Talk:History of Korea

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

This page doesn't explain exactly how it was that korea ceased to have any sort of monarchy. Could someone fix that?

I have move the stuff from the Korea article here and summarized the history there. Kokiri 21:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, currently this article is overrun with ungrammatical edits by revisionist defenders of Japanese colonial actions, continuing Japanese imperialist propaganda that should have been obsolete decades ago. You wonder what the reaction would be if apologists for Nazi actions during WWII would make similar edits on Wikipedia pages. This is not merely silly, it's deeply offensive. I've tried in my edits to include various viewpoints about controversial periods, but if people keep putting in extreme POV material as well as outright falsehoods, I can't keep up anymore. I just don't have time to get involved in this, but if this continues, I'm resorting to arbitration. --Iceager 09:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

-I'm sorry to edit without discussion. Numerous number of editing comes from my my limited ability to write English. I should note as minor edit. I'm Japanese, and I understand your saying. Your writing was relatively much fair than Korean official TextBook, I agree. But from japanese POV, there were still some strange writings. For Korean historians fame, I've never touched the writings before Japanese annexation. And I also didn't try to write to "Japanese Colonial Period", before doing discussion. Could you point out which seems imperialist propaganda, and show the reference to read? I can fix it. To tell the truth, I dislike the Japanese system of emperor, militalism, and imperialism of Japan in the past. But I also dislike one-sided description about Japanese ancestors. Do you really want to compare Nazi action and Japanese annexation?--Poo-T 19 May, 2004

I've written my saying at Japanese Colonial Period "Discuss this page". Could you read the page and reply to my comments? --Poo-T 21 May, 2004

List of Japanese "Cruelties" or "Mistreatments"

A major problem about this NPOV issue is that Japanese themselves don't know about the cruelties. I'll list them out.

Koreans were not promoted to higher jobs -even very famous ones (i.e. Dr. Woo Jang-choon, who was a worldwide renowned agricultural scientist). It was a rare case for Koreans to be handed an important and prestigious poisition, and even if it was the case, the Korean had to be very apt in adulation to the senior Japanese. Source: pg. 15 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Various extremities of tortures (i.e. repeated drowning of the person, beating, scorching with molten iron, and electrifying) and lab tests (i.e. experiments to build a death ray, which resulted in microwave, killed tons of Koreans; biological weapons, etc.).

Sources:

Here's an example. http://www.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/~tsuchiya/gyoseki/presentation/TRT5.html

A Japanese site, by the way.

Here's a Wikipedia article about Unit 731.

Japanese police did not permit Koreans to gather and discuss, in fear that Koreans would plot a rebellion. Source: pg. 19 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

A special Japanese police designated to watch Koreans (현병경찰) forced Koreans to participate in road constructions, and forced Korean farmers to plant only certain crops profitable for the market. If Koreans planted another crop, the police went into the field and destroyed the work. This caused Korean farmers to plant only commercially valuable crops, and could not plant crops essential for food and survival. Therefore, many Koreans were forced to abandon their lands. (This same police division also gave penalities (i.e. fine) for having 4 fly splatters instead of 3.)

Japanese road constructions and railroads cut through Korean farmlands and properties. Source: pg. 27 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Koreans segregated in education (mentioned below). Source: pg. 28 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Koreans who attempted to teach from Korean point of view, and to teach Korean nationalism were arrested. Source: pg. 31-33 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Required registration of the land, and losses of land for Korean farmers (mentioned below) forced many to move into the cities and seek jobs. The Korean lands lost (made illegal, according to the law) were redistributed to the Japanese. Source: pg. 37-40 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Those Japanese who became landlords (due to the policy mentioned above) were able to force Korean rice to be cheaper. Against this argument, the Japanese historians rather portray how Japanese rice couldn't sell because the Korean rice was cheap, even when Koreans' hard work became cheap labor. Source: pg. 43 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Koreans who participated in independence movement protests were massacred.

There was a town SUSPECTED of helping the Independence Army, and the Japanese army recruited all Koreans in the village into a church. And then, they locked the church & began to shoot away. A wounded Korean woman implored the soldiers to spare her baby, and the Japanese soldier stabbed the baby and shot the woman. Source: pg. 128-131 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Japanese teachers for Korean students wielded swords. Only under the new Japanese policy of '문화 통치' did the teachers stop wearing them. pg. 13 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #14 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi II (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

In 1928, the Japanse government (in Korea) forced Korean farmers to buy Scholar Tree roots. Koreans protested, especially because they had suffered from a recent drought. A Korean organization called "Sin-gan-hwae" helped the farmers from being forced to purchase. This same organization helped Korean fishermen from suffering from heavy losses from the Japanese fishermen. Yet, in 1929, the Japanese government arrested the members of this organization. pg. 72-74 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #14 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi II (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Koreans were forced to work under cheap labor such as mining and factories that produced cotton clothes, and suffered from mistreatments. pg. 86-91 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #14 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi II (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

(Wikimachine 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your first sentence shows that a Korean could grant political asylum under Japan,could get married with a Japanese,and could receive a scholarship from the Japanese government to achieve the higer education. That's the evidence that even Koreans could open the door to success if the endevour was realised.How many Japanese students could receive scholarships from the government? And the following sentences do not have persuasiveness.Not only are the pages of the documents shown,it is required to present the details of the "cruelties" or "mistreatments" you would like to claim here.For example,the Tsuchiya document lacks the concrete description of "the biological experimentation with the Koreans".If such a document on the net were a reliable source or evidence of the Japanese cruelties, it's easier for the Koreans to re-create the history to impose the expiation upon the Japanese.(That will be the Koreans' aim.)PS.You are required to learn what a sumurai is. The description on Woo Jang-choon tells your uneducated character. --Trilozengy 05:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Irrespective of any disagreements about previous versions, the current entry for the Japanese Colonial Period is blatant POV: e.g.

"During Japanese colonial rule (1910-1945), Koreans could spend the happiest time by Japanese investment."
"However, the Korean did not appreciate the Japanese commitment to the peninsula,derived from peculiar pride that Korea was greater than Japan without a doubt."

Hence I am marking this section NPOV dispute. (There are separate issues regarding accuracy discussed in Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). --Udzu 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-I agree with your marking as NPOV dispute. I think (with my POV), no one wants to write as "happiest time". But japanese are bored with false accusation (ex. 'expense of Korean people'). So I wrote some conflicting points in Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). I think, honest criticism against japanese ruling with objective data should be described. Then, I have not received an objection about Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). Is there any rule about waiting time to rewrite a Wiki page? --Poo-T 4 Jun 2004

When it comes to NPOV,the article on "Japanese Occupation" is out of balance.The article seems to be the Koreans' propaganda. --Trilozengy 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, it's not at all POV. What is written here is just a microscopic fragment of what really happened. After I am done with Woo Jang-Choon article, I promise all Wikipedians to improve all articles concerning the Japanese Coloniasm to the point of concerning every incidents and cases.

After reading all those, you will understand why Koreans feel that way. (Wikimachine 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to present the Koreans' impressions on what Japan did in the peninsula.To be correct and neutral,it is essential to accept the diversity of opinion or viewpoint.But the Koreans will not accept that on,especially,Japan-Korean related topics.Even worse,the Koreans will describe here out of delusion.A patronising attitude on the earlier history of Japan,but the Koreans will not describe Japan's contribution to Korea during 1910-1945, the rapid economic growth since 1960s owing to the soft loan from Japan as three times as the annual national budget,or the IMF crisis in 1990s.....The Japanese has started to state strongly against the Korean.(You may already recongnised that from the responses these days.)--Trilozengy 12:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Japanese "CONTRIBUTIONS" (eh hem) do not limit me from posting about every single case of Japanese cruelty.

We can have those contributions listed & still have things as horrible as holocaust, but not recognized.

Those economic and technological benefits were not for Koreans, but for Japanese. Railroads were built for better transportation of weapons, supplies, and troops to Manchuria.

Factories were ran by Japanese (to keep Koreans from having technologically advanced jobs, of course); therefore, most of the factories could not be used after the Japanese left.

As for schools, Koreans were segregated from the Japanese & weren't taught enough.

I'll cite all my sources as I write about the Japanese occupation. :) (Wikimachine 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Japanese cruelty? That's wrong how to describe the facts.If what Japan did in the penisula had been all out of cruelty, why did the popoulation in the penisula become double during the period? If the environment remained worse, the population would be reduced.That's easier to imagine.

The Koreans mentioned the economic and technological benefits were for the Japanese,the viewpoint is ultimately appropriate,but the viewpoint shows lack of the ablity to consider.It was the Japanese benefits that could bring the Koreans benefits.The Japanese found business, so the Koreans could hunt jobs. Before the Japanese era started,most Koreans were illiterate derived from the successive policy.Illiteracy inevitably leads to lack of knowledge , logical thinking or the ability of judgement. And as the problems in the society,can the illiteracy be overcome for just about 30 years? At most,in 1940s persons who were highly educated as the first generation under the Japanese educational system started to work. Under the situation,was it suitable enough to entrust the Koreans to run factories?It is essential to require workers who were educated highly with perseverance for technologically advanced jobs.But under Confucianism, on-site operations have been hated. No Samsung today did appear at that time!!!

As for school,was it effective to educate the Koreans whose mother language was not the Japanese as the same way as educated the Japanese? It was not a SEGREGATION, but a classification suitable for effective education. Execellent students who experienced even such a classification could enjoy the opprtunity to higher education.Have you ever heard the former Presidents of Korea speaking the Japanese? They spoke it in no way inferior to the Japanese.That showed the Koreans also were even educated in accordance with the ablity and financial environment.

And,finally,the Koreans are good at labelling with words inspiring negative image.but it is required to study the conception of the words again at school or with a dictionary.--Trilozengy 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't know what you are talking about, Trilozengy. I can see that your words are full of opinions and suppositions.

Population increase has nothing to do with the welfare of the people other than more proper medical care. Site your source, by the way. Finally, the only reason why the population was low before (as I can think of) is that Korea was suffering from epidemics. That was just a temporary phenomenon.

Koreans could hunt jobs? Koreans always had jobs, buddy, and that is farming. There is another side to Koreans having jobs. Japan made a new policy of requiring registration of farmland to the Japanese government. Koreans in the countryside with limited amount of news and knowledge did not register their lands--> Japanese government redistributed those unregistered lands among Japanese newcomers--> Koreans lost their farmlands and had to go to the cities to seek jobs. Additionally, overtaxation forced some Koreans to give up their farmlands and seek jobs in the city.

Koreans were literate, thanks to Hangul made by King Sejong and the scholars at Sung-Gyun-Gwan. It is an alphebetic system of writing & was aimed to spread literacy among the Koreans.

Additionally, segregation provided by Japanese education was not linguistically based, for Koreans were taught Japanese (& it's very easy for Koreans to learn Japanese and vice versa because they are very similar). It was based on nationality. A policy, again, to limit Koreans from achieving high level education. Koreans were taught less & were taught only the very common subjects.

Korean education itself satisfied the needs of the Korean society before the Japanese occupation. And yes, Koreans were logical thinking beings.

Again, there is no need for ugly generalizations of Koreans.

Finally, now that I am done with Woo Jang-choon article, I promise all Wikipedians my full, active effort into completely writing about the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula in details. They will have sources from my reference & history books. : )(Wikimachine 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

According to the national census by the Governor-General of Korea in 1910(朝鮮総督府国勢調査報告　大正９年：The Report of the national census in 1922 p.45-p.45 reprinted）,the population of the Korean in the penisula was 13,128,780.And the report（朝鮮総督府　昭和１６年朝鮮人口動態統計:p.2-p.3） shows that was increased to 24,679,800 in 1941. If the period under the Japanese sovereignty was brutal as the Koreans labelled,the population was to decreased.The figures tells what the Japanese rule was.

Under the registration of the lands,the property belonged to the land owner as he declared.The Koreans labelled the registration as the deprivation,but the land introduced to the national property was not declared or ,in the first place ,was illegal.Why did the Korean farmers not declared the property or were out of the news on the registration of the lands?The situation tells the Koreans society was premature to travell news with paper or lack of literacy. Overtaxation? Show us the rate of the tax imposed upon farm in the peninsula. The income tax was firstly introduced in the penisula in 1934.And the rate of the tax was half of that in the mainland.(getting nearly as that in the mainland later.) It was in the Joseon Dynasty when the overtaxation stayed.

Was the educational limitation as the Korean mention derived from the segregation? It was from students ability or their financial environment.Would the situation where the Imperial Keijo University（京城帝国大学:the former National University of Seoul) was full of the Korean-native students have established,are the Koreans today satisfied? At that time,even most the Japanese were also substantially limited from achiving higher education.

Koreans were logical thinking beings? Hahaha lol,it's a nice joke.Even today, the Koreans are losing control when presenting the power of the nation ,especially,facing the issues or problems relatve to Japan.--Trilozengy 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll completely refute your arguments.

I'll repeat what I mentioned earler: Population increase has nothing to do with the welfare of the people other than more proper medical care. Site your source, by the way. Finally, the only reason why the population was low before (as I can think of) is that Korea was suffering from epidemics. That was just a temporary phenomenon.

With your second argument, I see a lot of problems:

Who defines a premature society as one with inconvenient means of transportation and communication? They did have those two means, although not as efficient as such of the Westerners. Keep insults to yourself.
You are making it sound as if all unregistered lands are illegal in terms of crime. Remember that the Japanese government made the law. It wasn't there before.
This is it. The Japanese government wanted to take advantage of the fact that news traveled slowly across the peninsula. So, many people lost land.

Yes, rate of tax was half that of the mainland. But don't forget inflation. Don't forget how the currency value was different in Korea and Japan. Although the tax may be lower for the Koreans as the Japanese sees it, it was overwhelming to death for the Koreans. Currency difference? Yes.

Regarding segregation in education, I am not talking about higher education. It was not financial environment. What I mean is primary school, secondary school, and high school. And this is not some Korean-made up bias. Fact is a fact, no matter which side it sides with. Source: pg. 28 Noon-eu-ro Bo-nen Han-gook Yuk-sa #13 Min-jok Soo-nan-gi I (눈으로 보는 한국역사 #13 민족 수난기 I) by Jang Pyung-soon (장평순). (C) 1998 Joong-ang Gyo-yook Yun-goo-won., Ltd. (중앙교육연구원 (주))

Trilozengy, you sure don't fit here, when you insult Koreans. Koreans are not arguing anything offensive against the Japanese. They are stating the facts that happened, and Japanese are not ready to accept them (most).

Additionally, I have great respect for MOST of the Japanese (eh hem), and enjoy their animes and music. (Wikimachine 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sinocentric View of Korea's Origins?

The writer of the article, it must be disclosed, provides a Sino-centric view of Korea's origins. It is undisputed that Korea, in its myriad of ethno-political forms, borrowed considerably from China both culturally and politically. But to somehow assert that Korea may have somehow originated with the migration and settlement of a Chinese family on the Peninsula is not only unsubstantiated, it should be viewed as a deliberate attempt to undermine Korea's own history as well as the abundance of anthropological evidence which documents the presence of an indigenous peoples on the Peninsula long before the existence of a formal Chinese state. One need only look at the revisionist sinocentric histories of Tibet and Formosa (Taiwan) that were promulgated by China to "evidence" its "ancient" claims to the lands. China is, and always has been, a hegemony that has grown in size over many centuries. This growth has been patient and steady. But it has relied on a long series of small falsehoods and on occasion, outright aggression. Tibet is the clearest demonstration of this. Military troops invaded, murdered, and pillaged. The historical documents were destroyed. And China engaged in a policy of seizing Tibetan land and redistributing it to resettled "Han Chinese". China, it is suspected, is supporting the Maoist "rebels" in neighboring Nepal; these well-funded terrorists have succeeded in murdering the royal family and creating political and economic chaos. Maybe in time, it too will be overtaken by China. Not surprisingly, border disputes have been common; China and Mongolia, China and Vietnam, China and India (they actually fought in a short-lived war), China and Japan, China and Russia, China and the Philippines (Spratley Islands), etc. And now, China is at it again, attempting to revise Korean history (and its geography) with the recent controversial decision (official state policy) to downplay and discount the Korean origin of the Kogoryo Kingdom (one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea), which claimed territory on the northern parts of the Peninsula as well as parts of what was then Manchuria. Any astute observer of Chinese history will see this move for what it is, another small lie in a long chain of lies that will lead, possibly, to "historical claims" to Korea.

---I am not sure whether the article is Sinocentric biased, however, i am sure the person who rasied the issue about Sinocentric above is biased and maybe contains somekind of racist or maybe more accurate nationalist right-winged. In the issue about how "evil" of the Chinese expansion is or other, i suggest the issue rasier to do deeper reaserchs about human history. Since i cannot see any civilisation in any human history in the world is not expansionist. In respond to the critics about the Tibet issue, Taiwan issue... i would rather ask how about the unifications of any nations in the world, including the Korea and its ancient states (How come there is a Korea? how the Koreans expaned from none before the history till now there is a large group of people who call themslves Korean? and how come there were three independent states in the Korean Three kingdoms period but now there is only one call Korea or maybe two Koreas? Most importantly, plsease tell me why and how a nation is formed and why a group of people so call themselves a nation can claim some lands that exist before human and belong to no one their territory? etc.) Then, i think i cannot see any point of the above writer's get any valid standpoints, other than maybe some kind of Chauvinism. PS. the contents of above paragraph does not hold any valid standpoints, simply because lack of any evidence and more subjective to the writer's personal view rather than any objective supports. (I agree with you, that person who hates China is so paranoid. we should calm he or her down. tell he or she to relax.)

I agree. China is spending billions of dollars right now researching to prove that Balhae is part of Chinese history/culture. I'll take a look at it. (Wikimachine 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I understand the viewpoint of China on Balhae.Because any dynasty on the Korean penisula could not exercise the full sovereignty.--Trilozengy 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese commanderies

There are many delicate issues at hand in this article, but I think the entire section "Chinese commanderies", particularly the last two sentences quoted below, could use some clarification. I do not wish to add to a debate about sinocentricity, so I submit this as a new section.

"Without the commanderies, the influence of Chinese culture on Korea would not have been so strong (note the Korean's Confucian tradition!). Sadly, many nationalist Korean historians try to dispute these facts."

The exclamation mark, and perhaps the entire content within the brackets seems unncessary. The word "sadly" is not NPOV. I think it would help to furnish some more evidence of the facts being disputed, along with evidence that they are being disputed at all.

A minor grammar point, IMHO "Korean's" should be replaced with "Koreans'" or "Korean people's". Lxrhee 08:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

korean invasion of china

no mention of koreans successfully invading china under the kim/jin regime, why is this?

What do you mean by Kim/Jin regime? If you haven't learned by now, Korean dynasties are not referred to after the royal houses' surname. Please clarify which dynasties you are talking about.

Mongol invasion of Korea

can someone write a more detailed article on the Mongol invasion of Korea? --Dangerous-Boy

major editing

i'm trying to do a major clean-up of korean history articles. i'm doing a lot of googling, but not re-writing from scratch, i will generally try to keep the content, but clean up the language, & most importantly, make the various articles consistent. all the details should be in the most specific articles, e.g. mahan > samhan > history of korea > korea, the last of which should have a very brief summary in the history subsection.

it's a big project, i'd welcome some help (especially wikifying links & dates) or comments, but if you do make any changes, please be sure they're consistent throughout the various articles. Appleby 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also, any thoughts on possibly deleting Founding myth of Korea? it's completely covered by Dangun, other countries don't have such articles. i'm not exactly a wiki-veteran, so would appreciate if someone could arrange for a vote on this, after any discussion. Appleby 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby, If you have access to historical sources, I commend you to read the Chapter on Gojoseon from Samguk Yusa, noting especially the part on Gija, so that you can understand that Gojoseon of Dangun and Gija Joseon coexisted. As for my argument that Gija Joseon did not pay tribute to Zhou Dynasty of China, I recommend Book of Song Shijia of Shi Ji by Sima Qian, which quite explicitly say that Gija was not a subject of Zhou.

The reason I do not provide English citation is that I cannot find English translation of these sources at present; all I have are Chinese or Korean versions. But just because there is no easily accessible English translation, doesn't mean the source is unreliable or useless.

By the way, as you might have gathered from my user name, I am an Australian, and am quite sure that my English is by no means too inferior to so-called translators. If you believe my translation of source itself is biased, in opposition to my historical viewpoint (which indeed is possibly biased in favour of one view), please explain which part of translation you think is biased. Sydneyphoenix 00:45, 11 March 2006

from WP:NOR: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published", reputable publications being "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house ..., general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications, ..."

from WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."

you and i both know that all your hard work will soon be for naught, simply reverted by other editors. the only way to defend your work and have some impact on the usefulness of wikipedia is for you to leave a record of reputable english references that other editors can verify. if you do that, i will personally do whatever i can to preserve your work. otherwise, it's just a pointless waste of time. Appleby 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

700,000 years human presence in Korea

Isn't there something obiviously wrong with asserting that archological evidence points to a 700,000 year human presence in Korea. Haven't homo sapien sapien been around for only around 160,000 to 200,000 years?

Judging by what is currently written at Human evolution, the humans in question here are not H.s.s. but Homo erectus... however, I'm not at all sure about that.

I have added a reference for the 700,000 claim, with some clarification -- Byeon (1999), the only source I have handy, doesn't seem to put a great deal of stock in this date, preferring 500-600,000.

I'd be grateful if someone can find an English-language source. There has been at least one book published on the Korean Paleolithic, and no doubt quite a few journal articles as well...-- Visviva 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sydneyphoenix's edits

i'm not sure what exactly you're objecting to, but i've consulted these references for the consensus views: the encyclopedias available through Daum, Naver, Empas, 야후, and KoreanDB, Lib of Congress Met Museum, & other sources depending on the topic. please provide sources for what you want to add, or ask about specific problems you see, so we can discuss the references. thanks. Appleby 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A million years?

Sez who? Not the source currently given in the footnote. -- Visviva 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gija edits

according to WP:NPOV, the majority view should be referenced to "commonly accepted reference texts." i can't find any english reference texts that discuss this detail, but the most reputable korean-language encyclopedias clearly show the korean scholarship consensus. [1] [2] [3] the theory that gija joseon was a separate entity adjacent gojoseon is described, if at all, as a minority view. [4] describes in detail that the consensus today is that gija was likely a real figure in chinese history, but his connection to ancient joseon was a later embellishment. given treatments like [5], it seems to me we need less on gija joseon in this summary article, and more on the details of various current theories in the gija joseon article. of course, if there are english sources that indicate that the current scholarly consensus is something else, i'd love to see them. Appleby 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Korean Watching

The Koreans are EAGER to find the comments which are not suitable for themselves to delete them. Do or can the Korean accept the diversity of viewpoints? And do not fabricate your history to aggitate the world.

I really want to know why the Korean have such strong eagarness to fix comments or articles lacking accuracy in the net, not only in Wikipedia. It seems they suffer from an inferiority complex against other contries.However they try to aggitate the world or, accurately saying, to delude themselves ,the world has already recongised them accurately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.159.231.103 (talk • contribs)

Okay, an anon from Japan Network Information Center. Read Protocols of the Elders of Seoul for more information on international Korean conspiracies. Deiaemeth 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the title "Japanese occupation " is not neutral

The title "Japanese occupation " gives readers impression that the Japanese rule itself was illegal or what Japan did for the Korean penisula was all wrong. The treaty in 1910 was valid until Japan abandoned the penisula.And Japan improved the quality of the Koreans life.The title gives an implication of disgracing Japan.The title should be changed into "the period under the Japanese sovereignty" or something like that. Needless to say, the description of the article itself is not. Trilozengy

Japanese did mistreat the Koreans. "Japanese Occupation" is a neutral term. And I WILL make sure to put all the cruelties by the Japanese in this article, or make a separate article about Japanese cruelties during WWII in a moment (after I'm done with Woo Jangchoon article -please feel free to take a look at it and improve it). (Wikimachine 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)) PS: Please take a look at Kim Okgyun article as well -I nominiated Kim Okgyun and Jang Yeongsil articles to the selected biography section for the Korean Portal. (Wikimachine 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To make a title or an article neutral,it is necessary to acknowledge diversity of interpretation or opinion.But the Koreans will not have the ability.Just repeat imposing what they believe or are trying to believe on the Japanese or the world. Reflect the Japanese views on the title or the article.The Japanese did mistreat the Koreans? If education to the Koreans,building roads,the establishment of currency system, the improvement of the public health or many things led to double the population on the penisula were included in the Japanese mistreatment for the Koreans, what in the world is the conception of mistreatment ??? What the Koreans have to learn is that the improvement of the quality of life on the penisula was at the cost of the lives in Tohhoku Province.Was there a nation other than Japan to educate all the poor and begger out of the mainland's pocket? Metaphorically saying, should the ordinary have treated the poor and begger as the aristocracy? The description on any Korea-related topic here in Wikipedia is egocentric and ,at the same time, gives bad impression on the neibouring nation or people to the world. --Trilozengy 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]