Talk:Japan–Korea disputes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

An explaination would be nice

Let's keep interpretations to a minimum shall we?
[1]
"Recently, there has been a growing interest in these Japanese products in South Korea." Pure mental masturbation.
[2]
Akkies (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your subject header says it all. You did not explain any of your reversions. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stolen ancient artifacts and history texts

We should also include this section, because there are known to be 200,000 artifacts pieces and many history texts have been stolen from Korea during Japanese occupation, and many artifacts have been destroyed by Japanese in order to distort Korea's ancient past. --Korsentry 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

You could do, showing reliable and clean sources. What are you waiting for? --82.83.201.1 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I belive the current article include said section with reliable and clean sources. Hkwon (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter Azukimonaka's block evasions in 2009

Since Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki), indefinitely blocked sockpuppeter, has kept evading his block sanction with sock accounts and IPs such as 青鬼よし (talk · contribs · logs · block log) this time here again, the header and box are added to differentiate other discussions from his comments instead of blanking per WP:BAN. See WP:SPI/Azukimonaka and its chronicle. --Caspian blue 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Korea under Japanese rule section

I revise this

Some conservative Japanese scholars claim that Korean textbooks have a bias in criticizing Japan and the Japanese occupation of Korea [3] [4] [5], but thus far there has been no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan.

This sentence quotes three books. However, those books are not being written by the scholar.

• 1 [6] The author of this book doesn't belong to the academy with the authority.
• 2.[7] This is a magazine of the pornography publisher (宝島社)in Japan. This magazine is not being issued by the scholar who has the authority.
• 3.[8] This is a magazine of the pornography publisher (イースト・プレス)in Japan. This is a magazine of a small-scale publisher in Japan. This magazine is not being issued by the scholar who has the authority. --青鬼よし (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your unexplained addition of "unrelated and duplicated content. The alleged apology of Japan section has nothing to do with some scholars' interpretation on the occupation period of Korea which is already mentioned elsewhere. On the other hand, given this info, the comment from former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo could be mentioned for the section; "Abe Shinzo's series of statements denying Japanese governmental involvement in coercing the comfort women into the military’s wartime system of sexual slavery." or Shintarō Ishihara. Moreover, your revert has many problems.

Some conservative Japanese scholars claim that Korean textbooks have a bias in criticizing Japan and the Japanese occupation of Korea [9] [10] [11], but thus far there has been no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan.	Previous version before 青鬼よし edited
Japanese are not interested in the textbook of the foreign country. thus far there is no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan.	青鬼よし's edit

Your removal of the Amazon links and alteration of the sentence are not based on "WP:Reliable source", but because you believe they are not serious academic publishers. The content has nothing to do with the notability of the publishers, but say such books exist in Japan. Moreover, you have not presented any reliable sources to prove your insistence except your assertion. In addition, you altered this sentence with your own "essay" on contrary to your insistence. I removed the Amazon links and add {{fact}} since the topic is pertinent to the subject.--Caspian blue 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, OK. You added . Then, You must add the source of evidence. I expect you to do a sincere, quick activity. --青鬼よし (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Caspian blue,　Two sources that you quoted are dead links. [12]

• 1 http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/jp-rape.htm Murder of Empress Myeongseong
• 2 http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200108/30/200108300144080739900090809081.htm

And Caspian blue deleted these two sources.

• 1 Kyoto University "International order in east Asia and historical research on exchange)" [13]
• 2 Professor Lee, Jong-Wha at　Korea University "Economic Growth and human Production in the Republic of Korea, 1945 - 1992" [14]

I sent back your edit. Do you criticize again for "Your removal and alteration of the sentence are not based on" WP:Reliable source" --青鬼よし (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't distort my edit. You can not say that I inserted the Kimsort link but I "reverted" you questionable edit to the article as well as your insertion of WP:Original research such as Japanese are not interested in the textbook of the foreign country. thus far there is no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan. So that is correct to point out "Your (青鬼よし) removal and alteration of the sentence are not based on WP:RS. For the deletion of your addition of the Prof. Lee Jong-Wha is explained in the following sentence at my edit summary. Why did you misquote again? The re-added material by you is already in Apology section, so the duplicated info should not be re-added. I'm still waiting for your explanation for your edit. You have failed to answer to my question above.--Caspian blue 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/asorder/meetings12-02.html

Your content from this site is very strong POV, and first present an English translation of the page, since you're responsible for the POV addition. So non-Japanese readers can check on whether this passage is correct.

(which some argue as void and illegal since the treaty was not signed by the Korean Emperor but by a Japanese puppet government). [5] The purpose of the emperor's in Korea rejecting the signature is to defend his property. Ito Hirobumi negotiated with the emperor, and guaranteed emperor's property. Then, the emperor appointed Park Che-Soon of Five Eulsa Traitors to the Prime Minister of a Korean government. The profit of the Emperor of Korea finally accorded with Japan, and the emperor was satisfied with a concluded treaty.

Moreover, http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Japan-Korea_Annexation_Treaty this is not a source at all, and the sentence including "puppet state" is not referenced as well as Lee Yong-hoon is even not mentioned in the source. Therefore, your insistence for "backing up sources" and reliable sources are just another irony.--Caspian blue 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, You wrote, ”The report by the project of the research of the history of Kyoto University (http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/asorder/meetings12-02.html) is very strong POV ". Please explain the reason.

And, you said, "first present an English translation of the page, since you're responsible for the POV addition. So non-Japanese readers can check on whether this passage is correct. "

(which some argue as void and illegal since the treaty was not signed by the Korean Emperor but by a Japanese puppet government). [5] The purpose of the emperor's in Korea rejecting the signature is to defend his property. Ito Hirobumi negotiated with the emperor, and guaranteed emperor's property. Then, the emperor appointed Park Che-Soon of Five Eulsa Traitors to the Prime Minister of a Korean government. The profit of the Emperor of Korea finally accorded with Japan, and the emperor was satisfied with a concluded treaty.

I introduce the original source(Japanse).

...この条約に対するこれまでの評価は、当時の皇帝高宗が米人H.B.Hulbertを用いて対外的に反対運動を展開した事などから、皇帝高宗はこの条約に一貫して反対したとするものである。この通説に対して、私は李完用らの「五大臣上疏文」を再評価して、皇帝高宗が率先して日本の条約案を修正して受け入れたことを「第二次日韓協約調印と大韓帝国皇帝」（『青丘学術論集』24、韓国文化振興財団、東京、2004年4月）において明らかにした。　

...こうした状況の下で、1905 年11月、第2次日韓協約の締結交渉が行なわれた。皇帝高宗は、韓国を取り巻く国際環境を踏まえて、日本の第2次日韓協約締結要求を全面的に拒否するのではなく、交渉によって韓国にとって有利なように修正した上で受け入れようとした（「交渉妥協」「協商妥?）。ただこの時、皇帝高宗にとって韓国の利益とは、即ち韓国皇室の利益であった。したがって11月17日午後の御前会議、同日夜から夜半にかけての締結交渉においては、韓国側は皇帝高宗を先頭にしてもっぱら皇室の利益保全の観点から日本案の修正を求めた。
この結果、皇帝高宗を前にした議政府の御前会議で日本案（全4 条）に対して4箇所の修正が議論された。この内2箇所は皇帝高宗自身が提起したものであった。この会議の後、韓国の外部大臣朴斉純と日本の林権介公使とを中心にした締結交渉に伊藤博文大使も加わり、韓国側が求めた4箇所の修正要求をすべてを伊藤大使が受け入れて調印に至った。
条約調印文書では締結日は11月17日となっているが、実際は18日未明に調印された。調印された第2次日韓協約は全5条からなり、第5条に日本政府が韓国皇室の安寧と尊厳の維持を保証することがうたわれている。かくして、皇帝高宗の要求は条約に反映された。

...条約反対運動に対する皇帝高宗の対応は、11月28日を境に大きく変わった。この転機となったのは、この日の伊藤博文大使との内謁見である。
この内謁見において、皇帝高宗は伊藤博文大使に、韓国への日本の融資や帝室財政の強化などを求めた。これに対して、伊藤大使は罷免された韓圭?以外の現内閣メンバーを変えないこと、首班には朴斉純が適任などを提起した。皇帝高宗は、これを是とした。
その結果、この日、反対運動から指弾の的になっていた外部大臣朴斉純を、参政大臣として内閣の首班に、外部協弁尹致昊を署理外部大臣にそれぞれ任じた。これらの人事は明らかに、条約反対運動と真っ向から対立するものであった。この日は、さらに条約反対の上疏を行なう者を捕らえるという「拿陳疏諸臣」の詔を下した。
こうした条約反対運動抑圧に対して、11月30日に侍従武官長閔泳煥が、12月1日に宮内府特進官 趙秉世がそれぞれ抗議の自決をした。これ以外にも自決が続いた。この結果、皇帝の責任を追及する声がますます高まった。
こうした状況の下で、皇帝高宗は学部大臣李完用を12月8日に臨時署理議政府議政大臣事務、12月13日に臨時外部大臣事務に任じる一方で、学校関係者、法官養成所の関係者、軍人等が政治に関与することを禁止し、12月16日の官報において、第2次日韓協約を「韓日協商条約」として告示した。

"which some argue as void and illegal since the treaty was not signed by the Korean Emperor but by a Japanese puppet government"　I do not have the interest in this part. Please delete it if you want to delete it.--青鬼よし (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is your English translation? The links are already available. You have failed to answer to my questions as well.--Caspian blue 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army

Please explain the reason to rewrite "Thereafter the Korean liberation movement, coordinated by the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army in exile, was largely active in neighboring Manchuria, China and Siberia. " in "Thereafter the Korean liberation movement, coordinated by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in exile, was largely active in neighboring Manchuria, China and Siberia".

Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army continued the resistive movement to Japan in Manchuria, China and Siberia. Kim Il-sung that belonged to this organization attacked the public office of Japanese Government in Manchuria and Siberia. (For instance 普天堡の戦い）

What activity did Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea do in Manchuria and Siberia?　--青鬼よし (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new section

I divided "sea of Japan" from the geographic disputes section and created an independent section as it is not the geographic dispute, but a naming dispute. I first thought it put into the Miscellaneous issues section, but thought twice that was too big issue to put into that section. Oda Mari (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not only change with your edit, but also altered the title from Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute to exclude "East Sea", which was reverted by at least 3 or 4 people here. The edit summary[15] did not explain your intention to weight your POV. As you said, the issue is not clearly not "Miscellaneous issues" (many of the issues in the section are not minor matter as well). Since the naming convention of Korean does not support the exclusive usage of "Sea of Japan" to Korea-Japan related articles, I want you to give better explantion for your change.--Caspian blue 06:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should the section name be longer than the main article? Oda Mari (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should not be? That is not a valid explanation for the change since it is pointed out on how many people disagree with your edit. Moreover, I also questioned about your unexplained edit summary and reasoning in the section.--Caspian blue 07:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I just kept it simple. Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Still invalid explanation. That contradicts your earlier reverts with the misquoting of WP:NC-KO. By your logic, I wonder why you have let other sections that have ridiculously long headers intact for that long regardless of their longer names than their main articles. You still did not reply to my questions. Dodging the question is not good.--Caspian blue 07:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what did I misquote? It says "Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention." Oda Mari (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You still did not answer to my question. I will point out after you answer my questions.--Caspian blue 07:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is already used a preceding sentence in the sub-section Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). "The Liancourt Rocks (Korean: Dokdo "solitary island"; Japanese: Takeshima "bamboo island") are a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) ..." Oda Mari (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in that section, not the Sea of Japan (East Sea) section. As I said to your talk page after you reverted 3 times, the naming convention does not prohibit to use multiple mention of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" or use as a header. You're welcome to open a new discussion to clarify the old naming convention set up by "very few people (who are mostly retired)" about 4 or 5 years ago. However, your omission of mentioning the sensitive change at your edit summary and your first explanation for the change in the section rather show that you want to avoid attention by your edit. Moreover, don't you think your such edit is inconsistent with the "Liancourt Rocks (Tokdo/Takeshima)" that is much longer than its main article "Liancourt Rocks", and has a forwardslash? Why have you been letting that title so far? However, most (non-Korean/Japanese) people don't know about what Liancourt Rocks is, so the title that shows Korean and Japanese name for the islets is to inform readers to know what's going on for the matter. That goes to other sections with longer names. In short, the Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute is a correct "summary" of the dispute. And the naming convention does not back up your change of the header.--Caspian blue 07:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the islets, as you wrote, I think the islets and their names are not notable and that is why the longer name is acceptable. But the Sea of Japan is the dominant name in English speaking world. Isn't that why the main article uses only the Sea of Japan? That is also why I used the name of the main article for the section title. And with the consistency of the name of the issue. Oda Mari (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV on the body of the water between Korean and Japan. You do admit that Liancourt Rocks are not the most widely known name to English speakers, but it is at such name. The article is titled with Liancourt Rocks just because Japanese editors' were so fiercely opposing to the Korean name for a long time regardless the current situation while a double standard is applied to the naming dispute and Pinnacle Island.--Caspian blue 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the three names are equally non-notable to the world but the name Liancourt Rocks is neutral at present. I'm sorry I don't know what happened before I come here and about Pinnacle Islands. If you don't satisfy the article names, Sea of Japan naming dispute and Senkaku Islands, ask for the move. Oda Mari (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is your POV; Liancourt Rocks is not a neutral name to any stretch. The world similarly do not know about some foreign islet existing elsewhere. Even many native English speakers do not know about Falkland War or the island and their location. I'm talking about your double standard applied to the headers in this article. The article is about why Koreans and Japanese dispute over "what", so I'm not talking about moving the titles of the said articles. They are "examples". The header "Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute" is just a summary like Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), so your explanations (keep it simple, NC-KO, common name) so far are very implausible. --Caspian blue 09:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think my edit and explanation were not appropriate, ask for third persons' opinion, please. Well, I've got to go now and cannot reply for a while. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is open to everyone, so if there are people who want to comment about this, they would. I've said what I felt to say.--Caspian blue 09:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why my edit in accordance with MoS should be needed consensus. If there's a flaw in my edit, it would be more understandable and helpful to point it out specifically. Oda Mari (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've said enough to you, the naming convention does not prohibit to use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" as a header nor states that it should be mentioned only "one time" in an article at all. Therefore, the naming convention is rather open for "multiple usages" within an article (one mention per one section). So unless the naming convention is clarified with a new discussion and decision, your interpretation is your POV, not a formed consensus on this dispute. If the naming convention is firm, you did not need to ask an input from Nihonjoe. Since you're well aware of that, you provided your implausible rationales as heard. So I would not repeat the same answer. --Caspian blue 05:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I asked Nihonjoe on MoS was to confirm that I didn't make any mistake. People make mistakes without realizing it. As English is not my native language I wanted to be convinced if my understanding of MoS and my edit were correct. Because I was willing to correct my mistake if I made one. That's all. As for MoS, if multiple use in an article is permitted, why there is the proviso that per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention? Oda Mari (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you're willing to get an opinion from the active coordinator of WP:Japan. However, you seem to be confused with the concept of multiple usages" on the naming convention for "Sea of Japan (East Sea). The multiple usage does not refer to "unlimited usages" of Sea of Japan (East Sea), but has its own limit within the written naming convention. The header is in my opinion, perfectly following the naming convention. If somebody replaced "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" with just "East Sea", or multiply inserted "(East Sea)" within a section, we're obliged to revert such edits as a violation of the convention. However, this case is obviously not. As I've said enough, you're welcome to open a new discussion or poll to clarify the naming convention. On the hand, I can't wait to see another big ignite for that just like the canvassing campaign and meat/sockpuppet farms from 2channel and the consequent WP:RFCU/WP:SPI/WP:ANI reports. :-) --Caspian blue 05:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I found this on the third opinion page. As for the original dispute, use common sense: the current version is easiest to read and pretty straightforward. As stated in WP:NC-KO and the associated discussion, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" only need be used once to establish that they are one and the same, and "Sea of Japan" should be used thereafter. (If I've completely missed the point, please tell me exactly what I should be commenting on) Mildly Mad^T_C 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I copied the following post from my talk page Mildly Mad^T_C 14:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the post. Doesn't the section name "Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute" conflict with the condition "per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention."? That's the point I wanted to know from the beginning. The Sea of Japan (East Sea) was already used in the second line of the first sentence here. So I thought using it as a section name would be the second use of the description. That was why I used the main article name as the section name. Should I have posted this on the talk page? But I'm not sure if it's on your watch list. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, I must have missed that point in the discussion. While your position is correct in the letter of the rules of WP:NC-KO, I still say leave the title as "Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute", as per WP:IGNORE: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Leaving "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in the section title lets the reader know, without any further reading, exactly what the debate is about. Because this article is essentially a summary of a bunch of other articles, readers (such as myself) are more likely to read only one section, so separate sections can almost be treated as separate entities. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mildly Mad, I believe you surely thoroughly read the above discussion, but you may miss that the NC-KO which set up by only handful of editors 4-5 years ago does not say that 1) "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" should be mention within an article only "one time" as Oda Mari alleges. She has failed to answer to this point throughout the above discussion with me. Even if the naming section were perceived per her wishful POV; "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is already mentioned in the previous section that deals with a geographical section" - this simply can not be established per the following reasons. Because 2) what if the naming section is move up, so the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) section is below it? Then her ground for the insistence would be "null" because the section would be the "first mention" of the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". Moreover, although the article currently does not have proper summary, according to WP:LEAD, 3) lead section is a summary of following main contents, so the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" can not be used only once within the article at all along with the NC-KO that does not support her claim; 4) NC-KO does not prohibit the usage as a header, and 4) her insistence that "header should be simpler than its main article" contradicts other sections having with much longer titles than their main articles. 4) Moreover, her insistence that the section should have only "Sea of Japan" is Japanese POV which violates WP:NPOV over the naming dispute. The sea is not Japanese sea, nor only Japanese territory. We're not talking about how English speakers recognize with what name for the body of water between Korea and Japan, but 5) talking about why Japan and Korea dispute over the said names. So the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is a perfectly legitimate summary of the dispute. Moreover, 6) this is also consistent with the other heavy-handed dispute, "Liancourt Rocks (Tokdo/Takeshima)" (which is under WP:ARBCOM ruling. She wants to keep Japanese preferred names over the two major disputes between Korea and Japan, and to exclude Korean side of story. That said, her claim for the sole usage of "Sea of Japan" is against NPOV. Moreover, I saw she left a message to you to get more favorable comment from you, 7) that is not a good practice on her part since the purpose of WP:3O is to assist to resolve disputes by a hand of "third person" with no affiliation to specific side. Anyway, thank you for your time and effort to tide down the dispute. Your help is highly appreciated.--Caspian blue 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote before responding? Mildly Mad^T_C 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did and agree with your assessment except WP:IAR which is not in the case.--Caspian blue 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm relieved to know that my understanding of MoS is correct. From the beginning, my edits were based on MoS and had nothing to do with my PoV. If Caspian blue thinks MoS is not NPoV, it's a different matter. It's not my edits but MoS should be protested. As for the term of the usage that "use only once", it should be natural to think it as "once in an article" as MoS prescribes for the usage of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on article basis. Having considered about this matter of naming dispute and rea the discussions on the usage, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names/Old discussion and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names, MoS should not be ignored on this case. Oda Mari (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, Oda Mari. That's why several people have reverted your edits so far. Mildly Mad, please clarify your statement further to prevent Oda Mari from misunderstanding and exploiting your statement. It does not matter if Oda Mari believe her edits have nothing to do with her POV. In fact, the naming convention has nothing to do with NPOV. Oda Mari's POV wants to exclude the Korean name no matter what absurd reason she can come up with (see her reasoning; should be shorter name, common name, etc), which have been shown throughout the discussion with me.--Caspian blue 09:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you're wikilawyering; please re-read my second statement. Leaving "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in the article multiple times improves the readers' ability to understand the topics at hand. Again, WP:IGNORE states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is clearly the case with this situation: the restriction imposed by WP:NC-KO is preventing us from improving the article. The spirit of the rule is to make minimal use of "...(East Sea)" so that articles with multiple mentions, such as Sea of Japan, don't become unreadable. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The map

Is it really necessary to have a map of the entire world when the article only covers Japan and the two Koreas? 121.217.59.213 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Could not find any more specific map showing Japan, South Korea, and North Korea in Wikipedia Commons or any other open sources...Hkwon (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

There are too much sources which aren't objective. Many sources are the one from Korean side.--Arstriker (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You assume sources aren't objective just because they are from Korean side, although they are reliable and verifiable. To improve the article, could you tell us which sources aren't objective and why and add some more objective sources from Japanese side? Hkwon (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for direct quotation and English translation

Arstriker (talk · contribs), since your edits have led to edit warring, you are responsible for providing "direct quotations" from the Japanese source and English translation here. I can not access the Japanese source nor not everyone can read Japanese, so the burden of proof is yours. Please use this talk page instead of making personal attacks, and tendentious edit warring. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for preparing the venue.[16] I'll try it later.Arstriker (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I am not good at English, so I quote the original in the following.

1.About the ancient Japan-Korea relations in the book of soi.(Chinese)[17]

隋書卷八十一　列傳第四十六 倭國

"新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來。"

Book of Sui and book of Song are both invalidated in the USA, because of archeological evidence against the statements in these book. In addition, in order for the text to be true, the Japanese would have to travel through time. Unless the Japanese figured out time travel 2000 years ago, it can not be possible. Various Korean states that did not exist at the same time period as the Japanese that are referred to in these books are suppose to have interacted. The books also confuse Southern Koreans as being the same race as the Japanese. It makes things difficult to interpret. Also, the Japanese did not have sophisticated iron processing or cavalry (horses being utilized in warefare) when the Koreans already had a Kingdom and did utilize these technologies. Unless the Japanese figured out how to destroy iron with a wooden stick, everything in these books would ask us to change to laws of physics to make them true. Unless, maybe they were the same people and the Koreans were migrating to Yamato and colonizing it. But the timeline issue would still make things impossible to understand. Try reading "From Paekchae of Korea to the Origin of Yamato Japan" and "Korean impact on Japanese culture: Japan's hidden History" by Dr Johathan Carter. You will see why time travel and the laws of physics make it impossible for the Book of Sui and Song to be accurate. Also remember these books were mostly destroyed and re-written 100s of years later in a bias manner, depending on who the new writer were having conflicts or were at war with at the time. Also note that the time period these books are referring to Silla did not have official diplomatic interactions with them, which would again make time travel the only possible way to makes these books true. --Objectiveye (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2.About the international science council “A Reconsideration of the Japanese Annexation of Korea from the Historical and International Law Perspectives”.

Quotation from "Higashi Ajia hannichi toraianguru"(isbn 4166604678).(Japanese)

日韓の間で歴史をめぐってどんな論争があったかということは、意外と一般には知られていない。

たとえば、韓国側はいまでも日韓併合は不法だったといい、これを学会では「日韓併合合法不法論争」と評している。 そこでこの問題をめぐって岩波の『世界』誌上で日韓の学者がかつて争ったことがあったが決着がつかず、 ２００１年の１１月１６日に、アメリカのハーバード大学のアジアセンター主催で国際学術会議が開かれることになった。

これは韓国政府傘下の国際交流財団の財政支援のもとに、韓国の学者たちの主導で準備されたものだった。 韓国側はもちろん、国際舞台で不法論を確定しようと初めから企図し、そのために国際学術会議を持ったのであり、 それを謝罪と補償の要求の根拠にしたかったことは明白であった。

そしてそこにはアメリカ、イギリス、韓国、それから日本の学者が集まり、 日韓併合の歴史をどう考えるかということで論争が行なわれたのである。

この様子は、当時、『産経新聞』の２００１年１１月２７日の 記事ぐらいでしか公表されず、一般の目にはほとんど触れなかった。 が、これはとても大きな、重要な会議だったのである。

韓国側はまず、いかに日本が不法に朝鮮を併合したかということを主張した。 ところが、国際法の専門家でケンブリッジ大学のＪ．クロフォード教授が強い合法の主張を行なったのである。

それは当時の『産経新聞』の記事によると、「自分で生きていけない国について周辺の国が 国際秩序の観点からその国を当時取り込むということは当時よくあったことであって、 日韓併合条約は国際法上は不法なものではなかった」という主張であった。

当然、韓国側はこれに猛反発し、日本に強制されたということを主張したわけだが、 同教授は、「強制されたから不法という議論は第一次大戦（１９１４～１８年）以降のもので、 当時としては問題になるものではない」と、一喝した。

その会議に参加した友人の学者によると、 この結果、韓国側は悄然と肩を落として去っていったという。

韓国側のもくろみは失敗に終わったのだが、 日本では当時この様子はほとんど報道されることがなかった。

Quotation from Sankei Shimbun(Japanese)

【ソウル26日＝黒田勝弘】 日韓の歴史認識問題で大きな争点になっている 日韓併合条約 (一九一〇年)について合法だったか不法だったかの問題をめぐり、 このほど米ハーバード 大で開かれた国際学術会議で第三者の英国の学者などから 合法論が強く出され、国際 舞台で不法論を確定させようとした韓国側のもくろみは失敗に終わったという。

会議参加者によると、合法論は国際法専門のＪ・クロフォード英ケンブリッジ大教授らから出され 「自分で生きていけない国について周辺の国が国際的秩序の観点からその国を取り込むということは当時よくあったことで、日韓併合条約は国際法上は不法なものでは なかった」と述べた。

また韓国側が不法論の根拠の一つにしている強制性の問題についても「強制されたか ら不法という議論は第一次世界大戦(一九一四－一八年)以降のもので当時としては問題 になるものではない」と主張した。

この学術会議は米ハーバード大アジア・センター主催で十六－十七日開かれたが、 韓国政府傘下の国際交流財団が財政的に支援し韓国の学者の主導で準備された。 これま でハワイと東京で二回の討論会を開き、今回は韓日米のほか英独の学者も加えいわば 結論を出す総合学術会議だった。

日本からは海野福寿・明大教授や笹川紀勝・国際基督教大教授、原田環・広島女子大教授ら 五人が参加したが、海野教授の「不当だが合法」論や笹川教授の不法論など見解 が分かれた。

韓国側は「条約に国王の署名がない」ことなどを理由に不法論を主導している李泰鎮・ ソウル大教授はじめ全員が不法論で、会議をリードしようとした。

しかし日本の原田教授は併合条約に先立ち日本が外交権を掌握し韓国を保護国にした日韓保護条約(一九〇五年)について、 皇帝(国王)の日記など韓国側資料の「日省録」や 「承政院日記」などを分析し、 高宗皇帝は条約に賛成し批判的だった大臣たちの意見を却 下していた事実を紹介し注目された。

併合条約に国王の署名や批准がなかったことについても、国際法上必ずしも必要なも のではないとする見解が英国の学者らから出されたという。

日韓併合条約については韓国や北朝鮮からはいまなお執ように不法論が出され謝罪 や補償要求の根拠になってきた。 日韓国交正常化の際も激しく対立したが、合法・不法の 結論は出さず「今や無効」との表現で国交正常化(一九六五年)にこぎつけた経緯がある。

産経新聞2001.11.27

Prof. Kinhide Mushakoji, head of the Asia-Pacific Research Institute at the Osaka University of Economics and Law, gives a lecture during an international symposium hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation in Seoul on June 22 2009. He said "the Korea-Japan annexation treaty was illegal as it was concluded under military pressure from Japan and did not meet legal requirements." / Courtesy of the Northeast Asian History Foundation --Objectiveye (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please translate someone. If you can read above.--Arstriker (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Thank you for providing the quotation, but could you also provide "the link" of the Sankei news (not unreliable blogs or personal website hosting the news), and page number(s) of the book? --Caspian blue 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm not to keen on the phrase here "The books also confuse Southern Koreans as being the same race as the Japanese." If you look at the historical literature, race as a concept came up during the late 18th century, especially in Asia (admittedly, I know more Southeast Asian stuff here). We wouldn't be surprised to find people not paying attention to "race" 2000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huanohk (talk • contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute in Zainichi Koreans

I think the way that section is written, it doesn't explain what the dispute is exactly. --Objectiveye (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kimchi export

Added more information based on internationally accepted standards Codex Alimentarius. Although I did not delete them, phrases like "Korea could not tolerate Japanese low quality kimchi floating around in world" and "To this day, Japanese kimchi export exceeds that of Korean kimchi export", without any sources, just look pathetic. Doesn't it? Hkwon (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute tag

Basing on Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, I don't understand why the article's factual accuracy is disputed as its content are from verifiable/reliable sources, unbiased, without any original research as far as I can see. The discussion page have had no discussions on accuracy dispute, and no statements in the article have 'fact' or 'disputed' templates either. If there were any accuracy disputes, 'fact' or 'disputed' templates should be added problematic statements first, and then accuracy dispute tags should be added to sections containing many problematic statements, instead of adding the tag to the whole article without any justification. According to WP:AD, if nobody raises any issues on this, I will remove the accuracy dispute tag. Hkwon (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

additions by Hkwon

I have undone your edits-our job is to chronicle, not editorialize. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All contents I added to the "reckless statements" section are historical truth backed up by reliable, verifiable sources that have caused serious disputes among Korea and Japan. If you have any problems, specifically explain why my contents should be deleted and present reliable counter-evidence first. They are restored for now by another editor. If you delete them again, I will consider it a vandalistic behavior of content blanking and request for administrator intervention. Hkwon (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the sources are completely reliable since all the articles cited in this section are written by Korean newspapers and no articles by Japanese nor third party media are referred to. Also, it seems there is an inclination to intentionally choose a specific sentence to make the person look anti-Korea. For example, Edano Yukio did mention ,in the lecture in Matsue city on March 27, 2010, that " Japan went under the Meiji restoration and could modernize itself, but China and Korea couldn't. It was historically inevitable that Japan became the nation to spread the colonization, while China and Korea became the nation to be colonized." But he also stated that "If Japan could not accomplish the Meiji restoration, Japan would have been colonized by the western countries, just like China and Korea (were colonized by Japan). " and added " I think it was a mistake that Japan turned to the nation to colonize other countries. Please forgive me for making remarks that could lead to misunderstandings." Starkey kame (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I simply quoted statements made by Japanese politicians and referred to Korean newspapers as published sources. If there are any contradicting evidences from Japanese or third-party media sources to these historical statements, please add those information to the main article. The people who made those statements, not the people who quoted them, should be accountable for any potential inclination toward anti-Korean sentiment in their speech. As for Edano's statement, I will add the statement "I think it was a mistake that Japan turned to the nation to colonize other countries" to the main article If Starkey kame shows that those statements were made in the same speech, with a reliable source in any language. Hkwon (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Kimchi export section

I've come here by way of the Kimchi article, which linked to this page as a "main article" about this dispute. If you're familiar with that article, my arguments are detailed over there, but I'll explain here also. First, TED is not a reliable source. TED is, as far as I can tell from their website, basically a set of classes (conducted locally and via internet). In these classes, students write case studies of various disputes and economic issues. These case studies are collected, along with studies from a few other classes, into what they call an "online journal." However, this is not a journal that other scholars can submit things to; neither is it peer reviewed (again, as far as I can tell). This essentially makes TED a self-published source, and thus is not considered reliable as a reference. I replaced the TED reference with a {{cn}} tag; if a citation can't be found in a reasonable time, I'll remove the rest of that section from the article because it's too disputable to stand without reference.

Second, the article was badly misusing the Codex Alimentarius. The article said "the Codex Alimentarius Commission ordered Japan to correct the term 'kimuchi' to 'kimchi' on all products including ones for export as well." The Codex didn't do that, because the Codex is, by it's very nature, unable to order anyone to do anything. The Codex is a voluntary organization that is attempting to provide international standards (mostly safety/health and packaging standards) for food. The website explicitly states that compliance is entirely voluntary. The fact that the Codex is defining kimchi in a certain way does not at all verify that this is what kimchi is in the actual world. Furthermore, as we've been discussing over at Kimchi, there is reliable sourcing as well as very strong anecdotal evidence that many products sold/made in Korea that are labeled/called kimchi don't meet the Codex definition. As there was no underlying accuracy to the way that section described the Codex or what it's 1996 report actually does, I removed it. If other reliable sources could be found to support some of these ideas, they could be re-added.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2 reverted my deletions, with the reversion summary "Qwyrxian please don't go around deleting text. It's obvious this is a matter of repairing text and finding appropriate citations. The claims are not dubious nor are they harmful." I humbly disagree with this in its entirety. One, I claim that this is extremely dubious--outside of one unreliable graduate student paper, there is no evidence that this dispute exists. That makes it WP:FRINGE at best. Second, I dispute that it is not harmful--this section implies 1) several factually impossible things (the most obvious being that the Codex cannot order anyone to do anything--their own site explicitly states such), and 2) implies deceitful practices on the part of Japan and/or claims of superiority on the part of Korea, neither of which are warranted without reliable evidence. I must humbly state that I cannot accept the Codex part standing--it is impossible to "repair" or "find citations" for something directly contradicted by the available information. I will make a revision to that section that provides the absolutely strongest possible statement that can be made about the Codex information, then if others wish to add further, I request that they find verifiable, reliable sources to support that info.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference, I just sent an email to the organizer of TED today to get more info so that we can make a better determination whether or not that info is reliable by WP standards. Once I get the info, it will be relevant here and at kimchi, although I'm going to wait to post this over there until we handle the more fundamental problems (I hate trying to hold 3 separate but inter-related discussions on the same talk page at once). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the questions I sent to Dr. James R. Lee, who is the professor who runs the classes that TED is associated with:

1. Can any scholar participate in the process of writing Case Studies? Are most participants graduate students connected with your graduate class, or do other scholars regularly participate?

These are mostly from my courses, where we also teach web skills. I've done this also with faculty and with classes from George Washington, Truman State, Uppsala University in Sweden, Ritsumeikan in Japan, and others.

2. What type of review process is involved before Case Studies are included in the online database? Is this a blind, peer review process, like a traditional academic journal would use, or more closely connected to the classroom context (that is, a professor correcting and managing student papers)? Do completed case studies get submitted that are rejected for publishing in the online journal?

More classroom context, where the other professor and I apply more scrutiny than in a traditional class. We open the papers for a virtual conference for comments before publication and I have invited some outside experts to comment. Yes, some are rejected for publication on the web site.

While the answer isn't 100% unambiguous, to me it matches my original inclination that TED does not qualify as a reliable source. The fact that the papers are treated more like a "classroom context" rather than like an academic journal makes me believe that this source does not meet our criteria. Furthermore, note that the case in question itself doesn't site reliable sources. I mean, the Codex is a reliable source on itself, although not on why or how the standardization is achieved; the Korean Kimchi Story is a dead link but it certainly sounds unreliable, and the Life in Korea site is definitely SPS. The KFRI source seems good, and, while that link is dead, might be something worthwhile for us to use here or at kimchi (keeping in mind that it appears to be a primary, not secondary source). As such, I think that whatever we leave here in the kimchi dispute needs to rely on the LA Times, NYT, and other articles, not TED or the Codex.

Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute

The name "Sea of Japan" (日本海) was geographically and historically established in Europe from the late 18th century to the early 19th century and is currently used all over the world.

I point out two highly pov words. "established" and "used all over the world". First of all, Sea of Japan name currently used not "all" over the word. Both North and South Korea govt' are not using Sea of Japan name at least. so it is actually not "all" over the world. And some 3rd party foreign map using only "East Sea" name.[18] And, The name of Sea of Japan was not "established" in old Europe as Japan govt. claim.[19]

• Korean survey results (16C ~ 19C ancient Western maps)

Sea of Korea(Corea)/East(Eastern) Sea/Oriental Sea	440
Sea of Japan	122

Korean search results are based on ancient maps archived in British Library, Cambridge University Library, University of Southern California (USC) East Asian Map Collection, U.S. Library of Congress, National Library of Russia and French National Library

• Japanese survey results (16C ~ 19C ancient Western maps)

Sea of Korea(Corea)/East(Eastern) Sea/Oriental Sea	306
Sea of Japan	1399

Japanese search results are based on ancient maps archived in British Library, Cambridge University Library, French National Library and U.S. Library of Congress

Japan and Korea, two claims are differences. And even Japan govt. admitted that "East Sea / Sea of Korea" name used in ancientm western maps.(for example, even Japanese govt. source.[20][21] state that 20% of ancient Russia and Germany maps used exclusively "Sea of Korea" name. so it is hard to say sea of japan was "established" geographic name in old europe. 660gd4qo (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I say that we solve this over on the other page, then whatever results we get there, port them over here (in different words, and more concisely, of course), but not have the same arguments in 2 places. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Japanese History textbook controversies

I just deleted the final paragraph of this section. It said, in short "North and South Korea also use only a limited selection of government approved textbooks, and some people in Japan think they're biased, too." I took it out because, unfortunately, no citations were available for the claim of a controversy (had been waiting for about 1 year for part and about 6 months for another part). I did a quick search now, and couldn't find anything in English (unsurprisingly). The main article on this has some links, but some of them are dead, and others are in Japanese and Korean (and I think some of those are dead, too), so they don't help me. If anyone has a reliable source that can support that this is a two-way controversy (not just "Japan being bad") I'd really like to re-add that (I'd change the section title and add subsections, but that's easily done), but per WP:V I think we have to leave it out for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a comparative study of high school history textbooks in China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States, focusing on the period from 1931-1951.http://aparc.stanford.edu/research/divided_memories_and_reconciliation/ This article should discuss North Korea's nuclear program. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Section Return of Korean cultural artifacts - "100,000 artifacts remain in Japan" without a source proving that statement.

Well, what I wrote in the headline. Neither of the two sources that are given for that sentence mention 100,000 artifacts in Japan. The Newsweek article mentions that "up to 1000" artifacts are still in Japan, while what I've gotten from the translated version of the Naver article says that there are around 75,000 artifacts outside of Korea in total. The Naver article says: (서울=연합뉴스) 김남권 기자 = 올 8월말 현재 해외 소재 우리 문화재의 수는 일본 등 20개국에 7만5천300여 점에 달하며, 이 중 환수된 문화재는 8개국 4천870여 점으로 환수율이 6.5%에 불과한 것으로 나타났다.

(Google translated version: (AP) gimnamgwon reporter = 8 of the end of this year the number of foreign materials in Japan, including our cultural assets in 20 countries that has reached over 75,300, of which eight countries hwansudoen landmark points over 4870 hwansuyul appeared to be only 6.5%.) There is no mention of "100,000". Therefore I'm going to to delete the Newsweek citation there, which apparently only was intended for anoter section of the text, as it has no relation to the 100,000 figure, and the citation from the Naver article will go to the sentence which mentions the 75,000 figure. I will put a citation needed tag for the 100,000 figure, and if nobody can find a citation for it, I will consider removing it from the article.

Also, the link to the article which the sentence "To this day, valuable Korean artifacts can often be found in Japanese museums or among private collections." uses as source is dead. I'll add the dead link tag to it.

While we're at it, I believe the sentence "During the Japanese Occupation, the Korean language was suppressed in an effort to eradicate Korean national identity" needs a source as well, as it currently lacks one and it can be considered as controversial. Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I concur on changing the artifacts number--I had previously just assumed the sources supported it. As to the second sentence, what about just erasing the final two clauses: "During the Japanese Occupation, the Korean language was suppressed." That part should be noncontroversial. Also, we may be able to find sources at the article on the Occupation (I'll take a look later if I remember). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll perform the suggested edits then. Though if nobody is able to find an archive of that dead link, it should be removed. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another misused source

I noticed another incorrect use of a source, where the section states that "numerous Korean cultural artifacts were destroyed". The source is this article, which is about a couple of Korean palaces. It makes no mention of cultural artifacts that have been destroyed, nor does it use the word "numerous". It mentions that parts of a certain palace complex got torn down during the colonial period by the Japanese, however buildings (whether intact or in a ruined state) are generally not considered to be artifacts, but rather cultural heritage sites. Statues and obsidian arrowheads usually go under the definition of artifacts, buildings of cultural value go under the definition of cultural heritage sites. Therefore I consider it appropiate for me to remove the sourcing for that previously quoted statement of numerous destroyed Korean cultural artifacts, because the source does not confirm that statement at all. And if no source (that actually confirms exactly what the article claims) is given after a while, I believe that claim should be removed from the article. This article is in some serious need of work, as it seems that people had a rousing time misusing sources to make false statements. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur on this as well. I have this article watchlisted as I've made changes to it in the past, and it's somewhere on my long term to-do list as "well, sometime when I have the time I'll actually take a look at the details and see if it's well supported." My opinion is that if you find any statements not supported by sources, either 1) mark them with a {{cn}} tag if they seem likely to be true and uncontentious and not about living people, or 2) delete them with extreme prejudice. This kind of article is exactly the kind that can most easily fall victim to partisan editing, because 1) it's probably not an article that anyone watches all that closely, 2) The sources aren't always in English, so we can't always cross-check what people write, and 3) it's obviously a very sensitive subject that people have a large personal investment in. Nonetheless, that doesn't absolve the article or editors working on it from having to follow policy and guidelines, like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. So I fully support you doing any editing you think is necessary. Since the article is on a contentious topic, I think it's great for you to come here and record the changes you make. But until such a time as someone starts objecting to what you're changing, as long as you're not making too many changes too quickly, you should be fine changing first (with good edit summaries) and informing us here afterward. My personal practice on articles like this is no more than "1 controversial change" (one paragraph, one citation, one issue--the exact number of words varies) per day, but that's just a policy I've set for myself. And, of course, if anyone ever starts reverting, we can all come here and have a rousing discussion. Thanks for your continuing work on this! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the support. I'm interested in articles related to modern Japanese history and politics, as they tend to be full of inaccuracies and disputes, so there's naturally a lot of work to be done. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Aikido and hapkido

hapkido's relationship to Aikido (or Aikijujutsu) is a kind of Japan–Korea dispute. is it worth mentioning here? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick glance at Hapkido didn't show any dispute. What international dispute regarding the martial arts are there? Is there argument over which one is the original? Or something like that? Are there reliable sources to support there being a dispute? If it's just a dispute of "This one is better than that one" then I wouldn't say it's a dispute. 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-Korean Origins

The section on "Origins of Japanese Culture," to me, seems incredibly biased. At first, it brings up the dispute, which is what it should be about, but the last 3/4 of it becomes solely a list of what aspects of Japanese culture come from Korea. Shouldn't there be at least some mention of why Japanese are bothering to argue back at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.82.88.137 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is annexation NOT colonization

Japan didn't colonize Korea but it annexed and gave all the Korean nationals Japanese citizenship and all the rights as native Japanese had. Did colonized countries over the world get the same treatment like this?

In fact, Japan had Korea independent from China thorough the Sino-Japanese War and Korea was independent for some years but after years it went almost bankrupt and asked Japan to protect itself from Russia. Japan paid all the debt Korea had and invested massively into Korea to make it modernized nation like Japan did in Meiji-era. Japan built schools, hospitals and constructed infrastructures in Korea.

Some Koreans complain that Japan drafted Korean people for the war but Japan only drafted Koreans for a few months before it lost the war and since Japan granted Japanese citizenship to Koreans during the rule it's reasonable to draft Japanese-citizenship owned Koreans.

I know so many Koreans are convinced that Japan did terrible things but Japan never killed Koreans but only protected from Russia and modernized the Korean peninsula with massive Japanese fund mainly because Japan had to prevent Russia from coming down south and thought the western nations will not occupy the modernized nations.

The Korean government and private organizations have been trying to forge the historical facts in order to accuse Japan all over the world.

Korea's fabrication of history is indescribably offensive to Japanese people.

These are the pictures of Korea before and after the annexation. Korean married women used to exposed their breast before the annexation but Japanese made them stop showing their breasts. The CG pictures and some drawings are used by Korean to teach Korean children about the fabricated Korean history. They don't have real pictures so they are using those artificially made graphics to make up their imaginary history. And most of Koreans are convinced in it because it is easier for them to accept their imaginary history rather than its real history which was under China's rule for centuries. http://www.geocities.jp/furen1002/KoreaHistory.html Wiki kitkat (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Wiki kitkat (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Still you are fooling Korean people. We fought over 30 years for the independence. You should know how your politicians enslaved Korean people to be low rank citizens. You want to be annexed by other countries as you did it Korea? I don't want to feed trolls. But now I can't endure. Any other opinion on editing the article? --Cheol (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, before we descend into an ugly war of words, let's focus on the article. Specifically, what is wrong with the article, and what should be changed, based on what reliable sources. Per WP:NOTFORUM, this talk page cannot be used as a space to debate the issue of Japanese-Korean relations. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

In the section "Boycotting of Japanese Products" there are the following sentences: "This is in spite of the fact that a Korean character does not appear in any episode of the animated series. The animation continues to see distribution through mobile networks and internet streaming." I am unsure how to edit these sentences because I am unsure what they are supposed to mean. Is 'character' referring to anime characters? Korean hangul characters? Also, what is the title of the animated series the sentences refer to? The citation given didn't help much. PaintedCarpet (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who added the information, but it's a poor writing. The animated series is Hetalia: Axis Powers. See also Talk:Hetalia: Axis Powers#Controversies. The refs did not help? I think they help. Please see them again. [22] and [23]. And these too. [24] and [25]. I knew the Korean protest on the anime, but not the boycott. There is no source on it. Maybe regular editors on the manga/anime know more about it. The first half of the section mentions the general boycott/ban on Japanese films/manga/anime/etc. by the government. Maybe the Hetalia part is not needed in the section. Oda Mari (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Greatly one sided

The information included in this article may be accurate but has a tendency to make the article appear one-sided. For instance, in the section 'Nationalist historiography', we're told 'In brief, the Korean points are...' but are not told in brief--or at all--what the Japanese points are. Its prima facie unfairness detracts from what is otherwise a very interesting and informative article. Michaelx00 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree that this article would more accurately be titled "Korean grievances against Japan". It's been tagged as non-neutral since J Canuary 2010. Anyone feel like taking a shot at making it more neutral? I've had this article on my watchlist for like a year, but I haven't ever started such a task, because there's so much to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding historical issues, I think it's important to note that Korean and Japanese geopolitical perspectives differ. Japan's leaders once viewed a Korea, like North Korea today, falling into the spheres of influence of China and especially Russia as a grave threat to national security. Japan also had to consider the interests of other great powers, notably UK and US, in the international context, more so than South Korea.

• South Korean intellectual property infringement issues certainly affect Japanese businesses and views about the South. Also, some South Koreans, even the mainstream media, identify elements of Japanese and Chinese culture as originally Korean, despite scant evidence or none, drawing criticism from Japan, China, and Taiwan.

• We need a Security issues section. The North Korean nuclear and missile program, in addition to abduction, is taken very seriously in Japan. Perhaps we could discuss ROK-Japan security cooperation regarding these issues and the people who have fled to ROK via Japan as well.

• Overall, the whole text seems to suggest that there is one united Korea. We need to make clear that it is trilateral. Much more serious conflicts divide the Koreas, and DPRK is a closed country, unlike Taiwan, that has minimal contacts with Japan.

• Please remove the mention of Yu Miri. She is publicly known as an abuser of her son and should not be considered a successful person. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the need for a security section, as well as a need to clarify the difference between north south issues. Perhaps it might even be appropriate to consider splitting this article into 2 articles? Or would to much of it be duplicated? A lot of the other stuff you mention seems reasonable, but, of course, needs sources. I don't see any mention of any problems at Miri Yu, so I don't see a justification to take it out. Even if she has done bad things, that doesn't mean she's not notable and worth mentioning. Also, be careful in that WP:BLP does also apply on talk pages, so we have to be careful about making unsubstantiated criticisms. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lagyus edit

Lagyu, your edit was reversed by another user. One issue with your citation is that you meant to be citing a book, and you cited a webpage. To substantiate your edit, you should cite it as a book, and complete as many fields as you are able. The main problem with the edit, as cited by the user who removed it, was the claim is contentious, and difficult to support. It is definitely true that many Koreans came to Japan without coercion, but one document alleging that it was not the case for any of them, would be contradicted by more evidence proving that it was. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

terribly written

I suspect a Korean nationalist may have written most of this article. The English is...disjointed and in places nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.187.9.249 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

However, the Japanese are causing most of the issues... your Korean "nationalist" deserves to write in the article. Not to mention

the amount of Wikipedia contributers who might be willing to fix the grammatical errors. --Kimchipie2000 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a Korean nationalist viewpoint that pervades much of the article, it is closer to a polemic at times instead of a neutral point of view. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is bias both ways - with noticeable Japanese bias in the first section "Korea under Japanese Rule." Csbisbee (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2014

Vandalized

Notice the last sentence in the paragraph. Doesn't seem too scholarly and it seems a wee bit biased. Vandalism?

Korea under Japanese ruleMain article: Korea under Japanese rule With the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876, Japan became involved in Korean politics. In 1895, Empress Myeongseong was assassinated by Japanese agents.[2] In 1897, Joseon was renamed the Korean Empire (1897–1910) and, when the Korean Empire signed a Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 in 1905, Korea became a protectorate of Japan. The Korean imperial family was also installed as part of the Japan nobility.[3] In 1909, following the signing of the treaty, An Jung-geun assassinated the Japanese statesman and Resident-General of Korea Itō Hirobumi for his role in the colonization of Korea.[4] Colonization my butt, it was more like taking over the country and abusing it in every way it could have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.32.5 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues May 2013

RemyMCMXI, your many edits include blogs as sources, and inflamatory language outside of the NPOV guidelines. Your edits seem to be done with malice in mind rather then trying to improve the article. Your edits seem to be an attempt to skew the article not improve it. Your mass edits (soom mislabelled as minor edits) seem to be an attempt to make your editing harder to follow. Ottawakismet (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is your point of view, please provide me specific example(s) of where I changed the wording to cause malice intent. I'm not trying to be mean/malice; is history wrong because you feel uncomfortable about it? I was merely trying to show the reader another point of view to what was already said. If you believe the stuff I wrote is wrong/misleading, please correct it and edit it to your satisfaction. RemyMCMXI (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC) RemyMCMXI — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyMCMXI (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have malice intent yourself if you ask me; what is this?: "I suspect a Korean nationalist may have written most of this article." wrote by Ottawakismet. I think you may have misunderstood me, I'm not trying to put down Japan or build up Korea or vice versa, I was merely pointing out the fact that modernization and extortion are not the same things, which in the article you've modified is stated as such. You may argue that they may or may not be but please don't villainize others for what was already said. RemyMCMXI (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC) RemyMCMXI — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyMCMXI (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for my edits in this article were to show the readers that in some articles, much like the one we're talking about here, some people carelessly use the word "modernization" to imply: without the Japanese rule over Korea, Korea still would be some backwoods developing country - which is of one point of view. So I want to simply point out to the reader that, although Japan did have a great influence in Korea in terms of modernization at the time, it was mostly to advance Japanese welfare and not Koreans. RemyMCMXI (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC) RemyMCMXI — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyMCMXI (talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of everyone if the story comes clean so there are no surprises later; I think the worst possible news is of one that is both surprising and bad. I also believe that this article is slightly slewed, and that’s why I changed it. To say Japan and Korea had a perfect relationship during this time period would be an understatement. It’s wrong to show the reader only your point of view. Japan did influence Korea in many positive ways. However, Japan was also responsible for many misdeeds as well. If you mention how Japanese rule influenced Korea’s modernization, you must show the whole story… unless that’s not what you want – to hide the truth. RemyMCMXI (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) RemyMCMXI

Perhaps the word advanced is subjective. Both Japan and Korea were pretty advanced in terms of innovations throughout history. So how can an advanced country become advanced? I think the term modernization might be misused altogether. My point is, I just feel uncomfortable when someone carelessly talks about the historical modernization of Korea, especially in a negative context, as if it was all of Korea's fault. RemyMCMXI (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)RemyMCMXI

"Japanese prime ministers' visits to Yasukuni Shrine" question

This section mentions Koreans convicted of war crimes. Are the executed criminals enshrined at Yasukini? The article is not clear on that point. If so, it should be stated explicitly. If not, is that (un-sourced) material to the article?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.15 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about the convicted Koreans, because it's not relevant to this section. I add a cn tag on the 1043 + 23 enshrined there, as we need a source for that statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Masaichi Kaneda. Issue with Korean name.

I changed 김정일 into 김경홍, since it is obviously a misunderstanding. He adopted 正一 as a Japanese first name, which is pronounced 정일, but his Korean name is still 경홍. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B128:6AFC:0:4B:2C75:9601 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Japan–Korea disputes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150911001224/http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/kore1910.htm to http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/kore1910.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050228195019/http://www.yaledailynews.com:80/article.asp?AID=20393 to http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=20393
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051028075838/http://mic.e-osaka.ne.jp:80/boutsui/Measure/list.html to http://mic.e-osaka.ne.jp/boutsui/Measure/list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)