Talk:Korea/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Korean Dynasty

The Gojoseon dynasty has no been confirmed by archeological evidence. Thus, you can't say that Korea's first dynasty was in 2333 BCE. That would make it older than Persia - which is highly unlikely. Thus, I'm changing it to the first credible dynasty.

Intranetusa

Why do we argue here? There is an other article about Annexation of Korea-Japan. We should not argue here about Annexation of Korea-Japan.

We should discuss about it in that article. Objectman 09:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do nobody answer this question?Objectman 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Because you've only given it one day, and you top-posted. THE KING 05:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Objectman. (Wikimachine 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

There is a necessity to write that there was a period when Korea was annexed, However, the description should be necessary minimum. A detailed description should be written to the special article of this incident. Besides, this description has a bias of Korean POV. If Korean POV is written, Japanese POV also should be written. However, Its way is foolish very much.Objectman 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous note

I am going to attempt a rehaul of this page and all other Korea-related articles. Please be patient as I make the edits. I will offer evidence as I go along, but not immediately. So, I'd like to ask you to not revert or edit out things until I am done. Thank you.--222.233.205.96 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Please make sure that your edits can stand on their own merit. We are all equal here, and we are all working toward better coverage of Korea-related topics. If your edits abide by our shared policies of NPOV and verifiability, then you should not have to worry about being reverted or edited out.

Also, in the future, please place your talk page comments at the bottom of the talk page. This can be most efficiently done by clicking the "+" tab above. Have a nice day! -- Visviva 11:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Korea

Do most people mean "South Korea" when they say "Korea"? If so, does it merit a mention beyond linking to the disambiguation page? -- Visviva 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

from what i've seen, in the media, korea is often used as second mention (after id'ing south korea first) for south korea, and, less often, as second mention for north korea. the intro can be clarified further, as meaning some combination of the civilization, former united country, both south & north korea together, & sometimes just south korea. but i think defining it mainly as the geographic peninsula is inappropriate since there is a separate article Korean peninsula. Appleby 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, what you're effectively doing is allowing people to continue to refer to Korea as the "Korean peninsula" and not "Korea", especially in the context of ancient history. I find it very frustrating to see people talk about "Japan", "China", and the "Korean peninsula" when referring to this period. I think the Korea article should be modeled after the China article in saying that this is a "geographical region" and a "civilization" at the same time. Don't you think having THREE Korea articles (Korea, Korean peninsula, and South Korea) is confusing? Also, the Korea article is the weakest one and yet, this is the one most people will find first.

In addition, I think there should be a link saying "For the state known as Korea in common usage, see Republic of Korea." When people refer to "Korea", about 90% of the time they're talking about South Korea and 10% of the time about the Korean peninsula.--Mapo 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right, it is generally defined as the peninsula in other encyclopedias & dictionaries. i thought we could distinguish the geographic korean peninsula article from this one, but that creates consistency problems, especially in historical contexts.

how about something like:

Korea refers to the former country and ancient civilization on the Korean peninsula in East Asia. The Korean people are a homogeneous ethnic group, speaking the distinct Korean language and using the unique script Hangul.

Since 1948, Korea has been partitioned into the Communist North Korea and the liberal democracy South Korea. In modern usage, "Korea" often refers to South Korea or, less commonly, North Korea individually. Appleby 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who refers to North Korea as simply "Korea". That's why I've changed the text at the top of the article so that the modern state redirect points to the Republic of Korea article.--Sir Edgar 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to Appleby. Korea refers to North and/or South Korea from the context. If appleby insist so, please show reputable sources.--Mochi 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of Korea (South Korea) is the dominant power on the Korean Peninsula. When people say "Korea", they are referring to either the Korean Peninsula, South Korea, or both South and North Korea together, not North Korea. Most people who read this article will also want to look at the South Korea article. Anyhow, there is already a link for North Korea in the introduction.

The China article does the same thing by referring readers to the People's Republic of China article for more information.--Sir Edgar 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

longest dynasty

trying to put an end to the long dynasty silliness:

• longest-lived dynasty in East Asian history [1]
• perhaps the longest-lived actively ruling dynasty in East Asia [2]
• one of the longest periods of domination by a single dynasty in world history [3]
• one of the world's longest continuously ruling royal families [4] [5]

Appleby 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

March 1st Movement

My recent edit, which is reverted by Appleby, removed the qualifier 'General Governor-General of Korea', which is changed from 'Japanese' by Kamosuke, from 'police and soldiers' and reference to Britanica which supports the use of 'Japanese' adjective. I forgot to comment my reasoning so here goes: at the time, Korea was part of Japan; protestants ware of Japanese nationality and killed by police and soldiers of their own country. They were not killed by foreign organizations thus the qualifier is not neccesary. --Kusunose 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think calling Japanese colonialists who suppressed the movement "police and solider of their (the protestors) country" is a bit of stretch. I agree with Appleby's edits; Korea may have been annexed by Japan at the time, but the protesters were ethnically and culturally Korean. The whole point of the movement was to demonstrate Korean desire for independence and such. The excerpt has to be clear on the sense that the movement was largely Korean, and was oppressed by Japanese opposition. Calling the oppressors "police and soldiers' creates the confusion that the movement was suppressed by Korean authorities, not Japanese authorities. Granted, some people who participated in the suppression were Korean soldier detachment, but the suppression of the movement itself was orchestrated by Japanese authorities. I think that's similar to stating that ghetto uprising movement was suppressed by their(Polish jew's) own "police and soldiers", when it was largely suppressed by Nazi authorities and soldiers with small Polish detachment. Deiaemeth 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If only the fact is written, 'General Governor-General of Korea' is a correct answer. Simply, the insistence of the Korean that most Koreans resisted Japan is a mistake. The Korean doesn't agree. However, a lot of South Koreans supported the modernization of a Korean peninsula by Japan. (Their descendant is suppressed in present South Korea. )--Kamosuke 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke always try to change the subject about the Japanese's brutally supressed his neibour countries in World war2, like the present Japanese official; deny the past wrong doing. No wonder Japan can not become the permenent menber in the United Nations. In Vietnam War. Japan only tried to make money while Korean helped to fight the Communists.

The phrase "Fabrication of the history" exists for the Koreans.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.159.231.103 (talk • contribs)

Denial of past doings is not just a Japanese theme. Let's not be jingoistic here. There are more incidents of US denial of events that later were proven to be true (El Mozote, El Salvador, Guatemala, My Lai, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. and more). If necessary, I will be glad to list them in the spirit of compromise, learning, and truth. In so far as Japan not being a member of the security council for the United Nations, well the switch or what some academic enthusiasts call betrayal by the US (Shanghai communique) of Taiwan being removed and replaced by China within the United Nations has a lot to do with that since China has a large influence in refusing Japan that opportunity. Regardless of what others think about China standing up for principles, if Japan names the right price, then opposition for its entry into the security council will be disabused. We forget that China has had recent imperialistic ambitions and committed recent atrocities (in comparison to past) (Kashmir and Tibet). I think the previous comment about the fabrication of history is wrongly applied to Korea alone, it is existent in Japan, US, Soviet Union, and other countries. Unfortunately the fabrication of history is a dilemma for all historians of almost every country. In reference to the Korean war, yes Japan made money off of it, but South Koreans massacred innocent Vietnamese during that war (Binh Dinh and others). Look that up and read some more about the Vietnam War. Ill be glad to send you military and civilian documentation of this aforementioned event. Just respond below with request.Its ironic you use this fact immediately following your accusation of denial of atrocities by Japan though, LOL.

"North" before "South"

In English, we generally mention North before South. I am fully aware that South Korea is more prominent in politics, economics, etc. and agree that when we talk of "Korea" we should refer to the South. However, in most instances, I think North should be mentioned first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mapo (talk • contribs) .

Although I agree that in English language geography North comes before South, since the 1970s South Korea has emerged as the dominant power on the peninsula while North Korea has stagnated. Thus, when we refer to "Korea", we are usually talking about South Korea. So, I am reverting the order back to South Korea first, then North Korea. In addition, I know that in the Korean language it goes "East-West-South-North".--Sir Edgar 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which goes first in the Korean language. South should not go before North just because "South Korea has emerged as the dominant power". In the English Wikipedia, North goes before South. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style RevolverOcelotX

I looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and I can't find anything relevant. Care to be more specific about which part of the Manual of Style you think supports your view? --Reuben 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why North should not go before South. Most other instances usually have North going before South and this is no exception. In English language, North is generally mentioned before South and this is the English Wikipedia, so its irrelevant which goes first in the Korean language. Placing North after South is POV and unencyclopedic. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. RevolverOcelotX

You didn't answer my question. Would you care to say what in the Manual of Style supports your view? I can't find anything about the ordering of north and south in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, either. --Reuben 05:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In the English language, North should be mentioned first, therefore its more accurate to mention North before South in the English Wikipedia. It doesn't matter which country you think is "more important". That is biased and POV. The article should maintain at all times a Neutral Point of View, a Wikipedia policy. RevolverOcelotX

Isn't there also the practice that what is more important comes first? Is there a rule that North always comes before South? There is certainly not a rule that everything must be in alphabetical order either. Just as an FYI, I edited it to N-S actually, then changed to S-N upon the insistence of others and the logic that S is more prominent than N. --Sir Edgar 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

i don't really think it matters which comes first, but i think the common name policy means we should say "common name (official name)" for each country, not the way it is now. Appleby 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The "common name (official name)" for each country is "North Korea" and "South Korea". Korea should refer to the civilization and/or the disambiguation page. It should not exclude the North at the expense of the South. In English Wikipedia, North should go first because of alphabetical order per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Stating that "S is more prominent than N" is biased and POV. Deciding which country is "more important" than the other is POV and unencyclopedic. Both North Korea and South Korea are legitimate and separate political entities and there is no rule that states the South is "more prominent" than the North in EVERY aspect. Placing South before North imply a POV. The article should maintain at all times a Neutral Point of View, a Wikipedia policy. RevolverOcelotX

just to clarify, i meant that it should say NK (DPRK), not DPRK (NK), and the same for SK (ROK), not ROK (SK). i also think the hatnote should mention both korean states. i have no opinion on whether nk or sk should be written first. Appleby 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care either way, as long as there is consistency in the application of the rule. However, I do think the Republic of Korea should be featured more prominently in this article and that the hatnote should remain as it is currently (per China article precedent). Not only do we have far more information about the Republic of Korea, but it is more widely known internationally and has a far larger economy and presence in almost all matters. Most people searching for "Korea" are really looking for the "Republic of Korea".--Sir Edgar 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The hatnote should mention both Korean states instead of implying that either state is the single legitimate government of the Entire Korean peninsula. Wikipedia should not be implying that either state is the single legitimate government of the Entire Korean peninsula per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The China article is VERY different from the Korea article. There is only one internationally recognized political entity commonly called "China", the People's Republic of China, recognized by the United Nations. In the Korea situation, BOTH the North and South are internationally recognized and recognized by the UN. There is no way to know that "Most people searching for "Korea" are really looking for the Republic of Korea". They are both recognized as "Korea". Placing the South as "more important" than the North because of a "larger economy" is POV. RevolverOcelotX

Please read up on what POV actually means. Order is not only established on alphabetic order, but also of chronology, importance, context, etc. Deiaemeth 02:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most common order is North before South in English. It doesn't matter which you think is of greater chronology, importance, context, etc. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. RevolverOcelotX

Again, Wikipedia:NPOV does not mention anything about ordering. Ordering because of chronology, importance, context, etc. does adhere to Wikipedia policies. Please read up on what Wikipedia:NPOV actually is before saying ordering by chronology is "POV". Thank you. Deiaemeth 02:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How is South chronologically before the North? They are both the same period by chronology. For consistency they should be order alphabetically. RevolverOcelotX

This is the most pointless debate ever. Hong Qi Gong 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For your information, RevolverOcelotX, dozens of countries (including the Vatican) recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate government of all of China (not the PRC).--Sir Edgar 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China is officially recognized by only 25 countries, most of them are small countries in the Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, and the ROC is not officially recognized in the United Nations. Korea is a very different case because both North Korea and South Korea are equally well represented internationally (i.e. a third country sees no diplomatic difficulty in recognizing both North Korea and South Korea at the same time). RevolverOcelotX

I think they are not the same situation, but I disagree they are "very" different. The point is, the PRC is recognized as the legitimate government of China by more countries and organizations than the ROC. Likewise, the ROK is recognized as the legitimate government of Korea by more countries and organizations than the DPRK.--Sir Edgar 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the situations are very different. Both North Korea and South Korea are recognized by approximately the same number of countries, even the United States. Both the North Korea and South Korea are in the United Nations as separate countries. It is commonly known and recognized by most people that there are TWO separate and sovereign Koreas. Implying that either country is more "legitimate" over the other is biased and POV. RevolverOcelotX

The United States does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea. It only recognizes South Korea as the legitimate government of Korea. The fact of the matter is that the situation is similar. So, I disagree with you. Anyhow, when an article or document simply says "Korea", does it ever mean the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"? I have yet to see such a statement. I'm not saying they don't exist, but "Korea" in common usage refers to the "Republic of Korea". This is just like when we talked about Germany prior to reunification, we were referring to the "FDR" (West Germany), not the "DDR" (East Germany).--Sir Edgar 06:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But most countries DO have diplomatic relations with BOTH North Korea and South Korea. How do you explain BOTH North Korea and South Korea being in the United Nations? You have to understand that the Korea situation is VERY different from the China situation because foreign relations with the PRC is governed by the One-China policy. When people refer to "Korea", they are usually referring to the WHOLE Korean peninsula. The common usage for the two political entities is North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK). Trying to argue that South Korea should be merged with Korea article is ridiculous and POV. RevolverOcelotX

Images

I find the images for this article severely lacking. Can anyone get another image of Korea to avoid repeating the same one from the Korean Peninsula article? Also, the other images appear really old, especially the one with the hanbok.

I've noticed someone putting up some great new images. The one of the Buddhist scroll is really nice. But can we please get something to replace the hanbok one. In my opinion, it looks ugly. I've seen much prettier hanbok in Korea.--Sir Edgar 00:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

that would be me, but it's tough finding gfdl or creative commons images. there are some more pics i got from flickr at my subpage User:Appleby/Images. feel free to use, esp the food pics.

we're safe (as i understand the rules) if the author died more than 100 yrs ago, but this only applies to photos of 2-dimensional works. it'd be nice to get more images of sculpture/pottery/artifacts, but then the photographer has to release the image. anyone know of a good online gallery of old korean paintings? Appleby 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those images. But how can you tell which are safe to use? Also, do you think you could find one to replace the map? This is the same one used for the Korean Peninsula article. It doesn't need to be another map. For example, the China article uses a beautiful picture of the Great Wall at sunrise as a symbolic image for the country. Perhaps Gyeongbokgung or an image from Gyeongju? Also, we should include modern images in this article, too, like one of downtown Seoul.--Sir Edgar 00:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am currently living in Seoul, I could provide images but do not know how to do so. For downtown Seoul an image from Namsan would be good I believe and Gyeongbokgung is also easy to take pictures of. It is probable that I could get other images too (for instance I have several from the Yeoido Cherry Blossom festival) Is there a list of desired Images? and if not should we make one? Rufusde 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! The Yeoido pictures would be most excellent. Maybe you could also take some pictures of Korean traditions like taekwondo and perhaps even performances of gayageum and the fan dance, if possible. We also need better pictures of the hanbok.--Sir Edgar 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

at the top of this very page, there's a template box of korea-related links. on the last line, "Tasks you can help with," if you click on [show], the current requests will drop down. take a look & edit boldly, it's some pretty nifty trick by visviva. Appleby 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Korea" in hangul

How come "Korea" in hangul was removed from the intro? Am I the only one that finds that to be beneficial? Hong Qi Gong 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i was trying to make the sentence readable. i know the native script is usually in the first mention, but in this case, there are two separate native words, each with 2 romanizations and hanja. in the previous version, i counted 18 words between "korea" and "is"!!! this was part of the reason for creating the names of korea section in the first place. if you feel strongly about it, i won't object, though. Appleby 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read a little more about it, and I just now realised that apparently North Korea does not use 한국 (Hanguk), it uses 조선 (Choson). And I also just found that wiki entry on the Names of Korea. So to avoid a convoluted explanation of the native name for Korea, I propose this:

"Korea (see Names of Korea) refers to the..."

What do you think? Hong Qi Gong 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Names of Korea - there are some old, poetic names for Korea that it might be interesting to cite. I'll mention a couple that I've heard (my hangul doesn't work on this machine; forgive me): Blue (green) Mountains, Land of White Tiger and Blue Dragon. --Dan 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion?

Does anyone know how to remove this?

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›

--Sir Edgar 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's attached to the Special Characters template. You'd either have to remove the template, or remove the deletion template from the special character template. --Hong Qi Gong 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you remove the deletion template? Can you do this?--Sir Edgar 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

citations

for "brutal" occupation:

• "Koreans lived under often brutal Japanese colonial domination." Encyc of World History
• "a proposed Japanese apology for its brutal military annexation of the Korean Peninsula from 1910-1945" CNN
• "Millions of Koreans took to the streets in non-violent demonstrations for independence, but ... Japanese power was great, and the movement was brutally suppressed." Encarta
• "But his visits to Yasukuni are still viewed with suspicion in those countries that suffered most brutally under Japanese occupation—and Mr Koizumi seems unconcerned about riling them." The Economist
• "Japan's brutal colonization of the Korean peninsula" Time Asia
• "Japan's often brutal colonial rule of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945." BBC News
• "history textbook which plays down the brutality of its imperial past." BBC News
• "The Japanese colonial period (1910-1945) was a brutal experience for most Koreans." PBS Frontline
• "Japanese colonial authorities responded to these demonstrations with characteristic brutality." GlobalSecurity.org
• "Japan had no opportunity to reflect on its historical wrongdoings, especially its brutality against its neighbors" Washington Times
• "Korea, which had endured four decades of brutal Japanese occupation" Discovery
• "Japan colonized the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945 and, because of the brutality of the occupation, resentments against Japan linger in both South and North Korea." Asia Times
• "The Japanese respond with a brutal campaign of repression" PBS Commanding Heights
• "Japan alternated brutal repression with divide and rule techniques" Korean War Memorial, US NPS
• "In the 20th Century Korea suffered a brutal occupation by Japan" Truman library
• "Japan ruled Korea in a manner that was strict and often brutal" AskAsia.org
• "Japan's aggression in Korea from the 1890s forward was, indeed, brutal." Japan Focus Asia Times

So, "brutal" is a perfectly NPOV, accurate, and properly referenced description. Appleby 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, didnt you get on somebody's else case about listing a thesis like description. Because all of these sources are the exact thing I did in the article on Japan, but they were deleted because some people including you stated that doing what you did above was unecessarily taking up room on the discussion board. Yet here you are doing it, but you and your team of peole erased my facts supporting what I said citing what you just did above as a reason. Im glad I copied this page so that the email I sent to the ACLU will be supported by documentation. Hypocrisy is such a characterisitc of the weak minded. P.S. by the way, I agree with the following entry about the word "Brutal". It seems as I have stated in the article about Japan that there seems to be a fluent idea of good and bad taught to us when we are young. It is hard to get past this lie. There are good things and bad things. Japan did do a lot more bad things during World War II, yet there were some good things.Please correct me if I am wrong but, I beleive that you are heavily influenced by the tradition like cycle within this country of demonizing the Japanese during World War II.Those 'EVIL' Japanese! Have we spoken about No Gun Ri or Kwangju? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs)

The Japanese "BRUTAL" rule improved the public health ,reduced the percentage of the illiterate on the Korean Penisula.The Koreans can not recognise the conception of the word "brutal".

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 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC) <　｀∀´>

cool idea Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

cultural importance

Hello, I read your writing on the sports section of this article. As a sports history enthusiast who has taken classes with two different professors whom are sports historians, one issue pertaining to Korea and sports history is the unfortunate event where the popular and well known boxing figure, Roy Jones Jr. , lost his medal at the Olympics in South Korea during the Olympics. I hear this all the time in sports classes when the topic of modern amateur olympic pugilism and professional boxing within the US. I just was surprised to not see this in your article when it is so well known amongst sports historians. I am referring to when Roy Jones Jr was cheated out of his medal in the Olympics in South Korea, and then later South Korean judges admitted to being bribed in favor of a South Korean pugilist. Not only is it still spoken of in sports history classes, it is also spoken of in the sports of boxing where I am a participant and in both records made by Roy Jones Jr. (Round One, and Body Head Bangers). I can list sources for this if you need, if not, hopefully you can explain to me why this isnt listed in this article? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs)

Both the article Roy Jones Jr. and the article 1988 Summer Olympics mention the boxing controversy in some detail, and the page for the 1988 summer Olumpics is linked to in the sports section of the article, so I really don't see what benefit would be gained by including a mention of this particular subject. After all, I haven't seen any other Olympic judging scandals mentioned in the 'sports' sections of other country articles. --Zonath 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you mention these other incidents of 'similar' circumstances which occured. I think there are some but none were indicated by the links you provided, thanks. Not all historical information is beneficial, a lot is interesting and thus mentioned as a result of that. It is even more significant because it effected the international spirit of fairness and cooperation for sports being that its constituents were nations combining their efforts to symbolze world cooperation and a means of finding a common interest amongst such. It is also interesting because it directly effects the western world and the trust sports enthusiasts within this geographical perspective has for this international cooperation. Though I disagree in this event's importance and that any historical information should be beneficial to be worth mentioning, I agree that this probably is better served under either the Olympics or pugilism article. Please respond with information I requested above for my interest, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs)

Again, it certainly is significant, but not necessarily so much so as to be included in the page for 'Korea', seeing as if we were to include every sports scandal (or even just the Olympic judging scandals) on region pages like this one, it would inflate the size of the articles quite a lot. As for similar incidents... Just about every Olympic games generates some sort of controversy, especially in sports that are won or lost on the decisions of a judge rather than some more objective criteria (such as figure skating, gymnastics, boxing, etc...) Even if you're just looking for ones in which South Korea was involved, you could look up Paul Hamm, Apolo Anton Ohno, or even the 2002 FIFA World Cup. International sporting events breed controversy and accusations of unfair play, and it makes little sense to single out any particular event for inclusion on a page that doesn't even really represent the country that actually participated in the controversial event, much less the country page itself. --Zonath 05:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am in agreement of the issue of where this fact belongs and its significance. However I am in confusion here. I am grateful that you supplied the links above which I have looked up. Thank you, but your last assertion I dont think I understand. The stealing of the medal of Roy Jones Jr. involved South Korean judges at the Seoul Olympics. So it does involve this country and a lot of the African American communities (even ones that are not boxing fans) remember this. So I dont agree or understand your last comment. Yet I do also agree with controversy stirred up more in specific sports pertaining to power being given to judges. Wait a minute, how many of the sports within the Olympics involve judges? Because I think the mojority of them do.In fact it does make a lot of sense to single out one country because they were participants of this controversy and you have a sports section within this article. Anybody could read this article, skim down to your sports section and say, huumm, nothign interesting. So please, comment again with your reasons. I am trying to understand because some but not all of what you say makes sense. Then again, I just realized that of you have a sports section for Korea, what better way to attract attention for the public to your article than to mention those controversies. In fact , the stealing of the medal for Roy Jones Jr. wasnt a controversy since I stated that it is fact because the South Korean judges or judge admitted recently to accepting a bribe. So scrath my first statement about where I think this fact should go.My questions are:

If you have a sports section on Korea then why not include the controversies and the proven foul plays by the Korean Judges within Seoul, Korea which obviously attracts more attention to your article?

I don think I understand your last statement, I reiterate that it was in Korea and involved Korean judges. What were you saying?

Wouldnt your article be even better if you mentioned these aforementioned facts with links to the articles to explain more?

Arent the majority of the sports at the Olympics based on judges whether they count or measure?

Ping Pong diplomacy led to the Shanghai communique, now, boxing enthusiasts, pugilists, and sports historians still mention this event which i well remembered and written about in college. Did this event in any way effect people's outlook of the country and isnt it significant if this topic is still written and talked about inside and outside of college?

Well, first of all, the purpose of this article isn't really to 'attract attention' or sensationalize things, but rather to inform people. Yes, most Olympic sports involve judges and referees in one sense or another, but in many sports, the impact of the judges are much less obvious than in ones where the decisions of the judges determine the winner and the loser. So, a sport like the marathon typically has far less controversy associated with it than something like boxing or figure skating. As for my last statement... The sports section of this page isn't really meant to be representative of South Korean sports, as those are more thoroughly discussed in the South Korea and the Sports in South Korea pages, where the main emphasis of the sports section on this page seems to be more upon the cooperative measures between the countries of North Korea and South Korea. If we're really going to mention Roy Jones, Jr. in a country article, then we should do so in the South Korea article, seeing as it seems more pertinent to place it there. This is not a page on a country (or at least, not a page on a country that exists anymore, or which existed at the time of the 1988 summer olympics), and it would probably be a miscategorization to put a scandal involving just South Korea here. Additionally, I would question whether or not mention of a single incident like this would really deserve mention on a country page (which is really meant more as an overview) rather than on a more specialized page. After all, several historical facts of much greater importance than a mere boxing match have been either glossed over or even omitted for considerations of space, if for nothing else. Personally, I think it would be more appropriate to limit any explicit mention of this particular controversy to the page Sports in South Korea, seeing as that is the more specialized article (and could use a bit more 'meat' as it were, anyhow.) --Zonath 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. First ,I disagree with you about the importance of judges with the roles of power and control they have differing according to individual sport. As anyone whom has participated in sports and has succeeded greatly like myself knows that detail and every bit counts (JKA/AAU county, state, regional, and national gold medal champion in kumite and kata both). Regardless of the judges role, if the judge has any influence in the sport whether negligible or not in reference to count or measure, they effect the game so their importance is significant, and I ask you to ask any sports participant or yourself, "would you like a biased judge against you while you are participating in sports?" Whether obvious or not, judges count tremenduously and are significant, if they werent , then those sports where you state judges have less obvious influence should not have any complaint documented within its history because , the judges are less obvious, and thus less significant a factor. Is there any sport you can state right now that doesnt have a single complaint against judges? If there are like I know there are, can you explain to those people that complained that they were complaining over nothing because judges are less abvious? Yes there are a difference in degrees but I reiterate the question which hasnt been answered, arent the majority of the sports within the Olympics sports where judges do have influence in the outcome? Although it may appear I am delivering a diatribe, I am not. I just disagree with your logic about the first thing but I agree about your assertion above that this article is about the former Korea which is now partitioned and have their own individual articles. Though your attempted refutation above about the significance of judges in sports is tenuous and could have been strenghthened by listing sports in the Olympics where judges are and are not significant to make a comparison and go from there, you have provided a very good and acceptable answer that I overlooked. Again like you said, this article is about Korea (former) not South or North, so you are absolutely right and I am wrong. Good reply and thank you for correcting me. Some authors I have come across dont even make the effort to argue which you have and though I am not in full agreement, you have corrected me with LOGIC and thats what counts. It is not personal. I am not going to argue about the last reference of importance because I dont agree, yet good try in attempting to onvince about that. Thanks for your reply and informing me.

WHAT THE HECK LAY OFF KOREA GUYS!! LOL

LOL i strongly disagree with sir edgar because why should the north be mentioned before south? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO PRAISE THE COMMUNISTS? Im sorry but i maybe korean and i want Korea to be unified again, but worship the communist?!?? NEVER! the seperation of Korea is mostly Joseph Stalin's fault. He was occupying the northern part of Korea and turned it into a communist country. This is why i dont like Chinese, japanese or Russians because THEY INTERFERE TOO MUCH IN KOREA! I mean look in the 1800's when Germany and France wanted to convert Korea into christianity and trade and stuff the Koreans wouldnt allow it. BECAUSE IT WAS A INTEREFERENCE WITH A COUNTRY'S AFFAIRS AN INTERVENTION!! Then the U.S. naval force came and tried to show a display of power to let Korea to open up its ports and trade. But when the Koreans fired cannons at the U.S. naval ships the U.S> naval ships blew up a fortress and the Koreans gave them a note "We do not want to deal with you or the rest of the world! We are content as we are" So guys if you don't know anything about Korea or stuff please just lay off your keyboard and get your mouse cursour somewhere else!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KoreanHistorist (talk • contribs) .

As a Japanese American, I am not offended by you hating Japanese or any other ethnic group. In facts I see more honesty in your remark than many other writers of Wikipedia. Kudos. Also I am in agreement with you over Sir Edgar, good job ! Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia otherwise you will not be a significant person to respect and understand. I am not biased and agree that Japan does interfere too much in Korea's business as well as other coutries. I reiterate, I support you regardless of my national affiliations because what you are saying is honest and contains truth. Both Japan and the US have ambitions in Korea and you find both nations trying so hard to play or brainwash the Koreans into hating their opposition. As a fellow asian, I would hope and pray that the actions of imperialism on the part of Japan which resulted in the allowance of influences which seperated, partitioned, or balkanized Korea are someday reversed. Japan has equal fault and understandably more in some eyes because of their imperial ambitions for the condition of Korea now. An apology by the Japanese I feel is an insult to Koreans for what Japan has allowed. Centuries might be the accurate period necessary for Koreans to forgive and one day enjoy a fruitful relationship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) .

First of all, you two need to sign your comments. Second, initially I put North first, then South. But I have since been editing to put South first, then North. Third, please focus on improving the article and not opinionated rants that make no difference in the process of improving the article. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we sign with four tildes or two? Second, I think you are doing a good job with the edits, I was just reaffirming the request by above mentioned individual. Thirdly, I offered condolences and opinion to the above author of paragraph because I felt compelled to offer reply to the statement above. In honesty, what is odd, is that I find more room for ranting to be accused for above parapgraph than in comparison to mine, however , I believe your comment was directed toward me and not the person above, am I correct? I think a consensus is necessary to judge which of the above paragraphs classifies as ranting more and why mine was chosen when it demonstrates less intolerance and timid views. This is what I am talking about in so far singling out, with obvious and neglegent equitable treatment to others' decorum. The difference is obvious. We can argue that later when the time comes. Thnk you 66.32.34.243 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)collective concious

rant One entry found for rant.

Main Entry: 1rant Pronunciation: 'rant Function: verb Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen intransitive senses 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently transitive senses : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion Please explain which definiton you are using for ranting since ou brought it up.

Annexation of Korea by Japan

The annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910 was illegal-do not try to dispute that point without sufficient evidence. While it may seem to Wikipedia users that any word with negative connotations is POV and thus liable to deletion, you cannot, with all due respect, ignore the fact that the Japanese enforced the Ganghwa Treaty of 1876, the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, and Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty 0f 1910 by use of intimidation and force. Ultranationalists and conservatives in Japan rather like to refute this argument by employing the Taft-Katsura Memorandum and international recognition granted at the time of Korea's downfall to a colony, but modern standards of international law state that treaties (especially those concerning colonization) forced upon a nation by threat of force and without the approval of that nations's people are invalid; as such, by the modern point of view, Korea's annexation as part of the expanding Japanese Empire, achieved with intimidation and without the will of Koreans, is illegitimate. Furthermore, because the Korean emperor (the Korean head of state) refused to sign his signature as requested by the treaties of 1905 and 1910, even with the international recognition at the time, the treaty can be best described as having been one-sided, without the approval of the head of state on the Korean side. Since I seem to have made my point clear why this article should have the word "illegally" kept within its context, I ask that editors in the future do not assume "illegally " as POV and go delete it without any other excuse than "point of view." All claims against my argument here are of course welcome, and will be politely received. You should, of course, expect a refutation.--Jh.Daniell 10:04, 23 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

This above paragraph is from someone that sounds like they know what they are talking about. Good reply. Looking forward to a response from author for my own benefit becasue I assert my ignorance in this aforementioned area. Thanks for contribution. 04:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)collective concious

although i understand your point, i think such an adjective is not widely found in reference works or other country profiles. your knowledge would be better integrated into specific articles, such as Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty and Korea under Japanese rule, rather than this general overview, imho. thanks. Appleby 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not the place which argues about the right or wrong of Japanese Annexation of Korea.Objectman 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to maintain the neutrality of this article, you have to delete the part where an opinion is opposed to each other. Because, there are another articles to argue it.Objectman 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you write the opinion of South Korea, we also have to write the opinion of Japan. However, then, this article becomes diffuse. You should understand that this article is not an article of Japanese Annexation of Korea. Objectman 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Many people says it was illegal to annex Korea. And other people might say its legal since the Korean King did sign it (but was forced to) and the Japanese also did fight China and give Korea independence from China. So it was "legal" to have annexed Korea since some world leaders thought Japan would do good to Korea since they fought for Korea's Independence from China. Well the good part about the annexation i admit was the public order and manufactured rail roads and economic improvement. But the Koreans were shocked and stunned. They thought that if they got independence from China they would improve their government and have freedom and do whatever they want. Unfortunately the Japanese banned all korean cultures and language and also put students and teachers in jail for they protested against Japanese rule. Then in 1910 Japanese assasins assasinated King Sejong's wife and the king had to flee from Korea to Russia. So he did. All the Koreans were hopelessly lost and confused. Then Koreans went into a church meeting someday with Japanese soldiers around them to hear the meeting if it was a rebellion meeting or not and the pastor kept repeating the story of David and Goliath. The Japanese thought they were the Goliath and the Koreans David, who killed Goliath with a single pebble. So then the Japanese captured the pastor and soon imprisoned hundreds of innocent civilians and tortured them with bambbo sticks which were sharp deep into the skin under their nails, or hung them upside down, or whipped them. And there were 72 other ways of torturing. The Japanese were trying to get a 'confession' out of the Koreans and when the Koreans said they didn't know what they were talking about, they tortured them more. Then Syngman Rhee (who is to be the 1st president of South Korea) wanted to 'shoo' away the Japanese. When the Japanese heard this they imprisoned SyngMan Rhee and soon he got out of jail and went to America, not to return until 1945. Soon Syngman Rhee graduated from Princeton, and etc etc. Soon when the Koreans in Hawaii who migrated from Korea in 1903 in the S.S. Gaelic heard that the korean culture was banned and the language too, they began to teducate their children, work harder, and form armies to repel the Japanese armies. The Korean-Americans in the U.S. also heard this and formed parades and flags of the taegukgi were waving in the streets of the United States. Meanwhile Hitler began the Holocraust and Japan began more horrible things. Korean women were sent to 'comfort' camps where the Japanese raped them and they were only allowed to rape 2 a day. Then Korean rebellions and guerillas sprang up and cried out to chase away Japanese from their country. The rebellions were hopeless and guerillas were soon killed and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and etc etc world war 2 happens and Korea was liberated by U.S. troops, and China who was too under the control of Japan greeted the U.S. marines welcomingly. Meanwhile the Japanese before were still torturing the Koreans before the Pearl Harbor incident and over thousands of Koreans died and only 10 or 5 survived those meaningless interogattions. Then in 1945 Korea was liberated and soon Russia was occupying the North of Korea and U.S. the South of Korea. So after all these things many people from there thought the annexation was illegal and some thought it was still legal. But it really is partly legal and the rest is illegal. So what do you think it was? Illegal or legal? If you want put your comments below i will accept any thing that contributes to my information. -KoreanHistorist

Please indent your paragraphs using the semi-colon. You need to define "illegal". Also, wouldn't most colonial acquisitions be considered "illegal" anyhow? Is there a need to explicitly state the word "illegal". Seems POV to me.--Sir Edgar 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where international laws are concerned, 'legal' and 'illegal' are pretty slippery concepts, even today - around the turn of the last century, international law was quite a bit less developed. Certainly, by post-Nuremburg standards, the annexation could be considered some form of a crime against peace as defined by the UN Charter, and would have been illegal (no matter whether the treaty was properly signed or not, seeing as Korea was giving up its sovereignty under duress). Of course, the main problem with that is that there was no UN back in 1905. While the International Military Tribunal for the Far East used the concept of crimes against peace as its definition of a class A war crime, the annexation of Korea was not considered in the tribunal, so there isn't a clear-cut verdict in this case, unfortunately.

There's also the problem that the annexation of Korea was not an extraordinary event when measured by the standards of the times... Hawai'i's was annexed by the United States under similar circumstances in 1898, and the United States was fighting a bloody and protracted war against the natives of the Philippines (which was ceded to the US by Spain in the Spanish-American War.) At the time, several similar annexations were seen to have been perfectly legitimate. Would the annexation of Hawai'i be legal by today's standards? Probably not, but as a practical matter, it really makes no difference. --Zonath 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar-There seems to be a need to cite Japan's occuaption of Korea as illegal because some Japanese today continue to suffer from the illusion that Korea's annexation as part of Japan was legitimate because it was internationally recognized and welcomed by the Koreans themselves, leading a great deal of them to post their conservative viewpoints all over Wikipedia. Thanks for asking, though.--Jh.daniell 22:11, 24 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

The problem with using the word 'illegal' to describe the annexation of Korea is that there has (as of yet) been no identification of what laws were broken, as far as I know. The great powers of the time were basically bending over backwards to allow Japan to annex Korea, and the annexation of Korea was seen as more or less legitimate up until it was reversed when Japan was stripped of its colonies after WWII. Heck, the methods Japan used to annex Korea weren't even considered to be particularily troublesome at the time. Certainly, by the standards of today's international laws, the annexation of Korea would be illegal, but it seems troubling at the least to apply the standards of today to actions in the past. I think that using the word 'illegal' to describe this annexation is fundamentally flawed. If we really want to editorialize the annexation of Korea, there are several, much truer adjectives we could use. We could call this annexation 'coercive', 'immoral', 'imperialistic', etc... --Zonath 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussions and contirbutions to my paragraph. -KoreanHistorist

In order to maintain the neutrality of this article, you have to delete the part where an opinion is opposed to each other. Because, there are another articles to argue it. If you write the opinion of South Korea, we also have to write the opinion of Japan. However, then, this article becomes diffuse. You should understand that this article is not an article of Japanese Annexation of Korea. There are another articles to write about Annexation of Japan-Korea.Objectman 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

By no means are we going to discuss about whether annexation of Korea was legal or not. There is no such international or holy judicial system that justifies any annexation of one country by another.

(Wikimachine 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Is it illegal that East Germany was annexed by West Germany? This article is not suitable to discuss it.Objectman 03:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits seem to just delete anything that reflect at all negatively on Japan, or even any text that describes Korean influence on Japan. That's not neutrality, it's just a pro-Japanese point of view. The most important thing here is not to give Korean or Japanese opinions, but to let the facts speak for themselves, and to document sources where there's some dispute. Your edit history seems to be aimed at making Japan look better and Korea look worse in numerous articles. That's not very helpful, and it's likely to end in edit wars. To help make Wikipedia better, please discuss specific reasons why the things in the articles are wrong, and we can work together. Thanks for working through the talk page. --Reuben 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reuben, you say

The most important thing here is not to give Korean or Japanese opinions, but to let the facts speak for themselves, and to document sources where there's some dispute.

That's right. Therefore, it should be deleted. Because, ...

Koreans later passed on these, as well as their own advances, to Japan, helping that country make its first steps into civilization.

It's not fact. For example, according to History of Zui(隋史), "(新羅百済皆為倭以大国, 珍物多, 並之敬仰...") That is, Japan is a great nation and Silla and Kudara respected it, It was written to the Chinese history book in this way. It is completely contrary to description of this article.

In 1910, Korea was forcibly Korea under Japanese rule|annexed by Japan

In fact, Korea requested annexation before. It is that Korean prime minister Yi began to say. "Forcibly" is not fact.

General Yi Seong-gye distinguished himself by repelling Japanese pirates, known as Wokou

Wakou is not only Japanese. Please look an article of Wakou.

Empress Min of Korea was assassinated by the Japanese under Miura Goro's directive (Kim et al. 1976).

The practice offenders are Koreans. And, The fact to which many Koreans were concerned with the plan of this incident is disregarded.

Japanese Wars, Japan gained dominance over Korea. In 1910, Japan forced Korea to sign the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty, although the treaty was illegitimate when considering the fact that it was not signed by the Korean emperor (the head of state) but rather his ministers and advisors.

The fact is differed from, so that it gets tired to bring forth refutations. This is not the fact but an opinion. On November 16-17, 2001, The science council of international law was held, "an opinion of illegal annexation" of S.Korea was perfectly denied by U.S. and U.K.

Tens of thousands of men were conscripted into Japan's military, while up to 200,000 women were used as forced laborers and sex slaves, often called "comfort women". About 60,000 Koreans working under harsh conditions in Japanese mines are known to have died between 1939 and 1945, and an unknown number of people were forced to become samples for Japanese biological experiments conducted by Unit 731.

You said, "to document sources where there's some dispute." If so, Where are the sources of these informations?

However, this article becomes diffuse. there are another articles to argue it.

Objectman 08:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, your edit summary calling Korean editors "cowardly" is not cool. By the way, I'm not Korean, and I don't think the editor you were warring with at the time is Korean, either. And most importantly, come to consensus before making controversial edits. Trying to push your edits through with an edit war is not cool, and leaving a note on the talk page while edit warring is not the same as coming to consensus. Let's separate out these different sections, and address them one at a time. OK, on to your arguments. First, I don't see that the Chinese quote you mentioned has any connection to any of your edits. As for the annexation of Korea being voluntary, I don't hear that from anyone except the Japanese government and Imperial apologists. I'm not convinced. Third: Can we say that Wakou / Wokou were based in Japan? Four: I don't see the need for the Empress Min story to be in this article. I agree that should be removed for space. Five: I agree the article should not draw a conclusion about the legality of annexation. However, it should be mentioned that the Emperor did not sign it as required ("let the facts speak for themselves"). If the forced labor and "comfort women" statistics are not right, they should be corrected using information from neutral sources. The information should not be simply removed. --Reuben 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Koreans later passed on these, as well as their own advances, to Japan, helping that country make its first steps into civilization. '

Why can't you understand? Chinese history book was written the reverse of this article. This article is not fact.

Wakou

Did you look at historical records? Japanese are less than 30% in Wakou. this article is writing affirmatively that Wakou pirates are Japanese. Can you say this is neutrally?

sign of emperor

Isn't it enough if it writes to the article of "Japan-Korea Annexation"? the scholars of U.S. and U.K. said it's no problem that there was no sign of the emperor.(영미의 학자는, 황제의 서명이 없는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다고 했다.)

If the forced labor and "comfort women" statistics are not right, they should be corrected using information from neutral sources.

Don't require impossible. It can not refute when there are not your side sources. --> Probatio diabolica

Objectman 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Koreans later passed on these, as well as their own advances, to Japan, helping that country make its first steps into civilization.

It's not fact. For example, according to History of Zui(隋史), "(新羅百済皆為倭以大国, 珍物多, 並之敬仰...") That is, Japan is a great nation and Silla and Kudara respected it, It was written to the Chinese history book in this way. It is completely contrary to description of this article."

I'm sorry, but Korea was crucial to the development of Japan. So what if Japan was a great nation some point in time? That does not limit the fact that Korean influence was great in Japan's development.

For example, a Korean-descent introduced Buddhism to Japan.

"Buddhism first entered Japan from Korea in the 6th century AD - about 1000 ... The Chinese and Korean missionaries who introduced Buddhism brought with them ." (www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/japan-txt.htm)

"Powerful clans like Hatas and Kamos settled future site of Kyoto. Especially, the Hata clan, a large family of Korean descent, had advanced skills and knowledge of agriculture, silkworm raising, weaving and flood controlling, and enjoyed great prosperity." (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20030706a1.htm)

"Rinsho, Korean crown prince and the

ancestor of the Ouchi family, came to Yamaguchi prefecture." (4. http://www.hollym.com/onkorea/KorImpact.html)

"The Yayoi period (c. 300 B.C.-c. A.D. 300) yielded earthenware pottery displaying a more restrained and sophisticated aesthetic characterized by refined shapes and light, geometric decoration. Also dating from this period are bell-shaped bronzes known as dotaku, which were probably derived from Korean musical instruments and are thought to have functioned as symbols of authority." (http://www.kanzaki.com/jinfo/jart-fine.html)

"It is said that Kyushu pottery has its origins during the invasion of the Korean Peninsula by Hideyasu Toyotomi (1592-98), which resulted in technology being brought to Japan by Korean potters. In particular, Arita, located in Saga Prefecture in the northern part of Kyushu, is where porcelain production began in Japan. Porcelain is hard and white, and has a unique luster. It is said that in 1616, a Korean potter by the name of Ri Sampei came to Arita, and discovered kaolin (the white stone needed to make porcelain). The noborigama, or climbing kiln built on the slope of a hill, was the catalyst for producing high quality pottery on the Asian continent. A climbing kiln was constructed, and within 20 - 30 years Arita had grown to become a major producer of porcelain. Ri Sanpei is known as touso, or the founder of porcelain, for his legacy of porcelain manufacturing technology and the Touzan Shrine which honors Sanpei has a monument erected in his memory." (http://www.kyukeiren.or.jp/english/newsletter/no21/special/)

In fact, Korea requested annexation before. Exactly what are you saying? Who= Korea in this case? Ridiculous. (Wikimachine 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

"Empress Min of Korea was assassinated by the Japanese under Miura Goro's directive (Kim et al. 1976).

The practice offenders are Koreans. And, The fact to which many Koreans were concerned with the plan of this incident is disregarded."

Are you serious? The Japanese hired gangsters (so-called honorable Samurais) to kill the queen, buddy. And then they overturned the blame to the Gae-Hwa-Pa activists. Source: Woongjin Wee-in-jun-gi #30 Woo Jang-Choon by Baek Sukgi. (C) Woongjin Publishing Co., Ltd. 1987. pg. 6 (Wikimachine 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)) (this is a history book, not fiction.)

Korea was crucial to the development of Japan.

This description contains the nuance that Japan was inferior than Korea about the culture. At least, it should be written like "Korea was deeply exchanged with Japan and each other." By the way, Buddhism was Indian.

About that Queen Min was assassinated.

Please write these spelling of the Chinese character or the Hangul, "Gae-Hwa-Pa", "Wee-in-jun-gi", "Woo Jang-Choon" and "Baek Sukgi." However, What was published in 1987 cannot be called a history book. It should be called the explanatory book or the reference book. 李周會", "朴銃", "尹錫禹" --They are the criminals made into the death penalty about Queen murder case. I think you will not believe it if I will show the Japanese historical materials. And you will not also believe it if I will show the Korean historical materials, at the reason for colonial rule by Japan. (And Koreans bilieve history proved by rumor and fancy.) However, According to the historical records of Russia("朝鮮旅行記" written by Galina Davydovna Tiagai), according to the report of Karneyev (general staff office lieutenant colonel of Russia), "The about 300 Korean soldier broke into the court at the first." And "Daewongun was bearing the infallible big role." According to the written by British woman ("Korea and Her Neighbours(朝鮮紀行)" by Isabella Lucy Bird), In after case, "The king (gojong) was surrounded by an assassin's group and the most unjust existence in the group was its father (Daewongun)."

Objectman 11:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Additionally, how do those foreign sources help? Were they written at the time? (As far as I can see, they were written by foreigners who looked upon Japanese sources.) I have a history book that I study in Ancient Medieval History & it's copyrighted in 2000. Can't that be a history book? And what's the crucial difference between reference book and history book?

You don't make sense.

Then tell me. If Japan's so honest about their past, why are there protests not only in Korea, but also in China?

Please keep that garbage about Koreans believing rumors off the floor.

(Wikimachine 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)) what's the crucial difference between reference book and history book? <-- Historical records were written by the then persons. Reference books were written by the persons who were not yet born in those days. 그 시대의 당사자가 쓴 것이 역사 사료.그 시대를 체험하지 않은 사람이 쓴 것이 참고서.Objectman 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, I can only laugh when I look at the sources you reference to remove the credibility from others. First of all, your so-called "historical record of Russia" is only listed in 4 places in english, the rest are Japanese (from a Google search). I cannot believe this to be a credible source. Next, what you wrote about Isabella Lucy Bird was also false. Read this ->[6], especially the 29th paragraph, then you will see how false your claims are. She was shocked to see when the Japanese engineered the Queen's murder. Also, as Wikimachine says, there's no need to bring opinionated stereotypes to the table. --Anarkial 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have only denied me and are not proving the rightness of this article at all.Objectman

I have tried not to come to this, but as you requested, I will refute your arguments, thus proving the other side of the discussion, which other people above me have already done (proof by contradiction.) First of all, there is a necessity to write that there was a period when Korea was annexed, and the reasons for it, as you can't leave out crucial details even in an overview. Yes, there is another article about it, but that should be longer and provide a lot more details as to the process and the result. Next, you are only against the part that says that Korea helped Japan become what they are now, because, as you are Japanese, you don't exactly want to pass the torch along to Korea for your development. You have no base in saying that, as Wikimachine and others have already said. After that, you say that Yi had requested for annexation first. Now, sit back and think. If they had initially wanted annexation, why wait for five years before being annexed? According to most people, it was a forced coercion. Definition of Wokou in Wikipedia: Japanese pirates. I can't seem to see what you mean when you say that Japanese people are less than 30%. And why are statistics of comfort women impossible. It's about as impossible as counting the opponents civilian casualties in a war, which most governments can seem to do. Are you now satisfied? --Anarkial 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a necessity to write that there was a period when Korea was annexed, However, the description should be necessary minimum. A detailed description should be written to the special article of this incident. Besides, this description has a bias of Korean POV. If Korean POV is written, Japanese POV also should be written. However, Its way is foolish very much.Objectman 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to shout, I can read small text perfectly. Stop being rude. Why should the description be at a minimum? Would you like to test a food, but not taste it? Just have the generic coldness or hotness? Also, why are you so strongly against the Korean POV that isn't existent at this point? As Howard Zinn said, history should be written from the point of the oppressed. --Anarkial 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"History should be written from the point of the oppressed." -- This idea is not neutrally. Besides, the opinions "Koreans of the oppressed" have many fiction and many propaganda of anti-Japanese. Do you know which victims was many, "35 years under the Japanese colony", or "3 years under the Korean War"? Of course, I don't say that there was no suppression. However, it was little than Joseon Dynasty age or than after Japanese colony. The voice of the minorities became so big after the war because Japan lost the war. And "the injuries" is step by step being spread by the people who don't know in those days. I cannot leave it. Objectman 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, your logic is nonsense. Does the Korean War justify Japanese oppression of Koreans? Does a murder that took place 3,500km away from my home justify my own wrongdoing? No. Plus, war in its very nature is destructive in necessity. Japanese were destructive out of pursuit of pleasure & human want & neglect.

Yes. History should be written from the oppressed and this is neutrality. -THAT IS... in case there are two conflicting opinions (Japanese point of view & Korean point of view), Korean stance should be taken.

In this case of Korea-Japan conflict, Korean arguments have evidences, etc. and are much stronger than Japanese. Ask any historian and they will agree.

But, the Japanese government is not willing to submit to those evidences & facts. They disavow their deeds, and the prime minister has done a great job of faking "expressing deep remorse".

Answer me directly, Objectman. If Japanese government is so true and honest, why are there protests going on in not only Korea but also China? Why are other governments against the Japanese policy?

I am planning to write indepth about Japanese occupation of Korea & each case of cruelties. After you read them all, you will be appalled with both anger and confusion (one anger against your own country & another against Korean POV, which is true).

(Wikimachine 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

You make me laugh. You said "Korean stance should be taken." This utterance is the proof that you are not neutrality. "Korean arguments have evidences", this is a lie. Korean arguments have already refuted almost. However, I cannot write here because it's much many. Korean arguments have no fact. "Why are there protests going on in not only Korea but also China?" I counter, "Why are there protests going on in only Korea and China? Why are not in Taiwan, The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Myanmar? Why are not, though especially Taiwan was governed by Japan for a long time than Korea? "I am planning to write indepth about Japanese occupation of Korea & each case of cruelties." You must stop you are discharging big lies. If you understand the facts, you will be regret strongly. 220.150.117.118 13:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Japanese oppression" was nothing. oppression to native American by the people from Europe, to Asia and Africa by Europe and America, to Korea by China. to Korean people by Korean aristocrats, etc... Compared with these, rule of Japan was more humane. China and Korea have riding on the Axis Powers, and extorting from Japan. Korean arguments have all be this purpose.Objectman 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, all of my edits (except the very first ones as inexperienced Wikipedian) are NPOV. See the tones of my edits. I actually edited all the Korean POV-toned statements to NPOV. I am very disappointed in how Japanese are so apt in accusing other people (I had an impression that they were good people).

Objectman, by your defintion, anything can be nothing. A single robbery could be nothing. Yeah, I stole this, but my friend steals much more, so I am justified. Ah. There was the holocaut, so torturing these prisoners is justified too!

In case of China "oppressing" Korea, please specify. Remember that China is not only the "Han" people. It was conquered by the Mongolians and the Jurchens. So, you can't blame the real "Han" China, buddy, if China ever bothered (not oppressed) Korea.

Objectman, you are so wrong.

• "Taiwan compatriots' anti-Japanese history is patriotic history" [7]
• "The patriotic Taiwan people have waged many prolonged struggles against ... a succession of armed uprisings to protest against Japanese colonial rule. ..." [www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2003-07/21/content_539029.htm]

In case of Philippine, they just hit 2004 tsunami & Japan helped a ton, so they have nothing to complain about. (Wikimachine 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

• "Taiwan protests Japanese ministers' remarks" http://th.gio.gov.tw/show.cfm?news_id=12647
• "Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea families protest Yasukuni enshrinements" http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2005_Oct_24/ai_n15738185

More (Wikimachine 14:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

You say, West Germany stole East Germany. You make me laugh. Japan invested for Korean modernization. Is this an oppression? Japan made the barbarous Korean punishment stopped. Is this an oppression?

Japan made the school to Korea and taught the Hankul. Is this an oppression? Japan reclaimed new farmland and afforested it to the bald mountain. Is this an oppression? Japanese rice was cannot sell because of the Korean rice of low price. It oppressed Japanese farmers rather than Korean.220.150.117.118 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, your hate and disbelief overflows into this page. I don't know if the one by 220.150.117.118 is you, but it does sound like you. Ha, riding on Axis powers? Do Nazis and official Fascists still exist? Are they tolerated? If you can remember, your country was one of the Axis powers. Or did you mean it as a compliment to your country? If so, then I can tell you, it's not something to be really proud about. Also, Japanese oppression was nothing? Then, I guess Unit 731 was just an outcast member of your nothingness? The torture was all tolerated and believed by the Korean people just as part of daily life? So, if you were more "humane", why are you so against putting a supposedly "Korean POV" on the srticle? Maybe you fear that the Koreans didn't feel it was humane? Yes, others were more inhumane to the suppressed, but there comes and outcry from each of those groups. Native Americans are trying hard to raise public hell, except that they were totally eradicated by cultural genocide. Black people carry lots of resentment to the white folk, that's why Nelson Mandela was hailed as a great hero in South Africa. The Boxer Rebellion was an attempt by Asian people to throw the opresser overboard. India had a failed revolution against the British. The only reaason that China is not as mentioned in Korea is that most Koreans feel that the Japanese occupation takes precedence, for whatever reason. So, Objectman, take a bit of time to think over what Wikimachine has provided you. I have just refuted your arguments. --Anarkial 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't treat Japan on a par with Nazis. Japan is not performing Holocaust. Although the alliance was connected to Germany, it did not necessarily cooperate in Holocaust.

Nobody understands what 731 carried out. The American government hides all proof in his hand. Please don't talk without proof as if it was a fact. I said already reason why Korea opposite. And Korea is teaching youngmen the history of lie. praise to Japan is taboo in Korea. I am very sad. If Korea talk the fact now, Korean people will panic.220.150.117.118 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It educates to have hostility to a specific state, and laugh the atomic bomb, and "my nation banzai(Uri-nara mansei). Korea almost is Nazism.220.150.117.118 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I blame this all on the effects of misinformed education to the Japanese public. You can clearly see this isn't going to go away based on the "Japanese History Textbook Controversies - http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/Digests/textbook.html". The annexation of Korea was one of hostile nature, and trying to change the facts to benefit your beliefs is what fuels anger for more controversy. --Ev3nfl0w 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Misinformed education to the Japanese public" this is seems to be the biggest problem why some Japanese go far enough to say "Korea almost is Nazism". The controversy is not started by Koreans, Japanese users need to change their attitude and look in the Korean point of view.

As for the annexation of Korea...Korea did not want get annexed. That is false. A government official, named Lee Wan-yong (이완용), bargained King Sunjo's royal stamp to the Japanese. King Sunjo was the last king of Chosun. A royal stamp of the King is an official stamp of the king that is used as his signature.

Lee Wan-yong technically sold King Sunjo's stamp to the Japanese. With the king's stamp, the Japanese illegally signed the contract to annex Korea under Japan. Lee Wan-yong recieved a large amount of land and money from the Japanese from this bargain. That is how Korea was annexed. The Korean king was not "forced to sign the contract", as some ignorant person stated up above, he didn't even know about the annexation until the end when it was too late. Good friend100 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Homogenous?

Currently, in the demographics section of this article it states, "Korea is populated by a highly homogeneous ethnic group." To me, this statement has a couple of problems and I was wondering about other people's opinion. First, it is a statement that is written about Japan a lot, and to put it mildly, has very nihonjinron-esque connotations. Second, the statement is akin to something a North Korean general worried about his seongeol would be say ([8]) rather than the modern-day person. Third, I'm not even sure what it means to be a "homogenous ethnic group" and why that is something to brag about. Finally, if you click on homogenous it doesn't really help clarify to a reader what that means. Would appreciate any comments. Thanks! Tortfeasor 06:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tortfeasor! It is something to be proud of about if your ethic group is one as whole. Yes, both Koreans are Japanese are proud of that fact (actually, I myself really wouldn't care).

It is genetically proven fact, though (at least, I've heard). So, there is nothing wrong with that statement making presence in this article. Plus, it's a nice description of the Korean population.

Finally, remember that 50% of Japanese have genes in the mitochondria (never changes for millions of years) that are exactly same to Koreans'. This means that Japanese are descendants of Koreans. Thanks for your concerns. (Wikimachine 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Actually, similarities in mitochondrial DNA just mean that 50% of Japanese have a common female ancestor with (most, I assume) Koreans, not that one was necessarily descended from the other (assuming that your assertion is true in the first place -- I claim no special knowledge of the issue.)

I guess whether you consider Korea to be a 'homogenous' country depends on your definition of the term. Certainly, if asked, most of the inhabitants of the Korean peninsula would identify themselves as ethnically Korean rather than something else, which can be one standard by which you measure homogeneity (ethnic homogeneity). Additionally, most of the inhabitants of the peninsula speak the Korean language as their first language (linguistic homogeneity). There's also probably a fair degree of genetic closeness between any two members of the ethnic Korean population -- maybe not to the degree of European royal families (or stereotypically inbred Ozark hilbillies, for that matter), but as much as one would expect from a small, insular region that spent much of its history in various stages of isolation, punctuated by various invasions and mass migrations. I would also venture that the relative mix of genetic heritage is fairly similar between any two Korean inhabitants of the peninsula, with about the same basic mix of Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, etc, perhaps with some variation from north to south and east to west. However, I would also question how much the average Korean's lack of mobility prior to the 20th Century (and the average North Korean's today) could perhaps have created certain diverse genetic subgroups within this 'homogenous' main group, but since I don't really know, I won't speculate too much -- certainly, it created some significant variations in dialects, but dialects tend to change a mite quicker than genetics (typically). At any rate, 'homogenous' seems a bit of a loaded term, and is a bit ill-defined, but I suppose that would hold for just about any term subjected to a high enough level of scrutiny. Personally, I would just let this one pass. --Zonath 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That Korea is an ethnically homogenous nation is no longer supported by government-issue textbooks ([9]), or new Korean anti-discrimination laws ([10]).

In fact, the current president has been very active lately in embracing a new "multicultural/multiracial Korea" (다문화/다인종) (huge list of articles on this available @ news.naver.com [11]). The government isn't exactly encouraging/discouraging immigration, more like admitting that Korea is now de facto multiethnic.

I vote we change the article to reflect that. I mean, if the stupid Korean government-issued Korean history textbooks have been changed (trust me when I call them stupid, I used to lug them to school as a kid... very flimsy covers they had. And they skimped on 현대사, modern Korean history, and once I got to college I learned the sinister reason Why) then Wiki can certainly ditch the rather flimsy premise of a single-blooded nation, too.

I don't think any historian or anthropologist in Korea worth a damn really thinks Korea is ethnically homogenous. We're always being told how Mongolian we are, and these bald people walking around Seoul have to come from somewhere (Japan. Don't get me wrong, bald is sexy). Koreans are very, very tribal (Koreans do NOT get along with each other!) and the whole North/South, Chunla/Kyongsang conflict has historic roots in ancient tribes, probably even older than the Age of the Three Nations. I myself am a Hur of Kimhae, and it's well-known that the first Hur was a Indo-Chinese princess who came over to the Kingdom of Garak (an excellent book on this is "김수로왕비의 혼인길", by Hanyang University anthropologist Byoung-Mo Kim, ISBN 8971842385). And Korea's founding myth about the tiger and the bear shutting themselves in the cave with a very low-protein vegetable diet, the tiger and bear probably represent different totemic tribes.

"One Nation Korea" is propaganda. The Russian historian (I want to claim him as Korean, but I'm not sure if he is?) Park Noja has written extensively on this subject ([12]). Basically, the "One Nation Korea" concept was developed to stem time and energy-consuming cryptotribal warfare and to use the power of nationalism to unify the workforce and to focus on the economy.

US Sanctions

How come there is no mention of U.S. sanctions against North Korea? It only states that the NK is isolationist, even under times of famine. As with the case of Cuba (which has a trade embargo), the U.S. is disallowing trade with itself and allies. Anarkial 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar this may be a discussion page and improve it for people who must research about something, but we need truths and not lies. I am currently trying to make all the related pages-Korea improved, so do not be so hard on my comments or discussions. -KoreanHistorist

I did not post the above comment. In fact, there are numerous comments that have been attributed to me that were not posted by me. I always sign my comments.--Sir Edgar 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then put an end to it SirEdgar-KoreanHistorist

I'm sorry Sir Edgar, it was me. To KoreanHistorist: What do you mean lies? Anarkial 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC) To Anarkial: What i mean is false information for people who has to research about something like in school,(etc.) and false information might drop their grades and teachers would know the real information. -KoreanHistorist

Are you saying that the sanctions are not actually in place? Anarkial 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No no no, im saying that most and many are in place, but some important <----- things aren't in place. -KoreanHistorist

Continuance of history

To explain the continuance of the history of South Korea, this content is added.

• 1. Japan invaded South Korea.
• 2. Ming Dynasty supported South Korea, and defended Korea.
• 3. Therefore, When Ming Dynasty fought against Qing Dynasty, Korea supported Ming Dynasty.
• 4. Therefore, Korea was invaded about Qing Dynasty. And, Korea was controlled by Qing Dynasty.
• 5. Japan won Qing Dynasty. And, Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed.
• 6. As a result, Qing Dynasty recognized the independence of Korea and renounced any claims to Korea.
• 7. Japan began the control of South Korea.
• 8. Emperor Gwangmu, proclaims the Korean Empire. And, he resisted Japan in cooperation with Russia.
• 9. As a result of Russo-Japanese War, Russia agreed to leaving from a Korea.
• 10. Elder statesman Ito-Hirobumi in Japan was assassinated by the Korean. As a result, Korea has weakened more and more.
• 11. Cabinet in Korea signed Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty.

--Kamosuke 19:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Choson (Korea as whole), not South Korea.

How Japanese forced the Koreans to sign the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was by placing cannons on one of the hills and aiming it at the king's palace.

Japan won Qing Dynasty? What do you mean?

Remember that there was Sino-Japanese War too.

I don't remember Emperor Gwangmu. Seonjo, I think.

Korea has weakened more and more? Further explanation? (Wikimachine 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

If my question is irrelevant, please forgive it, but why there are no articles of the "Great Han Empire" ?

I think it had been established by Joseon Dynasty from 1897 to 1910. Is it ture? If there are someone who know it,

please write the articles.--TOMATOBOMB 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Great Han Empire" is at least mentioned in the Joseon Dynasty article, although not in too much detail. As far as I know, there was little to no difference between the "Great Han" period and the Joseon Dynasty other than the name change, so that might be why it doesn't have its own article seperate from the Joseon one. It could be useful to have an article covering just the Empire period, due to the fact that it was a pretty important part of Korea's history (especially in the lead up to the Japanese occupation), but I don't personally have enough knowledge of the subject to really write a good article on it myself. --Zonath 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. This era may be complex and not too easy to understand. I think that the connection of the "Joseon Dynasty" and the "Japanese occupation" are not smooth. And why this article describe that the Joseon Dynasty running from 1392 to 1905 ? I think it should better change to 1894 when Korea change the name and become independent of China or to 1910 when Japanese occupation beginning.--TOMATOBOMB 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, most scholars seem to count the Han Empire period as part of the Joseon dynasty, since it didn't really result in many fundamental changes to Korean society like the last two dynasty shifts did. I believe the 1905 date is used as the end of the Joseon Dynasty because that was the year it became a protectorate of Japan, even though it was not formally annexed until 1910. --Zonath 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked Joseon Dynasty and Korean Empire, it suggest that the Joseon Dynasty running to 1910. So, I change the period to be adjustment, temporary. If you think it is strange, please change it with the linked article.--TOMATOBOMB 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Korean Empire. -- Visviva 11:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that Korean Empire is same as "The Great Han Empire" in the article of the Joseon Dynasty, we'd better link it and change into the same name. But I'm a little confused that those two articles have a little inconsistency not only name but also contents.--TOMATOBOMB 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit based on anti-Japanese sentiment

South Koreans value pleasure that denounces Japan more than facts of the history. 　By Carter J Eckert professor at the Harvard University

The Japanese occupation, while bringing modern infrastructure to the peninsular nation (mainly to encourage Japanese industrial exploitation), was considered by many in Korea and around the world to be brutal and led many Koreans to resist

"brutal" There is no article on North Korea and Syngman Rhee that kills the Korean more than a Japanese army. Did they elegantly kill the Korean?

"around the world" doesn't have the source. The Carter J Eckert professor at the Harvard University has not commented, "brutal" on the colonialization of Japan.

"many Koreans to resist," There was a Korean who did independence movement. However, there were a lot of Koreans who promoted the Japan-South Korea amalgamation, too. (See also Iljinhoe)

"Tens of thousands of men were conscripted into Japan's military, while up to 200,000 women were used as forced laborers and sex slaves, often called "comfort women".

Please distinguish the woman worker (挺身隊) and the comfort woman. (慰安婦) August, 1944.　The light work in a military factory was obligated to the woman from 12 to less than 40 years.

• 女子挺身勤労令(昭和19年勅令第519号)[13]
• 女子挺身隊制度強化方策要綱[14]　

As a result, 201,487 South Korean women became workers. (Comfort woman is not included. )　Her work was manufacturing of the parachute and the service uniform.

"About 60,000 Koreans working under harsh conditions in Japanese mines are known to have died between 1939 and 1945,"

This is a Korean worker who doesn't mediate by Japanese Government. Content of law executed in 1939 "朝鮮工場労務者内地移住斡旋ニ関スル件" Source by Asian history material center [15](Reference code: C01001832500)

• 1. Korean labor period is within in five years.
• 2. Korean labor's technological level must improve.
• 3. The employer and Japanese Government　bear traveling expenses of the worker.
• 4. Obtain the police chief's permission when you hire a worker.

"and an unknown number of people were forced to become samples for Japanese biological experiments conducted by Unit 731."

Unit731 is being investigated. Unit731 maltreated Chinese and the Russian. However, why does the South Korean become a victim? At this time, the South Korean was the Japanese people.--Kamosuke 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you haven't researched enough. Are you a Japanese yourself?

Those documents published by the Japanese government & historians are false.

For example, the 4 rules (1939 thing) doesn't portray how Japanese ruled Korea at all. Do you really think that they followed those rules? (Wikimachine 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

I'll continue anyways.

Japanese hired Koreans only for low jobs such as factory work. Koreans almost never got into higher jobs unless they were good at bribing or very apt in pleasing Japanese.

The argument that Koreans were already Japanese should be fixed.

By the manner of speech, it should be "Japanese were already Korean people."

Genetic testing of the mitochondria (which never changes for millions of years) (at I think Kyoto University) showed that 50% Japanese are Koreans in blood.

Plus, the Japanese government tried to erase the Korean culture and make Koreans like Japanese so that they would not revolt. In process, Koreans "would become Japanese".

The pro-Japanese movement was mainly done before the Japanese occupation. It was called the Gae-Hwa-Pa (among whom was Kim Okgyun), and it attempted to develop Korea in technology, science, and military in order to sustain itself from the inevitable Japanese Imperialism.

Of course, there always are those who would try to profit by doing as much to please the Japanese. Not every people are perfect. But this doesn't mean anything.

"South Koreans take pleasure in denouncing..." is I think just another opinion from a Harvard professor. Is he a Korean himself? I think that Japanese take pleasure in denouncing Koreans, such as the Kenkanryu manga that criticizes Korea in almost every way. A Korean anti-Japanese manga was made in response to that manga.

There is no reason to think that just, because somebody killed someone, I am justified in my own killing. I am sorry that Korea had its chaotic times. So did Japan in its early days. That does not justify the "BRUTAL" yes brutal killings of the Koreans by the Japanese.

For example, 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 begged to save her baby, and the Japanese soldier stabbed the baby and shot the woman. Got it? Source: pg. Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yauk-sa #13 Minjok Soonangi I by Jang Pyung Soon. (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yoook Yaun-goo-won., Ltd. Printed in Korea.

Good luck with your research, Japanese Wikipedian. (Wikimachine 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Ah. I forgot about the pg. number. pg. 129-131. (Wikimachine 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine doesn't believes unconditionally the official document that Japanese Government had issued in 1939.

"Those documents published by the Japanese government & historians are false. "

However, he believes unconditionally the book which South Koreans wrote in 1998.

" For example, 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 begged to save her baby, and the Japanese soldier stabbed the baby and shot the woman. "

The lie of this episode can be easily proven if there is history knowledge. Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea never went out of Shanghai during World War II. (Perhaps, this episode is based on the ravage that the South Korean did in Vietnam. )

He doesn't believe an official document of Japanese Government. However, he believes the anti-day when the time that the South Korean wrote and the place are not specified episode.

Wikimachine proved. South Koreans value pleasure that denounces Japan more than facts of the history.　--Kamosuke 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke, I'm sorry, but you're not really making any sense. Of course Wikimachine shouldn't unconditionally believe the document that the Japanese Government issued. Does any government, in their sane mind, tell their people that they have actually killed, maimed, and otherwise made life hard for other people? Yes, maybe in barbarian times, it was a sign of power, but now, it's a bad mark on your history. On the other hand, he also shouldn't unconditionally believe what the South Korean book says, but you've got to admit that Koreans will release more info, counting that it'll provide them sympathy.

What do you mean by, "The lie of this episode..."? What does the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea have to do with that story. Nowhere in the quote does it say anything about a government, except the Japanese one.

In the same light, it doesn't look like you like the facts of history much either. Anyway, most of them in your country will still be fabrications, and I'm not saying that because I hate you and your country, but because that is a fact too. Look at the U.S. for an example. We still call Hawaiians Hawaiians, and Alaskans Alaskans, but do we say anything about how they were subjugated? No, not really. So I suggest that you do some more research, from both POV's then come back with a NPOV. --Anarkial 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, I have reservations against you calling Koreans Japanese. Here is an example. Let's have two countries, and call one Rashava, and the other, Kaltan. Let's say that the Rashavans have annexed and subjugated the Kaltans. Now, the Rashavans are doind what they wish, such as murder and rape, to the Kaltans. The Kaltans will not rally around and say, "Save the Rashavans!!!" but more along the lines of "Protect Kaltan Rights." Maybe politically the "Koreans are Japanese" would be correct, but culturally and historically, the latter is more sound.

---

Of course I wouldn't believe the Japanese government papers. You look at the situation yourself. Japanese history textbooks that nearly whitewashes the cruelty during the Japanese occupation that Koreans & Chinese are protesting about. I wonder why they are happening if the Japanese government is so trustworthy in these subjects?

Additionally, that source is a history book, not a fiction.

Of course, 50% Japanese = Koreans genetically. (Wikimachine 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

I am assuming you are talking to Kamosuke? --Anarkial 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I don't keep track of whom I'm talking to. Ha ha. I guess. (Wikimachine 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Introduction too long?

Does anyone else think this, too? I know I am one of the people who helped contribute to the length of the introduction. But now that I look back, it looks too long. It's even longer than the introduction for China. And yet, there are big gaps and holes in the Culture section, especially in Cuisine and Science and Technology. And there isn't even an introduction for the Language section yet.

I really should be spending more time on this article, like I had with Japan prior to its getting nominated as a Good Article. But I've been caught up with this Talk:Dokdo thing. Let's all try to help to improve the quality and content of Korea.--Sir Edgar 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, i agree that it's a bit long right now, especially considering the gaps in the article body that will have to be filled and then referred to in the intro. a while back, i tried to trim it a bit, but it's grown back again. it should just hit all the key terms concisely to reflect the structure of the body. Appleby 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

< ＊｀∀´> -3

I've shortened the introduction. It's too bad since a lot of people, including myself, put so much work into (while neglecting the rest of the article). But it's become too long. Hopefully, we can move the deleted summary to the History section. However, the introduction shouldn't go beyond four paragraphs really.

Anyhow, the focus of this article seems a bit off. Any content that relates to events occurring after 1948 should go into the respective North Korea and South Korea articles. This is unless they are relevant to both states, such as the Korean War or Re-unification efforts.--Sir Edgar 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I think this article needs a full review to cut out content that should go to the individual states and instead keep this focused on Korea, the country and civilization.--Sir Edgar 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro ...

I edited the page so that the intro says that South Korea is a former dictatorship, but somebody reverted it. I don't want to start a revert war, but the info I added is correct. 69.218.224.114 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So... in an article about Germany, you introduce by saying its governemnt was formerly a form of dictatorship?

Are you thinking of East or West Germany? I wouldn't start it as such, but I would definitely mention it. 69.218.236.221 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. That certainly puts negative image onto South Korea.

That's just like calling North Korea a totalitarian dictatorship. And is it not true that Rhee Syng Man started South Korea out as a dictatorial capitalist satellite state of the U.S.?

South Korea did not start as dictatorship. Only during 1970s and 1980s was it so. And even then, Park Jung-hee was not the type of dictator that you imagine. He was very humane and all for his people.

And I am not kidding. Once there was a boy of poor origin who wrote a letter to the president about the issue of the new road construction that would destroy his house. The president ordered the builders to go around all the houses and farms in that region. (Wikimachine 00:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Stories like that are pretty common for dictators (and other leaders as well). You can find very similar anecdotes about Stalin or Kim Il Sung. --Reuben 01:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reuben makes a good point. --Anarkial^Talk 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"He governed in an authoritarian manner and allowed the internal security force to detain and torture suspected Communists and North Korean agents. His government also oversaw several massacres, the most notable being on the island of Jeju in response to an uprising by leftist factions. While massacres did occur under the regimes that succeeded Rhee, they were fewer in number and less widespread."

That's taken directly from the article on Rhee Syng Man. The only reason I brought this up is because I felt North Korea was being portrayed as a totalitarian state and this can create a bias in readers who don't know the details of South Korea's History. All I'm looking for is neutrality and fairness, not bias against socialism in all its forms, which this article seems to imply. 69.218.226.206 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Annexation of Korea by Japan 2

B/c the section is too long, I made a new section so that we don't have to scroll every time.

Objectman, what do you mean by history of lies. You seriously don't know anything about Japanese occupation. I'll refute every one of your examples of Japanese kindness (ha).

• Please explain what you mean by barbarous Korean punishment stopped.

As far as I remember, Koreans were pretty civilized people.

If you are talking about the torture system, remember the Japanese torture of plunging one's head into the water constantly, electrifying, and plain torturing with molten iron.

If you think the three mentioned above didn't happen, I shouldn't even discuss this with you, you should research more yourself. No wonder you thought Korean history was full of lies.

• Most Koreans were against modernization, and being modernized is all based on perspective because there are good sides and bad sides to modernization. The bad side might be that Koreans would have less material possession & less luxurious life, but the good side would be the avoidance of destruction of natural habitats, etc. Furthermore, Japanese attempted to westernize Koreans in order to destroy Koreans' culture. This would wipe out the Korean people and assimilate them into the Japanese, westernized empire, and there would be no more revolt & Koreans would be little obedient people. One example of westernization was Japanese request to the Korean emperor (actually king) to enforce cutting of one's hair (it was Korean custom -Japanese as well- to not cut one's hair).
• Like I said, school was segregated, and Koreans weren't taught the same subjects as Japanese. Furthermore, did you know that Japanese teachers had swords? Pretty humane beings. (this policy was later gone, as far as I remember).
• Please describe in detail what you mean by Japan reclaim new farmland. You can reclaim previously lost lands that are wasted through overuse, but you can't reclaim new land.
• On the subject of farmland, I think I mentioned already perhaps in another discussion page that Japanese gov made a new rule to force all land holders to register their land to the gov. Many Koreans in the countryside who didn't get this news lost their land because they didn't register their land. And then these were redistributed among the Japanese. Also, Korean farmers suffered from overtaxation and YES forced low price offers of Korean rice (pretty smart move there by Japanese historians, to make use of this to say that Japanese rice couldn't sell!), and they were forced to move to the cities and seek jobs. And that's exactly what it was. If Japanese didn't reap the Koreans of their farmland, when farming was the main occupation, Koreans would never have been forced to seek jobs in the cities.

(Wikimachine 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

• On the subject of Japanese cruelty itself, let me restate this.

For example, 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. Got it? Source: pg. 129-131 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yauk-sa #13 Minjok Soonangi I by Jang Pyung Soon. (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yoook Yaun-goo-won., Ltd. Printed in Korea.

Pretty humane there? The Holocaust or the Korean War does not justify Japanese cruelty. That is a fatuous, idiosyncratic, and fallacious logic -same thing as any sin being justified by that of another. (Wikimachine 01:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Mr/s. 220.150.117.118, you seem very sure of yourself. You portray yourself as knowing everything, and if not supposed "national secrets" (as said by you) then at least secret to the general public. How do you know this? Why hasn't the news leaked already? --Anarkial 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Me? News? Please clarify. (Wikimachine 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

No, I'm addressing the one with the signed IP from the first topic. Hiis/her comments were signed with an IP, ie.220.150.117.118. --Anarkial 04:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha there were thousands of Japanese crimes to Koreans during Korea's annexation. We could go on forever. First of all, some Japanese users need to change their attitude toward Korea. Good friend100 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarkial cool down. All of which our unknown friend has said is true, except that he missed one fact, which was that the Japanese burned the building before shooting, so the people could not escape. It happens to be true that nobody except Koreans and probably Japan only knows about this famous incident. I'll bet that you don't learn about Korean history, at least touch it, in school. But there are a lot of massacres that have occured in the past, in Europe and Vietnam. Things like that happen when a stronger country colonizes a weaker one and war breaks out. Don't act like the person who has written the above is wrong. Oyo321 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

bin dinh massacre

Would there be any possibility of including Korean participation in the Vietnam War and the massacres of innocent Vietnamese by Korean forces? I would like to contribute if that issue is a plausible topic. I feel it is because it displays Korea's willingness to participate like Japan with a western nation against other asians. Demonstrating an acceptance by both Korea and Japan in supporting the U.S. over asian sovereignty. Although Korea may have a minute role in the Vietnam War, they did participate and that is seldom attributed to countries with minor participation. However, they were at war with South Vietnam.--Unsigned comment by 66.32.20.206 (aka "Collective Conscious")- Please sign your comments.

First of all, any mention of Korean participation in the Vietnam War rightly belongs in the article for the actual country that participated, namely South Korea. The history section on this page pretty much ends in 1945, with the partition of Korea and Korean War. Secondly, there already is mention of South Korea's involvement in the Vietnam War in the History of South Korea article, as well as the Vietnam War article. If you really want to mention South Korean war crimes, you might want to start with one of those articles. Thirdly, I wouldn't exactly call sending 300,000 soldiers 'minor participation', but that's just semantics. Also, South Korea was at war with North Vietnam, not South. --Zonath 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, why are you trying to point of South Korean war crimes? Korea was not willing to go to war against Vietnam. After the U.S had several setbacks in Vietnam, they asked for help from South Korea, noting the Korean War. So Korea sent soldiers to fight in Vietnam.

Korea did not send 300,000 soldiers. It was several thousand.

What do you mean by "Korea and Japan support the U.S over Asian sovereignty"? Only Japan has conquered foreign countries by force in WWII.

If you think a "South Korean War Crimes" section should be added, then I suggest writing a new article on it. Good friend100 05:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Korea was silling to go to Vietnam. Maybee not the soldiers, but the government definitely did. U.S. was willing to pay a lot of money for South Korea if they sent military help. Of course, you probably know Korea wasn't doing great, and needed a lot of money... Oyo321 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pov in intro?

The intro to the article currently says "By the late 19th century, the country became the object of colonial designs by the imperial aggressors of Asia and Europe." Isn't the term "aggressor" a bit pov? It gives a moral opinion of the actions of those nations in Korea, which I think is not up to wikipedia. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 09:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "aggressor" is POV. In fact, I think aggressor is more accurate. Also, the imperial aggresors should be named "China, Japan, and Russia" rather than "Asia and Europe". "Asia and Europe" sound too broad. Good friend100 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Oyo321 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

how do i reference a book and internet source?

Could someone explain the steps to reference something? I really need the help. Thanks. Good friend100 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

GF: I think its < ref > "quote" < / ref > and at the end of the article make a = = reference = = section and add < references / >. If you hit edit at Asuka period there is a good example you can look at and its more complex. (ignore the spaces) Tortfeasor 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Good friend100 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

what the ****

What the heck is wrong with the Korea article???????

I just put in a reference and it just cut off the entire Korean article by half.

?????

Could someone make the Korea article back to its original form? thank you Good friend100 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

218.218.135.36

A 218.218.135.36 has deleted information about comfort women claiming they were POV.

Yes, they are quite a bit POV, but to that user, the point is, NPOV policy on Wikipedia isn't going to hide Japanese war crimes. You could write "Thousands of Korean women were forced to work for the Japanese" but that is not going to hide your stained history of WWII.

"NPOV NPOV NPOV" That is what I hear all the time, just as an excuse to delete information regarding Korea, Baekje, or Japanese war crimes on Korean articles.

This isn't funny anymore and its going to become nasty at this rate. Good friend100 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I have re-added the passage about comfort women and slightly altered and expanded it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why there should not be any information about the Comfort Women on the Korea page. It is part and parcel of the debate, and sadly, of Korean history. However, we are not going to discuss whether or not Koizumi's re-iteration of Miyazawa's formal apologiy is sincere, since here is not the place, and I am not going to question that myself. I have not re-added the Unit 731 passage, since I myself do not know if Koreans were actually used as guinea pigs for scientific experiments. But after further investigation, I might re-write it. Shogo Kawada 19:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Unit 731 really did use humans as experiments but I think they mainly experimented on captured Chinese. Good friend100 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The history section is way, way, way, way too long! This is supposed to be an overview article about all aspects of Korea, and History is just one of many subsections. There is already a very long separate article on History of Korea, as well as specific articles like Silla and Korean War. I will be trimming the history section back to the summary that it used to be. It's amazing how poorly this important article is written! Not really 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, fine with me. There is indeed quite a long article on the History of Korea.

Just a suggestion but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to use the history article as the "backbone" of the contributions, which can then be re-distributed and merged into the more specific articles. I agree with the "overview" character of this article, which should be kept concise. The culture section seems very... lightweight.. no subsection on literature.. which is surprising. Shogo Kawada 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hwankuk and Baedalkuk are not part of the academic mainstream history of Korea, and do not belong in this article. I think sporting events of South Korea belong in the South Korea article. As Shogo Kawada said, this article needs more on Korean culture, literature, arts, language, religion, etc. Not really 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)