Talk:Japan–Korea disputes

An explaination would be nice

Let's keep interpretations to a minimum shall we?
[1]
"Recently, there has been a growing interest in these Japanese products in South Korea." Pure mental masturbation.
[2]
Akkies (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your subject header says it all. You did not explain any of your reversions. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stolen ancient artifacts and history texts

We should also include this section, because there are known to be 200,000 artifacts pieces and many history texts have been stolen from Korea during Japanese occupation, and many artifacts have been destroyed by Japanese in order to distort Korea's ancient past. --Korsentry 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

You could do, showing reliable and clean sources. What are you waiting for? --82.83.201.1 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I belive the current article include said section with reliable and clean sources. Hkwon (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter Azukimonaka's block evasions in 2009

Since Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki), indefinitely blocked sockpuppeter, has kept evading his block sanction with sock accounts and IPs such as 青鬼よし (talk · contribs · logs · block log) this time here again, the header and box are added to differentiate other discussions from his comments instead of blanking per WP:BAN. See WP:SPI/Azukimonaka and its chronicle. --Caspian blue 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

Korea under Japanese rule section

I revise this

Some conservative Japanese scholars claim that Korean textbooks have a bias in criticizing Japan and the Japanese occupation of Korea [3] [4] [5], but thus far there has been no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan.

This sentence quotes three books. However, those books are not being written by the scholar.

• 1 [6] The author of this book doesn't belong to the academy with the authority.
• 2.[7] This is a magazine of the pornography publisher (宝島社)in Japan. This magazine is not being issued by the scholar who has the authority.
• 3.[8] This is a magazine of the pornography publisher (イースト・プレス)in Japan. This is a magazine of a small-scale publisher in Japan. This magazine is not being issued by the scholar who has the authority. --青鬼よし (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your unexplained addition of "unrelated and duplicated content. The alleged apology of Japan section has nothing to do with some scholars' interpretation on the occupation period of Korea which is already mentioned elsewhere. On the other hand, given this info, the comment from former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo could be mentioned for the section; "Abe Shinzo's series of statements denying Japanese governmental involvement in coercing the comfort women into the military’s wartime system of sexual slavery." or Shintarō Ishihara. Moreover, your revert has many problems.

Some conservative Japanese scholars claim that Korean textbooks have a bias in criticizing Japan and the Japanese occupation of Korea [9] [10] [11], but thus far there has been no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan.	Previous version before 青鬼よし edited
Japanese are not interested in the textbook of the foreign country. thus far there is no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan.	青鬼よし's edit

Your removal of the Amazon links and alteration of the sentence are not based on "WP:Reliable source", but because you believe they are not serious academic publishers. The content has nothing to do with the notability of the publishers, but say such books exist in Japan. Moreover, you have not presented any reliable sources to prove your insistence except your assertion. In addition, you altered this sentence with your own "essay" on contrary to your insistence. I removed the Amazon links and add {{fact}} since the topic is pertinent to the subject.--Caspian blue 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, OK. You added . Then, You must add the source of evidence. I expect you to do a sincere, quick activity. --青鬼よし (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Caspian blue,　Two sources that you quoted are dead links. [12]

• 1 http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/jp-rape.htm Murder of Empress Myeongseong
• 2 http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200108/30/200108300144080739900090809081.htm

And Caspian blue deleted these two sources.

• 1 Kyoto University "International order in east Asia and historical research on exchange)" [13]
• 2 Professor Lee, Jong-Wha at　Korea University "Economic Growth and human Production in the Republic of Korea, 1945 - 1992" [14]

I sent back your edit. Do you criticize again for "Your removal and alteration of the sentence are not based on" WP:Reliable source" --青鬼よし (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't distort my edit. You can not say that I inserted the Kimsort link but I "reverted" you questionable edit to the article as well as your insertion of WP:Original research such as Japanese are not interested in the textbook of the foreign country. thus far there is no massive protest against Korean textbooks in Japan. So that is correct to point out "Your (青鬼よし) removal and alteration of the sentence are not based on WP:RS. For the deletion of your addition of the Prof. Lee Jong-Wha is explained in the following sentence at my edit summary. Why did you misquote again? The re-added material by you is already in Apology section, so the duplicated info should not be re-added. I'm still waiting for your explanation for your edit. You have failed to answer to my question above.--Caspian blue 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/asorder/meetings12-02.html

Your content from this site is very strong POV, and first present an English translation of the page, since you're responsible for the POV addition. So non-Japanese readers can check on whether this passage is correct.

(which some argue as void and illegal since the treaty was not signed by the Korean Emperor but by a Japanese puppet government). [5] The purpose of the emperor's in Korea rejecting the signature is to defend his property. Ito Hirobumi negotiated with the emperor, and guaranteed emperor's property. Then, the emperor appointed Park Che-Soon of Five Eulsa Traitors to the Prime Minister of a Korean government. The profit of the Emperor of Korea finally accorded with Japan, and the emperor was satisfied with a concluded treaty.

Moreover, http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Japan-Korea_Annexation_Treaty this is not a source at all, and the sentence including "puppet state" is not referenced as well as Lee Yong-hoon is even not mentioned in the source. Therefore, your insistence for "backing up sources" and reliable sources are just another irony.--Caspian blue 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, You wrote, ”The report by the project of the research of the history of Kyoto University (http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/asorder/meetings12-02.html) is very strong POV ". Please explain the reason.

And, you said, "first present an English translation of the page, since you're responsible for the POV addition. So non-Japanese readers can check on whether this passage is correct. "

(which some argue as void and illegal since the treaty was not signed by the Korean Emperor but by a Japanese puppet government). [5] The purpose of the emperor's in Korea rejecting the signature is to defend his property. Ito Hirobumi negotiated with the emperor, and guaranteed emperor's property. Then, the emperor appointed Park Che-Soon of Five Eulsa Traitors to the Prime Minister of a Korean government. The profit of the Emperor of Korea finally accorded with Japan, and the emperor was satisfied with a concluded treaty.

I introduce the original source(Japanse).

...この条約に対するこれまでの評価は、当時の皇帝高宗が米人H.B.Hulbertを用いて対外的に反対運動を展開した事などから、皇帝高宗はこの条約に一貫して反対したとするものである。この通説に対して、私は李完用らの「五大臣上疏文」を再評価して、皇帝高宗が率先して日本の条約案を修正して受け入れたことを「第二次日韓協約調印と大韓帝国皇帝」（『青丘学術論集』24、韓国文化振興財団、東京、2004年4月）において明らかにした。　

...こうした状況の下で、1905 年11月、第2次日韓協約の締結交渉が行なわれた。皇帝高宗は、韓国を取り巻く国際環境を踏まえて、日本の第2次日韓協約締結要求を全面的に拒否するのではなく、交渉によって韓国にとって有利なように修正した上で受け入れようとした（「交渉妥協」「協商妥?）。ただこの時、皇帝高宗にとって韓国の利益とは、即ち韓国皇室の利益であった。したがって11月17日午後の御前会議、同日夜から夜半にかけての締結交渉においては、韓国側は皇帝高宗を先頭にしてもっぱら皇室の利益保全の観点から日本案の修正を求めた。
この結果、皇帝高宗を前にした議政府の御前会議で日本案（全4 条）に対して4箇所の修正が議論された。この内2箇所は皇帝高宗自身が提起したものであった。この会議の後、韓国の外部大臣朴斉純と日本の林権介公使とを中心にした締結交渉に伊藤博文大使も加わり、韓国側が求めた4箇所の修正要求をすべてを伊藤大使が受け入れて調印に至った。
条約調印文書では締結日は11月17日となっているが、実際は18日未明に調印された。調印された第2次日韓協約は全5条からなり、第5条に日本政府が韓国皇室の安寧と尊厳の維持を保証することがうたわれている。かくして、皇帝高宗の要求は条約に反映された。

...条約反対運動に対する皇帝高宗の対応は、11月28日を境に大きく変わった。この転機となったのは、この日の伊藤博文大使との内謁見である。
この内謁見において、皇帝高宗は伊藤博文大使に、韓国への日本の融資や帝室財政の強化などを求めた。これに対して、伊藤大使は罷免された韓圭?以外の現内閣メンバーを変えないこと、首班には朴斉純が適任などを提起した。皇帝高宗は、これを是とした。
その結果、この日、反対運動から指弾の的になっていた外部大臣朴斉純を、参政大臣として内閣の首班に、外部協弁尹致昊を署理外部大臣にそれぞれ任じた。これらの人事は明らかに、条約反対運動と真っ向から対立するものであった。この日は、さらに条約反対の上疏を行なう者を捕らえるという「拿陳疏諸臣」の詔を下した。
こうした条約反対運動抑圧に対して、11月30日に侍従武官長閔泳煥が、12月1日に宮内府特進官 趙秉世がそれぞれ抗議の自決をした。これ以外にも自決が続いた。この結果、皇帝の責任を追及する声がますます高まった。
こうした状況の下で、皇帝高宗は学部大臣李完用を12月8日に臨時署理議政府議政大臣事務、12月13日に臨時外部大臣事務に任じる一方で、学校関係者、法官養成所の関係者、軍人等が政治に関与することを禁止し、12月16日の官報において、第2次日韓協約を「韓日協商条約」として告示した。

"which some argue as void and illegal since the treaty was not signed by the Korean Emperor but by a Japanese puppet government"　I do not have the interest in this part. Please delete it if you want to delete it.--青鬼よし (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is your English translation? The links are already available. You have failed to answer to my questions as well.--Caspian blue 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army

Please explain the reason to rewrite "Thereafter the Korean liberation movement, coordinated by the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army in exile, was largely active in neighboring Manchuria, China and Siberia. " in "Thereafter the Korean liberation movement, coordinated by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in exile, was largely active in neighboring Manchuria, China and Siberia".

Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army continued the resistive movement to Japan in Manchuria, China and Siberia. Kim Il-sung that belonged to this organization attacked the public office of Japanese Government in Manchuria and Siberia. (For instance 普天堡の戦い）

What activity did Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea do in Manchuria and Siberia?　--青鬼よし (talk) 10:23, 29 November 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.

A new section

I divided "sea of Japan" from the geographic disputes section and created an independent section as it is not the geographic dispute, but a naming dispute. I first thought it put into the Miscellaneous issues section, but thought twice that was too big issue to put into that section. Oda Mari (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not only change with your edit, but also altered the title from Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute to exclude "East Sea", which was reverted by at least 3 or 4 people here. The edit summary[15] did not explain your intention to weight your POV. As you said, the issue is not clearly not "Miscellaneous issues" (many of the issues in the section are not minor matter as well). Since the naming convention of Korean does not support the exclusive usage of "Sea of Japan" to Korea-Japan related articles, I want you to give better explantion for your change.--Caspian blue 06:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should the section name be longer than the main article? Oda Mari (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should not be? That is not a valid explanation for the change since it is pointed out on how many people disagree with your edit. Moreover, I also questioned about your unexplained edit summary and reasoning in the section.--Caspian blue 07:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I just kept it simple. Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Still invalid explanation. That contradicts your earlier reverts with the misquoting of WP:NC-KO. By your logic, I wonder why you have let other sections that have ridiculously long headers intact for that long regardless of their longer names than their main articles. You still did not reply to my questions. Dodging the question is not good.--Caspian blue 07:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what did I misquote? It says "Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention." Oda Mari (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You still did not answer to my question. I will point out after you answer my questions.--Caspian blue 07:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is already used a preceding sentence in the sub-section Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). "The Liancourt Rocks (Korean: Dokdo "solitary island"; Japanese: Takeshima "bamboo island") are a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) ..." Oda Mari (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in that section, not the Sea of Japan (East Sea) section. As I said to your talk page after you reverted 3 times, the naming convention does not prohibit to use multiple mention of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" or use as a header. You're welcome to open a new discussion to clarify the old naming convention set up by "very few people (who are mostly retired)" about 4 or 5 years ago. However, your omission of mentioning the sensitive change at your edit summary and your first explanation for the change in the section rather show that you want to avoid attention by your edit. Moreover, don't you think your such edit is inconsistent with the "Liancourt Rocks (Tokdo/Takeshima)" that is much longer than its main article "Liancourt Rocks", and has a forwardslash? Why have you been letting that title so far? However, most (non-Korean/Japanese) people don't know about what Liancourt Rocks is, so the title that shows Korean and Japanese name for the islets is to inform readers to know what's going on for the matter. That goes to other sections with longer names. In short, the Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute is a correct "summary" of the dispute. And the naming convention does not back up your change of the header.--Caspian blue 07:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the islets, as you wrote, I think the islets and their names are not notable and that is why the longer name is acceptable. But the Sea of Japan is the dominant name in English speaking world. Isn't that why the main article uses only the Sea of Japan? That is also why I used the name of the main article for the section title. And with the consistency of the name of the issue. Oda Mari (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV on the body of the water between Korean and Japan. You do admit that Liancourt Rocks are not the most widely known name to English speakers, but it is at such name. The article is titled with Liancourt Rocks just because Japanese editors' were so fiercely opposing to the Korean name for a long time regardless the current situation while a double standard is applied to the naming dispute and Pinnacle Island.--Caspian blue 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the three names are equally non-notable to the world but the name Liancourt Rocks is neutral at present. I'm sorry I don't know what happened before I come here and about Pinnacle Islands. If you don't satisfy the article names, Sea of Japan naming dispute and Senkaku Islands, ask for the move. Oda Mari (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is your POV; Liancourt Rocks is not a neutral name to any stretch. The world similarly do not know about some foreign islet existing elsewhere. Even many native English speakers do not know about Falkland War or the island and their location. I'm talking about your double standard applied to the headers in this article. The article is about why Koreans and Japanese dispute over "what", so I'm not talking about moving the titles of the said articles. They are "examples". The header "Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute" is just a summary like Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), so your explanations (keep it simple, NC-KO, common name) so far are very implausible. --Caspian blue 09:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think my edit and explanation were not appropriate, ask for third persons' opinion, please. Well, I've got to go now and cannot reply for a while. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is open to everyone, so if there are people who want to comment about this, they would. I've said what I felt to say.--Caspian blue 09:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why my edit in accordance with MoS should be needed consensus. If there's a flaw in my edit, it would be more understandable and helpful to point it out specifically. Oda Mari (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've said enough to you, the naming convention does not prohibit to use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" as a header nor states that it should be mentioned only "one time" in an article at all. Therefore, the naming convention is rather open for "multiple usages" within an article (one mention per one section). So unless the naming convention is clarified with a new discussion and decision, your interpretation is your POV, not a formed consensus on this dispute. If the naming convention is firm, you did not need to ask an input from Nihonjoe. Since you're well aware of that, you provided your implausible rationales as heard. So I would not repeat the same answer. --Caspian blue 05:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I asked Nihonjoe on MoS was to confirm that I didn't make any mistake. People make mistakes without realizing it. As English is not my native language I wanted to be convinced if my understanding of MoS and my edit were correct. Because I was willing to correct my mistake if I made one. That's all. As for MoS, if multiple use in an article is permitted, why there is the proviso that per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention? Oda Mari (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you're willing to get an opinion from the active coordinator of WP:Japan. However, you seem to be confused with the concept of multiple usages" on the naming convention for "Sea of Japan (East Sea). The multiple usage does not refer to "unlimited usages" of Sea of Japan (East Sea), but has its own limit within the written naming convention. The header is in my opinion, perfectly following the naming convention. If somebody replaced "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" with just "East Sea", or multiply inserted "(East Sea)" within a section, we're obliged to revert such edits as a violation of the convention. However, this case is obviously not. As I've said enough, you're welcome to open a new discussion or poll to clarify the naming convention. On the hand, I can't wait to see another big ignite for that just like the canvassing campaign and meat/sockpuppet farms from 2channel and the consequent WP:RFCU/WP:SPI/WP:ANI reports. :-) --Caspian blue 05:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I found this on the third opinion page. As for the original dispute, use common sense: the current version is easiest to read and pretty straightforward. As stated in WP:NC-KO and the associated discussion, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" only need be used once to establish that they are one and the same, and "Sea of Japan" should be used thereafter. (If I've completely missed the point, please tell me exactly what I should be commenting on) Mildly Mad^T_C 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I copied the following post from my talk page Mildly Mad^T_C 14:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the post. Doesn't the section name "Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute" conflict with the condition "per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention."? That's the point I wanted to know from the beginning. The Sea of Japan (East Sea) was already used in the second line of the first sentence here. So I thought using it as a section name would be the second use of the description. That was why I used the main article name as the section name. Should I have posted this on the talk page? But I'm not sure if it's on your watch list. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, I must have missed that point in the discussion. While your position is correct in the letter of the rules of WP:NC-KO, I still say leave the title as "Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute", as per WP:IGNORE: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Leaving "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in the section title lets the reader know, without any further reading, exactly what the debate is about. Because this article is essentially a summary of a bunch of other articles, readers (such as myself) are more likely to read only one section, so separate sections can almost be treated as separate entities. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mildly Mad, I believe you surely thoroughly read the above discussion, but you may miss that the NC-KO which set up by only handful of editors 4-5 years ago does not say that 1) "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" should be mention within an article only "one time" as Oda Mari alleges. She has failed to answer to this point throughout the above discussion with me. Even if the naming section were perceived per her wishful POV; "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is already mentioned in the previous section that deals with a geographical section" - this simply can not be established per the following reasons. Because 2) what if the naming section is move up, so the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) section is below it? Then her ground for the insistence would be "null" because the section would be the "first mention" of the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". Moreover, although the article currently does not have proper summary, according to WP:LEAD, 3) lead section is a summary of following main contents, so the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" can not be used only once within the article at all along with the NC-KO that does not support her claim; 4) NC-KO does not prohibit the usage as a header, and 4) her insistence that "header should be simpler than its main article" contradicts other sections having with much longer titles than their main articles. 4) Moreover, her insistence that the section should have only "Sea of Japan" is Japanese POV which violates WP:NPOV over the naming dispute. The sea is not Japanese sea, nor only Japanese territory. We're not talking about how English speakers recognize with what name for the body of water between Korea and Japan, but 5) talking about why Japan and Korea dispute over the said names. So the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is a perfectly legitimate summary of the dispute. Moreover, 6) this is also consistent with the other heavy-handed dispute, "Liancourt Rocks (Tokdo/Takeshima)" (which is under WP:ARBCOM ruling. She wants to keep Japanese preferred names over the two major disputes between Korea and Japan, and to exclude Korean side of story. That said, her claim for the sole usage of "Sea of Japan" is against NPOV. Moreover, I saw she left a message to you to get more favorable comment from you, 7) that is not a good practice on her part since the purpose of WP:3O is to assist to resolve disputes by a hand of "third person" with no affiliation to specific side. Anyway, thank you for your time and effort to tide down the dispute. Your help is highly appreciated.--Caspian blue 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote before responding? Mildly Mad^T_C 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did and agree with your assessment except WP:IAR which is not in the case.--Caspian blue 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm relieved to know that my understanding of MoS is correct. From the beginning, my edits were based on MoS and had nothing to do with my PoV. If Caspian blue thinks MoS is not NPoV, it's a different matter. It's not my edits but MoS should be protested. As for the term of the usage that "use only once", it should be natural to think it as "once in an article" as MoS prescribes for the usage of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on article basis. Having considered about this matter of naming dispute and rea the discussions on the usage, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names/Old discussion and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names, MoS should not be ignored on this case. Oda Mari (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, Oda Mari. That's why several people have reverted your edits so far. Mildly Mad, please clarify your statement further to prevent Oda Mari from misunderstanding and exploiting your statement. It does not matter if Oda Mari believe her edits have nothing to do with her POV. In fact, the naming convention has nothing to do with NPOV. Oda Mari's POV wants to exclude the Korean name no matter what absurd reason she can come up with (see her reasoning; should be shorter name, common name, etc), which have been shown throughout the discussion with me.--Caspian blue 09:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you're wikilawyering; please re-read my second statement. Leaving "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in the article multiple times improves the readers' ability to understand the topics at hand. Again, WP:IGNORE states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is clearly the case with this situation: the restriction imposed by WP:NC-KO is preventing us from improving the article. The spirit of the rule is to make minimal use of "...(East Sea)" so that articles with multiple mentions, such as Sea of Japan, don't become unreadable. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The map

Is it really necessary to have a map of the entire world when the article only covers Japan and the two Koreas? 121.217.59.213 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Could not find any more specific map showing Japan, South Korea, and North Korea in Wikipedia Commons or any other open sources...Hkwon (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

There are too much sources which aren't objective. Many sources are the one from Korean side.--Arstriker (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You assume sources aren't objective just because they are from Korean side, although they are reliable and verifiable. To improve the article, could you tell us which sources aren't objective and why and add some more objective sources from Japanese side? Hkwon (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for direct quotation and English translation

Arstriker (talk · contribs), since your edits have led to edit warring, you are responsible for providing "direct quotations" from the Japanese source and English translation here. I can not access the Japanese source nor not everyone can read Japanese, so the burden of proof is yours. Please use this talk page instead of making personal attacks, and tendentious edit warring. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for preparing the venue.[16] I'll try it later.Arstriker (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I am not good at English, so I quote the original in the following.

1.About the ancient Japan-Korea relations in the book of soi.(Chinese)[17]

隋書卷八十一　列傳第四十六 倭國

"新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來。"

Book of Sui and book of Song are both invalidated in the USA, because of archeological evidence against the statements in these book. In addition, in order for the text to be true, the Japanese would have to travel through time. Unless the Japanese figured out time travel 2000 years ago, it can not be possible. Various Korean states that did not exist at the same time period as the Japanese that are referred to in these books are suppose to have interacted. The books also confuse Southern Koreans as being the same race as the Japanese. It makes things difficult to interpret. Also, the Japanese did not have sophisticated iron processing or cavalry (horses being utilized in warefare) when the Koreans already had a Kingdom and did utilize these technologies. Unless the Japanese figured out how to destroy iron with a wooden stick, everything in these books would ask us to change to laws of physics to make them true. Unless, maybe they were the same people and the Koreans were migrating to Yamato and colonizing it. But the timeline issue would still make things impossible to understand. Try reading "From Paekchae of Korea to the Origin of Yamato Japan" and "Korean impact on Japanese culture: Japan's hidden History" by Dr Johathan Carter. You will see why time travel and the laws of physics make it impossible for the Book of Sui and Song to be accurate. Also remember these books were mostly destroyed and re-written 100s of years later in a bias manner, depending on who the new writer were having conflicts or were at war with at the time. Also note that the time period these books are referring to Silla did not have official diplomatic interactions with them, which would again make time travel the only possible way to makes these books true. --Objectiveye (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2.About the international science council “A Reconsideration of the Japanese Annexation of Korea from the Historical and International Law Perspectives”.

Quotation from "Higashi Ajia hannichi toraianguru"(isbn 4166604678).(Japanese)

日韓の間で歴史をめぐってどんな論争があったかということは、意外と一般には知られていない。

たとえば、韓国側はいまでも日韓併合は不法だったといい、これを学会では「日韓併合合法不法論争」と評している。 そこでこの問題をめぐって岩波の『世界』誌上で日韓の学者がかつて争ったことがあったが決着がつかず、 ２００１年の１１月１６日に、アメリカのハーバード大学のアジアセンター主催で国際学術会議が開かれることになった。

これは韓国政府傘下の国際交流財団の財政支援のもとに、韓国の学者たちの主導で準備されたものだった。 韓国側はもちろん、国際舞台で不法論を確定しようと初めから企図し、そのために国際学術会議を持ったのであり、 それを謝罪と補償の要求の根拠にしたかったことは明白であった。

そしてそこにはアメリカ、イギリス、韓国、それから日本の学者が集まり、 日韓併合の歴史をどう考えるかということで論争が行なわれたのである。

この様子は、当時、『産経新聞』の２００１年１１月２７日の 記事ぐらいでしか公表されず、一般の目にはほとんど触れなかった。 が、これはとても大きな、重要な会議だったのである。

韓国側はまず、いかに日本が不法に朝鮮を併合したかということを主張した。 ところが、国際法の専門家でケンブリッジ大学のＪ．クロフォード教授が強い合法の主張を行なったのである。

それは当時の『産経新聞』の記事によると、「自分で生きていけない国について周辺の国が 国際秩序の観点からその国を当時取り込むということは当時よくあったことであって、 日韓併合条約は国際法上は不法なものではなかった」という主張であった。

当然、韓国側はこれに猛反発し、日本に強制されたということを主張したわけだが、 同教授は、「強制されたから不法という議論は第一次大戦（１９１４～１８年）以降のもので、 当時としては問題になるものではない」と、一喝した。

その会議に参加した友人の学者によると、 この結果、韓国側は悄然と肩を落として去っていったという。

韓国側のもくろみは失敗に終わったのだが、 日本では当時この様子はほとんど報道されることがなかった。

Quotation from Sankei Shimbun(Japanese)

【ソウル26日＝黒田勝弘】 日韓の歴史認識問題で大きな争点になっている 日韓併合条約 (一九一〇年)について合法だったか不法だったかの問題をめぐり、 このほど米ハーバード 大で開かれた国際学術会議で第三者の英国の学者などから 合法論が強く出され、国際 舞台で不法論を確定させようとした韓国側のもくろみは失敗に終わったという。

会議参加者によると、合法論は国際法専門のＪ・クロフォード英ケンブリッジ大教授らから出され 「自分で生きていけない国について周辺の国が国際的秩序の観点からその国を取り込むということは当時よくあったことで、日韓併合条約は国際法上は不法なものでは なかった」と述べた。

また韓国側が不法論の根拠の一つにしている強制性の問題についても「強制されたか ら不法という議論は第一次世界大戦(一九一四－一八年)以降のもので当時としては問題 になるものではない」と主張した。

この学術会議は米ハーバード大アジア・センター主催で十六－十七日開かれたが、 韓国政府傘下の国際交流財団が財政的に支援し韓国の学者の主導で準備された。 これま でハワイと東京で二回の討論会を開き、今回は韓日米のほか英独の学者も加えいわば 結論を出す総合学術会議だった。

日本からは海野福寿・明大教授や笹川紀勝・国際基督教大教授、原田環・広島女子大教授ら 五人が参加したが、海野教授の「不当だが合法」論や笹川教授の不法論など見解 が分かれた。

韓国側は「条約に国王の署名がない」ことなどを理由に不法論を主導している李泰鎮・ ソウル大教授はじめ全員が不法論で、会議をリードしようとした。

しかし日本の原田教授は併合条約に先立ち日本が外交権を掌握し韓国を保護国にした日韓保護条約(一九〇五年)について、 皇帝(国王)の日記など韓国側資料の「日省録」や 「承政院日記」などを分析し、 高宗皇帝は条約に賛成し批判的だった大臣たちの意見を却 下していた事実を紹介し注目された。

併合条約に国王の署名や批准がなかったことについても、国際法上必ずしも必要なも のではないとする見解が英国の学者らから出されたという。

日韓併合条約については韓国や北朝鮮からはいまなお執ように不法論が出され謝罪 や補償要求の根拠になってきた。 日韓国交正常化の際も激しく対立したが、合法・不法の 結論は出さず「今や無効」との表現で国交正常化(一九六五年)にこぎつけた経緯がある。

産経新聞2001.11.27

Prof. Kinhide Mushakoji, head of the Asia-Pacific Research Institute at the Osaka University of Economics and Law, gives a lecture during an international symposium hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation in Seoul on June 22 2009. He said "the Korea-Japan annexation treaty was illegal as it was concluded under military pressure from Japan and did not meet legal requirements." / Courtesy of the Northeast Asian History Foundation --Objectiveye (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please translate someone. If you can read above.--Arstriker (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Thank you for providing the quotation, but could you also provide "the link" of the Sankei news (not unreliable blogs or personal website hosting the news), and page number(s) of the book? --Caspian blue 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm not to keen on the phrase here "The books also confuse Southern Koreans as being the same race as the Japanese." If you look at the historical literature, race as a concept came up during the late 18th century, especially in Asia (admittedly, I know more Southeast Asian stuff here). We wouldn't be surprised to find people not paying attention to "race" 2000 years ago.

What is the dispute in Zainichi Koreans

I think the way that section is written, it doesn't explain what the dispute is exactly. --Objectiveye (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kimchi export

Added more information based on internationally accepted standards Codex Alimentarius. Although I did not delete them, phrases like "Korea could not tolerate Japanese low quality kimchi floating around in world" and "To this day, Japanese kimchi export exceeds that of Korean kimchi export", without any sources, just look pathetic. Doesn't it? Hkwon (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute tag

Basing on Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, I don't understand why the article's factual accuracy is disputed as its content are from verifiable/reliable sources, unbiased, without any original research as far as I can see. The discussion page have had no discussions on accuracy dispute, and no statements in the article have 'fact' or 'disputed' templates either. If there were any accuracy disputes, 'fact' or 'disputed' templates should be added problematic statements first, and then accuracy dispute tags should be added to sections containing many problematic statements, instead of adding the tag to the whole article without any justification. According to WP:AD, if nobody raises any issues on this, I will remove the accuracy dispute tag. Hkwon (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

additions by Hkwon

I have undone your edits-our job is to chronicle, not editorialize. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All contents I added to the "reckless statements" section are historical truth backed up by reliable, verifiable sources that have caused serious disputes among Korea and Japan. If you have any problems, specifically explain why my contents should be deleted and present reliable counter-evidence first. They are restored for now by another editor. If you delete them again, I will consider it a vandalistic behavior of content blanking and request for administrator intervention. Hkwon (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kimchi export section

I've come here by way of the Kimchi article, which linked to this page as a "main article" about this dispute. If you're familiar with that article, my arguments are detailed over there, but I'll explain here also. First, TED is not a reliable source. TED is, as far as I can tell from their website, basically a set of classes (conducted locally and via internet). In these classes, students write case studies of various disputes and economic issues. These case studies are collected, along with studies from a few other classes, into what they call an "online journal." However, this is not a journal that other scholars can submit things to; neither is it peer reviewed (again, as far as I can tell). This essentially makes TED a self-published source, and thus is not considered reliable as a reference. I replaced the TED reference with a {{cn}} tag; if a citation can't be found in a reasonable time, I'll remove the rest of that section from the article because it's too disputable to stand without reference.

Second, the article was badly misusing the Codex Alimentarius. The article said "the Codex Alimentarius Commission ordered Japan to correct the term 'kimuchi' to 'kimchi' on all products including ones for export as well." The Codex didn't do that, because the Codex is, by it's very nature, unable to order anyone to do anything. The Codex is a voluntary organization that is attempting to provide international standards (mostly safety/health and packaging standards) for food. The website explicitly states that compliance is entirely voluntary. The fact that the Codex is defining kimchi in a certain way does not at all verify that this is what kimchi is in the actual world. Furthermore, as we've been discussing over at Kimchi, there is reliable sourcing as well as very strong anecdotal evidence that many products sold/made in Korea that are labeled/called kimchi don't meet the Codex definition. As there was no underlying accuracy to the way that section described the Codex or what it's 1996 report actually does, I removed it. If other reliable sources could be found to support some of these ideas, they could be re-added.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2 reverted my deletions, with the reversion summary "Qwyrxian please don't go around deleting text. It's obvious this is a matter of repairing text and finding appropriate citations. The claims are not dubious nor are they harmful." I humbly disagree with this in its entirety. One, I claim that this is extremely dubious--outside of one unreliable graduate student paper, there is no evidence that this dispute exists. That makes it WP:FRINGE at best. Second, I dispute that it is not harmful--this section implies 1) several factually impossible things (the most obvious being that the Codex cannot order anyone to do anything--their own site explicitly states such), and 2) implies deceitful practices on the part of Japan and/or claims of superiority on the part of Korea, neither of which are warranted without reliable evidence. I must humbly state that I cannot accept the Codex part standing--it is impossible to "repair" or "find citations" for something directly contradicted by the available information. I will make a revision to that section that provides the absolutely strongest possible statement that can be made about the Codex information, then if others wish to add further, I request that they find verifiable, reliable sources to support that info.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference, I just sent an email to the organizer of TED today to get more info so that we can make a better determination whether or not that info is reliable by WP standards. Once I get the info, it will be relevant here and at kimchi, although I'm going to wait to post this over there until we handle the more fundamental problems (I hate trying to hold 3 separate but inter-related discussions on the same talk page at once). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the questions I sent to Dr. James R. Lee, who is the professor who runs the classes that TED is associated with:

1. Can any scholar participate in the process of writing Case Studies? Are most participants graduate students connected with your graduate class, or do other scholars regularly participate?

These are mostly from my courses, where we also teach web skills. I've done this also with faculty and with classes from George Washington, Truman State, Uppsala University in Sweden, Ritsumeikan in Japan, and others.

2. What type of review process is involved before Case Studies are included in the online database? Is this a blind, peer review process, like a traditional academic journal would use, or more closely connected to the classroom context (that is, a professor correcting and managing student papers)? Do completed case studies get submitted that are rejected for publishing in the online journal?

More classroom context, where the other professor and I apply more scrutiny than in a traditional class. We open the papers for a virtual conference for comments before publication and I have invited some outside experts to comment. Yes, some are rejected for publication on the web site.

While the answer isn't 100% unambiguous, to me it matches my original inclination that TED does not qualify as a reliable source. The fact that the papers are treated more like a "classroom context" rather than like an academic journal makes me believe that this source does not meet our criteria. Furthermore, note that the case in question itself doesn't site reliable sources. I mean, the Codex is a reliable source on itself, although not on why or how the standardization is achieved; the Korean Kimchi Story is a dead link but it certainly sounds unreliable, and the Life in Korea site is definitely SPS. The KFRI source seems good, and, while that link is dead, might be something worthwhile for us to use here or at kimchi (keeping in mind that it appears to be a primary, not secondary source). As such, I think that whatever we leave here in the kimchi dispute needs to rely on the LA Times, NYT, and other articles, not TED or the Codex.