Jump to content

Talk:History of Japan–Korea relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efrobe8700 (article contribs).

Problem in the reference section(s)

There are two different reference sections in the article, one in the normal position and format but there's another in the center of the article... Plus, one reference section is longer than the other. Maybe you could either merge them or something, but i think that needs to be fixed. 173.79.68.101 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC) An IP address :D[reply]

I noticed too@Aqua3993 74.202.147.214 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK i got it. There's one reference section for Korea's POV and Japan's POV. While i think this is absolutely fine, it is a bit confusing... I still think merging the references would be a better idea, but if not, that's perfectly ok. 173.79.68.101 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC) The Same IP reviewing his earlier comment :)[reply]

I agree that having two separate reference section is confusing. It also gives off the impression that the two viewpoints of two nations are so irreconcilable that they need separate sets of sources to back themselves. Even then the references are quite disorganized. It is unclear what source "Kōzō (1997:308–310)" refers to. I tried using WorldCat but could not determine which book this is referring to. Aqua3993 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of relations between these countries

This is very complicated, and it will not be simple. There are 2 points of views and multiple references. The last version was under Japanese POV. Please update my version but please do not delete my references you may fix the sentences but you can't keep information hidden because you do not like what the facts state. The Gosashi tomb is a huge part of relations between these two countries. National Geographics thinks the countries related to each other in terms of Imperial line. You can't just leave that out because you don't like it. New York Met Museum sees the relationship of ancient Korea to Japan, any Japan cannot just ignore it because you don't like it. Please edit fairly. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that deleting the references is the solution here, rather merging them. And yes, I think the points of views should be separated.

173.79.68.101 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) The IP from above commenting again[reply]

RV on 12/30/06

The anonymous user did not give historical background on the "compensation" that the President Park Jung-hyee received from Japan. For example, the president was a dictator, and most South Koreans at the time protested against the contract. And this article lacks proper citation. Without proper citation, please don't put anything new. (Wikimachine 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, let me say this preemptively. Not providing the info that I mentioned above makes the article POV because that is S. Koreans' defense against Japanese accusation that compensation was already paid and that S. Koreans want to reap off of Japanese. NPOV means providing both sides' point of view. (Wikimachine 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The historical background doesn't become a reason to erase a historical fact. Your insistence is not logical at all. The South Korea government has succeeded to the declaration of LEE. --218.218.128.175 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr.Wikimachine. I write my opinion.
The Treaty in 1965 was objected by the left wing politics power in Japan too. But both country concluded it by a right procedure. We should not delete a description of a fact as a reason for existence of an opposition of tax payer at that century. So you should keep a description about some things by the Treaty. Thanks. Nightshadow28 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nightshadow28, I still disapprove of the anonymous user's method of describing the treaty. He writes just one sentence about the treaty, and then criticizes the S. Korean government for making a contradiction. As mentioned above, I welcome any kind of NPOV statements, but I believe that the anonymous user's edits were under the sole purpose of expressing whatever nationalism or sentiments against other ethnic groups -especially when they were not cited. Maybe you could read his/her edits. However, I cannot add anything because I don't have the proper references. If any other users have good sources of information on this matter, they should write an entire paragraph about the controversy. If not thoroughly explained and cited, it becomes another dispute between nationalists.
In conclusion, it's much better to delete a historical fact (that's not even cited) then to leave the article in POV condition (there is no guarantee that somebody is going to properly add a counterbalancing argument to the anonymous user's edits). Simply, I'm trying to prevent articles from getting worse and worse. I'm very frustrated with many attacks from foreign nationalists on Korea-related articles. Overnight, some really good articles become completely POV and messed up. I'm taking preemptive measures to prevent such buildups from happening. (Wikimachine 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Here's an example of such buildup. Anyways, I also acknowledge that there are KPOV buildups too. (Wikimachine 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Mr.Wikimachine, thanks for your comment. I understood your opinion just a little. (Of course my understanding is not complete. It is work from now.)
  • (by Mr anonymous IP user) "The South Korea government received the compensation for colonialism in 1965, and it was declared to have solved all past problems of South Korea and Japan. However, ..."
Perhaps, as for this sentence, the knowledge of the next treaty in 1965 becomes a premise.
Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation: Article II, 1 The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally.
And the Treary said Japan supplied the ROK with five hundred million United States dollars. (Article I, (a) and (b)) These two points become the source of a sentence. This treaty restricts Japan and Korea. Therefore it is recognized that it is strange to repeat the problem that was already settled. So he inserted "However, ...".
In the relation between Japan and Korea, a reference to this treaty is not avoided. It is artificiality that do not write this. Please try to digest this source for more good article. Thanks. Nightshadow28 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already know about the agreement. However, to make an implicative statement about S. Korean gov's controversy from agreement is still original research (you cannot make a controversial claim from a primary source). NPOV means providing both sides' point of view. You need a scholarly article that highlights this contradiction. While you search for your ref advocate, I'll try to search for a defensive arg from a scholarly work. (Wikimachine 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, Mr.Wikimachine. I understood that you are dissatisfied with referring only the text of a treaty. So I show the source which had the opinion that the past South Korea government calls this economic assistance compensation. This is a report by The Japan-Korea History Collaboration Committee.
  • Takashi Tsukamoto 塚本孝, "(Supplementary Discussion) A discussion over the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea" （補論）日韓基本関係条約をめぐる論議, The Japan-Korea History Collaboration Committee 日韓歴史共同研究委員会, 2005.(J)(K)
In this report, Tsukamoto quoted the minutes of the Diet of the both countries. A High official of South Korea government describes this fund is the reparations. In Japan, it is not the reparations but the independent celebration money. Tsukamoto said, "About the point that a problem solved, both understanding accorded in government-level". And the treaty wrote "have been settled completely and finally". This report become a source of the sentence that South Korea government received "compensation" and "was declared to have solved all past problems" in the Treaty. Thanks Nightshadow28 04:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I can see the frustration that you're having, and I apologize for my vagueness. What I mean by a scholarly article was one written from the Japanese point of view that criticizes the controversy that S. Korean government commits by signing the treaty & then calling for further compensation. (Wikimachine 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, Mr Wikimachine. Okay. I think that your/my pen should write for a description about long long negotiations of the Treaty for 15 years and influence, background. If we do so it, other readers can understand the relation of between Japan and Korea. The "Wave" is during in this few year, but both countries have a relation over 60 years. I think that I include a sentence by Mr anonymous IP user in new paragraph about before or after normalization. Thanks. Nightshadow28 17:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as things are cited, I'm fine. I'll improvise on the side that is less defended. (Wikimachine 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Before I begin with anything, let me tell you a Wikipedia policy. When a dispute on an edit arises, the dispute is settled while the article remains in previous form. This means that without the community consensus (including mine), you can't revert my revert. And entering a revert war is heavily discouraged - you can be blocked for a certain span of time for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours.

Now, to answer your statement, yes. If it's POV, it's deleted. If it's NPOV, it remains. It's simple as that. I don't care what historical fact there might be, if it's written in POV tone, somebody better fix it, or it gets deleted. (Wikimachine 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikimachine keeps suppressing a fact. It is not POV to delete the fact. It is a history revisionism. The military regime in South Korea concealed Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty. However, Japanese Government had opened Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty to the public. --211.3.121.70 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give everything straight.

  • I repeat. When a dispute on an edit arises, the dispute is settled while the article remains in previous form. You absolutely canNOT REVERT my revert. This is against Wikipedia's policy.
  • Through your revert, you delete the relations template (with the locator map & the flags).
  • "The military regime in South Korea concealed Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty. However, Japanese Government had opened Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty to the public." Then write about that. Write an entire section on what happened. But, you have to give both sides' viewpoints. Without those POVs, you cannot achieve NPOV. If it's not NPOV, it gets deleted.
  • You don't provide proper citations. Therefore, in this specific instance, I cannot distinguish between what you might write out of spite or what might really be Japan's point of view.
  • If you revert one more time without discussing properly, I'll report you for 3RR violation.

(Wikimachine 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'll keep the Hate the Japan wave info. (Wikimachine 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikimachine, your additions seem to me highly POV and pro-Japan, as well as being written in poor-quality English. I appreciate your desire to add more info to the article but I also think that you should immediately start taking a less combative approach to user who disagree with you. Please remember that it is not "you" but rather the Wiki community that decides what goes from or stays in an article.--ThreeAnswers 00:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ThreeAnswers, you're completely wrong. I'm more of KPOV than JPOV. I don't understand what you mean by highly POV and pro-Japan. I'm a Korean, I really don't get this.
I'll take this as a compliment for me being NPOV. (Wikimachine 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to repeat for the last time for the persistent flow of anonymous users.

  • When a dispute on an edit arises, the dispute is settled while the article remains in previous form. This is Wikipedia's policy.
  • My extensive edits to get the bilateral relations template modified for trilateral relations will be lost.
  • The addition by the anonymous user was JPOV.
  • The edits are not cited. I cannot distinguish between what's fact & what's opinion.

Now, to answer the anonymous user's comment on how I only remove JPOV stuffs, I say that I am not obligated to remove what might be KPOV in this article, although it is my intention to try my best to remove any POV. I'm busy with my areas of expertise & interests, I only reacted to a POV edit that I happened to cross. And yes, I do remove a lot of KPOV, so don't worry.

AND, that only JPOV arguments are being removed should never be used as a justification for anything. (Wikimachine 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) P.S. By the way, anonymous users should comment on the talk page rather than reverting & communicating to me with the "edit summary" feature. (Wikimachine 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The conclusion of Wikimachine is summarized.
  • We should introduce only the South Korean Wave.
  • Do not introduce the source where the boom of South Korea has ended.
  • Do not introduce a Japanese boom of South Korea.
Why do you request South Korea to praise?　 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.3.121.108 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Anonymous user, I kept the Hate the Japan wave info, but I modified it for grammar & wording. (Wikimachine 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Could you point out the mistake of a concrete grammar?　--211.3.121.108 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe later. Plus, I added citation for it. (Wikimachine 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Recent edits

Please take a look at this. Getting rid of "East Sea" could be understandable, but changing "Dokdo" to "Takeshima", switching the order of the words Korea and Japan (from "Korea-Japan Friendship Year" to "Japan-Korea Friendship Year"), and adding nonsensical and useless statements such as "Now, The Japanese literature is the highest ratio in the foreign literature translated into South Korea." are exactly what I wanted to prevent in this article. Here goes another revert. The article is pretty much messed up, I don't see much benefit in trying to improve it -POV will always ruin the works I've invested in it. (Wikimachine 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, another anonymous user. Welcome to POV revert warfare and 3RR violation. See the previous discussions? Your edits must be discussed while the article's in the form previous to your edits. That's Wikipedia policy.

Anyways, line by line.

  • When dealing with links that have multiple titles, such as Dokdo and Takeshima, we use the title used by the article of the subject. That means that, since "Dokdo" is the title for the island in Wikipedia, "Dokdo" is used. If you don't like it, make discussions in the talk:Dokdo page.
  • Your edits were empirically proven to be POV. Read above explanations.

Why do you want to conceal only the boom of the Japanese culture?

Sales of audience rating and book on sales of movie and television... Please explain the reason to want to conceal a lot of sources that prove a Japanese boom. --Sir Joestar 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify whom you are addressing. I never did anything like that. (Wikimachine 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please do not do an unrelated topic to the discussion. You must answer.
Does the South Korea boom of Japan continue? Does not a Japanese boom of South Korea exist?--Sir Joestar 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sound exactly like one of those anonymous users. So you're talking to me. Let me say that I don't have to restrain myself from beginning another topic, and I don't have to answer. But here's a reply out of courtesy. Here, users' edits are seen under good faith. So, it's not "to want to conceal a lot..." It's "I'd like to complain about your past edits that removed several sources substantiating..."
And I don't really know what you're complaining about. Explain the situation entirely -your intentions, and what others are doing to your edits. (Wikimachine 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am not removing the source at all. Neither the lie nor the speech are needed. Will you answer my question? --Sir Joestar 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you don't even understand English. I never accused you of removing any source. What are you complaining about? Which specific edits? (Wikimachine 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You must answer my answer if you understand English. I am not interested in a topic not related to the discussion.
1.Does the South Korea boom of Japan continue?
2.Does not a Japanese boom of South Korea exist?
Please answer. --Sir Joestar 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps try writing your question in Korean. There are probably people here who could translate it into English. This may aleviate the problem of your questions not being completely understood. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting POV here

The section below the "2005 a tempestuous one despite being 'Japan-Korea friendship year'" paragraph is JPOV.

  • First of all, the section describes the compensation with the word "secret", as if the deal was revealed in 2005 - which is not at all true. The "secret" compensation is, indeed, in Korean textbooks, and I have mine with the info about it.
  • The issues about comfort women were raised since 1992. It didn't begin in 2005.
  • S. Korean government still abides by the treaty. However, private organizations still demand for compensations. Therefore, there is apparently no contradiction (although I've read a JPOV article about how the compensation must be dealt in government-to-government level.

(Wikimachine 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) Reference is here: [1].[reply]

Now, I completely understand the situation (having done some serious research). The "secret" compensation thingie and all other JPOV criticisms should be reserved for the Korea-Japanese disputes article. This article should be limited to a brief summary of the political and economical relations between the two country, not ethnic and historical disputes. (Wikimachine 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There are no rebuttals in the South Korea culture and the Japanese culture. Therefore, this part is returned. --Sir Joestar 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joestar, I'd like to ask about your restoration of two cites. First one is from mofa.go.jp. Could you translate the site from Japanese to English and post the translation here? I transcribed the text into Google language tool, and I'm not quite sure if the cite says what the article says. And as for the Howl's Moving Castle reference, that is only specific to Howl's Moving Castle. That single movie being popular in Korea does not imply anything. You need a separate article saying that Japanese culture is popular in S. Korea. Or, it's WP:OR. (Wikimachine 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, please use appropriate modes of citing. For news, [2]. See formats for many other citation templates here. (Wikimachine 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Howl's Moving Castle bit

Japanese animation movie Howl's Moving Castle made the spectator mobilization of 3,000,000 people succeed in South Korea in 2005.

Um... huh? My best guess is this means "The Japanese animated film Howl's Moving Castle sold 3,000,000 tickets in South Korea in 2005", which I've changed the article to read. (Translating the statement's source using Google didn't help much.) But if I'm wrong, feel free to change it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joestar, your example of Howl's Moving Castle is WP:OR. Unless an article references the box hit (if that should be considered success by you) as an example of Japanese culture's high popularity in Korea you can't use Howl's Moving Castle as an example. (Wikimachine 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sir Joestar, I'll explain thoroughly why your evidence is WP:OR. WP:OR covers several violations, & in your case you have used an article, statistics, etc. to advocate a slightly different position from that of the reference you have provided.
The Howl's Moving Castle article simply says that there was the movie had 300,000 tickets sold (right?). However, you use Howl's Moving Castle as the singular example on how Japanese movies, animes, etc. are popular in S. Korea. You can't do that. The articles says nothing about how Japanese culture is popular in Korea, just the movie alone (& popularity is implied in the # of tickets sold, not directly stated). You need to find an article that actually says that Japanese culture is popular in Korea, instead of finding examples that might imply that Japanese culture is popular.
In other words, you are doing the research yourself. You yourself are finding the evidences & making a thesis. However, Wikipedia bans original research. That means that another writer must say "Japanese pop culture is popular in Korea. Howl's Moving Castle proves" instead of "Howl's Moving Castle sold 300,000 tickets". Happy editing? (Wikimachine 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Move to Japan-Korea relations relations

That should be the standard international naming schemes for studies in international relations. Alphabetical. JK. (Wikimachine 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Since there was no contrary, it moved.--Forestfarmer 02:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Wikimachine 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If you want to protest the move, please talk here. (Wikimachine 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re-explanation of KPOV in recent edits

Before I talk about KPOV, let me remind Sir Joestar to discuss before reverting.

  • Weasel wording (i.e. "harsh Japanese colonial rule over Korea")
  • Original research (i.e. "Polls during the postwar period in Japan and South Korea showed that the people of each nation had a profound dislike of the other country and their people.")
  • Lack of citations Although the previous editions also lack citations, that should not mean that future edits should also be neglected with references. To not provide cites continuously would set a bad precedent through which POV & further original research can stem. Future edits should include proper citations because this is a very controversial article under intense stress all the time & we want to distinguish between what's fact & what's opinion. (Wikimachine 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

many successful dramas

Please write the drama in South Korea that succeeds in Japan. I can examine the audience rating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.212.102.244 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a good source because it is comprehensive in how it engages in the subject. Providing source for just one movie won't be enough. So what if a single movie happened to be popular in Japan? That doesn't mean that Korean movies are popular in Japan, right? No, you need an article that actually says Korean shows are popular in general. (Wikimachine 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sir Joe Star, look at the site. (Wikimachine 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, Please write the South Korea drama that succeeds in Japan. It is the simplest answer. --61.116.113.149 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not alter quotes from a reputable English newspaper. If the reputable source says many, then it doesn't matter what you think. Etimesoy 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. You don't know how Wikipedia operates. To say that mentioning just 2 dramas that were successful in Japan is WP:OR. However, if you were to substantiate your claims using an article that specifically states that Korean dramas are popular in Japan, in general, then there you have a nice ref. (Wikimachine 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Korean Wave sorce

Japanese 　Box Office [3] Why did 'Gemul' fail in Japan? [4] "King man" failed from "Gemul". [5] Challenge of the last South Korea movie "Natsumonogatari" was failed [6] The South Korea movie did not succeed in Japan at all. [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.209.158.205 (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Collaborations

There have been a lot of collaborations on films as of late as well between Japan and Korea. This might be a good thing to add. Because it's not just importation, but cooperation on artistic ventures. --Hitsuji Kinno 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Could the map be updated to zoom to south Asia more? -- Cat chi? 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know they should. is wiki trying to mock the size of Korea and Japan? :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.93.192 (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive relationship downplayed

This article makes it look like the two countries hate each other. As a Korean national, I can say for certain that the vast majority of people treat citizens from the other side(s) with respect and general politeness. While there are underlying tensions, the extreme-right minority (on both sides) is blown way out of proportion by western media. Although there may be initial resistance, cultural exchange and cooperation is happening on a huge scale, in public or behind closed doors. 154.20.68.26 08:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoubtingMary's massive deletion of sourced sentences

Can someone stop the constant vandalism of this page? Apparently some Japanese nationalists are trying hard to make some kind of a point, but the additions are really, really badly written, the points are written in a really derogatory way, and most of them are not relevant to Japan-Korea relations anyway, but are just some random rants. Let's try to make this into an encyclopedia article. I agree with the user above, some more positive progress in the relationship needs to be added here as well. DoubtingMary (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one vandalizing this page. This article has grown gradually, and you came here yesterday and suddenly deleted a large chunk of well-sourced sentences without discussion. Calling them just "a lot of crap," "biased," etc. without clarifying how exactly they are so on the discussion page doesn't justify your radical edit. That just shows that you are deleting them only because you don't like them. --222.1.40.208 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need an explanation why these sentences are crap?:
"South Korea became a panic by the adult and the child"
"Japan was perplexed to the anger of South Korea though South Korea canceled the friendship event with Japan and had criticized Japan."
"majority of the South Korea pop culture was not evaluated in Japan"
"North Korea did much to discredit itself" ... "Japan watched with disdain" ...
Japan just gave 10 billion dollars, and South Korea economy was relieved???
And what the heck is the long diatribe about plagiarism? Americans copying British game shows does not occupy a section in an encyclopedia article about U.S.-British relations. It's just childish.
Most of the "citations" are misquotations of short foreign-language editorials, not reputable authoritative studies.
And the entire tone of the additions are obviously intended to make a point about one side, rather than present a fair overview of the serious issues between the nations. The unintelligible grammar and POV bias just don't belong here.DoubtingMary (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot delete sentences as far as they are well-sourced. If you have other sources that argue contrary to what they claim, then add them into the article also. Don't delete sentences just because you don't like them. As for sentences that are not sourced at all, you should add {{fact}} tags to them first to see if someone could find sources to back them up. If nobody could after waiting a certain period of time, you may delete them.
If there are problems with grammer, then just correct them. Don't delete the entire sentences.
Issues like plagiarism are legitimate ones that have been reported by many major news media as cited in the article. Just because some other countries also do it doesn't mean it's not newsworthy, as much as the issue of Comfort Women doesn't cease to be noteworthy just because there are other war crimes committed by other nations. --222.1.40.208 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences were not well sourced. They were not sourced at all, misquoted, or sourced to biased or non-authoritative commentaries. And I can delete unsourced or misourced sentences. Fact tags can be a courtesy, but are not required, especially in deleting obvious POV. Who says plagiarism is a major international relations issue? If they belong in an encyclopedia article at all, maybe you can add them to the individual artist articles, but I don't see prime ministers discussing these in summits. DoubtingMary (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a constant attack of Japanese nationalists on Wikipedia, especially focused on racism against Koreans. Same thing is at Japanese-Korean disputes, but every time I tried to clean up the BS, there's an onslaught of revert-warring. Read that other pathetic article, but good luck trying to fix it. Guidales (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't become "misquoted, sourced to biased or non-authoritative" just because you say so. If you believe that certain sentences are such, then state them here and show how exactly they are such, one by one.
That the plagiarism issue has been reported by major news medias in Japan and Korea is good enough a reason for its reference in this article.
Explain your reason for deleting two entire paragraphs from the section "Cultural Exchange."
Also, why are you changing the link name of the article Japanese-Korean disputes to "Korean-Japanese disputes"? "Japanese-Korean disputes" is it's name, and that's a right one in accordance with alphabetical ordering. --222.1.40.208 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

222.1.40.208, this article is largely based on the Library of Congress study, linked to in the article. I think we can all agree that is a reputable independent source. There is no mention of any plagiarism issue as a Japan-Korea issue there, and I don't see any sources discussing the issue as a bilateral relationship topic. Let's try to be objective here, instead of plastering Wikipedia with some personal viewpoint. DoubtingMary (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that the whole "Korea plagiarazes Japan" angle is already in the other article mentioned by Guidales. I don't think it even belongs there, but we certainly don't need it in both articles. Those accusations belong in the individual artist/movie/song pages, if that. Certainly not at a state-to-state relations summary like this encyclopedia article is supposed to be. DoubtingMary (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress is just a source that may be used to write an article on Wikipedia. It isn't the single ultimate authority that dictates Wikipedia editorial policies. Besides, it doesn't contradict what's written in this article.
As for the plagiarism section, it may be changed to a link to the section in Japanese-Korean disputes if duplicate.
What's the point of deleting Timeline of Japan-North Korea relations while retaining Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations in the see also section?
All the other parts stay unless you provide good reasons for their deletion also. --222.1.40.208 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you seem to be under the impression that you own this article. You are not in a position to permit certain changes or not. I'm here to improve this article, and will continue to do so, for the reasons already explained above. DoubtingMary (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You as a Wikipedian certainly has a responsibility to explain every edit of yours every time when it is contested. As far as your deletion has zero sources to back up its legitimacy and the sentences that you are deleting do have sources, your edit can't stay. Either supply sources and provide legitimate reasons for every deletion of yours, or leave it alone. --61.198.213.191 (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should remind all of you edit warring is against the rules. Transcendence (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The South Korean insists that the South Korea culture is popular in Japan on the Japanese culture that succeeds in South Korea. The Japanese insists it is unpopular on the South Korea culture in Japan. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.131.136 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese POV

After reading this article, it seems to be based mostly on japanese POV. For example, when the article states, "In recent years, South Korea tried to spread South Korean pop culture to Japan.", it subconciously makes one think as if South Korea was the bad one. When it states, "South Korea tried", does it mean that South Korea, as a nation purposley attempted a spreading of Korean Culture on Japan, but failed? Overall, I am a bit dissatisfied with the article, and I think it should be either rewritten, or enourmously revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.49.57 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "atimes2" :
    • {{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |author= Hisane Masaki |coauthors= |title=Japan puts its defense in order|url= http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GL22Dh02.html|format= |work= |publisher= Asia Times|id= |pages= |page= |date= 2005-12-22|accessdate= 2007-01-19|language= English|quote= }}
    • {{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |author= Richard Hanson|coauthors= |title= The ashes of little Megumi|url= http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FK18Dh01.html|format= |work= |publisher= Asia Times Online|id= |pages= |page= |date= 2004-11-18|accessdate= 2007-01-19|language= English|quote= }}
  • "chosun3" :
    • {{cite news | title= [Opinion] The Japanese Wave | url=http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=100000&biid=2007032714868 | publisher=[[Dong-a Ilbo]] | date= March 27, 2007 | accessdate=2007-10-22}}
    • {{cite news |title= Korea Can’t Keep Siphoning Off Japanese Culture |url= http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200703/200703270031.html | publisher=[[The Chosun Ilbo]] |date= 2006-11-06|accessdate= 2007-01-19}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about North Koreans in Japan

Talking to a Japanese friend, he told me that there are about 600,000 North Korean citizens currently living in Japan (this figure might possibly include all South and North Korean citizens). After Japanese colonization efforts in Korea, many Korean citizens chose to settle in Japan apparently, and Japan did not issue Japanese citizenship to them. These people were issued citizenship in North and South Korea, depending on their place of origin. Since Japan does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, this means that there are significant numbers of people who have been living for decades in Japan with no recognized citizenship. The children of these people go to North Korean ethnic schools in Japan. There have apparently been scandals where children in these North Korean ethnic schools in Japan have been taught highly biased accounts of Japanese history that are not complimentary to Japan. Many of the North and South Koreans in Japan are involved in the Pachinko (sp?) gaming industry.

Do we have any material on this strange situation? Should we?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We should make seperate articles about North-Korea-Japan relations

There are more disputes between Japan and North Korea not mentioned in this article and should include the missile launches and hostile relations. While South Korea and Japan relations go deeper in territory dispute and pop culture exchange. So I suggest that we should split this article. One about North Korea-Japan relations and a article about South Korea-Japan relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorRabbit (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be seperate articles on this topic RogerTelemundo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)RogerTelemundo[reply]
I agree as well making seperating this article to Japan-North korea and South korea-Japan relations it can give more vital information.Treyembark (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Treyembark[reply]

ROK and DPRK in one article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I skimmed through the discussion, and it looks like this issue has never been discussed. So, I want to ask one question: why the article is dealing with both "Japan-ROK" and "Japan-DPRK" relations? Maybe it should be obvious to some, but in my humble opinion these two different relations should be covered separately. In fact, this is the only article that ROKs diplomatic relations is mentioned side by side with DPRK. See People's Republic of China–North Korea relations and People's Republic of China–South Korea relations. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? Thanks, --- PBJT (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. The fundamental problem of this article is that "Japan-ROK" and "Japan-DPRK" relations are considered one and the same. We all know that "Korea"is not a single nation today. There is a serious conflict between the Korea's and between Japan and North Korea. Moreover, the North Korean issues, such as WMDs, human rights, and reunification, are taken very seriously in South Korea, Japan, and many other nations.
Although "Korea" is a neutral name in English and other languages, even the Korean names of the two Korea's are different (DPRK does not accept ROK's common name), and that causes POV issues both in Korean and Japanese.
Both Korean and Japanese wikis cover these relations separately. I don't know why English wiki should be any different. It is a trilateral relationship, period. It's like arguing the Japan-ROC and Japan-PRC relations were the same, and that is ridiculous. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you Shinkansen Fan for supporting my proposal. I just realized that I did not notify this discussion at related WikiProject portals, and since it was rated as "High Importance" I'll proceed with caution. I'm going to notify WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Korea now. Best, --- PBJT (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to have Japan-ROK and Japan-DPRK as spin-offs of the master article, but I guess both are footnotes in the longue durée of ja:ko relations; there's an article for Korea as well as these two, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Maculosae tegmine lyncis. I understand your concern, but we could have a single Japan-Korea relations article once ROK-DPRK are unified. Until two Koreas become one, Wikipedia should have two separate pages. As I mentioned earlier, this is the only article that covers ROK's diplomatic relations with other countries along with DPRK's foreign relations. In addition, "PRC-Japan" and "ROC-Japan" relations are covered in separate articles, while both agree that there's only one China. --- PBJT (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but I absolutely agree there should be a split. The two Koreas have been seperate nations with separate relationships for 60 years now, and you'll find a preponderance of sources to support both articles. On that token, they should be split from sections on this page, I think, because this page should cover the pre-Korea division with Korea as one entity. —Ed!(talk) 12:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed! If we are going to keep the historical relations between Japan and Korea, I think we should changed the title appropriately: History of Japan-Korea relations, which would be comparable to History of Sino-Japanese relations. In that case, the article should be split into three: one for "Japan-ROK", one for "Japan-DPRK" and one for "History of Japan-Korea relations". And I think that is a right direction. --PBJT (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three way split looks good. Should be easy enough to link between them in the article text. CMD (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming in a little late to this, but I have to say that I support a three-way split. Do it, do it, do it! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusing, apparent edit-warring with anons, and writing has issues

I noticed a number of relatively quick and sizable additions and deletions on this page in my Watchlist. A cursory look suggested that user Juzumaru may have been adding in POV content, which also unfortunately wasn't written very well (various grammar and spelling problems). Juzumaru's edits were either missing edit summaries, or had not-very-explanatory edit summaries, so I reverted Juzumaru. I noticed a bit more back-and-forthing between Juzumaru and one or two anons, and looked further into the history of the article, which made it clear that Juzumaru probably wasn't adding in new POV content so much as reverting its previous removal, and also that the anon users have been adding substantial additional content in small bits. The large changes I noticed happened after Juzumaru reverted a bunch of anon edits in one go, touching off the current editing spat.

I regret wading into this. I'm not sure which party is in the right, but whichever it is, this article needs a major overhaul. The structure of the article is confusing, and despite the title, it does not appear to be organized along historical lines. Moreover, there are numerous grammatical and mechanical issues in the writing. Some of it is frankly just gibberish, such as this gem:

Yìlóues(korean) is Chinese and Japanese were differed from. A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling.

Some of it is more understandable, but plainly wrong:

In 660, Japan was attacked by Tang Dynasty China and fell.

I can't tell if this is vandalism, weird POV pushing, a horribly incorrect attempt at translation, or evidence of some alternate universe. Whatever the case, this article is dreadfully in need of help in its present state. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concealment problem of a historical fact

An answer is very easy.

Yìlóues(korean) is Chinese and Japanese were differed from. A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling.

Yìlóues is an ancestor of South Korean people who live in the Korean Peninsula now. They are the slaves taken to the present position by Tang Dynasty.


In 660, Japan was attacked by Tang Dynasty China and fell.

Korea is not an independent country. Korea of those days was a han territory autonomous region of Tang Dynasty. Japan fought with Tang Dynasty,Risk the hegemony of the Korean Peninsula.


I think that Juzumaru is Korean. He is trying to hide the fact that Korean was a slave.

123.225.236.178 20:30 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.225.236.178 (talk)

All the reports added have a basis. An Imperial Japan law and ancient documents, such as 隋書. Don't hide a historical fact with a lie.

Starfox2013 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfox2013 (talk • contribs)

  • @Starfox2013, I'm not hiding anything. You're adding unsubstantiated gibberish to this article in a way that effectively amounts to vandalism. Please stop. If you object to specific content, please edit that content. Adding rubbish like "A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling" is not helpful, nor meaningful, and it will be reverted. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mimana

This article doesn't even mention this rather key concept... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rather key concept"? It's not even clear what Mimana means. Perhaps Prokonsul Piotrus would like to elucidate? Kortoso (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shamefully poor grammar

Can someone who is more knowledgable about Korean-Japanese history please help clean up the grammar in this article. I'm doing what I can, but it's really hard to understand. Kortoso (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does Tsushinshi mean? Please provide a definition or alternate term. The following sentence makes no sense; please re-word:

"Tsushinshi were sent from Korea to pay homage to a new shogun or to celebrate the birth of an heir to a shogun. Korean envoys were provided with the same role as an envoy to bring tributes to a Chinese emperor or was used for showing the prestige of Tokugawa shogunate."

Kortoso (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12th-15th centuries

Under the Japanese section, it makes it look like sakoku was initiated to protect Korea from Japanese piracy. Furthermore, I doubt that Hideyoshi invaded the mainland to protect Korea from pirates. Please cherish the truth. Kortoso (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Japan–Korea relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Japan–Korea relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan didn't provide enough chemicals to South Korea in 2019

  1. write the names of all chemicals
  2. write why India, China, Sweden and South Korea are unable to produce enough of these chemicals (lack of patents, know-how, laziness [let the Japs do it])
The patent excuse is inaccurate because:
  1. most chemicals are old
  2. if a country doesn't negotiate fairly, and if it causes major harm, breaking a patent (under these specific conditions) is legal
Japan is the victim many say. Japan is forced to create these chemicals because other industries are lazy to evolve better processing techniques and new chemicals. Japan is forced to take the money of these lazy nations.

Translated from retardese: Me dumb dumb, me likey make retard post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:B9C3:D9A:E841:C075 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mukuri kokuri snippet

Not too long ago, an anon removed the following text from the bottom of the #Ancient Era section:

At the time of Mongol invasions of Japan, Japanese people were scared by the attacks of the Mongol and Goryeo army, saying, 'moko kokuri no oni ga kuru (the devils of the Mongol and Goryeo will come)', which phrase later came to represent something scary; thus a tradition spread to the whole country to scare children into obedience by saying 'mukuri kokuri, oni ga kuru'.

Their edit comment was "Zero sources cited for a sentence that seems like a folk-etymology description that doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the main paragraph."

I agree that the removed text was out of place. Digging around in the page history, it seems like it was more fitting in an earlier version, but not anymore.

That said, this is not a folk etymology, so in case it's useful, and in case anyone can figure out a relevant place to put this, I'd like to expand on the etymology here.

Variations

  • 蒙古高句麗 (mukuri kokuri), 蒙古高句麗 (mokuri kokuri)
As a compound, mukuri kokuri or mokuri kokuri refers to both the mukuri / mokuri or Mongols, and the kokuri or Goryeo. Originally, this was part of a warning cry that the combined Yuan and Goryeo invasion forces were on their way, as indeed was attempted twice in 1274 and 1281, as detailed in our article at Mongol invasions of Japan.
The combined phrase later shifted in sense to refer more generally to something big and scary, and was used to try to get crying children to shush. The sense then shifted further to refer to something unconscionable.
  • The term mukuri with the sense of “Mongolia; Mongol” is first attested in 1276, interestingly older than Middle-Chinese-derived mōko, which is not attested until the early 1300s. I suspect both are cognate, with mukuri arriving via perhaps the languages of the Korean peninsula, and mōko then borrowed directly from Chinese.
The variant mokuri only appears in combination with kokuri, never in isolation, from what I can find.
  • The term kokuri with the sense of “Goryeo” is first attested in 1717, as a shift from older kōkuri in reference originally to Goguryeo. I cannot find an initial citation date in Japanese for the older reading, but considering that the kingdom itself fell in 668, the influence it had on next-door neighbor Baekje, and the close relations between Baekje and the Yamato court, it is likely that this name in Japanese is quite old indeed.
While mukuri seems limited in meaning to “Mongolia; Mongol”, the term kokuri on its own can also refer broadly to anything big and scary, with this sense attested in a text dated 1614–1624.
  • 高句麗蒙古遁げる (kokuri mokuri nigeru)
Literally, "the Goryeo and Mongols run away". Idiomatically, "run away in complete disarray". The kokuri mokuri portion functions essentially an adverb; compare the sound texture of higgledy-piggledy. This is in reference to the manner of the retreat of the Yuan and Goryeo forces -- in complete disarray after their fleets met with storms.
Date of first attestation not listed in any sources I've consulted to date.
  • References:
Entry for 蒙古高句麗 (mukuri kokuri) available in Kotobank here. Also mentions the longer phrase mukuri kokuri no oni ga kita ("the googaly-moogaly demons have come").
Entry for 蒙古高句麗 (mukuri kokuri, mokuri kokuri) available in Kotobank here. Also mentions the longer phrase mukuri kokuri no oni ga kuru ("the googaly-moogaly demons are coming").
Entry for both 蒙古 (mukuri) and 蒙古 (mōko) available in Kotobank here.
Entry for 高句麗 (kokuri) available in Kotobank here.
Entry for 高句麗・高勾麗 (kōkuri) available in Kotobank here.
Entry for 高句麗蒙古遁げる (kokuri mokuri nigeru) available in Kotobank here.
Entry for 蒙古高句麗 (mukuri kokuri) available in Kotobank here. Also mentions the longer phrase mukuri kokuri no oni ga kuru ("the googaly-moogaly demons are coming").
Entry for both 高句麗 (kōkuri) and 高句麗 (kokuri) available in Kotobank here.
Entry for 高句麗もくり遁げる (kokuri mokuri nigeru) available in Kotobank here.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Japan–Korea_relations&oldid=1213956674"