Talk:Gook/Archive 1

Untitled

a few points I'd like to leave for this discussion. First and foremost, considering why I came to this article, should there not be a disambiguation reference section or page to distinguish the term "gook" as in goo + muck ( I don't know if I personally believe that is the true etymology myself, but that's what a quick online search pulled up) and also.... Regarding one talk editor's assertion that because the Korean country was not called Han Guk prior to a certain date, this does argument by itself does not necessarily make it "impossible" that the people of that country weren't already using or being referred to by such terms derived from the terminology Han Guk long before the official/unofficial adoption of the name..and thus the slang terms could "possibly" have been applied long before the official use of the term its derived from. A researcher would have to consider that prior to the official use date, there could have been any number of members of the population perhaps even those people that may have lobbied for its official use, that had already strictly used the term to describe the country and its people. I'm not saying this to be the case and have absolutely no research original or otherwise to suggest it,but as a point in the debate it doesn't stand up ALONE as a determination to the impossibility of the fact. It is NOT "impossible", at least not for the reason you state..that's all, carry on.

    -unsigned contributor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.234 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 

If I'm not mistaken, the word "gook" is also refered to in the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam". But I'm not sure of the exact quote and other details. Maybe someone else can edit the page accordingly.

--Eddie2 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

1871 US intervention in Korea

It's entirely possible that the folk etymology actually refers to the 1871 intervention in Korea rather than the Korean War, and I think it's fair to mention the intervention along with the the folk etymology. I have nothing to cite for the folk etymology relating to it, but A- it fits in the time period, and B- there's no source for the etymology itself either. --DarthBinky (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is some source that connects the 1871 incident to the word "gook," I don't think it is relevant. The whole idea that someone would translate Mi-guk as "I'm gook" strikes me as implausible. The word sounds more like "guk" than "gook," so no one would even think of this translation unless gook was a word that already had a meaning for the soldiers. I have been to small town Korea and what the children actually chant when they see a white person is "Mi-guk sa-ram! Mi-guk sa-ram!" (American person), or sometimes "Mi-guk ajashi!" (American man).

Another issue is that the word "Mi-guk" originated in the 1920s. Of course, there are lots of words in Korean ending in "-guk," but the particular explanation in the text applies only to the Korean War period. Kauffner (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1st, In 1871, Korean did not call their country as "han guk". They called their country as "Joseon". So, It's entirely impossible logic.

2nd, Oldest record of gook word, it's from 'Slang and its Analogues(1893)'. However, it was not refer to korean.[1]

3rd, There is absolutely no evidece that folk etymology actually refers to the 1871.[2] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gooks

American armies in Korea during Korean war didn't use the word gooks against to Korean people. The word Gooks comes from word Goo and Cooks, originally made up from Chinese cooks at Chinese takeaway stores in US. Goo refered to human excrement and ooks refered to Cooks. This Gooks were generally used against Chinese army during Korean war.

I don't know where it was used on Koreans, but during Korean war, it certainly used against to Chinese and communist forces by US allies. --Korsentry 03:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Kauffner (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gook&diff=300955948&oldid=299657826

• Additionally, Americans regularly heard Koreans call themselves "Han Gook".

This is made up story. Please prove reliable source. Plase do not edit by your own original research.

Any relaible source that this term directly derived from "Han Gook" word?

plaese prove any 1950s record (newpaper, book, and so on -you must prove by 1950s sources-).

Again, this term is not derived from "Han Gook" word. That is the uncertain folk etymology which based on rumor.

• No one serving in the Korean war had also served in the Phillipine or Haitian conflicts, so it's quite possible the term developed and was used independently of prior usage.

This is the original research. Please prove that 'No one serving in the Korean war had also served in the Phillipine or Haitian conflicts'.

• In the U.S., "gook" refers most particularly to Communist soldiers in the context of the 'Korean War' and Vietnam War.

This is also completely made up story. According to John mccane comment[3], He refer to Vietnam soldier, because he served as soldier in vietnam war. However, he did not mentioned north korea soldier.

• so it's quite possible the term developed and was used independently of prior usage.

'quite possible'? what is the source? from your own brain?

if you want claim that it's quite possible, then You must prove 2 things.

One, You must prove that this term directly derived from "Han Gook" word by 1950s sources.

(I can say that folk etymology was completelty made up rumor. because, that word often used that pre-date the Korean War)

Two, You must prove that why its word 'used independently', by reliable source.

• Last, during the korean war, 'han guk' was a ally of US. This "gook" term used especially for enemy soldiers. The 'han guk' was not a enemy of US. but, Why american used this term to "han guk"? Later, this "gook" word still used to enemy soldiers(north vietnam soldier). if this word derived from ally soldier, after korean war, why american soldier used this term to enemy soldiers? so, Your original research is a entirely impossible claim.

folk etymology : hoax

Here is the reason that gook word is not derived from "Han Gook".

A folk etymology suggests that during the Korean War...

1. there are many examples of the gook word's use that pre-date the Korean War(1950-1953).[4][5][6]
2. According to 1947, 2 Apr, N.Y. Herald Tribune[7], American used this word to Korean, before the Korean war(1950). so, that folk etymology is a essentially hoax. the gook word's use that pre-date the Korean War.
3. Like above mentioned, In 1947.4, American used this word to korean.(perhaps, american used this word to unfavorite asian. not especially for korean. They used this term to filipino and vietnames, too.) However, "Han Guk" or "Dae han min Guk" country name was made in 1948.

In 1948, the South adopted the provisional government's name of Daehan Minguk (대한민국, 大韓民國; see above), known in English as the Republic of Korea.[8]

Korean called their country as "Han Guk" (Daehan Minguk) since 1948.

Therefore, In 1947, It's essentially impossible that this term derived from country name of korea. (Korea country name was not 'han guk' in that times, also, there is no record that this term derived from "han guk")

According to the same period dictionary, "1945 The American Language, The Marines who occupied Nicaragua in 1912 took to calling the natives gooks, one of their names for Filippinos."[9] Accordingly, They used this term to all Asian(unfavorite asian).

4. Like Kauffner's comment[10]

The word sounds more like "guk" than "gook," so no one would even think of this translation unless gook was a word that already had a meaning for the soldiers.

5. Last, There is absolutely no evidece that word actually refers to the "han guk" or "mee guk"

This ethnic slur has been traced to the Philippines in the early 20th century. and american used this "Gook" word to asian or middle east person.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Although it is doubtful that the term arose from the Korean War, you cannot deny that it is actually used against Koreans. In this modern day it is used against all Asians regardless, including Koreans. If you do not believe me, just have a glance through 4chan /int/ and various troll pages on Youtube. Origin does not imply usage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

66.8.211.97

Sorry, but your 'Widespread use in Korean war.' theory is impossible.

According to google news search,

• 1950~1953(Korean War), "gook" search results : 222

• 1959~1975(Vietnam War), "gook" search results : 805

• After 1975, "gook" search results : 6,560

• Before 1950(At that times, They called gook to filipino, haiti only), "gook" search results : 3,360[11]

1st, At least, During the Vietnam war period, gook word more Widespread used than Korean war.

2nd, Before the Korean War (1950), gook word Widely used.

---

It is not a 1950s source, it is a possibly later maded story. I already prove that "han guk" theory is IMPOSSIBLE. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of results from a Google news search doesn't indicate the likelihood of a theory like this one. In any case, the origin and time the term started getting used is information that should definitely be cited; the claim that "gook" was use was widespread during Korean war would likely be challenged, and I doubt it's true, the theory should not be mentioned in the article at all without reliable secondary sources clearly backing it up as a well-known point of view. --Mysidia (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Think about it.

• 'Korea war' was 1950.
• 1947 New York Herald Tribune (2 Apr.), The American troops...don’t like the Koreans – whom they prefer to call ‘Gooks’ – and, in the main, they don’t like Korea.

In 1947, American already called "Gook" to Korean before the Korean War(1950), Therefore, Your sources authors are really did not know well.

'Invented during the Korean War' theory is a IMPOSSIBLE.

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's clarify some points.

1. There is absolutely evidence that American called filipino as Gook. -> True

2. There is absolutely no evidence that Gook refer to "han guk", "me gook". Only later maded claim.

Everything You Need to Know About Asian-American History (1996) - later maded source. almost 50 years after

Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture (1999) - later maded source. almost 50 years after

You admit that two books are 50 years after maded books? I already point out their claims are wrong.[12]

3. There is absolutely no evidence that it Widespread use in Korean war. -> You keep this claim. if you want keep this claim, then you MUST prove it by reliable source. 'Widespread use in Korean war' is your own original research. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

---

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/wlk_wb.html

...From the White House and the U.S. high command to field officers and lowly enlistees the message became “these people are not civilized” and the United States had embarked on a glorious overseas adventure against “savages.” Officers and enlisted men - and the media -- were encouraged to see the conflict through a “white superiority” lens, much as they viewed their victories over Native Americans and African Americans. The Philippine occupation unfolded at the high tide of American segregation, lynching, and a triumphant white supremacy ideology. Officers of the occupying Army routinely characterized the foe as "gooks," "redskins," and "N______s."...

---

http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/living/archive/070305/living7.pdf

...The word gook, which still was used in the Vietnam War to describe the natives, is Filipino in origin and comes from the Tagalog language, “gu gu,” meaning “local spirit.” The Filipino freedom fighters also were called niggers...

---

http://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345

The combination of racism and warmongering are perfectly encapsulated in gook, a racist term formed during numerous U.S. wars, from the invasion of the Philippines (1898-1902) to the occupation of Haiti in 1920, to the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

---

Sydney Morning Herald - Google News Archive - Oct 8, 1985[13]

Philippine National Assembly members are also talking about banning advertise ments ... Calling someone 'mail-order' is as bad as calling them 'gook'...

---

Subscription - AsianWeek - HighBeam Research - Sep 23, 1994[14]

the historical evolution of the term "gook" as an anti-Asian racial slur. ... who were stationed in the Philippines in the early 1900s as an insulting ...

---

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

66.8.211.97 is a Vandalism user. Evidence.[15] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That sort of report belongs here. Kauffner (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AIV is only for users committing multiple acts of vandalism that have been warned. In particular, the user above only appeared to do it once. Modifying other people's comments on your own talk page does not resolve the content dispute. Nor is the user talk page really an appropriate place to decide what should be in this article. --Mysidia (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

HEARD THAT THERES A TERM "GINK"? TOO??

Heard a term GINK is alsol used any diea where from? TGhanks! JANUSROMA (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)amtu08110921stcent

It's "dink."[16] Kauffner (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph on Korean origin

A folk etymology suggests that "gook" refers to the Korean word [this is not a word. It doesn't mean anything when you use it by itself. It's a part of country names in this context] "국" ( 國, pronounced kuk [this is not really pronounced '"kuk". (Americans would read this as 컥) It's more like "Gook". The "ㄱ" part sounds exactly the same as "g" when pronounced after a syllable, as it is when pronouncing "한국" and "미국" ) meaning "country."

According to one explanation, American soldiers during the Korean War were often confronted by Korean soldiers and civilians and would hear them say, "미국" (Miguk, meaning America). The American soldiers interpreted this expression to mean, [Me Gook, -->]"I am a gook." These explanations ignore the fact that there are many examples of the word's use that pre-date the Korean War.==

Laws dr (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

("Gook" is the universal GI word for any and all Koreans.): Time Magazine (1950)

Round of edits needed

I agree. This theory is trumped by references that show the earlier origins of the word and its use. The article should be changed to reflect coordinate existing references that show this. When some references state that the term originates from Korean War and other references state the term originates from late 1800's, we have to look at both references and go with the earlier reference for the origin of the word. Please give your input before edits are made.AndrewHKLee (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. I edited out original research and a personal notes section and the article. There are proper references that refer to the Korean War origin of the war in relation to earlier references which is fine I think.AndrewHKLee (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

Please do not use this article as your personal research paper. There are rules regarding proper use of citation and references. I don't know who made these edits and created a "reference" section in talk page and "notes" section in the article for personal commentaries are all of these are NOT ALLOWED in wikipedia per WP:OR. PLEASE refer to WP:CIT for instructions on proper use of citations. You can't create your own personal citation section in the article for personal commentary and movie references.

If you want to add a citation from a book, please provide relevant quotations from the book so that those without access to those books can verify. Thank you.AndrewHKLee (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to mass reverts I've had to go through the article and remove bad citations and original research and restore valid references. Please do not revert the article without participating in the talk page. Thank you.AndrewHKLee (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotations were all cited. There is no ban on quoting movies. As far as WP:CIT goes, it says on the page you link to that "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged." Kauffner (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not allowed to quote movies. Read cit rules please.AndrewHKLee (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not with the citation templates but with "citations" such as quotes from movies and other inappropriate sources. Also the use of a citation template shouldn't be used to inject editor commentary about sources which is considered original research.AndrewHKLee (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Internal contradiction

Ok this article has a glaring internal contradiction... the first use was in 1920, but then it goes on to talk about usages before 1920?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed from lede

I removed the following from the lede:

"Prior to the Vietnam War (1965–73), "gook" was U.S. soldiers' jargon used to refer to any non-American."[1][2]

Referenced

Wentworth and Flexner, Dictionary of American Slang, (1960). Karp, Ivan, Doobie Doo 1967, p. 97.

The sources cited are 1) a dictionary and 2) an encyclopedia "jrank" of unknown repute. The dictionary citation itself links instead to a forum site, which ostensibly references third-hand the dictionary. More to the point, the substance of the statement —that before the epithet's notable usage during the Vietnam War, the term referred to "any non-American" —is dubious, if not altogether unsubstantiated. There are notable epithets for Germans, Russians, Iraqis, Afghans and other former and current combative opposition, all of which are distinct from "gook." Note also the dates "1965-73" are wrong. The Vietnam War article uses the revised 1955 start date, but even 1964 would have at least been in the ballpark.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has documented examples of "gook" being used to refer to Nicaraguans and to Haitians, so it certainly was not limited to Asians historically. As an American who has lived overseas, I can give you some OR insight on why this happens. When Americans live overseas, you don't need more words to describe race. An American-born Asian and local Asian don't go in the same category at all. But there is a need for a vocabulary that distinguishes Americans from and non-Americans. Words are created by American overseas that Americans at home wouldn't use or understand. So when people living in the U.S. saw Vietnam War movies, they concluded "gook" meant Asian and a racial slur was born. Kauffner (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The text read "Prior to the Vietnam War, "gook" was U.S. soldier's jargon to refer to any non-American." Its usage in reference to Nicaraguans and Haitians is interesting, but unsubstantiated by the noted references, which in any case themselves appear of insufficient reliability to reference. The central problem here is that the writing suggests that the term had omnimodal usage, rather than a usage distinctly based in racism toward Asians, and that this was true during, for example WWII, when the enemies were called "Japs" and "krauts," etc., not "gooks." Note also that "Japs" defies the all-Asian thesis, such that "OR insight" alone suggests the target of the topical epithet was not all Asians, but specific to Southeast Asians (cf. "Mongoloid"). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

H.L. Mencken wrote: "The Marines who occupied Nicaragua in 1912 took to calling the natives gooks, one of their names for Filipinos." From The Nation in 1920: "The Haitians....are nicknamed "Gooks"." Frank Capra's Flight (1929) uses the word to refer to Nicaraguans. It was used to refer to an Okinawa Japanese woman during WWII in With the Old Breed, given in the citation section. There are many, many references to Koreans as "gooks", both during the Korean War and in Korean War movies. Please read the article and respond to what it says. There many citations and a lot more to go on than just analogies to other insults. It is not reasonable to assume that insults all originate in a similar way! What reference says that a gook must come "southeast Asia"? This meaning is based on a misunderstanding of Vietnam War movies, as I explained above. This could not have been what the word meant before the Vietnam War. People don't spontaneously create insults for ethnic groups that they have never had any contact with. Kauffner (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "many many references to Koreans" qualifies, and fits in with both the "Hanguk" etymology, and with the fact that the term is notably a stereotype of Asians. The other references to non-Asians are interesting and notable as aberrations of the concept, but such aberrations do not support the over-generalization innate to the language "a term for any non-American." It appears in fact to be a minor example of revisionism. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries and other self-published materials cannot be used as a citation for wikipedia articles. Please respect citation rules.AndrewHKLee (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither source is self-published. The Dictionary of American Slang is a standard reference work, published by Collins Reference. What "citation rule" are you referring to? Kauffner (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference check

Kim Pearson's article, ref name="Pearson"[17]" seems to be offline. I don't know if this was a published article or an unpublished writing. I couldn't find it with google searches. Please provide a working link if you have it so the reference can be verified. If not, it should be removed.AndrewHKLee (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pacific war

Wasn't the term also used in WW2 along with jap? Groff (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The 1893 slang book is not referenced correctly

If you look at the actual PDF file of the book, it defines Gook in this way:

GOOK, subs. (American). - A low prostitute. For synonyms, see BARRACK HACK and TART

Unless I'm reading that wrong, the word means "a low prostitute" not "American." American is just referring to the word's origin. I'm not sure how to clean that up though as it seems the first paragraph builds off of that. --Richjenkins (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)