Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurang (3rd nomination)

:{{la|Samurang}} ([{{fullurl:Samurang|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurang (3rd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I am bringing this back up for AfD. It is essentially revisionist history and is frequently vandalized. If this topic deserves elaboration anywhere it should be a subsection of Haidong Gumdo. I have taken the liberty to re-add the controversies section and notices of controversy throughout the article simply because of the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence to these claims, and the controversy section seems to be repeatedly removed through vandalism. Scholars familiar with the subject matter consider it an attempt at revisionist history by Haidong Gumdo. Haidong Gumdo is essentially a Korean fencing art which uses Japanese swords and claims them as originally Korean as well as claiming the Samurai caste descended from so-called Korean "Samurang." It must be stressed that there is not one single verifiable piece of evidence to support these claims, and there is no record of the word Samurang even being used at all until the late 1980s when Haidong Gumdo was founded. Also it should be noted that Haidong Gumdo was started by a man who essentially claimed he learned the art from an old man in the mountains. I realize that people think maybe it should remain due to controversy being of interest, but the fact is it's constantly being edited to look as if its verified fact. If nothing else, this should be merged into Haidong Gumdo. If you want more information feel free to leave me a message. --Leonffs 07:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would like to point out that this has been deleted in the past. Leonffs (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this was only speedy deleted once as an attack page, it passed the previous AfD. The story is largely unsourced and controversial, but the entry for the most part presents it as such. Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes but it was not like that when I found it. I spent a while trying to restore it to previous as well as adding some things. It is being frequently vandalized to appear as factual evidence. I strongly believe this should be a subsection in Haidong Gumdo, since that's the only thing its really relative to, or deleted entirely. Leonffs (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I found no reliable secondary research on this subject, and so far claims on Samurang are either rumors or organizations associated with Haidong Gumdo. I suggest this article be deleted or merged with Haidong Gumdo with a brief explanation of the term. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is nothing more than revisionist history propagated by Korean nationalists. Bloodmerchant (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete and salt since it's going to keep being recreated by revisionists. Gumdo is derived from Japanese Kendo/Kenjutsu. This is another attempt to redact Japanese influences from circa the colonization from Korean culture. JJL (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:FRINGE. If we must re-direct, let's make it stick. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete / Merge Apparently originally started and kept at the last AfD as hoax/propaganda believed by a large number of people. (In which case it's actually anti-Korean, not Korean nationalist, because it was claimed that Koreans at large believe the story.) I asked several Koreans about this topic when I saw it come up last time, and none had heard of it. So delete as nearly totally-unsourced article on a hoax/fringe/cult belief or merge into the article on the group who created the story. The article on the group, by the way, needs a lot more sourcing before becoming even close to acceptable. Dekkappai (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I just checked [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=samurang+kumdo&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a Google news] and there are a couple references to the "uniquely Korean martial art", "Samurang warriors of the Kokuryu[sic] dynasty in Korea", etc. Complete balderdash, as far as I know. But nations constantly invent their own national mythologies, and we may be witnessing the birth of one of those here... As a similar situation to the Korean kendo/gumdo situation, I just checked in on the manga article-- according to writers on the subject introduced by Western comics around 1900, and then Japanese traditional elements added... and then nationalists claiming it was their own invention all along. And our article-- a former FA candidate-- gives equal weight to the "pure Japanese culture" crowd. So what do we do with this article? It's sourceable apparently, but pure B.S. Not sure... Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::* From WP:Fringe: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. It is certainly not the case here. — Rankiri (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:::* Frankly, I consider most of Wiki's rules and regulations to be WP:Fringe, as they are created by a "consensus" of anonymous editors who come to the encyclopedia anyone can edit not to edit, but the build the bureaucracy anyone can play tinhorn dictator at... But anyway, I see two references to the theory-- "Although the Haidong samurang predates the Japanese samurai by about 400 years, ... " at the Arizona Daily Star, and "Haidong gumdo stems from the Samurang warriors of the Kokuryu dynasty in Korea." at 'The Charlotte Observer. And this is just through looking in English. My Korean isn't good enough, and my interest in this topic not strong enough for me to state conclusively that it appears in no major publication in that language. I wouldn't be surprised if it did though. So I'll ignore the Wiki-bureaucracy-- by which, this article has survived two previous AfDs-- and just state, I think it's hogwash, and should be deleted. Glancing through the history, I get the impression it was started as an attack-piece on Korean nationalism, "Look at the ridiculous claims they believe...", but now it looks like it's been hijacked by actual believers. But in any case, it's hogwash. We give credence to equally hogwash-ish ideas here all over the place. Comic books are not a Japanese invention. Within recent history we see what happened-- comics were introduced to Japan by another culture, the Japanese added traditional and historical elements, and now some are claiming it as an ancient, traditional Japanese art, and we give that theory equal weight with the historical facts. The same thing went on with Kumdo-- Kendo came during the occupation, during the post-occupation period it was nationalized by adding real traditional Korean elements with basis in real traditional Korean martial arts and history-- and now Kumdo is called an ancient tradition martial art. But it's not, exactly... Dekkappai (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:::*By the way, if anyone wants to search it: Samurang in hangeul is "사무랑". A couple of quick pages: [http://koreawatcher.at.infoseek.co.jp/docs/haedong-ko.htm koreawatcher] (Japanese site)-- "해동검도의 역사" (History of Haedong gumdo), and [http://www.mookas.com/ng_view.asp?news_no=580&page=3 www.mookas.com]. Neither look very "reliable". [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22%EC%82%AC%EB%AC%B4%EB%9E%91%22 Google books] pulls up a couple mentions too. But now, I think I've spent waaay more time on this than I'd ever intended on this particular topic, and will bow out. Good luck :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::::*I see no relevant search results on Google Scholar or Google Books. Most returned results seem to refer to alternative spellings of Semarang. — Rankiri (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::::*It may have survived an AfD in the past but it has also failed one, but got remade. This brings further my point of this article being frequently vandalized. If it fails this AfD, which it clearly is so far, I will keep an eye and make sure it gets speedy delete if it comes up again. Leonffs (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::*Considering the POV entries etc, would a semi-protected redirect be in order? --Nate1481 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There seem to be no reliable sources covering the conspiracy theory, making it non-notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete primary sources only looks like someone using WP as a web host to try & legitimise their version of history. --Nate1481 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

::Prior to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurang&diff=294897476&oldid=288425768 this edit] it was ok as an explanation, but still of dubious notability. (some of the damage was later undone) --Nate1481 07:55, 1 July 2009 (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.