Talk:Korea under Japanese rule

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[1]) and kan (韓) means Korea. See these Google book hits.[2] ―― 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".