Talk:History of Korea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

old comments

This page doesn't explain exactly how it was that korea ceased to have any sort of monarchy. Could someone fix that?

I have move the stuff from the Korea article here and summarized the history there. Kokiri 21:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, currently this article is overrun with ungrammatical edits by revisionist defenders of Japanese colonial actions, continuing Japanese imperialist propaganda that should have been obsolete decades ago. You wonder what the reaction would be if apologists for Nazi actions during WWII would make similar edits on Wikipedia pages. This is not merely silly, it's deeply offensive. I've tried in my edits to include various viewpoints about controversial periods, but if people keep putting in extreme POV material as well as outright falsehoods, I can't keep up anymore. I just don't have time to get involved in this, but if this continues, I'm resorting to arbitration. --Iceager 09:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

-I'm sorry to edit without discussion. Numerous number of editing comes from my my limited ability to write English. I should note as minor edit. I'm Japanese, and I understand your saying. Your writing was relatively much fair than Korean official TextBook, I agree. But from japanese POV, there were still some strange writings. For Korean historians fame, I've never touched the writings before Japanese annexation. And I also didn't try to write to "Japanese Colonial Period", before doing discussion. Could you point out which seems imperialist propaganda, and show the reference to read? I can fix it. To tell the truth, I dislike the Japanese system of emperor, militalism, and imperialism of Japan in the past. But I also dislike one-sided description about Japanese ancestors. Do you really want to compare Nazi action and Japanese annexation?--Poo-T 19 May, 2004

I've written my saying at Japanese Colonial Period "Discuss this page". Could you read the page and reply to my comments? --Poo-T 21 May, 2004

List of Japanese "Cruelties" or "Mistreatments"

A major problem about this NPOV issue is that Japanese themselves don't know about the cruelties. I'll list them out.

• Koreans were not promoted to higher jobs -even very famous ones (i.e. Dr. Woo Jang-choon, who was a worldwide renowned agricultural scientist). It was a rare case for Koreans to be handed an important and prestigious poisition, and even if it was the case, the Korean had to be very apt in adulation to the senior Japanese. Source: pg. 15 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Various extremities of tortures (i.e. repeated drowning of the person, beating, scorching with molten iron, and electrifying) and lab tests (i.e. experiments to build a death ray, which resulted in microwave, killed tons of Koreans; biological weapons, etc.).

Sources:

Here's an example. http://www.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/~tsuchiya/gyoseki/presentation/TRT5.html

A Japanese site, by the way.

Here's a Wikipedia article about Unit 731.

• Japanese police did not permit Koreans to gather and discuss, in fear that Koreans would plot a rebellion. Source: pg. 19 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• A special Japanese police designated to watch Koreans (현병경찰) forced Koreans to participate in road constructions, and forced Korean farmers to plant only certain crops profitable for the market. If Koreans planted another crop, the police went into the field and destroyed the work. This caused Korean farmers to plant only commercially valuable crops, and could not plant crops essential for food and survival. Therefore, many Koreans were forced to abandon their lands. (This same police division also gave penalities (i.e. fine) for having 4 fly splatters instead of 3.)

Source: pg. 23, 48-49 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Japanese road constructions and railroads cut through Korean farmlands and properties. Source: pg. 27 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Koreans segregated in education (mentioned below). Source: pg. 28 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Koreans who attempted to teach from Korean point of view, and to teach Korean nationalism were arrested. Source: pg. 31-33 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Required registration of the land, and losses of land for Korean farmers (mentioned below) forced many to move into the cities and seek jobs. The Korean lands lost (made illegal, according to the law) were redistributed to the Japanese. Source: pg. 37-40 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Those Japanese who became landlords (due to the policy mentioned above) were able to force Korean rice to be cheaper. Against this argument, the Japanese historians rather portray how Japanese rice couldn't sell because the Korean rice was cheap, even when Koreans' hard work became cheap labor. Source: pg. 43 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Koreans who participated in independence movement protests were massacred.

Source: pg. 105-125 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• There was a town SUSPECTED of helping the Independence Army, and the Japanese army recruited all Koreans in the village into a church. And then, they locked the church & began to shoot away. A wounded Korean woman implored the soldiers to spare her baby, and the Japanese soldier stabbed the baby and shot the woman. Source: pg. 128-131 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Japanese teachers for Korean students wielded swords. Only under the new Japanese policy of '문화 통치' did the teachers stop wearing them. pg. 13 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #14 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi II (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• In 1928, the Japanse government (in Korea) forced Korean farmers to buy Scholar Tree roots. Koreans protested, especially because they had suffered from a recent drought. A Korean organization called "Sin-gan-hwae" helped the farmers from being forced to purchase. This same organization helped Korean fishermen from suffering from heavy losses from the Japanese fishermen. Yet, in 1929, the Japanese government arrested the members of this organization. pg. 72-74 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #14 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi II (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Koreans were forced to work under cheap labor such as mining and factories that produced cotton clothes, and suffered from mistreatments. pg. 86-91 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #14 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi II (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

(Wikimachine 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Your first sentence shows that a Korean could grant political asylum under Japan,could get married with a Japanese,and could receive a scholarship from the Japanese government to achieve the higer education. That's the evidence that even Koreans could open the door to success if the endevour was realised.How many Japanese students could receive scholarships from the government? And the following sentences do not have persuasiveness.Not only are the pages of the documents shown,it is required to present the details of the "cruelties" or "mistreatments" you would like to claim here.For example,the Tsuchiya document lacks the concrete description of "the biological experimentation with the Koreans".If such a document on the net were a reliable source or evidence of the Japanese cruelties, it's easier for the Koreans to re-create the history to impose the expiation upon the Japanese.(That will be the Koreans' aim.)PS.You are required to learn what a sumurai is. The description on Woo Jang-choon tells your uneducated character. --Trilozengy 05:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying the above facts? All those facts are true, if you didn't know. Maybe you should research about Japanese war crimes from a source other than a Japanese one. I have read books and seen pictures of horrid things done by Japanese soldiers during WWII.

A big problem is that some Japanese editors fail to admit their true history. Good friend100 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Irrespective of any disagreements about previous versions, the current entry for the Japanese Colonial Period is blatant POV: e.g.

• "During Japanese colonial rule (1910-1945), Koreans could spend the happiest time by Japanese investment."
• "However, the Korean did not appreciate the Japanese commitment to the peninsula,derived from peculiar pride that Korea was greater than Japan without a doubt."

Hence I am marking this section NPOV dispute. (There are separate issues regarding accuracy discussed in Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). --Udzu 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-I agree with your marking as NPOV dispute. I think (with my POV), no one wants to write as "happiest time". But japanese are bored with false accusation (ex. 'expense of Korean people'). So I wrote some conflicting points in Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). I think, honest criticism against japanese ruling with objective data should be described. Then, I have not received an objection about Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). Is there any rule about waiting time to rewrite a Wiki page? --Poo-T 4 Jun 2004

When it comes to NPOV,the article on "Japanese Occupation" is out of balance.The article seems to be the Koreans' propaganda. --Trilozengy 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's not at all POV. What is written here is just a microscopic fragment of what really happened. After I am done with Woo Jang-Choon article, I promise all Wikipedians to improve all articles concerning the Japanese Coloniasm to the point of concerning every incidents and cases.

After reading all those, you will understand why Koreans feel that way. (Wikimachine 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a place to present the Koreans' impressions on what Japan did in the peninsula.To be correct and neutral,it is essential to accept the diversity of opinion or viewpoint.But the Koreans will not accept that on,especially,Japan-Korean related topics.Even worse,the Koreans will describe here out of delusion.A patronising attitude on the earlier history of Japan,but the Koreans will not describe Japan's contribution to Korea during 1910-1945, the rapid economic growth since 1960s owing to the soft loan from Japan as three times as the annual national budget,or the IMF crisis in 1990s.....The Japanese has started to state strongly against the Korean.(You may already recongnised that from the responses these days.)--Trilozengy 12:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Japanese "CONTRIBUTIONS" (eh hem) do not limit me from posting about every single case of Japanese cruelty.

We can have those contributions listed & still have things as horrible as holocaust, but not recognized.

Those economic and technological benefits were not for Koreans, but for Japanese. Railroads were built for better transportation of weapons, supplies, and troops to Manchuria.

Factories were ran by Japanese (to keep Koreans from having technologically advanced jobs, of course); therefore, most of the factories could not be used after the Japanese left.

As for schools, Koreans were segregated from the Japanese & weren't taught enough.

I'll cite all my sources as I write about the Japanese occupation. :) (Wikimachine 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

The Japanese cruelty? That's wrong how to describe the facts.If what Japan did in the penisula had been all out of cruelty, why did the popoulation in the penisula become double during the period? If the environment remained worse, the population would be reduced.That's easier to imagine.

The Koreans mentioned the economic and technological benefits were for the Japanese,the viewpoint is ultimately appropriate,but the viewpoint shows lack of the ablity to consider.It was the Japanese benefits that could bring the Koreans benefits.The Japanese found business, so the Koreans could hunt jobs. Before the Japanese era started,most Koreans were illiterate derived from the successive policy.Illiteracy inevitably leads to lack of knowledge , logical thinking or the ability of judgement. And as the problems in the society,can the illiteracy be overcome for just about 30 years? At most,in 1940s persons who were highly educated as the first generation under the Japanese educational system started to work. Under the situation,was it suitable enough to entrust the Koreans to run factories?It is essential to require workers who were educated highly with perseverance for technologically advanced jobs.But under Confucianism, on-site operations have been hated. No Samsung today did appear at that time!!!

As for school,was it effective to educate the Koreans whose mother language was not the Japanese as the same way as educated the Japanese? It was not a SEGREGATION, but a classification suitable for effective education. Execellent students who experienced even such a classification could enjoy the opprtunity to higher education.Have you ever heard the former Presidents of Korea speaking the Japanese? They spoke it in no way inferior to the Japanese.That showed the Koreans also were even educated in accordance with the ablity and financial environment.

And,finally,the Koreans are good at labelling with words inspiring negative image.but it is required to study the conception of the words again at school or with a dictionary.--Trilozengy 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You really don't know what you are talking about, Trilozengy. I can see that your words are full of opinions and suppositions.

• Population increase has nothing to do with the welfare of the people other than more proper medical care. Site your source, by the way. Finally, the only reason why the population was low before (as I can think of) is that Korea was suffering from epidemics. That was just a temporary phenomenon.

• Koreans could hunt jobs? Koreans always had jobs, buddy, and that is farming. There is another side to Koreans having jobs. Japan made a new policy of requiring registration of farmland to the Japanese government. Koreans in the countryside with limited amount of news and knowledge did not register their lands--> Japanese government redistributed those unregistered lands among Japanese newcomers--> Koreans lost their farmlands and had to go to the cities to seek jobs. Additionally, overtaxation forced some Koreans to give up their farmlands and seek jobs in the city.

• Koreans were literate, thanks to Hangul made by King Sejong and the scholars at Sung-Gyun-Gwan. It is an alphebetic system of writing & was aimed to spread literacy among the Koreans.

• Additionally, segregation provided by Japanese education was not linguistically based, for Koreans were taught Japanese (& it's very easy for Koreans to learn Japanese and vice versa because they are very similar). It was based on nationality. A policy, again, to limit Koreans from achieving high level education. Koreans were taught less & were taught only the very common subjects.

• Korean education itself satisfied the needs of the Korean society before the Japanese occupation. And yes, Koreans were logical thinking beings.

• Again, there is no need for ugly generalizations of Koreans.

• Finally, now that I am done with Woo Jang-choon article, I promise all Wikipedians my full, active effort into completely writing about the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula in details. They will have sources from my reference & history books. : )(Wikimachine 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

According to the national census by the Governor-General of Korea in 1910(朝鮮総督府国勢調査報告　大正９年：The Report of the national census in 1922 p.45-p.45 reprinted）,the population of the Korean in the penisula was 13,128,780.And the report（朝鮮総督府　昭和１６年朝鮮人口動態統計:p.2-p.3） shows that was increased to 24,679,800 in 1941. If the period under the Japanese sovereignty was brutal as the Koreans labelled,the population was to decreased.The figures tells what the Japanese rule was.

Under the registration of the lands,the property belonged to the land owner as he declared.The Koreans labelled the registration as the deprivation,but the land introduced to the national property was not declared or ,in the first place ,was illegal.Why did the Korean farmers not declared the property or were out of the news on the registration of the lands?The situation tells the Koreans society was premature to travell news with paper or lack of literacy. Overtaxation? Show us the rate of the tax imposed upon farm in the peninsula. The income tax was firstly introduced in the penisula in 1934.And the rate of the tax was half of that in the mainland.(getting nearly as that in the mainland later.) It was in the Joseon Dynasty when the overtaxation stayed.

Was the educational limitation as the Korean mention derived from the segregation? It was from students ability or their financial environment.Would the situation where the Imperial Keijo University（京城帝国大学:the former National University of Seoul) was full of the Korean-native students have established,are the Koreans today satisfied? At that time,even most the Japanese were also substantially limited from achiving higher education.

Koreans were logical thinking beings? Hahaha lol,it's a nice joke.Even today, the Koreans are losing control when presenting the power of the nation ,especially,facing the issues or problems relatve to Japan.--Trilozengy 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll completely refute your arguments.

• I'll repeat what I mentioned earler: Population increase has nothing to do with the welfare of the people other than more proper medical care. Site your source, by the way. Finally, the only reason why the population was low before (as I can think of) is that Korea was suffering from epidemics. That was just a temporary phenomenon.

• With your second argument, I see a lot of problems:

• Who defines a premature society as one with inconvenient means of transportation and communication? They did have those two means, although not as efficient as such of the Westerners. Keep insults to yourself.
• You are making it sound as if all unregistered lands are illegal in terms of crime. Remember that the Japanese government made the law. It wasn't there before.
• This is it. The Japanese government wanted to take advantage of the fact that news traveled slowly across the peninsula. So, many people lost land.

• Yes, rate of tax was half that of the mainland. But don't forget inflation. Don't forget how the currency value was different in Korea and Japan. Although the tax may be lower for the Koreans as the Japanese sees it, it was overwhelming to death for the Koreans. Currency difference? Yes.

• Regarding segregation in education, I am not talking about higher education. It was not financial environment. What I mean is primary school, secondary school, and high school. And this is not some Korean-made up bias. Fact is a fact, no matter which side it sides with. Source: pg. 28 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

• Trilozengy, you sure don't fit here, when you insult Koreans. Koreans are not arguing anything offensive against the Japanese. They are stating the facts that happened, and Japanese are not ready to accept them (most).

Additionally, I have great respect for MOST of the Japanese (eh hem), and enjoy their animes and music. (Wikimachine 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Show the evidence that the population in the peninsula was temporarily lower derived from epidemics,if you want to deny the Japanese contribution.

That's a quibble.You can not deny the penisula was premature with inconvenient means of transportation and communication at the beginning of the Japanese period.So you are trying to switch into the issue of the definition.If you are questioning the definition,please bring the peninsula back to the end of the Joseon Dynasty or earler.First,destory all the communication lines in the peninsula.That will save the world from the Koreans' SPAMs.

Regarding on the registration of the lands,in the peninsula before the Japanese period,the standard unit for measuring farms had not been established. The unit for the taxation on farm was "結負".1結＝100負,１負＝10bundles,１bundle＝10 sheaves of grain.As you see, the unit was depended upon the quantity of the crop.Needless to say,the Korean's unit could not measure the accurate space of farm.Therefore ,by utilising the unit maliciously, it inevitably led the Koreans to cultivate on "hidden farm" to avoid the tax. The Japanese government had already employed the standard measure depending upon the length,the Koreans could not declare the property with the guilty conscience of " hidden farm".

News travelling slowly in the peninsula showed what the edcucation at the Joseon Dynasty was .It was the segregation derived from the policy of the Joseon Dynasty between the upper and the lower in the peninsula.

You want to declare that the Koreans' educational prematureness was derived from the Japanese policy,but it was derived from the educational segregation at the Joseon Dynasty.Although the lower lacked the knowledge of the Chinese characters,how could they achieve the same level as the Japanese for just 35 years? Should Korea remain a part of Japan forever?(I hope not.)You Koreans lack the sence of time essential to maturity.

Moving to the rate of tax,the consideration of the inflation? The consideration itself tells the Japanese government was trying to balance the economic situation between the mainland and the peninsula!!!The peninsula was a part of Japan,it might have imposed the same rate in the peninsula under the name of the quality. Even worse,another choice to impose the poll tax might have existed like other power nations did in the colonies.But Japan did not.

You Koreans here are offensive enough against the Japanese.You do not behave like typical Koreans appeared in the demos against Japan.But you guys utilise descriptive strategy. For example,your decription on Woo Jang-choon ,the Japanese had hired gangsters or so-called Samurais,gives the reader an impression that a samurai equalls a gangster,that leads to disgrace Japan.Many similar things appear here in Wikimedia,that's easily hit with the google.Unfortunately there are few people who are trying to reconfirm the source itself cited,the decriptions here are tend to be trusted.So you guys are eager to write what you want to brainwash the world and to revert anything unsuitable. One of your reasons,I think ,to recommend me to get out is my contribution here will be obstructive to you guys strategy.--Trilozengy 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My apology that samurais were indeed gangsters, Trilozengy. If you are Japanese, which I am sure you are not -guessing from your manner of speech-, I'm sorry. Japan was a gangster-driven society, and "honorable warrior" (which does not mean Samurai, as far as I remember) and "Samurai" are good ways to hide that fact. These gangsters formed clans, and those clans fought against each other. Therefore, Japan was always in turmoil (most of the time, don't deny it, I studied Japanese history). If you say that this would apply to Korea, there weren't many internal conflicts (except 2 3-period kingdoms, each of which lasted for about 200 yrs out of 4,500 yrs of Korean history), and Koreans usually fought against the Manchurians or the Japanese. Thanks to these honorable Samurai's, Korea had to maintain a strong navy to guard commercial interests against the Wakou (Japanese pirates, which included the Samurai's).

Back to answering your questions.

• I read about the epidemic in a biography about Yi Bong-chang. Sadly, I lost that book, and there's no way for me to get it unless I travel back to Korea. We'll leave it at that better medicare helped Korean population increase.
• You are wrong on the definition of a premature society because it depends on who sees it. To the Koreans at the time, it wasn't premature at all, and Choson already had efficient way of transportation through means of stations hosting horses & switching ride throughout the journey. Look at our society now from the views of a more advanced alien civilization. What do you say.
• As far as I remember, Choson already had means of accurately measuring farmland capacity. I am not even considering this.
• Further explain what you mean by hidden farm.
• News and education don't correlate, buddy. And education was not only limited to the higher society -thanks to the policy of basing selections for the national civil service on skill not class, introduced by King Sejong.
• The lower class could learn the Chinese characters (no laws forbid it), but probably most of them didn't because of the cost of maintaing education. Several of the great Korean historical figures were from lower class, buddy.
• Korean language was not limited to Chinese characters. Take a look at Hangul.

---

Overall, this is what I see.

You Trilozeny, has whole lot to criticize about the Korean society... how it functioned, how inconvenient it was, and how unfair it was... to justify the Japanese cruelties and mistreatments before and during their occupation.

This is exactly what I see. Take a look at Objectman for example. He himself said that Japanese Occupation wasn't that bad compared to the Holocaust or other cases of foreign rule. So what. That doesn't tell me anything. That means that if I steal, it's not bad as murdering so it's okay.

And from what I read, you guys haven't don't enough research about Choson at all. All your criticisms about Choson society are guessworks... What you infer from texts...

Good luck with that, J-POVs. (Wikimachine 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

It is the Koreans who do not know the history of Korea.The history does not come from the delusions.Have a courage to take a look at the past even if it was miserable.--Trilozengy 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this?? Japanese elitism? Watch your comments and be mature. I'm sure that's why the Japanese government is trying to cover up war crimes from World War II out of their text books. Yes, indeed, Koreans do not know their own history. What a shame. --71.200.63.193 02:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You Koreans here are offensive enough against the Japanese. Then how do you explain what the Japan side editors did to the Dokdo talk page a couple months ago??? The Dokdo talk page got messed up because a bunch of nonsense was scribbled all over it. To make it even worse, some Japan side users were caught using sock puppets.

Koreans don't know what their own history is I can't believe you said that! Now you are resorting to insults since you have nothing else to say?

Maybe it is true that Koreans don't know their history, since when Japan annexed Korean in 1910 they might have burned all the official Korean records. Kind of like what they did to the Gwanggetto Stele. Good friend100 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sinocentric View of Korea's Origins?

The writer of the article, it must be disclosed, provides a Sino-centric view of Korea's origins. It is undisputed that Korea, in its myriad of ethno-political forms, borrowed considerably from China both culturally and politically. But to somehow assert that Korea may have somehow originated with the migration and settlement of a Chinese family on the Peninsula is not only unsubstantiated, it should be viewed as a deliberate attempt to undermine Korea's own history as well as the abundance of anthropological evidence which documents the presence of an indigenous peoples on the Peninsula long before the existence of a formal Chinese state. One need only look at the revisionist sinocentric histories of Tibet and Formosa (Taiwan) that were promulgated by China to "evidence" its "ancient" claims to the lands. China is, and always has been, a hegemony that has grown in size over many centuries. This growth has been patient and steady. But it has relied on a long series of small falsehoods and on occasion, outright aggression. Tibet is the clearest demonstration of this. Military troops invaded, murdered, and pillaged. The historical documents were destroyed. And China engaged in a policy of seizing Tibetan land and redistributing it to resettled "Han Chinese". China, it is suspected, is supporting the Maoist "rebels" in neighboring Nepal; these well-funded terrorists have succeeded in murdering the royal family and creating political and economic chaos. Maybe in time, it too will be overtaken by China. Not surprisingly, border disputes have been common; China and Mongolia, China and Vietnam, China and India (they actually fought in a short-lived war), China and Japan, China and Russia, China and the Philippines (Spratley Islands), etc. And now, China is at it again, attempting to revise Korean history (and its geography) with the recent controversial decision (official state policy) to downplay and discount the Korean origin of the Kogoryo Kingdom (one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea), which claimed territory on the northern parts of the Peninsula as well as parts of what was then Manchuria. Any astute observer of Chinese history will see this move for what it is, another small lie in a long chain of lies that will lead, possibly, to "historical claims" to Korea.

---I am not sure whether the article is Sinocentric biased, however, i am sure the person who rasied the issue about Sinocentric above is biased and maybe contains somekind of racist or maybe more accurate nationalist right-winged. In the issue about how "evil" of the Chinese expansion is or other, i suggest the issue rasier to do deeper reaserchs about human history. Since i cannot see any civilisation in any human history in the world is not expansionist. In respond to the critics about the Tibet issue, Taiwan issue... i would rather ask how about the unifications of any nations in the world, including the Korea and its ancient states (How come there is a Korea? how the Koreans expaned from none before the history till now there is a large group of people who call themslves Korean? and how come there were three independent states in the Korean Three kingdoms period but now there is only one call Korea or maybe two Koreas? Most importantly, plsease tell me why and how a nation is formed and why a group of people so call themselves a nation can claim some lands that exist before human and belong to no one their territory? etc.) Then, i think i cannot see any point of the above writer's get any valid standpoints, other than maybe some kind of Chauvinism. PS. the contents of above paragraph does not hold any valid standpoints, simply because lack of any evidence and more subjective to the writer's personal view rather than any objective supports. (I agree with you, that person who hates China is so paranoid. we should calm he or her down. tell he or she to relax.)

I agree. China is spending billions of dollars right now researching to prove that Balhae is part of Chinese history/culture. I'll take a look at it. (Wikimachine 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I understand the viewpoint of China on Balhae.Because any dynasty on the Korean penisula could not exercise the full sovereignty.--Trilozengy 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you guys didn't know, you know how China is screaming their heads off that Goryeo and Balhae were actually part of "China's history"?? I can't believe that Chinese people are claiming that.

The only reason why I think they are like that is because they are jealous of Korean history and how Goguryeo was as powerful as China.(:-)Chinese are jealous of Korean history? It's so fuuny. I guess only Korean think so. Korean culture is only the sub-culture influenced by Chinese culture. When talking about East Asis Culture, mostly, only Chinese and Japanese culture are mentioned.

Its just like the Dokdo issue between Korea and Japan. China has almost no formal proof and they are claiming Goryeo as "Chinese history".

Read about the countless wars between Korea and China (save the Imjin War). China wanted to conquer Korea so much....but they failed. Good friend100 04:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilozengy, techinically what you are saying is that Korea was too weak to havean impact on the surrounding countries?

Then how do explain when Goguryeo destroyed a Sui Chinese army of 1 million? Guess how many Chinese soldiers escaped: 3,000. And you think Korea was "too weak to influence". You should understand what you are talkin about.

Then, this so strong ancient country was destroyed by Tang Dynasty. And this ancient country had such an independent and particular culture that the people wrote Chinese.

Look who is the one that has "no knowledge about their own country". Good friend100 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese commanderies

There are many delicate issues at hand in this article, but I think the entire section "Chinese commanderies", particularly the last two sentences quoted below, could use some clarification. I do not wish to add to a debate about sinocentricity, so I submit this as a new section.

"Without the commanderies, the influence of Chinese culture on Korea would not have been so strong (note the Korean's Confucian tradition!). Sadly, many nationalist Korean historians try to dispute these facts."

The exclamation mark, and perhaps the entire content within the brackets seems unncessary. The word "sadly" is not NPOV. I think it would help to furnish some more evidence of the facts being disputed, along with evidence that they are being disputed at all.

A minor grammar point, IMHO "Korean's" should be replaced with "Koreans'" or "Korean people's". Lxrhee 08:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Korea expelled China from the Manchuria and that is true. Good friend100 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

korean invasion of china

no mention of koreans successfully invading china under the kim/jin regime, why is this?

What do you mean by Kim/Jin regime? If you haven't learned by now, Korean dynasties are not referred to after the royal houses' surname. Please clarify which dynasties you are talking about.

Mongol invasion of Korea

can someone write a more detailed article on the Mongol invasion of Korea? --Dangerous-Boy

major editing

i'm trying to do a major clean-up of korean history articles. i'm doing a lot of googling, but not re-writing from scratch, i will generally try to keep the content, but clean up the language, & most importantly, make the various articles consistent. all the details should be in the most specific articles, e.g. mahan > samhan > history of korea > korea, the last of which should have a very brief summary in the history subsection.

it's a big project, i'd welcome some help (especially wikifying links & dates) or comments, but if you do make any changes, please be sure they're consistent throughout the various articles. Appleby 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

also, any thoughts on possibly deleting Founding myth of Korea? it's completely covered by Dangun, other countries don't have such articles. i'm not exactly a wiki-veteran, so would appreciate if someone could arrange for a vote on this, after any discussion. Appleby 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, If you have access to historical sources, I commend you to read the Chapter on Gojoseon from Samguk Yusa, noting especially the part on Gija, so that you can understand that Gojoseon of Dangun and Gija Joseon coexisted. As for my argument that Gija Joseon did not pay tribute to Zhou Dynasty of China, I recommend Book of Song Shijia of Shi Ji by Sima Qian, which quite explicitly say that Gija was not a subject of Zhou.

The reason I do not provide English citation is that I cannot find English translation of these sources at present; all I have are Chinese or Korean versions. But just because there is no easily accessible English translation, doesn't mean the source is unreliable or useless.

By the way, as you might have gathered from my user name, I am an Australian, and am quite sure that my English is by no means too inferior to so-called translators. If you believe my translation of source itself is biased, in opposition to my historical viewpoint (which indeed is possibly biased in favour of one view), please explain which part of translation you think is biased. Sydneyphoenix 00:45, 11 March 2006

from WP:NOR: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published", reputable publications being "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house ..., general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications, ..."

from WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."

you and i both know that all your hard work will soon be for naught, simply reverted by other editors. the only way to defend your work and have some impact on the usefulness of wikipedia is for you to leave a record of reputable english references that other editors can verify. if you do that, i will personally do whatever i can to preserve your work. otherwise, it's just a pointless waste of time. Appleby 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

700,000 years human presence in Korea

Isn't there something obiviously wrong with asserting that archological evidence points to a 700,000 year human presence in Korea. Haven't homo sapien sapien been around for only around 160,000 to 200,000 years?

Judging by what is currently written at Human evolution, the humans in question here are not H.s.s. but Homo erectus... however, I'm not at all sure about that.

I have added a reference for the 700,000 claim, with some clarification -- Byeon (1999), the only source I have handy, doesn't seem to put a great deal of stock in this date, preferring 500-600,000.

I'd be grateful if someone can find an English-language source. There has been at least one book published on the Korean Paleolithic, and no doubt quite a few journal articles as well...-- Visviva 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

sydneyphoenix's edits

i'm not sure what exactly you're objecting to, but i've consulted these references for the consensus views: the encyclopedias available through Daum, Naver, Empas, 야후, and KoreanDB, Lib of Congress Met Museum, & other sources depending on the topic. please provide sources for what you want to add, or ask about specific problems you see, so we can discuss the references. thanks. Appleby 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A million years?

Sez who? Not the source currently given in the footnote. -- Visviva 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

gija edits

according to WP:NPOV, the majority view should be referenced to "commonly accepted reference texts." i can't find any english reference texts that discuss this detail, but the most reputable korean-language encyclopedias clearly show the korean scholarship consensus. [1] [2] [3] the theory that gija joseon was a separate entity adjacent gojoseon is described, if at all, as a minority view. [4] describes in detail that the consensus today is that gija was likely a real figure in chinese history, but his connection to ancient joseon was a later embellishment. given treatments like [5], it seems to me we need less on gija joseon in this summary article, and more on the details of various current theories in the gija joseon article. of course, if there are english sources that indicate that the current scholarly consensus is something else, i'd love to see them. Appleby 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

the Korean Watching

The Koreans are EAGER to find the comments which are not suitable for themselves to delete them. Do or can the Korean accept the diversity of viewpoints? And do not fabricate your history to aggitate the world.

I really want to know why the Korean have such strong eagarness to fix comments or articles lacking accuracy in the net, not only in Wikipedia. It seems they suffer from an inferiority complex against other contries.However they try to aggitate the world or, accurately saying, to delude themselves ,the world has already recongised them accurately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.159.231.103 (talk • contribs)

Okay, an anon from Japan Network Information Center. Read Protocols of the Elders of Seoul for more information on international Korean conspiracies. Deiaemeth 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the "Koreans are eager to..."? Are they saying that Korea is making up stories about their own history?

Look who is talking. Don't you know that there is a debate over Japanese schoolbooks where they distort history and try to cover up the hideous war crimes Japan has commited in the past?

This is getting ridiculous. I believe a "Vandalized Dokdo Talk Page Episode 2" is going to happen again here. Good friend100 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Koreans suffer from inferiority...." Good friend100 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

the title "Japanese occupation " is not neutral

The title "Japanese occupation " gives readers impression that the Japanese rule itself was illegal or what Japan did for the Korean penisula was all wrong. The treaty in 1910 was valid until Japan abandoned the penisula.And Japan improved the quality of the Koreans life.The title gives an implication of disgracing Japan.The title should be changed into "the period under the Japanese sovereignty" or something like that. Needless to say, the description of the article itself is not. Trilozengy

Japanese did mistreat the Koreans. "Japanese Occupation" is a neutral term. And I WILL make sure to put all the cruelties by the Japanese in this article, or make a separate article about Japanese cruelties during WWII in a moment (after I'm done with Woo Jangchoon article -please feel free to take a look at it and improve it). (Wikimachine 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)) PS: Please take a look at Kim Okgyun article as well -I nominiated Kim Okgyun and Jang Yeongsil articles to the selected biography section for the Korean Portal. (Wikimachine 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

To make a title or an article neutral,it is necessary to acknowledge diversity of interpretation or opinion.But the Koreans will not have the ability.Just repeat imposing what they believe or are trying to believe on the Japanese or the world. Reflect the Japanese views on the title or the article.The Japanese did mistreat the Koreans? If education to the Koreans,building roads,the establishment of currency system, the improvement of the public health or many things led to double the population on the penisula were included in the Japanese mistreatment for the Koreans, what in the world is the conception of mistreatment ??? What the Koreans have to learn is that the improvement of the quality of life on the penisula was at the cost of the lives in Tohhoku Province.Was there a nation other than Japan to educate all the poor and begger out of the mainland's pocket? Metaphorically saying, should the ordinary have treated the poor and begger as the aristocracy? The description on any Korea-related topic here in Wikipedia is egocentric and ,at the same time, gives bad impression on the neibouring nation or people to the world. --Trilozengy 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were positive sides to Japanese rule. But, you can't deny certain cruelties. (Wikimachine 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

The problem is that the Koreans tend to erase the Japanese contribution also to spread their one-sided views to the world.--Trilozengy 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Korea under Japanese rule#renaming article about what to call this period in the Korean history. Per discussion there, I think "Japanese rule" is better. --Kusunose 07:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Trilozengy, the point you wish to make is....??? Oyo321 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilozengy, I don't think you get it. Japan has commited war crimes in the past. You cannot deny it. "Japanese Occupation" is the definite and correct term. So then, do you think the title should be "Korean-Japanese friendship Occupation"?

You need to CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE. Good friend100 05:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes outweigh the positive influences of Japan.

"IF it wasn't for Japan, then Korea wouldn't be like it today". WOW. I hear that all the time. Korea has the 10th largest economy in the world because of their own hard work and Park Chung-hee's presidency when he ordered a mass advancement into techonology. Good friend100 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

gojoseon & samhan

breathejustice, can you provide some links to reputable sources (i can read korean if necessary) that say gojoseon consisted of an earlier samhan? that's news to me, & i've tried to do some reading on the subject, although i'm certainly no expert. is that an interpretation based on Hwandan Gogi? thanks. Appleby 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of improvement

I added a lot of information on the Three Kingdoms and some references.

Not to be competitive but comparing the Japan, History of Japan article, Korea, History of Korea article, the Japan articles are really good.

We need to make the Korea articles a lot more detailed and stronger!

To do that, there has to be more participation, fellow editors. A couple people cannot edit and revise the entire Korea article, or History of Korea article. If you see the Japan talk page there are many editors that contribute to the Japan article.

Not only that, the information isn't clear sometimes and some information are not fully true.

I really want to make the Korea article into a featured article or something and I can't do it on my own. I need some help. I am not trying to be selfish and be bossy. I just need some help referencing and adding information on short sections, like the "Later Three Kingdoms".

Nothing is ever gonna happen if we don't do something. Good friend100 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree, even if the task seems bit overwhelming. There is indeed A LOT to improve. And I have to say, in general, I am a little consternated at the numerous (and random) groundless comments about and revisionist cheap shots at modern as well as ancient Korean history, which certainly slows down the work on the Korea portal. Little of the actual research on Korea is actually available, so if you want to contribute, please, get off the internet a bit, and read serious history (published, reviewed by peers in the field, etc.), not the "Ai subeki Nihon" or "Great Korea" kind of website or nationalist papers, which I think is "stuff" that should stay where it is. May I suggest a change to the "Assessment of Japan's role in the Modernization of Korea" title, which seems to be quite pointless? The content of this paragraph is actually quite inane. No dates, no numbers, no references, nothing. For a general article about the history of Korea, I see little or no reason to qualify Japan's colonial policy, at least here. This can made (or talked about) in the Japanese rule/colonization article. Shogo Kawada 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure of the section you want to edit because I have been concentrating on earlier Korean history, but I will try and see what it is about.

The biggest problem is, its just that this article does not have enough support and editors. It seems nobody is doing anything. This is a large problem I see in the Korea related articles... Good friend100 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about forming a WikiProject Korea or something of the sort? Concerted effort is good.. You can build a big house with a few tools, if collaboration works fine... Shogo Kawada 03:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how to make a Wikiproject... and it is a scary thought if there are not any supporters. Good friend100 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'm pretty sure most Korean editors will follow your efforts, based on the hot edit wars i can see in Dokdo. Oyo321 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here know how to make a Wikiproject for Korea? Good friend100 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Korea

The Wikiproject Korea has just been established! Please come and take a look by following the link on the template at the top of this talk page. The article is severely incomplete and help is needed. If you are interesting in joining please do! thank you. Good friend100 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

조선사편수회

Anybody who is interested in Joseonsa_Pyeonsuhoe, please edit the article--Hairwizard91 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The term of period of unified silla

It is changed as "the period of south and north states" based on the high school history book written by 국사편찬위원회[6]. So, the template of "history of korea" must be changed. But, I do not know how to change it. please can somebody fix it ? --Hairwizard91 15:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that. For one thing, a high-school textbook isn't really an authoritative source by itself, although it certainly deserves some consideration. For another, the template uses "Unified Silla" and "Balhae" together, just as this article now does. Now, I think you were correct to move "Unified Silla" to a third-level heading (parallel with Balhae) in this article. However, both here and in the template, we still need to use the term "Unified Silla" in order to distinguish Three Kingdoms Silla from post-Three-Kingdoms Silla. The term 통일신라/Unified Silla seems to be widely used in both Korean and English scholarship -- considerably *more* widely than 남북국(시대)/Northern and Southern states. To wit:

• • Searching the Korean-language scholarly search engine DBPia.co.kr, we get 17 hits for 남북국 (Northern and Southern States) but 75 hits for 통일신라 (Unified Silla) ... further, several of the former results are actually papers arguing for the use of the term "Northern and Southern states," which is evidence in itself that the term is not well-established. (This surprised me a little)
  • Searching Google Scholar, we get 113 hits for "Unified Silla" (plus another 25 for "Unified Shilla"); all of these, of course, are talking about Korean history. We do get a few hits for "northern and southern states" +korea (69) or "north and south states" +korea (6), but *none* of these seem to be talking about Korean history; they just happen to use the term in referring to either US or global division, and mention the word "Korea" somewhere in the text.

From this it seems clear that the term "Northern and Southern States" is in only sparing use even in Korean-language scholarship, and is still almost never used in English-language scholarship, to refer to the Unified Silla-Balhae period. I think we can and should use this term on Wikipedia, but only when we need a superordinate term to cover both Unified Silla and Balhae. We don't need such a term in the template (there isn't even room for it), but we do need such a term in this article. -- Visviva 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use the 1st heading for grouping Balhae and Unified Silla whatever the name is. Using the 1st headings for each Balhae and Unified Silla does not reflect on the current research of history.--Hairwizard91 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

prehistory

I have added some details in the prehistory section and eventually I hope everyone will be pleased. Let's edit any changes together. 선사 부분의 편집 할 것을 시원하게 열심히 함게 합시다. 여러분의 많은 참여를 바랍니다. 한국 고고학 萬歲! Mumun 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very good to see the update article. But, I want to say something. Korean history viewpoint is based on the people's movement(I dont know the correct english term, but 속인屬人). Korean history viewpoint is not the current territory of Korean peninsula(Do you understand what I am saying. It is too hard to explain two terms). So, the Koreans had lived in north area such as Manchuria in the very very ancient period because Korean is a sort of a nomad in ancient time. I have found that Mumun is only focused on the Korean peninsula. Is there any reason ? Perhaps no Mumum potter might have been found in North of Korean peninsula. --Hairwizard91 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hairwizard91! Indeed, you are talking about 'layman' (屬人) I guess. Mumun Pottery Period culture has been defined first and foremost according to the long-term pottery traditions in the Korean Peninsula, but both archaeologists and laymen think of the term Mumun Pottery Period as a socio-technic period that has unique cultural developments along subsistence, settlement, social, and ideational components.

There is a common explanation of the origin of Mumun culture that, even though North Korean archaeologists would prefer different terminology and points of reference, a parallel explanation for the origin of Mumun culture. Long long ago, the current political, cultural, and ethnic borders did not exist as they do today. People between living around the Yellow Sea interacted intensively at various points in prehistory and protohistory. The Yellow Sea is shallow and smaller than we think. For example, through complex processes of diffusion the Jeulmun pottery-using people of Korea adopted millet cultivation from their Yellow Sea interactions some time around 3500 B.C. or before. Millet is the default crop of Northern Chinese prehistoric agriculture. Cultivation of rice was introduced to southern Korea subsequently. People living in Korea interacted more intensively with Neolithic cultures in Northern China and Shandong between 2000 and 1000. Some time before 1500 B.C. the first northern-style megalithic burials (dolmen 지석묘) were constructed in Liaodong and North Korea. Also -- stone-cist burials in the tradition of those used in southern Korea are found first in Liaodong and North Korea. Finally, the origin of manufacture and use of jade (greenstone) ornaments in southern Korea after 900 or 850 B.C. is likely North Korea.

The pottery traditions of Liaoning, northern Korea, and southern Korea have many similarities. Professor Ahn Jae-ho of Dongguk University, a highly respected archaeologist, is among many who think that pottery-making traditions diffused from Liaoning to North Korean river valleys (Cheongcheon and Taedong Rivers are frequently mentioned) 1500 or a little before to 850 B.C. Many Early Mumun Period settlements were excavated 1953-1970 by North Korean archaeologists -- villages with similar architectural features (i.e. pit-houses with rectangular plan-shapes and interior hearths) range over a large geographical area from Liaodong Peninsula to southeastern Korea.

Most archaeologists in both Koreas and China think that the Liaoning and North Korean people migrated into southern Korea along the Yellow Sea coast in successive waves between 1500 and approximately 850 B.C. In sum, pottery styles that are included under the Mumun pottery definition are made first in Northeast China and North Korea, and this pottery-making tradition slowly was adopted by/entered into the southern Korean peninsula along with many other cultural traits of Liaodong and North Korea including architectural and mortuary features. The general trend is that many aspects of Mumun culture were introduced to southern Korea from Liaoning and North Korea. 하루 잘 보내세요, 여러분! Mumun 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that I have correctly understood. So, the Mumum potter is also found in Liaoning and North Korea areas. Right? If the Mumum potter is found in the area except south Korean peninsula, I think that the article about Mumun pottery in Liaoning and North Korean is also included in the current article. But, the article seems to be explain only about Mumun in the south korea peninsula. Because Korean historians consider that the history by Korean, wherever they had lived, must be included to the history of Korean(which is firstly mentioned as 속인屬人 (not laymen俗人)). This concept of viewpoint about history in Korea is different from those in China and USA. The context of Prehistory seems to be confined to only the Peninsula of Korea. But, it should be extended to the area where ancient Korean had lived such as Liaoning and south Manchuria, even Hebei. Do I say it clearly?--Hairwizard91 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes thank you for pointing out my mistake about 屬人, Hairwizard91. I realize now, I hope, about what you were originally musing. It think it might be fruitful to investigate a little about how this concept of 屬人主義 is characterized across time and space. In general:

• Does 屬人主義 for Korean history change according to circumstances of time and space? For example, is 屬人主義적 interpretation appropriate for the origins of the Mumun Pottery Period?
• You mention that 'Korean historians' use this concept, but I wonder how many would consider this an operable concept in their own research? After all, Korean historians who teach at Korean public and private universities are not educated in an academic vacuum: they are exposed to international historical theories, methods, and ways of thinking about the world.
• I am not sure, and admit my ignorance in this matter, but it seems to me that the most important period relating to the formation of the Korean ethnicity took place some time after the period currently in discussion. Thus, I humbly ask of what utility is 屬人主義적 interpretation during a period of time when the majority of scholars do not yet recognize that the Korean ethnicity has formed?
• To what extent can any ancient texts be used as reliable evidence to interpret life in Liaoning, North Korea, or South Korea circa 2000-1000 B.C.? I humbly ask if it is possible? We need to look at these invaluable texts as the fallible and biased records that they are. We cannot forget that we are involved in an encyclopaedia project -- at the minumum we need to concentrate on reflect the status quo, and at the max it would be nice to help the average reader by taking advantage of cutting edge academic research that is accepted by the majority of the academy.

I neglected to mention on this talk page, but people were already present on the Korean peninsula at the time when people who practiced Mumun period lifeways started to migrate into the Imjin, Han, Anseong, and Geum River drainages. This complicates the origins of the Mumun, as it raises the question of external versus internal influences. For example, both the indigenous people (Jeulmun pottery-using groups) and the Mumun people apparently had the ability to plant, tend, and harvest agricultural crops, albeit at different levels/scales. Full-blown agriculture in Korea developed between 1500-850 B.C., but to what extent was this development attributable to native Jeulmun cultivation? By the same token, to what extent was full-blown agriculture related to the Early Mumun traditions? Unless I continue to misunderstand the 屬人主義 concept, this might make interpretation along 屬人主義적인 lines somewhat difficult in regard to the time and place in question. Archaeological data have limits -- the state of the art in archaeology cannot tell us if external or internal inluences were more important in this case (yet). As such, using 屬人主義적 concepts to envelope prehistoric peoples living in Liaoning into a nationalistic idea of Korean history might not help the average reader to understand the origins of Korean civilization. Not to mention the current addition on prehistory in this article -- does it make sense for the average reader? This also needs to be addressed.

Please forgive me, Hairwizard91 et al, if I have once again misunderstood you. Hope this may help.-- Mumun 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"butt slapping", etc.

While reading the article, I was surprised to come across a reference to "butt slapping" under the Joseon heading, linked to a non-existent article on that topic, under the subheading "Consolidation of the Joseon government". I looked through the history to see if this was a case of recent vandalism, but this language did not appear to be recent. This reference was part of a passage with several grammatical errors, so I edited it. The expression "butt slapping" is really inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The word "butt" is slang, with a slightly comical feel. It makes the entire article sound adolescent and questionable. The more standard term would be "spanking". Looking at other references online, I found some support for a historical practice of caning (e.g. on the buttocks) as a form of corporal punishment in Korea (whereas spanking or slapping would normally be by hand). So I have changed the reference to "caning". If someone wants to revert, please explain why, and please respond to my concerns about inappropriate tone. Thanks. Marco polo 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

cool, nice edit there. I didn't see that, but I do know that they got spanked in Korea during the Chosun Dynasty. =) Good friend100 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Military History

What Happened to the Military History of Korea Article? Easternknight 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

nvm someone just took it out from the Temp box. Easternknight

Law

Defering to Marco's question, we should create a section on ancient Korean law and types of punishments. "Butt Spanking" should definitely be included. Many Korean dramas depicting Josun often depict people lashed on horizontal crucifixes, getting the life spanked off their butts by boards for whatever crime they committed. There are many branches to this, and I am surprised to have not thought of this earlier. Oyo321 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

Why does this propaganda page start with an unreferenced mention of prehistoric 'Korean' pottery. What does the term Korea mean in 8000BC? It means absolutely squat. Moreover, this should not be included in both history and prehistory of Korea. Someone change this nonesense. The entire 'History of Korea' is lacking in credibility when it starts in this fashion.

This is crazy. This is too long. Someone make this make sense! --Pupster21 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Also, make a summary.--Pupster21 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Article. --Pupster21 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Also archive the talk page. --Pupster21 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A summary is a good idea. But I am unsure if you mean that the article is too long or that the talk page is too long. Anyway, I just perused History of Croatia and History of Canada articles, and they are more or less the same length as the History of Korea article.

Mumun 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, you are quite right that there should be a summary. I have added the summary from Korea#History, adapted slightly; it could still use some work. I agree that this article should be trimmed; at 47K it is half again as long as a Wikipedia article should be. Details should be shuffled off into their respective articles. That's a rather tiresome chore, however, and a rather thankless one given the relentless insistence of people on dumping excessive detail here (and in Korea). -- Visviva 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was right after I added details of prehistory in the article that someone raised the issue of the article's length. I agree now. I am willing to have the prehistoric content expunged completely or drastically cut back in favour of a new separate article called Prehistory of Korea. In fact, if the prehistory section is erased from here it would accurately reflect the current unfortunate state of affairs in Korean History and Korean Studies -- very little reliable historical depth or knowledge about the deep past. I wish I could use stronger words but I won't. However, if the expunging of anything is done, I would hope that the excessive detail in some other sections in this article would be substantially trimmed (Japanese colonization of Korea, for instance) and we need to trust the reader to click on the main article. Mumun 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to the last point. However, although creating a Prehistory of Korea article is a great idea, I don't know that we need to get rid of the prehistory here entirely... it's very informative, and if it's removed it will just eventually be replaced by the sort of uninformed silliness that was there before. ;-) Ideally, we would have about a screenful summarizing what is known and theorized about Korean prehistory, including both archeological and historiographic studies, giving the reader an accurate and informed perspective on the current state of scholarship (however inconclusive that scholarship may be). Unfortunately I'm not the best one to write that section... :-)

By the way, do you consider Byeon to be a particularly unreliable source for the Paleolithic dates? Can you recommend another? Cheers, -- Visviva 10:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Byeon and the rest are great, but it would be good to support those important date statements using more specialized publications...unfortunately I couldn't identify any sources that say 700,000 bp, but there are others such as:

• Nelson, Sarah. The Archaeology of Korea. Cambridge UNiversity Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp-26-57.

Nelson's chapter on the Palaeolithic deals with the earliest evidence of Hominind (presum. Homo Sapiens sapiens) settlement in Korea in a careful and thoughtful way. She takes a less critical approach and tries to be objective, I think. For example, "The evidence for early paleolithic in Korea is sparse but..." (pg. 30) and she goes on until pg. 42 presenting evidence that is claimed by others such as Prof. Son Bogi etc to say that there were Lower Paleolithic occupations. However, she makes it clear that the dates of the earliest occupation of Korea are an open question. In the end she seems to settle on 500,000 bp., but it seems it could be much later, c. 200,000 bp.

• Bae, Kidong. Radiocarbon Dates from Palaeolithic Sites in Korea, Radiocarbon 44(2):473-476, 2002.

Professor Bae (Hanyang U.) lists all of the absolute scientific dates available at the time. He explains in this paper that the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Palaeolithic indicate the antiquity of occupation on the Korean peninsula is between 40,000 and 30,000 B.P. However, he argues for the possibility of a more ancient occupation.

• Yi, Seon-bok and G.A. Clark. Observations on the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 24(2):181-202, 1983.

Professor Yi (SNU) appears to reject the claims that Hominids occupied the Korean Peninsula in the Lower Palaeolithic (c. 2.5 million - 120,000 bp) in the above paper.

I haven't seen the Byeon book, and I wouldn't want to dismiss general history books out of hand. Perhaps he quotes some research that I do not know. Anyway, I will start a prehistory article soon. I really don't mind to cut back the prehistory section in the History of Korea, either. :-) By the way, I think the way that the text and references appear now shouldn't be changed in respect to the Prehistory section of the History of Korea article. For example, North Korean research is presented as a 'claim', which is a flag for all reasonable people to differentiate it from a 'fact'. So some kind of critical perspective is offered, which is always good. If there is a way to be more concise elsewhere in the article, we could actually add a single sentence to the material on the palaeolithic in this article that summarizes what I said above. A little more detail would presumably be presented in Prehistory of Korea. Mumun 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No one believe Korea history written, they just cheat themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.133.150 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

significant changes in historical periodisation terminology in article text

Please attempt to consult and gain consensus with fellow editors before making unilateral changes such as "Unified Silla" to "Later Silla". We are required to reflect the current and or conventional state of historical and archaeological research. This includes periodisation terminology: last time I checked the period after AD 668 is called Unified Silla in English and 통일 신라 in Korean. Unless there has been some kind of overnight blanket change in both the Korean and English literature, the text of this article should refect a recognizable standard of historical terminology and 'Unified Silla' is clearly the recognised standard. Mumun 無文 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Kprideboi's edits again, and I think they are okay but were simply placed in the wrong section. I can see how that might happen because the topic of the first sentence of Unified Silla subsection appears to address the demise of Unified Silla more than anything else. Seems a confusing way to begin description of Unified Silla, especially for unfamiliar editors or readers. Other than being placed in the wrong section, I think Kprideboi's edits are not objectionable and could be placed in the Later Three Kingdoms section.Mumun 無文 15:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious material and false claims in the first two part undermind the value of the whole article

Actually I can't even finish the first two parts. There are two many junks there. For the last 3 days, I read hundreds of pages of materials and try to correct some mistakes or add some content to make some claim full or looks legitimate. Unfortunately all my efforts were simply reverted by some author. Since I was blocked for 24 hours by 'editing war', I feels tired and frustrate to fight with zealot of inventing history. To avert any unnecessary guess, first I admit I am a Chinese. As a Chinese I really don't care about how Korean write their own history. But as a serious armature historian, I can't tolerate false claim showing on this site. Especially most reader of this website is someone without any background on this topic. My conscience can't let it go, so I pick some of those absurd statements on this discussion board, let the readers judge it.

1."Gojoseon was founded in 2333B.C."

China's dated history is back to 841B.C. How can someone get this 2333 from Chinese history text?

2.'Dangun was the first king of Gojoseon.'

The story of Dangun is first recorded in samguk yusa. The book itself was collected by a Buddhist monk Iryeon. Since it is a collection of legends and folktales and even claim Dangun’s grandfater is some Buddha, the book was never be treated like a serious history source. Even someone assume the legends maybe are true. But why didn't the first official book Samguk Sagi record such an important fact, especially in the time of royal people like to emphasis that their thrones were granted by God. Further more in the book of samguk yusa, it says '魏书云。乃往二千载有坛君王俭' which translate as 'according Book of Wei, Dangun was existed in 2000 years ago.' The fact is no existing version of Book of Wei has such statement.

3.'Bronze age in korean peninsula dated back to 2500B.C.'

Our friends say 'archaeological evidence suggests it might have started as far back as 2500 BCE'. But my research show the logic behind this statement is that since they find some kind of potteries dated back to 2500B.C and those pottery was commonly used in other bronze societies in the ancient world, no matter whether we excavate any bronze relics we are in bronze age anyway. LOL. There is another article in wiki clearly states [[Three-age system] is not suitable to Korean Peninsula. Since this subject is so misleading and so controversial, why the hell some author is so scant to use the word like 'may' 'might' 'maybe' or 'probable'. Aren those words deleted from elementary or middle school text book?

4.'"Goryeo" is a short form of "Goguryeo"'

I highly suspect this statement. "玄菟、乐浪，（汉）[[武帝时置，皆（朝鲜)、秽貂、句丽(Guryeo) 蛮夷(barbarians)", here it does not only state Joseon and Guryeo are different people also give some clue how the word Go-guryeo was constructed. Go(高）is the family name of the Goguryeo's kings which mean 'high'. To punish his victory over Guryeo, Wang Mang change the name of 'king of Gogeryeo' to 'Marquis of Xia-Geryeo', which means lower Geryeo. The same reference also stated Goryeo people belong to Mohe. So Goryeo never be the short term of Goguryeo, it's not the custom of chinese using short term. In some book, it states the short term of Geoyeo is Yeo. According the custom, the short term of Goryeo should be Wang-yeo, since the king's last name is Wang.

Altering history can't make a nation great but make its people jokers. The behavior of putting those false facts into text book for elementary school is the crime against humanity. Since I am Chinese, people may accuse me of be bias or are from Chinese prospect. [The the truth is all of those history document are written in Classical Chinese, even the fist preserved Korean history book Samguk Sagi . (I happened to be good at reading them.) So please don't argue with me if you can't read the original historical book. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in history articles, but you and Kubie, the other contender were very conspicuous for the continued edit warring initiated by you. You've clearly ignored the rules here and especially the above section is your original research by the information that you're not an authoritative figure from academic fields. Well, even many academics are very known for their altering history such as Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Don't you look biased and write from Chinese point of view? Yes, you do. "Don't argue with you?" Hmm.. you might've forgotten that Wikipedia is not owned by you. Your custom does not go by the same to Korean history. Plus, please refrain from pouring insulting comments. That does not make you feel good.--Appletrees (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've long given up trying to reason with Chinese internet nationalists. They do not present credible sources with the arguments they make, only amature interpretations of nebulous texts. Sorry wannabe scholars, you guys can muck around with your own history page but don't try to pervert Korean history to fit with your own fantasies. --Kuebie (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, your talk show your ignorance of the content and history facts. Serious discussion about history is always welcome. I want to see more facts. I am willingly to admit I am wrong if I am convinced. However, as an administrator if you don't have interest in history, is it necessary to write your 'opinion' here? I already apologized for my violation of rules and thank for your neglecting my work after "if" in my sentence. I think a normal understanding of my word is I don't want to argue with people who don't have such knowledge and who don't put much effort on it. Once again, Chinese point of view is the 'only' point of view because all the historical articles about Korean Peninsula are written in Chinese before 13th century. The only way to eliminate 'bias' is to shorten Korean history to 13th century. So before that time, it should be called 'prehistory'. By the way how much you know about Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences? Do you know the opinions of each party? Watch your mouth. Your comment is insulting and slanderous. There are too many political subjects there. But the research itself is always needed to solve real argument. That discussion are mostly between scholars. Also it's clearly a country's sovereignty to research the history on its land. I feel shame when I heard the scientific was interrupted under political reason. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Book of later Han fragments the the people by kingdom and during that time Korea was not united. I don't see what your trying to prove.

Wang Man naming of Koguryo as Ha(low)guryo is merely Sino-centric self-satifaction. Man enlisted Goguryeo forces to engage the Hsienpei (12 AD) Goguryeo had a change of heart and warred with the Chinese armies instead. Aahaha you claim to be historian yet you don't even understand the concept of terminological degradtion in chinese texts.

Wang-yeo, what the hell is that? My god, the Go house consolidated power during the reign of Taejo of Goguryeo. Power was exchanged from the Hae (Sono) to the Go (Kyeru). It is the Go house that conquered its neigbors, subjugated the Malgals, created the stele, and warred with China. It has absolutely nothing to do with your overly thought out and (quite laughable) useless naming theory which either way doesn't prove jacksquat. If your still unsure of about the usage and history of the name(s) of Goguryeo, feel free to ask Historiographer. --Kuebie (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really not sure about the usage of the name of Goguryeo from your side of story. What I want to say from Wang Man's story is the structure of word of "GoGuryeo". It prove the assertion of ""Goryeo" is a short form of "Goguryeo"" is wrong. Your argument seems not leave this argument too far. My conclusion is that assertion is a commonly believed but wrong statement. Can you give out any fact that prove I am wrong? I will appreciate your time on this research. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you keep insulting people who object to your strong point of view and attitude, I'm telling you, you're going to face another problem for yourself. Watch your mouth., your ignorance and "neglecting" are all horrendous personal attacks. You started mocking Koreans here at this talk page and are treating Koreans full of idiots. You don't show any sign of cooperating with others. Administrators do not involve in content disputes except obvious vandalism or a request for WP:DR process filed by editors here.

Sadly, Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has been heavily criticized by people for their manipulations on histories which is a widely known fact. That really suits a crime and offensive a movement. So your lecturing sounds nothing but your emotion. Given Chinese government's political propagandas, the project does not surprise the world. The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in the PRC. In 2006, a senior scholar from Peking University affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections.[10] The project cause a controversy even in the country.

You self-claim that you're absolutely right and others are wrong. However, how could others be convinced that your belief and edit is legitimate and right? You've showed no good history but edit warrings and your problematic attitudes. The person who really watch his/her mouth is YOU. Everything you're doing here is complied and judged, so you would better refrain yourself. I'm so sure that there is none who want to discuss anything with rude people.--Appletrees (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had never said I am absolutely right. But Appletree you only show your opinions but none of the evidence. It is not me but you make yourself looks like an idiot. This is my last attempt to teach you how to view the history. (it's like explain physics to the people believe god create the world) History is a scientific discipline which need diligent work and plenty of knowledge. It is NOT something you prefer to believe. Not like religion, it needs evidences not the faith. I admit I don't all agree the research result of Northeast project but I know what I don't agree and why. Is it ridiculous if I say "I don't agree it because it's not written in such way in my elementary school text or because I love my country."? And please spend 2 minutes on the original reference of the talk of a professor [7] from PKU. Compare your quotation and the words in original paper carefully. By the way, Prof. Song don't agree Korea's history can be dated back to 2333B.C. neither and he also describe the origin of Korean nationalist historian[8]. Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesconfuser (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Teach? Again, you don't realize your illogical and extremely uncivil behaviors. It is NOT something you prefer to believe. This is a hilarious contradiction. Hmmm.. as for idiot, who is a real idiot in this situation? :D Regardless of several warnings by several people, you dared to ignore all the rule and then blocked for the consequence and you don't learn any lesson form the experience at all. Besides, the section 4 is nothing but your original research not approved by general academics. As you said, you're no relation with them. Everybody can become an amateur historian or even become a professor, on Web. So why don't you refrain yourself really. Your link is either broken and written by a Chinese reporter, so I would not wast my time talking to you. Good luck for your world. --Appletrees (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing History: Korean on Korean Slavery

For some reason I usually find very little on this topic but slavery has been a part of Korea for a very long time. Consensus records show a tally of "slaves" and "missing slaves". I thought i'd point this fact out because it seems as if both sides of the slavery topic want it silenced. By both sides I mean the Korean government and the Japanese government. Historically most slaves who ran away ran off to Japan ran off to Tsushima. 142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically Slavery existed on every nations; however, there are no real written documentation about slavery in Korea. I'm pretty sure there was some slavery in the past, but this generally don't considered to be part of history. If you do have valid information, you can create new article on this.--Korsentry 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

The nature of the Chinese propagandists

Another point I'd thought i'd mention is where the Chinese are coming from. Many Chinese folks especially from China have been adulterated with massive amounts of false history and propaganda. Much of this propaganda supports and upholds the collectivist nature of China in that the main ideology of China today is the cultural superiority of China and the fact that all Asian culture is Chinese. Now this might not mean much on the surface but when it comes to other cultures they get extremely offended by anything that doesn't put China in a superior light. My point is not to censor the Chinese but to bring awareness of the potential, many inadvertent bias they bring when commenting on history.

I'm not sure if Europeans are aware of the nature of the Confucian collectivist society but there is very little personal and/or explicit self esteem in these types of societies. There is only implicit/group self esteem allowed as any explicit self esteem will and does encourage jealousy. This although racist and arguable this is why there is a profoundly strong Asian male stereotype among most of the global community.

My point is simple the Chinese derive self-esteem much like Europeans derive self-esteem from personal achievements, from history and the idea of "China", meaning the greater the glorification of Chinese history the more self-esteem they garner. 142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of Korean culture

I'd like to point out that Korea is currently divided where the North is completely isolated even from the South. That said, there have been historically 3 types of cultures in Korea. Baekche, who are very neo-confucian, Silla who are a mix of confucian believers and non-confucian believers and Koryo who are anti-Confucian. What this means today is that with the country split in half, Silla and Baekche culture is the dominant culture, where many believe Korea is Confucian. This is completely false and although they do not consist of the majority they are indeed a powerful factor in defining what is Korean today. This is what I mean by misrepresentation of Korean culture.

That said, Confucian culture is and always has been about being a collectivist, unity and harmony through filial piety. In Korea we have a structure which resembles filial piety which alot of people try to attribute this to Confucian however this is false. Korean culture is militaristic due to the influences of the Koryo kingdom with its culture of war.

That said, it is absolutely impossible to say that Korean culture is Confucian in ideology when the fact is there was Korean-on-Korean slavery. This goes completely against the notion of being a collectivist society and in modern day south Korea, there are plenty of social norms that prevent the idea of being a collectivist from spreading, for example asking for help is looked down upon heavily. This is where the influence of migrants from the North during the war are seen.

Historically, Korea has not been Buddhist or Confucianist and there is plenty of documented evidence of the persecution of both. Most confucian believers were from Baekche however in an undivided nation non-Confucian believers have always dominated the land. These confucian believers are usually the ones who become slaves and it is also the reason why Japan is a neo-Confucian country. It is well documented that the origins of the Japanese imperial line are from Baekche, and many famous artists who ran from persecution were from Baekche.142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

宮田 節子 [Miyata, Setsuko]. "創氏改名" [Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names]

The article states : "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names.[20] "

I checked the citation 20(and 25). The book by Setsuko Miyata's "Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names", turned out that it does not support the argument. She states "創氏改名 was voluntary, however it was unnatural that 80% of people voluntarily created surnames in 6 month. So, she concludes, somehow, "there must be some peer puressure among people". http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~korea-su/korea-su/jkorea/nikkan/0311.html

There is a picture of the flyer(with Hangul and Japanese) saying "Aug, 10th is the last CHANCE you can register names! If you want here is the procedure" .. etc. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/tokurei.JPG For more detail: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/seminarmizuno.htm

And Korean language never been officialy banned either. Hangul had been taught in schools throught out Korea, even Japanese kids had to learn. There is nothing like banning Korean language or Hangul, although freedom of speech was not there during the war. I did some research and found a picture of a Korean newspaper "Chosun Ilbo" (March 10th, 1940). I definitely see Hangul there. http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932683.gif

So, "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names" are not only too strong words but also misleading. I'd say it is wrong and should be fixed.

Oh, I forgot to mention there were volunteer Japanese soldiers who kept Korean name and became a major, such as 金錫源 and 洪思翊.

How do you explain that.

Actually, 洪思翊 was a general, and was later executed as a war criminal. --TokyoJapan (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)