Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Korean sentiment/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

tag

Please explain your rationale for using these tags on the talk pages when adding tags to articles.[1]--Propastop (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

please explain why you delete tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.135.161.242 (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
please explain why you add tag? and you are WP:TW.--Propastop (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You have no reason. tags are not attached by me. return to previous version. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason that deleted a description with the source?[2]--Propastop (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hard to make sense out of this discussion, but I guess the username Propastop says it all. Anyway, this article needs major work, at the moment it is just a random collection of incidents that with a lot of fantasy could be interpreted as examples of Anti-Korean sentiments. Novidmarana (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A few points

  • Do not edit English Wikipedia if you cannot speak and write proper English. If you wish to edit, you must be able to commit to simple English writing conventions; poor grammar only worsens the article. The point of contributing Wikipedia is to IMPROVE it. There is a reason why this is called "English Wikipedia".
  • For trolls who are constantly editing and introducing POV, this page is not for your biased POV. Just refer to the Anti-Japanese sentiment page; Japanese trolls do not edit it day and night because they don't like what is written.
  • Just becuase it does not appeal to your bias does not make something original research.
  • Many are also VANDALISING because of events within other articles. Such revenge attacks are meaningless.
  • It is very hard to eliminate POV as only certain users are capable of editing. The only "sides" that are capable of editing are those affiliated with Japanese and Korean sides. Even the Chinese Wiki is mostly edited by people from Taiwan, and overseas Chinese, since Wikipedia is blocked in China. Thus it is almost impossible to obtain an equal POV from all sides. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of points

Why was the mentioning of the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake removed from the introduction? This was an incident where, accused of poisoning wells and looting, ethnic Koreans were massacred in Japan, which was highly xenophobic at that time. Additionally, why has all mentioning of nationalism been removed? Certainly nationalism plays a large role in anti-Korean sentiment. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2008

This article is aimed for the "discrimination infobox template", since there was no article for Korea, yet there is racism present against Korea. This page is based on the format of the Anti-Japanese sentiment page. Large amount of info taken from Chinese Wiki article regarding Anti-Korean sentiment. More info, examples, links and sources will be added soon. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this whole article is korean propaganda. 99% of the sources are korean, and some don't even have links. Opinions from single sources are also presented as mainstream. This is representative of typical korean edits in Wikipedia as the koreans try to convince the world of their view point as the correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.100.35 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the person above, I originally wrote this article in an entirely different manner and format, however after much argument, much of it has been shredded and rewritten. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

second. this article is clearly korean's pov.-peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.182.30 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


Can anyone tell me the origin of the Confucius claim? A youtube video does not suffice to show that claim. My local newspaper says that it originated from a hoax article. http://www.todayonline.com/articles/270518.asp Also, where is the origin of claim that Korean claims that Hanzi was a Korean invention? Can anyone prove it and cite some sources for us to see? HistoryManiac (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)





in fact, 高丽棒子 and 韓棒子 refer the same term. The reason why the Korean is referred as 棒子 (bàng zǐ) by many of the Chinese people is, as explained in many of the online forums, that during the Japanese invasion into North-eastern region of China (during World War II), Korean soldiers constitute the second part of the invasion forces, under the control of the Japanese Army. This is actually why the Japanese was referred as "鬼子" (devils) and the Korean being 二鬼子"second devils". However, the Korean soldiers were not equipped with weapons by the Japanese. Instead, the Koreans themselves picked up clubs "棒子" to beat the native Chinese people. This is reason why they were also referred as 棒子"club". This is what I understand from reading the online forums. You mentioned the term how the Korean was called by Chinese people but do not make sufficient explanation. In fact, nowadays in China, almost no one call the Korean "clubs". Instead, the youth Chinese are open to current Korean culture and fashion, and it does become popular as a major fashion in China between the youth. I post these comment to avoid a negative impression of the Chinese being made. In fact, the Chinese people are far from raciest and those terms mentioned above were produced under historical reasons.

According to the Chinese Wiki, 二鬼子 is used. Do not delete portions of the article without verification from others; this may be considered censorship. Also, use tags and avoid "===", use proper format. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have noted your edits to be POOR.
Just to avoid confusion, I didn't delete any portion of this article. I just added new a paragraph by clicking on the new section tab. Maybe someone else did. I added a paragraph as I think you didn't sufficiently explained the terms "second devil" and "club". In fact, "clubbers" will be more precise than "clubs".
  • "half belong" is poor english, and BIASED. Chinese dont believe that they "half belong" the mountain. Use of "violence to" is not only poor english, but has a BIASED TONE. Additionally, both sides on the Torch Relay day engaged in violence; you cannot state that only Chinese were aggressors. Koreans took part in the violence.
where do you see "half belong"? I could not find it except in your paragraph, well of course, and mine now.
  • Avoid words like "nationalistic" and "radical" - biased. Avoid weasel words like "some japanese" and "some koreans" "Radical Anti-CNN" can be seen as VANDALISM. It is also libel against Jin Rao, a living person.
  • Additionally with biased censorship, much of the english is written at a poor level, roughly at a primary school exit level. Do not edit if you cannot improve the article, keeping it error/bug free and unbiased. You claim that this is biased against Korea; your edits are pushing the bias towards Korea. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

reduce POV word. also there is no evidecne all korean claim same. 222.106.188.74 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • 高丽棒子

The Korean invaded China with Imperial Japanese Army. And Korean with the club caused Chinese.So Chinese call Korean 高丽棒子.

  • 二鬼子

The Korean invaded China with Imperial Japanese Army. The Korean was a Japanese subordinate.So Chinese call Japanese 日鬼子(Jpanese devils).AND Chinese called Korean 二鬼子（2ND DEVILS）.

The source mentioned above

日本が韓半島を侵奪した後、満州を経て中国を本格的に占領する時期のことと関連があるようだ。 日本の手先として、棒を持って横行しながら中国人を苦しめた韓国人ということだ　中国人が当時、自国を侵略した日本人には「日鬼子」、その手先だった一部の韓国人には「二（２番目の）鬼子」という称号を付けた。 【噴水台】高麗棒2008.08.28JoongAng Ilbo(Japanese)

下面的说法似乎更有说服力，即日本在吞并韩半岛之后，通过满洲地区向中国发动侵略，而部分韩国人（当时国号为“大韩帝国”）则作为日本的傀儡手里拿着棍棒欺负中国人。中国人当时把日本侵略军称为“日本鬼子”，把日本的傀儡——韩国人称为“二鬼子”。考虑到这一点，我们可以认为“高丽棒子”的词源与其是有一定关联的。韩国中央日报：高丽棒2008.08.28 JoongAng Ilbo(Chinese) --Propastop (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Annon

This article has some pretty dumb things written in. 朝鮮人 is Korean, and not even necessarily North. It is not derogotory in ANY ways what-so-ever, and either is 韩国. That part is deleted.

This article is low quality and rootless.It should be removed. -reader of "대쥬신제국사" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.182.30 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoop-dee-doo. Learn how to sign posts and use talk pages properly (this goes at the bottom), and worry not about your own POV. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thanks for sarcastism, Benlisquare, for elimiating the other side's POV completely too. Besides sarcastism, you should learn how to write unbiased article too if you take journalism seriously.
Sign your posts. Simple English sentence with three words. Sign your posts. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another important trigger of anti-korean sentiment blast in China is the inhumanity reply swamped in korean internet chat-room during earthquake in southwest china. Some korean's reply literally translates to 'pigs deserve to die'. Similar internet racist also happened when there was a train accident in southern china and some people died. Also the discrimination against chinese ethnic korean is a big cause too. In which it has been reportly many cases that chinese korean women were raped or killed in korean while korean government takes no solid action to resolve the hatred between chinese korean and south korean and between north korean and south korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.182.30 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

the author sounds like anti-korean sentiment is directed or caused by the chinese communist party, which is actually another general category of discrimination towards chinese in korean (chinese are communists). Trying to connect anti-korean sentiment with soccer makes this article a child's play. Actually not a lot of chinese watch soccer in china. And when it comes to anti-korean sentiment, mainland china (communist china) is not at the same scale comparing to taiwan.-kevin


this article is seriously bias towards korean POV. The statement of involvement of chinese government to play down korean soccer team makes this article a joke that is not even funny. As a biggest reasons of anti-korean sentiment in china, racisim towards chinese people in south korea is the root and fundmental cause. And some south Korean's behavior such as looting, looking down to chinese people has contributed to the result too. The writer also missed an important point that there are quite a lot of korean historians who like to make funny assumption of history and make false historical claims which could potentially cause political issue and result in hatred between both side. Why korean is disliked by both Chinese and Japanese? either both chinese and japanese are stupid and ignorant of 'lovely' korean culture, or korean culture is not so lovely. It doesn't take a phd in history to figure it out.- datz


wow, just wow. Reading this article makes it seem like the Chinese are a bunch of uncivilized, petty, jealous, ignoramuses with a huge inferiority complex. Clearly some of the issues are presented somewhat one sided, but does an encyclopedia really need so much details on every incident of anti-korean sentiments? Alot of the issues could be summed up in one or two sentences. -anon

Page protection

I've protected this page so that this edit war can be resolved on the talk page. Cherry Blossom OK (talk · contribs) and Benlisquare (talk · contribs) are both way over 3RR and pushing WP:CIVIL to the limit. Please sort this out on here rather than edit warring. Thanks. --GedUK  13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Its essentially sorted. I've agreed not to rev any further, as long as other parties do the same. Hopefully other parties also will agree, and also refrain from removing sourced statements (RS, as in news reports, etc), which was what the main dispute was about. I apologize for my language used, after all I am human, and become impatient sometimes. I wouldn't mind page protection, after all it would give me time to sleep and calm down. I know that I should keep my cool rather than become impatient, and I retract the incivil statements I have made. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, well, when both editors let me know here that it's resolved, I'm happy to unprotect it again. It is only protected for three days anyway, so it will unprotect automatically at that point. --GedUK  13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken ref

{{editprotected}} There is a broken reference in this article. Even is the outcome of the discussion will be to remove it, it shouldn't be broken. <ref name=rjk>[http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/08/28/more-on-anti-korean-sentiment-in-china/ More on Anti-Korean Sentiment in China]</ref> I found the fix on this diff

Just to stay on the safe side: I did this in view of my regular work on verious error categories. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The page will be unprotected in two days, if it isn't urgent, we could wait until then. As of yet, we're unsure whether we are to restore the ref, or remove it (this was one of the disputes which led to the page being protected). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, just a note for admins, don't forget to revert to semi-protect the article after the three day protection period is over. This page gets a lot of nonconstructive IP edits otherwise. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --Amalthea 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, the {{pp-semi-indef|small=yes|expiry=December 25, 2008}} template in this article is also a little outdated and waiting to be removed. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, did I write that?! A classical example of some stylistic mistake or the other. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... but it's producing no output, so we can just keep it to the end of the protection and clean it up then I guess. That's the good thing with the new pp templates. Cheers, Amalthea 11:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Apart from causing the page to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. But no output on this page, yes. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins, this article should be indef semi-protect, it receives a large number of unconstructive edits from IPs, especially socks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a high level of vandalism in this article to warrant WP:SEMI. From the history, I only think there were two or three guys, and certainly no vandalism in the twenty days before it was indef protected the last time. You say that this article "receives a large number of unconstructive edits from IPs, especially 2channel socks". Which edits or editors are you referring to?
I'll keep it watchlisted, but would rather try to keep it unprotected for a while. Amalthea 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
even if I and Benlisquare, dispute it. but i agree with Benlisquare. this article should be indef semi-protect. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
it receives a large number of unconstructive edits from IPs, especially socks. <- i agree. maybe new sock ID will appear soon from Japan. Like This User. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
All of that was in response to it being linked at 2chan, over seven months ago. Let's give it a try. Amalthea 10:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Benlisquare(李博杰) is original 'creator' of this article.[3] He created this page. He have all its responsible of this page. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm well aware, but that doesn't change protection policy, sorry. --Amalthea 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-korean sentiment in taiwan

KOREANS ALWAYS HAVE VIEWED TAIWANESE/TAIWAN AS " BACKSTABBERS" AND " BROWN NOSER TO JAPAN". KOREANS/KOREA WILL NEVER SUPPORT TAIWAN IN UNITED NATION. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF KOREANS VIEW CHINA OR TAIWAN WHOMEVER IS CHINESE. KOREANS NEVER TRUSTED TAIWANESE. OVERSEAS CHINESE IN KOREA NEVER PAYED TAX TO KOREAN GOVERNMENT AND THEY HAVE POLITICALLY ALLY THEMSELVES WITH COMMUNIST CHINA OR MILITARY JAPAN. KOREANS HAVE HISTORY NOT TO LIKE TAIWANESE OR CHINESE AS A WHOLE CULTURAL GROUP. 1970 PRESIDENT " PARK CHUNG HEE" AS NATIONAL SYMBOL OF DISTRUST OF CHINESE. HE DESTROYED CHINATOWN IN KOREA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston1Joker (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Anti-korean sentiment is mostly caused by the distrust of korean people, dislike of korean food. Korean nationalists have also greatly troubled both pro-blue and pro-green taiwan people. Korean historians culture 'pilgrim' such as 'chiwoo','Gangneung Danoje Festival','traditional chinese medican' deepened the distrust. In 1980s, when south korea abandoned diplomatic relationship with taiwan and establish full scale relationship with PRC, a hurt feeling has rooted pro-green taiwan people ever since, which is another major source of anti-korean sentiment in taiwan. source: http://briandeutsch.blogspot.com/2008/07/anti-korean-sentiment-in-taiwan.html Kevindatz (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)kevin

That article is a copy-paste of http://muninn.net/blog/2008/07/anti-korean-sentiment-in-taiwan.html Additionally, if you feel the need to add a section on Taiwan, then go ahead and do it. Just make sure it is properly referenced, of neutral POV and written well with good English and quality structure, otherwise it will be rapidly removed. It is a good idea to paste a draft on the talk page or somewhere, for others to review beforehand. Right now, I am busy with a few other articles, and am halfway through the Japan article for this section, and so am unable to help any further. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

POV and original research

I remove original research.

  • because of their belief that African-Americans were intellectually inferior to other ethnicities and more likely to shoplift. -> this is baseless. On the contrary, Anti black racism in China is more serious. [4]
  • It was reported that widespread damage occurred after the LAPD refused to secure Koreatown due to police solidarity with those fighting against the Korean-American store owners. -> I never read it before. LAPD refused? really? is it possible that america police acted like that? Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It sure looks like the latter was something that actually happened: [5]

It seems the LAPD has got their act together and patting themselves on the back since though: [6] Munci (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:71.177.27.12

In case you didn't get the message (as possibly seen by your previous edits, yet again of the same problem), Please learn how to use proper Wiki syntax, to prevent any corruption in the page. Also, if you have any contributions to make, please provide detailed explanations, as well as sources backing up your argument. Your IP, 71.177.27.12, appears to be from Temecula, California, United States, under the ISP of Verizon. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not accept first-hand accounts, as per WP:OR, and so you still will need to provide credible sources for your edits. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan section

The first draft of the Japan section is almost complete. Should be ready by the 10th of April. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently added some content on this section, regarding the Japanese counterpart article(ja:嫌韓), and related context. However, I am not sure if my contribution here is in accord to the standards here on the English Wikipedia. -- The only reference up to now is the Japanese article itself, even though the phenomenon is quite big over here in Japan(or Japanese Wikipedia), well, at least as I see it. Should my contirbution here be critically reviewed from the point of Wikipedia:No original research? Could someone advise some views on this? --Makesdark (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhuman replies in korean's internet chat-room during 2008 china sichuan earthquake

After china's sichuan earthquake happened during May 2008, korean internet chat-room had been swamped by huge amount of racist replies. Some replies are far beyond the level of racism and inhumanity. i.e. http://img.qbar.qq.com/cgi-bin/img?uuid=__bd6c34b5bba048a7a30720b7ea87581f English tranlation: All chinese are dogs(note: dog is a derogative term in korean). They all deserve to die. Please keep the earthquake going, kill them all. And all minority in china can declare independence.

http://img.qbar.qq.com/cgi-bin/img?uuid=__e2a5873097b84aca9d8d74daa17853af English translation: The earthquake is a dharma to chinese pride (their bad doing). Tibet should be seperated from china right away.

http://img.qbar.qq.com/cgi-bin/img?uuid=__83dffce41dbf4d6b8d1ff9035f30cca5 English translation: It's too sad there is only 10 thousand chinese died. There should be more, like 100 thousand. It's still too few if 100,000 of them died. Those chinese dog (deserve to die). There should be chinese dead body everywhere on the street. It's racist though, but chinese are the low race of east asia (so they should all die).

These are only some examples of inhuman replies in korean internet chat-room. The discrimination against chinese in korean society is beyond full scale, which caused the anti-korean sentiment from the chinese side. Kevindatz (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)kevin


Following the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, Some Koreans posted Anti-China comments on the Internet, which was originally caused by Chinese students' riot during the Olympic torch relay in the capital of S.Korea. Although almost every Koreans posted condolence to the Chinese victims[39], Chinese internet users ignored the fact, and spread nothing but some Koreans' Anti-Chinese comments. They've neglected the same kinds of responses from Japanese users.Japanese netizens also posted Anti-China comments throughout forums on the Internet,[40][41][42][43] Chinese Internet doesn't pick Anti-China comments from Japanese. and only pick bad comments from S.Korea.
(Eg.)[7]
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:25:38 ID:+jkojSKI0] どうせなら、チベット虐殺の元凶どもがいるところで大地震が発生 すればよかったのにな Die. all chinese.
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 mailto:sage [2008/05/13(火) 20:27:00 ID:oL5GmVKB0] 南京大虐殺みたいに被害者捏造してんじゃね？
they fabricated victims, too? like nanking massacre?
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:29:48 ID:LcY+93LP0] 支那蛆虫のクソガキが折り重なって野垂れ死んだのは爽快でした。 日本国民は、全員、爆笑しました。
We Japanese are really feel refreshing when 支那蛆虫 died.
名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:25:38 ID:+jkojSKI0] どうせなら、チベット虐殺の元凶どもがいるところで大地震が発生すればよかったのにな EarthQuake, Please Kill more and more... tibetan murders!(Chinese).
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:26:38 ID:O/k4UPja0] 漢民族が死ぬのはまったく困らんが、55の少数民族に被害が出たとしたら、 心からお悔やみを申し上げる
I really happy when many Han Chinese dead. it is not tragedy.
but i do not want minor race dead.
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:26:52 ID:LcY+93LP0]
反日野郎の死を心から喜び、お祝い申し上げますｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ白眼をむきながら地獄へ堕ちろｗｗｗｗｗ
I really happy when Anti-Japanese goons are dead. (laugh)
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:26:54 ID:UIcqllBV0]
漢民族だけ、もっと死ね！
もう一回や二回でかいやつ、北京と上海で起れｗｗ
Please, Earthquake, kill only Han Chinese!
名前：名無しさん＠八周年 [2008/05/13(火) 20:27:15 ID:UjtZNZh80]
どうか2次災害で沢山の中国人が死にますように
More Chinese die! i feel happy. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Well, we do see some similar things on that Japanese hate site, 2channel(though not described as such), with sentiments towards what some may by inclined to verbalize as Tokutei Asia? --Makesdark (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan?

There are obvious problems with this section. It is pathetically written with no viable sources as well as subjective and outdated contents. The first source[1] takes material from a site that is nothing more than a blog. The second source[2] refers to an online poll which was conducted five years ago. And there is no supporting references whatsoever for all these entwining bold statements such as: "such attitudes can be seen as a simple annoyance rather than absolute hatred, and do not represent any political, historical or social implications therein", "Although general dislike for Korea is rather low". This is not acceptable and will be deleted immediately. Pds0101 (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anti-Korean Sentiment in Taiwan - Muninn
  2. ^ TVBS＆Yahoo 台灣人民世界觀調查

to some korean

THE SLUR "GOOK" WAS USED IN AMERICAN-PHILLIPINE WAR/ VIETNAM WAR. GOOK DESCRIBES PHILLIPINOES NOT KOREANS.!!!!! UPDATE THE FACT PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston1Joker (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Korean invaded China with Imperial Japanese Army. Korean want to hide this FACT. BUT THIS IS THE FACT.THIS EDIT IS KOREAN POINT OF VIEW ..[8] --Propastop (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Although it is doubtful that the term arose from the Korean War since evidence generally points to the American-Philippine War, you cannot deny that it is actually used against Koreans. In this modern day it is a racist slang term used against all Asians regardless, including Koreans. If you do not believe me, just have a glance through 4chan /int/ and various troll pages on Youtube. Origin does not imply usage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Credibility of this article

There's questionable credibility of this article, specially there's no logic behind, article author is well-known Anti-Korean himself. The article should be re-written in more neutral pov but instead, it added unnecessary elements. Such Anti-Korean sentiments only exists in PRC, Taiwan and Japan. Other country's Anti-Korean sentiments are divided into North and South Korea. --KSentry(talk) 12:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously written by Koreans

This article is obviously written by Koreans who embrace and relish their "victim status" throughout history and use it as an excuse at times to be assholes. That's their reputation anyway. But besides that, there must be a difference between anti-Korean sentiment that is valid (IE: they come to mongolia, herd up women, put them in clubs and then bring in pasty old Korean businessmen to use them for sex). That is when Koreans are criticized legitimately. But Koreans like to turn every outside criticism of their group into another form of victimization. For god's sake, enough is enough. No one disputes that the Japanese occupation was horrible. But the Jews had it much worse, and they (ME!) have moved on. It's time for Koreans to do the same for God's sake. please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.208.67 (talk • contribs)

Creator is actually Chinese Australian, not Korean. --KSentry(talk) 12:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

citation-needed

I'm currently writing a seminar paper on Japanese-Korean relations and came across a few instances in the article which are marked as "citation-needed" which I think I can reference with academic literature I found during my research. clem (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gook

(U.S. military slang) [Gook is] a derogatory term for all Asians

— gook

As cited from the article, gook apparently means "a derogatory term for all Asians". Don't you think that is quite inaccurate? I mean the term "Asian" even includes the people of Pakistani/Indian origins. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

bakachon camera

The statement that "Bakachon-camera" meaning "stupid Korean" and being an example of discrimination is a false and slanderous exaggeration of Japanese prejudices. "Chon" did not mean "Korean person", it meant "idiot" at the time the word was mostly used, therefore terms like "baka-chon camera" have nothing to do with racism. (The term has meant "idiot" or "boring person" since the Edo Era, and has become use primarily as an ethnic slur very recently.)

Suggest deletion.

[9] [10] [11]

- Yodelingman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.179.97.31 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


[12]

“ちょん”は半人前や取るに足らない人のことを芝居の終わりに打つ拍子木の音になぞらえた言葉であるほか、「大辞林 第二版」の「ちょん」の用例では、ばかだの、ちょんだのと言う記述がある。かつてオートフォーカスコンパクトカメラの別称としてバカチョンカメラがあったが、これが、ちょん＝韓国・朝鮮人の蔑称であるという誤解が広まり、現代でも放送禁止用語となっている。

[13] [14] There is not clear that between chon with Korean. --Fc57zj (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Coon" as used in America.
Your first link is a Wikipedia article that has zero sources, and your second link is a BBS website source. Not to mention, there are reliable English-language publications that confirm that there are Koreans that suspect that such usage is derogatory against them - so far you have given no reliable sources that disprove this.
Regardless of whether companies intend on utilising the slur or not, it has been documented in publications, which are cited within the article, that there are Koreans who take offense at the term, irrespective of whether the original intention of the usage of the term is offensive or not. Look at it this way: There is an Australian cheese company called Coon. However, in America coon is a racist term for African-Americans. The company is named after its founder, Edward W. Coon, and has nothing do with the racist term; however, even though the company does not intend to be racist, some black people do take offense at it, simply because it resembles the problematic word. There is a difference between prescriptive and subjective racism that I think you are confused with. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2010 BBC Poll

I have check the article of 2010 BBC Poll, and seems like it has little to do with anti-Korean sentiment in each country. The survey is more about positive vs negative influences of a country on global politics and vaguely related to anti-sentiment toward a country of interest. To be more objective, the table should be provided as a whole, not just negative views. Moreover, this article is about anti-sentiment towards South and/or North Korea and only shows a table for South Korea. In the original BBC article, it has surveys for both South and North Korea. PBJT (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done PBJT (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Greater China section?

There is no clear reason to place Taiwan and the PRC under one section, seeing as the PRC section contains ROC info and should be converted to a "China" section if needed. Not to mention the use of the term Greater China is extremely rare, much less neutral when in a political context. Taiwan seems to be a different entity here. A much more neutral arrangement would be to have all the Asian countries under one "In Asia" section if certain people (for some reason, and definitely not because of a biased POV) feel compelled to have Taiwan and China under the same section.

The only reasonable excuse to have Taiwan and China under one "Greater China" section is if both entities had the same reasons or examples for their respective anti-Korean sentiment. I do not see that. Especially since the PRC section contains historical background dating back to 1910. Taiwan's section, on the other hand, focuses on the island (group) itself, either in modern history or the ROC regime on Taiwan. Placing the two under one section is not only unnecessary but also misleading.--111.249.188.14 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But it's actually a real thing: Greater China. It's a cultural and linguistic concept. It has nothing to do with exact PRC sovereignty. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, an "Asia" header sounds dumb as hell: are you implying that the Soviet Union is a continent, or what? Why break a logical progression? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a real thing, but it is irrelevant here. In addition, Hong Kong is arguably a even more integral part of "Greater China" and it isn't mentioned at all in this article. A "Greater China" header is just as dumb as an "Asia" header. I think the current arrangement is acceptable. Sorry about the blanket revert.--111.249.188.14 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Japan section had to be edited

I had to remove the claims made modern day anti-korean settlement in Japan since is feels far too much focused on nitpicking and sterotyping how the Japanese view Korean people rather than creating an unbiased perspective of information. If someone does manage to create a bunch of referances that are based on realism that please do, but untill than that long, long list I removed felt more like a method of enforcing Japanese sterotypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This article deals with anti-Korean attitudes and behaviours, which cover more than simply one set of things. Japanese views on others are a set of attitudes, and it is not simply a nitpicked set of stereotypes that lack "realism" like you claim. Sentiments are more than just actions, one doesn't have to be killing thousands of people to have a particular sentiment. Sure, these sentiments may not be shared by the entire population, however quite a significant minority do have these sentiments. By the same token, not all Americans are anti-Semitic, however that does not mean that antisemitism isn't "realistic" in the United States. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, i'd advise dicussing the concept of triming the Japan section down just to cite examples as the list is far too long and as a resault gives people who visit it the wrong idea that most people Japan are like that. It's rather an unfair and irresponsible way of explaining the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Most people in China don't hate Korea either, but we have an entire article on that, which is three times as long as the Japan section. I don't understand what you mean by "unfair" and "irresponsible" if we're detailing the sentiments of some people (read: "some", not "all") within a country; there is no deception happening. Within China and Japan, not everybody hates Korea, however it would be silly to claim that animosity and hatred towards Korea does not exist at all, because there are certainly minority groups that share such sentiments. By your logic, we should be stubbifying the Antisemitism article, because it would be "unfair" to say that some people in the world hate Jews. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is no issues with regard to hatred toward Korea. I just feel that the way the Japan section is write isn't responsible. That being said I guess rewriting it in a manner to point out the modern issues in a few paragraphs so that it doesn't feel like a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan section is rather misguided

3 main reasons for anti-Korean sentiment there.

1. Sports: Taekwondo, baseball, and basketball, in that order. Taiwanese and Chinese sports fans have a deeply ingrained stereotype of Korean athletes and more importantly Korean referees as willing to cheat to win. Case in point is the 2009 East Asian Games, when a male South Korean taekwondo athlete hit the Taiwanese athlete in the neck 17 seconds into the match in the men's final, resulting in the Taiwanese athlete been immediately rushed to the hospital and Korean athlete declared the winner, despite Taiwanese delegation's protests. I don't know if the stereotype is justified, but I know it's there.

- also, I am no baseball fan but I know using the word 'never' is very dangerous in serious literature. It's factually inaccurate to say that the Taiwanese baseball never once defeated the South Korean team (e.g. 2003 Asian Baseball Championship), though the Koreans do prevail most of the time.

2. Politics: Given that Taiwan and South Korea were good buddies during the Cold War, Taiwanese were infuriated when in 1992 South Korean government switched recognition from Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People's Republic of China (communist China). It was otherwise understandable ('coz every other country was switching anyways) except that the South Korean government forcibly expelled Taiwanese diplomats and transferred all Taiwanese embassy and consular assets in Korea over to China with virtually no prior notice, so Taiwan felt robbed -- at least give them a few weeks or something to move out and sell their stuff first. That kind of ruthlessness ain't no way to treat an old friend. This helped develop the stereotype of Koreans as underhanded cheaters in the sports arena mentioned above.

3. Historical controversies: Yes, a lot of the news on Koreans claiming various (hitherto considered Chinese) cultural heritage as in fact Korean made both Chinese and Taiwanese felt Koreans were 'cultural thieves'. Many false rumors also add to the distrust even though they were later proved fake. Again, the stereotype of Koreans as underhanded cheaters persists. Donquixotean (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you capable of finding reliable sources to back up these points? If so, then feel free to be bold and apply these points to the article, you are more than welcome to make contributions to the article yourself. Additions must be verifiable with sources, however. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Even your provided sources are questionable anyway. Why on earth Chinese Australian creates such article like this? I didn't know Australian born Han Chinese can be this involved into "nationalism" of East Asia. Or you're not telling us the truth behind your profile, your profile is questionable. May be I should pay visit to your university myself.--KSentry(talk) 03:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ben Li, I've tagged the section as synthesis of arbitrary examples that cannot be verified for reliability and balanced weight. There's the obvious issue of unbalanced POV since the sources come from both sides. What it needs is verifiable statistics and analysis from studies, rather than some selected examples and quotes that don't represent the whole image. Same issue with the China and Japan sections. 68.101.102.227 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited united states section

Removed the sentence

Anti-communist propaganda in the United States, as well as allied countries such as South Korea.

In addition to not making grammatical sense it also implies that the negative perception of north korea is from "propaganda" not it's well documented human rights abuses and incredibly low standard of living compared to South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getnow (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Getnow (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Korean sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Korean sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Korean sentiment. 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:

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)

Tagalog Derogatory Terms source?

There should probably be a citation needed for the Tagalog section. Not only is it hyperbolic, it is written from a very biased standpoint not matter of the fact in a neutral manner such as the other nations derogatory terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biznizz (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Daiichi1 Vandalist efforts in the article

User:Daiichi1 is trying to revert to add unsourced content in the article without discussion. Started this discussion to reach conclusion in a peaceful way without more edit warring.
Dear User:Daiichi1, what is your reason and evidence to add the category 'Discrimination in Taiwan' in this article? Npovobsessed (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You just got back from an editwarring block and the first thing you do is revert the page, that really is not good practice keep up this behavior and its not going to be long before you get blocked again. This was already explained to you before there is literally an entire section [15] of the article detailing anti-korean sentiment in Taiwan. This is not something im adding to the article, the article has been in this state for years before you removed it along with multiple paragraphs under your ip. You understand fully how unjustifiable your edits are its been explained to you by multiple editors already why do you keep aggressively defending them and on what basis are you accusing me of vandalism? Daiichi1 (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the discussion. I thought you were just a pure vandalist who always try to push for POV and avoid any discussions. Although another editor with a non-English ID has explained to add the category 'Discrimination in Taiwan' in this article, it is still extremely insufficient and cannot be the reason to add the category in this article. Yes, anti-Korean sentiment in Taiwan is explained in this article, but this cannot prove that hostility and discrimination against Korea and Korean people are severe as in China and Japan. Although anti-Korean sentiment in Mongolia, the Philippines, former Soviet Union nations, the United States, Indonesia, Italy, Israel, Germany, Netherlands, and Brazil was explained in this article, no editors ever added a category related to such countries. If you want to add the 'Discrimination in Taiwan' category in this article, you are required to bring a source that proves one of the two points that I list: 1. the source that proves that most Taiwanese have a hostile sentiment against South Korea; 2. the source that proves that discrimination against Koreans is a current major issue in Taiwan. Npovobsessed (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
If you want to add categories for other countries go ahead and do so. The two criteria you list for inclusion of the 'anti-korean sentiments in Taiwan' category are completely arbitrary, if not made up on the spot. Those sentiments dont have to be present in most Taiwanese people nor does it have to be a major issue in the country for the category to be included. Daiichi1 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
"Those sentiments dont have to be present in most Taiwanese people nor does it have to be a major issue in the country for the category to be included." <= You are claiming that the category should be available without EVIDENCE, aren't you? Furthermore, my edit will be reverted for spamming categories if I add all categories for each country mentioned in the article. In the same sense, my edit will be reverted for spamming categories if I add all categories for each country mentioned in the article Anti-Japanese sentiment, including Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, former Soviet Union nations, and the United States, for the article Anti-Japanese sentiment. Spamming meaningless categories, like what you trying to pursue, is not constructive for Wikipedia. Npovobsessed (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The evidence is right there in the article what are you talking about? They aren't meaningless categories its literally what the article is about. Daiichi1 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
NO. Let me repeat again. If you want to add the 'Discrimination in Taiwan' category in this article, you are required to bring a source that proves one of the two points that I list: 1. the source that proves that most Taiwanese have a hostile sentiment against South Korea; 2. the source that proves that discrimination against Koreans is a current major issue in Taiwan. The article has never proved any of the two points that I listed. Npovobsessed (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, as an uninvolved editor, I'll give my 2c: Reliable sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged (source: WP:CITE), which does describe this category; however, I believe that it is best to add the content and wait until sources can be found, whether by Daiichi1 or another editor. Also, if dispute resolution needs to be reached, then that is a pathway. Cheers, EpicPupper 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There are about 7 references on the Taiwan section of this article. I've found this research paper, "Anti-Korean sentiment and online affective community in Taiwan" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01292986.2019.1679853. Do you think this is sufficient? Daiichi1 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Not quite. The source about anti-Korean sentiment in China presents that the former Korean president was concerned about the misconceptions about Korea among the Chinese people. (The content was written in a long time ago, very outdated though) The source that you brought just explains the yellow media in Taiwan and the rise of active anti-Korean opinions in Taiwanese society, but does not show if Korean people are actively discriminated in Taiwan or if most Taiwanese people have a hostile sentiment about Korea. Npovobsessed (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
You're again applying completely arbitrary criteria you've made up yourself
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/11/21/2003489043 "Anti-South Korea sentiment in Taiwan sparked by the controversial disqualification of Taiwanese taekwondo athlete Yang Shu-chun (楊淑君) at the Asian Games has expanded from cyberspace and spread into the real world, as unidentified people threw eggs at the Taipei Korean School yesterday morning."
https://news.readmoo.com/2018/09/27/korea-3/ Google translated title: ""WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAIWAN AND SOUTH KOREA IS NOT GOOD, I WILL TRY NOT TO SPEAK KOREAN IN PUBLIC.""
This is well documented as seen by the multiple sources i've provided and by the multiple sources already present in the article. Daiichi1 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The first source presents that few Koreans were being discriminated in Taiwan ten years ago, but this does not present that Koreans are being ACTIVELY discriminated. The second source does not fit the criteria at all. You are required to bring a coherent source like this: [[16]] Npovobsessed (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple more recent sources, like the research paper from 2019, and again, seriously, stop making up your own criteria. Not that it even works in you favor, the research paper is about current, yes, "ACTIVELY" anti-korean sentiments in Taiwan. Daiichi1 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
While you are blaming me that my criteria are not valid, you are still searching for articles that fit my criteria; I do not see any problem with the criteria I suggested. For China and Japan, it is easy to find a source or an article that fits the criteria. For Taiwan, as you can see, no single recent data presents that most Taiwanese have a hostile sentiment against South Korea. Moreover, I cannot see any content from the introduction of the research paper that presents that discrimination against Koreans is one of the serious social problems in Taiwan. Npovobsessed (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not searching for articles that fit your criteria, the ones i present just so happen to fit it, which means you should have no problem, right? Just because you see no problem with your criteria doesn't mean it should be used. Why? Because Wikipedia has its own guidelines and criteria that are used by every editor. Your own made up "rules" dont mean shit. You really need to take a break from editing and come back after you understand how this site works. Daiichi1 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia has its own rules. Why don't you bring up rules in Wikipedia to refute my point? I have not seen any rules that you brought regarding this dispute. Npovobsessed (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Another user already brought this up, per WP:CITE sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, multiple reliable sources have already been given. Daiichi1 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Section of Great Kanto Earthquake

I think it has some incorrect, or wrong places.It's written as if Japanese massacred innocent　Koreans.But in fact,There were many Korean criminals -Raping little girls,Arson,Shooting people, and Japanese people organized vigilante groups to defense themselves. Partial people had persecuted Koreans.But Japanese government had decided to dispatch Imperial army to guard Korean,stop persecute. Finally, This situation was saved. I think this section seems to need some revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunk katzen (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to verify your claims? The current consensus amongst Western historians is that following the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake, ethnic Koreans were indiscriminately killed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I don't have many source.According to Japanese newspapers -報知新聞,新愛知新聞) reports and a bill made by police.
A article that reports Korean climb.(bomb arsenals)
A bill handed out to stop false rumors.
Arson
Raping and killing a little girl

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunk katzen (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's really sad that this fascist propaganda from the 20th century is being presented as anything remotely close to a reliable source. Of course the newspapers said the Koreans were in the wrong and justified the murders committed by Japanese vigilantes. They were in on it after all. I doubt that a Southern Newspaper in the US would admit that the man they had lynched last week was innocent. Likewise, this only serves as justification for violence and scapegoating. These newspapers are obsolete, biased, and racist. End of story. Edward hahm (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply to user "Novidmarana"

Quote: "Anti-Korean sentiment involves hatred or dislike for Korean people, culture or either of the two states (North Korea/South Korea) on the Korean peninsula."

"Either state" includes both North and South Korea. Sentiment against the DPRK is also anti-Korean sentiment. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Anti-Korean sentiment, and not about US-Korean history. War and diplomatic crises are not necessarily fueled and do not necessarily fuel Anti-Korean sentiment. Rather, the inclusion of these events in this article suggests that this is the case, but then it should be said explicitly. Furthermore, this paragraph is completely without sources, and citations are vital for an article on a subject matter that by its nature is not very factual. And if we are at it, this paragraph reads rather POV making many assumptions and interpretations, with all those interpretations going into the same direction. Novidmarana (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You have a different perception of Anti-Korean sentiment. Your interpretation is only in regards to South Korean disputes. Anti-Korean sentiment also includes North Korea as well, or otherwise it would not be called Anti-"Korean" sentiment, rather Anti-"ROK" sentiment. It would be best for this page to be as detailed as possible, to make it more credible and appealing. Leaving out North Korea does not help anyone. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[17] check old news of china. cleary, before 2006, 二鬼子 is not refer to korea. however, Chinese internet user changed word meaning, since 2006. 222.106.188.74 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Check plublic trusted chinese dictionary,

◎ 二鬼子 èrguǐzi

[traitor] 抗战中蔑称汉奸卖国贼

二鬼子 mean traitor, not korean. But Chinese made fabrication that this word refer to korean. Wikipedia can't accept fake and hoax and original research.222.106.188.74 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 

Confucius was Korean [6], that Hanzi was a Korean invention, and that the holiday of May 5th is a Korean tradition
South Korea goverment never claim it. it is chinese made fake that all korean(even goverment) claim that fucius was Korean!. : that is the fabrication and chinese side POV.222.106.188.74 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was educated in South Korea, and have never learned that Confucius was Korea, or that Hanzi is a Korean invention. Heck, I don't even know what "Hanzi" is. And ask anyone in South Korea; we are all well educated - we will tell you that Confucius is Chinese, and (vehemently) deny that he is Korean; he is Chinese as we are taught, and we know. You sound like a product of some anti-Korean propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.137.146 (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you are both wrong. Evidence seems to suggest that the myth of Koreans claiming Confucius as Korean was invented by Japanese trolls on 2chan back in 2003. As both Korea and China were bearing down on Japanese war crimes at the time, the trolls sought to split Korea-Chinese relations, which were chilly at the time to the then-NorthEastern program. I can prove that the myth was invented by Japanese trolls and dsitributed as black propaganda however.

https://academy3.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/china/1113386581/?v=pc It's too large of a forum to scroll into, so I suggest you search for the word "Confuscius" in this article. In addition, I do not read Japanese, and I therefore had to rely on the browser translate device, but I think it was good enough to get the general gist of it.Edward hahm (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

“韩国人说孔子和老子是韩国人”和“甚至把释迦牟尼也说成是韩国人”……这类报道一出，当然会激起华人年轻网民的愤怒。“干脆连希特勒、墨索里尼和本拉登也说成是韩国人吧”之类的讥讽言语也向韩国人迎面扑来。韩国人闻所未闻的内容在台湾媒体上被歪曲得好像真的一样，成为批判和讽刺韩国的工具。从韩国人的角度上看，没有比这更冤枉的事了。"Chinese fabrication that korean claims that Confucius was Korean? .... etc... was korean? Korea never heard it before. this absurd claim made by Chinese. "Korea newspaper chosunilbo222.106.188.74 (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[18]

二鬼子 [èrguǐzi] 1. noun A disparaging designation of puppet armies and traitors during the Anti-Japanese War. 他在抗日战争时期当过二鬼子。 He was a traitor during the Anti-Japanese War.

Originally, 二鬼子 word not refer to Korean. but chinese internet user hate korean, so they made "new" definition. also it is a fake meaning. 222.106.188.74 (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, apparently there is not much love between internet users in China, Korea and Japan. Keep on the good work, at least your clumsy English is quite amusing. Novidmarana (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 高丽棒子

The Korean invaded China with Imperial Japanese Army. And Korean with the club caused Chinese.So Chinese call Korean 高丽棒子.

  • 二鬼子

The Korean invaded China with Imperial Japanese Army. The Korean was a Japanese subordinate.So Chinese call Japanese 日鬼子(Jpanese devils).AND Chinese called Korean 二鬼子（2ND DEVILS）.

The source mentioned above

日本が韓半島を侵奪した後、満州を経て中国を本格的に占領する時期のことと関連があるようだ。 日本の手先として、棒を持って横行しながら中国人を苦しめた韓国人ということだ　中国人が当時、自国を侵略した日本人には「日鬼子」、その手先だった一部の韓国人には「二（２番目の）鬼子」という称号を付けた。 【噴水台】高麗棒2008.08.28JoongAng Ilbo(Japanese)

下面的说法似乎更有说服力，即日本在吞并韩半岛之后，通过满洲地区向中国发动侵略，而部分韩国人（当时国号为“大韩帝国”）则作为日本的傀儡手里拿着棍棒欺负中国人。中国人当时把日本侵略军称为“日本鬼子”，把日本的傀儡——韩国人称为“二鬼子”。考虑到这一点，我们可以认为“高丽棒子”的词源与其是有一定关联的。韩国中央日报：高丽棒2008.08.28 JoongAng Ilbo(Chinese)--Propastop (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

二鬼子 also refers to Koreans, as per Chinese Wiki. Look it up yourself. Do not tell me it only refers to KMT. The slur against Koreans is modern slang. Words change. For instance, the Korean word "Ippa" (japanophile) never existed until recently. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slapell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

North Korean perspective needed

Hi,

I added the unbalanced template to the within Korea section. It could benefit from more info on how North Korea treats various groups. toobigtokale (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Split America discussion

@Piotrus has proposed that the section for America be split out, wanted to create a thread for it here. Please let us know your reasoning for the proposal

My thoughts:

  1. Readable prose is 4,066 words, 26.2 kB, so length alone does not justify division as per WP:SIZESPLIT.
  2. I think there's an argument to be made for WP:CONTENTSPLIT, but I'm skeptical that it needs the split at present. I'm also reasonably familiar with the topic, and I'm not sure much is left uncaptured in the current section, certainly not enough to push the whole article over the length requirement for splitting.

Tl;dr I'm a bit skeptical but could be convinced toobigtokale (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Simply put, it is a notable subtopic that deserves expansion. A summary can remain here, but work should continie at the dedicated place (Anti-Korean sentiment in the United States), now just a redirect. Compare: Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan, Anti-Korean sentiment in China (both stand-alone articles). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
PS. As for our section, I don't think it is complete. It does not mention the issues related to KORUS FTA mentioned in this academic article, it does not cite this acadcemic source that uses this very term ("The association of Japanese and Korean people was reflected in anti-Korean sentiment in the United States, such as the formation of the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League" - the latter organization is not mentioned in our article at all). There is an obvious subsection missing related to Korean War and immigration that followed it - this is mentioned for exampple in this academic paper: "A study of the social distance of black college students finds that these students place Koreans at the bottom of their social distance scale. The study suggests that this negative perception may have stemmed from the Korean War (Schaefer 1987: 31)" - and that paper has more interesting elements, and literature, all of which are missing from our article. Seriously, how can we consider a section that effectively says nothing about the period from 1920s to 1990s even close to completion?
Hence I suggest splitting this off, then summarizing (shortening) what we have here to reasonable lenght. It is also jarring that the current US section at 900 words is longer than Japanese (500) or Chinese (250). Granted, those have the subarticles I linked above. Anyway, NPOV/UNDUE also weights in here for shortening the current section, as otherwise the article gives the impression that Anti-Korean sentiment is strongest, worldwise, in the USA... (due to this section being the longest in the article right now). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I should have reworded; it's definitely missing things but the big main issues I'd argue are already mostly there. Most Americans are fairly apathetic about Korea except if it's North Korea, and in recent years I feel it's ticked up to positive because of South Korean media.
Of course, the things you mentioned could/should still go in.
The UNDUE argument makes sense to me; I noticed the same thing independently before too.
I now lean neutral to positive towards split. If you're/someone's willing to flesh out the article a bit more after the split I'm a strong positive. toobigtokale (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Frankly, I am inclinded to leave it to my students (I actually teach university courses in Korea and assign students to write Wikipedia articles :P) - although when someone will chose this topic to write about, I am unsure (they have a wide variety of choices). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, very cool! As long as it happens I'm ok with it. I may add some stuff to it in the meantime, but not sure when as well haha toobigtokale (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
All right, then for now I think we can leave the split template as it is "something to be done". To be done when, well, WP:NODEADLINE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Korean_sentiment/Archive_1&oldid=1245560263"