Talk:March 1st Movement
|WikiProject Korea||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, March 1, 2007, March 1, 2008, March 1, 2009, and March 1, 2010.|
Ian, 15 December 2004 10:05pm EST Added a section on the shift towards the Japanse 'cultural policy', which is seen as a result of the March 1st Movement. This is strongly argued in some of the material on this subject.
- References? Atkinson 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
March 1st Movement is older and has more history so March first movement, if it has anything new to add, should merge into it. I guess we could blame the editor that started the newer page for not doing a (thorough) search, or the editor who started the older page for not adding enough redirects -- but I prefer to blame wikipedia's not-very-good search algorithms. Ewlyahoocom 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
is there a wikipedia style policy or guideline for whether it should be "first" or "1st"? other reference works seem to use "first"; google shows roughly equal prevalence. Appleby 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree (Wikimachine 04:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC))
Korean nationalism versus Korean independence movement
I believe Koreans displayed nationalism prior to 1919. That was the first independence movement. Nationalism were getting people killed by the Japanese, like Empress Min in 1895.
You're right. (Wikimachine 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
How can Woodrow address the Paris Peace Conference in 1918 if it didn't start till 1919? Wilson adressed U.S. Congress when he enumerated his 14 points.
Independence Movement(신생독립) or Liberation Movement(광복-독립회복)?
Korea had been an independent nation(독립국) before temporary and forceful occupation by Japan. Thus, all the movement were to regain the independency(독립회복, e.g. France from Nazi Occupation), not to newly declare independece(신생독립 e.g. United States from England). Independence movement(독립운동) may give a wrong impression that Korea had been originally a part of Japan, but newly gained independence status from Japan later on. Obviously that is not true. Liberation movement(광복운동) is more proper. The same mistake happens in the name of Independence Hall(신생독립기념관?). Liberation Hall(독립회복기념관!) might be more safer and thus proper. by email@example.com
- Korea was not recognized as an independent nation after 1910 by the majority of nations. Unlike Nazi Germany’s military occupation of northern France during wartime conditions, after 1910, Japan established what was perceived at the time as a permanent civil administration in Korea and regarded Korea as an integral part of the Japanese Empire. The goal of the Korean “liberation” movement was to regain the “independence” of Korea, and therefore the use of the word “Independence Movement” is correct. Further, the word “liberation” has POV connotations that “independence” does not. Also, we speak of such movements today as the “Tibetan independence movement”, rather than the “Tibetan liberation movement” as a matter of common usage, and to minimize propagandistic and POV impact. Regardless of how illegal or horrible we may personally consider the Japanese occupation of Korea, it is important for Wikipedia to maintain a strictly neutral stance in article wording. --MChew 05:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Korea was not recognized as an independent nation after 1910 by the majority of nations. => Yes, Korea had been cleary recognized as an independent nation BEFORE 1910 by the majority of nations. Unlike Nazi Germany’s military occupation of northern France during wartime conditions, => No, it's exactly the same one. Japanese occupation of Korea was MILITARY one. after 1910, Japan established what was perceived at the time as a permanent civil administration in Korea => perceived BY WHOM? Japan established what was perceived by Japan at the time ...? and regarded Korea as an integral part of the Japanese Empire. => Again, only Japan regarded so. Yes, it might have been Japan's freedom to do so. Further, the word “liberation” has POV connotations that “independence” does not. => I don't agree. Who else say so? Regardless of how illegal or horrible we may personally consider the Japanese occupation of Korea, => who are we? Are you admiting that it was illegal and horrible? it is important for Wikipedia to maintain a strictly neutral stance in article wording. => Yes, that's why I suggest "liberation movement" instead of "independence movement". by firstname.lastname@example.org
- I repeat, Korea was NOT independent AFTER 1910, and the Japanese annexation of Korea was recognized by almost all western nations. The governments of Great Britain, France, Germany, etc did not regard Korea after 1910 as "territory temporarily under illegal Japanese military occupation", but as much a part of Japan as Hokkaido or Kyushu. Even as early as 1907, after the Eulsa Treaty, western nations refused to even allow Korean representatives to address the Hague Conference (Hague Secret Emissary Affair), as Korea was no longer recognized as an independent country. The goal of the Korean nationalist movement was therefore to RESTORE Korean independence.--MChew 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)