User talk:Hongkyongnae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Korean Civil War

hi, welcome to wikipedia. i noticed you are changing "korean war" to "korean civil war" in many articles. while i understand your intent, there is a WP:NC wikipedia naming policy, that requires us to use the most common english name in most cases. if you want to propose a change to how wikipedia names this topic, please feel free to discuss at Talk:Korean War, but please do not pipe, redirect, or use a name other than the current actual article name. thanks.Appleby 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:No NPOV

provelt, i posted on the "no npov" discussion page, but wanted to talk to you directly. i agree that the page does not conform to category standards. (blame my woeful wikiskills for that). if you wish, i would be delighted to remove the content.

instead of placing this content in a "category", i instead will create an article by that name.

however, i ask that the "no npov" category be kept on wikipedia. just as other categories have pages for like-minded wikipedians to be listed (i.e. red sox, vegetarians, teachers, etc.) i would like the category for "no npov" to exist as well. thanks. i will check back here in a in day or so.

As an essay, I think it's fine. As a category, it's badly named and overly verbose. It came to my attention just because it showed up on the uncategorized categories list. The closest thing which would match is Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy ... see here:
Now, the current Category:No NPOV isn't a category and should certainly go. If you want to build a real category, this is what I'd recommend. Create a new category with a more appropriate name, such as Category:Wikipedians opposed to NPOV, which would be a member of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy. The description should just be a short summary of your ideas and a link to the essay itself. Let me know if you would like any help with any of this. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right. ROK forces did a great deal of fighting an delaying NPKA advance. But it could not have been done without help of more than a dozen nations, and escpecially without help of U.S. forces. MacArthur;s strategic landing at Inchon is shown in the picture on the Korean War article. An important turning point for the fate of Korea. Oyo321 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: napalm

thanks for the information about napalm used during the Korean War.

I agree about the NPOV policy. Its not very effective and in many cases weakens one side, like at the Dokdo article talk page. Good friend100 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Korea entry (DPRK)

Hi, I noticed your edits on that page and just wanted to say it's nice to meet another highly-qualified intellectual. I do agree that the Korean War was essentially a civil war on paper, but I'm sure it is not lost on Koreans that in reality (despite DPRK starting the war) that ultimately it was a US v Soviet and Chinese determination regarding the 38th parallel outcome. Jsw663 02:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I agree with your argument about the NPOV policy. It gets in the discussion way too much, and one statement leads an editor to scream out POV and the discussion begins to gurgle down into a blown out argument and endless debate (as seen in the Dokdo talk page). Good friend100 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Korea not Stalinist?

안녕하세요. You have made the claim that North Korea is not Stalinist. Can you show me a non-North Korean source that also claims so? I am just saying that I have always heard it called 'the last Stalinist regime', and a 'repressive dictatorship'. I would just like some citation that it isn't Stalinist. Respectfully, --완원용(阮願龍)/Ionius Mundus 02:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I actually got a Bruce Cumings book, North Korea, about a week ago and haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I'll have to do that soon. You have explained a lot. One more thing, what do you believe about accusations that it's repressive, lacking human rights, and founded on a personality cult? Again, thank you. Respectfully, 완원용(阮願龍)/Ionius Mundus 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

trimmed...

[edit] RE : delete a page

Go ahead, renominate it for deletion if you deem this should be case. Click here for more information on how to make a proper nomination procedure. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the discussion of NPOV and No NPOV

Hello Hongkyongnae!

I decided to post directly to your page since you seem interested in the debate about NPOV. You have probably spent more time deducting / reasoning about this issue than have I, however I stumbled upon the problems of NPOV several times, not until recently did I realize that NPOV is not only a dream, it is impossible and unfair to an article, since it encourage people to find ways of justifying their biased opinion shrouded in a confusing smokescreen of anonymous neutral-sounding language, while still claiming its clear and un-neutral agenda, such as is the case about the Korean War aka Fatherland Liberation War.

Therefore, I lately have found it inspirational to think of the NPOV requirement as a BPOV requirement, a Balanced Point of View. That's why I have created the BPOV article with the intent of correcting the flaws in the NPOV policy with the hope of it becoming a new Wikipedia policy, or atleast an accepted alternative, or at the very least, to further induce debate about this issue so that the problems of NPOV may be solved.

[edit] More on North Korea

오래간만이에요. Earlier you said, "...plus, they do NOT see socialims in one state, which was a key point in stalinism". The article on Juche directly contradicts this saying, "North Korea indeed upholds Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country"", and "...advocating "socialism in one country", as opposed to international socialism, the North Korean government...". Should this be changed? Can you explain more in-depth about how Juche relates to 'socialism in one country'? By the way, I'm still reading the Bruce Cumings book, as well as the official biography of Kim Il-sŏng (though that one will take me a very long time, having over 2000 pages). Thank you. -- 완원용(阮願龍)/Ionius Mundus 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

hi IM, and 오래간만이에요 to you too. good research to dig up the quote on socialism in one country. you may a very good point there, in policies and statements nk leaders have often talked about how juche is really only workable in nk. yet at other times, nk speaks of how juche can be learned, should be learned, and followed by other coutnries. they love to hold themselves up as models. maybe they mean that other people may learn from juche, but juche has to be adopted to specific circumstances. so on this point the message seems mixed. that raises the point on when all these different things were said. has the official view on juche changed over time? i will do some more reading on this. you got me really thinking about this now, thanks!
as i sit here and think about your point on russia/nk and socialism in one country, i believe stalin's point was to redefine socialism away from lenin/marx/trotsky who saw socialism as a class issue that extended beyond the borders of a single nation. the future for the socialist revolution was international, something that should NOT be contained within a single nation's borders. to keep the revolution strictly within russia would violate socialist assumptions. stalin rewrote this theory, i think, to show that socialism CAN be contained within one nation, then later it will expand outwards. actually, with this "new theory" i believe stalin was more legitimizing his own seizure of power within russia than anything else. next, for stalin to claim that only russia was the source of "true socialism" also meant that all other socialists movements should be subordinate to russia. this control never really happened, but stalin tried to exercise at least some control over socialist movements in other countries. for example, when mao zedong attempted to rewrite a crucial point in marxism on the relationship between consciousness and material conditions, stalin labeled mao a "margarine communist", meaning a fake/artificial communist. the message was "unless russia approves of your ideas, it isnt real communism."
i dont see nk's ideas on socialism as being the exact same as the above. they may be saying "juche belongs in nk, juche comes from nk, and juche is only appropriate to nk" but i dont think they mean ALL socialism is defined by juche. rather, they maybe saying a form of socialism can be contained in nk, and each country may have its own form. if so, THAT statement is VERY different than stalin's contention that true socialism resides only in one country (russia) and that russia will educate/propagate it to other areas of the world.
still reading cumings? which book is it? if you want a good overview of nk and sk try his book "korea's place in the sun." Hongkyongnae 18:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
i just remembered something else. for marx/lenin et al, they all believed that class was a universal condition. workers in russia, china, germany, etc. were all workers and suffered fundamentally the same way from capitalism. kim ilsung's ideas, along with many other "third world" thinkers, resist that notion. they see "class" NOT as a universal category, but as a category that varies greatly by region, area, country etc. that is, workers in china did NOT have a lot in common with germany workers, and so on. further, kim and others argue that such universal categories such as class are attempts by powerful, european nations to control "non-western" people. how? simple, if russia (or anyone) says that class (or whatever) is universal AND that they control the definition of what is "proper", then effectively russia controls all the thinking and activities of other people trying to learn the theories. russia ends up controlling how china, nk, everyone can be a communist. THAT is power. as a parallel, in the US and europe many people think that gender is universal. men are men, women are women everywhere. BUT in post-colonial studies, gender is not considered to be universal. being male or female is NOT universally the same. to be a female in north korea (a place that was colonized, less wealthy, is threatened by super powers, etc.) is totally different than being a female in the US (powerful, rich, imperialist, able to order weaker nations, etc.) whew, you certainly have gotten my brain to work. thanks again. Hongkyongnae 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The Bruce Cumings book is just titled North Korea. It starts out saying, "Judging by our media, North Korea is the country every American loves to hate...". I'll have to find the one you're talking about soon. It is mentioned on the back cover. Also, regarding the Juche article, should it be changed then? It's clearly saying that North Korea supports 'socialism in one country', which does not seem to be true. Should this at least be reworded? One more thing, have you seen Kim Il-Sŏng's official biography? How much of it do you think is true? Thanks again. --Ionius Mundus 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
are we in the same time zone because we seem to on together? ok, as far as the "juche" article, i have not visited that one yet. i am doing the korean war lately since that is what my research is on now. it seems to me that you have a good understanding on the "socialism in one country" right now, or will have soon. why not go in and reword it yourself? by the way, here is a hint on how to use books for quick research. if you have a specific idea/topic you want to know about, go to a book's index and see if you can find it there. that may help you use cumings' book quickly for your edit on juche. i am looking forward to reading what you write. as far as kim ilsung offical biography, i have only read parts of it. i think you might get more if you ALSO read the biography written by Dae-sook Suh. by the way, i am impressed with your curiosity on topics. Hongkyongnae 19:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I use Eastern Standard Time. Unfortunately, the book does not have an index. I'll see what I can do on the Juche article. I'll also have to look into finding Dae Suk Sŏ's book now. Do you know what it's called? As for the official biography, I'm reading a section a day, and I estimate that should take me around six months to finish. --Ionius Mundus 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

the title of dae-sook suh's book is "kim il sung: the north korean leader." pretty easy. have fun reading the biography, and i am jealous you have enough time to read so much. Hongkyongnae 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's summer vacation for me so I have quite a lot of time, though that will change in a few weeks. Also, how is my edit on Juche? Thanks. --Ionius Mundus 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what can you tell me about Lee Jun? I did a few quick and fruitless searches. Kim Il-Sŏng's official biography says, "Lee Jun, Kojong's secret emmisary, cut his stomach open at the Hague Peace Conference and stained the conference hall red with his Korean blood". How do you properly write his name in Han'gŭl? Again, thanks. --Ionius Mundus 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

first, nice job on the juche update. it makes more sense now. as you could see by the earlier edits, they were unsure of what to write..." socialism in one country, but acknowledges international socialism." what you did was to clarify what seemd to be a contradiction. second, on lee jun (이준) he was one of three secret emissaries sent by king gojong (korea's last king) to the hague conference in 1907. their mission was to enlist the sympathy and support of european nations to keep the japanese from colonizing korea. the mission was a failure in that most governments sided with the japanese seizure of korea and refused to even admit the emissaries since legally korea was not an independent country. (this action by japan was patterned after the european practice, so not many europeans would object too much.) in response to their failure, lee jun (one of the three emissaries) was so outraged at western nations that he committed suicide, i believe by cutting his stomach open in public. in nk, this event is very well known and is often held up as proof that (1) imperialist nations will never help korea, only harm it. (2) that appealing to the "good will" and justice of the international community is futile. and (3) the only way for korea to resist imperialism is to take action for themselves, dont count on others. you can see how juche both fits and flows from this event. i hope this helps you. by the way, i can sympathize with you about summer vacation being over. classes start in 8 days for me. Hongkyongnae 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll write an article on Lee Jun soon. By the way, how did '이' become 'Lee'? Where did the 'L' come from? --Ionius Mundus 22:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

good luck on the lee jun article. you might want to list a movie that deals with the event at the end of the article. it was made in nk, is it called "the hero who never returned" (돌아오지않은밀사) directed by shin sang ok. some websites that may help are, www.korea-dpr.com/library/202.pdf, and www.times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200509/kt2005090819230311990.htm

as for the 이 becoming lee, ( 李 ) first go to hangul and you can see some explanation. simply put, 이 can be written either 이 or 리 depending on where it appears in a word. when it is first, it is 이. the problem with 이 is when you try to romanize it as a name. "i" or "e" dont really work all that well. so some koreans romanized it as lee or rhee. some other koreans romanize 이 as Yi, dropping the "l/r" but trying to avoid having "i" or "e" sitting there all alone. by the way, nk and sk language differs on this dropping of the initial "l/r". let me know when you have the article on lee jun up and running. Hongkyongnae 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Palais

Hello,

My apologies for not replying to your first post. Thanks for the work you've done on improving James Palais.

The Palais article is already a real article -- as real as they get on Wikipedia, anyway :-). The discussion tab is currently in red because nothing has been written there. For the same reason, this link is red. So while the discussion tab may seem to be highlighted, it isn't really. (Am I right that that's the source of the confusion?)

So please feel free to continue improving & expanding the article. There's quite a lot of information out there that the article doesn't cover yet. In particular, I think it would be great if the article had a fuller bibliography of Palais' work. I'm not sure if it should be a complete bibliography, though; I'm not sure how much he wrote.

Anyway, thanks for your efforts in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Korea-related topics! Hope to continue seeing you around. -- Visviva 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Hyŏng Jik

Another question: How did Kim Hyŏng Jik (Kim Il Sŏng's father) die? Originally the article on him said, "He was killed in a raid by Communists, but was later recast for propaganda purposes as an indefatigable Communist revolutionary fighter and a vanguard of the Communist movement who had been killed later." However, Kim Il Sŏng's official biography claims that he died from natural causes, rather than having been kileed as the article claimed that both sides said. What do you say? By the way, I checked more thouroughly and found that my Bruce Cumings book is actually North Korea: Another Country. Strangely, it wasn't on the cover or first page. Also, I made an edit on the Bruce Cumings page which seemed biased against him characterizing him as pro-North Korean. Thanks. --Ionius Mundus 05:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

hi IM. ha, ha. so, the bruce cumings page labeled him "pro-nk"? i know him and he would laugh at that. the real problem is the field of korean studies is very, very polarized and still lives partly in the cold war vision of the world. so, some scholars think that you MUST be either pro or anti nk, or pro or anti US. they think in zero sum terms, which is also seen in many of the articles on korea. it is something to be careful of when you read info on nk. cumings was one of the first really good scholars to provide an intelligent, reasoned and informed analysis of nk and NOT use cold war thinking. as a result, some folks think he is "pro-nk" since he does not write hate-filled analyses against nk.
kim hyeong jik? boy you are doing some good research if you dug him up. ok, here is what dae-sook suh has on him: born july 10, 1884 and at the age of 15 married the 17 year daughter of a school teacher, her name was kang pan seok. kim hyongjik spent most of his early life in manchuria, which was not abnormal then. there, he operated a herb pharmacy. he died in 1926 at the age of 32. kim hyeong jik attended sungsil school in pyongyang, which was established by foreign missionaries. no details of his death are given by suh. what happened is really anyone's guess now. the nk media has transformed everyone in kim ilsung's family into anti-imperialist nationalists who perform incredible feats of patriotism, so i would take almost anything nk says about kim hyongjik's activities with a grain of salt. simply put, we dont really know.
Thanks. I would also take it Kim Il Sŏng did not actually make the 1000-ri journeys across North Korea by himself when he was 12. It's often tough to judge what is true and false in Kim's biography. --Ionius Mundus 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
probably not a 1,000 li journey. however, dont let such inspirational "tales" remove his real accomplishments. he did some absolutely amazing things that no other korean managed. his fight against the japanese imperialists was astounding. with a small "army of only 300+ hundred, he fought up in the mountains of manchuria for years and years, regardless of the arduous conditions. plus, he managed to NOT be killed by a much larger, better trained, and aggressive japanese military. he was definately a nationalist and a hero. Hongkyongnae 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I take it the reason the North Korean government exaggerates these things is because Kim Il Sŏng is supposed to be synonymous with the revolution. I would, however, expect the brutality which characterizes the Japanese controling Korea in the autobiography is no exaggeration. Correct? --Ionius Mundus 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

on the first point you are probably correct. but i also suspect that something else has happened. as it often does with people who live within a larger social grouping, i am sure that some folks decided creating and advancing such stories would also farther their careers as well as the revolution. so that may account for some of the stories as well. every country has such folks. second point, japanese brutality. i dont know the individual stories there so i cant say "yes" or "no". but you can check through a variety of sources about the inhumanity and criminal actions of the japanese empire. 200,000+ korean women made into sex slaves for the military; medical experiments on human beings; biological weapons development; the nanking massacre; bayoneting of philipino babies; the list goes on. some apologiest state that the US can be condemned for its use of of nukes on japan. yes, but this in no way lessens the crimes of the japanese. see? there is plenty of blame to go around. hee, hee. Hongkyongnae 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Do you think things are better now in North Korea than during the occupation? What about 1970 and the occupation? By the way, I think today's the day Japan annexed Korea in 1910. Thanks. --Ionius Mundus 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, what do you think the title of the Choson Sinbo page should be: Choson Sinbo, Choson Shinbo, Chosŏn Sinbo, Chosŏn Shinbo, Chosun Sinbo, or Chosun Shinbo? --Ionius Mundus 00:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
first the easy question. on the website for the choson sinbo, THEY romanize it as choson sinbo. so that is the best way to go. next, on you question about which time was "better" for koreans. it is a bit of a problematic question in that i am not sure what your point is in asking it. are we to conclude that because one time is "better" than another that it is some how preferable? and who is to answer that question? i might answer "this time is better" but some one from nk might answer differently. it depends upon what your criteria for "better" is, who is answering, and what the point of the question really is. so, how about that for a long-winded non-answer? but just to provide some info to you, in terms of independence, clearly now and 1970 are better than the colonial period for most koreans. even if economic conditions are terrible for many nk folks now, some of them may value korea's independence mightly. as a filipino nationalist once said in the 1920s about being controlled by americans "i would rather live in a filipino hell than an american heaven." if we are strictly speaking about economic conditions, standard of living sort of thing, of the three times you asked about, probably 1970 was the best for the largest number of koreans in the north. but, before you head off thinking you have some sort of "answer" i would ask you to please first address my early questions. by the way, how is your article coming along? i have worked a little on one on James Palais who was one of my teachers long ago. if you are interested in studying korea, i think you should know about palais. Hongkyongnae 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll do a bit more research on Lee Jun, then start the article when I have enough information. Sorry, by better I meant freer. I'll have to learn about James Palais now, too. Thanks. --Ionius Mundus 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

haaaa. that slippery and value laden word..."freer." for me to address that one, please define "free" for me. hee, hee. dont let western definitions dictate your learning about nk. they are "free" by their own definition, but not by that definition held by the US. so, i'm not much help to you on this either. Hongkyongnae 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I expected you would say. Your answer so far is satisfying though. Thanks. --Ionius Mundus 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BPOV 2

Hi there! I've replied to your comment on User_talk:Bjornar --Bjornar 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And another reply today. --Bjornar 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic's parentage

Thanks for your additions to Saint Dominic. I adjusted the changes you made to the paragraph on his parentage, because the paragraph cites its sources and your additions don't. However, I added in a footnote that Juana de Aza is usually called "Jane" in English. I also added more detail on the dream, as described by Jordan of Saxony -- not quite what you said, but close.

If you know the earliest source that gives his mother's family name as "de Aza", that would be a really useful addition! Andrew Dalby 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO NPOV

After reading your statements on your page, I agree that NPOV hinders the ability to really edit and make Wikipedia articles. First, everyone argues over it and fail to pay attention to the article.

Also, even though it is supposed to be a "neutral" view, Wikipedia can never be fully neutral because a neutral point of view would really be no point of view. Every person has a different point of view to an article and even if a neutral viewpoint is shared it doesn't work easily.

Wikipedia should follow outside events and other internet sites and essays. It does have a tab for current issues but writing new information always brings up POV POV POV. NPOV just makes an article not as good as it could be. Good friend100 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the post and nice words GF. this is certainly not a "glamorous" issue for most posters, but it perhaps one of the most important since all wiki-knowledge, debates, and articles are shaped these assumptions. the most problematic point, to me, is not that folks engage in POV but cite NPOV. more fundamental is that by invoking NPOV they are actively (if often unconsciously) in promoting a POV but do not realize that they are doing it. how does one argue with someone who fails to realize their own contradiction?
the simple answer is to make folks actually aware that such a problem exists in the first place, which is what i am trying to do little by little. so, thanks for even noticing my arguments. Hongkyongnae 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] arae hangul

On my talk page, you wrote:

hello. you mentioned you had worked on a korean wp program for mac. well, i have one and i have trouble with files sent me in arae hangul, the most popular wp program in korea. would you know whether there any hope that a mac version of this program might be on the way?
thanks and sorry to bother you with such a tiny question. Hongkyongnae 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse my taking so long to get back to you. I'm afraid I don't know anything about it. I haven't been keeping up with such developments. Sorry. Sugo Haseyo. -DoctorW 17:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism as ideology

Your change to the page Nationalism was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.Paul111 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Korean war

After reading your message,I found the same situation which I encountered.IMHO,the Korean in the early stage is essentially a Civil War,before the US intervention.And the severity of this early stage really confined to a very limited extent,just imaging,the troops of KCP is the size of 10 or 20 division,so if the war ended then,there wont be a million civilion casualities，though we had to consider the nowaday korean maybe a country like China and Vietnam.The American really love their lives,especially the ones of their compatriots,So I hated someone claiming the casualities number or figure or something do not make importance,but in the meantime,they showed in the every edits this war following only to the american way of thinking,dont want hear from the voices other than US.So I found maybe this article really sounds like the 3rd opinion which some editor had stated before it's english wikipedia,so it's common to reflect more english or american views,I coined the term American NPOV to describe this kind of situation.Maybe it's true,english wiki isn't a Utopia which meant to be.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,your points fall very the same place where I thought,Maybe Jimbo had forseen the possible localized and cultrual or ethnooriented trend of wikipedia,so the NPOV is prposed.And you know,the thing which is said to be the rule or law,the must obeyed,is just the ones which people always forget or don't obey to.The setup of NPOV means people are always biased.So don't give up too early.Since we had known,we can fight more consciously.I am sorry,I didn't read korean,I will try the google translating version of your link.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from WikiProject Korea!

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Wikimachine 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Nationalism

Hi, I found your page through the talk section of Korean Nationalism, if you are still interested in the page I would very much like help repairing the overall negative tone and information(for a more NPOV). I made a few changes including a brief introduction and origins section, as well as a history section which will be filled in the upcoming days. Overall the entire article needs to be restructured, as it reads like random bits of information(related to korean nationalism or not) thrown on the page. Let me know what you think. CatherineKim (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] religious nationalism

As an editor of the article Nationalism, please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)