Talk:Koreans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Part-Korean populations section

User:Thomas.W reverted a contribution I made in this 13:58, 18 July 2017 edit with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Ephert (talk): Rv: see page history (the material added has very little, if anything, to do with the ethnic group the article is about)". The edit User:Thomas.W reverted was my 12:59, 18 July 2017 edit in which I added the content to the article of "Song, a Korean comfort woman, had several pregnancies. She did not want to raise a half-Japanese baby. She gave one of the babies to a Korean family, she gave one to a Chinese family and she killed one while she was still pregnant with it." I added this content to the "Part-Korean populations" section, and this content was cited to a 2001 book about the comfort women of World War II (Google Books link). The content I added in this edit does indeed have something to do with this article if information regarding part-Korean populations should be in this article. Should the section about part-Korean populations be in this article? That is a relevant question. If information about part-Korean populations should be in this article, what kind of information about part-Korean populations should be in this article? That is another relevant question. Perhaps, only the numbers of each particular part-Korean population e.g. X number of part-Japanese, Y number of Amerasians, etc., should be the type of information about part-Korean populations included in this article. I think that if the Mitsuyoshi Nakayama account about Korean comfort women being unable to produce children and the Chung Seo-woon account about her having been sterilized remain in this article, this particular source should be in there as well to provide a contrasting account. This new source has a contrasting account, because the account in this new source (Google Books link) is of a Korean comfort woman who actually produced half-Japanese babies. Also, User:Thomas.W said "Rv: see page history" in their edit summary, and I feel it would be helpful if this editor says exactly what "page history" they are referring to with their "see" request.--Ephert (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas.W. It is WP:UNDUE for the scope of this article. In fact, I don't actually think that the entire "Part Korean populations" section is DUE. The article is a broad scope article on Koreans (culture, broad history of the people and culture, etc.). Such content can be understood to be DUE for Koreans under Japanese rule, WWII, the Korean diaspora, plus other related articles/themes. In terms of the broader understanding of the ethnic group 'Koreans', it constitutes a relatively minor event in the recent history of Korea itself, and is unencyclopaedic. I haven't encountered sections on 'Part Russian populations', 'Part Indian populations', 'Part Lebanese populations', 'Part Chinese populations', or anything parallel in any other article on an ethnic group. If this were a major shift in the evolution of the ethnic group, it would be another matter. The top level of the section, "Korean populations", already deals with long established and more recently established diasporic groups, so the appended subsection reads as WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The figures for Korean-Japanese couples seem ridiculously low, given the flows of Korean workers to Japan during the first half of the twentieth century. Many of the Korean families I know have a Japanese connection, often a worker in Japan having a wife and kids there along with first-wife back home in Korea, and then the two families sort of coming together. Or people being thought of and documented as Korean nationals, but born in Osaka, or wherever, in Japan. And this continued into at least the 1960s. So there are, in many Korean families, ties and relationships to Japan which neither the Korean side nor the Japanese side wants to talk about. This kind of thing is hard to document because of the difficult political relations between the two countries, and so my recommendation would be to remove the numbers altogether and simply note that there are complex relations between Korean and Japanese families, often with intermixing through marriage. Theonemacduff (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Title

Why is the title just "Koreans" and not "Korean people"? Mexomoon (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)