Talk:Anti-Korean sentiment in China/Archive 1

Archive 1

I wouldn't be so sure...

QUOTE: "the public view of North Koreans are normal" - I wouldn't be so sure. The state of North Korea is frequently ridiculed on television satire shows, on the internet as a part of Kuso culture, and mocked on online BBSes such as Mop, Baidu Tieba and Tianya (Tianya has such a reputation for Fenqing that it's commonly called the Chinese 2channel...), although I can't actually prove my point right now. Much of the "Pro-DPRK" display you see from the PRC government, on the other hand, is mostly rhetoric. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Satire Shows..USA have them and they often bring up Muslims and communist countries but apparently just for the jokes.Fengqing is kind of different because they hate almost everybody and often fight with each other. A bit different from what I'm seeing, most of Mainland Chinese view of NKoreans are more of towards feeling pity or sorry for them rather than hatred. There might be some hate towards the current NK regime but that's all. But like i said, it's rather minimum.--LLTimes (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The attitudes of Fenqing towards either North/South state is more or less of great similarity to the attitudes of Uyoku dantai. If UD attitudes towards North Korea can be considered Anti-Korean, why can't the FQ's be the same? And I'm pretty sure that there would be more Fenqing than Uyoku dantai in the world, and not even Uyoku dantai is considered as "minimum". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how 100,000 being the majority of 127 million people. You got rednecks in USA or KKK in morden time...but doesn't represent the majority but I get your points. --LLTimes (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anit South Korean

Most of the article here are between South Korea and China on cometemporary issues. Almost nothing about North Korea, so it's unfair to include them. The historical dispute between Korean states and PRC have mostly between CN and SK while Nk does participate to some extent but it certainly does not gather hate for North Koreans. As you can see almost 99% if not 100% are between Sk and CN on "comtemparory issues", whether Taiwan or ROC have anything to do with PRC's matter on this is questionalbe, at the main page (Anti-Korean Sentiments) there are still separate sections for China and Taiwan. I suggest put historic disputes like Koguryo (which no source have indicate any rascim towards North Korean after that, most if not all, Chinese media would said South Korea) on the main page and keep this article as between CN and SK only.--LLTimes (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have questions for you. Why didn't you title the article Anti-South Korean sentiment in the People's Republic of China? I don't see any mention about Republic of China (a.k.a Taiwan) while China currently refers to a "civilization", not "the state's name". Referring to PRC as "China" is a POV and not accurate in any stretch. If the article has "info from ROC", then we can move to "xx- sentiment in China". However, why did you label with the inconsistent application to the two subjects in the title? You mean "South Korean" is not "Korean"? In your logic, don't you think it would be fair to divide "people of the PRC" and "People of the ROC"? Or Anti-Korean sentiment of Chinese people would be very accurate given the article. Because this article include the Chinese mob's assault incident that occurred in Seoul, South Korea, not in the PRC. In light of the fact, "in China" is subjective and somewhat misleading. Moreover, the intro does not have any reference for the claim that North Korea and PRC have no animosity. However, it is a fact that North Korea and China have disputed stemming from the Chinese Northeast Project and UNESCO controversies. Moreover, a significant amount of North Korean kotjebi fled to the borderline of the PRC, and I read a new about the animosity of Chinese people there against the children. So well, even if the article is underdeveloped and the anti-sentiment against South Korea is strong, South Korea is part of Korea. Koreans from South Korea are commonly referred to as "Korean", not "South Korean", so I think the title is a second best after "Anti-Korean sentiment of Chinese people".--Caspian blue 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there aren't any strong sentiments against North Korean, what you mention was just short and small cases which does not automatically equal to Racism (btw people who live along the NK borders are actually Joseonjoks). North Korea and South Korea are two different states/country but yes they both are Korean State and on KP. Follow your logic then should ROC, another Chinese state be responsible for "any" actions of PRCs and Racism that people of PRC have. ROC's citizen sentiments towards South Korean or even NK are minimum and unnoticeable among "majority of population". Changing to Chinese people wouldn't be reverent due to large oversea Chinese who had nothing to do with PRC's citizen's action or any hatred towards South Korean. You're right making it just China isn't reverent so changing to Anti-South Korean sentiments in People's Republic of China would be okay(tho title would be a bit long).--LLTimes (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You failed to PROVE your claim. You also have not answered to my questions; why did you name the POV title as "in China" instead of "of Chinese people" or "in the People's Republic of China" since you want to be extraordinary "accurate" (only in "your view" so far) about "South Korea". Overseas Chinese in South Korea have something to do with the article because such content is already addressed by you or others who edited Anti-Korean sentiment. Now please answer me.--Caspian blue 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't I title "in China"? I did and it was a mistake on my part. I have the wrong impression of China = to PRC. Sorry. --LLTimes (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to get more input from other people. --Caspian blue 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Goguryeo issue in 2002 was the incident that started it all (which involved the two Koreas). Issues such as North Korean women being enslaved by Chinese traffikers exacerbate the situation for both sides. Concerning the ROC, the Taiwanese pretty much takes up whatever fabricated stories the Chinese media makes up about Korea that day. Taiwanese "news" reporting that Koreans are claiming to have built the great wall of China, Confucius was Korean, and my favorite; that Mao Zedong was Korean (please). As far as I'm concerned the Taiwanese are not any different from their mainland brothers, and thus why the current title is more appropriate. --Akkies (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because the media is inciting, automatically means Taiwanese are racist to Koreans? it should be the other way around, Koreans hating ROC. No. Singapore's media also wrongly portrays PRC, Malaysia, and South Korea with wrong information. We called that failed journalism. Let say there are about 1000 Taiwanese who look down on Korean but doesn't make the whole population racist towards SK and besides, the hate towards south korea are more apparent in PRC than in ROC. The article about NK women being trafficked are similar to any other trafficked other wise it wouldn't be illegal wouldn't it? and the article does not mention any racism towards NK by PRC citizens as a result of these trafficking. --LLTimes (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

LLTimes, I personally believe that the current name is good as-is. First off, simplicity is more preferable to a long and difficult to read title. "Anti-Korean sentiment in China" pretty much sums it up enough without needing any more detail, as does Anti-Japanese sentiment in China (no need for a "PRC", even though the majority of detail deals with the PRC). There is no point going into unnecessary detail when something more simple will suffice (otherwise, we may as well name this article as Incidental cases of discriminatory behaviour displayed towards the Republic of Korea by individuals within the People's Republic of China... see what I mean? Simple is best.) Also, there is no concrete proof that all cases of Anti-Korean sentiment is politically motivated, nor racially motivated, and even if it is the truth, you're going to need a WP:RS to prove it, which I don't see as present right now. Let's keep the states of North Korea and South Korea out of this, and just leave it at Korea, as we cannot say that politics is the only reason for this, as well as for simplicity's sake. All in all, I say just keep the title like it is right now. As for the discrimination against North Korean refugees, I'm sure we could find some WP:RS and incorporate several paragraphs into the article to balance out between North and South if that is where the problem lies. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a still a bit uneasy to agree with what you said since Caspian blue here accused me of POV? What i did was just following the examples on the Anti-Korean sentiment where China and Taiwan are seem different and nobody did anything including him. What i said was a fact and that North Korea and South Korea are both different state, The term Korea was often used as a geographic term to describe the region as a whole but politically speaking, media tends to differentiate the two (No one would regard the troubles made by NK as Korea right?). Nevertheless, I will be on stand by and let other made their opinion but so far it's decent. --LLTimes (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article is cluttered to the extent that we should split it in two. Also, with consideration that exacerbating sentiments between the two cultures may possibly be primarily caused by nationalism, and with consideration that Korean Nationalism is dominant in both North and South Koreas, use of the concept Korea, defined as a single nation, may have more salience to the topic than the Koreas defined as states. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. The article is neither too long nor messy, and so we shouldn't have to split it in two. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Gando Problem

Need to get sources of Chinese reaction at that actually relates to anti-Korean sentiment in China. The section doesn't explain anything. The whole article is incredibly lax at what is considered anti-Korean sentiment, often citing whatever beef China has with Korea that day. Ridiculous. Akkies (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gando Problem does have its effects on nationalism and it is something similar to Dokdo Island disputed, pitting Japanese and Korean nationalist against each other's throat, nevertheless it haven't reach that extreme. The section is relatively short, there needs to be some more inputs or else it can merge with other section. --LLTimes (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

sources

most links of references are obsolete in the article. Also the article may rely too much on the korean news sources, which might also be be an example of biases rather than a reliable source of encyclopedia. Are there any English sources that can be accessed and verified by most users in the English wikipedia? --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find reliable sources on China-Japan-Korea issues in English, especially for many things that are generally unheard of in the rest of the world. Most sources tend to be news reports in Chinese, Japanese or Korean, and a few academic journals in English. In many cases, even foreign-language reliable sources are hard to find, as most things related to the nationalism of netizens online are only documented in forums and blogs, which are not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Although, by all means add them to the article if you do find any English-language sources. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, as per WP:NONENG: "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Foreign-language sources are permitted on the English Wikipedia, although English sources are preferred, however in our case, it is very difficult to obtain said sources in English, so our only alternative is to use sources in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New problem

To Kuebie, Seems that you can read Chinese when you cut out lines without hesitation, so please read these lines in the source

"韩国网民看到这些报道后，有人表示“没想到”、“真是不小的冲击”。还有网友由此赞叹 “我们的民族真是一个有伟大胸襟的民族”、“看来两国的历史应该重写了”。也有人表示“这本来就没什么奇怪的”、“明朝本来就是高丽人建立的”。

　　最后，韩国媒体评论称，至今为止，中韩两国学者对于“朱元璋是不是高丽人”还没有得出一个清晰的结论，今后关于朱元璋的身世之谜在两国史学界还将展开更加激烈的争论。"

--LLTimes (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Which you've used to cite this sentence: The reaction has been mixed with some Korean netizen proposing a revision in both country's history while a confused reaction from Chinese's side. That does not relate to Anti-Korean sentiment in China. At all. Akkies (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have used the wrong wording but the last few lines incates rather heated debates which is another word for...reactions that are similar to Goguryeo controversies , the "Chinese" news paper isn't going to use alot of Chinese's netizen response as it's mostly negative with some even using racial slurs [1] [2]. However, the response from Korean netizen has been constant inciting comments.--LLTimes (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, netizen comments? Anything more substantial? Like say a rally or government response? (since you are liking it to the Goguryeo incident - which caused major media/civilian/government involvement and blacklash in Korea). And needless to say, I'm very critical of how or where the Chinese are getting their 'inciting' Korean netizen comments. Akkies (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kuebie, the Chinese government isn't going to do anything out of the line if it can be helped, for the sake of maintaining the status quo so that economic growth can remain unhindered, and most "rallies" and mass gatherings in general are dispersed very quickly by police, and rarely ever do occur as it is prohibited. Keep in mind that people do not gather and protest in China like they do in South Korea. The most people can complain about can generally only be done online. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

name

the article discusses the negative sentiments in the sino-korea relation rather than just anti-korean sentiment in china or anti-china sentiment in korea. I propose to move the article to a more accruate title such as Grievances in Sino-Korea relations or Sentiment in Sino-Korea relations. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am more reluctant to agree with you, I personally would prefer the status quo. Anti-Korean sentiment in China was broken off from a section in Anti-Korean sentiment some time ago after it became a bit too long. I was the original creator of Anti-Korean sentiment, and I based the article on the same format as the Anti-Japanese sentiment article. That article too had been subarticled in the past (Anti-Japanese sentiment in China, Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea), and a similar trend can be seen with Anti-Western sentiment in China. For the sake of continuity and tidiness, I'd prefer it if everything was universally matching. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

the article covers a controversial topic which wouldn't be meaningful if without mentioning the views of both countries. It will, and it is naturally getting to be about Sino-Korea disputes rather than sentiments in only a particular country. Actually, the sections such as Chinese diaspora and students and Continent series seem to be more relevant to the Anti-Chinese sentiment in Korea. If the title stayed unchanged, these sections should be moved to a new article to avoid duplication. But it will meanwhile weaken this article.

In the article Anti-Korean sentiment, Japan has similar issue with Korea and the new article is more accurately called Japan–Korea disputes instead of Anti-Korea sentiment in China. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an equivalent article called Sinophobia. You can be WP:BOLD and expand it. As for this article, I do not believe that it is centred on the disputes of the two countries; it is intended to cover anti-Koreanism amongst Chinese, and I intend it on being just that. Now, over a long period of time, many editors have contributed towards it, and although it may have started to move off-track, I do not intend on moving this article to one about bilateral disputes. If that calls for a cleanup, a deletion of all things off-topic, then I will do that, however this article will have its main focus on the one-way sentiments, as it once had been, and should be as of present.

Also, I believe you have misinterpreted those sections. Chinese diaspora and students and Continent series are meant to give examples, to demonstrate why there are Chinese netizens and Chinese people in general out there that dislike Korea. If you read the fine print, it goes along the lines of "Koreans did x, Chinese people become upset as a result." As for some sections, such as the Gando one, I reckon that it's complete rubbish at the moment, as it does not address Anti-Korean sentiment, but rather is turning the article into a China vs. Korea disputes type of article, which I do not desire. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchuria

What does "without acknowledging other natives of the region such as the Tungusic peoples" even mean exactly? As in what are you trying to convey? Also, China is the only one to have taken offense by the "lost territory" comment. Saying there were reactions from "both sides" is just wrong. Akkies (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the source didn't even mention one inch about Chinese nationalism but I've added since it's counter effect. Source however mostly mentioned, these kind of shows/ documentaries by (KBS) as well as other historic dramas depicting main character saying "Manchuria has always been a Korean territory", have given a rise/increase in Korean nationalism, with some extreme groups that want Korean government officially dispute Gangdo with China. KBS have mentioned "对我们来说，满洲已经是失去的国土了。但与失去的时间相比，我们与满洲一起度过的时间却更长", meaning Manchuria as a whole a lost territory, also translate as Korean being the only sole legitimate group to claim the region, thus "ignoring" other groups native to the region. which i include examples such as Tungusic. --LLTimes (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm except Manchuria was of Korean dominion. Do I really have to point this out? See Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Buyeo, and Balhae. These countries are no more, as in gone. Hence these lands are considered "lost" territories. It's not hard. Ethnic groups currently living or having been lived in it has nothing to do with it. Akkies (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be juvenile if the Chinese were upset about, you know, actual fact. So you're saying the Chinese aren't pissed off about it? Akkies (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that or whether or not Korean was the "dominant" power in the region, however truth is there are other groups in the region like Mohe and Tungus peoples which were under administration of Korean kings. What I'm truly arguing here is the effect of KBS's shows and other media that increases nationalist sentiments that is conflicting another nation's interest. I don't know whats the problem here?--LLTimes (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the "without acknowledging other natives of the region such as the Tungusic peoples" which has nothing to do with the historic borders of Korean kingdoms and brings in needless political baggage. Why would we even mention other ethnic groups when everything is pertaining to territories "lost" to China? Besides, aren't these ethnic groups currently living under Chinese domination? Akkies (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No it states that Korean are the only legitimate group that claim Manchuria, what about other ethnic group's territory that were occupied by Koreans?, but i'll removed it. --LLTimes (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OT: Kuebie, why have you removed my { {citationneeded}} tags? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Article header tags such as { {refimprove}} are only supposed to be used if the majority of the article is unsourced, or if there are no { {cn}} tags. Most statements in this article does have citations, and for those that don't, a { {cn}} will suffice. Do not add the { {refimprove}} tag. Mark unreferenced statements, so that they can be identified, and removed if no one is able to back them up. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Brother of Excrement", "Ddong-Po"

Take a look at this edit which I previously reverted - [3]. The sentence reads:

Many Chinese Nationals of Korean descent, known as Chaoxianzu/Joseonjok or highly offensively called Ddong-Po(똥포, Brother of Excrements), also suffer from discrimination.

I think a better way to put it is that offensive slurs are used on ethnic Koreans in China. The source here is also a bit troubling. It's a book called 醜陋的韓國人, a highly controversial book written by a Korean scholar in Japan which more or less criticises the whole Korean race. However, I have not read it so I hesitate to say that it is not credible. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Causality: political perspective.

We need to have more Chinese news/media source for this section. Current version of "Political perspective" is written from South Korean point of view and cites Korean media. And the second paragraph even cites 2008 article from Ohmynews, well before the 2010 US-South military drill.

2010 US-South military exercise took place after the sinking of South Korean vessel, Cheonan. Its goal was to deter the North's provocation and was not aimed at making Chinese people alarmed. (I know this makes no difference to Chinese government which doesn't allow U.S. carrier to enter Yellow sea. But after U.N. security council failed to reach an agreement on the North's act of war, it was one of few options left for Seoul and Washington.) If the military exercise made Chinese people more anti-South, as it is expected, then there must be Chinese reactions/reports on it.

In short, this section needs to elaborate more on the relationship between Lee Myung-bak government and increased anti-Korean sentiment in China. There's a weak causality between a conservative South Korean government and Chinese spectator's booing toward Korean athletes during Olympic games. PBJT (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Korean sentiment in China. 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/20120918115733/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx=30480 to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx=30480

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Korean sentiment in China. 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/20110608203444/http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200808010246 to http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200808010246
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817163421/http://www.chosunonline.com/article/20071211000008 to http://www.chosunonline.com/article/20071211000008

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)