User talk:Olivia always knows: Difference between revisions

Hello, Olivia always knows, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Below are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can’t find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We’re so glad you’re here! Masterhatch (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the sources you provided to verify if they were reputable, and what I found is that the sources you are using do not back up anything you added in the edits, its entirely different topics all your cited sources are on the Manchus, the Qing Empire, etc and the pages you provided are unrelated topics that dont even mention Korea that much.

While the authors themselves are historians/etc, they do not support the edits you made here, here, here and here.

The previous sources before you made your edits are from Russian academic Vovin who specializes in East Asian languages (Japan, Korean, etc) and Finnish academic Janhunen who specializes in Tungus languages and other East Asian languages. The new sources you added such as this one (Crossley, Siu and co) you cited page 38, which is entirely off topic and only mentions the Jurchens, or this one on page 108 and 109 which is just mentioning racial quotas, Manchus, Han Chinese, etc. Another source you added here also does the same across the entire article/book.

Please do not abuse sources, as these are counterproductive and please do not revert my edits to prevent an Edit War. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scholars you mentioned are not historians. I believe the current content has nothing to do with Korean history, making it largely off-topic. Olivia always knows (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s exactly my point, they are linguistic historians, Vovin and Janhunen are linguists who are study the linguistic history of East Asia. And it absolutely has everything to do with Korean history, Vovin for example talks about how Koguryo’s horseriders migrated south from Manchuria into what is now modern day Korea, it is entirely relevant to this topic as this is examining the history of Korea through multiple lens.

Furthermore, you have not at all addressed the main point I raised, which is that you are abusing sources that have nothing to do with this topic. Your first insertion of sources straight up do not back up any of your points and are entirely unrelated to this topic. Please stop or I will have to escalate this and talk to admin, as I see that you have yet again reverted my reverts and added even more sources, a significant number of which that have nothing to do with this topic. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you one last time to stop editwarring, address these concerns I am raising. You are at your third revert and any further reverts will mean you are edit warring which can result in a ban. I have tried to ask you why you are making edits with citations that are entirely off topic but you are just ignoring my comments as well as that of another editor.

This is your final warning, you can stop this right now and explain your reasoning and actions and we can prevent escalation. It is not helpful for Wikipedia for editors to make edits with citations that are not relevant/cite citations that are inaccurate. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia, now you’ve switched justifications after the prev ones weren’t accepted. These scholars are specialists in this very complicated areas. They are historical linguists that are also examining genetic data. If you ask anyone the most authoritative Western experts on the origin of Korean people, these names will come up. They’re immediately recognizable in the field.

On the other hand, the names that you cite, Olivia, are people that aren’t necessarily specialists in this specific topic. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Korean people originally Japanese? I’m curious why that kind of statement is needed in Korean history. ​”Why should genetic data be included in history-related content?” Olivia always knows (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a gut feeling this is the underlying reason for this edit. Please don’t edit based on what you like/dislike hearing.

And you’re not even really interpreting the situation correctly. At that point in the far past, “Korean” and “Japanese” ethnicities didn’t even exist. Current Japanese ethnicities are descended from people who migrated to Japan from Korea; if anything it’s more arguable that they’re descended from Koreans than vice versa. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I ask what evidence you have for saying that? Your claims are simply absurd. Please tell me you’re not talking about genetic data here… Olivia always knows (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon thank you for joining the conversation, I have serious issues with Olivia’s edits. First of all, they are completely avoiding the fact that their initial edits blatantly abused sources by adding sources that were completely off topic. Olivia, you continue to avoid answering why you added sources when I clicked on your citations and they were talking about the Qing Empire, not the linguistic history of the Korean people. I’m sure some case could be made for their position but using random sources that are off topic (the fact that you let editors access it via links too means you either didn’t read your own source or you were aware and just shoved it in…)

As for the info they are omitting, Koguryo, the northern of the three kingdoms of Korea, according to many linguistic historians such as Alexander Vovin were the initial progenitors of the Korean language (proto-Koreanic to be more exact), and that there was a proto-Japonic presence in southern Korea that was either pushed out or assimilated. This is relevant because clearly we are talking about the linguistic origins of the Korean people.

Deleting this information, and POV pushing isn’t helping anyone. It also doesn’t help that you are now reverting edits I made on other topics that are unrelated to the topic at hand (and for everyones info im deleting quotes on another article because its heavily primary source + not relevant to the article). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Olivia, it’s like universal consensus that non-Ainu Japanese ethnic groups migrated to Japan from Korea. That claim is widely accepted by the academic community in Japan; even the Japanese emperor has mentioned it (implying he agreed it was true) a number of times. I don’t get what you’re finding controversial; nobody else really finds it controversial. I’d provide links but I’m traveling rn. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnyediting99 A LONG time ago, there were nomadic people who lived in Manchuria. These people moved onto the Korean peninsula and created tribes. The people from these tribes are the prehistoric ancestors to modern Koreans. However if you go back further in time, there are regions in Northeastern China where ancestors of modern Chinese and modern Koreans overlapped. Liaodong Peninsula in particular in modern Liaoning province was a territory that was won and lost between ancient Chinese and Korean states, notably Gojoseon and Goguryeo for the latter. A decent chunk of what is now North Korea was, in fact, Manchus(Jurchen) land.

The ancestors of the Manchus(Jurchen), Malgal, were part of the Korean Kingdom of Goguryeo. After the fall of Goguryeo, many of these people fled to the Korean Peninsula. The successor state to Goguryeo, Balhae, also had Manchus(Jurchen) and Korean components. During the Joseon period, there were bitter wars between the Jurchen tribes and Koreans. The Koreans attempted to make a push North to reclaim their ancestral homeland and naturally clashed with the Manchus(Jurchen) Tribes inhabiting the Northern regions of North Korea.

The founder of Joseon, Lee Seong Gye, had close ties with Manchus(Jurchens). Some of his most trusted generals and soldiers were Manchus(Jurchen). Both ethnicities worship Paektu Mountain. Manchu ancestors (Mohe) were among the people of Balhae Kingdom. Historically, a significant number of Manchus (Jurchens) has lived in Northern Korean Peninsula and there were Koreans lived in Manchuria way before the modern immigration of Joseonjok.

Joseon Dynasty’s first King Yi Seong-gye has many Manchus(Jurchen) Soldiers in his troops. A prime example would be his “blood brother” General Yi Ji-ran(Jurchens). Qing Dynasty’s first emperor Nurhaci’s ancestor Möngke Temür was supporting Yi Seong-gye’s establishment of Joseon Dynasty as well, which was recorded in the first poem written in Hangul — Songs of the Dragons Flying to Heaven. Olivia always knows (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You gave this long rant but it doesn’t necessarily contradict what I wrote. It also doesn’t address Sunny’s point. Ethnicities aren’t hard tied to language. You’re also kinda ranting without providing much direct sourcing for this. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is an island country. China is a continental country. Japan was isolated for most of the planet’s history. Most Japanese people usually have their distinct Japanese look that differentiates themselves from Koreans and Chinese. Historically speaking, they have that Jomon, haplogroup D which makes them look a different from Chinese. It’s an element that is not present in Koreans or Chinese. This gene sometimes makes them look similar to Filipinos or sometimes Native American population. Olivia always knows (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now it’s nearly certain this is OR based on personal analysis.

In general, you must provide sources that directly support ideas. These sources should be from experts that specialize in this area. Ideally you should not remove existing sourced information, even if you don’t like it; both ideas can coexist at the same time on the page, e.g. “x scholar believed y. Z scholar believes differently”. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I just went to see the reply and its not at all what I expected, Olivia you are continuing to avoid answering my question, Why did you provide off topic sourcing/incorrect that doesn’t support your position during your first two edits? Did you not read your own sources when you gave us the links and page citation You could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong and it doesn’t change the fact that I made this topic discussion because of your misuse of sources.

Currently this is a lot of Original Research and POV pushing, it really seems you are trying to deny that there is a genetic overlap between Koreans and Japanese people (Obviously Koreans, Japanese and Chinese people are all genetically distinct and unique, but also based off academic consensus and just common sense its natural for neighboring countries to have some genetic overlap). I find it a bit ironic that you say that ancient Chinese and Koreans had some overlap (which is objectively true) but then you deny that ancient Koreans and Japanese overlap (which is also objectively true, and theres arguably a stronger case for that).

You can look here at this page and its extensive list of sources, academic consensus is that Koreans are closest to the Japanese and Manchus, and then Northern Chinese and Mongolians.

I really can’t tell if you’re approaching this from an ethno-nationalist POV of a Korean nationalist or a Japanese nationalist. Either way, you aren’t really engaging in goodfaith discussion when you just ignore the points grapesurgeon and I are raising and avoid answering my question, Why did you provide sources that didn’t match the content you inserted? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop violating copyright on the Little China(ideology) article.

We’ve almost certainly missed something. Wikipedia contributors bind each other to its rules, and among those rules are rules against plagiarism and copyright violation, and requiring explicit citation of nominally reliable third-party sources (cited content is not plagiarized basically by definition). Olivia always knows (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

??? what copyright violation are you talking about? Sounds like you’re just throwing random jabs in the hopes that something will stick now grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon Most Japanese people usually have their distinct Japanese look that differentiates themselves from Chinese and Koreans. They have that Jomon, haplogroup D which makes them look a different from Chinese. Haplogroup D is thought to have originated in Africa. Haplogroup D-M174 at it’s highest percentage is found among the Japanese. It is also found among the people of Tibet.

Haplogroup D and adaptation to high altitude is native to Tibet. Haplogroup D is native to Andaman Islanders, Jomon, modern Japanese and Tibetan. Japanese and Tibetan people with Y-DNA haplogroup D are different from most other East Asians.

I will provide the relevant sources. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31282626/)

Olivia always knows (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your earlier copyright accusation. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the relevant source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunnyediting99#October 2025

Olivia always knows (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you were just attacking Sunny with something that’s irrelevant to your own conduct issues being discussed here? That doesn’t make you look better. Stick to the topic please. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said you needed the source. Please check it. Everything I said is true.

(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31282626/)

Olivia always knows (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oliva the behavior I did and how you are behaving is night and day. When I was informed of the copyright violation I immediately stopped, and then fixed the issue.

You on the other hand are violating the rules, completely ignoring my questions to you like Why did you provide sources that didn’t match the content you inserted? and are now engaging in borderline personal attacks against me. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]