Talk:Yalu River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Japanese Occupation of Korea is non-NPOV and unreasonable. I prefer more neutral Japanese rule of Korea.


Untitled[edit]

"occupation" in that sense means

Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. --American Heritage

Japan's administration of Korea, which was decided by the treaty of annexation, included both civil and military ones. In addition, "occupation" sounds temporal control to me, but Japan planed permanent rule. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Japanese rule" sounds just as bad, for the opposite reason: it seems to legitimize the 35-year period of colonial rule. Every word that describes power relationships has connotations of justification or protest. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't see why "rule" legitimizes Japan's administration. "rule" is more accurate than "occupation".

1a. Governing power or its possession or use; authority. b. The duration of such power.

--Nanshu

Whatever. All I know is that the US "allowed" Japan to take control of Korea in 1905 through the Eul-Sa Treaty of Protection and that from 1910-1945 Japan exploited Korea like a colony. They tried to eliminate Korean culture, forbidding the use of Korean surnames and written language; they suppressed Christianity. Now you can call that 'occupation' or 'rule' as you wish. Just don't try to conceal what Japan did to Korea is all I ask. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If Japanese Occupation is too contentious, maybe we should use the term Japanese Colonial Period. The term is used in some Korean and western academic sources, so it should be acceptable to most people (from my own personal POV, I can live with it). Also, it more or less translates the two neutral Korean terms Iljeong sidae (일정 시대; 日政時代) and Ilje sidae (일제 시대; 日帝時代) which mean "Japanese government period" and "Japanese imperial period" respectively. --Sewing 00:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Sound cho-wa-yo (good) to me. Let's put some text at Japanese Colonial Period, then. But I'd like to hear what Nanshu thinks, too. I hope the 3 of us can find terminology that we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 13:36, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I added text and moved the article to Japanese Colonial Period (Korea) to clarify the title. --Sewing 22:47, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm busy for a couple of days. I have no objection to Sewing's motion. --Nanshu 23:22, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Changed "Baitou Mountain" to "Beakdu Mountain" since its article shows "Beakdu Mountain" --dandan

Two bridges ?[edit]

The image of the bridge, and the half completed bridge, shows a caption of "Two Bridges" when the photograph clearly shows both the completed bridge and the half bridge. Caption Two bridges crossing the Yalu, when in fact there are only one that crosses, so its either the two bridges ON the Yalu, or The Yalu crossing at Dandong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.142.172 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have amended this. The other bridge, the "Broken Bridge", was damaged in the Korean War and not repaired.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)