Talk:Japan–Korea disputes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions

When I finished reading this entire dispute page, I feel that there are more pro Japanese people than pro Korean..... Especially the one with Tae Kwon Do being originated from Karate is really pushy by the pro Japanese..... I am not trying to take the Korean's side but Tae Kwon Do existed before Karate and and it was introduced to Japan by Baekjae through trade..... Also, if Japan claims Tsushima, why are they unfairly trying to claim Tokdo as well????? And I believe there should be more peaceful or neutral term used rather than "Sea of Japan".Thanks(MCASGT 01:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

I re-read this dispute page and saw that Appleby presented inaccurate information. I also read on the controversy section of this person signed "Daniel McBeth" had some key points since there were records of Oxford receiving money from Japan to change the sea name to "Sea of Japan"..... My views follow,

1)The Sea name should be the Marginal Sea(neutral) 2)The Liancourt Rokcs should be called Dokdo(Koreans had longer historical eefect on these Isles) 3)Tsushima should belong to Japan(The Japanese had longer cultural influence on these Islands...) 4)Japan should sincerely apologize to Korea about their atrocities that they have commited. 5)Japan should not write inaccurate books like Far Away from the Bamboo grove since the Japanese mistreated the Koreans and the Japanese refugees were guaranteed a safe voyage back to Japan.... The authors father was also in jail by the Imperial Japanese army for stealing money..... These Japanese books are very inaccurate.... 6)Pro-Koreans should not write inaccurate informations on these pages.... 7)Both sides must not use inaccurate information without a valid evidence.... Thanks(MCASGT 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Spelling & Grammar

I don't mean to interfere on the controversy here and I don't have a personal stake in this article. But I was bothered enough by a lot of the small little grammatical and spelling errors that I felt compelled to clean it up. I tried to retain as much of the original flavoring as the article had but there were some cases where I was forced to clarify as best as I could when the grammar used was mutilated to the point where it wasn't understandable. Please watch the English in the article as it's no use to have some perceived point appear in the article if it's not written well. Thanks! --Kainee 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I think you're missing the biggest dispute of all: the 35-year period during which Japan annexed Korea as a colony (1910-1945). The imposition of Shinto as the state religion, the Japanese control of all Korean schools, the attempts to stamp out the use of Korean language, etc. . . . --Uncle Ed 19:56, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I read the article as "current disputes", not "resentment over historical disputes".

Umm.. No. It is not "Current Disputes", It is "Japanese-Korean disputes". (Read the title before responding.) Second of all, pleanty of people are and will be affected by forced Shinto, annexation, illegalizing the korean language, etc. if we do not learn from out mistakes. so, yeah, it has a lot to do with contemporary society ok?

---

Kadzuwo: the external link you added (Korea, the Preposterous World) is to a highly POV personal Web site maintained by Wikipedia user Nanshu. Nanshu has already published a lot of the material from that site here and has caused numerous edit disputes because of it. We don't need any more hateful material from him than he has already contributed. I have removed the link to the site. And don't tell me I'm censoring the truth or whatever: there is already too much anti-Korean nonsense on Wikipedia. --Sewing 16:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is not hate site but factual error corrections. Please don't brand but read it carefully!!Kadzuwo 16:59, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have known about that site for months and have read it carefully; I discussed the site with him and several other Wikipedians last autumn (2003). Some of what he says is true, and he has repeated those things on this site. Other things he says are nonsense, and do not belong on Wikipedia. --Sewing 17:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I will search better site(s). Thank you so much, everyone!! m(_ _)mKadzuwo 18:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that website is the only thing "preposterous". If he wants to correct us Koreans, tell him to be my guest. But tell him to do it from a neutral point of view. Seriously, I feel so stupid for the fact that I actually wasted my precious time reading that junk.

Cultural Dispute

Starting NPOV mine field. My god, aren't we (Korean & Japanese) such kids. :D FWBOarticle 00:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

there must be load of others. Feel free to add. FWBOarticle

Should add Zainichi issue but it is such a big topic that it might deserve separate page. FWBOarticle 00:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I propose that this page is split into two section one about politics the other about cluture.

Ah, the idea that there are no such things as Korean (nation, race or ethnic group or whatever) at that period and Korean penninsula is just region where thich contained different ethinic groups of Altaic origin is a view held by the people who counter claim that Japanese decended from Korean. I obviously understand that Korean would disagree with such assertion and find that to be offensive. However, as long as attribution is properly made such view should not be censored. On one side, Japanese decended from Korean, (more accurate statement probably being the tribe(s) which set up the original dynasty in a region of Japan came from Korean Penninsula). On the other side, there were no such thing as "Korean", (more accurate statement probably being variation of Altaic tribes/nations were subsequently unified to form Korean nation and ethinic group). Obviously, counter-counter argument (variation of language is in fact dialect not language) exist and then there is counter-counter-counter argument (such variation extend to Manchuria, Japan and possibly Mongolia). You might also notice that there were no such thing as Korean also mean there were no such thing as Japanese. FWBOarticle 18:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Takwondo originally being Korean Karate is not that cotroversial. In fact it was called as such. Until 70s, Taekwondo dojo/dojang used exactly the same forms as Shotokan Karate. Obviously, whether the current TKD being a variation of Karate or separate MA depends on POV. It's also bit funny given that Karate is actually Okinawan art not Japanese. Also Okinawan karate is the Tangsu martial art of China (admitted by the Okinawans)FWBOarticle 18:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Wow, I have never been so amused by a wikipedia article. I had only heard of about half of these disputes. I knew Japanese and Koreans could be petty towards each other, but christ! I wish I'd known about some of these before, I could have pissed off my korean teachers with it! hehe.

We might add the fact that Japanese attempted to downplay Korea's role in its development by promoting Chinese influences. (Wikimachine 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Sorry to second guess, but I think Wikimachine is making a central point here. Something like ... attempt to downplay Korea's major role in Japan's development by claiming that everything came directly from China.FasterPussycatWooHoo 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DPRK propogandist?

Boy, if I had to guess, I would swear the DPRK are starting to post on the Wikipedia (welcome comrades!). I am tempted to go through and clean up the POV and goofy unproven tripe on this page, but then I think this page may actually serve a purpose: gives the trolls a nice sandbox to post their rants and keep them off the Japan or Korea page.... Davejenk1ns 15:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

North Korean abductions of Japanese

Under the dispute "North Korean abductions of Japanese", the last sentence is completely incoherent. I can't tell if the meaning is that during WWII the Japanese also kidnapped North Korean citizens and this doesn't bother them so why should North Korea care about Japanese citizens, OR that during WWII other nations also kidnapped Japanese citizens but this isn't a problem because it was not North Korea that did it. In any case, this needs to be made comprehensible and NPOV, or it needs to be removed. As this is a potentially controversial topic, I'm posting this to the discussion page first. Munkymu 22:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should remove it since it doesn't have anything to do with "North abductions of Japanese." --Nc622 11:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History Textbooks

The Japanese Ministry of Education is now Ministry of Education and Science. I think we should rename the title to "Publications on History in Japan" or something to put the issue in broader context. The textbooks must pass a governmental inspections before they're issued to each school, but publications other than textbooks can contain anything regardless of their nature, meaning whether they're right-wing or left-wing. It's also important to clarify what whatwashings of wartime atrocities the Koreans are pointing out, like the use of the term "invasion."

The problems with the Korean publications on history should be put in the article too. There is only one history textbook in Korea, written and edited by the goverment. And due to the anti-Japanese educational policy, the "good" side of the nation/people is hardly written in any publications.

I'd also like to have non-Korean/Japanese discussing this issue. Some could provide a neutral point of view. --Nc622 11:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"A prime example of this would be the introduction of Buddhism/Confucianism. This concept almost completely came to Japan by way of Korea, but Japan almost goes out her way to not focus on this fact."

Japanese textbooks state that Buddhism/Confucianism came via Korea. I don't understand why Buddhism/Confucianism is such an issue. The claim that "Japan neglects Korea to save her face" is the typical Koreans' delusion due to their insecurities. --203.189.128.197 19:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Korean adoptation of Japanese culture

Taekwondo was originated from Takkyun Korean martial art. I think many ill-minded people who falsely believe Taekwondo was influenced by Karate are getting confused with ( Tang Soo Do).

Taekwondo is home grown Korean martial art. Japanese cannot accept the fact that Taekwondo is more popular than karate. Taekwondo is chosen has Olympic Sport.

Taekwondo and Tang Soo Do are two different martial arts.

Removed the part about Taekwondo and culture taught wrongly in Japan. This is false; they mention the Korean influence in their culture in textbooks. I think we've had enough of the falseness of the claim on Taekwondo not originating from Karate.

Taekwondo did not originate from Karate. I will change it unless somebody replies to this. It began around the three kingdoms period when soldiers were taught to the soldiesr to dismount enemy cavalrymen. (Wikimachine 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Did someone claim Taekwondo came from Karate? Wow. Something you should be reading would be the Korean influence on Japan when the Baekje court moved to Japan and introduced new culture. Good friend100 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Corea/Korea

This claim is groundless. No documented records are found that can prove that the Japanese empire changed the name. The name Korea was used before the Japanese annexed Korea. Until the 20th century French was normally used for international conferences, in these documents Korea's written Corée because in Roman languages in general to start with C is linguistically correct. It's after Versailles Treaty when English became prevalent. So it's just a difference of whether they prefer the French way or the English way. It's your choice... It's kinda scary the whole nation believes this Japanese conspiracy theory though. Same with the name of the sea... Personally I don't care about that "sea" (it's just a sea, for your's sake), but... I'm sorry but I have to say the reasonings in these claims are extremely poor.--Nc622 11:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i agree with sea naming dispute. japan's coastline has a longer border with the sea rather than the korean peninsula, so there is no reason why it shouldnt be called 'sea of japan'. i dont understand why the koreans are trying to change the name.--Sesloan 06:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont agree with the name, sea of japan. the japanese changed it by donating money to the atlas company. the original name is east sea. thats y the koreans r tryin to change it. they must have a reason. and japan did change the name of the country. if u know, that the japan's real name is nihon. korea's: corea. but n is behind c! geez, the japanese changed their name into japan, since thats how they made it and put corea to korea. -- dl96 7:57, 29 september 2006

Umm, No. Nihon is what the japanese called themselves,(alternative to Wa) the koreans if translated correctly called it Ill Bon. The chinese in Mandarain Dilect pronounced it Jae Bun. it travels to a port where the Dutch traded Tea (or Chai) with the chinese and they called it Jae Pun. IN English, its Japan. (By the Way, I'm Korean)

Chinese and Korean Propaganda

The more and more I find about these "brutalities commited by Japanese army," I notice that they're all made ups by the Chinese and the Koreans... Unbelievable.

Look the Nanking Massacre, comfort women, death railway, the murder of Empress Min, Manila massacre, unit 731, unit 100, etc these are not made up.

The Nanking Massacre and comfort women are exactly the made ups. The comfort women issues are the worst though. There're no documented records or whatsoever to suggest that these "comfort women" were slaves that the military forced to be. These were prostitutes, and there're only testimonies by the women themselves, which somehow constantly change with each trial they faced. --Nc622 09:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you don't believe these crimes happened, take it up with the WWII war tribunal, in which the court stated it did happen.

I know this arguement is also coming up in Germany as well, they ask for proof of the Holocuast. Where is the documentation, where are the bodies they ask. Then they state the holocuast never happened.

The very fact that you think this is about belief shows you're not doing academic research. You seem not to understand my point either. Give me the names of the German historians denying holocaust since I've never heard about it. You're trying to make a very rough contrast. There are numerous legitimate evidences that suggest holocaust did happen, which is, in comparison, exactly my point on the two issues: there are NO legitimate evidences (testimonies, documentations, etc.) that suggest these happened. Just for your information, the first ones who denied the comfort women were Korean journalists themselves, and the Tokyo trial is largely considerred by historians as illegal and unjust for the Japanese.--Nc622 11:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But neo nazis believe the holocaust is a hoax. You just choose to ignore what you don't want to believe. Every country has done bad things. just admit it. China pollutes and bootlegs. Russia massacred millions of people. Koreans has been extremely stubborn with Japan. Korea used to eat dogs too (its not "bad" but its disgusting)In fact, i think japan has paid its due with korea. All countries have problems. don't try to battle every criticism.

The UN human rights commision believe Japan is guilty on the comfort women issue in addition to various other war crimes and have made multiple statements about this. International civic groups have stated the evidence showed Japan as being guilty. In addition the Netherlands performed a mock trial (as realistic as possbily since they do not have jurisdiction over Japan) on the comfort women and have concluded Japan was guilty. One of the government ministers of Japan Nariaki Nakayama have stated there was alot of evidence for comfort women and apologized. The women from Europe who were in the pacific and got forced to be comfort women by Japan protest every year at the Japanese embassy, on the anniversary day of Japan's defeat in WWII. I stated "this arguement was coming up in Germany" not by the historian but by nationalists, neo-nazi's, the new axis national socialist party of Japan (which is a neo-facist group in Japan). The German government has done a wonderful job of trying to reflect on their past behavior, apologized formally, didn't show an ambiguous stance on war crimes, tried to compensate financially, which is a stark contrast to what happened in the pacific.

I didn't know that the Dutch performed a mock trial. Yes, they don't have jurisdiction over Japan... I'd be surprised if they did. As I said, Nakasone confessed that the apology was political. He admitted that the governmental investigation could not find any evidences on it. You have not presented anything that I didn't know. The UN human rights commision is the very organization that first referred to comfort women as "sex slaves." There have been at least a hundred of English books that depict the story of comfort women according to this view; if you include books in all languages probably the number easily exceeds a thousand. These "nationalist" historians as you call them are very well-aware that the majority of international community including Japan are people like you who just lebel the opposite side of their opinion as revisionalist "neo-fascist group" who's just simply in denial of the history for national pride. Quite a simplistic attitude. Nevertheless, for your information, there're growing numbers of non-Japanese professionals who're starting to look into this issue.

But I really honestly wonder if you even know how this matter came up to the public in the first place. The term "comfort women" itself did not exist untill a former-Japanese soldier Seiji Yoshida published a book with a super-pretentious title My War Crimes in 1983. Before that, there had been no disputes or whatsoever about sex slaves in and outside of Japan. In the book, Yoshida confessed that he kidnapped some Korean women and forced them to be "comfort women"; which was the first time this term was used. This book was translated into Korean in 1989 and as I stated previously a Korean journalist went to the island where Yoshida's army positioned and investigated on the fact of the matter. On August 14th 1989 she published a report on a regional newspaper and denied Yoshida's testimony as a lie. Along with her report there were criticisms from the Japanese historians, and Yoshida admitted that he published the book for his financial need. I forgot his name but a professor of Souel University later performed further investigation on 40 women who claimed to be of former comfort women and he concluded that more than half of them were inventing the facts. But the Japanese major press such as Asahi, Yomiuri and Japan Times, and English press such as New York Times and Washington Post as well did not even refer to the Korean report and Yoshida's testimony that his story was invented. Other civilian testimonies and diaries of the comfort women rather suggest that they were "sold" by their own parents to a group of prostitution. These are not even talked on the newspaper because people like you just lebel these opinions as from "neo-fascist group" like you said. It's such a distortion itself, since Japan was not fascist during the war.

Don't just say "women from Europe" and be specific. There are few Dutch women who have been sueing the Japanese government. It must be such an easy and lighthearted thing for you to make a claim like: The German government has done a wonderful job of trying to reflect on their past behavior, apologized formally, didn't show an ambiguous stance on war crimes, tried to compensate financially, which is a stark contrast to what happened in the pacific. Read at least the content of San Francisco Peace Treaty before you codemn Japan. It's a typical propagandized belief of Chinese and Korean that Japan has not made apology. For Korea, Japan didn't even have to apologize or compensate for anything but she still did. The only country that Japan has not compensated is Taiwan because of political reason that the Japanese government decided to consider it as part of China. --Nc622 08:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Korea, Japan didn't even have to apologize or compensate for anything but she still did. Umm, if according to your mindset, The Germans did not have to apologized to the Jews for the Holocaust or the Amercans for the Japanese Internment camps. See, people like you say that Japan was not Fascist but the government was controlled by the special elite an the prime minister was not chosen by the people but a council made up by the very same elites. The Tenno (Japanese King) had no control, the people who were allowed to vote were given only 2 choiced of the same elite class and Japan nationalized railroads, businesses, and docks to mobilize for war. THAT IS FASCIST!!!!!!

Factual Accuracy of the Page

What is the "Denno"? There is no such term or word. Why do Koreans like to be the father and the creator of Japan and Japanese history without having any proof? It is hard to understand why they forge all kinds of things.

You can also ask why Japan doesn't like to relate historical items and concepts with the rest of Asia. Eventhough they are an island, they do have neighbors. Information passed from Korea to Japan like swording making techniques, iron processing, pottery techniques, writting, also the fact that people of Baekchae Korea wrote Japans first history compilation. All, these are undeniable, but why do they perfer to use the term NE area, China, mainland, the continent, wouldn't terms like Shilla, Baekchae, Koryo, Goguryeo, peninsula be more accurate. Also, Koreans learned all these concepts from other countries as well, mainly China. But alot of what China learned was also from India, Arab and the middle east. But you don't see the Koreans writting history about iron processing and only mention the mideast and completely leave out China who passed on the info. Should Korea only mention India for Buddhism and not mention China or put it in as a small footnote or one sentence info.

The history of the two countries are intricately tied together.

http://www.uglychinese.org/japanese.htm

http://www.nsjap.com/

Go look at this Japanese website and you will see the information on the Burial tombs, and how eventhough Korea has archeologically the older burial tombs, the two countries are still argue about the origin of it. And Prince Akhito making the acknowledgement of Emperor Kammu's familial relation to King Muryeong is well documented. And alot of the information is from the WWII war tribunal. That is why former Japanese prime ministers apologized for the education policy in Korea. To educate enough for labor, but not for higher learning.

Another complicating issue is in order to truely get a good understanding of the disputes you need to be fluent in English, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese. Very few people can speak all 4 languages fluently. Also note most of the information in English comes from Japan because Japan has had the longest relationship with the west.

Also note most of the information in English comes from Japan because Japan has had the longest relationship with the west. Umm, ever hear about the silk road trade? how about the mongolian invasions? the huns? maybe Indian trade ports. All these have from 1000~500 years on Japan in terms of having contact with the West.

You must have a strong belief that "Japan neglects Korea." The Japanese textbooks mention Korea, China and the rest of Asia in detail. I don't really understand why one needs to be able to speak all the four languages in order to know about Japan or Korea; languages can be translated. Anyway, one thing I noticed for certain is that you haven't actually opened any Japanese historical books for once.--Nc622 13:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need to learn all 4 languages because Japan and Korea used to write in Chinese, also Chinese references to these countries can not be ignored especially when these countries did not compile massive ancient historical information like the Chinese did. Example, the letter sent by Tokugawa to Korea is in Chinese characters about the disputed islands. Also, there are proof, evidence, documentation in Korean, Japanese and Chinese, in addition to counter arguements for many disputed items. And you need to know english cause this is an english website.

You can also ask why Japan doesn't like to relate historical items and concepts with the rest of Asia. Eventhough they are an island, they do have neighbors.

On what evidence is your claim based on? Can you specify which part of Japanese history is the case that you're talking about? I would also like to remind you that, unlike Korea which has only one governmental history textbook, there're plenty of textbooks from different publishing companies in Japan. As for Japan, you cannot make a generalized statement like above since there're number of theories for each part of history. Your claim is exactly the Koreans' imagination that roots in their anti-Japanism.--Nc622 13:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even in this article it switches back and forth from people saying the penisula, then someone switches it to continent. Also, from the translated Japanese text books I've read, it uses terms like NE area, continent. When I studied East Asian History in School, this was brought up by the professor also. Now, why is the Japanese government making apologies for unit 731, Nanking, Comfort women if it was all made up. Where is the logic for Japan in burial tombs agruement still going on, where is their proof, why do people keep bring that up on this website and switching it without proof as being Japanese culture. Isn't it logical to assume the country with the older archealogical burial tombs and artifacts to be the founders?

I am surprised to hear that Japanese textbooks are translated into Korean. Can you give me the titles and the names of the publishing companies? BTW, you never know if it's Japanese or Korean changing the article. I haven't noticed that the terms like "peninsula" have been changed on this page but honestly I don't think it's relevant anyway.

The Japanese government has made apologies to Korea and China that they didn't require to in the post-war years, concerning political relationships with these countries. For the Nanking Massacre it was due to the Chinese propagandas too, but comfort women issue was exactly the case. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that the apology was political and that they weren't able to find any evidences justify the claim. It has caused much controversy and even made Japan and the rest of the world believe that it happened. For unit 731 though, I've never heard about there has been an official apology; Japan was never been convicted for it either; according to one source that I read on internet before, all evidences on Unit 731 were confiscated by the Americans. But I read in an article that Nobukatsu Shigenobu of Tokyo University and some other historians are stating that it's highly possible it was real.

The political compromises and academic historical studies are two different things although they somewhat relate to each other at times. Historians are beggining to find out what is there, and they claim statements based on evidences. In Japan there's freedom of speech unlike Korea where discussions about positive effects of the Japanese annexation is totally unacceptable. They can discuss anything; if they're wrong somebody will correct them. This is not about politics. Don't confuse both. I don't really know about the tombs. But that's also an academic study. Overall, I find that Koreans are unable to separate politics and history.--Nc622 11:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

English....books are translated into english. This is an english website, I was educated in the US. And yes, I believe Chinese and Koreans translate Japanese text books, isn't that why there was such an uproar when the new Japanese History book came out.

How do you know what is acceptable in Korea and what is not, do you speak the language, have you lived there for more than 5 years. With all the freedom in Japan the information about unit 731 came mostly from the US papers, only then did Japan apolozie, but didn't make all the sealed papers in Japan public...hmmm lots of freedom there right...very objective right. Not all the papers were confiscated by the US. The research information was shared with the US, the US wanted the research info for their own knowledge. But papers on weather those weapons were used, where, how may or may not be in the sealed papers in Japan. Just a side note, I think the perpetrators of crimes in history tend to want to move on and say lets separate the past actions in history from our current politics even if nothing was resolved. The victims of the crimes tend to want resolution and are much more vocal about the crime. There is always a trust issue also, if you can't trust the other country due to historical crimes, it may become a current political issue.

Really... they're in English. Can you give me the publishing companies and titles please. I'm just curious.

You made a rush conclusion there. There're lots of books on unit 731 in Japan. It's discussed on newspapers. But I've only read one book on it, which is Katsuichi Honda's Trip to China. I only know little about unit 731 but I know there is a trial for the Chinese vitims still going on in Japan. I've never been to Korea. I read Korean newspapers and translated books. I don't think you do that though. Have you heard about Kim Wan Sop? He's a Korean writer. He published a book called "An Account for the Pro-Japanese People" that evaluates the Japanese annexation of Korea as positive and proper, and he got in a series of deep troubles for that. He was sued by Korean civilians and the police persecuted him for treachery for nation. He fled to Australia and the book was banned. He even asked Japan for political asylum although the government refused it. As I recall, there was also a Korean highschool student who was arrested just because he made a website that praised Japan. Do you know that in Japan there're many Korean writers and historians who publish books in Japanese, which would probably never be allowed by the Korean government to be viewed by the public? There is no freedom of speech in Korea. --Nc622 16:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More rushes in conclusions, Yes we know how the matter of comfort women came up in Japan, this was also something generally known in the west and in asia before 1983 but wasn't emphasized until someone from Japan confessed to it. The Koreans also try to verify Japanese historical info because they question Japans trustworthiness. The reporter didn't completely dismiss the Japanese book, he raised valid questions which could not be answered, especially in regard to timeline. You must of read the edited version of the news research, because the edited Japanese version dismissed many testimonies of people who wanted to stay anonymous and people of questionable back ground, which meant protitute/rape victim testimonies were dismissed. Testimonies from Korean, Filopinos and Chinese were dismissed. There was another article in english (can't remember the writer) questioning the Japanese take on it cause they only left Japanese testimonies as valid. And stated that was like the criminal investigating himself.

Also, if you take any East Asian history class in the US (college level) they will translate sections and chapters of books from other countries.

Why, is the accuracy of Japan's history text books always on the US news.

I have several problems in understanding your reply. I don't know who you mean when you adress yourself as "we". Americans? The term "comfort women" problem wasn't emphasized before My War Crimes was published. Before that, a book Military Comfort Women by Kakou Senda was published in 1973 but his book was filled with flaws (actally this was the first time the term was used). If you're talking about Senda's book, you haven't done enough research because he didn't adequetely analyze his evidences. 10 years later Yoshida "comfessed" the story but admitted that he invented it. The book was a lie; he made up the story because he wanted the royalty. In the latter part, are you talking about the Korean reporter's investigation? What she did was to interview the villagers of the island, and they denied such act was done (btw, she is not "he", she was female). What's the edited Japanese version. Maybe you're confusing the Korean reporter and the Souel University professor who performed further investigation; but his investigation was exposed fully to the academic community in Japan. I can't tell what report you're referring to.

You don't seem to have access to the trial records of the Korean comfort women or any evidences from primary sources. You haven't answered my question whether if you've read San Francisco Peace Treaty but I doubt it strongly; and you don't seem know anything about the Japanese public opinion or even what's on newspapers in Japan, claiming something about Japanese "sealed paper". I really don't think you're actually qualified enough to discuss this issue. Not that I decide whether you can discuss anything.

I also found out that there are no translations of Japanese textbooks for Chinese and Korean. The Japanese public have access to both country's textbooks in contrast. I find you quite hypocritical in leaving out some obvious facts like that the freedom of speech is not promised in Korea in reality, the single Korean history book is governmentally written and that Korea had been on the watchlist of International Press Institue for political thought control. Korea is perhaps the only democratic country that oppress information to this extent. For China, even Chinese historians themselves state that the death toll of Nanjing Massacre is "politically exaggerated". Reporters Without Borders ranked China 162th out of 167 countries in its third annual worldwide index of press freedom. Ask any historians or journalists about the inaccuracy of Chinese textbooks before you talk about Japanese thought control in your belief of the "evil Japanese".

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501041129/chinajapan_japan.html

The Asian Time magazine in this month's issue states: It's not that Japan is free of radical nationalism. For every sincere expression of contrition for Japan's conduct in World War II, there have always been a headband-wearing revisionist or a bigoted old-boy politician ready to declare that the Nanjing Massacre never happened or that Korean comfort women were "volunteers." But in modern Japanese society, such voices are of increasingly marginalized fringe elements.

Don't you find this article stereotyping? But that's how the press is. The major press, in any "liberal" countries in the world, only favors information that's in accordance with their ideaology i.e. liberalism. The reality that only these news are reported to the public is clearly a wrong liberalism in journalism. By the way, those "marginalized fringe elements" include person such as a professor of Tokyo university, the highest educational facility in Japan; it's no wonder how people think Japanese are "whitewashing the history" when such authority tries to establish the "revisionalist" viewpoint history, don't you think? There you go the stereotyping again. --Nc622 10:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quality of the Page is in Big Question

The content of this article is based on Korean fabrication(and imagination) plus propaganda. I strongly suggest that this article should be revised, after a thorough and careful discussion. Observed from an objective perspective the article is too illogical, lacks historical and scientific proof. A crystal of anti-Japanism and racism. It goes without saying that such a hostile and disrepectful attitude will exacerbate the relationship between two countries. As a non-Japanese and non-Korean, I believe that the quality of the article itself is in question. : Tangfe 14:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the user above. Although I have restored the article to become as least NPOV as possible, there are still some POV comments deeply rooted within various sub-articles. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that all of us would like this article to be well balanced between Korean and Japanese arguments, and not in favour of one side or the other. Leonhart

Some people without ID seem to be just changing articles without discussing. I agree with Tangfe. The whole article needs revision, or else needs to be erased leaving some major disputes such as the ones over the island and the textbooks. Some articles are totally nonsense and unworthy like Japanese photographs of Korea. What's this about? A big question mark in my head. --Nc622 17:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The info on this page switches back and forthe almost daily. There should be discussions for each change.

>Archaeological studies show that a large influx of people from Korea immigrated to Japan along with technology, culture, and language.

Why do Koreans assert that they are the cultural and the ethical father of Japanese. Is this another Korean superstition? Due to government policy and anti-Japanese education, don't Koreans hate Japanese? Then why? A contradiction...Quite puzzling. Korean psychology must be complex. Koreans cannot live without thinking about Japan and the Japanese? |Tangfe 23:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thats new..... The Koreans never asserted this.... Do u have evidence????? and Koreans talk bout the Japanese b/c u do know wut atrocities they commited to the Koreans right???? One possibility of this is that the Homo sapien migration route leads from Korea into Japan..... and another maybe that mostof the Japanese culture sprung from trade with korea..... And spread some love, Koreans love Japanese food and the Japanese love Korean Wave..... There are those few that nationalists from both countries that hate each other hardcore..... Thanks(MCASGT 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Japanese photographs of Korea

The photographs are disputed between the two countries because it was one of the excuses Japan used to invade other countries in WWII. They believed the other countries were "backwards", then showed the photographs as evidence. Later people started questioning the photographs asking why historical treasures which eventually got stolen/destoryed in war were never photographed. Koreans state it was propaganda photos, Japan states it was not propaganda. That is what the current arguement is about.

Japan states it was not propaganda. Who in Japan are you talking about? And what pictures?Koreans believe they can say anything when it comes to about Japanese people. By the way, They believed the other countries were "backwards": this statement is either your imagination or what you're told from your government, very typical of Koreans.--Nc622 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess it's Nc622, the guy who posted his opinionated material is the article without knowledge of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I guess that's okay, since he's a new guy, but some of his statements are questionable. For example, there's that part in which he said that the Nanjing Massacre was Chinese propoganda (or something similar at least). But it was worthy to be used as propoganda, as all wartime incidents are. Not only that, there's no denying that it was done in a purely barbaric and inhumane matter. Whether it was systematically carried out or was a result of national rivalry is a dispute left to historians, but it was, at the very least, comparable to the brutality of Attila the Hun.

In addition, although Nc622 did mention it, along with another guy, the bit about the need to speak four languages in order to fully comprehend the history of East Asia from 1850~1945 is also quite true... sure, there are translated historical records, but full access to all English, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese records is only available to a person who can speak all of the languages listed above.

Finally, the dispute over the Japanese photographs.... obviously they were used as "proof" by Korean governments over the last five decades (perhaps six), but it was true that Japanese photographers targetted the very worst of Korean society. Opium addicts, the poor, the disabled, the starving... they were all used as evidence of Japan's need to colonize and industrialize Korea and the rest of Asia. Just becuase a few memorabilia was used as propoganda doesn't mean that they have been invalidated; they're just leaving a stronger mental impact. It's better than whitewashing history altogether with nationalistic beliefs, like Japan (and to a far lesser degree, Korea and China). And finally, revising history doesn't change anything, especially not the history of the Japnese colonial period in Korea: Japan's imperialistic rule over Korea had everything to do with the cruelty and mercilessness of the worst barbarians and the savageness of hunting dogs and had nothing to do with humanity, the rights of human beings, or respect for other cultures. I hope revisionists do not deny or downplay this fact 'cause sometimes, admitting your own faults and taking responsibilty is a way to help yourself.

Although the comments above are only my opinion, anyone is welcome to criticize and rebuke them, and I will do my best to answer them in a sincere matter. Leonhart

Leonhart, are you talking to me? Or are you just talking to some of your imaginary audience? Please site evidences when you make a long claim like Japan's imperialistic rule over Korea had everything to do with the cruelty and mercilessness of the worst barbarians and the savageness of hunting dogs and had nothing to do with humanity, the rights of human beings, or respect for other cultures. My opinion completely opposes to yours and vice versa, that means there are some misunderstandings between us, right? I'm also curious which pictures and photographers you are referring to. Well I've seen some pictures taken not by the Japanese but by a British. I suppose you haven't read "Korea and Her Neighbours" by Isabella Lucy Bird so I suggest you to take a look at it. I believe it'll provide some new view on Korea.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0710308124/qid=1058362516/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-9157928-1535113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I know her book is not published in Korea. There're other good historical publications on old Korea in English but are not translated into Korean. Most importantly the Korean history textbooks do not describe these either. Most Koreans have never seen any such "miserable" pictures; the government strictly regulates them. And by the way, about the articles that I posted, I do not think they were opinionated although I think I should've put in this discussion page.--Nc622 07:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is completely ridiculous. I've removed it.--Nc622 10:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Book you present above from 1890's to early 1900's actually proves the point about Japan's photographs of Korea, there was no reason why pictures of the Palace/artifacts could not be taken. Also, this was written by a Japanese ally (british) who thought every one in Asia was inferior to the caucasians at that time. Yes, the british thought the Japanese were the Yellow Pearl of Asia (as long as they knew there place below the british) and believed China to be the sick man of Asia. And remember even in the 1980's when new archeological evidence was being excavated which contradicted Japan's old theories about their evolution/origin culture, many people even whites scholars resist believing the new evidence, because they had developed a loyalty to Japans version of history. Eventaully, due to the amount of evidence, books like "Paekche of Korea to the Origin of Yamato, Japan" became the gold standard in current theories.

I don't know if a current dispute should be deleted like this. The debate is still strong in Japan and in Korea. Currently two historians Mr. Kang an honorary professor at Hanajo University and Mr. Lee an honorary professor of Wako University (Both schools are in Japan) have been collecting evidence of the Joseon Dynasty photographs and technology Joseon started using from the West and how the Country was trying to modernize before Japan interferred. In addition Mr. Lee spent 10 years of his life collecting tombstones modified by the Japanese with lime powder. Mostly 500 rubbing of King Gwanggaeto's tombs. The tombstones were modified during the Japanese occupation, but Mr lee wanted to know what the original script had said. He spent 10 years flying back and forth between Japan and Korea.

There are pictures of Korean Palace/artifacts. Are you saying not enough? I don't think the photographers had a specific intention to make Korea look more beautiful than its reality. Have you read the book? I don't think you should make a generalization like above about "how caucasians thought about others at that time". You sound as if you've been "at that time".

"The debate is still strong in Japan and in Korea". There is no such debate in Japan. Stop making it up please. Korea was not trying to modernize itself before Japan annexed it. I suggest you to first investigate on your questions more deeply before you post something in Wikipedia since 1.) this is not a place to present debates 2.) you're utterly filled with your nation's propaganda not realizing that they're so.--Nc622 19:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200404/200404150011.html

To the poster above: about the pictures, do you mean this article? I have to say, this is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. --Nc622 15:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"perceived"

Under Japanese invasion, this occurs <trying to expose some "perceived" distortion of history by Korea>. What does it mean that "perceived" is in quotes? Usually something is in quotes to indicate that it is not actually so, but only allegedly so. But, here, that would mean the perceived distortion were not really perceived? That doesn't make much sense to me. Sivamo 08:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that's POV. --Nc622 13:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion Caution

The discussion like above isn't productive. Can we keep the tone down? And sign up to get ID so that we know who is talking. --Nc622 13:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I erased the latter part of Apparent mistakes section. Do that kind of slander somewhere else.--Nc622 14:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I created that section, I erased the whole part, since I believe the section itself became meaningless. Tangfe 16:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So you erased that entire fight with Leonhart since it seemed like your arguments were totally baseless and invalid. Obviously, that put you at a disadvantage. ' Ah-hah! Now I get it. You're running way! Best idea you had in your whole life.' Samurai91

To Samurai91: why're you so mad? I think Tangfe did bring up issues unrelated in an offensive manner but the article was quite POV too. --Nc622 16:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why some anti-Japanese activists attack Japan constantly. The things these anti-Japanese activits write are highly offensive. For example, they move around to brand Japan as an extremely evil country, the Japanese as a whole as racist islanders. They really demonize Japan and the Japanese. Totally intolerable. They should definitely stop this. It is only detrimental. The more these Koreans attack Japanese, the more negative their image will become within Japan and other countries. The stuff that I have pointed out in the criticism towards Korea are facts. Although criticism may not be a friendly response, I thought these anti-Japanese activists won't stop without showing any expression of anger. Korean slanders, rumours and propaganda about Japan are acceptable but any critical remarks about Korea are interpreted as "mad"? Double standard. Tangfe

To Tangfe above: It seems we have a misunderstanding, Tangfe. First, you seem to think that I'm an anti-Japanese activist. Forgive me while I titter. Anti-Japanese activist? Really. Like you, Nc622, and Nanshu aren't part of some All-Japan Brotherhood that's bent on keeping Japan's dirty, good-for-nothing image. And Koreans slandering on Wikipedia? I'm sure there are also a few Japanese editors like Nanshu and Nc622 who go around cursing Korea at every available moment. As for you, Tangfe, don't try to play the good guy. It really doesn't fit you. After all you've done as a "foreigner" (neutral, my foot), you seem to have overlooked a few points in the relationship between Korea and Japan. Plus, why did you erase our argument? I beleive it is not illegal on Wikipedia to post your opinion and critiscm on the DISCUSSION page. What, are we re-entering a period of authotarian dictatorships, this time led by Japanese Internet users? Leonhart

Calm down. You're completely paranoid out of ignorance and not actually reading any of my posts. I'm not interested in your country in any ways. That means I don't have any emotional connections to Korea; I don't specially love your country nor hate it. Maybe you should rephrase the words to "criticizing Korea" for its apparent historical/social Japan-related problems. --Nc622 16:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, Leonhart's going paranoid, you're not interested in Korea. 'Snort.' Yeah, we just all believed you. For your information, Leonhart is not raving simply because he is a lunatic (a fact I very much doubt). It's because guys like Tangfe just walk around blindly, hitting anything that gets in the way, which is in this case, criticism about Japan. And if you don't care about Korea, what are you doing on this discussion page anyway? Doing lunch, are we? Samurai91

I don't know what your problem is. I hope you won't resort to some childish argument like "don't discuss something you don't care about." What am I doing here on this "discussion" page? Well... let's use some time to think before you go all sarcastic and post something here.--Nc622 04:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you don't have an answer, just shove off. I couldn't care less about what Nc622 has to say about his "emotions toward Korea". I might've mentioned it at one point, but I'm really critical of what my Japanese homeland has to say to other East Asian countries. In fact, all Japan does is to give generous donations overseas, take advantage of the receiving countries' gratitude, dominate their markets, and move on, while in neighboring East Asia, all it does is ignore, ignore, ignore some more, and then revise its own historical wrongs. And by the way, Nc622, I don't have any problems in my life. Maybe it's you who needs to see a psychologist.--Samurai91

You've just proved either that you didn't read my previous post or just don't have a mental capacity to understand it. This is a "discussion" page; what am I doing here? Use your brain. Anyway, two points, although they're unrelated to anything discussed in this page; 1.) there's nothing wrong with doing a business overseas if done legally, and 2.) market domination is impossible both practically and legally (give me a break). You didn't even mention which specific company or market you're refering to; you just made a broad statement like "all Japan does is bla bla.." Sorry, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Enough of your moronic, vacant statements.--Nc622 14:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha. Real funny, Nc622. As usual, you've put your keen and penetrating (snort) mind to the task coming to the wrong conclusion. For your information, I have been reading your posts, you dimwit, and just because I don't explicitly say so in my own comments doesn't mean I'm ignoring you or anything. And by the way, saying stuff like "This is a "discussion" page; what am I doing here?" really doesn't help you, 'cause you've already violated the principle of discussion with Tangfe by agreeing to the deletion of arguments that don't fit your personal view of history. To me, you just seem like an ignorant fool who considers the rules of nettiquette beneath him. Oh, and before Nc622 (that ugly git) says anything about me ignoring his "precious" posts (again), I'll address one of his useless suspicions: why didn't I mention any specific Japanese companies? It's because the news here in Shanghai NEVER mentioned any exact companies. All they showed me were the logos of companies such as Toyota and Honda in some African country. Happy, you slimeball?

P.S.-Insulting me by saying that I don't have the mental capacity to understand plain English seems to be a comment that disses yourself, since your sentences seem more grammatically incorrect than mine.--Samurai91

I've replied to you in your talk page.--Nc622 11:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

God damn you guys are funny. I'm amazed that people can have arguments like this. --Ce garcon 12:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Nc622: Do you know that a recent broadcast by a Japanese TV channel fetured a so-called "historian" saying that the word "colonization" is incorrect when applied to the annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910? Did you also see how he went on to say that "all of Korea agreed" to the subjugation of itself to Japan? I mean, what kind of shit is this? We all know that Japan forced nearly all of its treaties on Korea, including the Protectorate Treaty of 1905 and the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910. We also know that only a small minority of Korean officials actually signed the 1910 treaty out of free will. In this sense, the annexation of Korea fits perfectly into the term of "colonization". I hope this clears up your victimized sense of Japanese history, Nc622. Samurai91

To Samurai91: No Samurai91, I did not see that TV program, however, I think what that historian is saying about the inappropriateness of the term "colonization" is quite true indeed. Although the part about "all of Korea" is not exactly true to the fact, a vast majority of the Korean people then were approving the annexation with Japan. Whether the treaties were "forced" to Korea depends on the subjective positions of the contemporary people in both countries, Japan and Korea, meaning it depends on the modern value system, but I should inform you again that back then only a small minority of the Korean citizens were against the annexation. This, of course, you would know, is taught in Korea the opposite, that the majority of Korean citizens fought against the evil empire of Japan. Finally, to clear up your misunderstanding, I deny your assertion that I have a "victimized sense of Japanese history", since I believe the offender/victim view is too simplistic to be considered the true academic study, Samurai91. --Nc622 09:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Since you seem to have already stereotyped me as the Japanese "revisionalist" spreading propaganda with broken English in your Talk page (as usual with people like you), I no longer feel it necessary to continue discussion with you. However, I do think I might have been a bit too carried away during this argument. My apology for that.

I understand that you wish to apologize, but I will not refrain from clearly expressing my final view on your last post. I disagree with your opinion that most Korean people agreed tothe annexation of their country as part of Japan, as it is clear that the opposite was the case (if that fails to persuade you, too bad). I would also like to clearly state that all of the treaties Japan negotiated and agreed to with Korea's consent were done in the presence of armed forces. I would also like to remind you of the fact that I am not sereotyping you as a "revisionalist", as I only mentioned the term "revisionist". If you are referring to the latter term, please employ correct spelling. Finally, I would like to make it clear that my English is certainly not broken, and that continuously insulting me about my education and communication skills will not help you in the least to cover up your own mistakes when writing on Wikipedia. That is all, and I bid you a good day. -- Samurai91

The part about broken English was not addressed to you but myself since you continually noticed me that my sentences were grammatically incorrect. And sorry for the misspelling. As I thought you have various firm beliefs on this issue, which I do not intend to further interfere. --Nc622 08:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

I'm starting to clean up this article. I'm planning to erase basically the entire section on the cultural disputes since most of them are worthless, except for Zainichi and Corea/Korea(I think this is quite idiotic too, but considering how big the issue became in Korea during the World Cup, I decided to leave it).--Nc622 17:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Truth in Zainichi

Zainichi-Koreans

Zainichi (Resident Japan) is a euphemism for Koreans residing in Japan, most of them second- or third-generation Koreans who still hold either North or South Korean passports. Although they claim that they were kidnapped to Japan to work in Japan during the WWII., it is not true. The hearing investigation to the first-generation of Zainichi, which was made by the Korean Residents Union in Japan itself in 1988, disclosed the fact that almost all of them entered to Japan illegally after the end of WWII, in order to escape the redbaiting made by the South Korean goverment, to avoid　ravages of the Korean War, or to persue their economic success. Generally, Koreans have been regarded as non-credible people, because they repeated barbarous acts such as murder, gang robbery and rape especially in the period of U.S. occupation, taking advantage of the fact that Japanese constabulary force weakened. To this day, the crime rate of Koreans in Japan is very high. Many Koreans living in Japan use Japanese names to deceive Japanese. Japanese Korean communities are split between affiliation to North or South Korea. Eespecially criticism against North Koreans are increasing, since the fact has revealed that the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, an organizing body for North Koreans in Japan, assumed an important role in the kidnapping of many innocent Japanese as an agent of the goverment of North Korea. Koreans often complain that it is discrimination against Koreans that they do not have the right to participate in Japanese elections. However, they are simply treated as foreign residents, as other foreigners are done. Although Zainichis have their national rights as Koreans in their own countries, they insist that Japanese should give them privileges also in Japan. They face some problems on rare occasions in terms of marriage, employment and naturalization, and they also claim that it is an unreasonable discrimination. They intentionally omit or forget the fact that it is due to Japanese distrust of Koreans caused by Korean's bad conducts. Koreans claims in order not to repeat the 'mistakes' of the past Japan must learn the 'correct history' and not the distorted nationalistic version. However, the 'correct history' claimed by Koreans is filled with lie and fabrication, as seen in their claim of Zainichi's origin stated above. BS.

What does this mean?

The opinion that it is established that Russia of the imperialism age began to use "Corea" for "Korea" with the Russian notation, and it is used even now is leading.

It is used even now is leading? Huh? - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Open issues on this page

There seem to be two "sides" currently editing two sections of this page.

Comfort women

Someone is anonymously changing well established facts on this page about the comfort women issue. (Japan is currently just about the only country in which this issue is denied in varying degrees). If someone wants to present radically different point of view, then please present it here on the talk page. I suggest using the term "Comfort women" instead of "Sex slaves", the meaning of the term is properly explained on Comfort women. The section should for the most part be a summary of that article, not a political statement. JeroenHoek 10:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Zainichi-Koreans

Someone is anonmyously changing this section again into this:

Many Koreans living in Japan use Japanese names to hide their origin, since Koreans are hated in Japan due to their high crime rate. Criticism against Zainichi people who have their origin in North Korea are increasing, because tha fact has revealed that some leading members of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chosen Soren in Japanese, Chongryun in Korean), an organizing body for North Koreans in Japan, were involved in the kidnapping of many innocent Japanese as an agent of the goverment of North Korea.

The kidnapping issue is real (acknowledged by North Korea and Japan) and is as such an "issue" that should be present on this page. It does however recquire a new section in my opinion, because the current wording seems insulting to the Korean population in Japan as a generalisation. If someone has some text for such a parahraph, please post it, but I suggest we don't shuffle it in with the "Zainichi Koreans" section. JeroenHoek 10:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Racist propaganda

Recently a number of anonymous fascists try to spread their racist "victim-bashing" propaganda which are entirely unacceptable. They are not decent discussions, but hate propaganda which must be banned in any place. A serious measure (including lawsuit) must be taken. Everton 05:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

A lawsuit? My apologies to sounds harsh, but that is just plain ridicilous. I assume you were being hyperbolic. Surely Wikipedia has more mature ways of dealing with such disinformation as provided by the anonymous contributors from the recent period?

Keep in mind that "racist propaganda" can be one person's truth. Of course, when their "truth" is held by such a negligable minority then it has no place on Wikipedia. If the situation degrades into an edit war then Wikipedia has several useful procedures to resolve the problem, and if these contributors do have at least some mentionable viewpoints, then they are welcome to discuss those on the Talk Page. The kidnapping issue for example is real, and deserves a proper section dealing with the facts and opinions surounding the issue. JeroenHoek 08:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yasukuni Shrine

Yasukuni Shrine is the resting place of nearly every Japanese soldier who has died in action since the Meiji Restoration of 1868. To state that it worships Class A war criminals without mentioning the thousands of others interrred there severly undermines the neutrality of this article and betrys a lack of adequate research on the part of the author(s).

• The main article on Yasukuni Shrine is cited in the article, and is much more complete. This is simply an article that serves to highlight the dispute over the shrine as well as various other disputes. If you feel the section is to biased for your tastes, then please have a go at rewriting it -- it is rather poorly-written, and doesn't really adequately cover the crux of the dispute (official visits to the shrine) anyhow. --Zonath July 4, 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Korean government policies

Any specific references to support such a claim? If it is unsupported, remove. Kokiri 21:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The ban of Japanese cultural imports into Korea (such as TV shows, movies, etc...) is a fact. There's a couple links to references on the Contemporary culture of South Korea page, which I don't feel like posting right here, since I'm on a slow computer and it would take a bit of time for me to dig them up. As for other 'anti-Japanese' policies enforced by the South Korean government... I haven't personally heard of any. --Zonath 04:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about this ? I'm pretty sure I've hired a number of Japanese, Chinese, Hong Kong-ese(? or Hong Kongans ?) movies from my local video shop(obviously I live in Korea). I think many articles people find are quite old. Koreans I know are pretty open-minded about the Japanese. I mean its all history now right? We should so totally move on. The rapes, curcifixion(is that how u spell it ?), human guinea-pigging etc etc were all atrocities that always happen when theres a war or occupation. We're just lucky there was no Hitler-oshi. I'm not being a "traitor" to my country (but if you're born and brought up in a different country - I grew up in the laid-back islands of the pacific by the way- you kinda take a step back and see it from a whole new angle) or anything and to prove it I'll say that the Japanese Government of the time could have at least put some proper government or something like that in place instead of leaving a power-vacuum so that the Soviets and the Americans could fight their bloody Cold war over our land. But yea,,, some scientists believe that oneday, a long long time later, we'll all be one race. Look at America, its a true melting pot, Scottish marrying Chinese, Koreans marrying Japanese, Americans marrying Pacific Islanders then their kids marrying other ethnic people,,, except the jewish and muslims will take their time about it... So, the conclusion is that all these things are history. History should be honoured not criticised and slandered over, so people in both Korea and Japan should honour their history by having some honour and shaking hands like good men, each apologizing for their actions and move into the future with a fresh start. Otherwise the Asian continent will forever be criticised by the West. And Japan, no matter how "western" you think you are you can't escape your roots. So yeah just embrace your asian-ness and be asian-friendly, I mean Japanese and Koreans and Chinese all come from the same cavemen-type prehistoric people and seriously Westerners all seem to think we look da same anyway. My friend Lisa used to be like "You Asians all look the same!" and well the Americans made so many mistakes in the Vietnam war because they couldn't tell the North Vietnamese from the South ones apart. Sorry this turned into some azn pride with hippy thing.

section on apologies

anyone think a brief section on korean/chinese demand for apologies would be appropriate? i'm thinking something along the lines of 3~4 sentences describing the history of the apologies (there's already a wiki list), & why korea thinks they're inadequate, that japan is tired of repeating them, that korea thinks japan's actions undermines their sincerity. i was sorta surprised there wasn't a section, but i'm ambivalent about whether one should be created. Appleby 17:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

current culture?

with the popularity of anti-korean comics in japan, (ny times article) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/international/asia/19comics.html?ei=5094&en=9089215d5cdce1cd&hp=&ex=1132462800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1132960076-1bQY0w6lE9PjxaDVXYV5Hw if anyone is actually reading this, what do you think should be added to page, if anything?

Korea has kindly educated Japan but Japan betrayed

I found an interesteing point of view from the first paragraphs in the article:

The two nations have had an often antagonistic relationship, despite sharing many cultural ties. Historical and archeological records indicate that Koreans transmitted to Japan such developments as rice farming, shamanism, ceremonial burial, pottery techniques, iron and bronze working, Chinese writing system, and Buddhism. However, subsequent Japanese invasions and the 1910-1945 annexation of Korea underly the two side's current political relations.

Does this article want to say "Japan owes what it is today to Korea, so why does Japan ignores such facts while doing harm to Korea?" I find awkwardness in the usage of "However"---in the sentence before "However" it's claimed how enthusiastically Korea helped Japan develop, and after the "However" come invasion and annexation. What's the relation between these sentences?

And there seem to be some "contributions" by Korea cited above under debate. Rice farming is harder in the northern regions, especially in prehistory time. It developed later even in the northern China, and did cultivation of rice really begin earlier in Korea than Japan? I have thought that it was brought from southern China, via Taiwan and OKinawa Islands. Similarly, shamanism, ceremonial burial and pottery techniques can be questioned. Do ancient Korean shamanism and burial tradition resemble that of Japan? In this paragraph it's stated "Historical and archeological records indicate that..." so there seems to be evidence to support this, but I don't know it. -222.4.16.15 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if those cultures were introduced from China to Japan by way of the Korean peninsula, it doesn't follow that "Koreans transmitted [them] to Japan" as if Koreans could take some credit and Japan should be thankful. The cultures were most likely transmitted as the result that certain people who had them immigrated to Japan. You cannot say that those people were either Korean or Japanese because there weren't such distinctive national identities as designated by the names of modern nation states back then. They were neither Korean nor Japan, or were as much Korean as were Japanese. It's not like "Koreans" suddenly visited Japan thousands of years ago, kindly taught the Japanese of various cultures free of charge, and went home. Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's "symmetric" edits

Stop making the descriptions of events that are different in nature "symmetric" as if they are similar. History is not symmetric.

It is as much unfair as describing Comfort Women and North Korean abductions of Japanese in a "symmetric" manner just because they were both state crimes. You ought to write about the two events differently because the volume and gravity of the two were completely different. Hermeneus (user/talk) 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

some history is symmetric, some history is not. the disputed islands are different, but not completely different. similarities should be described similarly, differences should be described differently. which is what the existing version did more accurately & informatively. if you insist on deleting relevant major facts favorable to korea just because it's favorable to korea, you will have to treat facts favorable to japan the same way, which just results in vague, less informative, "politically correct" article. Appleby 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to display your political propaganda to the world. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, period. It only needs to record objective facts. Your "symmetric," i.e., politically biased, presentation of historical events is clearly against the founding philosophy of Wikipedia.

Secondly, Dokdo are Tsushima are two completely different issues as you could see on their respective articles. Dokdo is only a small group of rocks around which both Japanese and Korean fishermen have been conducting fishery just as much. Tsushima in contrast is a large island with a long written history of human inhabitation. It's simply impossible for their descriptions to happen to be "symmetric" unless you add in your politically biased pov.

Thirdly, if you seriously wanted the article to be "symmetric" and "politically correct" so badly, why didn't you make every description from Comfort Women to North Korean abductions of Japanese on the article symmetric? That you only revised the Dokdo description to the obvious advantage of the Korean side and left the rest alone just goes to show your politically biased intent.

Fourthly, there exist NO historical events that are completely symmetric and so merits symmetric description. Therefore, any symmetric description of two or more historical events is a politically biased presentation by necessity. Symmetry only concerns the manner of the presentation of facts, not facts as such. Hermeneus (user/talk) 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just how on earth could you write "Although South Korean-controlled currently and for most of its history" about Dokdo here without leaning toward a biased pov? You cannot find such a statement of heavily biased Korean pov on the main article Liancourt Rocks. For it's obvious that adding such a statement to the main article would cause an enormous NPOV dispute instantaneously. I simply cannot understand how you could add such a sentence in a mere summary here, and boldly claim that it is an accurate and neutral summary of the main article.

And what are these sentences that you just added?: "It has received substantial Korean influence due to its proximity to Korea. Briefly during the Joseon Dynasty, and possibly during the Silla era, it was Korean-controlled." Do you seriously believe that adding these while including no claim from the Japanese side is a neutral description of the issue and an accurate summary of the main article Tsushima island? Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

we agree wikipedia is not for your or my propaganda. dokdo & tsushima are different in some ways, analogous in other ways. size and habitation are differences that have no effect on the fact that both are islands between korea & japan which were controlled by one country much more than the other, and disputed by both. the issues that are different are described differently, issues that are symmetric or analogous are described similarly, not for the sake of being symmetric, but because the contents of that sentence are true, while differences are described in following sentences separately. that latter sentence is being restored from your delete, not "just added." please feel free to add actual facts to make each section more informative without being too long, rather than being "politically correct" by replacing accurate content with vague axiom about there being a dispute. Appleby 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

& i actually agree that the introductory sentence is unprofessionally written. there is broad scholarly consensus that culture and technology were transmitted from korea & japan. what i object to is your deleting accurate content, major relevant facts that do belong in a summary list, instead of just correcting what you see as pov wording. Appleby 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Symmetry: You made the descriptions of Dokdo and Tsushima exactly the same (except certain respective names) WORD BY WORD. There exist NO articles on Wikipedia other than yours here that describes two different events in such an absurdly "symmetric" manner because it is just impossible for two given events to happen to be so completely "symmetric" for a fact unless you add in your bias (political or otherwise).

in life, some things are symmetric & appropriately described with analogous language. it's not like entire articles or even paragraphs are verbatim copies; the introductory phrase, very generally & briefly describing the background, are indeed accurately described by those words. if you disagree with the accuracy, correct the error, don't just replace with one side's pov. Appleby 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks: Just READ the main Liancourt Rocks article. Where does it make such a blatantly biased statement as "South Korean-controlled for most of its history"? How on earth could you claim that this is a npov? Your summary of this issue here boldly claims that Koreans have owned the rocks throughout the past history and practically that therefore the Korean claim on the rocks is perfectly valid and legitimate while Japan's claim is historically unfounded and utterly bogus. "South Korea" didn't even exist prior to 1945 for god's sake.

obviously, it says "south korea" for brevity, but yes, it should distinguish korea/south korea, in a concise way. summary doesn't say "owned," it says controlled, & it doesn't say thousands of years, it just says history, because whether the history is 100 years (japan "celebrated" 100 years of its claim to the islets in 2005, prior to which it claims terra nullius; it was under japanese control for just 41 of those years) or much more (japan never claimed ownership prior to 1905 & specifically disclaimed ownership in 1696 & 1877; korea claims control/tributary/ownership relationship to 512), the description is accurate. japan mainly relies on its 1905 annexation for its claim. Appleby 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima: You added those two sentences to the Tsushima description here AFTER the beginning part of the original "Although Japanese-controlled currently and for most of its history" was removed, to the obvious advantage of the Korean claim. The two sentences were fair and balanced only because they were accompanied by this deleted part. Your edits deliberately omit every Japanese claim, show only the Korean claims and present the issues as if the Korean side is 100% right.

which sentences are you talking about? i just restored the original version. i did not delete any japanese claim, but just said it was "intensely disputed", as with your wording for dokdo. why would using the same words to describe the disputes be pov in one case & not the other? Appleby 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction: There were no "Koreans" who "transmitted to Japan many cultural and technological advances." Whoever brought them to Japan, they were neither "Korean" nor "Japanese" as I showed above. Stating that "Koreans transmitted" is not only incorrect for a fact but also politically biased as it is obviously intended to imply that although "Koreans" kindly gave the Japanese all sorts of advanced cultures, the Japanese forgot gratitude and betrayed Koreans by invading the peninsula in the modern time, creating a major cause of the current animosity between the two nations. The only known fact is that various cultures were introduced from China to Japan by way of the Korean peninsula. This fact is irrelevant to "Korean-Japanese disputes" and so needs not to be included in this article even if true. For irrelevant facts do not need to be presented on Wikipedia even if they are true. The sentence "Japanese invasions of Korea and the 1910-1945 annexation..." in contrast should stay because it is both historically correct and relevant to the article. Hermeneus (user/talk) 23:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

it is relevant background to the disputes, the history is very much a part of the discussion whenever these issues arise. i've trimmed the wording, but the content is not seriously disputed by serious scholars, even in japan. e.g., in the yayoi period:

Geneticists attempting to calculate the relative contributions of Korean-like Yayoi genes and Ainu-like Jomon genes to the modem Japanese gene pool have concluded that the Yayoi contribution was generally dominant. Thus, immigrants from Korea really did make a big contribution to the modern Japanese, though we cannot yet say whether that was because of massive immigration or else modest immigration amplified by a high rate of population increase. Genetic studies of the past three years have also at last resolved the controversy about the origins of the Ainu: they are the descendants of Japan's ancient Jomon inhabitants, mixed with Korean genes of Yayoi colonists and of the modern Japanese. [1]

"The Yayoi period (c. 300 BCE to 300 CE) saw the introduction of a full-scale agricultural economy into the islands of Japan. This economy was initially associated with immigration from the Korean Peninsula. Currently the most widely accepted interpretation of this evidence is that continental rice farmers spread to Japan from the Korean Peninsula at the beginning of the Yayoi period. It has been argued that the Japanese language also spread to the archipelago at this time. As well as rice farming, a variety of other items and technologies were introduced from Korea in the Yayoi. These include the use of bronze and iron, domesticated pigs, wooden and stone agricultural tools, megalithic burials, and certain types of pottery. [2]

The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan. [3]

In the Initial and Early Yayoi, and in the Korean Plain Pottery that formed the roots of Yayoi ceramics, more fuel was used than in the Middle and Late phases. [4]

Dolmens have been investigated as an important trait of the rice agriculture-based cultural complex introduced from the southern region of the Korean peninsula to Japan in the Initial and Early Yayoi periods. The dolmens of Japan originated in the Nam-gung River basin of Southern Korea. Dolmens were firstly introduced to the Genkai-nada coastal region and then diffused to the surrounding regions. [5] Appleby 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an article that summarizes "Korean-Japanese disputes." It doesn't need to mention:

1. facts that are not disputed by the two nations, or
2. facts that are not responsible for creating a dispute on another fact.

For such facts are irrelevant to this article. For example, the Japanese rule of Korea 1910-1945 could be mentioned in the introduction only because it is argued to be responsible for creating various other disputes although the fact that Japan ruled Korea 1910-1945 itself is not being disputed. (Rule #2 applies.) In contrast, the fact that various cultures were introduced from China to Japan by way of the Korean peninsula has no relevance. For it is neither a disputed fact itself nor responsible for creating another dispute. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

did you read the above citations? it's not just chinese script & buddhism (which of course, were transmitted to japan from india by way of china & korea), but what scholars call korean immigration, genetic contribution, "korean plain pottery", burial customs "originating" in korea. of course, all that doesn't need to go in here, but it does underlie the korean feelings about japan, & japan's obvious sensitivity as well. Appleby 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And how are they supposed to be relevant to "Korean-Japanese disputes"? Anyway sketchy descriptions from secondary sources don't merit so much reference. There isn't such a thing as "Korean genes." That's just a lay term coined for casual readers. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The genetic research results available today only show that the Japanese and the Koreans share some genes, and possibly that they share the same ancestors. It does not substantiate such a politicized claim as that "Koreans contributed Korean genes to the ancient Japanese" because the supposed common ancestors were neither "Korean" nor "Japanese," or they were as much Korean as were Japanese. The only thing that is certain is that the Koreans and the Japanese diverged somewhere on their way from Africa (where the entire human race supposedly originated about 150,000 years ago) to East Asia. The two could have diverged tens of thousands of years ago when they were still a primitive tribe wondering around upper Eurasia. In either way, the mere fact that the modernday Koreans and the modernday Japanese (or the Yayoi) share some genes does not substantiate the claim that the Japanese descended (1) from the "Koreans," or (2) from a people who had already settled on what is known today as the Korean peninsula at the time of divergence, or (3) from some known ancient kingdoms of "Korea" such as Paekche and Goguryo. For neither the exact time nor the location of genetic divergence could be known from the currently available research results. The use of terms like "Korean genes" only shows the scientific inaccuracy of the article although it may be useful to make the article more interesting and easier to understand for common readers.

The oldest historical record available in Korea is Samguk Sagi that was written in 1145, and the Koreans today have to rely on much older Japanese records (e.g. Kojiki (712) and Nihonshoki (720)) and Chinese records to know what their ancient culture was like. The language of Goguryo, for example, is barely known today because of the extremely scarce resources. That is, they can't even tell if those allegedly "Korean" kingdoms were really Korean for sure, or if they were closer to the modern Koreans than to the modern Japanese (or the modern Chinese for that matter). If the culture of those kingdoms happened to be closer to that of the Japanese people, it's more accurate to say that the Koreans came from the Japanese and not vise versa due to their proximity to the original. That the supposed common ancestors might have been living on the peninsula back then does not guarantee that they were the most direct descendants of the modernday Koreans for merely living on the Korean peninsula does not make you a Korean ethnic.

Also, none of the sources that you cited above say that "Koreans" introduced rice farming and the rest to Japan. They only say that those cultures were introduced to, or spread to, Japan, with immigration from the Korean Peninsula. They are expressed in a passive construction with those cultures themselves as the subject. Besides almost every ancient Korean culture came from China anyway. There isn't much that Koreans could take credit for. Hermeneus (user/talk) 01:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's "Koreans transmitted...."

If Korea didn't exist. Then Japan didn't exist either. Its common sense. If Korea didn't existed then Japan must be formed off the coast of Hawaii right??? HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET.

Stop rewriting the npov statement "cultural developments were transmitted from the Chinese area to the Japanese islands by way of the Korean peninsula" to your biased and inaccurate version "Koreans transmitted cultural developments to Japan". Your version is:

1. Inaccurate because there were no "Koreans" back then as discussed above, and the immigrants who brought those cultures to Japan were neither "Korean" nor "Japanese."
2. Unfounded because none of the webpages that you cited above writes that "Koreans" transmitted this or that like you did. Those webpages only write that cultures were transmitted, in passive voice with the cultures themselves as the subject.
3. Biased because it implies that although "Koreans" kindly taught the Japanese all sorts of advanced cultures, the Japanese people forgot gratitude and betrayed Koreans by invading the peninsula in the modern time.

Besides this is an article to summarize various issues disputed by Japan and Korea, not a place to boast how kindly the Koreans enlightened the savage Japanese in old days. The entire sentence is irrelevant in the first place. Hermeneus (user/talk) 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1. ok, changed koreans to korea, which is specifically supported by the above citations. if you want to change that to "korean peninsula," please change japan to "japanese islands" as well.
2. "immigrants from Korea really did make a big contribution to the modern Japanese"; "introduction of a full-scale agricultural economy into the islands of Japan" associated with "immigration from the Korean Peninsula"; "technologies were introduced from Korea in the Yayoi"; "Yayoi period brought also the introduction of ... modern ideas from Korea into Japan"; "Korean Plain Pottery that formed the roots of Yayoi ceramics"; "Dolmens ... an important trait of the rice agriculture-based cultural complex introduced from the southern region of the Korean peninsula to Japan .... The dolmens of Japan originated in the Nam-gung River basin of Southern Korea." as for active/passive, who did the "introducing" from Korea to Japan? let's not get silly.
3. it doesn't imply anything more than the facts underlying the disputes. if you avoid facts because it might be read to imply something to some people, wikipedia won't be much of a reference work. change incorrect wording, not delete facts that imply to you something you don't like.

it is relevant as background, it is not a boast anymore than description of japan's annexation is a "boast" of japan's superiority. also, the chinese reference is incorrect because as the citations show, we're talking about specifically korean migration, pottery & burial customs, in addition to transmission of northern steppe culture & chinese culture. saying only chinese culture was transmitted to japan via korea is just not accurate. Appleby 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not become relevant just because you say so. Explain in detail in what way it is relevant. Or I'll start adding info on how greatly the Japanese rule improved the life of Koreans during the colonial period and how much Koreans have been influenced by modern Japanese culture if they could be "relevant" if I say so: [방송 일본 TV 베끼기 “아직도 그대로네” ] (Chosun Ilbo, July 23 2002), MBC´일밤´´추격남녀´도 표절의혹 (Dailian, August 23, 2005), 김청기 감독 “표절이라니…서글프다” (September 22, 2005), [6] [7], [8], [9], [10].

I told you that your version is also unfounded/unsourced. The webpages that you cited above only say:

• "jomon society received cold-resistant rice seeds and information about paddy irrigation from Korea"
• "rice agriculture-based cultural complex introduced from the southern region of the Korean peninsula to Japan"

None of them say "Koreans transmitted..." like you did. And your version is inaccurate because there were no "Koreans" back then. Use more accurate and exact terms such as Koguryo or Paekche or Silla. Or use "Korean peninsula."

Talking about the ancient "Korean" kingdoms, Jared Diamond and Peter Bellwood argued in their article that appeared in the April 25 2003 issue of Science that "Modern Japanese is not at all like Korean" and that "Modern Korean derived from the ancient Sillan" whereas "Japanese may have evolved from another ancient Korean language, Koguryo" (New York Times, May 6, 2003). In other words, it's more accurate to say that Koguryo was more "Japanese" than was "Korean." If Koreans today claim that Koguryo was one of their ancestors, then it's also equally valid to say that the Japanese were the ancestors of modern Koreans. For after all they are claiming that the Koreans are the ancestors of the Japanese just because the Japanese Yayoi were "Korean-like."

I don't see the big deal about Korean pottery. It's not like Japan did not have any pottery on their own. What was introduced from Korea were only some styles and technics at most:

• Korean pottery: Korean pottery appeared later than south Chinese pottery, and required a reasonably stable village culture before domestic Korean potter's wheels and kilns could be produced. Estimates are that Korean pottery history go back to the early Silla period (i.e. 7th century).... With many scholars, and trade missions sent to China, the Koreans who returned brought back many fine samples of the best of Chinese potters' wares, and may have indeed as well studied in China, or brought back Chinese clay as ballast to make Korean artefacts. The styles of China, the forms, approaches, the glazes and glazing methods, all were the early foundations of Korean pottery.
• Japanese pottery: One of Japan's oldest art forms, ceramics, that is the art of pottery, reaches back to the Neolithic period (ca. 11th millennium BC), when the earliest soft earthenware was coil-made, decorated by hand-impressed rope patterns (Jomon ware), and baked in the open. According to archeological evidence, it is among the earliest in the world. Continental emigrants of the 3rd century B.C., the beginning of the Yayoi period, introduced the use of the wheel and cultivation of rice along with the metal age, and eventually (in the 3rd to 4th centuries A.D.), the anagama kiln in which stoneware fired at high temperatures embellished with natural ash glaze was produced.

If the introduction of Korean potary was so significant, Japanese swords that influenced Korean sword could be mentioned in the article as well:

• Korean swords: "Many swords from Japan were gifted to Korea during the annual trade missions, as well as brought by Japanese who settled in Korea during this period. The Ring pommel sable , or long sword with a round handle became the prototype of the korean swords, as in Korea no swords were made before the fifth century according to Professor Koo Ja-bong of Kyungbuk College of Science."

There is no objective evidence for the claim that Kohun came from Korea. It's only a hypothesis. In fact the opposite (that Kofun was made earlier in Japan and later introduced to Korea) could be the case just as likely. See 일본식 닮은 영산강가 5~6세기 고분 (Hankyoreh, September 6 2001) for example. Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the nytimes article you cited says: "The Science article endorses a bold suggestion for the origin of Japanese. The writers say it is derived from the language of rice farmers who arrived from Korea around 400 B.C. and spread their agriculture northward from a southern island, Kyushu. Modern Japanese is not at all like Korean. But Korea had three ancient kingdoms, each with its own language. Modern Korean derived from the ancient Sillan. Japanese may have evolved from another ancient Korean language, Koguryo, the article says."

how can you say "there were no 'Koreans' back then" or object to using "Korea" as this and other scholarly articles do? the sources i cited say both "korea" and "korean peninsula," just as they say "japan" even though "japan" certainly was not a centralized state or a conscious identity at that time. my edit does not say anything about ancestry, rice, kofun, or inventing the concept of pottery. while mutual cultural exchange no doubt occurs with any neighboring nations, the general idea that many cultural and technological developments were introduced to japan by korea in the early centuries is not disputed by any serious scholar, & it's worthy of a one-sentence mention in the introduction to korean-japanese disputes. Appleby 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

None of "scholarly articles" do. [11] is from New York Times, which is not an academic journal. [12] is from Discover, again a magazine for for general audience. [13] and [14] that you cited above use no such expressions as "Koreans."

"Korea" and "Japan" only refer to the geographical area and their use is not an issue here. What's controversial is the names of nations or peoples. You should use the names of kingdoms and tribes at the time such as Koguryo and Yayoi rather than those of modern nation states to be accurate, as much as you don't use names like "Germans" or "French" or "Italians" when you talk about ancient European history.

Your "general idea" is a Korean pov, often based only on a simpleton assumption that Japan is located to the east of Korea and culture and people moved from west (China) to east. Be more specific when you say that culture was transmitted from Korea to Japan unilaterally rather than "cultural exchange." The majority of advanced cultures that were introduced to Japan in the ancient times came from China and so are irrelevant to this article because Korea was only a bridge in between. Limit yourself to ones that clearly originated in Korea. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

i already changed "koreans" to "korea," we're now talking about your refusal to use the word "korea."

i think nytimes wording is good enough for wikipedia, especially since this wikipedia article itself is not a technical history thesis, but a summary list of disputes for the general reader, with a very short background introduction.

also from above citations, again: "immigrants from Korea really did make a big contribution to the modern Japanese"; "introduced from Korea in the Yayoi"; "ideas from Korea into Japan"; "Korean Plain Pottery" Appleby 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NYT's wording is not good enough and should be changed to better and more accurate ones whenever possible. Besides the NYT article doesn't use expressions like yours.

Like I said, those "ideas" and "contributions" came from China to Japan, by way of the Korean peninsula. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, that's what you say, but that's not what the cited sources say. much cultural development did come from china, northern steppes, even india, but the citations above are about korea, using the word "korea"Appleby 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what the cited sources say when they are written in more details. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's "cultural developments of Korea"

• Dolmen was first created near the Liaodong Peninsula 1500BC, then spread to the Jilin are, and to the Korean peninsula around 500BC and Japan during the Jomon period. please provide cite;

see above for citation for my edit.Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Modern ideas: Confucianism and Ritsuryo came from China. Chinese characters ofcourse came from China. Buddhism came from India. Agricultural rites/shamanic ceremonies came with rice farming from South Asia.

please provide cite; see above for citation for "modern ideas"Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bronze and iron, domesticated pigs: None of them were invented by Koreans.

see above citation; article doesn't say "invented" Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Language from Korea's Goguryeo: If the language of Goguryeo is closer to Japanese language than to Korean language, then it's as much fair to say "Japan's Goguryeo." Besides nobody owns Goguryeo. Modern Koreans have no right to take credit for the Goguryeo achievements as much as modern Japanese don't just because it existed on the peninsula back then. In either way "modern Korean derived from the ancient Sillan whereas Japanese may have evolved from the language of Koguryo" is a much more accurate and neutral description. Hermeneus (user/talk) 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

please provide cite. see above for citation, in fact the cite you provided, for current wording. Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia articles on each. Key terms are wikified. None of your cited articles say that those cultural developments originated in Korea. Like I said earlier, since most of them originally came from China, it's more accurate to say that they came from China to Japan by way of Korea. If you don't like the expression "came from China to Japan by way of Korea," then you should be more spesific about which cultures were invented in "Korea." Your cited articles don't help you on this because they don't distinguish which was invented in Korea and which came form somewhere else originally. (For they are articles about ancient Japan after all.) You could either (1) write "came from China to Japan by way of Korea," or (2) limit to spesific cultures of Korean origin and stop using expressions like "modern ideas" and the other generic terms. It's your choice. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo people were Koreans. Koreans have no claim to Goguryeo is definitely wrong. Watch your manner of speech, Hermeneus. (Wikimachine 01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Appleby's Comfort women

Their cases had been rejected because all was settled with the 1965 treaty and the San Francisco Peace Treaty and there is no constitutional ground for them to demand compensation unless they will make a new law.

CNN Japan court rules against 'comfort women' March 29, 2001: "The High Court turned down a 1998 ruling by a district court that ordered the government to pay $2,453 each to three South Korean women. Judge Toshiaki Kawanami rejected the appeal, saying there is no obligation under present laws for Tokyo to compensate them, adding that the issue was for the parliament to decide, not the courts. The ruling, like most others, is in line with the Japanese government's argument that it need not pay compensation to the women as all claims were settled by peace treaties that formally ended the war. "

UPI:S.Korea discloses sensitive documents: "Japan has generally refused to pay damages to individuals, saying it settled the issue on a government-to-government basis under the 1965 agreement. It is the first time that the clause in favor of Japan's demand has been officially confirmed by South Korea. South Korean war victims are expected use the document to take legal action against the South Korean government."

This is exactly what prompted those Korean victims to demand the South Korean government to disclose those secret documents. Hermeneus (user/talk) 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

that's japan's political position. no source i can find or you cite says the treaty itself legally bars sexual slavery claims, because, i would think, if it did, there wouldn't have been the 1998 district court ruling or the appellate court's discussion of japanese constitutional standards.

"The court said the Japanese government need not pay the women compensation because forcing them into wartime sexual slavery was not a serious constitutional violation." [15] Appleby 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop quoting that misleading sketchy sentence from an article on history textbook. I have already shown you the very legal ground on which those Korean women lost at Japanese courts:

CNN: Japan court rejects former Korea sex slave's suit November 30, 2000: "Tokyo has acknowledged that its wartime military was systematically involved in brothel operation, but it has refused to provide direct, official compensation or an official apology to individuals. It maintains that all government-level compensation -- not only for sex slavery, but also for using slave laborers from China, Korea and elsewhere -- has been settled by postwar peace treaties, including its 1965 treaty with South Korea."

This is what the legal authority of Japan decided, and their position was confirmed to be right by the secret documents of the 1965 treaty that just came out last year. That's why the Korean victims are now preparing to sue the South Korean government. Hermeneus (user/talk) 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. and lost there as well.

AAP: Comfort women miss chance to sue Japan June 29, 2005: "A US court has rejected for a second time a damages lawsuit filed by 15 Asian women for sexual slavery under the Japanese military during World War II, citing Japan's immunity from such cases in the United States. The rejection followed an order by the US Supreme Court to rehear the case after the same US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a 2001 district court ruling that dismissed the case filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act."

Hermeneus (user/talk) 19:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

um, none of them say anything about the treaty barring sex slave compensation.

but i did find this about the treaty. "The memo says Tokyo agreed to give Seoul $300 million in grants and $500 million in the for of an economic cooperation fund, not compensation. It also shows that Seoul promised not to demand any more compensation for wartime victims, depriving individuals of the right to seek reparations from Tokyo." [16]Appleby 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The treaty bars any further compensation. The fact of the matter is that no one shares your interpretation or is trying to file yet another case against the Japanese government after the disclosure of those documents last year. They are preparing to sue the South Korean government instead for a good reason. Hermeneus (user/talk) 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

also, un human rights commission found states cannot waive individual claims for crimes against humanity. "The Tribunal recognizes that after the Second World War, Japan signed a number of treaties, including the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Settlement between Netherlands and Japan, the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, and the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims Between Japan and the Republic of Korea. The Tribunal found that the Peace Treaties are not applicable in the current context as states cannot agree by treaty to waive the liability of another state for crimes against humanity." [17] maybe this exlains why this defense is a political one by tokyo, not accepted even by japanese courts. Appleby 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That commission report was published 4 years earlier than the disclosure of the documents that show that the burden to compensate individual victims was transferred from the Japanese government to the South Korean government with the 1965 treaty. No one waived the liability. The South Korean government is still liable to compensate the victims. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That Japan Times article of yours is a very sketchy one and does not describe any details of the documents. Here is the more detailed description:

• The secret documents of the 1965 treaty recorded that South Korea agreed to demand no compensations, either at the government or individual level, after receiving $800 million in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its 1910-45 colonial rule in the treaty ("S.Korea discloses sensitive documents," UPI, January 17 2005).

• The documents also recorded that the Korean government originally "demanded a total of 364 million dollars in compensation for the 1.03 million Koreans conscripted into the workforce and the military during the colonial period" ("Declassified Documents Could Trigger Avalanche of Lawsuits," Chosun Ilbo January 17, 2005), "at a rate of 200 dollars per survivor, 1,650 dollars per death and 2,000 dollars per injured person" ("Seoul Demanded $364 Million for Japan's Victims Updated," Chosun Ilbo January 17, 2005).

• However, the South Korean government used most of the grants for economic development ("Seoul ready to launch panel on Korean victims of colonial rule," Koreaherald February 11, 2005), "failing to provide adequate compensation to victims" by paying only 300,000 won per death in compensating victims of forced labor between 1975 and 1977 ("Seoul Demanded $364 Million for Japan's Victims Updated," Chosun Ilbo January 17, 2005).

• The documents also reveals that the South Korean government claimed that it would handle "individual compensation to its citizens who suffered during Japan's colonial rule" while rejecting Japan's proposal to directly compensate individual victims (Documents show Seoul agreed to compensate its citizens over Japan's colonial rule Mainichi January 17 2005: "韓国政府、韓日会談で個別請求権放棄," Chosun Ilbo September 17 2004).

• As the result, there have been growing calls for the government to compensate the victims since the disclose of the documents. A survey conducted shortly after the disclosure showed that more than 70 percent of Korean people believe the South Korean government should bear responsibility to pay for those victims.

The Japanese government has fulfilled the responsibility to compensate individual victims by giving 800 million dollars to the South Korean government. The South Korean government received the money on behalf of the individual victims, and promised to compensate individual victims on behalf of the Japanese government. No one's right to compensation was waived since the victims have a legitimate right to demand compensation from the South Korean government. It wouldn't be the fault of the Japanese government if those Korean victims were cheated by their own government. If they haven't received any compensation, then that's the liability of the South Korean government, not of the Japanese government. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's UN report

The South Korean government agreed not to demand any further compensations because the Japanese government has already compensated individual victims with the treaty. In other words, the Japanese government fulfilled the obligation, not just "waived." You can't demand an infinite amount of compensation from Japan forever.

The liability is merely transferred to the South Korean government. Victims' right to compensation is not waived. The treaty has not deprived individuals of the right to seek any compensations. It has only changed the body from whom the victims could demand compensations. They only need to exercise the right toward the South Korean government now.

The South Korean government only paid measly 2,570 million won to victims out of 800 million dollars received from Japan. Let the South Korean government use the rest of the money to compensate comfort women before requesting more "liability."

That old UN report, published 4 years before the disclosure of those important documents, is wrong for assuming that Japan has only paid state-to-state compensation and has not compensated any individual victims. As a matter of fact the Japanese government paid 800 million dollars to the South Korean government on the assumption that the South Korean government will take care of the compensation of individual victims. That the South Korean government failed to do so is not something that could be blamed on the Japanese government. The criticism presented in the UN report has become invalid now because it is based on an assumption that has been proven wrong by the secret documents that came out last year. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

whatever the terms, it was a gov't to gov't agreement. the link is saying, in cases of crimes against humanity (which must be the exception to the normal rule), the (korean) gov't's purported settlement (accept payment in exchange for waiving claim against japanese gov't) on behalf of the individual victims (obviously, not talking about korean gov't being unable to settle on its own behalf) was legally ineffective. the japanese courts, at trial & on appeal, didn't say the treaty precluded the lawsuit (obviously, japan knew the terms of the treaty it signed, & would have thrown out the cases at the courthouse door on that basis if the treaty were applicable as you interpret it), nor does any source i can find. as a matter of policy, not by the legal effect of the treaty itself, Japanese gov't's position is that the treaty resolved everything. Appleby 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The UN report only says that "states cannot agree by treaty to waive the liability of another state for crimes against humanity." However, no one "waved" any liability of Japan as evidenced by the secret document that came out last year. In fact Japan rightly assumed the liability for the compensation of victims by providing $800 million dollars to Korea. If the victims have been sufficiently compensated, they don't have a right to demand further compensations any longer. The compensation liability of the perpetrator is dissolved once the compensation is paid in full.

The issue at stake here is that there are still victims of the Japanese rule who have not been compensated. Japan cannot be held liable for their predicament not because the liability of Japan was waived by the South Korean government in the treaty but because Japan has already paid a sufficient amount of compensation money to the South Korean government on the premise that the South Korean government will use it to compensate the individual victims on Japan's behalf. That the South Korean government violated this premise by paying measly 2,570 million won to the victims out of 800 million dollars while spending the rest for economic development is not the fault of the Japanese government but of the South Korean government. It must be noted that the South Korean government is the liable party for compensating those victims more fully.

No one says that Japan is not liable for any compensation of individual victims at all. Indeed Japan is liable. That's why the Japanese government paid 800 million dollars. However, you cannot claim that Japan is still liable for further compensation when the South Korean government unjustly appropriated the money that the Japanese government paid as compensation. The victims could demand further compensation from Japan only when the 800 million dollars turns out to be insufficient, i.e., only when all the money from the treaty has been used to compensate victims and still there are left victims who have not been compensated.

Agence France-Presse: Tokyo Court rejects Korean comfort woman's compensation appeal (November 30, 2000): "The Japan-Republic of Korea Basic Relations Treaty stipulates that liabilities for wartime acts of Japan and its people against Korea and its people are legally erased, the ruling added." Hermeneus (user/talk) 02:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

When did Japan start to affect on Korean foreign policy?

In the subsection "Sea of Japan/East Sea", there is a sentence that "Japan's influence over Korean foreign policy grew following the Treaty of Ganghwa of 1875." However, Western countries also concluded unequal treaties with Korea, not only Japan. In addition, Japan itself also had unequal treaties with Western countries but it is not said that there were influence over Japanese foreign policy. Further more, it was China who had most significant influence on Korea until 1894 and Russia until 1905. Therefore, the age should not be 1875 but 1905, I think. I need some comments from others. --Corruptresearcher 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese influence over Korea started at around 1894 during the First Sino-Japanese War.

(The other 1860 date I put in is based on this report.)--Endroit 04:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is understandable for me than 1875. After 1894, Japanese influence was comparable to Russia or less but actually increasing. Shall we change the date from 1875 to 1894? Regarding 1860 date, I also know the page and no problem for me (but maybe unacceptable for some others). --Corruptresearcher 08:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing it to 1894 sounds fair to me. Regarding 1860, it can be changed to whatever the official Japanese position is, but not later than 1860.--Endroit 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Japanese and Korean

If their wasn't Korea or Korean Peninsula. Then Japan wouldn't exist. Cannot argue with Geographical Location between two countries. Yes, Japanese as a race, culture and country exist because of Koreans and Korean peninsula

Deleting "some consider this debate to be meaningless" edit is a blatant attempt at censorship. None of the arguments in this section is attributed to particular individual. Rightly so given that it is part of public debate both in Korea and Japan. And anyone who has come across this debate know that this-debate-is-meaningless line of argument exists. This particular POV is not presented as a fact. If Appleby prefer to attribute this argument to Japanese side, feel free to do so. But please do not delete the entire sentence. I felt that attribution to Japanese side would make Korean looks more partisan (hence less NPOV) but hey, I'm not complaining as long as this view get a presentation.FWBOarticle 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a political polemic after all, not a scientific one. It's scientifically meaningless to argue who descended from whom using the names of modern nation states like Korea and Japan. Concepts like Korea and Japan have no significance when you talk about ancient history because there weren't either the "Koreans" and the "Japanese" tens of thousands of years ago. If they share the same ancestors (as evidenced by some genetic research results or what not), they just share the ancestors, period. The supposed common ancestors were neither Korean nor Japanese; or they were as much Korean as were Japanese. The only thing that is certain is that the Koreans and the Japanese diverged somewhere on their way from Africa to North-East Asia. Neither the exact time nor the location could be known from the currently available genetic research. They could have diverged when they were still primitive tribes wondering around upper Eurasia. In either way, claims like "the Japanese descended from the Koreans" are meaningful only politically, and are highly politicized and biased interpretations of scientific facts. Hermeneus (user/talk) 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it is just a silly ass argument on either side. But hey, it is fun to watch (from a far). ^_^ FWBOarticle 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

you've got to be kidding me with the current language on the history disputes. i guess readers will know better than to expect a real professional, encyclopedia-like article on this topic in wikipedia, but the current crazy rant is pretty embarrassing. i'll actually leave that alone as a fun example of what can go wrong. Appleby 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations on "Korean, that China actually has a claim to northern part of Korean pennisula on the ground that norther Korea was Manchurian. Moreover, in southern part of Korea, there are number of megalithic monuments whose combination of circle and square shape mirror Japanese kohun. In Korean, this is used to argue that Japanese kohun originated from Korea. In Japan, due to the existence of older kohun, the origin is claimed to be Japanese, though the debate exist about the extent of closeness between the people of kohun era and the current Japanese. Moreover, records from ancient Japanese court state that people of Baekje were tatooed, a common custom of Japanese aboliginies (such as Ainu of north and Hayato of south). These "evidences" are used to argue that the prehistoric influence actually flew from Japan to Korea while Korean cultural influence to Japan is a pragialism of Chinese "civilisation" (which obviously gross over the cultural similarity of Korea and Japan as well as well documented immigration from Baekje). Japanese right wing nationalist push this argument even further. If Korean and Japanese is defined in term of "nation" rather than "ethnicity", Japanese nation can claim continuous lineage from Emperor Jimmu (traditionally dated to February 11, 660 BCE according to Japanese mythology), while the current Korea "state" originate from the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952, an indirect insult about the Korea's annexation to Japan. Of course, this gross over the fact that Japanese state, while arguably the oldest in term of continuity, came under Allied occapation which ended only after the signing of the same treaty. Many point out that Korean and Japanese as ethinic group, let alone Japanese or Korean state, did not exist in term of Korean penninsula or Japanese archipelago in ancient time and subsequently, they feel that the debate over Japanese or Korean identity in term of geopolitics or antholopology are meaningless." Please Deiaemeth 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If Korean and Japanese is defined in term of "nation" rather than "ethnicity", Japanese nation can claim continuous lineage from Emperor Jimmu (traditionally dated to February 11, 660 BCE according to Japanese mythology), while the current Korea "state" originate from the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952, an indirect insult about the Korea's annexation to Japan. Good Lord, please read History of Japan and History of Korea articles. Also, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a good start as well. Deiaemeth 00:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Jew is evil" isn't kosher edit and certainly is a rant. "Nazi says Jew is evil" is perfectly kosher wikipedia edit. I correctly attributed different views to different sources. As of nation/state interpretation, I clearly attributed it as right wing insult. Did I try to censor "Korean says Japan originate from Korea"? Previous revert is no different from those who tried to censor Mohhamed cartoon from wikipedia. These opinions exist. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. I can pull up numerous references by just asking it in 2channell. If you have some (rubbish) opinions from right wing Korean, feel free to add it. I don't have objection as long as it is properly attributed. The entire origin debate, IMO, is a rubbish anyway. FWBOarticle

If you think your excerpt contains "general opinion", then please cite your sources please. If you want to start citing material from 2ch (Anti-Korean ASCII arts?), then I guess Stormfront is an acceptable source as well. If you want to attribute different views to the excerpt, you must do so according to Wikipedia Policy:NPOV. Deiaemeth 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Can you read Japanese or chinese character? Use "朝鮮"　"属国"　"従属"　"殖民地" in serach engine. There are sooooo many references, I don't know which one to pick. Source (no original reseach) requirement apply when the idea is original. This isn't a case here. When I used the term "general", I meant "prevailing". My attribution is prevailing "right wing" opinion, or prevailing Japanese opinion. As of 2channel, (which is free speech site, not right wing site), what I meant was that it is very easy to obtain even non internet reference if I post a thread asking for anti Korean reference. I can rewrite the passage as, "As a counter to Korean assertion that Japan originate from Korea, Japanese right wing point out that Korea has been a "subject state" ("属国") of either China, Manchuria, Mongolia or Japan, for almost entire history, not to mention the fact that there isn't a unified Korean state even now." The entire Japan/Korea origin debate is a pissing contest. Expect to see rubbish nationalist right wing argument from both sides. Plus now that China, through their state controlled academy, is asserting that Northern Korea is Chinese (i.e. Manchrian) the debate even has geo politics significance. Attempting to censor only non Korean argument (China and Japan) is a deliberate attempt to slant the presentation in Korean favour and is a violation of NPOV. Why the Korean side didn't see this coming when they started the debate is beyond me though. V(^_^) FWBOarticle

Here are example of right wing opinions. [18] [19] [20] [21]. My google terms were "Korea" "Slave State". If you want, do "South Korean national flag" search. Much joke are made about the flag being a Taoist flag which make it more Chinese than Chinese national flag. We should make a separate article about nationalist/right wing opinions of both Japan and Korea. It is immensely funny read if you know it is sooo stupid. FWBOarticle 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)`

Here are googled discussion of "Korean penninsula" and "Japanese style kohun" [22]. FWBOarticle

Goguryeo and Buyeo are of the Manchurians, not of the "Koreans." --222.3.71.57 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

More accurate statement is that Goguryeo and Buyeo are Tungus. There are many other Tungustic tribes, one of which include Jurchens which Manchrian originate from. On the other hand, Silla, which modern Korean origiate from is not a Tungus. And Korean language is not considered as a Tungusic language. For this reason, Manchrian has a better cultural and linguistic claim to Goguryeo and Buyeo. Korea's claim is limited to geography. It's like saying that Japanese are American because it was occupied by America. FWBOarticle 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An increase of South Korean criminal on Japan

Deiaemeth (or DueDiehcal) Please write the deletion reason. --Kamosuke 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It help if your post is about crime statistics (which can't be deleted because it is a fact) and media perception in Japanese media. Keep it NPOV and Verifiable and eventually deletion have to stop. FWBOarticle

I've termed the excerpt for reasons of NPOV and various spelling & grammar mistakes. I don't know on what grounds you accuse me of using other Editor names. I've also deleted very poorly-termed excerpt contributed by user who uses IP [219.66.40.198]]. It read something like "Koreans are angry". Deiaemeth 02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Japan article, Koreans make up about 50% of the foreign ethnic population residing in Japan. So, if they're committing only 20% of the crimes committed by foreigners living in Japan, that's a comparatively low figure... and thus, not worth mentioning as significant. One thing that's interesting to note about Japan is that there are constant reports of crimes committed by foreigners rising. But crime in general is rising in Japan. This needs to be put into perspective.--Sir Edgar 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

50% is old data, currently it becomes 20-30%. Just for your information. --Corruptresearcher 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right when taking into account the illegal alien population, but that is inevitably an unofficial figure. So, it would be difficult to measure the data that way. Anyhow, the point is that Koreans residing in Japan commit no more crimes than other foreigners in Japan. I'm not even sure whether foreigners in Japan commit crimes at a higher rate than Japanese citizens or if it's just the media that seems to focus on crimes committed by foreigners. Anyone have the comparative statistics?--Sir Edgar 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you all can have a NPOV on this issue, discuss it with a cool head, and don't engage in any Edit War. I've located some statistical data from the Japanese National Police Agency.... See this link (Sorry, this material is in Japanese). Although this crime report does not specifically focus on crimes committed by "illegal aliens in Japan", it does focus on crimes committed by "foreign immigrants to Japan". Pages 11 and beyond have some breakdown by the country of origin. As Sir Edgar suggests, South Korea is not at the top of the list. (Mainland China is at the top). But by number of criminals, South Korea is at number 2. And by number of crimes committed, South Korea is at number 4. But I would say that the current anti-Korean sentiment in Japan is great enough to make Japanese people believe this data to show a significant problem. However the Koreans naturally would feel it's not a significant issue. I believe that the South Korean police are cooperating with the Japanese police to drive down crime, and so I believe the Koreans are doing what they can on their end. But there seems to be a major perception problem in Japan.--Endroit 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is being used by the Korean(Deiaemeth). Does not the American know South Korean's anti-Japanese sentiment?　--Kamosuke 11:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've talked to some Koreans too. And so I believe that Koreans who grew up in Korea, particularly over 40 years old, have an acute dislike towards Japanese people. (You can read about it in the article Anti-Japanese sentiment#Korea.) The anti-Korean sentiment in Japan is called kenkan (ja:嫌韓), and is not nearly as intense as the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. All we can do here in Wikipedia is to accurately explain that such things exist without getting emotional ourselves. And when you write the Japanese POV in this particular article, you can expect an appropriate Korean POV rebuttal. That's the best we can do here.

By the way, I have a lot of respect for the South Korean police who have done their job, to hold back the radical Korean protesters. I've seen it on TV, during the anti-Japanese protests last year, during World Cup 2002, etc.--Endroit 17:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• num of Japanese population (2003): 127,619,000 (cf. [23], p. 555)
• num of registered Korean residents (2003): 613,791 (cf. [24])
• num of criminal offenses in Japan (2003): 648,319 cases, 379,602 persons (cf. [25], p. 30)
• num of felonious offenses in Japan (2003): 8,238 cases, 8,362 persons (Ibid.)
• num of criminal offenses by Korean nationals (2003): 9,076 cases, 4,588 persons (Ibid., p. 514)
• num of felonious offenses by Korean nationals (2003): 105 cases, 121 persons (Ibid.)
• num of criminal offenses by visiting aliens of Korean nationality (not including permanent residents) (2003): 1,426 cases, 499 persons (Ibid., 522)
• num of felonious offenses by visiting aliens of Korean nationality (2003): 27 cases, 28 persons (Ibid., p. 514)
• .
• num of crimes per 100,000 Japanese: (648,319/127,619,000)*100,000 = 508
• num of felonies per 100,000 Japanese: (8,238/127,619,000)*100,000 = 6.5
• num of crimes committed by Korean permanent residents: 9,076 - 1,426 = 7,650
• num of felonies committed by Korean permanent residents: 105 - 27 = 78
• num of crimes per 100,000 registered Koreans: ((9076-1426)/613,791)*100,000 = 1,246
• num of felonies per 100,000 registered Koreans: ((105-27)/613,791)*100,000 = 13

Hermeneus (user/talk) 06:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this excerpt is more suitable for Korea-Japan relations article, seeing as how there aren't much governmental dispute between SK and Japan regarding this issue. If I remember correctly, this excerpt was first added by user:kamosuke (very poorly termed), and he has a strong background of anti-Korean edits (and vandalisms). Also , I agree with what user:endroit said, current anti-Korean sentiment in Japan is great enough to make Japanese people believe this data to show a significant problem. This is just one aspect of many anti-Korean (or anti-Japanese) sentiment held by Koreans and Japanese (respectively). Maybe this excerpt should be changed in regards to anti-Korea and anti-Japan sentiment held by people of SK and Japan and media perception regarding it? Deiaemeth 06:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To Deiaemeth（DueDiehcal）.It questions simply. Do you insist that South Korean's criminal doesn't become a problem in Japan?　Simply, Is "Korea instead of Corea" a problem that is more serious than "An increase of South Korean criminal on Japan"?　Please answer by "Yes" or "No". --Kamosuke 11:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

any sources indicating the crime rate within japan is a source of dispute between korea and japan, in the same sense as the other topics here? what is korea's position in this "dispute"? does south korea support an increase in japan's crime rate? are the crimes being committed as a protest against japan's 1910 annexation of korea?Appleby 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the issues that the governments of Japan and South Korea are considering regarding visa waiver for Koreans. --Saintjust 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

cite please? visa waiver is not a "dispute," any more than any other countless diplomatic discussions are "disputes" that belong here. if you do consider it a dispute, then the topic of the japan-korea discussion is visa waiver, with the crime rate being one of japan's internal considerations. Appleby 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed,　South Korean's criminals doesn't increase. And, it doesn't decrease. Applyby,Shall I add detailed information on the South Korean criminal more?--Kamosuke 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If Applyby is neutral, he will delete the topic against which the South Korea government is not protesting against Japanese Government. (Tsushima/Daemado,Sea of Japan/East Sea,Korea instead of Corea) --Kamosuke 18:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To prevent the edit battle

1.　shall we publish two articles in one topic?

The article is classified into "Insistence of South Korea" and "Insistence of Japan". The South Korean records the insistence of South Korea. The Japanese records the insistence of Japan. It doesn't interfere mutually in the other party's insistence. --Kamosuke 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

2.　shall we classify it? "History issue" , "Cultural problem" ,　"Crime problem"　...etc

Edit history of this article seems quite funny. Ethnic conflicts seem to be a huge source of written opinions in Wikipedia. Earlier I saw Balkan WP wars (such as about the name of Macedonia), war about the name of Gdansk, Armenian Genocide...

This moves me to give a wonderful example how sometimes happens here in Wikipedia :) see Astronomer and Amateur. This reminds me what could happen when someone keeps an opinionated opinion (about whatever, be it possibly about interaction between Koreans and Japanese over 15 centuries ago)

This Korea-Japan battling in WP may deserve some places in WP:Lamest edit wars ever. Would you be happy to be elevated there? :)

Future archivists may be grateful/ungrateful to you fellas when they receive the material you have succeeded in producing. Shilkanni 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

World War II Issues ？

South Korea is not participating in WW2. Korea is not invited to [Treaty of San Francisco]. I do not think that this title is appropriate.

Appleby Explanation

1.Reason to delete Carter Eckert

2.Reason to delete insistence on Koizumi

Koizumi has repeatedly said he visits the shrine to pray for peace and honour the dead, not to glorify militarism.

3.Reason to delete "An increase of South Korean criminals in Japan" 4.Who is disputes Visa waivers?

who disputes the crime statistics? it's not a korean-japanese dispute, as i already mentioned above. saintjust above said it is part of visa waiver considerations, but that's internal japanese consideration, not afaik contested by korea, & in any case moot now. & generally, details belong in specific articles, as this is a summary list already too long. Appleby 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply, Tsushima and Corea,Zainichi.... who disputes the crime statistics?

If you hope, I introduce "Violation of the license of South Korea" and "Unlawful business of hunters in South Korea". And, shall I introduce the problem that the Koreans hopes for a Japanese-name?　 It questions simply. Please answer No or Yes. (Please explain the reason if You choice "No". ) 1.A lot of South Koreans are doing the crime in Japan. 2.The Japanese is making South Korean's criminal a problem. 3.Tsushima and Corea,　This is a discussion that is bigger than South Korean's crime.

(Please explain the reason if You choice "No". )

211.131.244.197 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)　<-　--Kamosuke 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No. They are not Korean-Japanese disputes. Appleby 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

South Koreans are no longer required to have a visa for entering Japan. Thus, this appears to be a non-issue. Furthermore, we've already seen in the above discussion that South Koreans do not commit more crimes than foreigners residing in Japan in general. Therefore, it is not a "dispute", but rather a (false) perception.--Sir Edgar 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. "Deletion of Visa waivers" Visa waivers is a problem of already solved. The South Korean and Chinese have the large percentage in the crimes by foreigners person in Japan. It is a serious problem. [[26]] However, this problem is not "disputes". I also agree.　"Deletion of An increase of South Korean criminals in Japan" . So, These topic is not in Wiki of Japan and South Korea either. ApplyBy rejects the explanation of his own edit. I think his attitude to be regrettable.... Why do you think that you should delete it of 1 and 2?

Korean-Japanese disputes From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Japanese-Korean relations. (Discuss) Korea (both North and South) and Japan have had disputes on many issues over the years.

The two nations have had a complex history of cultural exchange, trade, and war which underlies relations today. In the ancient era, many cultural developments were transmitted by immigrants from Korea to Japan. [1] Later, Korea was also influenced by trade and diplomacy with Japan. The subsequent Japanese invasions of Korea (Seven-Year War, 1592-1598) and the 1910-1945 annexation, however, have scarred relations since.

Today, South Korea and Japan are major trading partners and many students, tourists, entertainers, and businesspeople travel between the two countries. In recent years, Japanese pop culture has become not only popular but also legal in South Korea; similarly (South) Korean pop culture has become popular in Japan as well. North Korea, however, has few political or economic relations with Japan.

The following unresolved issues continue to make headlines regularly, and issues arising from Japan's militant past also often involve China and other Asian countries. The respective governments are also often accused of exploiting nationalism for political purposes.

Contents [hide] 1 Korea under Japanese rule 1.1 Yasukuni Shrine 1.2 Comfort Women 1.3 History Textbooks 1.4 Compensation 1.5 Apology 2 Geographic disputes 2.1 Dokdo/Takeshima 2.2 Tsushima/Daemado 2.3 Sea of Japan/East Sea 3 Other issues 3.1 Origin of Korean and Japanese 3.2 Ban on Japanese Culture 3.3 Kidnapping of Japanese Citizens 3.4 Zainichi Koreans 3.5 Korea instead of Corea 4 See also

[edit] Korea under Japanese rule Main article: Korea under Japanese rule

North and South Korea demand sincere repentance and compensation for Japan's occupation of Korea. Beginning with an "Unequal Treaty" in 1875, Japan increased its control of Korea and then officially annexed it in 1910. The next 35 years are viewed by Koreans as a period of brutal exploitation and Japanese suppression of Korean culture. Some Japanese, however, claim that the occupation helped form the foundation for the industrialization and modernization of Korea today.

[edit] Yasukuni Shrine Main article: Yasukuni Shrine

Visits by Japanese leaders to Yasukuni Shrine, dedicated to those who fought on behalf of imperial Japan, have ignited protests in Korea, China, and other Asian countries. In 1978, 14 convicted Class-A war criminals and about 1,000 others convicted for war crimes during World War II were secretly enshrined. The shrine's publications began defending, even glorifying, Japanese war atrocities. Though Japanese emperors have not visited the shrine since, three Japanese leaders have paid their respects there. Current prime minister Junichiro Koizumi has visited five times since taking office in 2001.

[edit] Comfort Women Main article: Comfort Women

The Korean government has demanded compensation for women who were forced to work in military brothels during World War II for Japanese imperial soldiers. As the few surviving sex slaves, called "comfort women," continue to struggle for acknowledgment and apology, the Japanese court system rejected such claims on the ground of the statute of limitation. However, Japanese government arranged some monetary compensation by private funds, not through official channels.

[edit] History Textbooks Main article: Japanese history textbook controversies

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) reviews the content of school history textbooks available for selection by schools in Japan. Foreign scholars, as well as many Japanese historians, have criticized the political slant and factual errors of some textbooks that have been approved. After the revisionist Tsukurukai's textbook passed inspection in April 2001, South Korea demanded the revision of 25 parts of the textbook, to no avail. This aroused resentment among supporters of the book who felt that Korea was interfering in Japanese domestic affairs. So far, Tsukurukai's textbook has been adopted by less than 0.1% of the schools, but has become a bestseller in the general book market, and have caused other textbooks to shift to the right, for example, by omitting reference to sex slaves. [2]

In both North and South Korea, only one series of history textbooks each, which is published by the government, are allowed for use in schools. Some Japanese scholars claim that these textbooks use biased information in criticizing Japan and the Japanese occupation of Korea.

[edit] Compensation Main article: Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea

Twenty years after the end of World War II, Japan and South Korea re-established diplomatic relations by signing the Treaty on Basic Relations in 1965. In 2005, South Korea disclosed diplomatic documents that detailed the proceedings of the treaty. The documents, kept secret for 40 years, revealed that Japan provided 800 million dollars in grants and soft loans to South Korea as compensation for its 1910-45 colonial rule, and that South Korea agreed to demand no further compensations, either at the government or individual level, after the treaty. [3] It has also been revealed that the South Korean government assumed the responsibility for compensating individuals on a lump sum basis [4] while rejecting Japan's proposal for direct compensation. [5] However, the South Korean government used most of the grants for economic development and have failed to provide adequate compensation to victims, paying only 300,000 won per death, a total of 2,570 million won only to the relatives of 8,552 victims who died in forced labor. [6] [7] As the result, the Korean victims are preparing to file a compensation suit against the South Korean government as of 2005.

It should be noted that the treaty does not preclude individual suits against Japanese individuals or corporations but such suits are often constrained by the statute of limitation. The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal 2000 on Japan Military Sexual Slavery, a mock trial organised by NGOs, issued a ruling that "states cannot agree by treaty to waive the liability of another state for crimes against humanity." [8]

[edit] Apology Main article: List of war apology statements issued by Japan

Japan's prime ministers have issued official apologies several times, including Prime Minister Obuchi in the Japan-Republic of Korea Joint Declaration of 1998, and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration of 2002. [9] Koizumi said "I once again express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology, and also express the feelings of mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, in the war." [10] While Koreans welcomed the earlier apologies, many now view the repeated statements as insincere, because of continuing actions of Japanese officials on the other issues listed here.

[edit] Geographic disputes [edit] Dokdo/Takeshima Main article: Liancourt Rocks

Although currently under South Korean control, these islets are claimed by Japan. Called "Dokdo" in Korean and "Takeshima" in Japanese, but also known as the Liancourt Rocks, the islets' surrounding waters have rich fishing grounds and possible reserves of natural gas.

In 1900, Korea incorporated it into Ulleung county. In January 1905, 10 months before Korea became a Japanese protectorate in November, Japan incorporated the islets under the doctrine of terra nullius. In January 1952, South Korea's Syngman Rhee line declaration included the Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory. In September 1954, Japan proposed to submit this problem to the International Court of Justice but South Korea rejected the proposal.

There is relatively less awareness of the dispute among the Japanese. North Korea supports the South Korean claim.

[edit] Tsushima/Daemado Main article: Tsushima Island

Although Japanese-controlled currently, this island is claimed to be Korean by some Koreans, although not by the South Korean government. Called "Tsushima" in Japanese and "Daemado" in Korean, it was Korean-controlled briefly during the Joseon Dynasty, and possibly during the Silla era.

In 2005, when Japan's Shimane Prefecture announced Takeshima Day claiming the Liancourt Rocks as part of its jurisdiction, Korea's Masan city council proclaimed Daemado Day and declared it Korean territory.

[edit] Sea of Japan/East Sea Main article: Sea of Japan naming dispute

Both North and South Korea insist that Japan unfairly promoted the standardization of the name "Sea of Japan" while Korea effectively lost control over its foreign policy under Japanese imperial expansion. South Korea argues that the name "East Sea", one of the various names found on ancient European maps of this sea, should be the official name instead of, or at least concurrently with, "Sea of Japan". Japan claims that most Western countries named it the "Sea of Japan" prior to 1860, before Japan's influence over Korean foreign policy grew after the outbreak of First Sino-Japanese War in 1894.

[edit] Other issues [edit] Origin of Korean and Japanese Main article: Origin of Korean and Japanese

The Korean and Japanese people share closely-linked ethnic, cultural and anthropological history. There were large influxes of immigration from Korea during Yayoi and Yamato periods of Japan, which which brought much culture and technology to Japan. [11] [12] Archeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence indicates a complex but close formative relationship, [13] but nationalists and some historians in both nations continue to dispute the direction, timing, and degree of influences.

Ban on Japanese Culture

There's somebody who is trying to deleting from this article the sentence "However, they were changed into Korean style and audience did not know they were from Japan." This person may know nothing about anime or manga. This is no POV. This fact is common sence among Korean and Japanese anime fans. For example, Yoon Son-ha, a Korean famous actress, had thought that Doraemon is a Korean character before she visited Japan (source:"Boku Doraemon" vol.9 by Shogakukan). The Ashita No Joe is called "Challenger Hurricane" in Korea and all the characters were changed to Koreans. Almost all of the anime introduced to Korea were changed to Korean style and the audience did not know they are from Japan before the removal of the ban on Japanese culture. If you can read the Korean language, read 재패니메이션.--Michael Friedrich 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

people not knowing that some cultural imports were from another country is not exactly unique or new. this is true of korean culture in japan, & it's true of european/u.s. cultural imports to korea or japan as well. if you have a specific academic phenomenon unique to korea in mind, perhaps add your content & cite your reference at the Culture of Korea article? Appleby 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the exact same thing that happens when anime gets imported overseas? Nowadays, most animes and mangas retain their Japanese names. Anywho, When Manga and anime gets imported to other countries, the character names get changed - I don't see people complaining when all the character names of Pokemon was changed in the US version, and when you see the opening credits, it looks as if it was made in the US. Also, See [27] - If you can read Korean, you'll note that the author's name hasn't been erased, and is perfectly clear to anyone who's reading the manga that Doraemon was drawn by a Japanese manga-ka. Deiaemeth 05:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 　

Yes, I have a few manga-books translated into the Korean languages. Now the Japanese authors' names are not eraced. But we're not talking about "now". We're talking about a few decades ago. Japanese names and Japanese culture (ex:Shinto shrine, Torii, Kappogi etc.) were all erased or changed into Korean style. The situation is different from that of US or Europe. In Europe or US, those Japanese culture was changed because make them understandable to children. The reason why they were changed in Korea was that Japanese culture was strictly banned, not to make them easy for children to understand. Before the end of the ban on Japanese culture in 1990s, almost all of manga or anime that introduced to Korea were pirated editions because they cannot introduce Japanese culture openly. You are native Korean speakers, are you not? Then read [this article]. You can see the situation in Korea is different from that in Europe and US. Japanese culture is not banned now but lots of Koreans still have antipathy towards it. (As for the situation of manga and anime in Korea, Europe and US, I may know far much more about them than you.) I don't understand you keep deleting what I wrote. It is no POV and there's no problem for it to be here. Michael Friedrich 12:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

if you look at your link carefully, you'll see that it's more of an editorial from "ohmy" news, which collects "citizen volunteer" articles. it's not a serious reference source. furthermore, even in this article it says animation in general was gov't & self-regulated, & says other countries also modify foreign programs for their national audience. maybe i'm missing something, but tv stations up to the 80's were heavily gov't controlled or outright owned by the gov't, so i'm not understanding how they could have broadcast "banned" material. or, unrelated to the link you provided, are you saying individual smugglers renamed, edited, dubbed & repackaged unlicensed copies illegally in a way different from common piracy of other media? again, please provide source, thanks. Appleby 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced that it doesn't mean anything for you whether it is ture or not. You believe what you want to believe, even if it is not true. If not, how could you keep saying Kumdo is different from Kendo without knowing their difference and give me no answer?

Before 1998, Japanese culture was strictly banned. Don't you think it is important information whether Korean audience knew they were from Japan or not at that time? You can't understand the situation without this information. When you read "Some Japanese cultures such as manga, anime and music were introduced to South Korea even while they were banned." you'd be confused, "What does this mean? Is Japanese culture banned or not?" There's no offence to Korea or anything but I'm trying to make this article more accurate and understandable.

I've already proveded source. Did you really read what I said? Can't you still understand the situation in Korea is different from that in Europe/US after reading [this article]? Europeans did NOT KNOW they were watching Japanes TV programs. But Koreans were NOT INFORMED that they were from Japan. Of cource, even authors' names were eraced. In addition to Yoon Son-ha, read "Tokyo Korean Pure Hear Diary" (Sogo-Horei publisher, by Anri 1999), "Manga World Strategy" (Shogakukan publisher, Natsume Fusanosuke 2001), "Interesting Koreans" (by Taka Shitaro, Kobunsha), "Media and Children: CHASE TV ANIME!" (a program by TV Asahi aired on 5/5/2003) if you could understand Japanese. And this article is from Chosun Ilbo (I couldn't find it in Korean or in English. Sorry.) If only you could see "Media and Children: CHASE TV ANIME!". You could understand what I am saying is perfectly true.

Although I did not want to show this website, see this one.

What you're doing is bandalism. You just don't believe what you do not want to believe whether it is true or not. --Michael Friedrich 07:22, 01 April 2006 (UTC)

According to official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." You have provided no reliable source for your claims. See also WP:V: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." "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 have not provided any reliable sources, much less any in english. please read the wikipedia policies first. thanks. Appleby 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you say "they are no reliable source"!!???? Without seeing them. What you are saying is very foolish. You don't believe anything Japanese say. I also proveded lots of source from Koreans but you don't even believe it. I even showed you an article from "Choson Ilbo"! Does all information have to be in English? Is non-English information not reliable? How foolish!!

I can send you a tape of this program if you want! You can understand what I am saying is perfectly true! ..if you could understand Japanese. )--Michael Friedrich 07:48, 01 April 2006 (UTC

how can you say there are reliable sources, without providing them? as i explained above, the korean article says that animation in general, as children's programming, was regulated, and that other countries also modify foreign programs for domestic audience. i don't doubt that foreign ( european, u.s., & japanese) programs were modified for the local audience, as they do in japan, u.s., or most any other country. but what makes this a uniquely korean phenomenon relevant to korea-japan disputes, & what reputable source says so? Appleby 07:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No countries other than two Koreas banned Japanese culture. The reason why they were modified in Korea was different from that in Europe/US or other countries. As you say, the Korean-Japanese disputes make this phenomenon unique to Korea. So what is the problem of adding "However, Korean audience were not informed that they were from Japan" to this article? Is there any problem? I can't see what is wrong about it.

What do you want me to do? How to provide the source I have? Do you want me to translate those books into English and send them to you? It is impossible. If all information had to be in English, no Wikipedia articles about Asia could existe. And you never showed me any evidence that makes Kumdo different from Kendo...

I can send you a tape of TV Asahi program if you want! A Korean Japanologist, Pek Son-Su, says what I am saying. You can understand what I am saying is perfectly true! ..if you could understand Japanese.--Michael Friedrich 08:07, 01 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the offer, but please read WP:V, WP:NOR, & WP:NPOV to see how to provide verifiable unbiased sources for wikipedia articles. Appleby 08:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This penomenon is unique to Korea. Did you really read the article I showed you? "이것을 다른 국가 애니메이션과의 형평성 차원으로 생각하는 것은 잘못되었다. 형평성이라는 이유로 일장기 방영을 허용해야한다는 것은 지극히 우매한 행동이다. 적어도 어린 시청자가 즐겨보는 방송 애니메이션에 일장기와 일본 지도 등 "일본색"이 드러나는 것은 막아야 한다. 이것은 어린 시청자들에게 일본 문화에 대한 왜곡된 환상을 갖게 할 수 있기 때문이다.--Michael Friedrich 08:19, 01 April 2006 (UTC)

that part is obviously an editorial by the author of "ohmy" news, essentially a blog of individual volunteer "reporters." those sentences say what the author thinks should happen, not describe reality. Appleby 08:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What I wanted to say is that Korean audience did not informed that they were from Japan before 1998 and that the situation in Korea is different from that in Europe.--Michael Friedrich 08:46, 01 April 2006 (UTC)

• Filipinas protesting Koizumi's visit to warshrine
• Taiwanese protest
• Vietnamese foreign ministry
• Christian leaders in Japan protest
• Taiwanese protest marred?
• Japanese Embassy sends letter of Criticisms to Singaporean newspapers that criticized JPM Koizumi's visits
• Hong Kong civic groups form a coalition to protest

...etc, etc. Deiaemeth 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply, The Korean's insistence is an incorrect answer. (The Australian's insistence is correct. ) The intellect in Koreans evaluates the Japanese culture. However, the Koreans who doesn't have knowledge doesn't evaluate the Japanese culture. They believe that Koreans told the Japanese culture. (Of course, China and the Netherlands are origins in the Japanese culture. )　 The South Korean believes that there is a culture that is more excellent than Japan in South Korea. (Of course, there is no superiority or inferiority in the culture. ) Therefore, the South Korean doesn't admit the Japanese culture. However, there are wonderful Game, Manga, and Anime in Japan. And, a lot of South Koreans are crazy about Game and Manga of Japan. To solve this contradiction, the South Korean devised an original method. The author of Manga and Anime of Japan was changed to South Korean's name. And, a name of a place of Japan and Japanese name was changed in the Korea style. (Of course, the author's approval is not obtained. )

Poet Han-Son-Ho in South Korea is answering in the interview of a Korean daily report. I was boasting of South Korea Manga when I was a child. It knew that the South Korea cartoon was made in Japan when I grew up. As a result, I seemed to be crazy. [http://japanese.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2002/10/18/20021018000033.html ]

If the Koreans hopes, I introduce the page that brings PAKURI(act of stealing the Japanese culture) of South Korea.

Tsukurukai

Dear Deiaemeth. If you lived in Japan, you could see that "most Japan teachers' union are against the textbook by the Tsukurukai".

• One thing. Tsukurukai's textbook has been adopted by less than 0.1% of the schools, as this article says.
• Parents of Suginami -protesting Tsukurukai-
• Kyoto teacher's union
• Chofu Teaching Group
• Ehime
• [28]

......There're too much information. See [29] and [30].

I don't get why you change "Comfort Women" to Sex Slaves.

Good. If you want to reinstate that into the article, that would be good. I'm glad to see many Japanese teachers have the morality and senses not to take the Historical revionist approach to a controversial topic. Also, the statistics provided by other editors about adoption of the textbook itself - 0.1% (I think it increased slightly recently, but not significantly anyway), was not challeneged by any editors. Also, the problem is you and one other editors kept deleting the citations that came with the excerpt. As Per Wikipedia Policies, unless a justifiable reason is given, that constitutes a vandalism. I see you're quite new here, and I recommend Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Citing sources - it's a good read. When I first started editing here, I was confused about Wikipedian policies and these pages help a lot. Also, adding four tildes (Deiaemeth 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)) are customary when leaving comments - but since you left tildes for your other comments, I'm guessing you forgot to this time. Regards, Deiaemeth 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Please don't take all the Japanese for Mr. Koizumi and some other conservative politicians. It is true that it's a big problem most Japanese people have little knowledge of what Japan did in the early 20th century, but it is also true that there are not so many people who support those conservative points of view on history. Regards. Michael Friedrich 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Korean-Japanese relationship

• Support (Wikimachine 04:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
• Disagee AkiraT 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Appleby 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -ScotchMB 23:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Whether you oppose or support, please explain your reasonings. My opinion at the moment is that this is a topic worthy of discussion but given the predominently antagonistic nature of relations between the two countries I don't see why the articles cannot be merged. So for now, I support but am willing to hear what others have to say. Phonemonkey 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -CopyMyLoad 21:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -LordofHavoc 11:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Source

I have found a site where it has information that can help the article or the discussion in any way. [31].

Last sentence in Zainichi Koreans

Can someone who both know what is tried to be said, and who is also able to write proper english fix the last sentence in that paragraph? "A lot of Zainichi is a leader of Boryokudan that the National Police Agency in Japan specified." ??? Thanks.

i have a answer for you

Yes, korea had been invaded by japan in the 20th century during world war 2, but it was becauses of imperialistic tactics that were imposed on japn years ago by America creating the meiji era. The Shinto is a traditional prayer to the elders and the "god" which is the Tenno himself. Much like korean confuscism, Japanese shinto is culture, not a religion. Also during the colonization of korea by japan, industry rose up and the massive indusrialaztion that took europe and America almost 200 years to finish and take korea and japan 50 years. And yes it was not intended by the japanese to industrialize kore, infact they were order by the government in Japan to keep the numbers of korean employers as minimal as possible. In the end, i say it was not the intent of the whole japanese people but the idea of individuals in politics hoping to expand an island country due to angry ex-bushido code warriors and new imperialistic ideas that was set on them too early. It was not japan, it was the times.

Imperialistic tactics imposed by the US had nothing to do with Japanese imperialism. Imperialism and holocausts are two different things. What Japanese did was holocaust. And, yes, I agree that Japanese people today and most of them back then are not responsible for the cruelties. But that doesn't matter because that's not what Koreans are really angry about. They are enraged by the fact that the Japanese historians and people themselves (even Tokyo University professor) do not admit that these things happened, and don't show apologetic attitudes. Instead of repent, you guys make excuses on why those were not Japan's fault or just simply deny the historical truths. (Wikimachine 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

one more thing

rescent studies believed that korea and Japane with identical writing structures, costumes in ancient burial and religions have a common source of ancestry. But a newer study believes japanese culture recieved other immigrants from Russia, the Indo-islands and parts of pascific islands, where koreans were strictly culturly tied down to china. This means that while culturly Japan and Korea is the same, it is not due to race but trade of ideas and people. Skilled workes were sent to japan by korean kings and is proven in japanese tombs where burial great burial sites were proveen to be of korean origens. Also due to the seven years war, korean artillary and smelting recieved alot from japan int heir use of guns.

"you guys?" i am korean. Also imperialistic ideas of japan had induced favorable terms like the holocaust. Since the death of koreans are put more on emphasis thane the masacre in China and other pacific ex-colonies of japan, we koreans are set to be stubborn to the majority of the world. And yes japanese text books and professors do not admit to the history of korean massacres and tortures but its not because of personal vendetta of the japanese people but the fragile political foundations that the U.S. had set when leaving upon prior to the Korean war.

Funny Quote That Needs Evidence

Even today, in many other European languages, Korea is spelled as Corea. Furthermore, at the time in question, Japan desired to be called Nippon in English ("N" coming after both "C" and "K"). Korea counters this by saying that Japan knew that the "Western World" would not listen. So Japan ultimately thought of Korea as "Korea" with a K and not a C. In the end, no one will really know what happened.

This is SO LOL. But could anybody provide reference for this? (Wikimachine 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm really not getting why people are making such a big deal about this "K" and "C" thing ?!! In Spanish you spell it with a "C" and in English with a "K", does it really matter how its spelt ? All I know is that some foreign(can't remember if they were Arabic or European) came to Korea when Korea was still called Go-ryeo and when they couldn't pronounce it it went to Gorea and kept evolving and nowadays Korea is called Korea, Corea whatever.

Controversy

Japan has recently proposed an idea to rename Liancourt Rocks as Takeishima.... They have proposed this to Oxford college World Atlas who has ironically accepted this.... So in their Atlas, it says that Liancourt Rock is Takeishima... Fails to mention that it belongs to Korea and mention its real name Dokdo..... How does Japan convince the world that everything is theirs??? I wonder greatly... Japan has also proposed the idea of "Sea of Japan"(see discussion on Sea of Japan) Usually, a sea is named after a mainland... In this case, the Korean Peninsula.... Japan has spread their Imperial ideas through this... For Korea, it has been a painful experience watching their territories and their marginal sea be renamed before their eyes.... Please add more below... By Daniel McBeth

Editing of NekoNekoTeacher

I am strongly suggesting that you, User:NekoNekoTeacher should discuss firstly if you have an objection in the currently article based on the literature. --Hairwizard91 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please point out what concretely the problem. And this insistence might be misunderstood as the personal attack. --NekoNekoTeacher 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am saying what is your objection in the currently article....

i) Point out the objection in the current article

ii) Discuss your objection in this page based on literature

iii) If it is consented in this talk page, you can change the article. OK?--Hairwizard91 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am questioning on a concrete mistake. If you cannot answer by tomorrow, your edit will be rejected. --NekoNekoTeacher 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To what question ??

You are totally conflicted what we have discussed in the talk pageUser_talk:Hairwizard91 from what we have edited in this article

In the talk page of mineUser_talk:Hairwizard91, we were discussing about the war of Mongol and Korean with Japan. This page's editing has no relation with the war of Mongol and Japan. Concerning the war of Mongol and Japan, you may be right. However, you need to published literature. Wikipedia does not allow Original ResearchWP:NOR.

However, you did not discuss anything in the current topics in this page. --Hairwizard91 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So,
i) The war of Mongol and Goryeo with Japan

• From the Records of Goryeo, you may be right. But, you need to published article according to No Original Research WP:NOR because there are different theories about the war.

ii) The editing of this article

• You did not discuss anything in here about the article of "Korean-Japanese disputes"

Do not be confused the current article from the wars of Mongol and Japan.--Hairwizard91 17:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If the conclusion is said, This is a personal attack. . Mongolia is not related to this article at all. He was not able to point out a concrete mistake though I demanded when I had to point out a concrete mistake to him. Therefore, I reject Hairwizard91s demand. Please write if there is a rebuttal about the trial of Mitubishi. --NekoNekoTeacher 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack. For concrete mistakes, where to start? How about a few examples: First off, "Japanese Government doesn't try to specify it for this investigation demanded recently actively" is complete gibberish. Secondly, why do you keep putting in the word "ransom?" I'm not sure you understand what that word means. Nothing and nobody is being held hostage here; quite the opposite, Korea is asking for the return of the bodies of Korean laborers. That word seems to be used for emotional affect alone. Third, why do you delete a source in the Tsushima section? Fourth, according to WP:V blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources." That blog article was a good read and informative, but it's not authoritative. --Reuben 16:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

to Nekonekoteacher, We did not discuss about the trial of Mitubishi. We only discuss about the war of Mongol and Japan. I have read the primary source or Goryeosa고려사高麗史 where you pointed out, and it seems that you are right. But, there is no reputable published source about it. If you add the history about the war to the article, Wiki needs the published source because there are conflicted thoery about the war based on No original researchWP:NOR. --Hairwizard91 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate The Korean Wave

I think the Racist Magnas such as: "Hate The Korean Wave" or "Why we should Hate South Korea" among others Showing Sterotypical And Racist Images of Koreans and Chinese should be included as a part of Korean-Japanese Disputes. just my 2 cents I plan on creating it or helping if someone else wants to take the Reins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Page Move

Following Japan-Korea relations, I'd like to suggest moving the article to Japan-Korea disputes, following the alphabetically arranged naming scheme for titles of international relations studies. (Wikimachine 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Since there was no contrary, it moved.--Forestfarmer 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent controversy issues

Liancourt Rocks

It seems that a few editors wish rewriting of the intro like the following from the current version.

"Currently under South Korean control, these islets are also claimed by Japan. The islets are called "Dokdo" in Korean and "Takeshima" in Japanese. There are valuable fishing grounds around the islets and reserves of natural gas have also been found recently."

However, it already discussed about this intro issue for long time on the main article's talk page, and it has reached agreement with the current version. If you will force revert without an explanation from now on, it will be regarded as vandalism. Because you will be violate of POV fork unless you are able to be convinced of other editors in the main article.--Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sea of Japan

The current intro seems to me surely Japanese POV. Therefore, I propose rewriting as follows;

The Japanese government protests that the name "Sea of Japan" is geographically and historically established in Europe from the late 18th century to the early 19th century and is currently used all over the world. But, both North and South Korean governments protest insist that Japan promoted the usage of the name "Sea of Japan" while Korea lost effective control over its foreign policy under Japanese imperial expansion. South Korea argues that the name "East Sea," which was one of the most common names found on ancient European maps of this sea, should be the official name instead of (or at least used concurrently with) "Sea of Japan."

The description which is "the same with the title of "East Sea"" should be attached the reliable citation. At first, please present us the reliable citation.--Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I had corrected such as [32]. --Watermint 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Japanese products

Personally, I'm thinking that the paragraph does not need to delete cause I seem to be written based on some sources. --Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I found several sources that Japanese companies copy Korean products such as cell phone, and LCD products. That also should be added. --Appletrees 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is on 2channel's watchlist

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on the watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets relevant the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

• Relevant articles.
  • Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets (in WP:ANI archive380)
  • Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 (diff 1diff 2)
  • Special:Whatlinkshere(see the RFCU and SSP files)

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok (talk · contribs)'s addition about "Environment" issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese-Korean_disputes&diff=195226158&oldid=194097498

Since it is proved at WP:ANI that Jjok has violated several important rules in editing articles, I checked this disputed article which he edited and not surprisingly he did wonderful job like the above. Well, I saw Jjok expanded environment issues of Japan, so he likely put the almost same contents to there. I think this section be revised and discussed. Besides, Sea of Japan (East Sea) is not solely administered by Japan, but Jjok described such which is a violation on WP:NPOV.--Appletrees (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Environment dispute and ghost fishing in Sea of Japan (East Sea)

• "South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan" and "Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones" _{the thread title is too long for editors to write a note at summary field, so replaced with the above. --Appletrees (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)}

Moved from Talk:Sea of Japan#"South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan" and "Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones". 76.246.149.216 (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The controversy of South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan and Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones of Japanese-Korean disputes has occurred. A Korean user Appletrees insists that "The Sea of Japan is not being ruled by Japan. Only Japan is making noise to the pollution of the Sea of Japan. Therefore, this problem is not "Discussion of Japan and Korea.". And, he deleted all these parts.[33] [34] [35] However, the Japanese loves Sea of Japan. Therefore, the Japanese is worrying about the pollution of the Sea of Japan. The Japanese and the South Korean are beginning the edit war. Can anyone mediate this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Japanese anonymous dion editor, If you want to request meditation, use your "official account" and request by yourself. Ah...Saintjust (talk · contribs) or Hermeneus (talk · contribs) also uses the big ISP. "The" Japanese? who? you? write your reason not bashing on me.--Appletrees (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The information you have been removing contains citations to reliable sources. Before anyone talks about mediation, you need to say why you think the sources are inappropriate if you believe they are. If you believe the sources are appropriate, then you need to say under what policy or guideline you are removing the material. If you have no reason based in the rules, then you should not remove the material. And, by the way, IP editors have the same rights as logged-in users except in obvious cases of abuse. Are you alleging abuse on the part of 210.168.215.11? If so, state your case. 76.246.149.216 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The meditation remark is urged by the dion anon not me as you clearly see. When I removed the content, I already my reason why it should be discussed at here first. It deals with a very controversial issues and solely written by some Japanese point of view. The sea is not "Japanese sea", but the overall tone of the addition is as such. The excessive account for Korean doing is also off from balance. Jjok seems to try making Korea as bad as possible. When a content is added onto an article, not only 'what' content is addressed, but also 'who' writes is important. Jjok who introduced the contents has violated several big rules such as WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. You may see the report on him at ANI. When you want to add something controversial, you can't put it without discussion or consensus. I don't totally disagree on exclusion of the contents, but suggested to "rewrite" it. So it is your turn why you think you have to keep it AS IS. The contents is also more like environment problems, and the South Korean government has not been disputing the matter with Japanese government. As for ISP, the anon made horrendous personal attacks on me other place, so my reasoning for the anon to play fair is not an excessive suggestion. --Appletrees (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan moved to the Sea of Japan. However, Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones is a problem of Japan and South Korea. (problem of fisheries agreement on Japan and South Korea)

And, Korea instead of Corea is deleted. Because "Japanese government has not been disputing the matter with South Korean government." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not "OK". You unilaterally inserted the content with revision. As well as poaching in Japanese EEZs and off-season fishing due to the exhaust of marine resources around the Korean Peninsula, ghost fishing by lost or abandoned fishing gears by Korean fishermen continues to catch aquatic organisms and thus causes of further loss of the resources in addition to damaging trawlnets. Cxhaust of marine resource? What a good practice of WP:NPOV and WP:V? --Appletrees (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

These problems are admitted also even in South Korea. (Please look at the source. )Dishonor in South Korea should not be concealed. --61.23.15.246 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Zainichi term

"Zainichi (在日, Resident Japan) refers to Koreans currently residing in Japan" If you look at the "Zainichi Koreans" article is points to it clearly says that Zainichi usually refers to Koreans that permanently live in Japan. It can be used for any group that permanently live in Japan like Zainichi Chinese, etc...

this should be changed to "Zainichi (在日, Resident Japan) usually refers to Koreans currently residing in Japan" --Hydenobuyuki (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)