Talk:Korea under Japanese rule/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Koreans within Japanese military

I have recently expanded the section regarding "military conscription" to include some of the less notable legacies of the Korean soldier during the period of Japanese occupation. All facts presented in it are supported by reliable references of published works, memoirs, and Wikipedia articles (as opposed to the TaekwondoTutor used in reference #6). It is undeniable that many of the acts perpetuated by the Korean soldiers/guards within the Japanese Army were brutal and atrocious. I cannot understand why some people continuously try to delete them on the basis of "POV." The manner and tone in which the article presents these unfortunate events is no different from the rest of the article and the facts presented in them are also true. I question whether these people are deleting my article because they are uncomfortable with the cold truth rather than the baseless accusations of POV.

This article is not a dumpsite for Korean censor and anger. Please prevent people from making mass-deletions of my article. If you find error with it, please provide your counter-arguments with facts. If you don't like the manner in which I present it, edit it in a way that will preserve the content. Other than that, if you don't like the fact that Koreans horribly abused Allied POWs and Chinese civilians during WW2, deal with it, because it's already engraved in history. Koreans were not always the victims during the occupation: at many times, they were at the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech95 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit.

1. "Recruitment began as early as 1932, when the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria began accepting pro-Japanese Korean volunteers into its ranks to form the Gando Special Force."

Gando Special Force Recruitment began September 1938. It was not 1932.

Until 1938, ethnic Korean soldier who work for Japan was not exist.

According to Interview with Gando Special Force Member[1](in Korean),

Q: 박정희 전 대통령이 간도특설대에 있었나.

(was park worked in Gando special force?)

A: “아니다. 없었다. 그분을 처음 만난 것은 1944년쯤 베이징 부근에서다. 각각 팔로군 토벌작전 중이었다.”

(No. He was not there. I first met him at Beijing in 1944.)

Q : 간도특설대 창설 목적은 알았나.

(When you was a memeber of Gando Special Force, Did you know What Gando Speicial force work?)

A: 몰랐다. 한국 사람들로 이뤄진 군대라고 해서 갔다.”

(I didn't know.)

Q : 간도특설대에 죽 있었나.

(How much period you worked in gando Special Force?)

A : 1938년 이등병으로 들어갔다가 42년 봉천(지금의 선양) 육군훈련학교에 들어가 44년 졸업하고 소대장(소위)으로 진급했다.”

(I worked there for 1938~1944)

He was first generation memeber of Gando Special Force. This special force began as 1938. (not 1932)

Recruitment was NOT began as early as 1932. i point out, your edit is Wrong.

2. "The size of the unit grew considerably at an annual rate of 700 men, and included such notable Koreans as future President Park Chung-hee and General Paik Sun-yup. "

I already mentioned Park Chung-hee was not worked in Gando Special Force. even memeber of Gando Special Force and Park's family denied it. most researchers conclude that it was a groundless rumor.[2](in Korean)

3. "Gando Special Force had "earned a reputation for brutality and was reported to have laid waste to large areas which came under its rule."

Impossible. Gando special force was not a work for invading army. They did not invaded china or manchuria. : according to your falsed edit, This Quote is a possibly fake, too.

4. "Jowett further added that the Chinese in the area hated the Korean soldiers so much that anybody from this unit captured by both the Nationalists or Chinese Communists during the war were immediately executed. "

Again, Gando Special Force was not a invading army. There is no evidence that they work for invading army. source is still questionable and unclear.

5. "5,379 Japanese, 173 Taiwanese tried as class B and C war criminals for conventional crimes. 920 Japanese sentenced to death, 26 Taiwanese sentenced to death"

you don't delete this sentence. This source from 3rd party report(US). don't delete this sentence without reasonable explain.

6. "many of the commanders and guards in POW camps were Koreans - the Japanese apparently did not trust them as soldiers - and it is said that they were sometimes far more cruel than the Japanese"

serious POV pushing. bad faith feeling. source please? possibly fake.

According to SCAP Legal Files, RG 331, Most commanders and guards in POW camps were Japanese.

Here is the list of POW camps.[3] Most commanders and guards in POW camps were Japanese.

7. "During the Second World War, American soldiers frequently encountered Korean soldiers within the ranks of the Japanese army. Most notable is the the Battle of Tarawa, which was considered during that time the be one of the bloodiest battles in US military history. A fifth of the Japanese garrison during this battle consisted of Korean laborers who were trained in combat roles. Like their Japanese counterparts, they put up a ferocious defense and fought to the death.

serious POV pushing. bad faith feeling. source please?

Please, Don't Content forking. Pleas read Wikipedia:Content forking. Danceneveril (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your comments:

1. You're right, recruitment did begin in 1938 - that was a typo.

2. I'll accept that Park Chung-hee's affiliation with the GSF is disputed and will not include it in the article

3. Nobody ever said the GSF was "an invading force," it was pacification unit that fought communist guerillas, both Chinese and Korean, within the Jiandao region of Manchuria. Your argument doesn't make any sense,Jowett's presentation of facts is not impossible at all.

4. Same as number 3, GSF was a pacification unit that waged war against indigenous communist movement within Manchuria

5. I'll include your edits once you stop mass-deleting my edits

6. The source is not fake; go check the book out, I've provided the proper sources. And stop denying your country's shame. You are no different from the Holocaust deniers when you do that.

7. As I have already told you, the source is found within the wikipedia article on the Battle of Tarawa. If you are going to be so persistent in regards to denying that Koreans fought at Tarawa, I have included two sources that verify that they were present at Tarawa and did participate in the combat. Nobody disputes this fact and it is recorded fairly frequently in history books.

If you have any more questions or concerns, I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Items to do

A mess of an article that needs to be rewritten.

Material in here should be branched off to separate articles.

It's impossible to talk about a country invaded by a nation which practiced genocide, and then was liberated, and then was divided in under 1000 words. Imagine doing a 1000 word article on the USA between 1900 and 1950 - ??!!!!

Hey, it can be done, just look at the Roman Empire article. That entity existed for centuries, with its own highs and lows. Instead of complaining, why don't you just help out. --Humble Guy 00:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Moved article

I have moved the article because Japan did not only have one colony. However, is there a need for this article (on top of what is in the article Korea). Kokiri 20:50, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Seems quite a few articles link here. So I have brought over the material from History of Korea and added a link there. Kokiri 11:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unbelievable

This is unbelievable and utterly disputable - and of course no one answers his questions. I can only imagine how offended Poo-T feels as a Japanese person. The points he makes reveal blatant and deliberate twisting of the truth (or rather utter lies) in the article. This must be rewritten or removed ASAP.

This article needs to be revised in several ways- First of all, it glosses over many of Japan's atrocities in Korea. It also fails to mention Korean records in the Independence Movement section. It fails to describe the nature of the protests as well, since it makes no mention of whether the protests were peaceful or violent. In addition, I would like it if people like Poo-T kept out of this article. First of all, the tax rate for Koreans was far higher than that of the Japanese people, since it was somewhere around 65%: Poo-T claims that the tax rate was same for both Koreans and the Japanese (40%). Plus, he utterly lies about the fact that Japanese farmers suffered due to Korean agricultural imports, becuase it was actually the Koreans who went bankrupt due to cheap Japanese rice. He also says that the Japanese invested in Korea but kept getting a bad deficit. Duhhh! It's because of the high expenses of hiring officers and soldiers in order to control Koreans.

• I agree that this article could still do with some work, but, to be fair, it DOES explain that the Samil movement was nice and peaceful, it DOES explain that Japan attempted to eliminate Korea and absorb it into Japan, and it DOES explain that Korea was made more economically dependent on Japan. It is quite unacceptable to suggest that Poo-T should stay out of this article - there are more than two sides to any issue. It would be ideal if this article reflects all sides and perspectives of Japanese rule in Korea. There seems to be a number of Korean contributors who would like this article to be a diatribe against Japan, and an equally large number of contributors sympathetic to Japan who want this article to only show the positive aspects. Hopefully consensus can be reached. --Ce garcon 05:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • OK. I'll check my writings with you saying. Tax comparison would be not so easy within a little page. ( 60% seems average farm rent with Korean landowner, as far as I know ) So, now focus on agriculture. I hope you can read Hangul. See http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/46/46so_3002-1.html That text is discussing about the rice import/export between Korea and Japan. At least, Korean history textbook describes 'Rice was carried from Korea to Japan'. That means, 'Cheap Japanese rice caused bankruptcy in Korea' is impossible. Isn't it? The cost of officeres was 4% before 3.1 and Max 10% after 3.1 for the local government finance. Payment for soldier didn't belong to local government finance. It seems illogical to say, all red inks came from officers/soldiers. Taiwan, another land ruled by Japan struggled against Japan more than Korea. Both needed so much investment fot railway, electric power, water line, schools, and so on. But Taiwan climbed into the black within 10 years. One of the reason is, 'Taiwan had it's own money economy system, but Korea didn't(barter economy)'. So the modernization cost/time of Korea was more expensive. --Poo-T 6 Nov 2004

"I can only imagine how offended Poo-T feels as a Japanese person." What??? When I read the history for this page, it said that Poo-T was the one who started the "Unbelievable" section??

True, Korean rice was exported to Japan. Japanese forced Korean farmers to sell nearly all rice to Japan at ridiculously low prices. Then, when Korean farmers had no more rice, Japanese re-exported rice to Koreans at cruelly high prices. True, Japanese introduced Western technology to Korea, but they were solely for Japanese people in Korea, NEVER for Koreans. Not only did Koreans not have any kind of access to newly introduced technology, but also they lost previledges that they had previously had. Lastly, there were massacres on Koreans by Japanese people. Although Japanese wanted to keep it secret, Westerners in Korea, such as Americans and Dutches, witnessed massacres done to Koreans and reported to the western news papers. Did you know that almost million Korean women were sent to Japanese troops to be "amusements" for Japanese soldiers? Most historians in Asia, US, and Europe agree that Japanese did terrible things on Korean, Chinese, and other Asian women. Some of these women have survived and are still protesting in the streets to this very day.

• #1 This section was crearted by someone who want to take me(Poo-T) out from the page'. So the title is so emotional. #2 'sell nearly all rice to Japan at ridiculously low prices. Then, when Korean farmers had no more rice, Japanese re-exported rice to Koreans at cruelly high prices.' Reference please. 'export rice by ship and import to Korea again'? It sounds so foolish, funny.Who want to use so expensive way to establish a corner in the rice market? Why not buy and stock in Korea? #3 'NEVER for Koreans.'? I recommend you to learn more about Korean capitalists in that age. For Ex. Samsung. The founder of Samsung was a landowner, and got so much money by exporting rice to Japan. Of course, you can say he was Japanese, as his nationality was Japanese before 1948 :P) #4 'there were massacres on Koreans by Japanese people. Although Japanese wanted to keep it secret Westerners in Korea, such as Americans and Dutches, witnessed massacres done to Koreans and reported to the western news papers.' Then, there must be so many references about "the massacres". Could you show me the references? #5 Oh, I didn't know The number of prostitute was 1 million!! The numbers estimated I know are, 0.05-0.2 million, and 20% came from Korean peninsula/40% came from Japan islands. This is not the place to discuss about "comfort woman", but could you show a refernce you trust on? Poo-T 18:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Poo-T: Your comment is very emotional as well and mocking to the writer above. As to your #2 and #3, it is well known fact that, during the Japanese rule over Korea, the Japanese took advantage of the unorganized legal status of Korean lands and took away 40% of the land previously owned by Korean farmers. Also, it is true that Japan, which suffered from shortage of food, made Koreans sell much of their rice to Japan at a cheap price. 22% of rice produced by Korean farmers were exported to Japan at cheap prices, and this is a strikingly high number considering that Korean farmers at the time barely had enough to feed themselves. Throughout the period of Japanese rule, Korean farmers were gradually degraded into the status of landless laborers, as Japanese embarked on programs to take more Korean lands in disguise of 'enhancing the productivity of lands' one after another. Finally, why do you talk about Byung-Chul Lee, the founder of SamSung, here? He indeed started his rice business in 1938, 7 years before the end of the Japanese rule, but his business was never beyond local level (and not so rich) before he got into the business of trading, which is years after independence. It is from his autobiography. Furthermore, he was very different from typical Korean farmers, who not only did not have lands but also any money or foundation to start business. Your talk about him is totally irrelevent. For all the information I wrote here, this is the reference from well-established Korean encyclopedia: <http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=729158>. In addition, I have to ask you to reference your information as well. And please, write in respectful manner.

This page needs to be radically revised

This article is not written from a NPOV and should be changed.

Also, the title "Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)" is not appropriate, as a distinction needs to be made between the Japanese islands and the Korean peninsula which officially formed a single political entity, and Chinese/South-East Asian parts of the Japanese empire.

Given that Korea was not officially a colony of Japan and that the Japanese made an effort during their rule of Japan to end Korea's existence as a nation and to add it to Japan proper, is it appropriate to describe Korea as having been a colony? An appropriate analogy is the former United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland, in this case it would not have been appropriate to describe Ireland as a 'colony" of Englands', as, despite whatever policies that they implimented in Ireland which could be described as "colonial" in nature, they officially had the same st-----------------------------265001916915724 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="wpTextbox1"

---

I have moved the article because Japan did not only have one colony. However, is there a need for this article (on top of what is in the article Korea). Kokiri 20:50, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Seems quite a few articles link here. So I have brought over the material from History of Korea and added a link there. Kokiri 11:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I want to check the writings of the followings.

A declaration of independence was read in Seoul. It is estimated that 2 million people took part in these rallies. This peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the colonial rulers: an estimated 47,000 were arrested, 7,500 killed and 16,000 wounded.

With japanese records, it was peaceful at first, but it turned into violent uprising. The number written here is written in Koreann book,but in Japanese recods, 8437 were arrested and it was over occupancy load limit of prisons. 553 killed and 1409 wounded. Origin of Korean writing would be rely on the book written by Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. The book is evaluated "Rumors based history book to cheer Koreans" in Japan. At least, numbers from both country should be written.

Koreans were barred from engaging in similar activities. Many farmers were stripped of their land after failing or refusing to register their ownership with the colonial rulers. Joint ownership as it was common in Korea at the time was not recognized by Japan.

Before Japanese annexation, Ther was a landowner-tenant relations and 77% farmers had no ownership. Joint ownership was not the majority. But, there was not reliable land ownership records, and it's ground rent management was careless. Japanese documentation about land ownership clearly divided Korean into landowner-tenant relations, as a result. And even after the documentation, more than 99% of land-owner was Korean, not Japanese. This process didn't come from "failing/refusing to register".

The oppression of the people and the exploitation of Korea's resources continued, although using different methods. Japan's speedy development as a capitalist society was only possible at the expense of Korean people, although as a by-product of the colonization Korea was industrialized.

What's the meaning of "exploitation of Korea's resources" means? Tax rate was same as japanese, about 40% of income. There are records that korean company sold Korean Rice to Japan, and got so much money. Japanese government had to invest so much money, and got bad deficit every year. Japanese farmers tried to stop importing rice from Korea to keep rice price in Japan, but failed for free-trade (Without WTO decision :P) ). Especially, after 3.1, There was a close collaboration between Korean capitalist and Japanese goverbment. The Korean capitalists became Korean family-run conglomerates after WW2. Most poverty of farmers came from interest on a debt. See the interest. Korean Landowner loan interest at the point was over 30% per year. On the contrary, Japanese company (http://www.geocities.jp/nakanolib/hou/hm41-63.htm) interest was 6%(1935)-8%(1933). Most Korean rent money from Korean landowner. It suggests, "exploitation by Korean landowner". Then, could you tell me the meaning of "expense of Korean people"? Average expectation of life in Koreawas 26 years at the beginning of japanese annexation, but it increased up to 42 years at 1945. Population of Korean people increased about twice from 1910 to 1945. (wx. http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/online_data/korea/k0-2.htm sorry, written in Japanese and limited to 1915-1940). Does Increasing population /Increasing lifetime mean "expense of Korean people"?

After the outbreaks of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and World War II Japan attempted to wipe out Korea as a nation. Worship at Japanese Shinto shrines was made compulsory. The school curriculum was radically modified to reflect the changed policies. Korean people were given an opportunity to adopt Japanese names whilst the celebration of Korean culture was suppressed. Newspapers were prohibited from publishing in Korean and the study of Korean history was banned at university.

This is 1940 Happy New Year newspaper in Korea. Can you read Hangul with Kanji? http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932676.gif The newspaper company is http://english.chosun.com/ Could you show your source about "prohibition"? -Poo-T 21 May 2004

http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/73.htm. Korean language newspapers were banned in 1941, after your so-called counter-example. This source was taken from books written by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998, hardly a Korean nationalist site. -AJ 22 Oct 2004

In 1941, private newspaper ( Japanese or Korean ) was prohibitted in Korea for WW2. Only official newspaper was permitted, and it was still published with Hangul. You can find the "official newspaper", if you live in Korea. So, it depends on the definition of "newspaper". -Poo-T 6 Nov 2004 //15 Nov 2004

Suggestions from a neutral

I am not familiar with the matter, but I have ideas, that may be acceptable to all camps involved.

• First, move this article to Korean History from 1900-1950, or an article name that has the same effect, any article name will do as long at it refers to the history of Korea in the 1st half of the 20th century. Naming articles according to time, (and I really mean time literally) is a proven trusted method that is the safest way to NPOV an article title. (Comment by --Humble Guy 12:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC))
  • I'd have to take an exception to that. When I needed to find the information that's in this page, the first keywords I would use to search is "Japanese occupation of Korea". Or, something to that effect. "Korean history from 1900 - 1950" is just not helpful, nor is it accurate. If you think the article proper should contain information about Korean-Japanese relationship/interaction in the modern history, it goes into the late 19th century (I believe Koreans accuse the Japanese of assasinating Korean queen at the time). On the other hand, if you think the article should begin with the Japanese annexation of Korea with a nod from U.S., then it should begin somewhere around 1910. Also, the occupation ended in 1945, not 1950 (and then, of course there is the intervening 5 years before the devastiting Korean war, but that's probably for another article). It's just overly simplistic and it'd actually PREVENT someone from finding this page by not having correct keywords on the title. novakyu (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Second, for NPOV purposes in the content itself, reorganize the article into 3 major parts. The three will correspond to the history of the said period according to the Korean POV, the Japanese POV, and other POVs. History is rarely NPOV anyway, just look at the winners of wars for example, who write history according to the winner's POV. There are historical events that are not given much importance, even recognition, by either Japanese or Korean in each other's historical accounts. It is not for us to interpret and blur the lines. Japanese textbooks and Korean textbooks POVs are quite different on the matter. We cannot mix and match the accounts. Thus, integrating those two views will be nearly impossible for us. So reorganize it already, this is the best compromise for all, and for the NPOV. --Humble Guy 12:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. It's either that, or a highly fractured article that'll say "Koreans say ..., and the Japanese say ..." every other sentence. novakyu (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Article moved + few edits to start cleanup

As you can see, I already moved the article. The article title is NPOV for sure. Edited the first 2 paragraphs for a start, but the previous contributors should be the ones to lead the cleanup, but if you guys still need my help, just visit my talk page --Humble Guy 13:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Important POV raised

There have been several edits in the article done by an unknown user that I can not independently verify, and I am hesistant to revert. But my gut tells me the article is becoming more anti-Japan, which is contrary to NPOV. Will someone please independently verify the new contributions? And if the contributions are true, relevant and necessary to the article, can someone also fix the text to balance the POV so that it won't look too anti-japanese (but it should be fair to the korean side too)? Finally, this page is in cleanup, not a stub, so I suggest to fix the current text first, before adding and adding and addingmore text. talk page --Humble Guy 10:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, people who tend to make numerous anonymous edits like this rarely tend to check talk pages for the article they're editing, nor are they likely to cite independant, verifiable, or credible sources. (One of my faviorite edits of all time is by 'poofys', who made the 'Victims - pro-Japanese elements taken out for neutral POV' edit and then went on to accuse Japan of genocide in his next edit, all without crediting any source.) A good source for this period is the country study here [4], which is about as close to NPOV as anyone gets on this issue, the Federal Research Division being a fairly neutral source. Personally, I do not trust any (well, that's an exaggeratrion, I do trust some, just not the ones most often found on the Internet) studies done in Korea or Japan on the issue, as they tend to be done by scholars attempting to advance ultra-nationalist agendas. If you really want to try to NPOV the article, my best suggestion would be to look through the history of the article for the most pro-Japanese edit, compare with the current very anti-Japanese edit, and either merge or delete any contradicting statements. Of course, if you go the route of deletion, you'll probably end up with an article like: "The Korean Peninsula was ruled and/or occupied by Japan from its formal annexation in 1910 until the end of World War 2 in 1945." --Zonath 01:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, that is going to take a significant amount of time, but I'll try. Thanks. I might be done by monday hopefully --Humble Guy 09:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I better do some real research on this on my spare time, be back after quite some time. --Humble Guy 09:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I researched a bit. I am not in the position to fix this. How in the world will this thing be cleaned up? --Humble Guy 15:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Japanese "Cruelties" Practiced Against Koreans

This is not the place to describe your POV. Could you show your sources, annonymous coward? Poo-T 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I am not the one whom you are addressing, I will develop on this topic further from tomorrow. (Wikimachine 05:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

There, there you are. Take a gooood look. [5] --PRhyu 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)PRhyu

Took sentence out of "Tonghak rebellion" section

I don't know much about Korean history, but I do know a fair bit about China, and this bit of sentence that comes from the end of the first paragraph in the Tonghak rebellion section I think is very wrong.

", and Japan forced another treaty onto Korea: the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895). This treaty abolished class distinctions, liberated slaves, ended a Chinese-influenced civil service exam system, and reformed the system of taxation."

The Treaty of Shimonoseki was forced onto China, not Korea, and I don't think it did any of these things that are claimed above. It simply forced china to recognise korea, and gave up Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan. We really need an expert for this whole article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.163 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-28T05:59:29 (UTC)

Collaboration?

This article has been nominated as a possible Collaboration of the Month on WP:Korea. If you would like to see it improved, please cast your vote here.

guys check out http://www.occidentalism.org/ for a proper history

(if you want insipid drivel from a misguided soul) Trachys 18:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC))

Regarding the title, History of Korea (1900–1950)

The Korean peninsula was a part of Japan during this period and the history is as much of Japanese history as of Korean history. 222.3.71.178 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow the article to be cleaned

DO NOT REVERT changes that improve the quality of the entry. Leave the dipute tag up but ALLOW EDITORS TO CLEAN THE ARTICLE. Trachys 18:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Japanese war crimes in Korea

I'd like to propose that the subject of Japanese war crimes in Korea, to a degree, should be treated as fact, because you have quite a lot of corroborating evidence for it that can be cross-checked by still-living witnesses, both Korean and Japanese, that are coming clean with it. The primary example of it that pops up in the news from time to time is the example of the Korean sex-slave women (euphamistically referred to by the Japanese as "comfort women") who still want compensation from Japan over the matter, and there are also quite a few Japanese soldiers who have willingly gone on record in documentaries where they confess to horrible deeds that involved killing women and children for fun or because they were under orders by their superiors who wanted to have some fun. Individual names for these people escape my memory, but people in general who have seen these relatively recent documentaries can probably attest that such sources do exist. --Atrahasis 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

the Japanese war crimes in Korea?

Did Japan commit a war against Korea? Korea was just a part of Japan at that time.The conception of the Japanese war crimes in Korea itself is too far to be recognised.No relationship between "comfort women" and the Japanese authority has been proved.From what reason does Japan have a duty to compensate for them?They accompanied with the troops for business where the women's desire to earn money met the soldiers' last desire as male. If the relationship between the authority and the women is proved, following the Basic Treaty between Japan and Korea in 1965,the Japan's duty to compensate has already expired.And,Atrahasis,show the evidence quoting "quite a few Japanese soldiers who have willingly gone on record in documentaries where they confess to horrible deeds that involved killing women and children for fun or because they were under orders by their superiors who wanted to have some fun"!!! Show the name of the "record" ,who,when and where to be recorded!!!Do not escape borrowing the word the MEMORY !!! --Trilozengy 13:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at a picture there. the japanese soldier with the head. He's SMILING. repeat: SMILING. [6] --PRhyu 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)PRhyu

Just want to say, questioning the wording "Japanese war crimes in Korea" saying, "Korea was just a part of Japan" is mincing of words designed to mislead people. One, Korea wasn't part of Japan in the way California is part of U.S. Korea was part of Japan the same way Poland was "part of Germany" after annexation by Germany. Would you say Germans committed war crimes against the Poles? If yes, then the Japanese commited war crimes against the Koreans; it was even the VERY SAME WAR---World War II. Two, no, Japan did not declare or go formally to war with Korea (thanks to traitors in the Korean government), but the "war" that's being referred to here is the World War II. Otherwise, yes, just calling the article "Japanese atrocities in Korea" would suffice, since you don't need to be in a state of war to commit atrocities (although the motivation certainly should be less). novakyu (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Appleby's "summary"

The nature of the Japanese colonial rule is a legitimate topic of history and the discussion over this issue merits detailed reference on the article. Discarding (or "summarizing) it merely as "historical revisionism of Japanese imperialism" by "some proponents of Japanese nationalism" is an act of vandalism when even Korean history scholars at respectable institutions in South Korea also submit a thesis that sees the Japanese rule in a positive light. Hermeneus (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

according to Wikipedia:NPOV: "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

I don't think it'd be hard to show that apologists for the occupation are a very small minority among historians & scholars. for every one link already there for the "modernization" view, it'd be easy to add a dozen links to scholars who focus on the occupier's benefits at the expense of the occupied. as you can see, i, perhaps unnecessarily, deleted the analogy to the nazi holocaust deniers. Appleby 20:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You have provided no souces to substantiate your claim that those views are actually minorities. Even if they are, that they are minorities in South Korea does not follow that they are so in the rest of the world as well. In either way your summarization is biased and obviously false as those two Korean professors cannot possibly be the "proponents of Japanese nationalism" Hermeneus (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, "tiny minorities" don't get covered by major news media or presented at a major international conference of historians. That they are reported by major Korean news media is a sufficient counter evidence to substantiate that they are at the least "significant minority." Hermeneus (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is from the website of the East Asian Curiculum Project at Columbia University :

Despite the often oppressive and heavy-handed rule of the Japanese authorities, many recognizably modern aspects of Korean society emerged or grew considerably during the 35-year period of colonial rule. These included rapid urban growth, the expansion of commerce, and forms of mass culture such as radio and cinema, which became widespread for the first time. Industrial development also took place, partly encouraged by the Japanese colonial state, although primarily for the purposes of enriching Japan and fighting the wars in China and the Pacific rather than to benefit the Koreans themselves. Such uneven and distorted development left a mixed legacy for the peninsula after the colonial period ended. By the time of the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Korea was the second-most industrialized nation in Asia after Japan itself. [7]

Hermeneus (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

i would agree to replacing my wording with your quoted paragraph, attributed, without emphasis, in its entirety. that's a fair summary, instead of devoting more space to describing minority views than the majority. oh, don't forget the other paragraphs in that section:

Japanese colonial rule (1910-1945) was a deeply ambivalent experience for Koreans. On the one hand, Japanese colonialism was often quite harsh. For the first ten years Japan ruled directly through the military, and any Korean dissent was ruthlessly crushed. After a nationwide protest against Japanese colonialism that began on March 1, 1919, Japanese rule relaxed somewhat, allowing a limited degree of freedom of expression for Koreans.

But the wartime mobilization of 1937-45 had reintroduced harsh measures to Japanese colonial rule, as Koreans were forced to work in Japanese factories and were sent as soldiers to the front. Tens of thousands of young Korean women were drafted as “Comfort Women” - in effect, sexual slaves - for Japanese soldiers.

In 1939, Koreans were even pressured by the colonial authorities to change their names to Japanese names, and more than 80 percent of the Koreans complied with the name-change ordinance.

Appleby 21:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

or a rewording of the following from encarta:

Japanese domination of Korea formally began with the Protectorate Treaty (1905), forced on Korea after the Russo-Japanese War. Under this treaty, Japan assumed control of Korea’s foreign relations and ultimately its police and military, currency and banking, communications, and all other vital functions. These changes were tenaciously resisted by the Koreans. In 1910 Japan formally annexed Korea when it realized Korea would not accept nominal sovereignty with actual Japanese control. From 1910 to 1919 Japan solidified its rule by purging nationalists, gaining control of the land system, and enforcing rigid administrative changes. In 1919 these measures, along with the general demand for national self-determination following World War I (1914-1918), led to what is known as the March First Movement. Millions of Koreans took to the streets in nonviolent demonstrations for independence, but the movement was quickly suppressed. In the following years Japan tightened its control, suppressing other nationalist movements. As the Japanese imperialist government became more militaristic and eventually went to war in China and then the Pacific and Southeast Asia in the 1930s and 1940s, Japan imposed several measures designed to assimilate the Korean population, including outlawing Korean language and even Korean family names. Korea was liberated from the Japanese by the Allied victory that ended World War II in 1945.

note how much or little space is devoted to the "positives" of colonialization, in encarta or your link. i'm just saying the views presented need to be proportionate, as in other consensus reference works. the previous version disproportionately emphasized a minority view. Appleby 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless you could provide sources that are as much authoritative as the quoted Korean history professors and the Columbia University website to backup your claim, the old text should stay and your pov input has got to go. The old text only says that some, not all or not even the majority, scholars hold the "revisionist" view, and is fair enough a description. If you want to make it "proportional," then do so by introducing the opinions of some authoritative scholars that are pleasant to you and the Koren side, whatever they may be. 21:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't think a subject as widely studied as this needs to be cobbled together from individual professor's presentations. no doubt i could find hundreds or thousands of scholarly theses or presentations, & so could you. but encyclopedias are a much better source for the consensus view. encarta & even your link is a good summary of the period, & describes the "benefits" with appropriate emphasis. the previous version of the article does not comport with these authoritative npov sources. Appleby 21:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's just what you think and you cannot cite any authorities in the field of Asian history that support your claim. Hermeneus (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

hermeneus, did you notice that i quoted from your link to columbia univ & encarta, not my opinion? if the newly created subsection is not summarized proportionately, as in columbia university or encarta, the article will need added views of professors who wrote papers on the negative effects of the occupation, which will make the article extremely long & unreadable, but it won't be hard for me to do. i think that would be silly; it is more professional and encyclopedia-like to summarize the consensus view & briefly mention the minority view. Appleby 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So far you have provided no evidence to show (1) that what you call "revisionist view" is held only by a "tiny minority" of Japanese nationalists, not even "significant minority," and so its reference in the article should be deleted or substantially reduced in size, or that (2) the view that you prefer (whatever it may be) is supported by hundreds of thousands of scholars in the world. And yes, go ahead and cite those "papers on the negative effects of the occupation." It's only fair to present the views of both sides in the article. Hermeneus (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

you are insisting on listing 3 koreans who describe the modernization effects of colonization, not japanese nationalists' views. here's an easy way to find the views of the majority of korean professors: [8] & i'm saying the very link you provided & encarta show the main features of this occupation in proper proportion, they're fine by me. you're the one somehow arguing against the reputable publications, not me. actually, with some corrections & clarification that it is a minority view, the current version, with the controversy subsection, is fine. Appleby 22:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

renaming article

Since this article is about the history of korea, it seems to me that it should be titled consistently with other korean history articles, i.e., name of the era or period, not by years. i see from above that one person changed the title, without any discussion.

i presume that this article is a part of korean history because that's in the current title, & because this is in the korean history template, & not in the japanese history template. (i just noticed that this period in the japanese history template is linked to Japanese nationalism.)

so we should discuss what scholars of korean history call this era, which is something like "korea under japanese occupation." it's silly to cut off this period at round number of years, when those years are not the historical transition periods used by historians, & the article content right now is not bound by those round numbered years. the logical beginning of this article should be around the unequal treaty of 1876 (or protectorate treaty 1905 or annexation 1910), & the end is 1945. Appleby 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Korea Old and New: A History by Eckert/Lee, treats the period over several chapters, beginning with "first phase of japanese rule"
• encyclopedia britannica calls it "korea under japanese rule"
• encarta calls it "japanese rule" or "japanese occupation"
• columbia encyclopedia (encyclopedia.com/infoplease.com) calls it "japanese rule"
• library of congress country study of korea calls it "Korea Under Japanese Rule"

from the above, my suggestion would be "Korea under Japanese Rule" Appleby 01:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

since there hasn't been a response, i'll rfc. Appleby 15:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Korea Under Japanese Rule" would probably be the most accurate title to give it, IMHO. --Martin Osterman 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, make it Korea under Japanese rule. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Appleby I suggest you remove the tags. Nicely done.Trachys 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Here here, I warmly support the namechange Lampros 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason why Korea use this name is in order to imply Japan-Korea Annexation was illegal. The word "Annexation" implys legal because this name is based on Japan-Korea annexation treaty. However, Korean cannot call this period as "Colonial era" because once Korean says it was colonization, it signify that Korea was non-nation state, according to international law.

Today, the discussion between Korea and Japan from the international law perspective have not been finished yet. Thus in order to avoid confusion we should rename this article as "Japan-Korea Annexation" which widely used. No one call Korea under Japanese rule in English except here.

If no one claims, I may change the name.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moonlitcherryblossom (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 December 2006.

The first sentence of the page would seem to avoid any confusion: Korea under Japanese rule was the period of Japan's de facto administrative control of Korea from 1910 to 1945. I suggest you leave the page as it has been named for over a year, especially as a consensus had been reached. Oncamera 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? Consensus in Korea? Why English speaker have to care about Korean consensus??

English is world wide language and must based on world wide consensus. Wikipedia is not the place to express Korean propaganda. English page MUST represent English consensus. Again, I said this issue is still in the international academic comittee. Scholars are still seeking out it is legal or illegal. And the scholar's use the word "Annexation" in comittee. I don't know how Korean calls this article in Korean, but I know English. It's OK to use that name in Korean page but here is English page. Please do NOT force to use Korean meaning name rather than known name in English. Do you think we should use the name which we are not using except here? What you are trying to do is spread this name as propaganda throughout Wikipedia.WP:SOAP Moonlitcherryblossom 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus reached was that among the editors who worked on this article; as you can see by what Appleby wrote, the library of congress calls it "Korea Under Japanese Rule" and the Encyclopedia Britannica follows the same naming suggestion. None of the editors of this article have the intention of forcing a non-neutral point-of-view on anyone. Oncamera 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Which counry's library of congress used that word? Whatever library of congress calls, whatever the Encyclopedia Britannica says, it is not primary source and not well-known word in English. The Encyclopedia Britannica supply secondary source.

I said the international academic committee still seeking out it was legal or not. Thus in the international academic field, scholars calls this issue "Annexation". Korean famous history scholar Yi Tae-jin also join this committee. Have you ever seen primary historical source for Japan-Korea annexation. Japan-Korea annexation treaty have not been defined illegal. If Korean couldn't reach it was illegal, we, English speaker, still have to use the word "Annexation". Whatever Korean define the word in Korea, whatever new word Korean invents, English speaker doesn't care. It's not ENGLISH and global wide use. Moonlitcherryblossom 15:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States Library of Congress refers to the time period as that. An English speaker would not be confused as the article currently stands, and if someone wanted to know about the "Japan-Korea Annexation" treaties, those already have their separate wikipedia articles. This article does explain the Annexation if you actually read it; Annexation of Korea and not just argued a POV name change.Oncamera 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you don't understand what I said.
Again, the name "Korea under Japanese rule" is not famous in English.
"Korea under Japanese rule" implys Korean propaganda.
Really few people especially Korean use this expression.
And this word just appears recently.
You know the Wikipedia policy toward priority of sources: Primary source then secondary source.
Throughout the historical sources the "Annexation" was used a lot.
There is no sense using "Korea under Japanese rule" in Wikipedia.

I said propaganda because "Korea under Japanese rule" implys Japan-Korea Annexation treaty was illegal and should not call it was "Annexation".
This is exactly Korean say.
However, in the international academic field, the answer was different from Korea.

On 2001 in Boston, leading scholars in History and International law came together from Korea, United States, Japan and England side and joined international academic commitee named "Japanese Annexation of Korea": Reconsiderarion from Historical and International Law Perspective.
This committee was mostly financed by Korean side and the purpose of Korean side is to prove "Japan-Korea annexation" was illegal.
However, Korean claim was repelled by England and Japan in international academic field.
Korea could not agree with it and suggest to continue committee.
Today, Japan-Korea annexation have not defined as illegal.
Naturally, English speakers use "Annexation" the most.

This committee uses the name "Annexation of Korea" as well.
Korean scholars also use it.　
Here is Korean language version "韓國併合 ".
This is not hangeul but Korean language used in committee name.
Again, this is Korean language.
Japanese is this "韓国併合".

As I stated, one of the most famous Korean history professor "Yi Tae-jin(李泰鎭)" join this committee thus if you have any questions and want to learn more about commitee, I suggest to ask him.
Here are examples he uses the word "Annexation":[9]

For anyone wanting to do serious research over those terms ("韓国併合"), I'd like to clarify the language is CHINESE, not Korean or Japanese. Yes, the Chinese had enormous influence over Korean culture (and by proxy, over Japanese), and that's why Koreans and Japanese use them, but properly speaking, it's Chinese. To this date, the Japanese simply use the Chinese writing, but nowadays Koreans would write that is "한국병합" (but in actuallity, no one does, because it's not a Korean sentence, it's a Chinese sentence, and Koreans use Chinese mostly in noun and adjective form), and as a noun, to match the correct ordering, you'd actually have to write that as "韓国合併", and Koreans would write it as "한국합병" (using rules of Chinese grammar, presumably). novakyu (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (Original comment by Moonlitcherryblossom continues below)

I incidentally say I've never heard the name defined by the United States Library of Congress is global standard in academic field and standard of Wikipedia's name.

If no objection, I will change. Moonlitcherryblossom 04:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. You said I said propaganda because "Korea under Japanese rule" implys Japan-Korea Annexation treaty was illegal and should not call it was "Annexation". When the wikipedia entry, Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty says the legality of the Treaty is disputed, and its legitimacy has been rejected in Korea ever since, and later by the Allied forces that occupied Japan at the end of World War II. Thus, you cannot say that the Annexation was a legal agreement without seeming Pro-Japanese. Furthermore, you may read this article which doubts the legality of the treaty. The title "Korea Under Japanese Rule" doesn't seem to be favoring the Korean side of this historic period; the very first sentence of this article mentions the annexation and there is not a reason to be redundant. See: Wikipedia: Controversial names Oncamera 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Shimonoseki

The article still states "China and Japan soon went to war in the First Sino-Japanese War, which Japan won, and Japan forced another treaty onto Korea: the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895)."

The Treaty of Shimonoseki was between China and Japan. Its relation to Korea is that in it, China recognizes Korea as an independent state. Korea was previously viewed as a vassal state of China, by the Chinese govt.

Here's the actual treaty: http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/1895shimonoseki-treaty.htm

The "treaty" previously quoted in the tonghak rebellion comment ("This treaty abolished class distinctions, liberated slaves, ended a Chinese-influenced civil service exam system, and reformed the system of taxation.") is actually the "kabo reforms" (gabo? what romanization system are we using?) initiated in 1894 by elements of the pro-japan "collaborator" faction. Umetaro 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Description on "Comfort Women " should be deleted

The relationship between the "Comfort Women " and the Japanese authority has been unproved. Show the evidence of the authority's involvemnet. Wikipedia is not a tool for the Koreans' propaganda. Trilozengy

Explain how it hasn't been unproved when the Japanese soldiers were provided these. There's even an article about it: Comfort Women.

"The comfort women, which is a translation of the Japanese euphemism, jugun ianfu, (military comfort women), categorically refers to women of various ethnic and national backgrounds and social circumstances who became sexual laborers for the Japanese troops before and during the Second World War. Countless women had to labor as comfort women in the military brothels found throughout the vast Asia Pacific region occupied by the Japanese forces. There is no way to determine precisely how many women were forced to serve as comfort women. The estimate ranges between 80,000 and 200,000, about 80 % of whom, it is believed, were Korean. Japanese women and women of other occupied territories (such as Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Burma and the Pacific islands) were also used as comfort women.

The Japanese rationale for the comfort system was to enhance the morale of the military by providing amenities for recreational sex. The authorities believed such amenities would help prevent soldiers from committing random sexual violence toward women of occupied territories, which became a real concern after the infamous Nanjing Massacre in 1937 6. Besides its reputation, the military authorities were also concerned with the health of the troops, which prompted their close supervision of the hygienic conditions in the comfort stations in order to help keep sexually transmitted diseases under control."

And here's a Japanese professor who made the Japanese government admit the truth.

"The documents Yoshimi Yoshiaki, (photo left) a history professor, retrieved at the Library of the National Institute for Defence and his writing about them in the January 11, 1992 issue of the Asahi Shimbun, a major daily newspaper, forced the Japanese government to admit the involvement of the state in the operation of comfort stations. Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi expressed his regret and apologies during his state visit to South Korea in January 1992. While still ruling out any compensation for the comfort women, the prime minister indicated that some measure 'in lieu of compensation' would be considered after receiving the report of fact finding committees being set up in South Korea and Japan, respectively. A woman freelance journalist in Japan criticized that Miyazawa's apologies were ill-conceived because the comfort system was a necessary evil to be adopted in war zones to avoid harm to local women. She further questioned the political and economic motivation of the sudden prominence of the issue.

Yoshimi Yoshiaki also admited, in the TV show, that he lied and the book was not based on the facts. Also Yomiuri Shinbun and Sankei Shinbun reports that Asahi Shinbun 's report was not based on the facts.

The Japanese report, Results of Investigation into the Question of 'Military Comfort Women' Originating from the Korean Peninsula, which was published on July 6, 1992, was based on 127 documents, including those first found by Professor Yoshimi. These documents came mostly from the Self-Defence Agency and the Foreign Ministry, and those from the Foreign Ministry demonstrated much wider official involvement in the comfort system than could be attributed to the arbitrary initiative of the Armed Forces alone. The fact that there were no relevant documents released from the Police Agency or the Labor Ministry, the two agencies most implicated in the forced recruitment of women, was a source of much criticism on the shortcomings of the scope of the investigations. The Justice Ministry was not even included in the investigation even though it was known to have the full records of all war crimes trials, including the Dutch cases.

The South Korean government's report, Interim Report of the Fact-Finding Investigation on Military Comfort Women under Japanese Imperialism, was published on July 31, 1992. It consisted of a survey of the reports by the Japanese government and the United States Army, respectively, and a summary of representative testimonies given by the survivors who registered at the Victim Report Centers set up in two cities. The report also included criticism of the Japanese report for lacking comprehensive coverage as to the establishment and management of the comfort stations.

The North Korean report, An Indictment: The Japanese Government Must Fully Establish the Truth on the 'Military Comfort Women' Question and Sincerely Apologize, was issued on September 1, 1992. It included life stories of North Korean survivors and attacked the Japanese government report for claiming to have no evidence of recruitment by coercion. North Korea, which had become involved in the comfort women issue from the time of Miyazawa's visit to South Korea in January 1992, supports for North Korean survivors to be compensated by Japan on the same principle as had applied to the atomic bomb victims.

The Korean Council conveyed its reaction to the Japanese report in an open letter to Prime Minister Miyazawa in October 1992. The letter described the report as a mere enumeration of data and expressed a strong opposition to the establishment of a relief fund for former comfort women being considered by the Japanese government It urged Japan to first clear up the comfort women issue and wartime and post-war responsibility before seeking to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. (Photo left shows the anthropologist with Lee Hyo-Chae, a co-representative on the Korean Council.)"

And, Trilozengy, here's the quote that you've been desiring so much with love. "Kisses"

"The Japanese government admitted deception, coercion and official involvement in the recruitment of comfort women in a supplementary report issued in August 1993."

The Japanese government also admitted the Korean goverment forced the Japanese goverment to do so without verifing the fact. Read the news.

Happy now? (Wikimachine 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Professor Yoshimi? Asahi Shimbun? The Kohno talk in 1993? They are shamely "good puppies" of Koreans. Even just a cartoon writer has already succeeded to destroy the deception of Professor Yoshimi and Asahi Shimbun.And the current Cabinet of Japan was trying to deny the Kohno Talk.....--Trilozengy 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I love how anybody who supports the Korean viewpoint on this issue is insulted. Clearly, the concept of ad hominem has not caught on in Japan. To be fair, though, you see this crap at racist blogs like Occidentalism, too.--67.160.33.8 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Although most will probably consider me an inexperienced newcomer to editing Wikipedia, I pretty much understand the gist and motivation behind all the Japanese distortion of articles concerning Korea, and although this may sound overtly personal, I think all of the content added by Japanese editors parading around as so-called honest Chinese and Koreans is based on a single, common motivation: to degrade Korea in retaliation for continuing criticism concerning revisionism that is currently high-time in Japanese academic circles. There's also a recent trend in Japanese editing to Korea-related articles to adhere to double-standard political correctness while leaving faults in Japanese counterparts alone. A prominent example of political correctness is the title of this article; not only does it single out this particular article to use a euphemistic term, it also ignores the naming standard set by articles concerning the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. I don't know how to proceed with poll, but it is to my understanding that the notice of a poll should be given five days' time before proceeding on to a vote. I believe a page move like this requires 60% of the popular vote. This time, I hope we can have a fair vote, instead of another charade of imposters from 2channel, as it was with Dokdo.--Jh.daniell 11:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

• If renamed, lowercase "Occupation" (i.e. Japanese occupation of Korea). David Kernow 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Although I think "occupation" is the more common term (really, the keywords I would use for a Google search is "japanese occupation of korea"), to some degree it's what you want to emphasize. i.e. Is this more part of Korean history, or is it a part of Japanese history? If we agree this article is more about Korean history (i.e. what happened on Korean penninsula and people living on that penninsulla), then while I wouldn't be opposed to chapter titled "Japanese occupation of Korea" in a book dealing mostly with Korean history, for an article standing by itself, "Korea under Japanese rule" seems far preferrable for two reasons: (1) It begins with "Korea", not "Japan", so if there were any alphabetical index, it'd be correctly grouped. (2) It makes clear it's part of Korean history, not Japanese (although the two are definitely intertwined). If there's a vote, my vote is AGAINST a change from "Korea under Japanese rule". novakyu (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deadly crimes by the Japanese.

Yes you people are right of course, farmers were stripped of their lands and women were recruited for the japanese men's desires. But also the Koreans held church meetings while Japanese guards guarding them to make sure they weren't creating a rebellion. When the pastor kept talking about Goliath and David in the Bible, the Japanese thought Goliath was them and David the koreans (you know how the story in the bible ends right?) So the Japanese starts to take pastors,students,and teachers.Schools were closed down because of this. Then they began the torturing which consisted of sharp bamboos going under their fingernails into the soft skin beneath,hanging them upside down until they fainted,and also whipping.There were 72 other ways. They did this to get a "confession" out of them. Soon women were carted off to be later be comfort women for the Japanese. Then students went on strike, people escaped to mountains and formed guerilla warfare and made a hit-and-run starategy on the Japanese. However a major earthquake happened in Japan which killed many of their population. In Korea,japanese officials blamed the koreans for the earthquake AN EARTHQUAKE! That was stupid and meaningless to blame something to a whole nation for something they didn't and couldn't have done.35 years of this.At the end of World War II U.S. liberated Korea and saved China. Sent Japanese people back to Japan.-KoreanHistorist

korean historist (historian?). i agree with you that the japanese committed many atrocities not just in korea but also in other parts of asia. just to clarify one thing, the japanese didnt blame the koreans for the earthquake. they blamed the korean and the other foreigners including westerners for the fire,not for the earthquake. nonetheless, they blamed the foreigners for something that was caused naturally. if you're going to say something, please at least get your facts straight. thanks. --Sesloan 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

219.186.90.8

Is it possible to block user 219.186.90.8? The changes he made to the article are clear vandalism, and were groundless, unreferenced assertions. Thanks Zonath for the revert. Shogo Kawada 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I anchored administrative control to Annexation

Although the article abstract does mention Annexation (in "Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty"), and although the article body does have sections like "On road to annexation" and "Annexation of Korea", I thought the sentence

"Korea under Japanese rule refers to the period of Japan's administrative control of the Korean peninsula"

does not clarify what administrative control was, so I anchored administrative control to Annexation. --Negrulio 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan under American Rule

It's odd that Japan under American rule is called occupied Japan but in this article Korea under Japanese rule, the wording Japanese rule is constantly mentioned and put in bold as if the people who are putting this comment in bold have some sort of complex. If some one writes occupied Korea or Korean occupation it is instantly reverted, even if the sentence structure makes the paragraph worded with Korea under Japanese rule sound odd or may be even grammatically incorrect. Please stop bolding this sentence and if these individuals have issues with this lets stay consistent on wikipedia and Change Occupied Japan to Japan under American rule --Tyler 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the move because it's against previous consensus. Please follow Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to change a long-established title. --Kusunose 12:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Korea was not nominally occupied by Japan; it was an administrative part of Japan, unlike occupied Japan, which was never nominally part of the United States, it's apples and oranges. "Korean occupation" is POV because Tokyo did not consider Japanese rule of Korea to be an occupation, however, "Occupied Japan" is not POV since the Americans did not deny the fact that they were an occupying power. --Ce garcon 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the whole deal is POV because nobody has any right to consider anything. The most ridiculous recent example was about the Vietnam War. Because the U.S. Congress didn't declare war on Vietnam, it's not supposed to be a real war but just a conflict or something. So... does US get to decide whether a conflict is war or not? See how you are playing the same game? (Wikimachine 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Added 'Forced Name Change' section

I added the Changshi-gaemyong ("forced name change" section after user User:Kusunose deleted it (citing 'redundancy').

I think it's very rude of you to simply delete entire paragraphs of an article, even though i provided appropriate sources and without discussing it first.Mkhkoh 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that the article is generally a mess. I'll try to find some sources and clean it up... eventually. :PMkhkoh 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got a wrong title. I expained below.

I too agree that this article should be changed accordingly. See main article "Sōshi-kaimei" for how those "name changes" were done. "whereby all Koreans had to surrender their Korean family name and adopt Japanese surnames" is simply wrong. More strictly speaking, there was no "family name" in Korea. There were only clan names. And lower class citizens and women did not have them. "Soshi" was to let all the Koreans get family names. But Koreans males could simply use their clan names as their family names. Lower class citizens and women, who did not have clan names, could either create new family names or simply use husbands' clan names. So there was no "forced change". "Kaimei" was totally voluntary.Red Balor 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't trust the sources

We can not trust sources from South(and North) Korea. Why? You'll see if you read a histry book published in Korea. I've read a histry book used in Korean school.

Korean history books claim:

1. Korea has a 5000 yeas of history (longer than the history of China! wow).

   Counterpoint: That's an oversimplification. Korea claims descent from an ancient civilization (named "Old Chosun" (고조선), for which ostensibly Chosun was named) which co-existed with early Chinese civilizations. This civilization occupied the same part of Asia as Korea does now and was distinguished from the Chinese (presumably by language). Of course, quite a few things (like exact dating) are sketchy when you go back that far ... but surely you don't expect an elementary school history book to go into details of scientific method, do you?

2. Hangul has been used for centuries but, it's been banned by Japanese government. (Not true. The use of Hangul was banned by Korean King. Yangban strongly opposed the use of Hangul. Hanja had been officially used in Korea. Hangul became popular after 1910.)

   Counterpoint: no, the King did not ban it---in fact, the King Se-jong(세종대왕) is credited for creating Hangul (or, more accurately, funding the scholars who did). Now, the writing system did not catch-on with the learned segment of the population, allegedly because it was too easy to learn, but the commoners used it. In fact, it was dubbed "Commoner's Writing" (언문). It's quite comparable to how the English aristocrats used to speak in Lingua Franca. That just made English unfashionable, not banned. Common people still used them. On the other hand, the Japanese did ban its use during the later part of occupation while they were struggling in WWII.

3. Japan took away everything Korea had. (Not true. Japanese goverment built 5000 schools throughout Korea and taught Hangul. Japanese built rail roads, factories, hospitals, and a dam etc. Japan introduced modern medicine. The Korean population tripled in 36 years. etc etc)

   As far as infrastructure goes, how much of that survived Korean War? Don't tell me it's the Koreans' fault---the North-South division came about because of the disagreements between two generals who were part of Korean resistance. One could make credible argument that had Japan not annexed Korea, Korea would still be one country, much the same way I can argue had I not eaten that apple, the apple would still be in one piece. On the other hand, the Japanese took significant natural resources (like steel and coal) during the occupation. Can the Koreans take them back? Could the Koreans have used it after Korean War (or whatever followed in the aftermath of WWII)?

   I would be a fool to say that this is a clear cut case, one way or the other, seeing how controversial it is, but I'm saying that after accounting for positives and negatives of Japanese occupation, a good case can be argued that Koreans would have been better off in the latter half of 20th century if the Japanese occupation during the first half of 20th century didn't happn.

4. Korea had been independent until 1910. (Not true. She gained independence after Treaty_of_Shimonoseki and built Independence_Gate)

   Er, the Chinese considered Korea a vassal. That means, ... well, I'm not sure what it means. The closest modern equivalent I can think of is how U.S. considers the rest of the world---Mexico, Canada, Europe, etc. I mean, China was THE EMPIRE in the East. Everybody kowtowed to them. China could tell other countries what to do, much the way U.S. can tell other countries what to do because of their sheer power. In that sense, no, Korea wasn't independent. But would you also say that Canada and Mexico are not independent because they are so heavily influenced by U.S. government and U.S. corporations?

   However, Korea was SOVEREIGN until 1910 (well, or until late 19th century). In the sense that there weren't Chinese or Japanese police walking down the street, telling Koreans what to do. If a Korean commited crime, he was investigated, caught, and judged by another Korean. A Chinese official (or an official of any other nationality) couldn't go around in Korea arresting people without help from the Korean government. All of that changed with Japanese occupation of Korea. There were Japanese police in the streets arresting Koreans (sometimes with good cause, sometimes not). This is what most (Koreans) mean when they say "Korea was independent" until then.

5. Korea declared a war against Japan and Korean army faught against Japan and won the independence from Japan with some help of the atomic bombs. (Not true. There are no recod of any Korean army.. except a few soldiers who worked as an translator with US army)

   By that standard, France didn't really partake in the victory of WWII either. After all, after Nazi Germany had its way, there was no France any more. No France, no French army. Would you say that is a correct characterization of the Resistance in Europe during WWII? If you (or anyone else) say that is correct, well, then. You are right (at least we are judging Korea by the same standards we use on other nations). On the other hand, if you don't say that France had absolutely no role in the Allied victory against Axis (of which Japan was a part), then you should also recognize that there was a "provisional Korean government" based in Sanghai (I know, it's a bit ridiculous to have the "government" in a foreign country, but when Korea did gain independence, the "ruling class" was composed of members of that body). And there was significant military resistance movement mostly in the north, with bases in China. I do agree with your assessment that Korean resistance may have had minimal role---U.S. was going to win WWII, and when U.S. wins, there is no way it would allow Japan to keep its "colonies" acquired during or just before the war. But I do dispute your implication that Koreans were acquiescing the Japanese occupation. There was a military resistance. There was a peaceful civil resistance. There were popular writers who spoke against the occupation. There were publications that were shut down because it voiced opinions critical of the occupation.

   P.S. Oh, and you are right---Korea didn't declare war, but that is a mere technicality. Korea wasn't technically a sovereign nation under the international laws, so declaration of war is meaningless. If the formal declaration is what we are going by, I could make a good argument that Japan never declared war on U.S. either. Japan just sent troops and planes in the general direction of U.S. (starting with sneak bombing of Pearl Harbor). novakyu (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

and list goes on and on...

Now, Korean people insists all the history taught in the US, China, Japan, and Russia are all wrong. [쿠키뉴스 2006-08-08 18:07] (Korean news article) http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=143&article_id=0000035259

Do you still trust Korean sources?

The important thing is that if you are to write Korean history, you have to be able to read and understand Hanja, old mixed form of Hangul-Hanja, and Japanese. Hanja was the official language before Korea gain independence from Sino. Japanese was also used because Korea at the time was Japan after all. Finally, Hangul-Hanja was used until 1970's in Korea.

Today, most korean(except really old persons) cannot read any publications before 1945 and cannot verify the first hand sources.

And finally, the Korean goverment is now teaching students to hate Japanese. http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=294782&rel_no=1

http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1550

Now, do you still trust Korean sources?

Yes. I don't trust Japanese sources. (Wikimachine 17:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

As an outsider in this discussion, I think that there is too much bias on here. I'm not concentrating on you Wikimachine, but you seem to have made one of the worst statements an editor can make. If you are going to admit your bias, you should really pull yourself off of this article.

You trust Korean sources written during the dictatorial period after the war, but you don't trust Japanese sources written under pure democracy? Yes there were (not so much now) professors who were threatened in Japan with losing their jobs if they didn't follow popular consensus. But this happens in Korea right now, constantly, and in a much more blatant way with the induction of the internet into Korean society. How can you trust Korean sources, when those professors operate under the same restrictions that the Japanese ones did (and maybe still do, but there is no evidence of that now of which I am aware.)

Er, "dictatorship" vs. "democracy" is really an insidious variant of ad hominem attack. The dictatorship under President Park was (and still is) considered one of the best period of Korean history (the "Miracle of Han River" happened during this time). In fact, I'd go as far as to say that's the best kind of government to have ... for a country recovering from a devastating civil war (practically no economic infrastructure left) and loss of sovereignty for decades (no concept of "self-rule" left in people). As one TIME magazine essay describes, it's the kind of dictatorship that encourages the rise of middle class through economic prosperity that would eventually form the democracy that can supplant the dictatorship. On the other hand, wasn't the Japanese "democracy" forced on them by Americans?

Anyways. Having said that, I'd say there is no source with valid claims to objectivity. Korean or Japanese sources obviously can't claim that with any hint of conscience, and I don't think even Western sources (what little there is) can be trusted---after all, where do you think they got their information? For a matter as controversial as this (unlike the culpability and crimes of Nazi Germany, which was an ally of Japan), no one can be considered completely objective and "complete objectivity" is really a bar set too high. I'd say a source can be cited if it's a reputable publication (like a well-established journal or newspaper), regardless of its origin (Korean or Japan). This may be a bar that's too low, but isn't this the spirit of democracy? Not everyone really deserves a vote, but everyone is given one anyway, hoping that the truth will out itself, in the absence of deliberate coverup or suppression. novakyu (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (original comment continues)

Honestly, this article shouldn't have these problems. There are enough non-Korean/non-Japanese data out there that every statement in this article can be backed up with numbers. I'm not arguing the truth of what has been written here, I'm just saying that it looks like a piece written by a high-school kid who just learned about Japanese Imperialism rather than an encyclopaedic entry.

It looks like a Takeshima/Dokdo argument, and almost every assertion in the article has a POV element in it. Takeshima/Dokdo should have that argument, because no one has a bloody clue who owns it. The occupation of Korea by Japan should not.

Someone above (names started with H?) said a couple of years ago that this article needs rewriting. If what we have now is the finished version, I'm surprised.

Please use neutral words. Please use neutral statements when referring to data that is questioned by unbiased sources. Please do not use data found on the net. This entire article should be rewritten with zero POV, as a calculated look at the Korean occupied period. The various POV groups can make their own damned articles entitled, "Korean viewpoint on the illegal and harsh subjectification of the evil Japanese overlords towards the chaste and peaceloving Korean people" and the "Japanese viewpoint on the administration of the backwards, morally corupt Imperial Korean Province of Japan"

That's all I ask. This article is a joke as it stands.

Bakarocket 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, this page is an attempt of a prosecution of Japan without giving her a lawyer.

Wikimachine trusts Korean sources: here is a source. Korean source(Newspaper) says Korean history education has been all biased and wrong. http://www.chosun.com/culture/news/200611/200611050025.html Anybody who says something like this are attacked(sometimes physically) in Korea.　The chairman of the paper was attacked. A writer 김완섭(金完燮) was arrested and almost got killed.　A Professor Yi (李栄薫) at Seoul National University was threaden to be dismissed and forced to applogize in public. etc etc etc

I can read Korean, but not newspapers that have complicated words in them, so I don't know what that article says. There are bad things about Japanese policy on this issue, such as expelling teachers for not agreeing to teach from Japanese point of view. You can say all you want, but it's not going to be productive. (Wikimachine 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

On the other hand, I can read Korean at almost any level except poetry (my best childhood friend was Korean and I studied abroad there while in high school). And the article says nothing like what is claimed above. The newspaper is citing numerous cases of alleged false reporting in 1910, such as conditions of Korean farmers, and accusation of over-forrestation by farmers. BTW, the article itself is about taking down of Japanese addition to a historical portion of old city wall (well, more like the couple meters of wall containing Southern Gate), and that's why the article is mentioning the alleged Japanese distortion of facts in 1910.

As for people getting attacked for writing controversial pieces ... well, I suppose that happens. Does that mean all Koreans are liars and cheats? Or rather, a fairer question is: in U.S. some radical pro-life groups would bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors practicing abortion. Does that mean all Christians (as a vast majority of pro-life people are Christian) violent terrorists? novakyu (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, who is writing the article? You can't... you should not judge or write korean histry articles if you cannot read all Hanja, Hangul, and Japanese 'cause you can't verify first hand evidences. I can tell most information are not fully true because I DID do some research.

Well dear sir, if you could please start signing your posts, then we could maybe start taking you seriously. Just put ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your rants. Peace, Himasaram 05:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Hangul wasn't banned by a Korean King. It was banned by the Japanese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.92.98 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Ok then. So what sources would you trust? Explain why and give examples. --DandanxD 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Modernization of Korea under Japanese rule -- Education (Hangul)

It was under Japanese rule when Hangul became popular and was standardized in Korea.

Yes it was "popularised" under Japanese rule but this was because of Japanese oppression. You could say that this was one part of the independance movement. --DandanxD 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Title 'Forced Name Change'

Name Change(Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names "創氏改名") was voluntarly. I already explained in Talk:History_of_Korea.

The article states : "On 1939 Imperial Decree 19 (조선민사령 "帝令19朝鮮民事令")[10] went into effect, whereby all Koreans had to surrender their Korean last names(姓名制) and adopt Japanese family names(氏名制) "

Did you really read 조선민사령 "帝令19朝鮮民事令"?????? There is a picture of the flyer(with Hangul and Japanese) saying "Aug, 10th is the last CHANCE you can register names! If you want here is the procedure" .. etc. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/tokurei.JPG For more info: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/seminarmizuno.htm

There were even volunteer Japanese soldiers who kept Korean name and even became a major and lieutenant general, such as 金錫源 and 洪思翊.

How do you explain that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs) 2006-11-11T01:22:25 (UTC)

Background

Hangul was promulgated by the fourth king of the Joseon Dynasty, Sejong the Great. He published in 1446 in a document titled Hunmin Jeongeum.

However, at that time, only male members of the aristocracy (yangban) learned to read and write, and most Koreans were effectively illiterate. (yangban) Hangul faced heavy opposition by (yangban), who believed hanja to be the only legitimate writing system. The protest by Choe Manri and other Confucian scholars in 1444 is a typical example.

Later the government became apathetic to Hangul. Yeonsangun, the 10th king, forbade the study or use of Hangul and banned Hangul documents in 1504, and King Jungjong abolished the Ministry of Eonmun in 1506. Until this time Hangul had been principally used by women and the uneducated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs) 2006-11-11T07:27:22 (UTC)

After the independence of Korea from Sino in 1894

Hangul was adopted in official documents for the first time in 1894 after the independence of Korea from Sino. (Shimonoseki_Treaty in 1895 effectively ended Chinese influence to Korea)

Korean nationalism increased as Japan attempted to sever Korea from China's sphere of influence. Japanese educator Fukuzawa_Yukichi invited many Korean students to his college Keio University.

Later, Fukuzawa and his the students played a key role in modernization of Korea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs) 2006-11-11T07:27:22 (UTC)

The first newspaper written in Hangul

Hangul first appeared in 漢城周報 from 1886 (previously called 漢城旬報 from 1883 to 1885). 漢城旬報 was the first newspaper in Korea and was funded by Fukuzawa_Yukichi. Fukuzawa_Yukichi also personally helped many Korean students such as Kim_Okgyun. Fukuzawa_Yukichi had a great impact on Korean modernization especially in terms of building the educational system in Korea.

Fukuzawa_Yukichi told his ex-student Inoue Kakugorou (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%95%E4%B8%8A%E8%A7%92%E4%BA%94%E9%83%8E) "It is necessary to publish newspapers in Korean language in order to educate Korean people and for the independence of Korea".

Inoue Kakugorou became the editor and the translator of the newspaper. It was Inoue Kakugorou who started using Hangul font for the first time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs) 2006-11-11T07:27:22 (UTC)

After the annexation of Korea

Under the Resident-General_of_Korea, thousands of schools(elementally, junior high, high schools) were built throughout Korea. Many schools and colleges, such as Gyeongseong_University(now Seoul_National_University) today originate this period.

This was the first time in Korean history that people(non-yangban) gained the right to study. All students including Japanese learned Korean and Hangul in school.

List of school textbooks in Hangul under Japan's rule: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://aikokuseigijuku.com/koreaphoto/k-014.html

Hangul was later standardized in publications such as the standardized system of Hangul on 29 October 1933. In 1940 a system for expressing foreign orthographies in Hangul was published. During this period Korean was written in a mixed hanja-Hangul script modeled after Japan's mixed kanji-kana system, where lexical roots were written in hanja and grammatical forms in Hangul.

Around 1941 as the war closing, however, Hangul(Korean language) became a required class to a selective class.

Korean newspaper "Chosun Ilbo" in Hangul(issue March 10th, 1940). http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932683.gif (Chosun Ilbo was founded on March 5, 1920) (Dong-a_Ilbo was founded on April 1st, 1920)

Sadly, most Korean people believe that Japan took away Hangul(and everything! sigh) from Korea, but it was Japanese who re-introduced Hangul to Korean people... This is the one of so many distorted history and causing anti-Japan feeling in Korea today.

These comments seem to have been left by Enjoyfuga. You have a good handle on some positive aspects of the period of Japanese rule, and a native-speaker (or very very good) command of English. Why not work on the article itself, instead of just the talk page? I think you could make good contributions. --Reuben 07:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please state your sources. Also, yes, some Japanese people could have had some positive influences. However, most historians believe that it was because of Christian missionaries in Korea that "started" or greatly contributed to the education of the normal people and Hangul. I think you have been taught "distorted" history- If the Japanese government care so much about the Korean people and their culture, they would not have oppressed the Independance movement and would not have tried to illegalise the Korean language and Korean names. Finally, remember that two rights do not and will never correct a wrong. --DandanxD 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Modernization of Korea under Japanese rule -- infrastructure

Pictures tell everything http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.geocities.jp/hiromiyuki1002/cyousenrekishi.html

That is clearly a very biased and racist website. It has some nice pics though -- too bad the editor hasn't sourced them properly. --Himasaram 05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it racist but I love how the re-colored photograph makes the Koreans darker than what they actually looked like in the original black and white photograph that showed them with considerably lighter skin. The problem with these photographs is that they are unfairly used. Obviously Seoul would not look modernized during the late 1800s considering that it had not modernized yet. If we had pictures of Tokyo and Kyoto before modernization, they would probably show the same, older Medieval styles that are shown in these photographs. Kindahypertonic 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not taking a particular overall position on this, and the author's biases are clear, but the site's not Wiki - it is OK to have a POV. The Koreans do look too dark in the recolorized, but recolorizations are often inaccurate and if you think "too dark" is inherently bad in the racist sense, what does that say of you? The pictures do show the author's thesis, that Korea did modernize under Japanese rule. Modernization is not a given - if it was we won't have Third World nations by now... --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Err, I don't see any reason to assume the person you're replying to is racist... I think that, rather, they are implying that the person who colorized the photos is. The darkness might also imply that they're dirty because of desperate poverty.--67.160.33.8 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent revert

Ok. There were many problems with this revert conflict, so I reverted it to Room218's edits.

• "Though the family name was able to select the name of Japan and the name of Korea, if the permission of the court was obtained, the Korean was able to obtain the name of the Japanese style." completely wrong grammar.
• penlized should be penalized.
• There was a lot of {{fact}}, but you guys put that later on.
• The Japanese concealment efforts section.... I think we need it, but it should be more NPOV, giving Japanese point of view as well.

• "Sensitive information regarding the Japanese occupation of Korea is often difficult to obtain" that is not true.
• "Many argue that this is due to the fact that the Government of Japan has gone out of its way to cover up many incidents that would otherwise lead to severe international" many argue is not necessary.

There are more grammar issues, but I'm not going to cover them for now. (Wikimachine 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

However, family name was able to select the name of Japan and the name of Korea has a perfect source. Wikimachine should not delete information that you do not like. --211.131.245.227 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1st of all, done address me in 3rd person b/c it sounds as if you are mocking me. 2nd, read the 1st argument above. It's wrong grammar. I'm not going to let it sit there as long as you don't fix that. (Wikimachine 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine, well, 211.131.245.227 maps to Japan, but judging from bad grammar (assuming it's not typo), perhaps the person isn't fluent in English? I don't know too much about Japanese ettiquette, but in some cultures (notably Korean, whose language is quite similar to Japanese in some aspects), addressing someone in 2nd person is actually considered rather rude. Third person is usually the polite address (in Japanese, something like "Wikimachine-San", and in Korean, 님-suffix is used). I just didn't want you to be too offended from simple cultural misundestanding. novakyu (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just Eastern cultures that have that. I suppose English doesn't (seeing how "you" a more polite form of "thou" is just a plural of "thou", not third person pronoun), but in German, "Sie", the original third person plural form is used as polite form of "du" (which means "you"). novakyu (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move, 2006

It has been proposed that this article be moved to "Illegal Japanese Occupation." After a consensus is reached, the template may be removed.

• Oppose - "Illegal" might be point of view. Also, the title "Illegal Japanese Occupation" makes no mention of Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jecowa (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
• Oppose: non-neutral and not a natural title. The word "illegal" doesn't help identify the subject of the article. --Reuben 07:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move: Illegal helps readers to understand the history of this period. --Hairwizard91 07:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:NPOV and also Wikipedia:Naming conventions; the word "illegal," even if it *were* NPOV, would be an unnecessary addition. -- Visviva 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed term does not seem common to describe the period in English. See also previous discussion, which decided the current article title. --Kusunose 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Visiviva. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose sounds like KPOV, might even be straw man argument.(Wikimachine 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

What if it was moved to "Japanese occupation of Korea" instead? Although this article includes Korea, it seems to be more about the actions of Japan during that time. It would then be more appropriate for "Japanese" to precede "Korea" in the article's title. Jecowa 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please revert to the previous tilte Korea under Japanese rule first and then discuss. Ryulong, even if you believe current title is better than previous one, Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. --Kusunose 07:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, since the current consensus title -- Korea under Japanese rule -- was arrived at after a great deal of hand-wringing. If the article seems to be dealing more with Japan than with Korea, that is a problem that should be dealt with ... by improving the article. -- Visviva 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have moved this article back to Korea under Japanese rule. Please do not move it again unless a consensus is reached supporting the change. -- Visviva 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section and the Korean Empire stuffs

Restore introduction. Intro should be a brief summary of article. 15:39, 22 November 2006 Room218

Minbi and other treaties are history of Empire of Korea 16:11, 22 November 2006 Jjok

These events are part of Japanese occupation history and this article, and any book or encyclopedia article on this subject. Please discuss first. 16:37, 22 November 2006 Room218

Please move the prehistory stuffs of Japanese rule to background section and help clean-up. BTW, what is the common translation of 일제36년 in English ? 17:10, 22 November 2006 Jjok

Restore intro summary. Please discuss major deletions first. 17:19, 22 November 2006 Room218

---

I am trying to apply WP:LS,

Provide an accessible overview: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points. 

But before start discussion, I want to ask a question. What the general agreement in the Korean Empire here? Is it a part of Japanese rule since it was a puppet empire of Japan? Then we need to reorganize History of Korea accordingly, such as

• Korea under Japanese rule

Korean Empire

Annexed Korea

Provisional Gov't

(and may continue to Korea under Allied occupation then Divided Korea)

If the Korean Empire then Korea under Japanese rule which I suppose, then why don't we move Korean Empire stuffs, such as the treaties, the assassination, the rebellion, and On the road to annexation to Korean Empire where is lacking of those information and then summarize Korea under Japanese rule stuffs such as life, economy, culture, etc in the lead section?--Jjok 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at any Korean history book or encyclopedia article, the period of Japanese rule overlaps with the end of the Joseon period. Japanese control increased gradually, it didn't abruptly start on the day of the annexation treaty. At the same time, the beginning of the Korean Empire was still a part of the end of the Joseon Dynasty, Joseon didn't end on the date of the declaration of Empire. I don't see anything wrong with overlapping years. The same thing happens with the Division of Korea, Korean War, and History of North Korea/South Korea articles. The process of Japan's control of Korea is an essential part of the article, and should be summarized in the introduction. Korealist 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Chōsen

Should the introduction not mention the Japanese name for Korea in this period, "Chōsen" (朝鮮)? It lists the Korean name for the period of Japanese occupation, but not the basic chronology of terminology, between Korea being a "protectorate" from 1895-1910 and becoming a formally annexed colony in 1910 under the name Chōsen. Ultimately, I don't think it's a big deal whether or not we call it Chōsen or Korea throughout the rest of the article, but it does deserve mention in the introduction, as early in the description as we can fit it, I think. LordAmeth 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CHosen is Japanese transliteration of Chosun. It would be a POV to use Japanese terminology throughout the article.Melonbarmonster 14:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese name of this article

No one call this period as 日本統治時代. Please use proper name and do'nt force to use Korean name word by word translation, or to express Korean meaning. It doesn't make sense.Moonlitcherryblossom 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense; in the table along the side, it lists both the Japanese and Korean name for this time period, which are seemingly the proper names coming from both Japan and Korea. Oncamera 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The name 日本統治時代 causes confusion because the word doesn't refer to which country was ruled by Japan. Moreover, the word "日本統治時代" implys that this article is talked from Korean perspective. I think it is correct if here is Korean page. But here is not "KOREAN PAGE". 日韓併合時代 is the best name to be used. Because this word is well-known in Japanese. Again, why do we have to care about Korean name? Japanese has own word to express. In order to avoid confusion, we must address 日韓併合時代. I will change tomorrow if there is no objection. Moonlitcherryblossom 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese version of the page is called "韓国併合", what is the difference between your suggestion and what is listed on that page? Oncamera 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How is all this above not JPOV? Also, "No one call this period as 日本統治時代" is a lie, plain and simple. Sources in English (credible ones, too) have been shown to use this title translated as "Korea under Japanese rule." Only in Hanja does one realize that this reading implies KPOV, and this bias is removed when it is translated as "Korea under Japanese rule." It is not KPOV to say that Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 (formal annexation) until 1945 (surrender to Allies and their terms, fully outlined later, as well as withdrawal from occupied territories). You cannot arrogantly and unilaterally change the name of an article, as you alone are hardly a consensus.Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

日本統治時代 simply means "Japaese ruling time".

The problem is no subject. There is no name of "Korea". Japan ruled huge number of lands in the East Asia in the past. For instance of Taiwan ruling time, Japanese use "日本統治時代(台湾)" to mention the place is Taiwan. "韓国併合" is also OK.

But if you give an affectionate farewell to the word "日本統治時代" you just correctly add (韓国) or (朝鮮) just like Taiwan. I suggest to use ”日韓併合” or "日韓併合時代". Those two words is the best. Moonlitcherryblossom 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with changing the Japanese then to reflect what it is called in Japan. Be sure to change the English translation and whatnot in the box. Oncamera 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese does not just call "日本統治時代" but add like "日本統治時代の韓国" "日本統治時代の朝鮮"or ”日本統治時代(韓国)” or "日本統治時代(朝鮮)". Because in Japanese, "日本統治時代” cannot express which country's ruling time: then how could we indicate the country? The examples of Japanese ruling time are below: Japanese ruling time in Korea日本統治時代 (朝鮮), Japanese ruling time in Tiwan日本統治時代 (台湾), Japanese ruling time in Sakhalin日本統治時代 (樺太), Japanese ruling time in Kwantung日本統治時代 (関東州) and ruling time in the Pacific Ocean日本統治時代 (南洋群島). Those words are differently used in Japanese. Only using "日本統治時代" cannot express it is about Korea. Again, only state "日本統治時代" is insufficient.

Moreover, if reader is Korean(who can understand Japanese), it makes sense because Korea was annexed by Japan and had experienced it. However, from the American(who can understand Japanese) perspective, it doesn't make sense. Here is not the page only for Korean but for everybody who use English. I believe everybody, except Korea, feel strange if this article name is only "Japanese ruling time" then why we should use the insufficient meaning in Japanese "日本統治時代"? For example, if Taiwanese read this artctilce, they may points out the lack of information about the country in Japanese name "日本統治時代" just like I point out. Why you try to protect insufficient name?

English box is also insufficient. It doesn't indicate the place. We should add like "Period of Japanese Rule in Korea" or "Period of Japanese Rule in Korean peninsula". By the way, I soon cannot use the PC until next year, please edit from the NPOV. Moonlitcherryblossom 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I made an edit to show which country was under rule and I added that in with the "In Korea, this time period was known as..." If someone sees a flaw in the romaji or something, please edit appropriately. Oncamera 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

Perhaps User:Jjok could explain why the material he keeps adding with respect to views of certain Americans with respect to Korea is relevant to this article rather than edit-warring over it? JChap2007 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hangul textbook

I've moved the part about the colonial-issued Hangul Textbook (didn't know that one. thanks for the research, by the way) and the Letter-system under the "Education" subcategory. Mkhkoh 15:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Road to Annexation Segment

I think this part should be a separate article. Although i can see where the relevance lies, i think it doesn't quite fit the description of "Korea under Japanese rule" and find it a bit inappropriate for this particular article since the subject in itself could get quite lengthy.

Having a short reference here and then creating a new article for it would do much more justice, and unprevent unnecessary lengthening of this article, i think. 24.7.113.253 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the POV Propaganda

Hi,

I cut a whole load of the POV and unreferenced or erroneously quoted material from the article but the article still requires some work.

May I humbly suggest that contributors read the WIkipedia guidelines and avoid over-emotional propaganda.

Good luck, 125.203.207.252 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've read Wikipedia guidelines, you should know this is not a good way to start a substantive discussion. No doubt this article can be improved a lot, but please discuss major controversial rewrites here first. Edit summary lines are not conducive to a production discussion, and will only lead to revert warring. Ask for citations here or use the citation needed tag for specific statements you are questioning, and give interested editors some time to respond. As we can see from your hasty deletion and this restoration, you may want to be more cautious in removing what you think are "POV Propaganda".

Please avoid emotional, unilateral actions on this obviously controversial article. Thanks. SuperFixerUpper 07:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Where any statements are made without any or adequate citation, it is the responsibility of every contributor to remove them. Likewise POV. 125.203.207.252 08:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tendency of references not to relate to actual POVs or citations.

Going through the article, and actually spend time reading the references, I am noting a tendency of;

• a) said references not to relate to the actual or hyperbolic POVs or citations contributed to this topic
• b) the same references often very NPOV references being used time and time again.
• c) in at least once case the WIkipedia being used as a reference for itself, which is not acceptable.

This is terrible shoddy and should be avoided. It is also academically dishonest. If there are valid and specific citations to support the more extreme POVs, then they should be found and used. Otherwise, they will be removed.

It will take more time and reading but I have made further efforts to clean up this article. I rebut user SuperFixerUpper's cheap racial inference as irrelevant. I am neither Japanese nor do I have a Japanese POV.

125.203.207.252 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I placed a 3RR warning on your user page, SuperFixerUpper. It seems to me that this user account has been created with the sole intent to revert invoke an edit war.

Please note that it is Wikipedia policy that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. See, WP:3RR. I am not being personal.

It would also be worth your while reading up on WP:CITE. The version you are reverting too suffers a clear NPOV and lack of reliable citations. If you have references, please provide them. Otherwise, the policy is very clear.

Thank you. 125.203.207.252 13:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I raise the issue of edit warring again. Please stop. The previous revision was incomplete, rife with racism and uncited POV. By all account contribute but play by the rules.

By your contributions, it would appear to most that you are all anti-Japanese Korean sympathizers and atempting to own an article in a prejudicial state. To my mind that is not only against policy but confusing. Are we talking about South Korea, North Korea, a to-be-United Korea, or the vision of some mythic place in the past that did not exist?

Please accept that there is a bigger picture and not all of will be flattering. It is not a personal attack on your heritage.

Thank you. 125.204.39.85 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation to the anonymous user

Hey anon, 125.203.207.252, it seems that you know how to give 3RR warning to a registered account member even though you yourself is unregistered - more or less you're definitely a Wikipedian acting in secrecy.

Anyways, let me explain to you the whole deal about WP:CITE.

The fact that previous edits do not have proper citation is not a reason to delete them. You only have option to replace the uncited assertion with a different argument, provide citation for the existing statement, or remove the statement with the evidence that the statement is false. WP:CITE applies only to future edits, not previous edits. (Wikimachine 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

• You are entirely wrong on all counts.

WP:CITE and other Wiki policy such as WP:VERIFY means that every contributor has responsibility to provide citations and remove unreferenced material.

To quote WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.".

To quote Jimmy Wales, "Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced".

There you have it from the horse's mouth. Show me otherwise. 125.203.207.252 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the anonymous IP is unaware of the trouble that we've had with miscreants and all sorts of horrible types on Wikipedia Korean articles. In theory we should actually welcome everybody without reservation or prejudice...but Korean articles on Wikipedia have experienced a lot of trouble and strife -- so much so that I honestly don't know who I can trust. There's always something strange about the atmosphere here -- it could be that everybody here is some kind of twisted sockpuppet. How do we know otherwise? Anyway, after what has happened I find it difficult to trust the intentions of ANY editor, much less an anonymous IP. The anonymous IP should log-in and conduct themselves as a regular editor. Otherwise we've had so much trouble here that it is impossible not to distrust anonymous IP edits. Some people are here only to stir things up. Log-in and make your contributions please -- Mumun 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the recent deletes were too heavy-handed, but the parts deleted were definitely uber-super-POV. The information in the deletes needs to be maintained, but without the...vehemence of the condemnation of the actions of the IJA. You guys can write this without POV, it will just be difficult.--Bakarocket 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as an additional note, the deletes seemed to be second-hand sources originating from a single website http://www.japanfocus.org/, which itself made conclusions based upon it's own primary and secondary sources. I would suggest that using the website as a source is intellectually dishonest when the site itself cites the primary sources it used. Use the original sources, not the opinions of the editors on the Japan Focus website, and don't use quotes by the same Japan Focus writers to forward a POV. A verifiable quote does not equal a correct quote, especially when we have no idea of the intentions of the quoted source. Use primary sources, folks, there are plenty of them that illuminate the IJA's actions during the war. -- Bakarocket Wikipedia:No_original_research 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about Jimmmy Wales? He doesn't run Wikipedia here. Also, link to the source providing that quote would be quite interesting.

No, anon, you're making advantage of the guidelines by using strict definitions that are far from reality. The burden of proof is on you both when you add new info & when you delete/disprove info. In order to delete an info, you have to disprove it first because the fact that it may not be cited is not a reason why it's false. You don't know until you find out. Also, Wikipedia's policy is that you try to add info, rather than to delete. So, you could spend the time you use to delete info to add references to uncited statements. If your interpretation holds true, about 90% of all Wikipedia articles should be blanked or deleted (because they have not a single citation on them or they're stubs) & 50% of the bodies of remaining 10% of the articles should be deleted for the same reason. (Wikimachine 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

You're right, who cares about Jimmy Wales? But, I'm not entirely certain this person is "using strict definitions that are far from reality." The fact is, that if a fact can not be sourced, it isn't a fact. Do not put them in unless you have a source, and if you have heard these facts, sources shouldn't be hard to find. This site is meant to be a collection of verifiable information, not a collection of heresay that many people believe to be true. Wikimachine, did you notice my comment to you above about sources? You aren't acting like a disinterested observer in this. Find the sources, and no one can argue. If you don't have sources, I'm going to join in this half-assed revert war and start deleting the unsourced references as well. I want the truth to be known about this as much as you do. But I want the truth to be unassailable. --Bakarocket 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and remember what I said about providing citations to delete false info. That somebody else had not unreferenced an assertion is not a reason for you to not cite yourself. If you think it's false, do research on it. Then, through that process, you will find out whether it's false or not. (Wikimachine 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I wasn't clear with what I meant. The statement you made above that you do not trust Japanese sources, and the implicit statement that you do trust Korean ones, shows your complete bias on this issue. Assuming that someone has to show proof that information is incorrect is wrong-headed and proof of a bias that I'm sure you don't realise you have. No one has to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Using other articles that have been lackadaisically written without citations is no support of any argument. In time those articles will have to be fixed as well. I'm not attacking you, Wikimachine, I'm just suggesting that you pull yourself away from this article for a bit, and come back to it when you've got your sources sorted out. OR don't. Whatever. I just think it may be better for your blood pressure. -- Bakarocket 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not. I'm not sure, but what you said was completely out of the blue. What source? When did I make distinguishment between Japanese and Korean sources? You know, I think you're having this illusory enemy in your mind that you're trying to fight or something. I won't have any part in that. (Wikimachine 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

What a load of BS by the anonymous user. It's obvious he's parroting propaganda from Japanese right-wing websites. There's no such thing as "Research Committee of Foreign Estate" cited as a reference, "land known as Chosen" instead of "Korea", citing U.S. justification of the US-Japan agreement to not interfere in each other's colonies, deleting reputable article reference, calling comfort women "prostitutes" when reputable English publications use the non-euphemistic "sex slaves", etc, etc, etc. Don't mean to get personal, but the content is just a stinking load of BS. Etimesoy 07:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You just got personal Etimesoy but thank you for the link to Japan Focus. I have never heard of it before.

No, you are entirely wrong. If an article is unreferenced, or the references are not reliable, then the material should be removed straightaway. That is policy. I also think you are wrong about Jimmy Wales, like it or not he is the final authority on the Wikipedia, as he has shown to many people's displeasure. Yes, probably a good 50% of what is on the Wikipedia ought to be removed, or at least have its sources recorded, which is what you have the opportunity to do so here.

I am neither right-wing nor Japanese. What I am seeing on many Korean-Japanese topics is POV to the point of hysteria and outright racism which have no place on the Wikipedia. What you are really drawing attention to is an issue about is ownership of a topic article. All you need are references, reliable citations. You are also not entirely right about primary sources Bakarocket, see Wikipedia:No_original_research:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.".

With regards to comfort women, for example, what we need are specific facts not the endless repetition of propaganda. Unfortunately, history records that some of them were prostitutes and that there was organized prostitution at the time, and Korean involvement and profit. I will copy and paste my question on the Comfort women article and ask you if you can provide references and citations. If you cannot, I will be left to do nothing but consider that you are not serious about improving these articles.

• Can anyone help me by providing a detailed breakdown of a number of statistics used in this and the comfort women article?

The 200,000 figures seems to have entered the popular imagination to be repeated ad nauseum as "fact". What ever the truth of it is, it is clearly being used as for propagandistic purposes where there does not seem to have been presented an inadequate breakdown, e.g.

• number of Japanese prostitutes already working in Korea
• number of Korean and other nation's prostitutes already working in Korea
• number of Korean agents/pimps
• the relative proportions of different nationalities
• the relative proportions of those used for sexual purposes and those used for general purposes such as menial servants, cooks, nurses
• the relative proportions of those with previous experience as prostitutes
• the relative proportions of those voluntarily involved or sold into prostitution either by themselves or by their families.
• the relative proportions of those engaged through local/Korean agents and those taken involuntarily
• timeframe and extent over which the alleged practises developed

I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, both on the Wikipedia and in the international community as a whole, that invoked a number of political issues but it is not being made any better by unwarranted or exaggerated claims being made. In the last case, I am challenging the given perception that Korean was a innocent, blissful place for all women out of which all of a sudden evil Japanese extracted 200,000 women in 1939 and raped them daily for 6 years until 1945.

There exist sound estimates of the extent of Korean prostitution during the Korean War of 1950 onwards, and today, with figures given being in excess of 1,000,000 Korean women (src; Katharine H. S. Moon, Columbia University Press). Today that figure is said to be over 1.2 million with over 300,000 establishments existing related to the provision prostitution [10]. [Lowest estimate 500,000].

• Given that we are talking about a period separated by only 5 years, either the figures for the time during the Japanese occupation and WWII seem quite modest or there must have been a significantly higher number of voluntary prostitutes also working at that time.

• How did the two groups co-exist?

I hope that we can skip the politics that seem rife in Japanese-Korean relations and cooperate in the first place to provide the best sources of objective statistics

125.203.207.252 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

125.203.207.252, I'm not implying that we should be doing original research, I'm implying that we should only put those facts on that are fact, not opinion. Primary sources are good. Secondary sources that have based their conclusions on their interpretation of primary sources are not, unles s the secondary sources are specifically labelled as such. We shouldn't be putting our opinions in this, we should be putting the facts. That's all I mean.--Bakarocket 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This one persistent editor is really getting out of hand. Where are the administrators?

This article is such a mess that someone needs to put in a lot of work to improve it, but it obviously can't be 125.203.207.252. His raging POV and incivility, to put it mildly, is not helping improve this article at all. Pre-existing local prostitution justifies sex slavery by invading army?? I guess 9/11 wasn't such a big deal, if you look at the pre-existing U.S. domestic murder rate.

I'm tempted to suggest that we just replace the whole article with the copyright-free and relatively balanced overview content from the Library of Congress: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/krtoc.html. And then, slowly, we can add accurately quoted sentences from unassailable, up-to-date, English-language, neutral, reputable secondary or tertiary sources, sentence by sentence. No original research of primary sources, no Korean or Japanese sources, no citations to individual authors (unless everyone agrees that s/he is an independent respected authority representing the consensus academic view, to prevent selection bias). Until that happens, the existing version with "citation needed" tags is better than 125.203.207.252's twisted propaganda. Etimesoy 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got completely the opposite opinion of this guy. His edits are too much, but he's only editing stuff with large POV problems anyway. And everything he adds is backed up by real data. In no way does he ever "justify" the sexual slavery of Koreans, he just questions the veracity of the numbers put froward by certain commentators on the issue. Look at the stuff he added to the wiki though, very balanced, very non-POV. He put his questions in to Talk where they belong.

Your suggestion about replacing it is a good one. It would be a shame that so many people woud lose their hard work, but someone can save it and it can all be added back in with external verification. I second your (half-hearted) suggestion. Replace the article. -- Bakarocket 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same guy? "everything he adds is backed up by real data"? The guy who replaced "Korea" with "Jo Dong peninsula" (WTF)? Japan's taking of six million more sacks of rice from impoverished Koreans is evidence of "soaring productivity" achievement of Japanese colonial rule (uncited, of course)? Deletion of entire multi-referenced section on land confiscation? The topic of Japanese military enslavement of Korean women for sex has been changed to a discussion about Korean prostitution. The whole "Japan modernized Korea" justification is lifted from http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/controversies2-c.html, a right-wing Japanese propaganda site dedicated to uncovering "untruths" and "big fake cloud" of comfort women and the Rape of Nanking. 125.203.207.252 merely repeats that site's "citations" to nonexistent "Allied Forces Control Bureau of Personal Assets" and the nonexistent "Research Committee of Foreign Estate". Every sentence he added, even the few properly referenced ones, was obviously intentionally selected, then selectively quoted, and then mixed with personal commentary to justify Japan and denigrate Korea. Like I said, the previous version certainly needed improving, but 125.203.207.252 is not improving it.Etimesoy 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the same guy. I didn't see the bias you saw, but I must admit I didn't read all of the edits. The one about the American soldier I have seen on a site purporting to be an American govenrment archive site, and the numbers about prostitution are correct according to modern sources. To me, these extra data do not affect my view of the hell the conquered peoples went through, they just add depth to the history. Also, as I pointed out in the comment above, the site that the land confiscation information came from was blatantly biased in its editorialism as well. That's why I supported its deletion in favour of more balanced commentary. This is an issue of history, but as long as people keep treating it as a modern problem, this will never get finished. Unbiased sources exist for all of the information that was deleted, let's use them.--Bakarocket 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please skip the hysterics. I never stated that pre-existing prostitution justified the Comfort Women scenario, however that comes to be properly documented. Please accept the fact that there is more than a Korean POV to the subject.

The topic title is "Korea under Japanese rule". The Comfort Women issue did not arise out of a void nor did it dissappear back into a void as the Korean War statistics show. Sex slavery of a very similar nature still exists on the peninsula. The current article documents the context from which it arose including, perhaps uncomfortably to some, Korean involvement which is now documented in detail.

If you want to avoid allegations of POV, propaganda throughout this article, and acting as a meatpuppet team attempting to own it, then you have the opportunity to document how and to what extent it developed. No one seems interested.

Likewise with the context for Queen Min assassination. History is not neat and tidy/black and white/good guys versus bad guys thing, as Min and her family prove. She was hardly a left wing liberal and the Korean lower classes hardly had a good time of that period of rule. For good or bad, Japanese rule brought change which is now documented in detail.

As with most articles on Korean-Japanese relationships, the previous version read like little more than a Dokdo Ministry of Information propaganda war piece and that is just not acceptable. Developments have to be detailed and seen in their wider context.

I am not Japanese. I have no axe to grind. I just recognize that there is a bigger picture than was presented before and, indeed, that some of what was presented before was misleading. Korea suffered what most nations suffered both at the hands if it own aristocracy and more technologicaly advanced imperialists. Life is not just.

As far as De jong, Dae Joeng or wherever goes, spell it your way but it certain was not the Korean Penisula at that time. Corea ... perhaps?

You say "discuss". Here is the discussion. Where are your answers and citations to the above?125.204.39.85 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you have to say about simply replacing the article with text from the Library of Congress: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/krtoc.html as suggested by Etimesoy? As it stands, your edits do not seem to "solve" the POV issues in this article. oncamera^(t) 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the American government has its own POV and politics that bear on the subject and cannot be trusted to be either complete or object. The specific article is largely unreferenced which is a shame as it includes some valid and interesting aspects. 125.204.39.85 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that the "American POV" is as biased as the Japanese or Korean views. And it has been also suggested that once the article is replaced with text from the Library of Congress, then other sources can be added back in from the previous version which, hopefully, would maintain a NPOV -- and I honestly think that's the only way to create that. oncamera^(t) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not American either. Am I take it you guys are all Korean American then?

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the general American 'political' view tends to suffer from the blinkers of its own interests and drowned in political correctness. (I am excluding the nation's numerous outstanding intellectuals in this criticism). As such I would strong object to any unreferenced and uncited US Government document being used as a replacement.

I would see it for what it is; a "nuke and pave" exercise to try and remove all of the historical complexity, indigenous Korean corruption and most of the change, some of which was positive, that Japan brought about. Please rise above nationalism. There was very little "pretty" about life in S.E. Asian for anyone one hundred or 50 years ago, not even the super elite. 125.204.39.85 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither Japanese nor Korean, just an American so I'm not "influenced" by any Asian "nationalism." Those are just opinions of "American political views" you stated, so I ask what parts of the Library of Congress site is unreliable? Is it "worse off" than this current article? And also, please stop referring to edits that are merely reverts as vandalism, as is shows lack of proper judgment and civility. oncamera^(t) 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Bakarocket is sockpuppet of the anonymous user. (Wikimachine 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

I had quite a large edit that apparently I forgot to save, so I'll cut it short. the user's IP address is in the same country as mine, and that is all. If you had read more than the first sentence of each of my posts you'd see that we are on different pages. As to my comment about your bias, ctrl-f "Japanese sources" and you will find yourself saying in November of last year, "Yes. I don't trust Japanese sources." This is unmitigated and blatant bias. I wash my hands of this, I only came in here because I was interested in helping you guys out in your argument. Have fun editorializing your history.--Bakarocket 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have absolutely nothing to do with Bakarocket. I thought he was one of you guys doing the Korean propaganda stuff. And I have to point out that you guys have used just all the tricky wikitricks I know about to attempt to devalue a more complete overview of the subject, e.g. telling me citations only applied to new edits, complete reversions, accusations to my being some other wikipedia, accusations of vandalism, now accusations of my being a sockpupet of Bakarocket, etc. rather than just offering contradictory or complimentary citations.

So, are you an American with some or all Korean ancestry by any chance, Oncamera?

I cannot see otherwise why you would have any opoosition to a more detailed article that exposes the bigger picture. The Library of Congress article is unreferenced and political. Those aspects along are enought to discount it. I have added countless reliable secondary and a few universally accepted primary sources which you are erase. I want to ask you honestly.

With regards to this article, as the majority of contributors appear to have a clear and heavy racial bias towards Korea and want to continue the Korean propaganda POV so obvious on this topic so as to make it ridiculous. Like so many of the other Korean-Japanese articles. Life is more complex than that. 125.204.39.85 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Korean Propaganda POV

So, how can we rescue this article from being extreme and simplistic Korean propaganda (or as Bakarocket said it more politely, "editorializing your history") to portraying in detail, with proper references and citations, the bigger picture?

Or are you just intent on using force and ignorance to suppress? You really ought to be conscious of the impression it creates around the world in non-Korean minds.

I want to look at your editing OpieNn [11]. On one hand you are rabidly chop out any neutral, positive or even factual references to japan. On the other hand, re the founding of Daewoo etc, you are willing to state waht which is not true, e.g. GM Daewoo Auto & Technology (GM Daewoo or GMDAT) was first established as National Motor in 1937 in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, South Korea. I also note that you are willing to be untrue in the summaries you use for your edits to support what is in essence your propaganda war, e.g. saying you restored a statement when in fact you deleted a referenced statement [12] or [13] and working in tandem with Etimesoy [14] [15] as a sort of meatpuppet team doing pro-Korean reversions.

Etimesoy I see that you have even been so motivated as to place an admin camplaint, [16]

• What is motivating this?

I am going to copy the original administration complaint and my reponse here to help other facing this same problem in the future and start to document the actions of the key players.

<quote>

User:125.203.207.252 reported by User:Etimesoy (Result:No vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Korea under Japanese rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.203.207.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

earlier ones:

• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

Comments

He's pretty good at warning other people about reverting: [31] [32] [33] He is now using the IP User:125.204.39.85 [34] [35], and continuing to revert [36]

User was not warned until after 4th revert. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the user Etimesoy is talking about here. I want to document what is going on here as I fully expect it to arise again.

Over the last few days, I have started to work on the Korea under Japanese rule topic added a considerable number of references and removing uncited POV [37]. Users Etimesoy, OpieNn, Melonbarmonster, Oncamera, SuperFixerUpper and others appear to operating as fairly vigorous Pro-Korea propagandists to the point of extreme anti-Japanese racism, e.g. [38], [39], [40]. I would not necessarily go as far to state that they are meatpuppets but they share the same intention. I raise the issue of their pattern of revisions on a number of topics relating to Japanese-Korean issues and other editors. I am neither Japanese nor Korean.

I do not have at this moment the time to fully defend this accusation, nor sustain my suspicion of a meatpuppet team, but I think the pattern of my edits, and their revisions, is enough to establish this is a further attempt to block a broader discussion of the issues at hand. I also flag up a slightly dishonest use of the edit summary function to cover up the Pro-Korean lobby and anti-Japanese revisions and the possible creation of sockpuppet accounts performing the same functions [41].

I appreciate that any Korean-related issues are senstive but that does not mean that they are not covered with depth, detail and maturity. Thank you. 125.204.39.85

<end quote>

125.204.39.85 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, identify the problems with the edits of the users whom you've specified as KPOV. We'll deal them locally. Also, that the edits are not cited should not be a reason to revert them. If you identify problems with those edits, then you can kindly request the users to substantiate their claims. Please read what I've written about citation. (Wikimachine 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Also, only administrators can block. I'm afraid no admin is listening to you. And 3RR block is dealt arbitrarily. Just because someone reverted more than 3 times is not a reason for you to suggest blocking them. It seems that you're using 3RR revert rule for your own benefit. Please read this essay from Meta Wiki. (Wikimachine 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Melonbarmonster

Melonbarmonster,

in reply to your summary statement. I repeat that I am not Japanese. Truth is a minority view. I'd even go as far as to say intelligence is a minority view. So what?

I find your entire disingenuous ... but with comments like this am I to expect neutrality?

"I wish these Korean-Japanese would adopt Korean names instead of selling out with slave names. If I ever have kids, I'm definitely giving them straight up Korean names."

The worst thing is as a American-Korean you do not even have to face the consequences of the racism that you appear to be using the Wikipedia to brew. What you need to do is read, read and then read some more. And keep asking questions of both sides until you come close to a complete picture. Your average CNN sound bite really does not tell the whole story.

What you did was to use one misappropriated issue to attmept to enforce a large scale revision.

So, I placed my questions, request for citation above, where is your response? 125.204.39.85 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles, sex criminals, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and other such degenerate ilk also are minority views and for good reason. And by the way, showcasing your stalker skills and googling my name is wacko, anti-social behavior. Please seek therapy because mental health is important.Melonbarmonster 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

wow

I'm warning everyone out there: Do not try to distort things written on this article because everything there is sound and true. whether you feel offended or not, if you have any dignity or Honor as a civilized human being and not a barbarian, try not to upset those who believe that the truth is what really matters... Odst 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The offending matter is the propaganda from both sides. Read a little more. And don't do the toothless internet threat thing. It just illuminates your youth. --Bakarocket 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

propaganda? what propaganda? gimme a sec. Odst 00:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what the heck? I don't see anything bad about the propoganda. so the Japanese tried to suppress independence publications. so what? Odst 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean read wikipedia. Wikipedia is the worst resource on the planet in terms of neutrality. Read a book about it. In fact, read many books about it, then read some more. Read Japanese viewpoints, and Korean viewpoints, and every other kind of viewpoint you can find. Then come back and start slashing this article to pieces because you'll know more than everyone else.

If you haven't read any books on this, and you're basing all of your information on this time period on stories from family members or the internet, you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on. And that goes for everyone trying to bully this article into the form that most closely matches their opinion of the time period. This is a perfect example of why history shouldn't be written until everyone involved is dead. -- Bakarocket 09:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

good point you have there about dead people. anyway... opinion? quit trying to distort history just because of nationality. I have read numerous english and Korean texts, and eventually I will finish my studies in Japanese and read the possibly outrageous Japanese text. speaking of Japanese text, have you read the book of five rings? awesome book. Odst 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? "Quit trying to distort history just because of nationality"? "the possibly outrageous Japanese text"? Are you incapable of seeing your own bias here? Never mind. You're right. I'm racist because I think each verifiable point should be included, regardless of origin, and that we should limit the use of words with high emotional value, e.g. pretty much all adjectives.

Seriously, some of you guys are wearing blinders.--Bakarocket 08:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Minority view

The article is already exaggerating the extreme minority view that Korea should be grateful for Japanese colonization. A short section labeled "minority view", with one or two of the most prominent references is enough. Citations to exceptions should not fill up the article to distort the consensus view. Etimesoy 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps a paragraph can be written up stating that this minority views exist. But listing quotes and adding to this list is disproportionate to historical reality. I wonder if the holocaust article has a list featuring quotes of holocaust deniers or understaters.Melonbarmonster 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be interesting to write them up not simply as quotes but as events (if they were events) showing the effects these quotes had. I'm not sure about the others but the one I added today caused quite a stir when it was discovered and I think he might also have been forced to resign, though I'm not sure about. A more general section with the reactions in both countries to views on both sides might be better, and then it wouldn't look like a battle of citations. That means that I would only support a different writeup of the quotations, not their removal. Mithridates 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also keep in mind that no German university would allow a professor to work there that had published papers denying the holocaust, so the comparison is not valid. Mithridates 05:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, your comment about Germany only underscores the comparison. Japan should outlaw WWII war atrocity deniers and Imperialism revisionists and Korean social pressure against these wackjobs seem well deserved to me. In any case, I think these quotes should be placed within some NPOV context. But it seems that the section was originally created to just list these quotes to imbue credibility to Japanese revisionist claims. This is why I don't like this section to begin with and am not really motivated to salvage these quotes by rewriting this section. As for the quotes themselves, they should be mentioned but they shouldn't be featured in entirety or kept in quote form. I just don't see a reason to overstate these minority views beyond their objective significance.Melonbarmonster 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I think the whole article needs a whole rewrite (and I think I'm going to have a go at it too). It's pretty obvious that the article is mostly made up of warring factions and almost only touches on whether it was good or bad, and very little on what actually happened. It doesn't go into how Korea got into the position it did that made it weak enough to be taken over, there's almost no info between when the occupation started and ended, etc. So maybe I won't worry too much about this one section. I have a whole timeline that takes up about three pages here in my house (in Korean) that I'm thinking of adding but it is a bit dry - which laws were enacted when, trade volume, that sort of thing. That one chart on volunteers vs. number accepted is from the book for example. Mithridates 14:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this whole article needs a rewrite but I'm not willing to do it because of time constraints although that may change in the future. I don't know about the dry facts but a simplified form of the timeline might be useful.Melonbarmonster 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Info Box

The current info box lists Japanese Empire info as being "official" government of Korea. This seems to fly against the Provisional Government and the importance of early independence leaders in formation of both NK and SK. Both NK and SK sees Independence Movement as being "official" and this needs to be reflected in the info box. Just listing Japanese info is POV and conducive to Japanese revisionist views.melonbarmonster 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite the two Koreas' acknowledgement of the provisional government in Sanghai as "official", the truth is, you can hardly say that the "provisional government" did much governing. Also, under the treaties, a separate Korea did not exist (under international law), so listing any other government than the Japanese government (which claimed the right to represent Korea) as official would be incorrect.

Also, what information can you put about the provisional government, if a good argument can be made for it and it were changed to the provisional government? novakyu (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Correcting myself here, but what is the Wikipedia convention on info box? Do you go by what is correct de facto, or what is correct de jure? If it's de jure, then yes, it has to be the Provisional Government, as that is the de jure government of Korea during that time (as recognized by, guess what, current Korean government) novakyu (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination of Empress Myeongseong - Soviet Union?

I have put a dispute tag on this section as this sentence makes no sense:

"The empress had attempted to counter Japanese interference in Korea and was considering turning to the Soviet Union or China for support"

Given that the Soviet Union would not exist until 22 years after her death this makes absolutely no sense.

Can someone who knows something about this (i know absolutely nothing) please fix this. --Xorkl000 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Buyer Beware

I have read through the colonial history presented here with considerable interest and must note that there are far more factual distortians here than I could possibly list. The idea of a collective writing of histories sounds like a great experiment, but sadly the level of research displayed here is elementary at best.

I like the fact that so many people seem so passionate about this topic. Yet why does it not translate to consultation of existing historical works and the balanced views of professional historians? I would attempt to correct some of the factual distortians here, yet most likely my contributions would be erased in a matter of hours....so why bother?

But since Wikipedia is achieving disturbing levels of influence, I do feel the need to offer a suggestion for the future.

Research! Research! Research! And be careful of the sources cited. If it does not come from a reputable historian, then there is much room for bias. There's not much differences in some ways between a professional researcher and the layman sitting at home. However, much of a graduate student's training is in the ethics of research...the need to do a thorough investigation of the question at hand. This means a need to ferret out our personal biases and do the utmost to examine every available source before coming to a conclusion.

Perhaps one day this article on the Korean colonial period can achieve a high quality, but sadly it's not anywhere close. I really must warn those who are not familiar with Korean and Japanese history that much of the information provided here is grossly inaccurate. If you are interested in the colonial period, this is so far NOT the place to find a balanced perspective.

Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. --Crmtm 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)