Talk:Korean sword

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where are the sources of the text？[edit]

Swords under occupied Korea, 1890s to 1945

>The "firearms and explosives control" law by the Japanese occupiers was passed in August of 1907 by Japanese military and police law.

Korea became a protectorate of Japan on 1905 with a Protectorate Treaty. In 1907, Korea government signed to dismantle its army. There is no relation with "Korean sword". Additionally, there is no refernce that Korean army had so many Korean swrods. Does anyone have a reference? see above 'Joseon dynasty swords'.

> Swords were secondary weapons in the battle, with the mainly used weapons being bows and firearms. Actual sword battles were rare. As Koreans were superstitious about sharp-edged objects, the art of the sword did not take root in Korea as it did in Japan.

There is a clear contradiction. Don't you think so?

>While it is difficult to assess the situation, there are a great many mislabelled swords in Japan that are actually Korean swords or blades that have been rehandled and reworked.Little is known of this, and for obvious reasons, authentication of alleged Japanese swords by Korean swordsmiths is both prevented and proscribed. Scholars hope at some point for this diffulty to be solved, in addition to surfacing ancient Korean swords for modern study...In 1945, with the unconditional surrender of Japan, and the freeing of Korea into allied hands, ceremonial swords once again began to be made both in the south, and the north, and by the 1960s, sword-making had again begun, but with much tradition and techniques lost. Few swordmakers or swordmaking families survived, and since 1900 the shops, equipment, and traditional metallurgy were obliterated. Reconstruction of swordmaking began in the 1950s, and has only by the mid 1990s come back to expert levels as before.

No refernce. No source. It's just a imagine, less than POV. There is no clear source that japanese government bunned records odf korean swrods. If it's true, why there are still so many historical records of pre-WW2 korea in Seoul National University, heritor of 'Seoul imperial university'.

Because the assertion that "japanese government bunned records" is absurd claim. Wikipedia exists to satifsy Koreans. Gegesongs 13:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, your ignorance is laughable. Now you are going to deny any war crimes committed by Japan and ask me to waste my time citing sources right? Get a life. I am a Korean and I get no satisfaction out of Wikipedia because of the likes of you. Wookie919 (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your Answer[edit]

--Actually, Old Korean swords were used very often. They just weren't used after the Confucian eras that only took over the Koryo kingdoms. Baekje, Shilla, and Gaya were still unaffected at the time and were still using swords until buddhism became the official religion of the universal korea.

--The Original Korean terms are "Mu Sool" and "Bup". Do and "the way" are recent and modernistic asian terms from japan, korea AND china. Most original names of Korean martial arts and sword arts don't have the term DO in them. Hapkimusool is a good example. The name Hapkido is now used so randomly and excessivly, that many practitionars question the credibility of the history of Hapkido. They just practice JiuJutsu and Aikido to feed that.

--"New Korean swords. Began after 1945 and has much similarity with Japanese sword. It's craftmen go to japan to learn the way to make "new korean swords".Poo-T 06:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Correction, new korean swords were made after 1950. 5 years is a big difference in history. Korean swords has had much similarity with japanese swords in the first place. The way to make korean swords is different from Japanese techniques so they CANT go to japan to make new korean swords. Korean sword making requires molding and a slow cooling process with clay rather than hammering it and cooling it by dipping it in water like most other swordsmithing out there in europe, china, japan and other generic countries.

In Conclusion: You really need to study yourself instead of criticizing others of their lack of study. You don't know the information yourself. Instead of making a counter statement, all you said was that there is no references out there. The problem with that is, with the internet and other history books, there is no real "korean history" for people didn't really have interest in Korea. It all comes down to this; History and documents = Political power. Whoever has more political power can write and rewrite history. Whoever doesn't, has no such ability. 

:: At least one of the great living sword-makers of Korea went to Japan to study under the Japanese, as he explained in an interview, which is included in the references. Kdammers (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you people something Kdammers, if there is no 'real' Korean History, does that mean Korea doesn't have a culture of their own, their own written language, and their own independent history? Answer the question specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanidentity10000 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judo?[edit]

The word DO came before JUDO. In Korean language, Do means Sword or a weapon, or a type of study like Mudo, Jang do Hyung, etc. Jigoro Kano (Founder of Judo) made Judo from Jujutsu. Ju, meaning soft; Do, Meaning the Principle of, or the way. Do was already used before the presence of Judo. Its just that Do was used less. Jutsu was the main suffix to describe martial arts of Japan. MuSool and Bup is the main of korea, and Chinese used qian, Gongfu and Cheun.

There is no question that 刀 and 道 are very old words. In the sense of this article, you're right, 刀 is the "do" being referenced and has been used for a long time in martial arts contexts. But he is also correct that "-do (-道)" names for martial arts (including hapgido, taekwondo, and geomdo) are a recent phenomenon. — AKADriver ☎ 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn Wol Do[edit]

This weapon's name is only partially translated: the entry cuts off at "'Great", as though only a fragment had been inserted. Ergative rlt 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it[edit]

I fixed it. The weapon's name is translated as "The Great Moon Blade".

Swordsmiths[edit]

Does anyone know any ancient swordsmiths that korea has? I heard that most of the swordsmiths are unknown becuase each swordsman made their own sword as a mandatory thing and that all the other stuff was mass produced for foot soldiers. Something about the sword reflecting the warrior's true spirit.

A reply[edit]

Alot of those Documents are lost, and yes, each swordsman had their own unique kind of sword. Swords were generally crafted for the High ranked Generals and Kings so everyone pretty much had their own kind of sword. There was no Mass production of it so There is no real categorization of these different kind of swords... Only generalization.

Korean spears[edit]

Why is this under the article "Korean Swords?" Can we cut this out and put it in its own article? And, incidentally, this section is in need of some serious editing. It sounds as though it was taken verbatim from a bad translation of a Korean book. Not trying to sound mean-spirited, but I read it and cringed. --12.154.39.254 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try that signature again--thought I was logged in.--Raulpascal 17:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, either give it its own article or retitle this one traditional Korean weapons.KTo288 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about that...[edit]

Korean spears were considered "swords" as well in Korea. There were no real bias about Spears and swords because the only difference between them in the country was the size of the blade and the size of the handle. Technically, they would pronounce them as a type of sword.

Since prehistoric times[edit]

Is there proof for the particular dates of 600BC or 2333 BC?? The last seems to precise for a prehistoric date to me. I think that if you want to connect a date there, you will need a good source/reference. --Kbarends 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup[edit]

Not too sure about the 2333 BC but there were a large amount of tribes in the korean peninsula before it became an actual country. It used to be a Nomad's Land before TanGun came to the country to "civilise" them. Like most asian stories begin, there's always some kind of myth or a legend tied into the birth of a country. Something about Tangun being born from the father of the moon and the mother of the sun, and married the Daughter of the stars in order to obtain power to MAKE the korean peninsula. I'm not sure how it goes specifically, but thats when the myths date back to.


Altering and trimming large amounts of the article[edit]

Someone keeps on altering the Article on the History of Korean swords more accuratly the Rai Sword-smiths of Japan were orginally Korean and its later followers mainly of Korean decsent and also in general taking large amounts of the article away. >_< —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

wha...?[edit]

What are you saying. I don't understand... You just had one huge run-on. Are you saying that someone keeps on altering the article about the Korean swordsmiths? And that these "Rai Sword Smiths" of Japan were originally of korean descent? Which leaves out a huge part in history? If that's what you are saying... I suggest you link a reference leading to it or something. Japanese sword origins are a bit of a mystery since there's a big jump from their original straight double edged swords which were similar to the chinese Jian to their katana. Whether your information is correct or not is going to be according to politics whether you like it or not. That's just how documentations of history works. The people that have more political power have the ability to write history in whatever fashion or form they wish. Those that don't have no such ability. I mean, how many people know more about the documentations of the Mohicans than the history of the French Revolution? No one. That's because no one had the ability to make the history an official documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.86.122 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

=response[edit]

Korean "Rai" Sword

Here is your reference. You probably won't believe any of the information on it as you are most likely a wapanese.

eh[edit]

Not sure what a WAPANESE is, but I'm not Japanese or White. I don't even care much about japanese history. Heck, I don't like Katanas very much nor do I think they are the "greatest weapon on the face of the planet". I really don't. That sword does look like a katana and there were a few documents of korean swordsmiths travelling to Korea. There are different stories though, Some people say that the artisans were kidnapped, others say that they went on their own. Either way, neither countries had any hate for each other until around the late 1400's - early 1500's. There were complications, little fights and a full fledged war during this time. So I don't know. You can claim that to a Japanese guy and I'm pretty sure they'll deny it. If you claim that to a korean guy, He'll probably approve of it. but to me, I don't really care. I mostly don't care because I don't want to side with either one of them.

"Rai Sword" is known as Japanese Sword. The sword made in Japan is a Japanese sword. (221.185.253.204 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Bad link?[edit]

I am at a computer in Korea with a high-speed connection, but (using IE), I get an error message for the video link http://www.kybc.org/kybc_new2002/channel/gokybc/view/20021128.asp , 08:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)~

Irrelevant information[edit]

"The reconstruction of swordmaking began in the 1950s, and has only by the mid-1990s come back to expert levels comparable to the times before the Japanese occupation. However, almost all of the swordsmakers were trained in Japanese swordmaking, and the Japanese were originally trained by Koreans and Chinese in sword making as noted by the oldest single-sided curved blade sword is from the Tang dynasty and the fact that sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today.[1][2]"

This is what is claimed on the section of "Republic Period". This is very strange. I think everyone knows that it is impossible that sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today. Silla came to distinction in 935. However, according to katana, the katana originated in the Muromachi period (1392–1573) as a result of changing battle conditions requiring faster response times. So, it is impossible for the Japanese to keep the Silla technique until today.

I don't know what the original source say, but I cannot believe this information is properly cited. The editor must have interpreted the source in a very strange way.

Furthermore, those Silla things and China things are irrelevant to the section because the name of the section is "Republic Period". Either Silla or Tang dynasty has nothing to do with the period.

I suggest removing this information from the topic.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even read your argument because it is too obvious that your unexplained blanking campaign here is again related to your obsession with Objectiveye (talk · contribs), doesn't it? You have not present "sources" for your claim. --Caspian blue 09:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't read my argument, get out of here right now. No one need you here.
I said "accorgind to katana". The information that sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today is clearly contradictory to the pages katana and Japanese sword.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your pattern of disruption and blanking campaign targeting one particular editor are ongoing, it needs to be addressed. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you indeed have failed to present "sources" for your claim. What makes you think that the one in the Japanese topic is more reliable than ones used for Korean topics? If there is a contradiction on a same topic, then don't you ever occur that the sources in the Japanese topic is unreliable? Blanking contents that you don't like without no valid rationale, and sources can not be acceptable.--Caspian blue 10:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself is not reliable. But how about its source? (Nagayama, Kokan; trans. Kenji Mishina (1997). The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha International Ltd.. ISBN 4-7700-2071-6.)
I don't have the right to decide which source is reliable, but it is too strange that the Silla technique is identical to the technique used today. So I have asked the editor on his talk page to show what the source exactly says.
Besides, this information about Silla has nothing to do with the Korean sword of today. Why the information between Silla and Japan needs in the section, "Republic Period"? Even if the source is reliable, it is very odd to add the information there.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is written by a Japanese editor, and you object the book written by a Korean professor to Kofun period and Baekje because you can not trust the author based on "no source". It is just another contradiction of yours. Please present evidences that Besides, this information about Silla has nothing to do with the Korean sword of today since your comment is not a souce.--Caspian blue 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make heads or tails of what you are saying. I am repeatedly saying that this information seem irrelevant to the section because Silla has nothing to do with the Republic period. What does Silla have to do with the section?
I am also repeatedly saying that we need to see what the source really says. I cannot help thinking the editor must have interpreted the source in a wrong way. As you can see, the source of the information is from Swords in Ancient Japan. Ideas and History of the Sword. "pp. 1". But "pp. 1" does not make sense. I cannot even find the book.[1] What you not understand what I am saying? I need to know what the book says.
It is waste of time talking with you. We will repeat the same thing forever. Let's wait other people to join this discussion.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not only making nonsenses, but also engaging in the typical and abusive personal attacks again. You have not still presented why Silla and the current South Korea have nothing to do with the each other. Your insistence based on "no source" implies that Silla is not a part of Korean history. I guess you don't even know Hwarang. You have no idea of Korean history, so your edits to the article is not improvement at all.--Caspian blue 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense if the connection between Silla and the Republic of Korea were mentioned. But actually, the editor mentions the connection between the technique of Silla and the technique of Japan. What does it have to do with the Republic?
If I were abusing personal attacks, how about you? Isn't what you've been doing to me a personal attack? I'm not chacing you, but you are.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read your own comments and edit summaries. Ever since you appeared to English Wikipedia, you have made no constructive contribution, but just disruption and massive blanking followed with no single good reason. Looking into the article histories, and you can clearly see my name and edits to those article before your names. Thus, you're just making bogus accusations to harass and attack me. As you've been well aware that you've been suspected as a WP:BANed user, and you have not come to the WP:SPI case, but repeatedly removed the legitimate the tag on your user page with the personal attacks. You also did the same disruptive behavior to Korean Wikipedia. So please find other places for your agenda.---Caspian blue 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You LOVE to change subjects. What you said above has nothing to do with the discussion.
I have to admit I chaced Objectiveye, who made one of the most biased edit I had ever seen, but I am not chacing you. I cannot find your name before me in Anti-Japanese sentiment, in Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, Korean sword or Language Isolate but I can see your name right after me. I can see your name before me in Korean language and Kofun Period, but it is just a coincidence because you edited the same page as Objectiveye. It is you who are following me. You are accusing me for false evidence. It is you who are attacking me.
You call my edits vandalism, nonsense, etc. If what I did is a personal attack, what about yours?
"the same disruptive behavior to Korean Wikipedia"? You can see the page itself was disruptive and deleted. My process might be against the rules of Wikipedia, but it was proved that the delesion itself was not wrong.
As I said many times, this page is not for quarreling. Korean wikipedia has nothing to do with this discussion. Neither do my edits on other pages.
So, what does the connection between Japan and Silla have to do with the Republic of Korea? You've changed the subject and are not answering this question. If you have no intention to discuss this matter, just go somewhere else, wherever you want, investigation of vandalism or etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Je suis tres fatigue (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who does not get the point and evaded the main subject. What is "chacing"? So you're admitting that you're blatantly stalking Objectiveye (talk · contribs) and blanking his edits for your agenda. Your edits all focus on his edits. According to your logic, you're stalking me as well since I first made edits to the articles including Kumdo, Baekje, Kofun period etc. You see I add the 2channel tag here, so this article has been on my watchlist long ago. Moreover, you appear to be highly likely a WP:BANed user Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs), and I'm wondering why you do not appear to the SPI page since you falsely accuse that the tagging is a vandalism in your definition of Wikipedia. Your deliberate disruption is indeed "vandalism" per WP:SPADE being a spade. Now answer me, please present evidences that Besides, this information about Silla has nothing to do with the Korean sword of today .--Caspian blue 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? It me who's asking the relationship between Silla, Tang dynasty and Japan has to do with Korean swords of today.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Coval 1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ozawa, Hiroshi (2006) [2005] (in English, Japanese). Swords in Ancient Japan. Ideas and History of the Sword. 2. Japan: Kendo Academy Press. pp. 1

Japanese occupation[edit]

This is currently mentioned in the section.

"Korean swords are very scarce, since most surviving examples were confiscated and destroyed during the Japanese colonial occupation. A systematic attempt was made to collect and destroy all Korean swords, coats of armour, and all Korean martial arts equipment. The entire history of Korean swords and armour was almost lost forever, along with much of Korea's culture and traditions"

Now there are three citations added to this information. However, what do the books really say? The editor who added the citaions[2] always uses the same books and never give us details, the page number, for example.

One of the books the editor always uses is Pekche of Korea and the Origin of Yamato Japan, but it seems it does not mention martial arts or the period of Japanese occupation[3]. I don't think the editor's way of citing sources is proper. This information may be his "interpretation".

I suggest adding {{citation needed}} until details of the source are shown by the editor.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong probably does address Japanese occupation since his book is about Korean origins of Yamato Japan and that portion of history figured heavily in Japanese interest in occupying Korea and Japan's policies on Korean history, culture, etc..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tit for tat removed[edit]

I removed text from the history section regarding Korean swordmakers being Japanese trained(unreferenced) and claims that Japanese swords originated from Shilla and Tang dynasty(probably true but irrelevant for this section). The section is cleaner without this POV tit for tat. The referenced information will be moved to a different section.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plate-mail[edit]

The generals and other high-ranking officials of the Korean kingdoms generally wore plate-mail

is it plated mail or something else? (Idot (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ozawa, Hiroshi (2006) [2005] (in English, Japanese). Swords in Ancient Japan. Ideas and History of the Sword. 2. Japan: Kendo Academy Press. pp. 1[edit]

It is thought likely that the first iron swords were manufactured in Japan in the fourth century, based on technology imported from China via Korean peninsula.

Such a description is being done by the book. The technology of Silla is not explained. 60.39.35.96 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest single edged, curved blade sword is from the Tang dynasty and sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese swords are made to this day. Japanese were originally trained by Koreans and Chinese in sword making as noted by this fact.

Doubtful source. (Coval, Dr John Carter and Alan, 1984, "Korean impact on Japanese culture: Japan's hidden History" Hollym International Corp., Elizabeth, New Jersey)

Is this source true? Is it described that the process of manufacture is the same? The further validation is demanded. 60.39.35.96 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English really needs cleaning up[edit]

I would do it but the syntax is so bad in some of these sentences that I can't tell for sure what is meant. If I were to attempt to fix it I would probably change the meaning.65.5.226.135 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The leed is so garbled I don't know what it's supposed to be saying.Baron ridiculous (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A purpose I had in beginning my editing activities on WIKI was to address exactly the poor scholarship I find here. Apart from the poor syntax I will also state that the information reflects the same sort of unsubstantiated "pop" writing that one can easily find in glossy Martial Arts magazines. I ardently believe we are better than this and invite folks who are like minded to reflect on my thoughts and perhaps visit the work I am doing over on the "Korean Swordsmanship" article. FWIW. --Bruce W Sims (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Eun-cheul[edit]

For references to Lee Eun-cheul in Yeoju, Kyonggi Province, see either the article in http://gregorybrundage.tripod.com/koreanswords/koreanswordmanufacturers.html or the swordsmith article in the book Korea up Close. Since I co-authored both articles, I am not adding them, due to conflict of interest. Kdammers (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential improvements regarding the lede[edit]

If you'll allow to opine without trammel for a moment:

You know, the lede seems....a bit abrupt, frankly. It reads as if it's starting in medias res, so to speak. Shouldn't we, at least, append a brief sentence to the beginning of it? A general description? You know, like, 'Korean swords are a type of bladed weapon made for and used during various combative situations throughout most of korean history...', perhaps? To me, that seems a bit more congruent. Ghost Lourde (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

samjeongdo[edit]

I can not find in the references that Samjungdo was more like Japanese sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrin00 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Korean sword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean sword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_sword&oldid=1206293569"