Talk:Korea under Japanese rule

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

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

~~Henny Savenije

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

Atomic bombings

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

Yeah, there's a discrepancy in the casualty figures in this article and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article,where it states that "According to recent estimates, about 20,000 Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and about 2,000 died in Nagasaki. It is estimated that one in seven of the Hiroshima victims was of Korean ancestry." I think the 70,000 figure comes from where the source in that section [1] mentions that "Ten percent of the 700,000 victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Korean." This definately means that 70,000 Koreans were in the bombings, not killed.--Dtnoip28 (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

confusing language in war crimes section

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

Country box

• Caspian blue, could you please explain (not simply state, but explain) what`s wrong with my edits? Why do think they`re not neutral? 95.25.227.106 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  95.25.227.106 (talk · contribs), please read through the past discussion. And then, if you have still the question, continue explaining your stance.--Caspian blue 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

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

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposals to change headers

Anti-Japanese POV on this article

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

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

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

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

Added link to above reference for 2).

• Savada, Andrea Matles; Shaw, William, eds. (1990). "A Country Study: South Korea, Korea Under Japanese Rule". Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

For the reference for 3), the following reference is approapriet.

• Savada, Andrea Matles; Shaw, William, eds. (1990). "A Country Study: South Korea, The Japanese Role in Korea's Economic Development". Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Natethegreatest's this edit[2] should be restored, because this edit was reverted[3] by User:Caspian blue accusing[4] violation of copyright, original research, neutral point of view and reliable sources. However this edit is a direct citation of the Country Study by the Library of Congress and its copyright is declared free[5]. So none of the above accusations are justified. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I replied to your accusation to your talk page today, so started replying to yours here. There are many words in this article which give anti-Japanese sentiment. This, Caspian Blue, is POV and NOT neutral. Likewise, I'll imitate your offensive accusation like this; Natethegreatest tries to side pro-Japanese view based on his anti-Korean sentiment. This, NateTheGreatest, is POV and NOT neutral; How does this sound to you? I did not write the article, so please don't falsely pour your resentment to me.

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

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

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

No doctoral length ranting please. lets keep this board clean for discussion on the present

--Natethegreatest (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for 3 changes to improve neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natethegreatest (talk · contribs), here are my answers. No one has deleted your comments left at this talk page, so please don't falsely accuse or invent events that I did not do. On the other hand, messages left to one's talk page can be freely deleted by the owner.

1) See above my answer at Talk:Korea under Japanese rule#Anti-Japanese POV on this article

2) See above my answer. You must be familiar with WP:CANVASS which is about behaviors to talk page or wikipspace, not about contents.

3) See above my answer

After all your demands turn out to be all same ones at the previous section, so I gave my opinion already. I don't understand why you're behaving like this even though there is nothing new for me to answer to Natethegreatest in his planned schedule.--Caspian blue 15:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise based on Caspian's help

Ok, so how about this:

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

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

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