Talk:Indians in Korea

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

Memorial of Heo Hwang-ok, Ayodhya

@Atulsnischal: What's the relevance of a memorial in Ayodhya to this article? This article is not about Koreans in India, but about Indians in Korea. The memorial is not located in Korea. Also, as you have been advised on your talk page, please have a look at WP:HISTRS. utcursch | talk 01:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to enforce a repeated tightly held Microscopic field of view of a Editor in every article. The Relevance is international relations between the two countries and their people. Their National Governments and peoples are both aware of this link.

mrigthrishna (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the "relations between the two countries": there is a separate article on India-Korean relations. utcursch | talk 01:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there it can be expanded further. To insist upon scholarly history alone is foolish as most people, the Masses, only follow common cultural knowledge and Popular Myths as that is the created ruling culture of the day. Sometimes public ridiculing of deeply held cultural myths can bring upon public slaughter and a blood bath of proponents of strict Censoring and scholarly viewpoints. Commonly held famous myths, many originating centuries ago are a very important part of current culture and heritage and can have multitude of detailed mentions and even articles dedicated solely to them.

mrigthrishna (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not favour "common cultural knowledge and Popular Myths" over peer-reviewed scholarly articles. There is no "censorship" here: feel free to add whatever you want with a source that meets the WP:HISTRS / WP:RS criteria.

Also, a paragraph about a monument in India does not belong in this article, even if the source is a scholarly article. utcursch | talk 02:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Concept, theory, belief in any "God" is just a myth, and still the Myth of existence of God rules the world today. 2) Your insistence that an article about for example a "blue glass" should only dare mention and confine itself to the physical glass itself alone makes no sense when everybody in the whole wide world can see that the blue glass is lying on the brown table and if the table is shaken the glass will fall to the floor and break into uncountable small and big shrads.

mrigthrishna (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

About the God myth: yes, the myth "rules the world today", and there are thousands of web pages about the Christian, Hindu and other creation myths. But that doesn't mean that the Wikipedia article on Formation and evolution of the Solar System would list these creation myths as facts.

As for "blue glass" analogy, when there is a separate article on table (furniture), the Wikipedia article on wine glass will not contain a paragraph-long description of a table. At best, there will be a sentence which states that a wine glass is often placed on a table.

Good on you for creating an article on the memorial, but please do not insert repetitive content about it other articles. If you disagree, feel free to seek a third-opinion at WT:IND or WT:KO. utcursch | talk 03:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Censoring Wikipedia of Referenced Text

Please do not Censor and only make positive changes, limit your activity to leave a comment for others to find better sources. If one Editor does not have time future editors can make positive changes. Formal Mainstream Newspapers are good enough source to start with they are not some small tabeliod publications.

mrigthrishna (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop a note at WT:IND. Let's seek a third opinion. utcursch | talk 14:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:NEWSORG, a major Mainstream Newspaper and News Organisation is a reliable source.

mrigthrishna (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from the page you linked to: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." Reliable sources clearly mention that this is a legend, not "ancient history". utcursch | talk 15:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient history" is a wrong subsection title, when you are talking about the events that took place in 2001. Also the info about members of Heo lineages and Gimhae Kim sees like original research. You should really use the sources that are reliable history sources and not these news sources when you are talking about such history. Capitals00 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've a third opinion here. @Atulsnischal, do you have anything to add? utcursch | talk 14:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Minorities and Subcultures in East Asia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 18 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikita Chowdree (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nikita Chowdree (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]