you exactly how EASY contrary evidence is to find! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't simply ignore AGAIN. Its so frustrating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And I realize the images aren't exactly formal sources. But they are still valid. And you must realize my argument isn't the conventional style. I am not arguing for a side. I am arguing to evaluate if multiple stances exist. Therefore, a random sample of sources (through google) is how I validate myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this your evidence? As stated earlier, do you not understand that this falls under WP:SYN and WP:OR? And again, the maps doesn't explain anything. KaraKamilia (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not fall under either original synthesis , which is making assumptions. The maps are pretty straightforward and the whole POINT of it is to show migratory patterns. How did I make a synthesis? It does not fall under original research, unless you think that me compiling a bunch of sources to prove the "abundance" is original. In that case, I argue that I really only need to use one source to prove there is a debate. Multiple sources only give me more credibility.

Ok. Here is the scenario right now. Say there is a Wikipedia article on how dogs are black. Yet I mention that some dogs are white. And I link a Google search of "dogs" and most of them come out as White. Now can I say that dogs can be white and black? What will you do? Attack the validity of the pictures? Attack that I haven't sourced them correctly and that I am making an assumption based on "original research"? I am not saying that ALL dogs are White, in which case my Google search MAY ACTUALLY fall under original synthesis or research and assumptions. I am simply stating the undeniable. There is uncertainty. Regardless of how you see my sources, my sources are sources. And the bottom line is, how will you explain them? Let me ask you, do you after seeing multiple sources of various migratory paths traced off different genetic markers still think that the Altaic route is undeniably the only one and there is no debate? Off what reason? That my sources are not properly cited or that I have synthesized some information? That google image returns biased pictures? That this wikipedia article, one of the only ones pointing solely to the Altaic theory is correct? That even though there are Koreans on forums discussing their various origins, they are wrong? No, you do not and cannot address the primary issue. HOW can these things I have mentioned even EXIST in a case where there is no debate and Koreans do originate solely from the Altai? Address those main issues. You have all night. I am off to bed. No need to rush, we have a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, saying Korean Y-chromosome is SE Asian, there's only O3-M122 marker which represent about 40% overall for Koreans and besides O2b isn't SE Asian which also represent about 40% portion overall, this is specific for Koreans.--KSentry(talk) 07:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is pointless, there is no debate for this since the souces are faulty itself. The sources aren't even considered legit sources that can be backed up with such a wild CLAIM! KaraKamilia is right on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guandong (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I will not continue this. I am waiting on administrative action to decide this. I understand that there are many Koreans here that oppose me. This is the same trend on AltaicWiki, and other Korean-run forums. But you guys still fail to address the main issue: why the sources point to contrary evidence if there is no debate. All you guys ever do is declare it not legitimate. Its all you guys CAN do. The last two response, like expected, show this pattern. And I will not waste my time going through this endless cycle. Declare that my sources are illegitimate as your only rebuttal if you like. But if you honestly think that all top results on Google are legitimate, there is no helping it. Its not like I took one offset outlier result. I took a random non-stratisfied nonbiased sample of results. Without the "its not legitimate arguement", you guys have nothing else to say. And if you really have deluded yourself into thinking every. single. one. of the random sample of results is illegitimate, then I honestly give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, I am getting a Wiki admin. But quite honestly, Wikipedia's edit system ensure it so that debates like this are ongoing. Its sad how this place has been over run by a minority thought group. Whatever, I am just hoping people don't look to Wikipedia as their primary source. If they look to the other Google search results, they should see the fallacy behind all this. I guess this is why teacher's preach kids not to use Wikipedia huh. I have asked on Yahoo Answers for how to end this once and for all and most of the results were on how "I should give up. Korean nationalists are notoriously known for edit warring on Wikipedia." Too bad I won't give up that easily. This is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break by white guy and admin (shouldn't matter I'm an admin)

This long and rather pointless discussion has gone on for far too long. Although I do not question the correctness of the statement you are trying to make, IP 24.x, I am entirely sure that the sourcing being provided is not adequate for wikipedia. I do not question the correctness of the material, but due to WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS these sources are not reliable, and can be challenged and removed. If you can find a reliable source detailing the claims, then it can be reinserted. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's currently protected for a week. I will keep it protected until some sort of consensus is reached. you may wish to consider WP:3O WP:DR or WP:RFC IP, if you truly think that you are in the right. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I will get those source. I am new to Wikipedia so I do not exactly know the exact technical processes. But it should not be hard getting one or two sources. I have an honest question, are graphics not sufficient on its own? If not, I can find written reports on the issue as well.

In the meanwhile, I will also search this article for illegitimate sources on its own. A huge portion of this article cites sources that do not state the information written; there is often generalization or gross misinterpretation.

Also, there is a difference between minority view and minority view on this page. While I am a minority here amidst other Korean posters, on the general internet forums, I am not.

However, after I get the technical problems dealt with, is there any way to prevent further edit warring? Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if there are so technical problems with the sources I have listed, out of curiosity, I would like to know from the others, how it can simply be ignored. The ultimate point out of all this is that if one searches Human Migratory Paths, they get a pluthera of data against their argument and almost none for the argument. I admit that as obvious as this conclusion is, it is not "formal" enough for Wikipedia as it implies drawing a "wild" conclusion: a MAJORITYY of differing views shows a debate. Still, how can one ignore it.

None the less, all I really need to do is get ONE good formal article on what the many maps describe to make it "technically" fit with Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the sources from National Geographic and PBS, can someone tell me if any of them stand alone as legitimate sources against the claims in this article. From now on, I will no longer fight for a simple disclaimer that there is a "debate", as that is not formal. I will fight for the other 2 sides of the argument to be formally instated in this Wiki.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/dna/timeline_flash.html

As for the "Altaic-ethnic origin" theory, I purpose it be changed to "Altaic-linguistic origin" UNTIL someone can find a source that states Altaic is an ethnic composition. Let the burden be on your side for once. Does this sound fair? Since they DON'T have the proper sourcing to make such generalization.

What Altaic is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

Please, admin, tell me if I need more sources. I will be happy to find more. I don't feel I even need that much sources to declare a "controversial results" on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To KaraKamilia

I understand your frustration with me not being able to understand that "a google image search, a forum post, a blog are not sufficient evidence". But you are not understanding me clearly either. I DO understand that none of those work as sources. However: 1) Google image searches is not a good source, but the INDIVIDUAL images are graphical sources that are reliable. With proper research, you can find that the sources of these image are from National Geographic, etc. Thats WHY they appeared as top results, because they were from well recognized sources. The search was simply to show you and other debaters that it was common. I already said it should not be cited in the Wiki formally. 2) The Forum Post again is not a good source, however I simply had told you to read the forum carefully to see the various source it LINKS to. Again, the forum is not sufficient, but the posters on the forum have posted links to legitimate sources. One of which I copied and pasted here. I simply didn't want to post all the sources here. It was only solely for you to read and understand. 3) The blog. Again, I never used that in the Wiki, just to show you some differing ideas. 4) Besides these three "illegitimate" sources, you are failing to address the other sources. What about the report I linked? What about the National Geographic research and PBS Report? None of these you have addressed.

And besides even if I have one or two sources that is deemed legitimate, I have my argument backed. You are getting frustrated at the technicality of my argument, yet you ignore my larger argument. I have enough "technical" sources that you should at least address the issue. And above all, even if you cannot accept my sources as a Wiki-user, how can you as a person ignore them? How can one look at the multiple contrary results on a google image search (I won't use this on the Wiki, its just for you to see. Get it straight), and ignore them? The search didn't even return images from untrustworthy sources (NatGeo, PBS). But if that doesn't satisfy you, I have posted the original website where the images come from. Please. Please. Look at the true implications of all this.

And lastly, you are being hypocritical with the "Altaic-ethnic" term being used. Is a book and article which DOESN'T even mention Altaic as an ethnic group sufficient source? Surely mis-interpretion and assumption violate some Wiki guidelines? The source simply does not match the given info.

You shouldn't be frustrated. I shouldn't be frustrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admin and to Karakamila

http://dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-global-survey-regional-affinities.pdf

Does this constitute as a valid source? There is no simple "Altaic" source for Korea. It is primarily Eastern, with more Chinese than Altaic. More Manchurian than Chinese. Still, like all races, this is how the break down is like. See link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "Altaic" is very generic, it's linguistic classification not genealogy, modern Koreans are more related to Japanese and Mongolian than to Han Chinese in terms of both language and genealogy and it's confirmed with latest DNA research, the term "Chinese" is also very generic because "Chinese" is also very modern description, if Chinese is referring to "Zhong Hua" then they're definitely not related to Korean. Han Chinese group is some what between East Asian and SE Asian and Chinese language and mtDNA + atDNA of Han Chinese are more closely related to these of SE Asian.--KSentry(talk) 12:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This Altaic issue is a cultural/linguistic one not a genetic one why are people posting sources to genetic studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.191.20.2 (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessively Bold Baekje Statement

"It is well documeted that the Koreans who went to Japan came from Baekje or Kudara," is way too bold. First of all Baekje and Kudara are the same thing. Secondly, the origin of the Japanese is still well contested in archaeological circles. The closest thing to "well documented" conclusion is that the Yayoi probably came from Southern Korea, mainly based on cultural similarities and geographic location. That would make it more, accurate to say J"apanese came from Baekje or SILLA" which might have been what the person was trying to say in the first place. Unless there are some "well documented" facts I'm not aware of. -Huaping

Well-documented means archeologically proven, the strongest evidence is archeological artifact, it is confirmed cases with Yayoi people of early Japan have been originated from immigrants of Korean peninsula not just southern Korea, Korea peninsula isn't big enough to have very diverse people, despite the long term isolation of many regions of Korea, Koreans are closely related to each other and to people of Manchuria and Japan, interaction between these regions have never stopped until about 60 years ago. Recent DNA study of Korean people from different regions suggested Koreans are indeed very homogeneous and it's probably most homogeneous out of entire Asian continent.--KSentry(talk) 13:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox images

I have semi-protected the article temporarily; the most recent editors seem interested in nothing but screwing around with the images in the infobox. Reach a consensus on the talk page, y'all; this is irritating. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Regular editors of this article should come to a clear consensus about criteria for choosing images for the infobox.

There appears to be an edit war in progress between User:S0ch1 and User:106.69.85.211. I've placed edit war warnings on the talk pages of both users. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Where does the name KOREAN come from?

THE ORIGINAL NAME FOR KOREANS IS CHOSUN. ( KO-CHOSUN, CHOSUN DYNASTY) IN REALITY KOREANS SHOULD BE CALLED CHOSUN PEOPLE. NAME KOREANS COME FROM ( KORGURYO, KORYO,= MODERN DAY KOREANS COME FROM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratenumbers (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to locate in this article what are the origins of the word Korean. Is it even Korean or a Western name for the people of modern Korea? --Inayity (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's tied with the etymology of the word Korea. More can be found on Names of Korea. It ultimately comes from Goryeo, as in the Goryeo dynasty.--SGCM (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Inayity (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Chosŏn-in Meaning

CHOSUN: ORIGINAL NAME FOR ALL KOREANS. CHOXIAN, CHOSUN, CHOSEN IN CHINA, KOREA, JAPAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratenumbers (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The article Explains what South Koreans call themselves, but what does Chosŏn-in mean>?--Inayity (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Chosŏn-in (or Joseon-in) is a Romanization of Korean 조선인, which is written 朝鮮人 in hanja (Chinese characters). 朝鮮 (조선 Joseon) is the name of at least two different former, historical states, one being the medieval-to-early-modern Joseon Kingdom of the Jeonju Lee Dynasty, and another being the "Ancient" (Go-) Joseon of Dangun Wanggeom. Joseon is also the name of one extant, present state (Democratic People's Republic of Joseon, i.e. North Korea). 人 (인 -in) is simply the Korean pronunciation of the Chinese word 人 (rén in Mandarin), which means "person, human being," used as a suffix appended to names of countries in order to represent the citizens of that country. Sino-Korean Chosŏn-in/Joseon-in is etymologically identical to Sino-Japanese 朝鮮人 Chōsen-jin, which means "North Korean people" (or sometimes ethnic Korean people in general). Ebizur (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia

You, Vietg12 suddenly showed up on the page Koreans by making the same tendentious edit after your multiple IPs 107.14.54.x etc. have been blocked recently. Most of the images of the statues which you added do not guarantee its authentic looking. Especially when it comes to modern statues that are not based on the original painted appearance representing true image of figures. None of these modern statues are reconstructions of the original painted appearance! By operating multiples socks, you edited stuffs related with the same Korean inventions of gunpowder weapons by providing less reliable and non-academic sources. [2], [3]. And you keep insisting that Wanyan Aguda is Korean. This is absolutely an original research against the academic consensus. [4], [5]. The administrator, who blocked you after your vandalism recommended me try to forming a consensus after reverting your edits. Conprix (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no guarantee authentic paintings or portraits of Jang Yeongsil and Dongmyeong of Goguryeo. I have tried researching them. As for Wanyan Aguda, he is Korean as Wang Geon is Korean according to primarily historical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietg12 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No scholar of Asian history support your original and exceptional interpretation of the primary source you have mentioned. And as you say, there are no guarantee authentic paintings or portraits of Jang Yeongsil and King Dongmyeong. Yes indeed, a sculpture of guardian figure around the tomb of King Dongmyeong is in no way a statue of King Dongmyeong. Please stop making persistently bad faith edits. Conprix (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wanyan Aguda is a descendant of Hanpu, a Sillian. As for Jang Yeongsil, he is a representation of a historic person. I will take off King Dongmyeong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietg12 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wanyan Aguda was eighth-generation descendant of Hanpu. This doesn't make him Korean. Now, the only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable secondary source that contains the same stuff. And as you said, there is no no guarantee that the modern statues of Jang Yeongsil is backed on the original painted appearance representing true image of figure. Conprix (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Therefore, his ethnicity is Korean and his nationality is Jurchen. Same concept with ethnic Koreans in America, Japan or elsewhere. There are numerous primary sources to confirm this. There's no wiki guidelines to whether statues should not be permitted in ethnicity montage. You are erasing my edits over pointless accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietg12 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

See WP:OR. Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. All statements must be supported by reliable sources or they are subject to be challenged and removed. Content which is removed may not be restored unless a reliable source has been added. Scr★pIronIV 14:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Representative Koreans

Okay, listen, we can argue over who should be included in the photo section of representative Koreans on the talk page, but like... there's only two women, a Kpop singer and a figure skater. Is there some reason we can't include some important figures? How about activist in the independence movement and women's movement, educator, doctor, first woman principal in Jeju, and first woman superintendent Choi Jungsook; independence activist, writer, journalist, founder of the communist party of Joseon, feminist and sex-positive activist Heo Jong-suk; politician, educator, social activist, and feminist Helen Kim; writer, journalist, feminist activist and Buddhist nun Ilyeop, aka Kim Il-yeop; famous novelist and poet Kim Myeong-sun; politician, labor rights activist, Christian feminist, and anti-Hoju activist Lee Wu-jong, poet, feminist writer, painter, educator, and journalist Na Hye-sok; world-famous painter Park Naehyeon, independence activist, educator, writer, and a social activist Park In-deok; I don't think I need to introduce Ryu Gwansun. For premodern figures? The Korean woman who became Mongol empress Empress Gi; first historically-documented woman to become a queen in Korea, Queen Seondeok of Silla? Lady Hyegyeong, whose fascinating memoirs a ton of English-speakers have read in translation in college? Or famous "femme fatale" Hui-bin Jang? As a start. Ogress _smash! 19:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I repeat this statement, as I have managed to add five women and they keep getting removed. Ogress 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that User:Ogress totally miss the point. This article is about the historic people based in the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria together with the 7 million people of the Korean diaspora, as said in the lead of the article. To this purpose, I don't see why Empress Gi would be more illustrative than Ha Ji-won, Queen Seondeok more than Lee Yo-won, Lady Hyegyeong more than Jung Ae-ri and Shin Yun-bok more than Moon Geun-young. The very idea to represent the people by a set of 'noticeables' is horrible. Largely worse than any bias while choosing the 'noticeables'. Nevertheless, I admit that suggesting that 32% of Korean are women, while 16% others are wearing spectacles is slightly strange. Pldx1 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

These are the two ways of illustrating an infobox in an article about a people: noticeables, or, a single picture. Both have their pros and cons that should be weighed carefully. Noticeables help the reader by putting things into context for them: they are likely to conceptualize a people through some of its representative personages (King Sejong does make us think of Koreans). The 'problem' of which noticeables to chose is also an advantage. Indeed: it allows us "to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted" WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. The single image approach does not allow us to do this, and compels us to search for images that conform to our ethnic stereotypes. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, the point is about illustrating Koreans, not Korea or Korean history or Korean noticeables. Saying that this sitting guy with a book 'makes us think of Korea/Koreans' mostly describes who is 'us'. Saying that the tower 'makes us think that Anapji is round the corner' mostly describes who is 'us'. Describing 'Koreans' rather than 'us' is more difficult. Using depictions from the past could be misleading, since we cannot assert if the artifact is faithful to the depicted (or to the model or to an idealized image) or to nothing due to a lack of care or due to successive copies of a lost original. Moreover, nothing can be done to prevent a reader from drawing poor conclusions (something like Korean women are saying hello with their left hand, and Korean men with their right hand). The Jagalchi picture illustrates the topic, i.e. the people (commoners), rather than the People (magazine). Pldx1 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Queen Seondeok

Queen Seondeok

File:King Sejong-crop.JPG

King Sejong

Korean Woman

Korean history v. Korean people

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Koreans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318164348/http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200409/kt2004092218583111950.htm to http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200409/kt2004092218583111950.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113170244/http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200512/kt2005121517211054280.htm to http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200512/kt2005121517211054280.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Bhak Jong-hwa

An IP-editor made this edit where they removed the sources which talked about the work of Bhak Jong-hwa, and they said in their edit summary, "The statement here is not proven from the source. It does not say modern koreans, nor does the source state koreans are more related to southeast asians." I reverted this removal of the DramaFever source (link), the Korea.net source (link) and the Korea JoongAng Daily source (link) in this edit, and I said in my edit summary, "I reverted the removal of sources. The source used the phrase "today's Koreans" meaning "modern Koreans". Bhak is quoted as saying "the actual genetic structure of modern Koreans is much closer to that of southern Asians". I mention this here if the IP-editor and/or other editors want to discuss the content sourced to Bhak Jong-hwa, and I mention this here to note that I mistook the quote as being from Bhak in my haste to revert the removal of sources. The Korea.net article said that the quote is actually from the research team which is led by Bhak. I hastily reverted the IP-editor's edit, and I hastily mistook the quote as being from Bhak, since a photograph of Bhak's face is next to the quote in the Korea.net source (link).--Ephert (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The same IP-editor IP:99.191.139.103 removed the part supposedly cited to the Korea.net source (link) and the DramaFever source (link) in this edit, and they said in their edit summary "the statement here is not stated correctly, based on the source. The source does not state "modern koreans", it states it is the ancestors of koreans from thousands of years ago. This is a large difference." If the IP-editor thinks that the cited content does not accurately represent the source, the IP-editor should change the content to reflect an accurate characterization of the source rather than remove both the source and cited content completely. I looked back at the history of this Wikipedia article, and it appears that the content "Koreans are the descendants of the peoples that migrated for over 13.000-7.000 years from Southeast Asia or South Asia up to north into the Korean Peninsula and southern Manchuria." was originally added by IP-editor IP:90.146.213.80 in this edit on March 2, 2017, and that content was originally cited to an article in The Korea Times (link). It appears that this content was changed and cited to a different source on April 4, 2017. User:Veritas et aequitas Korea made this edit on April 4, 2017, where they removed The Korea Times source and they moved the 13,000 to 7,000 number down into a statement which was previously cited to Korea.net. This appears to be the reason why the cited content for the Korea.net source does not match the source. In particular, both The Korea Times source (link) and the Korea.net source (link) do not seem to have the 13,000 number. It is important that the cited content is supported by the sources, and it is important for editors to raise the issue of cited content not being supported by sources. I think that the Korea.net source (link) and the DramaFever source (link) should be re-added as sources, but I think that the 13,000 number should be removed if that number is not supported by them.--Ephert (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated addition of inappropriate material

77.100.234.159 has readded a section on a purported Korean origin of the Japanese people to this page. This is an inappropriate section for a Wikipedia article about the Korean ethnos. For example, there is no section in the Wikipedia article on Germans about "German origins of the English" despite much more abundant and persuasive historical, linguistic, archaeological, and human genetic evidence that could be cited to support statements in such a section.

I request additional users' censure or moderators' intervention. Ebizur (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ebizur: I will assume good faith, and assume that you are not intentionally mistaking me with the editor who twice re-added the Korean origin of Japanese people section. The editor who re-added that section is IP-editor 77.100.234.159 who re-added it in this 22:44, 11 June 2017 edit and again in this 16:57, 18 June 2017 edit.--Ephert (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please excuse me. The overlapping edit histories of you and 77.100.234.159 made it difficult to parse who had published which edition to the article. Ebizur (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstable the " Korean origin of the Japanese " is not edited by me and I'm absolutely fine with it being because, if it bothers you that much why not just edit " Theory" next to it. Second you keep removing materials that connects anything between Koreans and Japanese wether in DNA, language. Judging from your wikipedia history edits it seems clear focused on Japanese DNA, Japanese language but keen on trying remove any possible connection with Korean. You even purposely edited Koreans are closer to Nepalese, Chinese 2 times when neither of my three sources nor by geneticist Cavalli-Sforza makes any of such mention. Your wikipedia historty edits also prove you try to link Japanese languages with other languages not with Korean language. You also wrote in Japanese, all this points out you're a Japanese wiki user with a individual purpose. 77.100.234.159 (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First, I am not Japanese; I have edited some articles related to the Japanese people and language because, as you have noticed, I can read and write the Japanese language and therefore can contribute some information. Second, you are the one who has been using an anonymous IP address to edit this article.

The crux of the problem with your "Korean origin of the Japanese" section is that it is inappropriate for the present Wikipedia article, "Koreans." The factual weakness of the evidence that you have cited is merely a secondary issue.

As for your "three sources," only Cavalli-Sforza has any relevant data on the claim that you have made in that passage. Here is what he says in text:

"4.12. Genetics of East and Central Asia

The analysis included 21 populations from East Asia and some neighbors (Fst distances and standard errors in table 4.12.1). The tree (fig. 4.12.1) shows a distant outlier, the South Chinese, who are more closely related to Southeast Asia than to Northeast Asia (see chap. 2). As already mentioned with regard to physical anthropology in section 4.9, there is a strong difference between North China and South China. The tree shows one large cluster that includes populations living in Japan, Korea, Bhutan, and Tibet and another large cluster made up of three smaller ones. Of the three small clusters, the first includes Turkic-speaking populations of Central and West Asia (Turkomen, Uzbek, and Turk) who have Caucasoid components of various importance; the second includes Altai, Northern Chinese, and Nepalese (excluding Sherpas, who are kept separate); the third comprises two Altaic-speaking populations, already described in section 4.11, and also--perhaps surprisingly--Sherpas (85,000, living mostly in Nepal).

The PC map agrees largely with the tree (fig. 4.12.2). It is based on an average of 55.7 ± 5.4 genes and accounts for 39% of the original genetic variation. South Chinese are again a strong outlier. The first PC separates Japan and Korea from all others. Three Tibetan groups--from Tibet and from Bhutan, and the Sherpas from Nepal--are reasonably close, whereas Nepal is fairly distant (but close to Bhutan in the third PC, not shown). Tibetan groups take a central position but have apparently some affinities with Japan and Korea.

... Data from table 4.12.1 show that Tibetans have the shortest distance from Butanese and from Japanese. Tibetans are the most loosely connected population of the Northeast Asian cluster. In bootstraps (chap. 2) they separate from this cluster 24 times of 100, twice as often as the next loose member, the Ainu, and then they usually join South Dravidian members of the Caucasoid group, from whom they have a fairly small but poorly investigated genetic difference.

The Ainu have always attracted great anthropological interest and were considered Caucasoid by early (European) anthropologists. ... The major physical characteristic that differentiates them from other Northeast Asian people, with whom they are tied by genetic and linguistic similarities, is their hairiness as well as the hair form. This was probably the major reason for thinking of them as having a Caucasoid origin, but there are also some other isolated Mongoloid groups other than the Ainu who show hairiness (Alexseev 1979). ... The neighbors from whom the Ainu show the smallest genetic distance are the Hokkaido Japanese. This is not surprising because they live on the same island; the next closest neighbors are the Ryukyuans (152 ± 33). In the tree, however, the Ainu are outliers in the East Asian cluster.

In the world tree (chap. 2), the Ainu show shortest distances from Tungus, Japanese, and Koreans; their distance from Australian aborigines is greater (though not significantly) than that of Japanese or Koreans from Australians; their distance from Caucasoids is perfectly comparable to that of Japanese or Koreans. On bootstrap trees, the Ainu leave the Northeast Asian cluster 11 times of 100, second to Tibetans (who leave it 22 times). When the Ainu are not with the cluster of Northeast Asian populations, they are only slightly external to it, as outliers of a group including other Eastern populations, but, unlike Tibetans, they never join a Caucasoid group."

Figure 4.12.1 shows a cluster consisting of Ainu, Tibetan, Bhutanese, six Japanese (Honshu Kinki, Kyushu, Honshu Chubu, Honshu Kanto, Southwest Honshu, and Hokkaido Japanese(xAinu)), Ryukyuan, and Korean samples. The Koreans are nearest the Hokkaido Japanese, followed by the Ryukyuans.

As for my note about the relative closeness of Cavalli-Sforza's Korean sample to his Chinese and Nepalese Sherpa samples, cf. the principal component map in Figure 4.12.2 and the table of genetic distances in Table 4.12.1. In regard to North China, Koreans are third (out of eleven populations in the Japan-Korea-Tibet-Bhutan cluster, after Bhutanese and Hokkaido Japanese) least distant from North China. In regard to South China, Koreans are third (out of eleven populations in the Japan-Korea-Tibet-Bhutan cluster, after Hokkaido Japanese and Southwest Honshu) least distant from South China. In regard to Nepalese Sherpas, Koreans are third (out of eleven populations in the Japan-Korea-Tibet-Bhutan cluster, after Tibetan and Bhutanese) least distant from Sherpa. The Hokkaido Japanese sample exhibits relatively low genetic distance from every other sample perhaps because of their recently mixed origins as settlers from all over Japan (and possibly also some from outside present-day Japan), so their somewhat lower Fst from the Chinese samples is difficult to interpret. The only surprise is the relatively low Fst between the Southwest Honshu sample and the South China sample (though even that difference appears to be statistically insignificant). Otherwise, there is a clear pattern of the Korean sample being relatively close to the Chinese and Sherpas (though the Bhutanese sample is also, as one might expect, quite close to the North China and Sherpa samples as well). Ebizur (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot be sure if you're 100% Japanese but I see you using Japanese characters also editing wiki pages mostly related with Japanese. Your edits also seems to by all means distant Koreans from Japanese. Your edits of DNA haplogroups O2b between Koreans AMD Japanese, your edits in the wikipedia of Japonic language being related with Ainu but without a mention of Korean.

----------> PLEASE LOOK AT THIS LINK

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=Cavalli-Sforza+Korean+mongol+AND.Chinese&source=bl&ots=HmcZWiKCd4&sig=Hn4a3B8v3_7xXcg11AMk_-yqLtk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd0JaN08zUAhVkBsAKHfYwCUw4ChDoAQg_MAU#v=onepage&q=Cavalli-Sforza%20Korean%20mongol%20AND.Chinese&f=false

Look at the graph and diagram by By Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto

It clearly puts N.Tungus, N Chinese, Tibetan, Bhutanese, Ainu, Korean, Japanese, Mongol, Nentsy, Samoyed, Reindeer Chucki, Ngannasan, Chukchi in the " Northeast Asian and East Asian " cluster.

I DO NOT SEE NEPALESE..... Nepalese in this section would be Gurkha.... and they are clearly in the southern not in the Northeast Asian and East Asian. How does this change the fact Koreans are in Northeast and East Asian cluster as those groups ? 77.100.234.159 (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Kim Jong-jin (2005) study

User:Iryna Harpy reverted 4 edits I made in their 20:24, 20 July 2017 edit with the edit summary "Reverted 4 edits by Ephert (talk): Rv ungrammatical changes +changes to wording in quotes. (TW))". This reversion by User:Iryna Harpy removed the paragraph which was cited to the Kim Jong-jin (2005) study. Firstly, I can see where User:Iryna Harpy might be talking about "ungrammatical changes", because I added a hyphen to the previous "Part Korean populations" section title to make it "Part-Korean populations". I made this change because I thought that the version with the hyphen was considered the grammatically correct way to write it. Secondly, I do not see what "changes to wording in quotes" is referring to. There were not a lot of words quoted in the paragraph I added about the Kim Jong-jin (2005) study, but there were some quoted words. I quoted, "[c]ommon ancestry and/or extensive gene flow", and I quoted the word "likely". Thinking that I may have unintentionally misquoted this small bit, I went back to look at the Kim Jong-jin (2005) study, and I saw that I did quote it correctly. Perhaps, User:Iryna Harpy is referring to the letter "c" in brackets. I wrote the lowercase letter "c" in brackets, because it was capitalized in the Kim Jong-jin (2005) study, since it was the start of a sentence there. In the sentence I wrote for this Wikipedia article, it would not start a sentence, so I put it in brackets to indicate that it is in lowercase form in the sentence for this Wikipedia article. It would be helpful if User:Iryna Harpy says exactly what the issue they perceived was, so we can resolve the issue and add the Kim Jong-jin (2005) study back into this article.--Ephert (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ephert: Apologies. I misread the references and have self-reverted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Koreans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160525/http://preview.britannica.co.kr/bol/topic.asp?article_id=b24h2877b to http://preview.britannica.co.kr/bol/topic.asp?article_id=b24h2877b
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125052048/http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2220 to http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"As of 2013, there were an estimated 7.4 million ethnic Koreans worldwide"

This claim in the opening does not agree with the rest of the article. The 7.4 million is the number of people in the ethnic Korean diaspora. This is clearly given in the article. North and South Korea comprise another approximately 75.7 million Koreans. So, the correct statement is "As of 2013, there were an estimated 83.1 million ethnic Koreans worldwide." Have I misunderstood something? Jyg (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

DNA studies overtaking the article

Articles on ethnic groups cover a diversity of subject areas, with history and culture (as a humanities reading of ethnicity) being the predominant focus. This article has now been overtaken by recent DNA studies, tracts of content on haplogroups, and a plethora of tables surrounding a science still in its infancy. The WP:TITLE of this article is "Koreans": that is, the group of people who in relatively modern terms have identified/self-identified as a nationality.

While the DNA studies are WP:ITSINTERESTING, they are WP:OFFTOPIC for this article and should be moved into their own article space. A summary section with a hatnote pointing the reader to the subject-specific article is ample for this article for readers who are interested in that area. Please compare this article to the standardised "Ethnic group X" articles. If there is any convoluted technical study into DNA, it is only alluded to and reserved for its own article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy coming six months later, I can say for sure that the situation has not gotten better. The bulk of the article is taken up by DNA, craniometry, archaeology et cetera. Do you think proposing a split into Origin of the Koreans could get support (or an equivalent to Genetic_and_anthropometric_studies_on_Japanese_people)? Cheers, Calthinus (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur. I think such a split would be great. I think an explanation of the DNA mumbo-jumbo ;) would also be good. It's clear whoever wrote it is very knowledgeable and did a lot of work. It's also incomprehensible to those of us who haven't dedicated our lives to DNA studies. CsikosLo (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support split Genetics has somehow become the focus of the article. A split would help reverse that. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support split Split and merge into a single coherent article on Genetics of East Asians or something like that. Also merge Genetic_and_anthropometric_studies_on_Japanese_people. Koraskadi (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Iryna Harpy: @Calthinus: could somebody please tell me if there is any consensus on any other page that supports the merging of content from Genetic and anthropometric studies on Japanese people with Genetic history of East Asians? Koraskadi told me that the genetic information on the "Japanese page" has been moved to the Genetic history of East Asians page according to consensus at this discussion but I can't find it on this page. All I can find in this discussion is that the user mentioned it eight days ago and created the page four days later after they first suggested it without waiting for what other people had to say about the suggestion. I thought this discussion on an article split was only for Koreans not for other East Asian groups. Could someone please explain the situation to me? (101.189.60.77 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC))

Collage

The YEAR 2018: TOTAL KOREAN POPULATION IS 84,320,663 MILLION. PLEASE UPDATE THE INFORMATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanInfomationupdate (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Total Korean population 2018: 84,299,573 Million. ( Single Korean) if you influde Half Korean or Korean Descent population it can be 130-260 Million Koreans worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2check (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Accurate Korean population figure is 99.9 Million- 120 Million. Even current population number should be 88.9 Million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratenumbers (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

South Korea population is 56 Million plus North Korea population is 27 Million total 83 Million plus Overseas Korean population 7 million total Korean population is 90 Million. UPDATE: 2/21/2015: KOREAN TOTAL POPULATION IS ( 83,510,373 MILLION). NUMBER IS 83.5 MILLION. PLEASE UPDATE KOREAN TOTAL POPULATION PLEASE!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean2disqus (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

SOUTH KOREA 2014 POPULATION IS 56 MILLION, NORTH KOREA 2014 POPULATION IS 27/30 MILLION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Peninsula1 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Koreans related to " Beijing" Chinese. That statement and comment have to go. What is Beijing Chinese. Is there such a thing called Beijing Chinese??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeninsulaToday (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

KOREANS ARE RELATED TO " BEIJING" CHINESE??? WHAT IS BEIJING CHINESE??? INFORMATION IS NOT ACCURATE. THOUSAND OF YEARS GREAT WALL DIVIDED CHINA FROM MANCHURIA/KOREAN PENINSULA. KOREANS DNA RELATED TO MANCHURIA. NOT BEIJING!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask1Korean1 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

GUYS, SERIOUSLY YOU NEED TO UPDATE KOREAN TOTAL POPULATION STATISTICS. YOUR USING PAST YEAR 2009. NEXT YEAR 2014 YOUR RESOURCE IS 5 YEARS OUTDATED. ONLY 80,0000000 MILLION??? KOREAN PENINSULA COMBINE POPULATION IS 80 MILLION. PLUS 7MILLION OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION. TOTAL KOREAN POPULATION WOULD BE 87 MILLION YEAR 2014 IT WOULD BE ABOUT AT LEAST 96 MILLION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerTJ (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Year 2013, total Korean population would be beyond 80 Million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMentalFloss (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Information based on year 2009 ( 4 years????). Do you think Korean total population 80 Million is accurate. Correct Fact and Figure would be 88-90 Million total Koreans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opinion4today (talk • contribs) 10:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well if you would like to provide verifiable sources to back up those figures, go right ahead. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Copyright violation from who? Why would some dead people would claim the copyright? --KSentry(talk) 12:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)