Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete I notice with interest that canvassing took place(whether misguided or not) on the ja.wiki. Given this I spent a great deal of time looking for any associations between keep opinions and the canvassing, I found very little direct response(one probable) though others not directly contacted may have responded. Those with a keep opinion indicated that both the term and its use are recent inflammatory neologism.

This article has a very close appearance to that of an attack page, most of the listed article dont even discuss any dispute on naming origins interestingly Akita Inu actually says the bread originated from dogs that were introduced to mainland Japan after the First Sino-Japanese War. which took place on the Korean penninsula. Given this and the canvassing by User:Michael Friedrich I discounted keep opinions which offered nothing to address the issue of WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:OR Gnangarra 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uriginal

Uriginal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is basically an exercise in quote-hunting: find a place where some Korean (any Korean or Korean-related group, not necessarily a notable one) made some laughable claim that X is of Korean origin, and add it to the list. The sources are mostly random websites; even the ones which are from reliable sources like newspapers turn out to be opinion pieces or quotes, not newspapers themselves claiming these things as facts. In short, a list of indiscriminate information bordering on WP:OR. Also, the title itself is a neologism with only a few hundred GHits (Find sources: uriginal — news, books, scholar). But even moving it to a real title like "List of things which Koreans claim to have invented" wouldn't save it. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing admin please note: the page creator User:Michael Friedrich appears to be violating WP:CANVAS over on jawiki with a large number of messages which specifically solicit keep votes and refer to this AfD as a "crisis" (危機). [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] cab 06:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that was against the rules. I used the word "crisis" imitating [Chosun Ilbo article] on Liancourt Rocks ("위기(危機)", meaning "crisis"), which promped the readers to vote.--Michael Friedrich 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, inflammatory neologism, original research, lacks: clearly defined scope, reliable sources, criteria for inclusion. If these claims were being made by other than random netizens, or if there were some cohesion other than "things Koreans have claimed," I could see a case being made for keeping it. -- Visviva 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism and OR. The intro section even states "This term is rarely used outside Wikipedia". Pax:Vobiscum 08:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: While Google shows almost no hits for "우리지널"/"우리지날," "ウリジナル" gets 30,300, many of which do seem to pertain to this concept. So I guess we know where this comes from. -- Visviva 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • ... heh. Maybe the list could be repurposed as "things some Korean people have said that made some Japanese people angry." But it would still fail WP:NOT by a mile.-- Visviva 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, unflattering neologisms coined by nationalities to refer to themselves are comparatively rare; these days, most are coined by internet users in neighbouring countries. So there's no real surprise here that 2ch makes up more than 10% of all GHits for this term. [17] cab 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • >Google shows almost no hits for "우리지널"/"우리지날," "우리지날" gets 94 hits[18]. Not "almost no hits". But I don't think it matters that how often the word is used. It is true that the term "Uriginal" existes. If the term Uriginal is not suitable, why don't we just rename the article? I temporary used the term when I created the article because I couldn't find any other English name for the issue, but if there is a good name for it, there will be no problem.--Michael Friedrich 14:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless OR/NEO. Surely everyone recognizes that all these things were inwented by the Russians anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename it.There are really some koreans who claims such finding,but mostly not an academic background.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense, really. As it was felt that my original vote reasoning was incorrect, I'll expound a bit: basically, we have a set of claims where one side says it's Japanese, and the other says it's Korean. Wikipedia is NOT a place for debate. MSJapan 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename This article does not contain original research or unverified claims. Every example has its own source and all of them are from some official websites or Korean newspapers, the official website of "United States Yudo Association", the official website of "Iowa University Kumdo Club", the official website of "Chosun Ilbo" etc. They are all reliable sources. They are no "minor or little significant website." Do you call "Chosun ilbo" minor?
The uriginal phenomenon is well-known especially in Japan. Even All Japan Kendo Federation([19]) and Kodokan[20] officially refer to it. It is true that the name "Uriginal" is not common outside Japan but it is not something made by either minority ultra-nationalist groups or a very specific group. If they were, AJKF and Kodokan would have ignored them. But this is one of Japanese-Korean disputes, which is so big a phenomenon that they couldn't ignore. (Actually, uriginal is also known as "Korean-Original theory", which is the most common name in Japan[21].
You can find a lot of books which refers to this issue. The most famous one is Manga Kenkanryu. Others include Korea vs Japan: World of fictional history (published by Shogakukan), Korean's Fictional History (also published by Shogakukan), Medicine for the Koreans (published by Oakla Publisher), etc... If you look closer, you can understand that this article doesn't contain any original resource.
If the title "Uriginal" is not suitable, why don't we move it to "List of things which Koreans claim to have invented"? I cannot find any problems.
The article only has reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, is not neologism (Google shows 29,500 hits for "ウリジナル" [22]) and does not contain original research or unverified claims. In short, there's no reason to delete this article.--Michael Friedrich 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly call the Japanese' version of Chosun Ilbo, which is what's cited in the article, minor. More to the point, none of these sources validate the central claim of the article, which is that "many" Koreans believe these things. The official site of the Podunk Yudo Association may be an excellent source on the views of the Podunk Yudo Association, but it has no status to tell us about anything beyond that; and the viewpoints of obscure civic organizations are not generally of encyclopedic merit. Now, if there had been a systematic poll of the Korean population (South, North, overseas) which showed that a substantial percentage believed these things -- now that would be interesting. But I don't see any evidence of this in the article; it is illuminating that so many of the sources are actually from Japan or China. -- Visviva 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not true that "so many of the sources are actually from Japan or China." 8 out of the 12 sources of Uriginal are from Korea or the United States. English-->[23][24][25], Korean-->[26][27][28][29][30], Japanese-->[31][32], Chinese-->[33]--Michael Friedrich 10:05, 28 June 2007
Sorry for my ignorance,I didn't read japanese,so after check several english links,I found no serious english websites,news agency or academic journals.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Michael Friedrich asked that I reconsider my !vote. I looked carefully at the article. Unfortunately, my vote is unchanged. Sources are shown to say that somewhere, some Korean has made a claim. Sources are not always shown that the claim is false; if they are, they are not presented as competing claims. Thus the article fails WP:NPOV in that regard. But more important, it fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight because we have nothing to tell us how notable these claims are, except the introduction to the article suggesting that Japanese commonly consider Koreans to make these claims.
In essence, this is not an article about false or mistaken Korean claims, because there is nothing to indicate that they are representative vs. cherry-picked. There is no expert telling us how common these claims are, how authoritative the claimants are, how well accepted they are by Koreans, or even whether there are any Koreans who dispute the claims at all. (Certainly there must be some!) What this is is an article about a Japanese prejudice against Koreans, but it is not presented as such.
Still, even there it simply presents nothing about Japanese attitudes, authority of those attitudes, or acceptance or dispute of them. It merely tries to present "evidence" of false Korean claims. Thus the article is synthesis of one group of facts (potentially random or irrelevant Korean claims) as evidence in favor of something else (justification of Japanese prejudice).
Summary: the article fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV standards. My !vote remains delete. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
>Sources are not always shown that the claim is false
Is that so? Do you even need sources that is against such claims as "Korea is the suzerain of all the languages in the world" and "Koreans are the ancestors of English people"? If you do, just delete those uriginals from the list. That will solve the problem. You don't need to delete the whole article.
>There is no expert telling us how common these claims are, how authoritative the claimants are, how well accepted they are by Koreans, or even whether there are any Koreans who dispute the claims at all.
This article is only half-finished. If you can wait several months, I think I can find some books that give an answer to your claim.
>even there it simply presents nothing about Japanese attitudes, authority of those attitudes, or acceptance or dispute of them.
I showed you that even All Japan Kendo Federation had to refer to the issue. I also introduced some books on the issue. I'm busy right now but if you can wait, I can show you what those book say.
>It merely tries to present "evidence" of false Korean claims.
Isn't that enough? What do you need more?--Michael Friedrich 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the source is shown for all items, the reason to delete this article as a reason in WP:OR is not found at all.--Panpulha 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Note the sentence in the first paragraph of WP:NOR: "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." That the material has been (sort of) published is not in dispute; the validity of this synthesis is. -- Visviva 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • In the article concerned, no analysis is performed. Examples are listed simply.--Panpulha 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • A "list of stupid things some Korean person said somewhere" is not encyclopedic. A claim that this is a general phenomenon -- that, in short, "Uriginal" is a meaningful term -- is original research... Either way, this article does not belong here. Visviva 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
          • >"that, in short, "Uriginal" is a meaningful term -- is original research" I showed you that several books on the issue are published. The term "Uriginal" may not be a good one but I couldn't find other suitable names for the issue. The English name of this phenomenon is not decided yet. That's all. Even if the word "Uriginal" is not suitable for English wikipedia, it is not original reserch that the issue is a serious one. If you can wait, I will be able to quote some of those books and show that this is not original reserch, although I am being too busy to do so. You need to wait a few month. Is it too late?--Michael Friedrich 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Even the Japanese name of this page "韓国起源説" ("Korean origin theory", which you allege is such a widespread and notable concept in Japanese, only gets 202 Ghits [34]. When you subtract out "Wikipedia" "blog" "2ch", that drops to 77 GHits: [35] cab 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. "韓国起源説" gets 951[36]. When you subtract out "Wikipedia" "blog" "2ch", that gets 1240 GHits[37].--Michael Friedrich 10:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is true, which is proved by the links I gave. Try clicking through to the last page to see how many results there really are (with duplicates filtered out). cab 11:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope. That's NOT true. There is a space after "韓国起源説" in your search[38]. If you delete the space, you can get 651 Ghits. And in your search, Google SafeSearch is on. You can get 951 Ghits when you turn it off.--Michael Friedrich 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The contents exemplified in this article are serious OR and NPOV, yes, they are. But that is not the reason for claiming a deletion of the article itself. Don't you make some kind of misunderstanding?--Panpulha 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, massive and irrecoverable violations of NOR and NPOV are grounds for deletion. -- Visviva 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I admire the desperate effort of the people who want to hide a shameful thing with stupidity, but the thing which does not satisfy a deleted matter is not deleted.--Panpulha 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Heavily POV, largely pointless. Realkyhick 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Whose POV? Korean POV or Japanese POV? I can't find any POV but simple truth in the article.--Michael Friedrich 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter whose POV, every entry on the table in that article has some sort of POV, usually against the use of that particular word or phrase. And please stop leaving messages all over Wikipedia to campaign about this debate! Realkyhick 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep then rename. For all items sources are shown, while the word ウリジナル seems to be a sort of pun. --Hatukanezumi 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the source is shown for all items, the reason to delete this article as a reason in WP:OR is not found at all.--Sanchaman 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 99% of the 30k GHits for ウリジナル ("uriginal" in Japanese) disappear when you modify the search slightly ("-blog -2ch -掲示板") and click through to the last page [39]. cab 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to something less derogatory. --Saintjust 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So your position is that Japanocentrism, which is a concept actually discussed in real scholarly books and papers [40], is not worth an encyclpedia article, but this "Uriginal" joke which gets thrown about on 2channel and people's blogs, is somehow encyclopedic. Nope, no contradiction or double standard here ... cab 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentPlease refer to the next link.
There is an item called "ウリジナル" in Japanese various encyclopedias. The former is a link of a simple encyclopedia for Japanese general families, and the latter is a link of the items of basic education for engineers. It is wide, and, in Japan and Southeastern Asia and Far East Asia (China / Taiwan / Japan), the forgery is known in this way in the Korean origin, and it is it with an object of the criticism. --Sanchaman 05:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • User-editable dictionaries a la Urban Dictionary (notice the very prominent "新規キーワード作成" link) are not reliable sources. You will not find this term "ウリジナル" in any reliable sources or real published Japanese dictionaries, only from internet users and comic books with an obvious axe to grind. cab 05:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also please do not make personal attacks on other users as you did with this edit [41] on your talk page at jawiki accusing Korean-descent users of banding together to distort Wikipedia. Incidentally, as far as I know none of the people suggesting deletion of this article are of Korean descent, so not only are you racist, you're hilariously off base. cab 09:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename. The term ウリジナル (Uriginal in Japanese language) seems to have been coined recently. I also think it is just a kind of pun. But the facts and phenomena described in the article really exist. And internet sites cited are reliable sources in this case. No WP:OR, neither meeting with WP:NOT. Therefore, keep.--Maris stella 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As already explained above, a webpage by John Doe from Podunk is a reliable source about what John Doe from Podunk thinks. It is not a reliable source about widespread beliefs among the Korean population or the history of the invention of typography/kendo/dog breeding in East Asia. Why should readers of an encyclopedia care what a non-notable college martial arts club in Iowa have to say? "It really exists" is not a reason for writing an encyclopedia article. We require notability and reliable sources (meaning unbiased scholarly or journalistic analysis of the alleged phenomenon of Koreans claiming to have invented things, which this article does not demonstrate exists). cab 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I wrote /the facts and phenomena ..... really exist. And internet sites cited are reliable sources in this case./ And Notablity is proven by the facts that there are so many pages which mention on this theme. Notabilty means that many people recoginise about the topic mentioned in the article (/objective evidence/). In addiiton, I have read the National text books on history used in the Korean junior high/high schools through translation, and the books have given very biased information, including that Korea is the teacher who have taught many cultural matters to Japan without historical basis or proof, which are the another aspect/proof of "Korean origin theory". (Though indirect, however these are /verifiable, secondary sources/). This is not my prejudice. Both Korea and Japan learned many things from China through history, but Korea has'n been the master teacher of Japan. (In the article of jawp, this point is distinguished carefully from the article theme in order to observe the NPOV guideline, so is in enwp too.) This is the answer for you. You have already written your opinion and judgement. Now, let the other people judge this RfD. --Maris stella 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Notability means what the Wikipedia guideline says it means, not "lots of internet users are talking about it" and "you can find a few websites which seem to be examples of it". cab 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: What are these "books" mentioned above? Why aren't they cited in the article? -- Visviva 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, there's Manga Kenkanryu. Comic book which originated as a webcomic, not a scholarly work. Another one 韓国人につけるクスリ ―韓国・自覚症状なしのウリナライズムの病理 (Medicine for Koreans: The pathology of "urinara-ism") [42] is apparently a blog which got turned into a book, with chapter titles like "Why are Korean dramas all repetitive?" and "School marks dependent on bribery". The blurb says the author is a Japanese language teacher in Seoul. cab 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • >Why aren't they cited in the article? It is because I was too busy to cite them when I created the article. I simply translated the Japanese version.--Michael Friedrich 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You have had years to work on the Japanese version of the article, but none of those books are cited there. In fact the only book that is cited is 「国定韓国小学校社会科教科書」[43], a primary school textbook. cab09:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Years?! My first edit on this article was done [44] on 04/NOV/2006. It is only half a year ago. You may have a misunderstanding but it is not me who started the article. It was really a miserable one when I first saw the article, full of prejudice, misunderstandings, only with original researches[45]. I tried to make it better, searched the internet for its sourse of information[46]. I came to know recently that there exist books on the issue. Even if I take the trouble to read and quote them spending a lot of time, money and efforts, what's in it for me? I am so busy a man that I didn't go out of the way to cite them. That's why. --Michael Friedrich 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#DICT etc. The suitability of a niche slang word for a global encyclopedia is very doubtful, and in any case the article fails WP:NOT#DICT outright EyeSereneTALK 09:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. Per hatukanezumi. It is based on sources.--Watermint 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename When it explains a complex relation between Japan and Korea, this article is useful.　--Azukimonaka 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename The article is almost truthful, but the term ウリジナル(Uriginal) is not so current even in Japan. The word 韓国起源説(←I don't know the best translation) is commonly used.--Umin 15:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC) — Umin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete all reasons have been stated as before, notice that most who want to keep the article are Japanese Jegal 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • >notice that most who want to keep the article are Japanese That is not a good reason to delete the article. We're defending it not because we want to accuse the Koreans but to introduce simple fact. If there were an article such as "Japan-Origin theory" or something like that, we would not oppose its existence as long as what it says is true and has enough sources of information. And I don't want to say this but I don't think it's good for you to mention it as a reason to delete since you are Korean.--Michael Friedrich 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • just note Canvassing from japanese-wiki. watch Michael Friedrich's log, http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:Contributions/Michael_Friedrich He said "I'm sorry" Michael Friedrich 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) but shortly afterward continues it!--220.150.152.202 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you mean this one"? I didn't ask Miwa.SS to poll a "Keep" vote. I only told him if he had something to say, he could leave a comment. Is it also against the rule? If so, I'm sorry. I didn't consider it so.--Michael Friedrich 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like a Japanese ultranationalist term used to mock Koreans. Its usage in both English and Korean seem almost non-existent. Most of the hits on Uriginal in Google search seems to be a German word, and you get no relevant results from search on reliable sources[47][48]. Contents dealt in this article is more appropriate for Korean nationalism, though it needs to be presented in a much more refined, NPOV manner. Cydevil38 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasons are already stated above.--Robert Houdini 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another OR, I think. -- Fnorder 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Maris stella. If necessary, the article name should be changed.--Gettystein 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per cab. Good friend100 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — per WP:NEO: "Uriginal" is a neologism. Alternate suggestion: Note that there are (or were) plenty of parallel articles within Wikipedia, describing similar things from the Japanese and Korean perspectives: Hapkido / Aikido (合氣道/合気道), Magatama / Gogok (勾玉/曲玉), Kumdo / Kendo (劍道/剣道), Kayokyoku / Gayo (music) (歌謡曲), etc., and there are a plenty more which don't have articles. It's a matter of fact that such parallelisms exist between the 2 cultures, and it would be informative to start an article based on that line of thinking instead (without claiming where these things originated).--Endroit 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is completely opinion-based. Even though the author (User:Michael_Friedrich) claims it has a dozen of reliable sources, those sources are mostly article explaining someone's or some group's nonsensical opinion. It is also clear that the creator (and main-editor) of this article is trying to insult Korea and Korean. Other than this article, he had several issues with the article Dokdo and was blocked for vandalism. eDenE 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not Dokdo but Liancourt Rocks! And this article has nothing to do with the rocks. I don't believe what I did on Liancourt Rocks article[49] was vandalism either. We're not trying to insult Korea or people from Korea. We are just introducing the phenomena. --Michael Friedrich 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well you did! (not that anybody here cares), and I'm going to find some of you guys sympathetic to Japanese users after I storm through some of these articles. Good friend100 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just note about actual condition of japanese URIGINAL.[50] "Origin of URIGINAL" is just an original research. "List of URIGINAL" are made of web source(korean news) and Manga Kenkanryu(anti-Korean comic) sorce and so on. include "When a Korean man (civilian) appeared in japanese TV, he said xxx is our culture" "Grounds for URIGINAL" is Manga Kenkanryu's opinion and web source(korean news). frankly, "Editor of URIGINAL in japanese" has no bookish, no brain, no academic, no...--220.150.173.138 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Some example of the list could be bad ones, I must admit. But that does not mean the whole article must be deleted. And we're talking about the English version of it. What the Japanese version is like does not matter now. And most of the examples on the list are based on reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo or other famous groups like Korea Kumdo Association and United States Yudo Association. And I cannot believe how rude you are to say editors of uriginal in Japanese have no brain. --Michael Friedrich 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Probation What about renaming this article and putting it on 6 months' probation? This article is only half-finished as I mentioned above. If it is still considered to be POV or an original research then, I won't oppose a deletion.--Michael Friedrich 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.