Jump to content

Talk:Korea under Japanese rule/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Oriental Development? Eastern Real Estate?

The paragraph on 'Colonization efforts and land confiscation' mentions the Oriental Development Company at one place, and then later on the Eastern Real Estate Corporation. I wonder if they are not different translations of the same Japanese name, namely 東洋拓殖. Can someone check?

Bathrobe 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

The page was moved to Korea was under Japanese ruling (1910-1945) without discussion. This title has several problems. First off, ruling should be rule. Second, was seems to have been inserted because of a mistaken impression that "Korea under Japanese rule" implies "Korea is under Japanese rule." That is not the case. Such titles are generally not complete sentences at all, and if anything is to be interpolated, it would be "Korea when it was under Japanese rule." There are certainly other possible titles for the article, but they should be discussed here and a consensus reached. --Reuben 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to South Korean News.(Naver news "google earth" on 2007-9-10, 구글어스, 한국 일제 피통치국으로 소개..물의, JoongAng Ilbo, 2007.09.10) They won't see here and we'd better wait until they will settle down for a couple of days. Google earth looks like showing last three or four era from wikipedia on the capital. I think they will fix it soon to display the information of South Korea instead. Jjok 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jjok, that explains the sudden interest. I wonder how the title showed up like that on Google Earth; is there really a connection with the Wikipedia article? Your post made me wonder if there's some way that a coordinates template on Wikipedia can automatically show up in Google Earth... but this article doesn't even have a coordinates template. (And since it's a historical period rather than a specific place, it doesn't really need one). Do you think some kind of protection is needed? --Reuben 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how Google is doing it, but I think occasional reverts against vandalism will be fine since the news went off from headlines. I also think Google will palli palli fix it since the protest from South Korean netizens is always very violent. This article got a status of "featured article" just for a couple of days. Jjok 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for paying attention to this title issue. Let me put aside earth issue for the moment. If you search for Korea Japan at Google or Yahoo, the first link shows up in the result page is Korea Under Japanese Rule. And that gives the feeling like Korea is under Japanese rule at this moment even though that is not the intention of the title, because, technically, there is no way to tell whether Korea *is* or *was* under Japanese Rule just from the title. I don't care how the title is formed, but one thing that must be done is to make the title explicitly mention that this is historical fact and not the current state. I want to make it clear that the issue is about misnomer in wiki. --pool007 3:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest all of you to consider new title Korea when it was under Japanese rule (1910-1945). --pool007 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Korea under Japanese rule" is already showing that it is history, i.e., "Korea under Japanese rule" = "Korea was under Japanese Rule" in history. If Korea was still under Japanese rule, it would be simply "Korea, Japan", just like World Cup 2002. It is solely Google map problem which is responsible for confusing people. Jjok 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No. That's just one way of translating the meaning of "Korea under Japanese rule". Technically speaking, that can be interpreted as "Korea (which is/was) under Japanese rule." And there is no way to tell the tense. For example, search for "USA under Bush administration". Do you think under in this clause mean that USA is not currently under Bush administration? Plus, your argument still does not give the reason why the proposed title is not good. One thing you should aware of is that seeing the title 'Korea under Japanese rule' displayed on Korea peninsula on earth was translated as if Korea is still under Japanese rule. And such a translation has nothing to do with specific application and solely depends on the title itself. --pool007 5:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "Korea in the Japanese imperial period"? During the period from 1910 to 1945 , Japan was Japanese empire, and the region, government and constitution of Japanese empire was different from now. The Japanese empire was dissolved by allied nations of World War II. So just 'Japanese rule' is not accurate. 'Korea in the Japanese imperial period' is accurate and keep the title consistent as other titles. --Leedh76 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is in charge of changing the title? How to proceed? As I mentioned above, it would be better to change the title as "Korea in the Japanese imperial period". --Leedh76 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest for your consideration History of Korea (1910-1945). There are other page titles like that: History of Poland (1795-1918) for example. As for how to proceed, nobody is in charge exactly. If there's a consensus, then anyone can move the page. There are some aids like Requested moves that can be helpful, but the basic rule is agreement. Korea in the Japanese imperial period is a little bit ambiguous, because the Japanese imperial period began well before the annexation of Korea. --Reuben 08:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point and I agree with you. 'History of Korea (1910-1945)' is better. --Leedh76 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
However, please read the discussion above under "renaming article" and note that the current title was generally supported by Korean editors at the time, and some Japanese editors even complained that "Korea under Japanese rule" seemed pro-Korean. It seems to me that the current complaints are still based on a misunderstanding. --Reuben 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Rather, I see lots of arguments. The title was proposed only for two days, edited, and got some supports from seemingly users from outside Korea. For a title to be objective, I suggest it to be considered by both parties related and people outside the parties. I will never call the current title a consensus, but a series of arguments. Plus, the title was accused of non-standard English. -- pool007 6:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where you see that. The discussion went on for a lot more than two days, and as far as I can tell it simply finished rather than being cut off by any time limit. There was a pretty strong consensus including a number of Korean editors, and yes, editors from outside Korea. As for your last point, "Korea under Japanese rule" is perfectly good English. --Reuben 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the imperial period title is a bit too awkward, and I don't see anything wrong with Reuben's suggestion. I might throw "Korea as a Japanese colony" in the ring as being more descriptive and still (I believe) relatively neutral (though I wouldn't be surprised at all if I got blasted for it being too Korean or too Japanese, depending on who's doing the blasting). Perhaps there are other alternatives that are even better. --Cheers, Komdori 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Colony is not proper term here, as described in the "renaming article" section, because the word implies that Korea didn't have sovereignty. -- pool007 6:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You've been accused of making Korean POV edits Komdori? I've been away a bit but that would shock me.melonbarmonster 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask for the agreement for the new title: History of Korea (1910-1945). No reason not to call this contents like this, because we have solid example of Poland. I see people supporting this title, Reuben, Leedh76, Komdori, and me, but no one is opposing. -- pool007 6:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion was to move away from such construct, then titled History of Korea (1900-1950), to be "titled consistently with other korean history articles, i.e., name of the era or period, not by years". Polish history articles are, on the other hand, consistently named by years. I don't think it's a good idea to make this article alone follow Polish history naming convention . --Kusunose 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I suggested the title History of Korea (1910-1945) for consideration, and I don't oppose it, but I do prefer the current title Korea under Japanese rule. The current title is more informative, and was strongly supported by Korean editors in the past. Titling by years is acceptable as a second choice. --Reuben 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page against moves for a bit. Please come to a consensus about the title here instead of move-warring. Once a consensus is reached, please contact me so I will unprotect or move the page. Kusma (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seoul of Google Earth

When we uses Google Earth to search Seoul, we can find that small article - 'Korea under Japanese rule' . Of course, it indicates the era from 1910 to 1945. However, if it just says 'Korea under Japanes rule', persons who don`t know Korea can think that 'nowadays' Korea is under Japanese rule. I don`t think this is a kind of malicious distortion. I just want to correct this. What do you think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.223.180 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't have control over what does or does not appear on Google Earth. I find the title of this article quite clear and appropriate, and in the past it has been strongly supported by Korean editors. But we can still discuss alternatives. --Reuben 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't forget the fact that many sources in English use the same name.Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the title should be "Korea Empire under Japanese rule" 121.138.144.124 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Korean Empire ceased to exist when it is annexed to Japan in 1910, and it did not resurrect as Japan lost the war in 1945. (Rather, a new country, Republic of Korea (대한민국) is formed.) Korea is a term which includes the whole history of the people who lived on Korean peninsula. So it is inappropriate to move this article as requested. --Acepectif 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem!

Problem has been occurred. Therefore, this article should be renamed. In Google Earth, someone has put a flag (or by Google employee) on Seoul saying "Korea under Japanese rule." This is problematic, because the one without the knowledge of Korea might get confused that Korea is in control of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulworld (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What appears on Google Earth is neither here nor there as far as the title of this article is concerned. And this is the first I've heard of anyone getting the idea that Korea is in control of Japan. I think you probably meant the other way around. --Reuben 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Does the infobox former country really belong here? Was "Korea under Japanese rule" a separate country? I think it's more of a period in the history of the continuous country "Korea." In other words, this article is about a time period, or an event, not a former country. That's why the former country infobox is really an awkward fit on this page. But maybe there is some technicality I'm not aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Major22 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

This article seems lean towards an anti-Japanese stance. A more neutral article would be desirable. Tango —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.79 (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The names in the infobox are strange...

> 大日本帝國朝鮮 (にっぽんりょうちょうせん)

This reads "Dai Nippon Teikoku Chōsen" (transcribed "Nipponryō Chōsen"). Both the Sino-Japanese characters and the kana transcription should use the same name! So either change the Sino-Japanese characters into 日本領朝鮮, or the kana transcription into だいにっぽんていこくちょうせん.

> 조선 (朝鮮)

This reads "Chosŏn", but shouldn't the Korean and Japanese names be the same? That is, shouldn't this be "Taeilbon Cheguk Chosŏn" (대일본제국조선 / 大日本帝國朝鮮) or the like? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

No, the names should not be the same, because this reflects the difference in what each country's people call it. To take another example, even though the Japanese 西南戦争 (seinan sensō) would be translated literally into English as "West-South War" or "the Southwest War", we call it the Satsuma Rebellion. Even though the Japanese word for "civil war" is 内戦 or 内乱, they call the American Civil War 南北戦争 (Nanboku sensō), meaning "the South-North War". So it's not just about word-for-word translations, but about what terms are actually used by the speakers of the language. LordAmeth (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued removal of sourced comment from lead

Can we please stop removing sourced content from this article? This goes back to edits first made by Youngjoon Shin several days ago, where a sourced comment was removed about improved infrastructure during the Japanese occupation, and replaced with negative comments about the treatment of Koreans by the Japanese (here). Now having both in there is fine, but replacing one with the other shifts the balance of the POV. We are an encyclopedia; we're not here to cast judgement one way or another, we are here to provide a balanced assessment of the facts. Also, the fact that this information is covered elsewhere in the article is not valid reason for removal; the lead is supposed to provide a summary of the entire article. PC78 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Note also that this material has been in the article since October 2007 ( [1]}. PC78 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, that is just your POV and you're not NPOV for the claim when it comes to Youngjoon Shin. The source sentence is pretty much overlapped with other existing contents in the lead. Besides, I'm sorry to say that your following of Youngjoon Shin exclusivel these days is pretty much far from good faith. You've never edited Korean history articles until you object his edit. I also have said that I disagree with your POV on these series of YJS related matters. --Appletrees (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the sourced comment does not overlap with anything else in the lead. And it's not just my POV; this information was added by others and its removal has also been reverted by others. This is not a discussion about Youngjoon Shin, so do not turn it into one; it is a discussion about the content of the article. Sadly, it seems that you do not have much good faith of your own. WP:NPOV is a policy on Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning Koreans to have suffered during the harsh period is already mentioned several times and your insisting on Japan's building modern structures could mislead the whole article. I've seem many articles with false information based on falsified information to have been here for a long time. Sadly, I think this discussion is a extended version about Youjoon Shin because you followed his recent edits to prove your WP:POINT which is also a WP:COI. You also violated WP:UNDUE at Samsung Group as following him. I do not waste good faith on somebody who falsely accuses others. Your good faith of your own seems to be already all used up. --Appletrees (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Appletrees, while I am new to Wikipedia, I did notice that you seem to be chasing after this user called Youngjoon Shin. Blanking out my comment in his userpage was not acceptable either. I think you are having a personal problem with him, whatever way I try to interpret it - please take that outside Wikipedia. As an Oriental Studies student at Oxford, clearly your claim is misleading because it contradicts with the next paragraph. The Japanese never built "modern communication links" for the benefit of Korea and was purely for military purposes for the Imperial Japanese Army to communicate each other. Also the roads were used to transport Japanese military goods to support the ongoing war in China, not for any civilian purpose. Life in Korea was far more than simply "harsh" - this is something totally unacceptable. If you only knew a little bit about the devasting suffering of Koreans at the time, you would not dare to write this. I am sorry this may sound rude but the humiliation these people suffered is far greater than anything else in the modern world history, including the Holocaust. In addition, it is stated in a UK source and I cannot find a reliable source that proves your point of view, which clearly does not take into account the Korean history as a whole and is simply a guide to North Korea. Provide a more reliable source that is directly related to the Korean history.Jenny0313 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So the BBC is not a reliable source of information? And the UK has a particular POV regarding the occupation of Korea? Sorry, but this is nonsense. Jenny, your argumants don't make a lot a sense to me. So what if the BBC article relates to North Korea? There was no North and South until after the occupation. Also, your claim that the occupation was "far greater" than the holocaust is a rather extreme POV, so do not presume to tell me what I "dare to write". As I said above, we are an encyclopedia, and when we write about such thins we must be neutral, not emotional. But if you are determined to remove one of the few positive sourced comments about the Japanese occupation, turning this article into a potential NPOV mess, then have at it and I will no longer care. I have far better things to do around here, so I shall be taking this article off my watch list and you can do as you please. PC78 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is a news broadcasting company and is largely controlled by the British government. Just because it is frequently sourced reference doesn't mean that it is suitable for every article, in particular to this sensitive part of Eastern history. I have never said that the UK "has a particular POV regarding the occupation of Korea" - my argument is that it is not a suitable source for reference of the History of Korea. Link to more independent and related sources to prove your POV. I have never mentioned that the BBC would be biased towards North or South Korea, my only point here is that it is not a reliable source FOR Korean History articles. I do recognize that the BBC is a good reliable source for plenty of articles - just not in this occasion. <y POV might sound extreme to you but it is precisely what happened and what thousands of sources restate - the world has more focus and attention to Jews and the Holocaust because of the number of people killed but takes no account of cultural genocides that have happened in Korea, which cannot be measured statistically. I am not emotional and this is hard facts from real life historical accounts of those who have experienced this directly in front of their eyes - Prisoner of wars from the US is a good example. In other words, your sources should come from direct primary sources such as these - not secondary sources such as the BBC which modifies and restates the facts, only lessening the real story for the benefit of the general public.Jenny0313 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The BBC is not "largely controlled by the British government", and your comments still imply that the British government holds a particular POV regarding the occupation. Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS, which is a guideline on Wikipedia. News organisations are generally regarded as reliable sources. Self published sources, such as this blog which is cited in the article, are not. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion

I believe I read everything above related to the name of this article, which has been controversial, and has had repeated attempts to make it more NPOV. One new editor pointed out that "Japanese occupation" is more commonly used than "Japanese rule" (which is true in my experience), and pointed out that the current title ("Korea under Japanese rule") "ignores the naming standard set by articles concerning the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand." There were only two responses, [1] that "occupation" should be lower case, and [2] that this article is more about Korean history, so the title shouldn't begin with "Japanese" (as in the proposed "Japanese occupation of Korea").

The obvious alternative, "Korea under Japanese occupation," was not discussed. It seems to me that Wikipedia should favor the naming conventions that are as independent as possible of political special interests (especially those of imperial Japan! - I am a little shocked that some editors here indicated that they favor their viewpoint). I believe the article should be moved to "Korea under Japanese occupation," but at a minimum, this title should be given as an alternative in the first phrase of the first sentence: "Korea under Japanese rule or Korea under Japanese occupation refers to the period..." -Exucmember (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking into this issue a bit more, I've become convinced that the article's name should be changed from some form of "rule" to some form of "occupation". So this might be "Korea under Japanese occupation" or it might be "Japanese occupation of Korea", or some other variant. Without making a final decision on the exact form of the final title, I would like to discuss the change from "rule" to "occupation".
The article documents the oppression suffered by Koreans under Japanese domination that could only have been sustained by an occupation. "Rule" does not suggest this, and so is less informative. One can even make the argument that certain parties support "rule" because it is a euphemism favorable to the position of imperial Japan. Rather than cherry pick by providing examples of two publications that use "rule", let's look at what most scholars use.
Google scholar (the relevant search in this case rather than a straight Google search) has the following results:
  • 7,030 "Japanese occupation" Korea
  • 3,050 "Japanese rule" Korea
  • 612 "Japanese annexation" Korea
"Occupation" is used more than twice as often as "rule" by scholars. -Exucmember (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is no response to my comments, I will move the article. -Exucmember (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You must file an official WP:Request for move. A lot of edit warrs have been occurred, so that's why none responded to you. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more clearly why "occupation" is better than "rule"? Im sorry, I didnt get what your trying to say. Good friend100 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just written several paragraphs (above). Reading over it just now, there isn't anything I can identify that is unclear. What is unclear to you?
If helpful I will summarize:
  • Scholars use "occupation" more than twice as often as "rule".
  • "Japanese occupation of Korea" is the most common phrase used by scholars to refer to this period.
  • "Rule"..."ignores the naming standard set by articles concerning the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand."
  • "Rule" fails to convey the coercive or military nature of the imposition of authority by Imperial Japan during the period of occupation.
  • "Rule" is not independent of political special interests, as it is the choice of wording of Imperial Japan and its apologists (as well as less polarized parties). -Exucmember (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm seems to be ok for moving. I dont think you need to request a move as it is not a major problem. If needed, you can start a poll to see what other people think. Good friend100 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move rationale

Japanese occupation of Korea

See 5 reasons given immediately above for a move to a title that includes the word "occupation" rather than "rule".

The article title should follow naming conventions used by scholars and by similar Wikipedia articles:

Additionally, repeatedly requested articles include:

which redirects at present to History of the Philippines#World_War_II_and_Japanese_occupation; and

which redirects at present to History of Thailand (1932–1973)#World_War_II.

-Exucmember (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative 2: Japanese annexation of Korea If this article is goint to begin with 1910, then annexation or possession is mandatory; the Japanese occupation began in 1905. But it would be better to clean it up first. However evil the occupation was, this is not the place to say so; we prefer neutrally phrased assertions of the bald facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the alternative "Japanese occupation of Korea (1905-1945)." It would be confusing to deal with both extremely similar choices at once, and the heavy precedent is to give the date in the first sentence of the article and not include it in the title. If there is overwhelming support for changing "Japanese occupation of Korea" to "Japanese occupation of Korea (1905-1945)", we can do that afterward. The article does need cleanup, and that may take a while. There is no reason to hold up a name change until some unspecified (and perhaps unspecifiable) amount of needed cleanup is finished. I will add a cleanup template. -Exucmember (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of move

This move was proposed in June 2006 and again in November 2007, with virtually no opposition expressed, but for some reason the move was never made. -Exucmember (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "occupation" implies "military occupation", and there is a key difference between Korea's status as a protectorate and later fully incorporated colony and element of the Empire under the civilian government in Tokyo, annexed not by pure military invasion, but with the support of several treaties (of questionable legality) on the one hand, and on the other hand the case of places like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Burma, Thailand, which were seized militarily, ruled militarily, and were never a part of the Empire under peacetime conditions. Regardless of the widespread and extreme suffering of the Korean people during this period, the key point is now how or how much they suffered and were oppressed or repressed, but the legal and political status of the country.
For example, in the case of the US military occupation of Japan, and the current US military occupation of Iraq, no claims are made as to "protectorate", "colony", or "overseas territory" status of the occupied lands. The occupied lands are/were in both cases ruled by a combination of native local civilian government and US Military, with the elected civilian government based in Washington having little direct role. Japanese did not, and Iraqis do not, hold US citizenship, pay taxes to the US government, or receive welfare, social security or the like as if they were. On the other hand, Korea was ruled not solely by the Japanese military, not solely during wartime, as was the case with the Japanese occupations of parts of China, various Pacific Islands and Southeast Asian states, nor with the intention of rebuilding the nation and returning it to independence as was the case in US-occupied Japan, US/UK/French/USSR-occupied Germany immediately following WWII, or US-occupied Iraq.
In Korea, however, while those in Korea (including, in some respects, ethnic Japanese) enjoyed far fewer rights than those in Japan proper (including ethnic Koreans), Korea was administered not as an occupied territory, but as a colony and an integral part of the Empire. Korean royals and nobles were integrated into the Japanese system of Peerage, and appointed to the House of Peers. Koreans living in the Home Islands were elected to the House of Representatives. The national education system was extended to Korea. Korea was governed not by military fiat, not by martial law, but by a civilian government, albeit it one that Koreans had little representation in.
I am not in any way trying to argue that what the Japanese did in Korea was right, or good, but simply that it was different from what went on in other parts of the Asian mainland and in the Pacific during World War II, and different from military occupations in other parts of the world at other times in history. The word "occupation" should not in my opinion be used in the title of this article. LordAmeth (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the distinctions you draw are valid. There are also distinction between "rule" by Imperial Japan during this period and what "rule" normally means in other times and places. So this title is harder to decide that some others. But you are pitting your opinion against that of a majority of scholars who refer to the period as an "occupation." -Exucmember (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that is indeed the case, I certainly cannot argue with it. Shall I go create articles for US occupation of Hawaii, Belgian occupation of the Congo, British occupation of Australia, and Japanese occupation of Hokkaido as well, or are we going to make an exception and regard those as "valid" colonies/territories, and only Korea and Taiwan as "occupations"? ... Ah, never mind. I'm just taking a snarky stab at you. I have no interest in getting into a heated debate over this kind of stuff; if "most scholars" - not just in Korean studies, but in Japanese studies, world history, colonial/imperialist history as well - regard it as an "occupation" then I will certainly accede to that and will not oppose the requested move. LordAmeth (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As with Lord Ameth, I oppose the move on the grounds that "occupation" implies a temporary military condition, and not the formal incorporation of one formerly independent country into an integral part of another. I also disagree with assertions 4 and 5 that the word "rule" is pro-Japanese POV, whereas "occupation" is neutral. To play devil's advocate, the opposite can be argued (i.e. that the word "occupation" is pro-Korean POV, since it supports the official Korean position that Korea was only under temporary occupation by Japan while the 'legitimate' government of Korea was in exile). Unfortunately, I can offer no alternative to either “rule” or “occupation”, but of the two choices, I must side with “occupation” for all of the reasons listed by Lord Ameth. As to whether this is in disagreement with the “majority of scholars” or not, it all depends on whether or not one chooses to believe that a Google count a true indication of anything or not. Aside from the accuracy issues with Google, many scholars have their own political agendas to pursue, and it is doubtful whether or not a poll or discussion among scholars was ever taken as to which terms is most “neutral”. --MChew (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Like User:LordAmeth and User:MChew, I also oppose the move "on the grounds that 'occupation' implies a temporary military condition, and not the formal incorporation of one formerly independent country into an integral part of another." (And such an occupation is considered formal by the occupier, it is usually not widely recognized by other states.) Please cf. the other relevant similar case, Taiwan under Japanese rule. — AjaxSmack 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Logitech95's addtion

It is Logitech95's addition[2]
These Korean partisans were particularly ruthless against the Japanese civilians and soldiers they encountered. During the spring of 1920 in what is now known as the Nikolayevsk Incident, some 300 Japanese civilians and 350 Japanese prisoners-of-wars were brutally slaughtered in the small Russian village of Nikolayevsk-on-Amur by Korean partisans who were fighting with the Bolsheviks.[3][4][5]

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1932 and subsequent Pacification of Manchukuo deprived many of these groups of their bases of operation and supplies. Many were forced to either flee to China itself, or to join with the Communist-backed forces in eastern Russia.

Logitech95 (talk · contribs), First off, only the first paragraph is referenced and the other has nothing. I check the three sources that you inserted to the article. All are not from reliable sites, and the two are cached contents. I don't think Wikpedia accepts this unreliable cached links. The first two have no author name dead links. However, these are the basically SAME one with slight editing. Besides, I also read Nikolayevsk Incident, according to the article, In January 1920, the town was surrounded by partisans around 4 thousand strong under the command of anarchist Yakov Triapitsyn, who was loosely allied with the Bolshevik Red Army., so where is the info that Koreans only killed the Japanese people?

There are no such info on the death toll of Japanese people, so how did you figure out the numbers? Besides, where are the description about brutally slaughtered by Koreans. You imply that the incident was solely done by Korean partisans unlike the Nikolayevsk Incident article. I think you really have a serious problem presenting information. I am almost fooled by this time again. Please don't abuse WP:AGF of people. You made me waste my time to check this. I doubt whether your all contributions are like this. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean participation in the Nikolayevsk Incident can be proven by several Japanese sources. I have included one which includes excerpts from the book, Showa-shi no Shinjitsu. The cover page for these books can be found at http://www.history.gr.jp/~showa/index.html. --Shawnjw15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech, please discuss this in your talk page.--Caspian blue (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About that one table in the article...

If the characters <にほんとうちかのちょうせん> is read as 'Nihon Touchi Ka no Chousen,' how come it is said in the table that it reads as 'Nihon Touchi Jidai no Chousen?' Which is which?

Thanks! Zxyggrhyn (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"KOREA UNDER JAPANESE RULE???"

KOREA UNDER JAPANESE RULE??? I THINK HISTORICALLY ITS BETTER TO SAY " JAPANESE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF KOREA" NOT KOREA UNDER JAPANESE RULE. WIKIPIDIA SHOULD USE BALANCED TERMINOLOGY. JAPANESE NEVER RULED KOREA. JAPANESE HAVE MILITARY OCCUPIED KOREA FOR 36 YEARS. THE ENGLISH WORD FOR RULE AND OCCUPATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING. ONCE AGAIN JAPANESE NEVERED RULED KOREA. BETTER TITLE WOULD BE " JAPANESE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF KOREA". KOREANS WERE MILITARY OCCUPIED BY JAPAN FOR 36 YEARS NOT RULED BY JAPAN. --Koreanlanguage (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of article revisited

I appreciate LordAmeth's comments above on the topic of the name of this article. They show a willingness to consider a name that would be more neutral. The reality is that the current title is not neutral. It is exactly what Imperial Japan's choice would be. The fact that there are modern Japanese who stick with this choice does not make it neutral; in fact some modern Japanese clinging to positions that apologize for - rather than repudiate - the wrongs committed during that period is a well-known problem. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding that their position is more sensible that that of other partisans. A neutral position should be the goal, even though it may be difficult to find the right wording to articulate.

As I mentioned above, scholars use "occupation" in the titles of scholarly articles more than twice as often as "rule." This is because of the way this period is viewed by the academic community. This issue is just going to keep coming up every few months as it has in the past as long as several people stick to a polarized choice for a title and then say "no consensus for a move," without really addressing the problem with the current phrasing of the title.

I myself am not attached to the word "occupation," and I would not insist on its inclusion in a compromise solution, even though it makes the most sense to me (and apparently to 2/3 of scholars who write on this subject). The opinions expressed against a change to "occupation" seem mostly to point out differences from typical occupation. The differences from typical "rule" seem even more pronounced. How are we going to solve this? -Exucmember (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "Korea under Japanese domination"? Not so respectable as "rule" yet not so military as "occupation".Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
How about "Japanese Government-General of Korea" which, since it comes close to the "official name" of the administrative structure at the time should be regarded as "neutral" and which avoids potential POV words such as "occupation", "rule", etc.--MChew (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I like that but I suspect that others will not. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it. "Domination" is at least moving in the right direction. "Government" is probably worse than "rule." -Exucmember (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe this is not a controversial issue and I agree with the status quo, using what is frequent in most sources (japanese occupation), because it is easier for the reader to understand. You would not call China an empire of Japan, France a part of the German Empire, nor would you call Japan a colony of Korea. Also Japan's 1st monarch was from Baekje a Korean nation and Koreans still called Japan Wae Nara (water nation) and not Japan a colony of Baekje. [comment by User:Koguryo18 moved here from another page, where it was posted 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]

Items to check

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"?

This is a ridiculous assertion by a conservative japanese person who believes that all of Korea's success is attributed to Japanese rule. So the fact that everyone else's life expectancy rose and the discovery of modern medicine and treatments around that time is not a confounder? This is simply ludicrous and insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.86.245 (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


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

Pro-Japanese propaganda and whitewashing

Eichikiyama (talk · contribs), tell the reason why you keep erasing the "Korean conventional name"? That is how the period is called in Korea, and Korea under Japanese rule is called by Japanese. The top at the infobox holds Korean/Japanese name, and you and Bukubku (talk · contribs) vandalized the article and supported the pathetic indef.blocked sockpuppeter Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs). Tell, why the Korean name should be deleted? Then, the Japanese name should be deleted as well? The article is Korean history and you deleted the common name used in Korea. That is quite disruptive.

Google the "Korea under Japanese occupation" and "Korea under Japanese rule". The article title has been a subject for changing the name because of the common usage. Besides, why didn't you delete the Bukubku (talk · contribs)'s biased version of Empress Myeongseong related information. Your edit summaries do not make any sense, and you're doing meatpuppeting as you usual. Checkuser said that you're likely a sock of somebody, so I would not put up with your disruption any more. Besides, why did you delete the reliable source about Russian witnesses? {{fact}} was hung at the portion, so I provided the correct info and you keep blanking. So what is your rationale? --Caspian blue 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain.

I am requesting the explanation of the reason why you replaced "Japanese Forcible Occupation Period" with "Korea under Japanese Rule". And, you deleted all the Lee Yong Hoon (Seoul National University) professor's explanations. Please explain the reason. (Please write the explanation concisely. )--Eichikiyama (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the history. The name has been addressed here for months or a year, and you just blindly blanked out the Korean name. Your comment shows that you did not even look at my edit at all. I did not replace it with anything. You are the one who blanked the title twice since Bukubku did. Tell me, why did you blank the Russian report on Empress Myeongseong unlike your support for Bukubku's addition on the same subject. There was {{fact}} tag that needs "exact Russian witness", so I provided the reliable source from Dong-a Ilbo's magazine. Read WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. You support the indef.blocked Japanese troll, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs)'s block evasion. Besides, he did remove the sentence with citations. Moreover, Prof. Lee's claim is considered a "fringe theory" in South Korea. You can't even read Korean, and how did you confirm the source? It it was already proven that Bukubku can't read Korean at all per his erroneous edit at Empress Myeongseong. All you make are "blind reverts". So what is your rationale for your blanking about the Russian report? I asked you first. Please write your rationale "concisely".--Caspian blue 01:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is "Korea under Japanese Rule". Therefore, "Japanese Forcible Occupation Period" is inaccurate. You insist, ""Japanese Forcible Occupation Period" had been left for a long time". However, "This was disregarded at long time" doesn't prove the correctness of "Japanese Forcible Occupation Period" at all. Please prove the correctness of the name of "Japanese Forcible Occupation Period" again.
The assassination of Empress Myeongseong is 1985. "Korea under Japanese Rule" starts in 1910. Therefore, this information need not be written in "Korea under Japanese Rule".
You wrote "You can't even read Korean". Well, I translated "일본인 폭도가 가슴을 세 번 짓밟고 일본도로 난자했다" into "Some Japanese thug trampled down her chest three times, and stabbed her whole body with the Japanese sword many times." ?　Well, Is it "You cannot read even Korean." ?
Please write the point concisely again. --Eichikiyama (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It takes so many time for you to answer my question. Don't evade the subject. You falsely accused that I replace the "Korea under Japanese Rule" with "Japanese Forcible Occupation Period". Period, you did not read my edit at all. The "Korean name" is what Korean use in Korea, so it should be here unlike your wish. You're disregarding the long time consensus. Also, you did not answer my question at all. Why did you blank the name and falsely accuse me? Please say "your logic" and aplogise for your wrongdoings.
You're also evading the subject on Empress Myeongseong again, Why did you only erase "my sited source" which is already necessary info because [citation needed] tag has been there for clarification. Besides, according to your logic regarding the year, Bukubku's addition should be blanked out as well, but you only deleted my edit because you just don't like I added information.
Don't be silly, The assassin of Empress Myeongseong ignited the expansion of Japan which is already well explained in the article as well as other articles related to Empire of Japanese. Besides, every article that deal with history provide its background, so your logic is seriously flawed. What 1985? We don't talk about 1980s, still there is no logic on your rebuttal.
It is a confirm fact by yourself. You said "Sorry, I can't understand Korean at all, I don't know Korean language." :P--Caspian blue 11:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Caspian, you intentionaly cited dishonesty, because you thought no one read your source. However I read your new source, and I found your falsification. You repeat intentional disguising citation about hundreds Korean Army and father of King. And your old source, looks like e-mail and disguising Korean Army. Tell me why you go on disguising and citing bias source.--Bukubku (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You're the one who has been intentionally dishonest about my edits. You're the one having done falsification such as Empress Myeongseong. The source is found in Russia, and I have not done anything but add "witness names" and you lie again. The e-mail information is from Gari Keith Ledyard who is a very notable academic of Korean history and a professor of Columbia University. My new source and the blanked source of Prof Ledyard holds same information. You're so out of line again and again.--Caspian blue 11:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Your source write QUEEN. Don't cite intentionaly falsely.--Bukubku (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The style of her is Empress Myeongseong Do not ever try to evade the subject again. --12:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand "The style of her" means what? Tell me another words.--Bukubku (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Her posthumous name.--Caspian blue 12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Posthumous name is Empress, yes it is. It is no relevant with the Caspian blue's citatin sources. Caspian blue's citation sources are written as Queen. Don't distort citations.--Bukubku (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
So, why did you blank out other information regarding the witness report of Russia. You have not answered any of my questions to you.--23:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Because you disguised Korean Army. You wrote a group of Japanese agents entered the Imperial palace in Seoul, which was under Japanese guard. And your e-mail source was suspicious. Thereafter I searched your source, I found your source was administered by Victoria University of Wellington. Your source is acceptable. I will rewrite your sentence after protection expired.--Bukubku (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What does "you disguised Korean Army"? I'm afraid to say that I can't understand the note at all. The acceptance of the source is not judged by you. The links are easily able to be checked out but you blindly reverted my edit as falsely accusing me doing vandalism" and a liar. Anyway, I'm so happy that you admit your erroneous edits and lies again after Empress Myeongseong.--Caspian blue 16:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this for two weeks while the editors sort out the problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

gnoming gnotes

FYI: Please review my edits to ensure I did not alter facts, as many edits were for style and cohesion. Specifically note:

  • In intro paragraph, 2nd sentence, the term "Japanese rule;" if my use is inappropriate, please fix.
  • Three sections were skipped for fear of affecting the content. They are: Gapsin Coup, Japan-Korean Annexation Treaty, and Japanese Migration and Land Confiscation (2nd paragraph). I also skipped contested sections.Anthonsj (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Both editors primarily involved in the current edit war (Kuebie and Bukubku) have been blocked for a short period (one by me, and one by another admin because they got to it first). If you have content disputes, please discuss them here, come to a consensus, and then implement the consensus. If this edit warring continues, the page will be protected for a longer period in order to keep all this childish behavior under control. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

conventional name

"Forced Japanese Occupation Period" is not written in English, typically. "Forced Japanese Occupation Period" is native name in Korea. "Forced Japanese Occupation Period" is written as "일제 강점기" on the native name place, that's good enough. The word "Forced Japanese Occupation Period" should be removed from conventional name.--Bukubku (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just some outside remarks:
  1. In English, "forced occupation" is a tautology. "Occupation" is by definition "forced". I don't know what the precise structure and meaning of the Korean expression is, but whatever it is, simply "occupation" will do just as well in English. "Forced occupation" just sounds very odd and un-English, to my ears.
  2. Why are you guys fighting over a country infobox? Do we need that box at all? "Korea under Japanese rule" (or "occupation") isn't a country. It's a time period within the history of a country. The article's topic isn't a country, so why does it have a country infobox? There's really nothing in that infobox that's of any information value, except the timeline, which can easily be separated out into a normal table. There's no rule that forces us that every article must have an infobox. If an infobox causes problems, just throw it out.
  3. Also, since we are dealing with a time period, not a country, there's no need for any fixed "offial names" anyway. Countries have fixed, official names. Time periods don't, everybody just calls them whatever they feel like. Even if you do want some kind of infobox up there, there's no need to have any names in it at all.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the infobox with a custom-made one, greatly reduced. I propose the simples caption possible: "Korea, 1910–1945". And as the caption to the map: "Korea in the Japanese Empire". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and I'll also bite about the translations of those expressions. In what sense does Ilje gangjeomgi translate as Forced Japanese Occupation Period? Which part of the Korean expression means "forced", which means "occupation", and which means "period"? Same for the Japanese: in Nippon Toji-jidai no Chosen, I can identify what Nippon and Chosen mean, but how exactly does Toji-jidai map to "X under Y rule period"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For the Japanese; tōchi (or tōji): "rule" or "govern", jidai: "era" or "period", no: possessive particle; "Nippon Tōchi-jidai no Chōsen" literally map to "Korea of Japanese rule period", or translates to "Korea during the period of Japanese rule". Another term used in the language infobox is Nihon Tōchika no Chōsen. Here, ka: "under" is used instead of jidai and it translates to "Korea under Japanese rule". --Kusunose 10:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the only really significant word here is tōji ('rule'). All the rest is not part of a fixed expression but just a routine descriptive phrase formed ad-hoc. Supposing that something analogous is true for the Korean expressions, we should say something like: "... this period is usually referred to in Korea as a period of Japanese "occupation" (in Korean: [...]) or sometimes "Japanese administration" (Korean: [...]), while Japanese usually speak of a period of "Japanese rule" (Japanese: "tōji")". Much simpler than what we have now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is no fixed expression to refer to the time period in Japanese and descriptions used reflect the view that Korea, along with Taiwan, is not a occupied territory; in contrast to the territories acquired during the WWII which are administered by military forces, for them the term 占領 senryō ("occupation") is used. On the other hand, Korean Ilje gangjeomgi is a fixed expression. Ilje refers to "Japanese imperialism" or "Japanese Empire", gang usually "strong" but "forced" in this context, jeom "occupation" and gi "period". Note that in Korean, "occupation" usually translates to jeomryeong (I may have gotten the romanization wrong; 점령 in hangul and 占領 in hanja, the same Chinese characters as Japanese senryō). Its use of gang reflects the Korean sentiment towards the period and emphasizes the "forced" nature of the annexation and subsequent Japanese rule. --Kusunose 15:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a useful summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Bukubku, can I ask you why you removed "Korea under Japanese occupation" from the infobox? I thought we agreed on the compromise to redact "forceful" since Korean under Japanese occupation is also a widely used conventional name according to google scholars and the past discussion on request for move.--Caspian blue 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Bukubku removed anything from the box recently. I did. You can probably guess the mantra you're going to hear next: Infoboxes Must Burn In Hell.. Please re-read the discussion in this section: "Korea under Japanese XYZ" isn't a "name" at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I was not referring to the removal of the infobox at this time. When I revised the conventional title[6], he seemed to agree with the compromise to "Korea under Japanese occupation"[7] in November until another user reintroduced the "forceful".--Caspian blue 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
since the box is now gone, what does it matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Because Bukubku is the one who initiated the edit war over the conventional titles. Processes are as much important as results. Besides, I predict that the infobox would be reintroduced by others after some time passes. Aside from the matter, I disagree with am concerned of the revising the intro like this.[8] because it seems like another ignite for edit warring.--Caspian blue 19:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, it's no use exchanging blame over past conflicts here. As for my edit, I don't claim any particular merit for it, but the previous version was poor English, if nothing else. Any article starting with "X refers to ...", where "X" is already a self-explanatory plain English description (rather than a technical term or a proper name) is bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your opinion on tracing the root of the edit wars. Everything has a cause and result, so my question is a valid concern since we're here to discuss why the conventional names are the subject of edit warring. If somebody intends to reintroduce the infobox and conventional titles or others later, this thread would be a useful note.--Caspian blue 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The museums I've seen in Korea have the english title "Japanese Colonial Period" for their display concerning this era. "Forced Occupation" sounds very Konglish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.254.246.235 (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

일제감정기 means forced japanese rule anyway... IT WAS FORCED! That's why most koreans dosen't like japanese. -BY proud KOREAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.216.205 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Something else that's missing

There's virtually nothing in the article about how the annexation was actually organised. In what form was Korea administered? What was it called at the time, in administrative terms? A province? Was it just treted as administrative part of Japan on equal footing with all others, or did it have some special territorial status? What offices and what institutions were involved in governing it? Somewhere in the article a "Governor-General" is mentioned. Is that all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just come across this article. There're so many references, but it doesn't tell at all about the whole picture of the period, including why the individual policies were adopted, how they were carrtied out, and what they caused. The article gives an impression that the occupation was exceptionally harsh, but it also states that the policy of 創氏改名 only led to less than 10% of people changing their names. Why was that? Did they really ahve a choice? The land confiscation has been given a lengthy discription in the article, but who were the land taken from? Were they taken from the Korean aristocrats or the common people, who, as far as I've heard from the Koreans, anyway didn't have any land at all in the first place. In either ways, what was the end results in terms of the economy. If it has led to a growth, how much? If not, who were inpoverished, in what extent? --TokyoJapan (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Togo Shigenori

Bukubku, I do not understand your insertion of Togo Shigenori here whose ancestor was an abducted potter by Toyotomi Hideyosi at the end of 16th century. His family nationalized the nationality about 300 years ago before even the WW2 occurred. You seem to want to share the blame of Japanese war crimes to Koreans along with your "interesting" choice of titling like "Japanese and Korean war crimes"[9].--Caspian blue 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Every Korean had Japanse nationality equally.--Bukubku (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
So? What is your intention to add the nationalized Japanese before even the occupation period?--Caspian blue 04:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't discriminate people by their origins. I just wrote fact. For good measure, during WW2, there are no African ministers in both US and British Empire. Moreover, there were no Jew ministers in Germany.--Bukubku (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't discriminate people by their origins. You must be very cautious that your recent accusations against me all constitutes serious personal and racist attack. Please do not speak such comments. The unrelated information of him inserted by you is rather an evidence that you're discriminating people by their origins. He was a Japanese whose ancestors had lived in Japan over 300 years, so "that's why he became a minister in Japan. He does not even fall under the definition of "collaborators" like Chinilpa. Oh, you consider Empire of Japan is equal to Nazi Germany. Good advance in your knowledge.--Caspian blue 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no your words you're discriminating people by their origins. Answer me when I discriminated people by their origins. And I had already said to you that Every Korean had Japanse nationality equally. Don't discriminate people by their origins.

I have never said the word Nazi Germany. I am careful about telling the word Nazi, because there are German readers here, sometimes they may be displeased the word Nazi. And I have never consider Empire of Japan is equal to Nazi Germany.--Bukubku (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yi Jun, committed suicide at The Hague.[13]

There is a Lee Jun museum in the Hague (the Netherlands) in the former hotel where he stayed during his death. This museum is run by Koreans and all the documents concerning his death are there as well. He died a natural death. He didn't commit suicide.

~~Henny Savenije

Well I'm Korean, and he commited suicide... At least he died of anger... -By proud KOREAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.216.205 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

confusing language in war crimes section

The war crimes section says that 450,000 Koreans were in forced labor. That sentence is confusing. Did the Koreans die in the forced labor camps or were they just forced to labor? This should be clarified.

Atomic bombings

The article writes:"In the case of Korean A-bomb victims in Japan during World War II, many Koreans were drafted for work at military industrial factories in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were a total of 70,000 Korean victims in both cities[75][76]; 40,000 were killed and 30,000 were exposed to the A-bomb radiation." Well, its obvious that these numbers are absurds.Atomics bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 120,000 persons.How could be 1/3 of them koreans?Agre22 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Yeah, there's a discrepancy in the casualty figures in this article and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article,where it states that "According to recent estimates, about 20,000 Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and about 2,000 died in Nagasaki. It is estimated that one in seven of the Hiroshima victims was of Korean ancestry." I think the 70,000 figure comes from where the source in that section [10] mentions that "Ten percent of the 700,000 victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Korean." This definately means that 70,000 Koreans were in the bombings, not killed.--Dtnoip28 (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Country box

Merger proposal

I am proposing that Japanese cultural artifacts controversy be merged here, as:

  1. the only 'cultural artifacts' that receive verifiable mention are those taken during the Japanese rule of Korea; and
  2. it meets WP:MERGE#Rationale #3 "Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic" & #4 "Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it."

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks (give or take a few hours), without disseent, I'll go ahead and merge. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals to change headers and others

Anti-Japanese POV on this article

There are many words in this article which give anti-Japanese sentiment. This, Caspian Blue, is POV and NOT neutral. A few examples include:

1) section 8 is entitled: Controversial Statements regarding Japanese rule in Korea. To say "controversial" means that what they said is wrong. To be neutral and to not judge their research, this word should be changed to "pro-Japanese" which reflects their statements. Their statements are "pro-Japanese" in nature. Who is to judge and say controversial? If you judge, then that is biased and your POV.

2) The section entitled "cultural genocide" is a POV of one researcher. Again, it adds to the anti-Japanese POV of this article but claiming that the Japanese government's prime goal was to destroy Korean culture all together. A more neutral title would be "Cultural Assimilation". Using a strong word like genocide gives the bias felling, where as assimilation is more neutral. Source: Korea Under Japanese Rule (Andrea Matles Savada and William Shaw, editors. South Korea: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1990.)

3)The title "Economy and Exploitation" is also bias. A more neutral title would be "Economy: Industrial Development and Exploitation". The previous title assumes that the Japanese only exploited Korea, and although they did in some respects, there was also important industrial developments that had never existed in Korea. Source: "Views on Historical Disputes between Japan and Korea a. Reasons for Post-war Development in South Korea by Sugimoto Mikio" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natethegreatest (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Natethegreatest (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Added link to above reference for 2).
  • Savada, Andrea Matles; Shaw, William, eds. (1990). "A Country Study: South Korea, Korea Under Japanese Rule". Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
For the reference for 3), the following reference is approapriet.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Natethegreatest's this edit[11] should be restored, because this edit was reverted[12] by User:Caspian blue accusing[13] violation of copyright, original research, neutral point of view and reliable sources. However this edit is a direct citation of the Country Study by the Library of Congress and its copyright is declared free[14]. So none of the above accusations are justified. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I replied to your accusation to your talk page today, so started replying to yours here. There are many words in this article which give anti-Japanese sentiment. This, Caspian Blue, is POV and NOT neutral. Likewise, I'll imitate your offensive accusation like this; Natethegreatest tries to side pro-Japanese view based on his anti-Korean sentiment. This, NateTheGreatest, is POV and NOT neutral; How does this sound to you? I did not write the article, so please don't falsely pour your resentment to me.

1) One of common tactics that Japanese nationalists or pro-Japanese try to justify the period is that Japanese occupation ignited the industrialization of Korea. In fact, the section omits the nature of the listed Korean scholars who have been accused of being "New Chinilpa" (originally referring to pro-Japanese collaborators or betrayers) and being sponsored by Japanese nationalist groups or companies. They have naturally caused many controversies at lease to South Korea. That can be easily verified, and some of sources already have that assessment. On the other hand, you have a wrong assessment on the usage of "controversy", so urge it to be removed. Well, we only document and summarize what reliable and relevant sources say in an appropriate length. That said, "controversies over the legitimacy of the annexation" exist (internationally), and "controversies over some of pro-Japanese Korean scholars' assessment exist in South Korea. If the section presents comments from the both side like "Japanese scholars denouncing the period of Korea", then we can compromise to remove the "controversies" from the header. However, the section entirely dedicates to pro-Japanese Koreans' argument that caused great controversies, so I don't see why it should be changed to your preferred version. You're free to create a similar section dedicated to pro-Korean Japanese scholars denouncing the period and then combine the two views into one section. Or change the title "Controversial statements regarding Japanese rule in Korea" to "Controversies around pro-Japanese Korean scholars". Sounds good?--Caspian blue 23:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2) I said again, your edits were treated as a "whole", and I did not label the title. I agree to change the title, but "Cultural assimilation" itself is Japanese POV. There are many sources to refer that Koreans were forced to assimilate to Japanese culture and Japan by the Japanese "official policy", and some people like pro-Japanese assimilated themselves to such the policy, while others resisted to do so. So the policy should be mentioned in my opinion. I think "Japanese policy for cultural assimilation" would be a better compromise.--Caspian blue 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

3) The problem is that your suggestion does not match to your previous unilateral edit to remove the "exploitation" from the header as if the period only would have had the industrial development without any exploitation by Japanese. "Economy: exploitation vs industrial development" would be a fine compromise. I also would like to point out that Japan was a receiver from Korea in culture and scholarly studies until the Meiji period, and the situation was reversed after Japan vigorously accepted Western culture than Korea.--Caspian blue 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Think about the Pro-Japanese POV edits

Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs), as you've shown per your history, you're biased toward heavily pro-Japanese POV. The title changes by Natethegreatest (talk · contribs) completely erased without consensus and praised the rule by the Empire of Japan based on illegitimate treaty in 1905. Moreover, it is good that you can prove that the "direct copy-and pastes" are not actually in copyvio (but the initial links do not show any such thing). However, still, the edits are plagiarism aside considering whether the content could be worthy including or not because he did not use "quote" to avoid any plagiarism. So, no legitimate at all. The changes seriously violate NPOV, and the Library of Congress site says that they do not represent the view of US and should be carefully taken into account, and "if the information is considered false, please send us email". Moreover, it is 1990 info which info does not reflect the current scholarship at all. The inserted content says like the assessment is "absolute conclusion". What makes you think that information from Library of Congress is NPOV? Please see that even NYT articles, highly reliable news sources are deleted all the time within Wikipedia because editors consider the source could not benefit some pertinent articles. Likewise, it is recommended that every "potentially controversial" source should be carefully measured and discussed. As a side note, it is very unpleasant that you have obviously been lurking my edits, and even encourage him to violate our core content policies by insisting that inserting his original research with no source are legitimate. That is a bogus.

In addition, if you truly believe that Natethegreatest's "Japan's efforts to hide the shame of the past" does not violate WP:NPOV, then you must re-read the policy. And you inserted your "personal assertion" to Sea of Japan naming dispute (which were all reverted by a third party), so that experiences make you believe that Natethegreatest's personal assertions like the below are legitimate, you should rethink about what is WP:NPOV or WP:V, and WP:RS, and WP:NOR.

The Korean Indepedence Movement was the result of nationalist fervor from a small group of leaders in Seoul and spread.

Nonetheless, have been made by Korean academics have made statements supporting Japan's role in Korea. Due to rising nationalism in Korea, to support Japan's colonial role would bring about a storm of protest and hate:

Moreover, your message to Natethegreatest's talk page and could be considered "violation of WP:CANVASS" since you've urged Natethegreatest to do what you want. Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. One thing to note that I only reverted one time, while the other two editors reverted his edit because they believe the edits are NOT legitimate. Natethegreatest, I did not write the article except implementing inline sources to requested {{citation}}, so please don't falsely point a finger at me. If you're not happy with the way of the article addressed, you can open a WP:RFC or fetch WP:3O with "reliable and neutral sources" without attacking me on my talk page.--Caspian blue 06:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down, Caspian blue. I am talking about this first edit of Natethegreatest. Please don't extend the discussion.
I summarized your accusations.
    1. Natethegreatest's edit is plagiarism even if the source is copyright-free because he did not use "quote".
      → "the edits are plagiarism .... because he did not use "quote" to avoid any plagiarism"
    2. The source is a violation of WP:NPOV, because;
    1. The source is not "an expression of an official United States Government position, policy, or decision".
      → "the Library of Congress site says that they do not represent the view of US and should be carefully taken into account"
    2. The publisher says "Corrections, additions, and suggestions for changes from readers will be welcomed".
      → "if the information is considered false, please send us email"
    3. The source was published in 1990.
      → "it is 1990 info which info does not reflect the current scholarship at all"
    4. The writer may be a hired employee of the site.
      → "to see if he is a scholar or just a hired employee of the site"
    ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, please don't be so fretting over the issue. I get that you've so desperately wanted to insert the challenged 1990 source (plagiarism and NPOV issue) to the article by discrediting my contribution to the article and blatantly urging him to reinsert the source (which is against our WP:CANVASS), but well, you should behave more reasonable and patient until the issue is settled down between people involved.This edit of yours misled as if the consensus is formed between us, please don't do that. I also wonder why don't you list the accusation list including your violation and your accusation against me for fairness sake.
As looking at your version of the accusation list, you're making not only a straw man fallacy, but also deliberately mispresenting my statement. If you want to refute my pointing out Natethegreatest's violation of our policies, you should not mispresent. My criticism and warning to Natethegreatest is "combined" against his whole edits to the article as well as his unsourced insertion of original research. You also failed to address the "original research", and you demand to retract the accusation made by the third party. I never said that the challenged source is in original research, but you distort my wording.--Caspian blue 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note again I am talking about this first edit of Natethegreatest and you reverted my this edit
If you really believe my edit is against WP:CANVASS, please feel free to bring it to WP:ANI or any other legal procedures. Are you still insisting the citation of the source as plagiarism? The publisher says[15] "Information contained in the online Country Studies is not copyrighted and thus is available for free and unrestricted use by researchers". If you insist the source published by Library of Congress is POV, please prove it. However even if the source were proved to be POV from your point of view, you cannot refuse the citation of the reliable source. By the way the source is already cited[16][17] in Korea under Japanese rule. Please note that if you continue to refuse this legitimate source without reasonable reason and revert my edit like this again, I will bring this case to WP:ANI or appropriate place. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I reminded you not to do that for the next time since you don't realize what was wrong, so don't twist or exaggerate my wording again. You've tried to invalidate my criticism with your mispresentation, so don't evade the question given to you. The diff does not back up your insistence that he adhered to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR on his personal essay. Moreover, what does your sentence mean? please feel free to bring it to WP:ANI or any other legal procedures. Legal threat or baiting of legal threat is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia, so please keep in mind not to make such comment again. Moreover, I've said if you want to use the source after "a consensus is formed", "quote marks" should be accompanied. However, we don't establish any consensus yet, so your rash insertion of the source and change of the header are your "unilateral move" in disregard to WP:CONSENSUS until I present my statement to Natethegreatest. Wikipedia is not established solely with WP:V but WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV, which you are ignoring and refusing. Since you've wanted to insert the source, the proof of WP:BURDEN with the source is upon your shoulder, so could you present who is the writer, (not just the name of the author or the source site) to see if he is a scholar or just a hired employee of the site.
The insistence WP:Other stuff exists has nothing directly to do with this discussion. You're also making a unacceptable threat, taking the content issue to WP:ANI just as well as your inappropriate "legal procedure" comment. WP:ANI is for immediate administrative attention to a conduct issue, not a content issue. If we have to got to noticeboard after the discussion is not settled down and everything to resolve the issue is tried and failed such as WP:RFC and WP:30, the next step is Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I already suggested to use the first two venues "if we don't fail with our discussions" (which does not start yet), but have you tried that options before making the edit? You have not. I've asked explicitly to have patience since December is a busy month and I have not had a chance to reply to Natethegreatest yet, so please don't be unreasonable.--Caspian blue 13:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You are evading the discussion about the NPOV of Library of Congress Country Studies you challenged. Your challenge to the source means that you are challenging the NPOV of all these articles] citing the source. (This statement is irrelevant to WP:Other stuff exists) Again, please prove the source is POV. If you cannot, don't revert my edit. By the way I updated the list of your accusation above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Your failure to answer to my question and evasive reply are well noted. Your argument is WP:Other stuff exists, so please read it again. You incorrectly updated the list of accusation (no wonder). Your "accusation" list is also missing like noteworthy your "legal procedure" comment. --Caspian blue14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you really insisting "Since you've wanted to insert the source, the proof of WP:BURDEN with the source is upon your shoulder, so could you present who is the writer, (not just the name of the author or the source site) to see if he is a scholar or just a hired employee of the site."? Please read WP:BURDEN, I already used "a reliable, published source using an inline citation". And you challenged the source as POV, then you have the burden of proof that the source is POV. Why don't you prove the source is POV? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your insistence and evasive answers with accusations are noted, but what on earth, my simple request for clarification on the authors' status become accusations? Reversely, the burden of proving that the text is NPOV is on your part. I guess you refuse to list your own accusations and his, I will make the on behalf of you. Nevertheless, 青鬼よし appeared to revert to your edit by blatantly disregarding this ongoing discussion. I found the above template, {{USgovtPOV}} which was created by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies due to the biases found in the source conducted by Library of Congress. Unsurprisingly, the template is linked to so many articles.[18] And this news tells that LoC listed a false information on Korea, so as the site warns like the Country studies may have POVs. Moreover, the whole quote by cherrypicking only for the Japanese advantageous view indeed does not comply with WP:NPOV. However, I don't want to engage in edit warring, so inserted almost same amount of contents from the same site, and another book. I've never said they are unreliable. 1990 texts could be outdated. So I guess you would be satisfied with the outcome. I have told that "quotation marks" should be accompanied to avoid WP:Plagiarism, but 青鬼よし missed to use the marks and added another original research.--Caspian blue 09:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Calspian blue, I have some questions about your statement above.
  1. Why did you asked me whether author is "a scholar or just a hired employee of the site" in the context of "the proof of WP:BURDEN with the source"? Isn't this an attempt to accuse the source as POV?
  2. Why is "the burden of proving that the text is NPOV" on my part?
  3. Why did you determine the template {{USgovtPOV}} was created by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies? This template was created at 20:24, 6 March 2008[19] and first used in Freedom of religion in Angola at 20:34, 6 March 2008[20].
  4. Why is the template used in none of these articles citing Library of Congress Country Studies?
  5. Why did you add a long citation from Library of Congress Country Studies which you have been accusing as POV?
  6. Why is the "quotation marks" required for copyright-free materials? Why do these sites[21][22] copy a whole content of Library of Congress Country Studies without "quote"?
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. You obviously assume bad faith by adding more accusations. Once some source is contested, the people who insert are responsible for proving that the source is appropriate to any raised point including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Instead of your negligence and refusal to reply to my questions, I searched one scholar my self, and linked it to the article. The other listed "editors" are "unknown", however. The Country studies is obvious not a secondary and academic source, but a tertiary source that scraps some info here and there by editor's discretion. So the editors' names are also importance since they are responsible for their work. As you see the site says there would have some incorrect info or others, so my clarification is a common request.
  2. Then how come you immediately agree with the newbie's allegations that the titles are POV with what ground even though the sections have mostly been well sourced? So please answer to my question. The articles that have the POV template are added by editors' discretion once some portions are biased or not balanced.
  3. Since you like WP:OTHERSTUFF, I comply with your "so-called logic". Any problem?
  4. Are you insisting that Library of Congress is not a US government? You also failed to refute that Library of Congress presented incorrect information on Korea.
  5. I found another POV from other page about Korea, so I gauge the edit to balance the POV that you favor. I guess you dislike the new addition from the site. :-)
  6. Ask the site manager since we are talking about edits within Wikipedia, not for the site. Please present that if I use the link as a reference. Of course you can't. Moreover, I used http://countrystudies.us/ which says the site is entirely copied from Library of Congress while Wikipedia are operated by all sort editors with various sources. Therefore, such quotation marks are not used, editors could be easily confused as if the materials are worded by the editor who inserts the copy-free edit. Please read WP:Plagiarism more carefully. If you read it, I would not spend my "extra" time to explain this principle to you. Shakesphere's works are in PD, but you're not free to omit the info on the author and date when you use them. I got this information from someone who knows copyright laws pretty well and and exercise them about half year ago, so you want to continue the insistence on "quotation marks" and "plagiarism", please just visit the plagiarism site. Get some answer.
However, even though my latest edits are a compromise to comply with your insistence (to end this tedious dispute), you are still questioning without answering to my questions raised. If you fail to answer to mine, I will not waste my time for you. I also feel fatigue for your following to my edits just to make WP:POINT, please behave wisely. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for 3 changes to improve neutrality

To all who this concerns and to those who seek to improve upon the neutrality of this article: I am suggesting that three revisions be made in the titles of sections of this article, "Korea under Japanese Rule". I am now proposing just three revisions, of which I have demonstrated are legitimate points and reflect neutral views will present a more fair and balanced view on this article.

I feel that the current article is very fair and accurate, BUT my proposals are not for "content" changes, but for "title" changes to three sections of the article which I have shown. I make a valid claim with my proposal, and it will make the entire article more neutral. Focus on these three proposals, which reflect neutral changes, and please think clearly about the way in which you judge material. I make my proposal based on that fact that the current "korea under japanese rule" article has a POV in its titling of sections, pointing one way, when it should show more equal balance, as there is significant research conducted on both sides. Again, now, I propose only these changes occur:

1) section 8 is entitled: Controversial Statements regarding Japanese rule in Korea. To say "controversial" means that what they said is wrong. To be neutral and to not judge their research, this word should be changed to "pro-japanese" which reflects their statments. Their statements are "pro-japanese" in nature. Who is to judge and say controversial? If you judge, then that is biased and your POV.

2) The section entitled "cultural genocide" is a POV of one researcher. Caspian blue (talk · contribs), you said in your comments below that my proposal was: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. This is exact case with the current title of this section because it uses the word genocide from one researcher and gives that connotation for the subject matter. One strong view point should not be the basis of the title. Again, it adds to the anti-japanese POV of this article but claiming that the Japanese government's prime goal was to destroy Korean culture all together. A more neutral title would be "Cutlural Assimilation". Using a strong word like genocide gives the bias felling, where as assimilation is more neutral. Source: Korea Under Japanese Rule (Andrea Matles Savada and William Shaw, editors. South Korea: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1990.)

3)The title "Economy and Exploitation" is also bias. A more neutral title would be "Economy: Industrial Development and Exploitation". The previous title assumes that the Japanese only exploited Korea, and although they did in some respects, there was also important industrial developments that had never existed in Korea. Source: "Views on Historical Disputes between Japan and Korea a. Reasons for Post-war Development in South Korea by Sugimoto Mikio"

Please do not remove this discussion note because of your own personal views. This is important and should be viewed by others. Thank you. --Natethegreatest (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Natethegreatest (talk · contribs), here are my answers. No one has deleted your comments left at this talk page, so please don't falsely accuse or invent events that I did not do. On the other hand, messages left to one's talk page can be freely deleted by the owner.
1) See above my answer at Talk:Korea under Japanese rule#Anti-Japanese POV on this article
2) See above my answer. You must be familiar with WP:CANVASS which is about behaviors to talk page or wikipspace, not about contents.
3) See above my answer
After all your demands turn out to be all same ones at the previous section, so I gave my opinion already. I don't understand why you're behaving like this even though there is nothing new for me to answer to Natethegreatest in his planned schedule.--Caspian blue 15:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise based on Caspian's help

Ok, so how about this:

Change "Cultural Genocide" section to "Japanese policy for cultural assimilation". That way, it retains the same feeling, but doesn't have the POV of the "cultural genocide" statement made by one scholar, and it gives credit to the fact that korean culture obviously wasn't completely destroyed in a "genocide" during their time in Japanese rule.

Also, I like Caspian's title of "Economy: exploitation vs. industrial development".

ok? anyone not ok with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natethegreatest (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean board please

Can we please keep this board clean of accusations? Also no doctoral length internet feuding. It leads nowhere and does not belong here. Thank you--Natethegreatest (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Remind WP:3RR and WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Don't forget that your accusations are intact, and you have no right to delete the discussion without approval. The discussion unfortunately includes accusations from both side, but in that a main issue is not resolved yet. I already received your doctoral dissertations on "anti-Japanese sentiment", so please try to "let it go".--Caspian blue 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter Azukimonaka's block evasions in 2009

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

Metropolitan Museum of Art

Caspian blue, Please explain the reason why you deleted the quotation from The Metropolitan Museum of Art. And, please explain the reason why graduate student Yuko Matsumura’s thesis is not deleted. --青鬼よし (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please say truth. I removed your pure original research and your falsification on the source. I let the source and fix your WP:Original research like Japanese Government conducted excavations of archeological sites and preservation of their artifacts.. While there is no quote like "Japanese Government promoted the excavation of the archeological site, and protected the cultural heritage of (South) Korea systematically" as you insist[23]. Please explain about your falsehood.--Caspian blue 14:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Section "Korea, 1900 a.d.–present" in the Metropolitan Museum of Art is explaining like this.

"The Japanese colonialists' push toward modernization brings tremendous technological, and consequently social, advances, such as the building of infrastructure and the development of modern school systems. The Japanese also carry out the first modern archaeological excavations of ancient Korean sites (royal tombs, temples, ceramic kilns) and preservation of their artifacts."

Please question me again after reading this quotation. And, please explain the reason why graduate student Yuko Matsumura’s thesis is not deleted.--青鬼よし (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why you lied that I blanked out your "quote" (you did not insert any "quote" at your first edit which I reverted one time) and the Metropolitan museum source. Moreover, please direct me where are the bold texts in your "new quote". None. Moreover why should I explain to you that I did not delete Yuko Matsumura's theory? Can you show me that I inserted it?--Caspian blue 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please call the quote again without getting excited. The Japanese also carry out the first modern archaeological excavations of ancient Korean sites (royal tombs, temples, ceramic kilns) and preservation of their artifacts.　Are you insisting that this part is a lie?　
OK, You do not judge the graduate student Yuko Matsumura’s thesis to be an original research. Your edit policy was able to be understood. --青鬼よし (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You're the one who should not get excited too much. Your failure to answer your falsehood is really "charming". So where is the "promotion of Korean heritage systematically"? Where is your evidence that I blanked out your source and quote? Answer to my questions and give evidences. --Caspian blue 03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colonial status

Was Korea a colony throughout its time under Japanese rule? Was it ever converted into part of Japanese proper? Karota (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conventional name

"Japanese forced occupation" has been added the translation of Ilje Gangjeomgi to conventional_long_name field in Template:Infobox former country. In my opinion, it does not belong there. "Japanese forced occupation" is a translation not conventionally used in English. Similar topic was discussed in the past (the term concerned was "Forced Japanese Occupation Period" at the time). The discussion resulted removal of the former country infobox (it apparently was restored without discussion), and did not establish consensus whether it is conventional. --Kusunose 03:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just get rid of the infobox altogether? This article isn't about a country. It's about a period in the history of a country. Periods aren't countries. So why does it need a country infobox? Periods also don't have proper names like countries do. Neither "Korea under Japanese rule" nor "Forced Japanese occupation" or any other variant of this is a name. They are descriptions, and clearly none of them is particularly entrenched in English. The only thing that's needed in the place of the infobox is the timeline, and perhaps a map. Just reduce that thing to a bare table-like box with just those elements. No names, no symbols, nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I just notice that what I wrote here repeats almost word by word what I wrote a long time back in /Archive 2. I swear I didn't re-read that before I commented just now. That's just how predictable I am. At that time I apparently proposed a concrete change to a reduced box. Why was the full box reinstated in the meantime? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, apparently here, by Kintetsubuffalo, in March this year. I see no discussion relating to it on this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I support your changes that removed descriptions from "name" fields. I also concur with the idea that the former country template is not ideal for the article. The custom infobox you created is better. I also considered use of former subdivision template with native names simply 朝鮮/조선 (Chōsen/Joseon) but it might become another source of editorial conflicts. --Kusunose 14:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The country project also covers regime changes, not just independent countries. Dimadick (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Japan's involvement in the region

Japan's involvement in the region began long before 1876. How about the ruinous Imjin War of 1592-97?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.76.123.34 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This content shouldn't be disputed, these events did occur just as Nazi Germany was involved with the Holocaust, and America was involved with slavery. This content shouldn't be covered up or hidden. If anything these topics should be more generally taught in American education today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.109.235 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalin's Racial Dispersion Policy

What was this? I've never heard of it before and can't seem to find any reference to it outside of this page or this page's content on other websites. Does anyone know anything about the policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.126.16 (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox -> Annexed dependency

The infobox describes Japanese-ruled Korea as an "annexed dependency" of the Empire of Japan, but isn't this a contradiction in political terms? A dependency specifically describes a territory or semi-autonomous state that is not considered part of the state territory of the controlling power. IIRC Korea was, from 1910 to 1945, directly annexed into the metropolitan area of Japan and divided into prefectures.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Merged articles

I saw the merge banners and as there had been no discussion since the banners were added seven months ago, I decided to "be bold" and merge the stub-article Japan's opium policy in Korea into this one, under the section heading Economy and exploitation. Unfortunately, while this opium section adds another interesting facet to subject, it also needs a citation from a reliable source. If I overstepped my bounds here, please excuse me, it was done in good faith. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits on Relocation of cultural artifacts

Please see page 125 of this UNESCO kr. pdf file. It uses the word "theives". And they were arrested by Korean police. This is the latest news on the matter. If you still think the word "removed" is appropriate, please provide RS in English , using the word "removed". Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

From Korean POV, Japanese were thieves because they have taken Korean artifacts by force, your insecurity over this question your motive behind editing all Korean related articles.--KSentry(talk) 01:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you both are correct? TIME uses the descriptions "looted" and "stolen art and artifacts" for Japanese taking from Korea, but UNESCO uses the word "thieves" for Koreans taking from Japan. Jpatokal (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In this case the usage of "Thieves", as used in the newer UNESCO article, should be preferred. --User:Theproofreader (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Japan's involvement in the region

Japan's involvement in the region began long before 1876. How about the ruinous Imjin War of 1592-97??

Whoever you are, the Imjin War has it's own article. It could be mentioned but I guess it reaches back way too far... --Theproofreader(talk) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Plus, if you go back that far, might as well cover the interaction between Japan and Korea dating back thousands of years. This article concerns Korea under Japanese rule during the 20th century. The Imjin War had no connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.167.144.171 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the neutrality and therefore credibility of statements made by Japanese users

This shall be no act of racism in any possible form, just to clear that right from the beginning. I was just wondering if suggestions made by Japanese users could ever be credible neutral, as there are several claims of historical cover-ups, falsifications, etc. attempted by the Japanese Government which even reached down to educational levels. --Theproofreader (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are for discussion of citings of Reliable Sources, re-writes to improve the grammar of an article, or bringing new Reliably-Sourced information concerning the article to the table. Please take your Soapboxing elsewhere and a reminder that Wiki is not a Forum. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
They can be as neutral as an American or a Vietnamese editor on the Vietnam War; a Southerner writing on the Battle of Gettysburg; or a British person writing about the Anglo-Zulu War. Everybody carries bias, and you're right, some biases are institutionalized through education. I met a Chinese person who claimed that Chinese people actually ran the Mongolian Empire when it was under Kubilai Khan. She believed that because that's what she was taught in school. In my time in Japan, I've also learned that since their perspective is different, they are taught some (valid) points of history that I don't remember learning in my history classes. Alot of Westerners think it all began with Pearl Harbor; Japanese students get a little more background. I learned more about the battles that happened between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day, they focus more on the human costs on the homefront (and as you said, this may be done partly to cover up battlefront atrocities). So, different perspectives are a benefit, but still have to be backed up by reliable sources. And for disagreements of sources' perspectives, we have discussion on Talk pages and the consensus of editors. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It's ignorant to believe that Japanese users are the only people capable of bias. There is a trend to often believe the victim with extreme certainty and the brutality of events will often discredit anything that the perpetrator has to say regarding their crimes. Although white-washing history should never be accepted, it is vitally important to keep an open mind and look at the evidence presented by both parties without being prejudice. Having worked in both Japanese and Korean primary schools myself, I have found just as much a lack of misunderstanding in Korea as in Japan regarding the historical relationship between the two nations. Again, because Japan was the perpetrator and Korea the victim, the victims voice becomes stronger through gaining international sympathy. Being a victim of historical injustices is a great political "playing card" to have. North Koreans use it to its full potential in maintaining nationalism and loyalty in the DPRK. The bottom line is that when controversial edits are presented on wikipedia, you can't let your personal emotions dictate, you have to look at the SOURCES and make a judgment accordingly. Too many editors have forgotten this.219.167.144.171 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

American complicity in the Japanese annexation of Korea

I find it unfortunate that this article makes no mention of: the secret Taft-Katsura agreement that created an Anglo-Japanese-American alliance; Teddy Roosevelt’s desire for Japan to play the American role in an Asian Monroe Doctrine; that when Korean Emperor Gojong sent a secret message via Homer Hulbert pleading for America to live up to the “good-offices” clause of the U.S.-Korea treaty of 1882 and stay the tightening grip of Japan in 1905, Teddy chose not to come to their assistance, demanding repeatedly that the Korean emperor go through official channels when official channels were controlled by the Japanese…. In short, there are many bits that point to Japan learning from American western expansionism and Teddy Roosevelt instigating and coaching the Japanese in this process as a check on Russian expansion from the north. We must remember Japan was closed to all “white devil” outsiders except Dutch merchants until July 8, 1853 when the U.S. Navy under Perry steamed into Tokyo Bay unannounced with 50 ships. Perry threatened violence and forced the defenseless Japanese to accept an “open door policy” with the Americans. This is the history that we Americans have so conveniently forgotten when we consider the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. This is the history that is not represented in this article because it is written in English; IOW, of course contributions from Japanese contributors are of value (see section above)!Take a look at the date of my signature. I guess it is all too appropriate I would be thinking about these things on the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11. History does repeat itself. Zuvaruvi (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Come back with peer-reviewed Reliable Sources. Otherwise a reminder that Wiki is not a Forum and Wiki is not a Soapbox !! HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So much allies the United States of America and the Empire of Japan were, the latter got nuked by the former, causing the latter to cease existing. I'm going to go with what HammerFilmFan said. In the meantime, tl;dr. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Seikanron

Seikanron (征韓論) is not a debate to invade Korea. Sei (征) means "punitive expedition" (征伐[24]) and kan (韓) means Korea. See these Google book hits.[25] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Source quality

Source quality is shockingly poor. Statements are sourced to unpeer reviewed sections of private webpages. Genocide is called based on an unpublished and non-reviewed workshop. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Commanderies

Chinese commanderies DID exist in Pyongyang and throughout the entirety of northwestern Korea. No serious historian doubts this. It was never "Japanese propaganda". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; see Lelang Commandery. Since the source is in Korean, somebody who can read that language should translate what it says: otherwise, it should be removed because it is contradicted by more reliable English-language sources. This article also claims "Korean history had never rule over Manchuria" as Japanese propaganda, which is extremely ironic, because Japan's promotion of the name "Manchuria" for northeast China, and its claiming "Manchuria" as some sort of Korean-Japanese-Altaic urheimat did more to legitimize Japanese rule over Korea than anything else. Overall, this article is poorly sourced, and the many references to "Doosan Encyclopedia" and "Korea Times" should be scrapped in favor of Western academic sources. Shrigley (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV claim

Someone placed a NPOV claim on the article in 2008; there has been no relevant discussion to substantiate its ongoing need in quite some time. That section could be improved, but there is no reason to have it listed as NPOV, or at least there is no valid argument here to support it. Fix the sentence or two that needs work, end of story. [[26]]Studyhard12 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Korea under Japanese rule → Japanese Occupation of Korea – By the common sense of the word occupation and international definitions regarding the sovereignty of a nation-state, the event discussed in the article of concern is an act of occupation of a sovereign country by an imperial empire as it was the case with Japanese occupation of Burma, Cambodia, Guam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The respective articles which describe the event of occupation of those sovereign states are reasonably titled under the form of "Japanese Occupation of XYZ country." -- Tofoo (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coat of arms

Am I the only one to be surprised to see an English-language coat of arms for the Governement-General, who was a Japanese official in Korea?

The description page on Commons explains that the image was made from an envelope (see on the right), but I wonder if this is enough to say that this drawing was a commonly-used coat of arms. Does anybody know more about this seal/coat of arms? Seudo (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Usage of a foreign language is not uncommon. The British coat of arms has French text. However I think that it is simply wrong to refer to it as Coat of Arms in a western sense. I bet it’s a Government Seal of Japan and considering that the basis for the SVG file was a sealed letter, I am confident that the letter photo counts as reference to call it seal instead of Coat of Arms. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The British coat of arms uses French because the last people who invaded England (in 1066) happened to come from France : that's why the vocabulary of power (politics, military...) uses many words of French or Latin origin.
As for Korea, I see here that the Korean Empire (before the Japanese annexation) issued stamps with English and even French words. So maybe the Governor-General used English on his seal. Seudo (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably. The Korean Empire attempted to modernize like the Imperial Japanese did, presumably this would include the usage of Latinate script. However, it was too late, as they were annexed by the Empire of Japan. It is not too far-fetched to see English words, although one would admit, somewhat surprising, as English was not yet the "global" language at the start of the 20th century, like it is today. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule → Japanese Korea – This new name falls in line with the titles of other colonialized countries/locales, such as British Guiana, British Ceylon‎, British Gambia, British Togoland‎, Dutch Bengal, etc. This is the common name, as can be evidenced on other articles of Koreans born during the Imperial Japanese period, which list their birthplace(s) as "Japanese Korea". Also, the current article title is a bit too descriptive, per WIKIPEDIA:MOVE. To summarize, the proposed name of "Japanese Korea", is more succinct, to the point, and follows naming conventions of other article titles of colonial possessions on Wikipedia. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

it's a bad move. I can find no RS using the term. Historians of Korea (and Japan) never seem to use it. Compare 1.7 million google books listings for "British Guiana" including many serious books and articles. Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia's title is literally "Korea under Japanese rule". Shii (tock) 15:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem and "Japanese Korea" borders on nonidiomatic. —  AjaxSmack  05:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current form is far more common, as you can see in this ngram. Not only that, but most of the usage for the proposed form is not in the same sense that it is used in the nomination, but rather in phrases like "pre-Japanese Korea." Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Such treatment is inconsistent with addressing other incursions by neighboring States. I have been unable to find the period of Yuan Dynasty titled as "Mongol Korea" nor the Japanese incursion of 1592 (see Imjin Waerum) likewise titled "Japanese Korea". The Occupation of Korea by Japanese Military and Economic administration proceeded from a highly complex interaction among Japanese and Korean elements and conditions and needs to be regarded as something more than Japanese Imperialism secondary to its aggression in World War Two (IE. Indochina, Phillipines, Burma etc etc). I would also make the same argument regarding Japan's incursion into China and Manchuria prior to 1941. IMHO. --Bruce W Sims (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colony vs. Protectorate?

Was Korea under the Empire of Japan, considered a colony or a protectorate? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As of 1904 Korea was a "protectorate. However, with the abdication of the King in 1910, I don't think anyone could make the case that it had not become a full-fledged colony replete with administration, security and economy beholden to Japan. --Bruce W Sims (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring

I thought I would take a moment and acknowledge my effort to restructure this article. My intention in no way seeks to reduce the monumental impact of the Japanese Occupation on the Korean people. Rather, I am working to organize the historical facts and segregate those from the repercussions that these events produced. In this way the first half of the article will objectively report the historical events and the latter half of the article will report the consequences of those events. I believe that it is the responsibility of historians to report both categories but have been very concerned that emotions have produced a blurring of lines between objective reporting of the historical events and the consequences. I apologize for any consternation my meddling may produce and ask for any and all help in improving this article. FWIW. --Bruce W Sims (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the action of reducing a number of the items along the side of the article. The items I have removed duplicated information in the article or did not enhance the knowledge base of the article. My hope is not to have this article become a "Christmas Tree" in which folks simply hang any sort of information on the page with making an informed decision about how the addition enhances the article. Please use this venue to identify yourself and lets work together, yes? Best Wishes.--Bruce W Sims (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

After so many edits I lost track who added what but someone – maybe you – simply copied text and not the source code from one place to another, leading to unclickable pseudo-refs (eg. [86]) in the text. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korea_under_Japanese_rule&diff=546654731&oldid=546633460

Whoever did that should fix that. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

When I first started editing I was very impressed with the huge number of citations. What I am finding is that a great number of these are "dead". Its going to be a lot of work but I think we need to run down each and every one of these and find out if the citation actually references material that supports a particular point or if people simply slapped anything onto the page to keep the powers-that-be off their back. IMHO its the latter but pointing fingers won't get this puppy up to snuff.....hard work will, right? Best Wishes.--Bruce W Sims (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Folks: I have posted the regulations issued by the Japanese Military Administration and reported by the American Legation in Seoul to the merican Secretary of State. There is also a subsequent list of regulations that were issued later and I am currently working to clean those up as well. These documents are old and there is quite a bit of tidying-up to make them a bit more comfortable to read. However, I am taking close care not to touch the content in any way. Best Wishes --Bruce W Sims (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to whoever re-posted the materials I removed. Not long after I did that I started thinking that its really not my place to remove anything and started having regrets that I had no way to put the stuff back. Thanks again. Best Wishes--Bruce W Sims (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Status of Koreans in the Japanese Empire

Were Koreans full citizens of the Japanese Empire or did they have a lower status, like nationals, subjects, or residents? Axeman (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question, I believe they were the latter, and were not full Japanese citizens, although don't quote me on that, because I'm not too sure. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I may get a lot of criticism for this. The sense that I get is that the Korean nation under the Occupation was very much like some of the Nazi "allies" of Eastern Europe during WW II. For example the Croatians of the Balkans and the Slovakian administration supported the German agenda, but moreso to further their own agendas.The peoples of these countries were not necessarily on-board with this. In like manner,the actual Korean populace was, and is, fervently nationalistic, but was bound to the administration through cultural Neo-confucian thought more than patriotism. This is why I have taken the approach in my editing that I have. An extremely important piece of the Occupation history has to do with the degree of unrest and social inequality in Korea leading up to the Occupation which the Japanese exploited. BTW: Thanks for the help, I-B....FWIW.--Bruce W Sims (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Koreans were full citizens. This is how they were able to migrate and work in Japan without government impediments. But they were not granted political or economic power unless if they agreed that Japanese rule was legitimate. Shii (tock) 06:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clear that up. It would really help if you can cite an administrative resource that supports this position. Common wisdom seems to hold that Koreans were relocated as chattel under the Japanese administration and that Korean nationals had little to say about this. I have come to believe that this single argument seems to be at the heart of most of the discussions about the relationship between Korea and Japan during the Occupation. We may never know to what degree Koreans were victimized by the Japanese administration or were complicit in these historical events. IMHO I believe this is why this article is so valuable. FWIW. --Bruce W Sims (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Translating from Japanese Wikipedia: in 1910 all Korean citizens were granted full Japanese citizenship. Rather than koseki they were allowed to keep the "citizen registers" 民籍 that the Korean Empire had given them in 1909. In 1923 these were upgraded to koseki, equivalent to Japanese ones, as part of the general elimination of double standards. The reason why most Koreans consider the Japanese regime illegitimate and exploitative is a lot more complex, although this article does a good job covering some of it. Shii (tock) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just arrived at the "name change" event. So far what I am getting is that Japan wanted the Koreans as "citizens" but wanted to keep Korean heritage separate from Japanese heritage. There seems to be some desire on the part of Koreans to want to take on Japanese names and this may have had something to do with landownership policies. Later (1938-39) I suspect that the Japanese wanted to enhance the relationships between Korea and Japan preparatory to the Conscription Act. But now I am just spit-balling...... Need to do more digging....--Bruce W Sims (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Some insight could be gained by reading Koreans in Japan#Loss of Japanese nationality. However, the issue is more complex than this. Citizen is a republican concept, monarchies have subjects. There is no requirement that the different classes of subjects are equal. Compare this for example to the multitude of unequal categories listed in template {{British subjects}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this is why this subject may be the source of such heated discussion. A key issue in the matter of Occupation is the degree to which individuals had choice concerning their participation in events and activities. Not a small portion of the Korean population colluded with the Japanese administration and profited from this involvement. There was also a significant portion of the population that fought....or at least passively resisted.....the Japanese administration. After WW II there was much conflict in the Korean population over who had been coerced and who had made the free choice to participate in Japan's designs. This is why I went back as far as I did to demonstrate just how conflicted the Korean nation was before the Japanese ever started intruding. I wish that far more Korean nationals would get involved in this article. Best Wishes --Bruce W Sims (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a sentence that needs some work.

"Modernization and indignities committed against the Korean people during the Japanese administration of Korea continue to be the subject of controversy between these two nations."

This seems to imply that Korea is one single unified nation. Couldn't this be worded in a better way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be one of the larger issues in this project. One part is the varying view of this subject as seen by either the Japanese or the Koreans. However, it is important to know that the people of North Korea had a different experience of the Occupation than those folks living in the southern end of the peninsula. I think it would be a very valuable contribution were we able to include input from North Korea. I am sure that there are large pieces of the struggle by Resistance fighters in both northern Korea and Manchuria that have not been addressed. Thoughts? --Bruce W Sims (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule/Archive_2&oldid=1136882711"