Talk:Racism in South Korea

National Human Rights Commission of Korea survey vs Statistics Korea

I wanted to know anyones take on the National Human Rights Commission of Korea survey which states that 63 percent of foreigners have been discriminated against vs the Statistics Korea survey which says 20 have faced discrimination. I can't find the survey for the latter and therefor don't know what methods it uses in terms of whether or not it's more or less reliable than the Human Rights Commission of Korea. https://english.news.cn/20230906/bc3d89a3f77b4099b0da58413e57abb1/c.html

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DAlexPiña.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheOrientAlice. Peer reviewers: Cmsandov.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Racism in South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/04/18/2011041801112.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://asiasociety.org/korea/south-korea-unloved-republic
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28myers.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.korealiberator.org/2005/07/11/one-hand-clapping/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racism in South Korea. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sinonk.com/2015/04/01/south-korea-as-subempire-workers-immigration-and-racialized-hierarchy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources and POV

This article only cites newspaper articles and thus leading to a complete unneutral point of view. For every country in the world, you could find that many articles regarding racism. The article also shows some original research by wanting to prove racism by referencing as many as possible news articles. For a topic like this, you definitely need journal articles or books. Newspapers are for current events. --Christian140 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care much about the issues in the English Wikipedia. I just will leave this here: I came here by a post on Reddit/r/Korea last week, from an emotionally packed discussion, linking this article and asking if it reflects reality. I looked a bit into and immediately realized the poor sources used and newspaper and original research style. The comment then that made me edit here was this (better than I could express it in English):

"[...] If you look at the revision history, you will see that on the "Racism in South Korea" and the "Korean ethnic nationalism" pages, they are almost entirely edited and shaped by one Wiki user, obviously someone with a clear agenda cherry picking articles and using incendiary language that leaves no gray areas, only black-and-white statements like "racism in SK is widespread and overt" or "racism permeates many levels of SK society." This person wasn't satisfied with one page, so they had to make a second page they edited and linked to.

If you look up "Racism in Japan," it is redirected to a page called "Ethnic Issues in Japan," which does not go into great depth about racism or xenophobia in Japan. It just goes to show you that one, just one, person with an agenda can influence entire articles on Wikipedia, and it shows you the limitations of Wikipedia. [...]" -d849.

Perhaps, this is also interesting for someone wanting to improve the article and rethinking the current version. I did not know that about this article was discussed so much before. There is this archive Talk:Racism in South Korea/Archive 1, but for me it seems that there is no link here on the discussion page. And for the end, for an encyclopedia and especially for a sensitive issue like that, I recommend using (only) journal articles. --Christian140 (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: Discrimination against North Korean defectors

The numbers are like 6 years old. Moreover, in recent years, there had been many reports that the situation improved a lot, correlating with the decreasing jobless rate among North Korean resettlers, which is now less than 5%. Reports often claim television shows regarding North Korean defectors as reason, though, there are also voices that rather think it is due to government measures. --Christian140 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Major Overhaul of the Page

I am concerned about the inflammatory nature of the page and the poor citations.

I propose to remove all personal, subjective opinions and illegitimately referenced items. I will attempt to emulate other "Racism in XYZ" pages, such as "Racism in France" and keep all matters strictly factual. For the present, I will tackle only the Introduction, sentence by sentence.

1) First and foremost, I suggest this page be renamed Ethnic Issues in South Korea.

That's strange. That's exactly what the banned sock puppet was proposing as well. You know, the sock puppet who got indef blocked about 3 days before you started editing. For such a new editor, you certainly format your discussions well, it's as if you had prior experience. Equally strange, that your first fucking edit is a revert on an article plagued by sock accounts. I would make claims that you are also a sockpuppet account, but it seems someone beat me to it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Strange indeed! I would lump that with "great minds think alike" or "it is obvious to everybody this page is completely idiotic and in need of deletion."

Let's say I am a sock puppet account. What of it? Do you have something of substance to add? I will abstain from incivility if you will. If that doesn't seem prudent, carry on and I will do likewise or report you, for whatever that's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanExpat (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What of it? Sock Puppets get indefinite editing blocks. The same can be said for editors in breach of civility rules, in particular personal attacks, who threaten to continue incivility unless they get their own way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

2) "Racism in South Korea is widespread and overt in nature, stemming from the country's commonly held belief that Koreans are a 'pure-blooded race' that have been homogeneous throughout history"

The statment is subjective and personal. In addition, none of the links supports the stateent. In fact, one of the two unbroken links is about Koreans taking foreigners as a spouse.

I propose to delete the statment unless someone can provide a link that there is a commonly held belief in Korea that the populace is a "pure-blooded" race that has been homogeneous throughout history. Then just that portion should be moved to the Demographics section on South Korea.

3) "South Korean racism comes in a variety of different forms, such as nationalistic xenophobia, ethnic prejudices, and discrimination against persons on the basis of their skin color and ancestry."

Not supported by the linked citations. The Washington Post link states that two Swedish economist came to the conclusion that one in three Koreans did not want a neighbor of a different race and it stems from Korea's view of it's racial-national identity as being unique.

The second link is basically a blog and the link does not cite one piece of research.

I propose that only the static that one in three Koreans do not want a neighbor of a different race remain.

4) "Racism permeates many levels of South Korean society, from education to employment."

The statment is not cited in any way. I propose deletion.

5) "Children born to South Korean mothers and American fathers often are mistreated by students at schools, and black American expatriates often are denied employment due to the color of their skin, a form of discrimination that is actually allowed under current South Korean law."

Again, the personal and biased tone of the statement is unacceptable.

Two of the links do not work. The first broken link cites that biracial children are accepted, though shunned. That is not a legitimate reference for any children being mistreated.

The second link is from a website that does not publish any articles itself but mostly aggregates other news agency articles. It portray ONE black American who might have been discriminated based on his race. In the article, it also states that an Irish woman was refused employment due to fears that she would drink excessively. Wikipedia is not a gossip site reporting on titilating goings on at private enterprises around the world. Nor can we go from one personal anecdote to a generalization.

And the third link is an online submission to an education website. It is not a credible published reference.

I propose partial deletion. As Korea does not have anti-discrimination laws, the statement that no anti-discrimination law exists in the country can remain.

6) "The discrimination even extends to North Koreans living in South Korea, who are often mistreated at schools and denied employment due to their being from North Korea."

I don't think this belongs in the "Racism" page at all. North Koreans, after all, are the same race as South Koreans.

I propose a move to another page dealing with North Koreans.

7) A South Korean soccer player from Japan even renounced his South Korean citizenship after being called a racist slur by a South Korean newspaper.

The link does not even mention this supposed incident. I propose delete.

It is on the second page of the article. Maybe not easy to find on the first look. Still, it is a single incident of an individual and in my opinion not relevant for an article with this topic. --19:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Other articles state that he quit the football/soccer team after he was called a slur in 2007. He did not, however, renounce his citizenship until 2011. And he did so only because he could not play for Japan without it and Japan does not allow dual citizenship. So, we could write that the soccer player stopped playing AMATEUR SOCCER for Korea due to perceived nationality discrimination. It is not accurate to say he renounced the citizenship due to the discrimation. But is Wikipedia going to start cataloging AMATEUR SOCCER discrimination grievances? AmericanExpat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

8) "People in South Korea who experience racism are often helpless to do anything about it, due to its being legal under South Korean law."

This is a repeat of a statement made earlier. I propose delete and combine citation with earlier statement.

9) "Sometimes, when racist abuse is reported to police, the police themselves even engage in racist vitriol."

Again, the tone is not neutral. I cannot read the articles because Google Translate is very poor. But they are just individual incidents that are not worthy of note on Wikipedia. Is anyone really surprised that the police in any country sometimes engages in racist vitriol? Is Wikipedia to serve as an archive of individual grievances?

Propose deletion.

10) "The heavily widespread nature of racism in South Korea has even led to the United Nations and the United States expressing concern over the matter."

The tone, again, is unacceptable. The first link, again, is just an online submission of a random person to an education website, not the US DOE. And it is certainly not a pronouncement from the DOE.

I have deleted the segment regarding the US as it was erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanExpat (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The second article actually found that there is no systemic or institutional racism in Korea but individual cases on a social level. It encouraged that the govt promote tolerance through education. The third article is nearly ten years old. Are they really worthy of note?

I propose deletion or just the inclusion that ONLY THE UN, not the US, expressed concern over development of anti-discrimination laws in Korea, not over the widespread nature of racism.

11) "Despite the ubiquitous nature of South Korean racism, discrimination in South Korea is not just limited to racism and xenophobia against foreigners."

Again, personal and inflammatory and not cited. Delete.

12) "Among South Koreans themselves, sexism, nepotism, and ageism are also very prevalent, with preferential treatment being given to people who are male, related, and older in age."

Again, this is cited by some random person who submitted to an education website. It is not a published article. Delete.

13) "This has led to some South Koreans nicknaming the country "Hell Joseon", with a poll indicating eighty percent of young South Koreans indicating a desire to leave the country and move overseas."

The second link is some blog, not a legitimate reference.

The other two clearly state that the reason young Koreans want to leave Korea is for economic opportunities. It is not because of their perception of racism in Korea.

This should be deleted or moved to economic discussions in Korea, if need be.

I deleted it. This topic already has an own article and it has nothing to do with racism. --Christian140 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

AmericanExpat (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Brian Reynolds Myers

What does define when the thoughts of one person are relevant for a general topic? Brian Reynolds Myers is a journalist and I guess most researchers would disagree with his opinion. Saying that the sinking of Cheonan caused "relatively low outrage" sounds not well researched. Same goes for the other claims he make. --Christian140 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

While Myers is also a journalist, he is a professor of international studies (in essence, Korean studies) and publishes scholarly monographs and academic articles, especially on the topic of how race plays part in Korean politics. In that capacity, he is recognized as an authority (albeit yes, controversial in some circles). His publications are without a doubt reliable sources and as such I don't think we should presume that his work is "not well research", unless you can point out specific academic criticisms of his work. If you guess that "most researches" have come to differing conclusions, it should be easy to find reliable sources to back that up. The sinking of Cheonan has probably sparked many analyses, we should of course, report them with due weight. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, it should not be hard to find reliable source to back that up. When I remember correctly, after the sinking of Cheonan, most entertainment programs (variety shows) on TV and all music programs stopped for two weeks. I found only allkpop sources now [1], [2], but there should be more on Google Scholar. --Christian140 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

He does not publish any scholarly articles or scholarly monographs as far as I can tell. He publishes op ed pieces. That is not journalism. He publishes books. That is also not articles in peer reviewed publications. Could you point out where he is cited in a peer reviewed article or even another academic's book or when he was invited to an academic conference on Korea? Similarly, I cannot find any criticism of his work. I take it to mean that his books and publications are simply not worthy of note.

The article quoted is an op ed. Anyone can write an op ed and I have been similarly published in the NYT myself. Does that mean his opinion or my opinion is true? The quote that Koreans consider themselves the least evil of all people does not have any citation. It is simply a one line note from his OPINION editorial.

Then the following statement regarding calling foreigners filthy and clean does not follow logic as the sentence suggest with the "as a result." How does perceiving themselves least evil, even if true, equate to considering others filthy? Bad writing overall. AmericanExpat (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Myers' monographs include The Cleanest Race (New York: Melville House, 2010), North Korea's Juche Myth (Busan: Sthele Press, 2015) and Han Sorya and North Korean Literature (Ithaca: Cornell East Asia Series, 1994) – whether or not the first two are "scholarly" is up to your discretion. These are some of the peer reviewed articles by Myers: "Mother Russia" (1992) Korean Studies 16; "The Watershed that Wasn't" (2006) Acta Koreana 9 (1); "Ideology as Smokesecreen" (2008) Acta Koreana 11 (3); "The Personality Cult of Kim Jong Un" (2013) Journal of Peace and Unification 3 (2); "Western Academia and the Word Juche" (2014) Pacific Affairs 87 (4). For who cites Myers and where – these do include citations in peer reviewed journals – I suggest taking a look at Google Scholar's citations feature for details. Per WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" – significant opinions like this are of course called for by WP:YESPOV. I didn't write the section in this article so I can't comment on what is it trying to say. My concern here is simply: is B.R. Myers a reliable source and can he be used as a source in this article now or in the future; the answer is yes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance on the academic term "monograph."

But I disagree. If you look up the journals in which he's published, the impact factors are all zero. His books were published not by an academic press, but by a small independent publisher specializing mostly in fiction. One was even self-published. His most noted one on North Korea was nearly unanimously panned by academics. You can see it on the book's Wikipedia page.

He has never had a fellowship or any other honor.

Most important, he is an academic on North Korea, specifically North Korean literature, not Korean History, Politics or Economy. That does not give him authority on North Korean politics, let alone South Korea's.

There was genuine disagreement among the public whether North Korea caused the sinking. Largely, the public was skeptical that NK would be so bold. The split was among old and young, as Myers pointed out. But it wasn't because the older generation did not fear going off to war. It was because conservatism generally increases with age. If you read upon literature around that time, you will see that the split was between conservatives and the more communist-embracing liberals. After the Yeonpyeong shelling, however, 80% of the public agreed that NK sank the warship (polling conducted by Hankook Research). It really had very little to do with believing "Koreans are the least inclined to evil." South Koreans, like their counterparts in Vietnam and Cambodia, have seen North Koreans commit evil. That is a rather jackass statement.

And I still don't understand why his op ed in the NYT is given any weight here as though it were factual. If he believes it, then let it go under controversial findings on his page, per Wikipedia guidelines. I am just concentrating on the introduction at the present. but I don't even understand why this "provenance of racism" section is here at all. Is Wikipedia some kind of thesis paper presenting various academic views? Should I dig up "academic research" disputing the existence of racism in South Korea and rebut Myers or maybe how Westerners misperceive cultural differences as racism? What exactly is the purpose of this passage? Does racism exist in SK? If yes, enumerate significant events. Otherwise, it shouldn't come on this page.

I even disagree that the sinking should be mentioned at all. It is a significant geopolitical event in Korea. It is not a racial matter regardless of what this one errant literature professor believes.

I propose deletion of this entire section.

AmericanExpat (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why was the article moved?

Was there any consensus for moving the article? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's moved back. All is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction Overhauled

I cleaned up the introduction section to omit all inflammatory language, opinions and unsubstantiated claims. Most of them were ridiculous generalizations and the citations detailed in the body as cases. But if any were deserving of mention, they should be added in the body of the article as separate incidents.

I rewrote the segment on the absence of discrimination law in SK and omitted the mention of UN because it has its separate section at the end. The US bit has been deleted because it was not true.

But I don't think I have all my citations correctly formatted. If someone can lend a hand there, that'd be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanExpat (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanExpat (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

AmericanExpat (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When making huge removals of cited content that has been included with the support of consensus, you should make proposals on the article talk page, and gain consensus for your edits. It's rather suspicious that you made an account, just after a sock account was blocked for editing this article, you are making exactly the same edits and have already had claims of sock puppetry placed on your user page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I made proposals. It's not my problem if you can't be bothered to read through and respond. I am going to remove all of the opinons, inflammatory language and bad citations. If we both have to be blocked, that is fine. There is a request for an admin on this page and I hope there will be an oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanExpat (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a time limit to respond? Are you assuming that all editors involved are online 24/7, just waiting to see if someone posts here? You require consensus to make your changes, if that means you have to wait, then so be it. The fact that you are willing to get blocked just to force your edits on Wikipedia, says a lot about your total lack of respect for this article, the editors involved and the entire Wikipedia project. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not require a literal consensus. This article as it stood deserves no respect. It completely flouts all quality standards of Wikipedia. It is apparent that some of you have some sort of personal grievance with the country. I can't imagine why as I found it so welcoming and friendly. Your personal grievances cannot be directed as biases and inflammatory opinions on what is supposed to be a factual reference.

I have noticed that there has been at least one AfD proposal and it was rejected "with consensus" with the reasoning that the article should be just cleaned up if that's what is required. It appears some of you are intent on using "consensus" as an excuse to block necessary editing. It will not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanExpat (talk • contribs) 07:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but consensus is how Wikipedia works. I suggest that you contact Jimbo Wales and explain that in certain cases when you don't like article content, you should be able to bypass all rules and regulations regarding consensus, that have been established by 1000s of editors over the past decade or so. I'm sure he'll agree. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

proposed revert to the stable (ie. pre-edit war) version

I propose that the article is reverted to the more stable and consensus backed version, that we had before the minor edit war. ie. this version [[3]]

I know that in the eyes of some, this version is not perfect. (personally, I don't have major issues with that version) but at least it will give us some stability, while we discuss proposed changes on this talk page.

This can be dealt with a lot more easily with discussion, than with huge changes based on "I don't like that version, it's not fair" that result in edit-wars and editors being blocked from editing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Claim in lead and body about US expressing concern

Noticed the comments by AmericanExpat about the claim in the lead and the body about the US expressing concerns. That seems to be backed up only by this source. I'm scratching my head on this one as to how that source could support that statement or the one in the body about a report from the US Department of Education. Nothing in that source supports either of those claims - just because it's on a .gov domain doesn't mean it's from the government. I think both should be removed unless far better sources are found. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the lead, and the associated ref. I expanded on the content about the UN concerns, and gave an extra source for that content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank ya! Ravensfire (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of Weblogs

As stated also in the description. I removed all the WP:BLOGS as sources. They are completely unreliable. Especially The Korea Observer is just a personal webblog with very biased opinions and should not be mixed up with the scientific journal Korea Observer. Moreover, how is this incident of any relevance for business discrimination? A single incident by one person cannot be representative for one country. Even news articles should only be in articles to new topics because scientific sources cannot be found to recent incidents. This is a general topic and should only allow reliable sources instead of news articles about single incidents that happen anywhere. Not to mention these webblogs.

I am refering to this revision by Spacecowboy420 who is only allowing his biased opinion. --Christian140 (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• A third opinion was requested on this dispute. However, I'm afraid I have to decline the request, because at the moment no discussion has taken place on the talk page, and indeed there doesn't seem to be a particularly intense dispute: only one revert in four days. If a discussion does happen and consensus is not reached, then feel free to post again. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think The Korean Observer is a webblog, however I added sources from New York Daily News, The Korea Times, and The Chosun Ilbo.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a blog aimed at foreigners in Korea with a really bad reputation: http://www.koreaobserver.com/tag/k-blog-awards/. Moreover, it is still not relevant. It is like a knife attack in your hometown with a half injured person. Only because media report it does not make it encyclopedic relevant. Moreover, the signs were there not even half a week, the owner apologized, told that it was due to his lacking English skills, offered his death and gave out drinks not even a week after the signs first were shown there. Even citing this shows the irrelevance. --Christian140 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Christian140: Regarding the bias tag, exactly is the perceived bias here? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: If you have a look on this talk page, there are many claims made by another user and me. And if you have a look on Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea/Archive_1 you can clearly see that this article had been written by user with a total biased view and wanted to prove their point here. Like in the total irrelevant "event" just above, they simply left out the information that the owner apologized four days later and said it was due to bad English. And all the claims made in this article are not even valid. News articles are only valid for current events and some stated facts. However, they even used a clickbait article where an author stated the "8 countries most unfriendly to black people". This is completely biased and no scientific method is stated. And all what some users do is just adding more (invalid) sources. But what should be evaluated first is if this is even relevant. You cannot aggregate all "news" articles of the world on wikipedia. Your standards need to be higher if you think webblogs and biased articles listing countries by personal opinion are valid for a topic like this. There is also nothing about anti-racism campaigns and the public support for multi-cultural families. I can only conclude that this article is biased. --Christian140 (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian, just because you don't like the content, does not mean that it is not correct, notable and from a reliable source. We have consensus and stability, your continued reverts are becoming disruptive. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think you are the consensus? Moreover, it is not about right or wrong but about relevance. And this event is irrelevant. This article has been highly disputed in the past. I cannot see any consensus. And just for reference, AsianCorrespondent is also a webblog. And the article "8 of the Worst Countries For Black People to Travel" is not citable. It is an opinion peace by a "journalist" without the use of any empirical method. --Christian140 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The additions were not encyclopedic. That something happened at a bar is very anecdotal information, even if true, verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. This article should be about the state of things in general, not about individual incidents. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I too do not think that attention on a bar is worthy of inclusion here. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. I think the bar incident is highly relevant to the article, and I have put two new sources about the incident on the article. (as well as restoring the content) - this seems to be a case of someone not liking the content, not the content being inaccurate. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It is simply not notable mentioning it at all. How can your standards be so low? --Christian140 (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#Racism_in_South_Korea. Bottom line is that this article is way too focused on random news incidents, and does not draw on reliable, scholarly sources. It is a semi-organized collection of news/blog rants about racism in Korea. Half of those stories should probably be deleted as WP:NOTNEWS. This article could really use a major rewrite, I'd suggest doing so in a sandbox, maybe Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea/Sandbox. Start from scratch, based on what can be found on Google Scholar and Google Books. When the draft makes sense, then and only then see which of the news stories were more widely reported, and consider mentioning a few as examples to illustrate some content. Again, let me stress that news stories should be used as an extra illustrations, not as the primary source material for this article. I have written several articles about sensitive areas of South Korea, see for example Poverty in South Korea or Gender inequality in South Korea. Please note that the news stories there are used cautiosly, and blogs are pretty much absent. They are no places for case-studies sopping stories. What we need is statistics and scientific discourse, not journalism or worse, ranting and axe-grinding. PS. Here are some sources that should be READ by people who want to work on this article: the section in Ryuko Kubota; Angel M.Y. Lin (2 June 2009). Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice. Routledge. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-135-84569-8.; the entire chapter here Shin Gi Wook (1 November 2012). "Racist South Korea? Diverse but not tolerant of diversity". In Rotem Kowner; Walter Demel (eds.). Race and Racism in Modern East Asia: Western and Eastern Constructions. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-23729-1. {{cite book}}: Text "pages369" ignored (help), another chapter through focused on pre-Korean war aspects at Rotem Kowner; Walter Demel (23 April 2015). Race and Racism in Modern East Asia: Interactions, Nationalism, Gender and Lineage. BRILL. pp. 242–. ISBN 978-90-04-29293-2. , 1-2 pages at Uk Heo; Terence Roehrig (28 June 2010). South Korea Since 1980. Cambridge University Press. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-0-521-76116-1. . I don't have time to do a lit review on this, but this is the first step. For Google Scholar, see [4]. If anyone needs access to an paywalled article, or a book, well, I'd say message me, but seriously, just use Library Genesis first, those days it is more useful then an average university's library system. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Watch your tone please, Christian.

Of course it's notable, it's an perfect example of racism, that used the term "racism" from a reliable and verifiable source, on an article about racism. You complained about blogs, so I found other non-blog sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Another article clearly stated this "happening in the bar" is "racism in Korea". "Defining racism in Korea". The Korea Herald. September 4, 2014. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As other users stated here, the event itself is not notable. Not everything written on the internet is notable. I already made a lot of statements on the use of sources, when you can use news and when not. --Christian140 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777 and Spacecowboy420: That doesn't mean this is relevant to this article. WP:NOTNEWS. And while the following is only an essay, it is worthwile to consider it: Wikipedia:Too much detail. Essay or not, an article about "Racism in Foo-country" should not let itself be distracted by individual incidents, it is too high level for those. Of course, some incidents are important enough to warrant mention, for example it would be totally fine to discuss Montgomery bus boycott in the article on US racism. But not every story about racism in the US, even if it made it to NYT or other high profile journals, would be worth mentioning there. And back on topic - this article on racism in Korea is full of such trivia stories. They need to be pruned down, and the bar story is only one of several that really have no place here. This article should not be a confused for a list of racism incidents in South Korea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Korea Herald article is clearly not WP:NOTNEWS but an analysis of racism in Korea.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Still, the event at the bar is just used as an anecdotical introduction while in this wikipedia article, it just lists it as an incident without further relation to the topic. The event itself is not notable while the aftermath and context can be. However, the wikipedia article here does it the other way round. --Christian140 (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Korea Herald is a newspaper. It publishes news. Now, this article is not bad, but don't miss the forest for the trees. It is good because it provides some analysis of the racism in SK, and that is what we should take from it. The bar incident is minor and by itself, not encyclopedic. We could cite the KH article for statistics, scholarly theories, etc., but the bar incident is trivial. I am not saying it should not be mentioned under any circumstances, but we should focus on writing an informative, neutral, scholarly article, not gossiply once focused on trivial stories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian140, your comment "I already made a lot of statements on the use of sources, when you can use news and when not" is rather interesting. Do you have some authority about what is and isn't allowed on Wikipedia? Does that fact that you have about 900 edits on Wikipedia make you an expert on what news sources are suitable?

But yes, I do agree a little. Perhaps, a "notable incidents" section would be best, for this content, rather than as part of the article lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can find much more info on WP:Sources and other pages. What I stated is a typical scientific approach. Moreover, have a look on Piotr Koniecznys comments. Btw: I have more than 22,000 edits on wikipedia and wrote more than 360 articles. Thanks for bringing up this "relevant" issue. --Christian140 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

22.000 edits? English Wikipedia is only 902.[5] You are Novice Editor on English Wikipedia.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, both of you, with discussion of how many edits someone has etc. Chest beating not permitted here. We are all editors here, and each are equally valued even if it is your very first edit. That's how Wikipedia GOT here. Enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when someone comes in as if they own the place, stating "I already made a lot of statements on the use of sources, when you can use news and when not" & "How can your standards be so low?", I will comment as to their qualifications to make such comments. I've always tried to step back and listen to those with superior experience to myself when editing, however I won't listen to arrogant comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NPA does not permit you to respond in kind when someone comments on you and not content. There is no valid justification. There's a case before ArbCom right now over an editor who typically responds harshly towards people who are harsh to him. This kind of thing just isn't accepted. Don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There is a Third Opinion request. While two editors have done most of the interacting, there have been at least four editors involved. I am closing the Third Opinion request. The two principal editors should pay attention to the outsiders. The dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments may be next steps. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Problems with citations

The first sentence of the lead states "Racism in South Korea is widespread and overt in nature, stemming from the country's commonly held belief that Koreans are a "pure-blooded race" that have been homogeneous throughout history". It is sources to [6], [7] and [8]. First ref, while reliable (academic book review) does not even mention the word racism. Second and third articles are newspaper articles, which, first, do not mention the word racism and second, even if they did, would be problematic for such a strong sentence in the lead.

Second sentence reads "South Korean racism comes in a variety of different forms, such as nationalistic xenophobia, ethnic prejudices, and discrimination against persons on the basis of their skin color and ancestry". The reference is another decent newspaper article ([9]) that once again does not mention the word racism. Now, the ref even comes with a quote: "Although the country is rich, well-educated, peaceful and ethnically homogenous – all trends that appear to coincide with racial tolerance – more than one in three South Koreans said they do not want a neighbor of a different race. This may have to do with Korea's particular view of its own racial-national identity as unique – studied by scholars such as B.R. Myers – and with the influx of Southeast Asian neighbors and the nation's long-held tensions with Japan". Note the absence of words such as nationalism, xenophobia or prejudice.

So, in essence, the first paragraph of the lead is not only totally unsubstantiated despite making strong claims, it contains fake references - ones that fail W:V.

Second paragraph starts with an unreferenced sentence "Racism permeates many levels of South Korean society, from education to employment." Let's say it is a summary sentence and move on.

Next sentence is "Children born to South Korean mothers and American fathers often are mistreated by students at schools". It has two references. [10], while reliable (academic), seems not to mention words such as student or child, and therefore, while related to the article, is invalid for the claim. The second ref is a bit better ([11]). It is academic and briefly discusses some harassment of mixed-ethnicity students. But there are problems. The paper is not published in a peer-reviewed work, it appears pretty much self-published. It contains one interview with a American father whose daughter was harassed at school, this is a singular case and even the paper notes it is difficult to generalize it - through the author "is familiar" with other similar stories. This is bad research (no wonder it is unpublished). It does contain a cite to a newspaper ([12]) that could probably be used as a much better, on-topic reference for a related sentence that should, however, not focus on "Children born to South Korean mothers and American fathers". I am relatively sure that children born to South Korean mothers and German or Chinese fathers, or American mothers and Korean fathers, would face the same issues.

Next sentence (well, second part of the compound sentence, but that's not relevant) reads: "and black American expatriates often are denied employment due to the color of their skin." and is sourced to a Korean news article [13]. As far as I can make it out from the Google translation, it is about some foreigner (I don't see words black or American, but there is something about Indian) who either was abused verbally on the bus, or by police officers, or both. Nothing seems to justify the sentence.

Next sentence reads "The discrimination even extends to North Koreans living in South Korea, who are often mistreated at schools and denied employment due to their being from North Korea". Let's put aside the question of whether discrimination against North Koreans is racism, which I find dubious (discrimination =/= racism). All refs are newspaper. [14] first ref only states that North Koreans "re struggling to join mainstream South Korean society", it does not say why, so it fails to support the claim here. [15] second ref is fine, discusses discrimination against NKs in SK at workplace. [16] this one does mention harassment of NK in SK schools, so overall ref 2 and 3 do make this the first properly referenced claim in this article.

Next sentence "Lee Chung-sung, a South Korean soccer player from Japan even renounced his South Korean citizenship after being called a racist slur by a South Korean newspaper". It can be confirmed on the second page of the newspaper report ([17]), but seems WP:UNDUE in the lead (newsy, gossipy story).

Moving on: "People in South Korea who experience racism are often helpless to do anything about it, due to its being legal under South Korean law", ref to [18], another Korean language ref. Google Translate fails badly, but there does seem to be something in the article about no legal grounds to punish... something related to discrimination. Again, this is a very strong claim and we need a more reliable and accessible source. A bit of my own research ([19], [20]) suggest that what SK is lacking is anti-discrimination law. Again, discrimination and racism are not the same things, but at the very least the correct terminology should be used.

Next: "Sometimes, when racist abuse is reported to police, the police themselves even engage in racism". Let's note the WP:WEASEL word "sometimes". First ref is the Korean article mentioned earlier ([21]) - guess I was right about it having something to do with police being racist. The next two articles are similar - Korean news articles that seem to mention some incidents by the police: [22], [23]. The big problem here is that the sentence is an improper WP:SYNTHESIS - using three news reports to claim that something happens "sometimes". That's bad wiki style. We need a source that states something happens "sometimes", we cannot do original research and synthesize such reports into our own conclusions.

Almost over: "It took until 2011 for the South Korean government to formally take any official action against racism in the country, the first time it has done so in its history.". It is, unfortunately, another Korean language ref ([24]). I cannot make out much of GTranslate here, and I cannot find an English ref that would confirm this, so I am calling it dubious, particularly in light of numerous errors and misrepresentation of prior sources here.

The leads end with "The nature of racism in South Korea has led to the United Nations expressing concern over the matter. The United Nation's top expert on racism outlined "racist and xenophobic verbal and physical abuse" and that "many are afraid to report domestic violence for fear of losing their residence permit"". The first ref is already discussed self-published academic paper at [25] and seems to have no relevant mention of UN. [26] and [27] are fortunately on topic and contain the quote cited.

Uff, I just spend an hour reviewing the lead and it is very discouraging. The refs cited do not support the text, whether this is intentional vandalism or poor editing / writing skills I am not prepared to say. The structure and the tone are poor too: the lead cites not a single statistic, but uses at least one weasel word.

A few months ago I voted keep during an AfD. This time I am increasingly leaning to renomination it at which point I'll endorse WP:TNT. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch, using reliable, academic sources. Most of the current content seems not only based on low-quality news, but has major problems with failed WP:V, and occasional problems with WP:OR (synthesis). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy review. That must have been a lot of effort. I strongly support WP:TNT. An article like this needs to stand on scientific sources and preferably international statistics. --Christian140 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw you already provided some literature. I also could collect academic literature and also provide my findings here on the talk page or on Talk:Racism in South Korea/Sandbox/Racism in South Korea/Literature but unfortunately, I currently have no time to draft such a demanding article. --Christian140 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Before you go ahead and create a new article, I suggest you gain consensus for such a drastic move, otherwise it is likely to be reverted backed to the previous stable version of the article, as per BRD Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single "stable version" of this article. Of course, when replacing the current form of the article with another version based on scientific resources, it is an improvement and a revert back to this version could only be considered as vandalism. --Christian140 (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As per BRD, we revert to the "last previous stable version" and no, it wouldn't be considered to be vandalism, it would be a content dispute. But, considering that you are an experienced editor, I don't have to tell you that... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you to inform yourself about WP:Consensus and WP:STABLE. "Identification of stable versions of articles is a process by which particular versions of Wikipedia articles are identified as accurate and reliable." Such a version does not exist of this article. Not even the very first version. You further should try to get more constructive and might bring arguments instead. --Christian140 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet again, you still require consensus for your changes. The only thing that is constant, is the requirement for consensus. Actually, I consider the current state of the article (that was formed by consensus) to be the last stable version] Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, stable or unstable does not matter if the article is a pile of garbage, and let's face it - this article, if not garbage, is very low quality. Please see WP:TNT. It is a disservice to the readers, and can only be used a a poor draft from which a few refs and facts can be salvaged. 80% of it or so needs to go. I looked at the first version of it from 2010, and was about as bad - mostly based on newspapers with few anecdotes. At best, this is equivalent to a D-grade student paper. We need to and can do better, and it would be a lot of easier to start from scratch then to try to salvage this mess. I provided quality sources below. I'd strongly suggest that instead of fighting over a revision or two interested editors start drafting a proper article using academic sources instead of trivial news in the sandbox. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

First, muchas gracias to Piotrus for breaking down the issues so clearly. Per the arguments that have already been made (that I won't rehash), I agree that this article should be WP:TNTed. I tried to attract attention from more editors at WP:NPOVN, but doesn't seem like there's been any more action here since I made that post. I'm not sure what is the best way to get more input, RFC or AFD? Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 05:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd hope that we can create a workable stub or start article, few hundred words long, that does away with the newsy trivia and provides a brief overview of statistics and research. Then we can replace this article and see what happens. If there is no reverting, we can move on. If however someone will try to defend the old version, then we can consider AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-write draft

Thoughts on this as a start...?

Racism in South Korea, most commonly seen towards immigrants from other Asian countries and Africa, has been recognized, particularly by the South Korean media, as a widespread social problem. An increase in immigration to South Korea since the 2000s triggered more overt expressions of racism as well as criticism against it. Newspapers have frequently reported on and criticized discrimination against immigrants in forms such as being paid lower than minimum wage or having their wages withheld, unsafe work conditions, and general denigration. In a 2010-2014 World Value Survey, 40% of South Koreans reported they would not want a foreigner as a neighbor. Journalists also point out a double-standard where white European and American immigrants often receive overly kind treatment. In response, legislation has been passed since the early 2000s to prevent racism and protect the rights of immigrant employees and students. The government has also initiated programs to discourage racism and discrimination.

References

If other people can't access the sources, LMK and I'll paste some quotes. Please ping me or I might not notice it in my watchlist. Here are some other academic sources that seem relevant (and use the word racism):

• Kang, Soon-Won (2010), "Multicultural education and the rights to education of migrant children in South Korea", Educational Review, 62 (3): 287–300, doi:10.1080/00131911.2010.503599
• Kim, Hyun-Sil (2010), "Social Integration and Heath Policy Issues for International Marriage Migrant Women in South Korea", Public Health Nursing, 27 (6): 561–570, doi:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2010.00883.x, PMID 21087310

—PermStrump(talk) 07:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems very good. Additionally, the 2010-2014 World Value Survey can also be retrieved online on their website: [28] Codebook -> [WV6_Results_v_2015_04_18.pdf]. Among several question they asked for "People of a different race" (P. 68; South Korea: 34.1%) and "Immigrants/Foreign workers" (P. 72; South Korea 44.2%). So, original sourcing is possible. --Christian140 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: More good sources are, courtesy of Christian, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#Literature. I'd suggest the following restructuring for clarity and focus. I have essentially re-ordered some sentences and added one cite request, as well as some blue links. I could check the sources for venerability, but perhaps you'd be so kind as to make it easier for everyone by adding more |quote parameter to all sources? For the WVS data, it would be good to place it on a scale - something like comparing this response to OECD average, or such (is 40% good or bad? We imply it is bad, but without a benchmark it is just a number). Finally, from the quote of the third source and the title of the first, I expect we can add a sentence on nationalism or sources of racism in general (this reliable magazine cites a scholar who attributes it to "century-old nationalism and much older xenophobia"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Racism in South Korea has been recognized, particularly by the South Korean media, as a widespread social problem. An increase in immigration to South Korea since the 2000s triggered more overt expressions of racism as well as criticism of those expressions. Newspapers have frequently reported on and criticized discrimination against immigrants in forms such as being paid lower than minimum wage or having their wages withheld, unsafe work conditions, physical abuse and general denigration. In a 2010-2014 World Value Survey, 40% of South Koreans reported they would not want a foreigner as a neighbor. Racism attitudes are more commonly expressed towards immigrants from other Asian countries and Africa, and less so towards white European and American immigrants who can occasionally receive what has been described as "overly kind treatment". In response, legislation has been passed since the early 2000s to prevent racism and protect the rights of immigrant employees and students. The government has also initiated programs to discourage racism and discrimination.

References

@Permstrump: Update: I have checked the refs. All but the last sentence facts in the lead are properly represented in the cited sources. I have merged two sentences that described attitudes to different types of immigrants. However, I had trouble verifying claims for the last sentences about government legislation. The first article mentions Foreign Workers’Employment Act (2004) and Support for Multicultural Families (2008), and states "The Korean government has changed its immigration policies to open possibilities for qualified foreign workers to acquire Korean citizenship and to add protective measures for women marriage immigrants" and "Korean government’s policies have evolved to offer the protection of immigrants’ human rights and labour rights and to expand opportunities for longer-term and lawful stays in Korean society" I don't see anything about legislation or programs to "to prevent racism" or about protecting students, nor "to discourage racism and discrimination" in those sources; so far the best I see is the support protecting the human and labor rights of immigrant employees. I'd rewrite that sentence as follows: "Recent legislation, in particular Foreign Workers’Employment Act (2004) and Support for Multicultural Families (2008), have improved the situation of immigrants, more efficiently protecting their human and labor rights." Further, we can add the following: "In 2011 Korean military abandoned a regulation that barred mixed-race men from enlisting, and changed the oath of enlistement from referencing racial purity (minjok) to citizenship. Similarly, related concepts have been withdrawn from school curriculum. This has been accredited in part to international pressure, in particular concern from UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which stated that "persistent ethnic-centric thinking in South Korea 'might be an obstacle to the realization of equal treatment and respect for foreigners and people belonging to different races and cultures'." Another relevant sentence supported by that source would be "Related discrimination have also been reported with regards to mixed-race children, Chinese Korean and North Korean immigrants." Finally, the third ref mentions something we have discussed above, allowing for the following sentence: "South Korea is still missing an anti-discrimination law, something that has been recommended by UN Human Rights Committee in 2015. The law has been reported stalled due to "lack of public consensus". " Here is my slightly expanded lead, or frankly, replacement for the article we can build on with proper sources (instead of the unreliable news). I also think that we exhausted usable content from the three sources cited; for others I recommend Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#Literature because the poor quality stuff used in this article as sources (news) is difficult to rescue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Racism in South Korea has been recognized, particularly by the South Korean media, as a widespread social problem. An increase in immigration to South Korea since the 2000s triggered more overt expressions of racism as well as criticism of those expressions. Newspapers have frequently reported on and criticized discrimination against immigrants in forms such as being paid lower than minimum wage or having their wages withheld, unsafe work conditions, physical abuse and general denigration. In a 2010-2014 World Value Survey, 40% of South Koreans reported they would not want a foreigner as a neighbor. Racism attitudes are more commonly expressed towards immigrants from other Asian countries and Africa, and less so towards white European and American immigrants who can occasionally receive what has been described as "overly kind treatment". Related discrimination have also been reported with regards to mixed-race children, Chinese Korean and North Korean immigrants. Recent legislation, in particular Foreign Workers’Employment Act (2004) and Support for Multicultural Families (2008), have improved the situation of immigrants, more efficiently protecting their human and labor rights. In 2011 Korean military abandoned a regulation that barred mixed-race men from enlisting, and changed the oath of enlistement from referencing racial purity (minjok) to citizenship. Similarly, related concepts have been withdrawn from school curriculum. This has been accredited in part to international pressure, in particular concern from UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which stated that "persistent ethnic-centric thinking in South Korea 'might be an obstacle to the realization of equal treatment and respect for foreigners and people belonging to different races and cultures'. "South Korea is still missing an anti-discrimination law, something that has been recommended by UN Human Rights Committee in 2015. The law has been reported stalled due to "lack of public consensus".

It seems that the new draft is stable. Anyone interested in the old revision, from which maybe, just maybe, a few sentences could be salvaged, can look at [29]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Korea Exposé at RSN

I started the discussion about Korea Exposé at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Korea Exposé. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

One editor said something about the source. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the source is not only unreliable but also trivial. It is a single case that is not generally applicable. --Christian140 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the easy solution is to find another source that does not have its reliability questioned and more instances of people being denied service. I will take a look and see what I can find. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That was easy. Perhaps it would be better for editors to look for alternative sources rather than just deleting content, in the future. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Cobbling together a bunch of cherry-picked incidents is, indeed, easy. That does not, however, support the claim that being denied service is "common" in the country. You could make that claim about any country on the planet if the only standard of proof is a handful of examples. 50.30.144.52 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments or in taxis."

Neither the claim that this is result of a missing anti-discrimination law nor the claim that this is common is backed by the sources. For this, studies are needed and not some collection of incidents. This happens everywhere in the world and Korea's taxi problem is a whole different isssue by which everyone is affected. Korea Observer is only a webblog that is not active anymore. You have no consensus at all for inclusion. --Christian140 (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of statement

Should the sentence "As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments or in taxis." be included in the article? --Christian140 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is whether the statement is even correct, the validity of the sources for such an academic topic.

As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments or in taxis.

References

Survey

Support for inclusion of said sentence, Oppose for exclusion.

Threaded discussion

Problems with sources: Korea Observer is an inactive web blog, presenting their 2014 blogging awards at the top of the page, and therefore not suitable. Moreover, the article is quite biased. While stating that foreigners are denied service by taxis in Korea, it omits that people, regardless of nationality are denied service and that this is a complex issue often presented in Korean media and discussed in politics. Also, the disputed sentence claims that the texi denial stems from a missing anti-discrimination law by it's introductory words "As a result, it is common". This is not supported by the article, nor has it anything to do with the anti-discrimination law, since the denial of passengers is illegal and everyone can report these issues, as mentioned at the end of the article. The Korea Herald and The Diplomat article are very similar since The Diplomat reports about the prviously Korea Herald article. The disputed sentence says, is was common for people to be denied service, but this is not supported by the sources. Instead, some single incidents are listed from which is cannot be deducted that it is common. Instead, they identified 8 establishments over the course of 1 year in a metropolis of 25 million where are more than countless bars and clubs in Hongdae, Itaewon, and Gangnam. Moreover, issues regarding clubs belong in the specific articles since they are a special issue everywhere in the world due to dressing codes etc. --Christian140 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

AGreed with Christian140. The "as a result" is original research of the cause-and-effect variety. The "common" claim is also OR, of the form "I found it mentioned in multiple news sites, ergo it must be happening a lot". Denying services to foreigners in particular might actually be uncommon, but a hot-button issue for a certain camp, thus mentioned in multiple sources due to their biases/audience. And, at least some of these do seem to indicate it's a general problem affecting locals, too, not just foreigners. And being foreign isn't a "race". And random self-published blogs are not reliable sources. And .... So, I would say: no, don't include it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question: should we quote http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160221000207 for “I know that a few clubs in Hongdae refuse to accept foreigners, especially American soldiers, based on their past experiences. They have suffered from the U.S. soldiers getting into brawls and creating a ruckus,” said Kim Jung-hyun, head of the Hongdae Tourism and Culture Association. “But it is not a matter of racism. It is up to business owners to determine who to let in.” ? Answer: yes, surely, we should. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't do extensive search on this matter, but far more reliable source from KBS: Kim, Yudae (2017-06-08). "[뉴스 따라잡기] "인도인 출입 금지"…이태원 인종차별 논란" [[Followup news]"No Indian"... Itaewon racism controversy] (in Korean). Korean Broadcasting System. Retrieved 28 November 2017.. Background info: Person with India passport was denied entry to a restaurant because of his racial status. Quotes below:

그런데 이태원 등지에선 이런 비슷한 경험을 했다는 외국인들을 쉽게 찾아볼 수 있었는데요.

But we can find quite a number of foreigner (revi's note: non-Korean) who had similar experiences.

특히 중동이나 동남아 국적을 가진 외국인들이 차별을 경험했다고 말하는 경우가 많았습니다.

Especially, people from Middle East or Southeast Asia tend to say they had experienced discrimination.

<인터뷰> 최향섭 (국민대 문화사회학 교수):“선진국에서는 인종차별 금지법이 존재하지만, 한국에서는 아직도 인종차별과 관련된 법안이 마련되어 있지가 않아요. 이것은 어떤 제도적인 대책이 분명히 있음을 의미하고 한국사회가 선진사회로 발돋움하기 위해서는 이런 제도적 장치가 필요하다고 생각합니다.”

<Interview> Hyangseop Choi (Kookmin Univ., professor, Culture and Society): "Developed countries have anti-discrimination law, but S. Korea does not have any sort of law regarding racism. This means we do have a sort of systemic measures, and we need kind of this systemic countermeasure for Korea to be an advanced culture.

I'm busy in real life and other stuff, so I'm not sure if I can help you further. If you need other stuff (i.e. translation), please ask me on my talk page. Hope this helps! — regards, Revi 17:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions, two

Why does Racism in Korea redirect to Racism in South Korea, and why is there no Racism in North Korea page? – Athaenara ✉ 12:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Athaenara: Why? See WP:BOLD. Racism in NK should be created and RiK should become a disambig. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Correcting and adding to a statement

In the overview section, it is stated that Europeans/ North American with white skin often experience preferential treatment. This is somewhat tone deaf as it does not take into account the sexual racism women of all races experience in Korea. White women are often asked if they are Russian (slang for "prostitute", you can find this under the wiki page Prostitution in South Korea) and approached by men. Foreign women also repeatedly experience sexual harassment and assault, domestic violence, and power abuses by the system. Their crimes are vastly underreported or mishandled without justice, and deserve to be acknowledged on this page. Please see the UN Gender Inequiality and Gender Gap statistics on South Korea, as well as other sources which can be found by doing some simple web browsing. Mzuccardo (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is another source from the OSAC, and I will try to find more. https://www.osac.gov/Country/SouthKorea/Content/Detail/Report/55d33eb7-21b6-4b2f-8ccb-18618d06536b Mzuccardo (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the lack of appropriate online curriculum for foreign students racist?

The Diplomat article is relevant to this article and has some other usable examples, but it doesn't clearly state that "Is the lack of appropriate online curriculum" for foreign student is racist, and frankly, I think such a claim seems like a stretch. I think this example should be removed as an OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing Quotation Mark

Grammatical Error: Add a quotation mark to the sentence ending in "not to protect refugees but to keep them out" just before the History section begins. Geographynerd101 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)