Wikipedia

Talk:Korea under Japanese rule/Archive 3

< Talk:Korea under Japanese rule
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Yue in topic 1905 or 1910 for start date?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Korean Language

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've added twice { { citation needed } } on the sentence "The Japanese administrative policy shifted further towards cultural assimilation in the 1930s (同化政策; dōka seisaku), and as a result, all public classes were taught in Japanese language with a Korean language as an elective", having it removed the first time by someone else. I have never seen a single citation indicating this might be true but I have seen a lot of anti-Japanese radicals online blindly stating this as a fact.


After scanning the Japanese and Korean wiki articles with the help of google translate I have figured out

1) After the second sino-japanese war, the idea of a unified Japan-Korea became prominent meaning after a few years of this idea becoming popular, both inside Japan and Korea alike, Koreans were taught they were Japanese, that Korea was part of Japan, and that the Korean language was a dialect of Japanese.

2) Despite apparently placing a lot of resources teaching the Korean language and hangul in schools (Japanese educators can almost be credited for reviving Korean hangul from Chinese hanja), including standardizing the entire spelling system etc, in 1942 Korean language courses became mostly optional. Japanese was not used for normal classes but there was a greater push to teach Japanese at this point.

3) After this point there are statistics like by 1944, 8 times as many Koreans could speak Japanese than before. *This doesn't mean the Korean language was eradicated or that the government forced people to stop speaking Korean, an educated guess would say most were bilingual and spoke Japanese for business etc, it just appears maybe towards 1942 there was a greater push to teach people Japanese than earlier periods. Certainly 1930 is the wrong date as during 1930 all courses were taught in Korean and there was a strong emphasis on hangul by the Japanese government.


At any rate the entire section seems misguided and written on false premises. "The Korean Language Society and Alphabet Day being founded as a reaction to the Koran language being banned in 1930?" No, if anything it was established during the period of time hangul was most celebrated and standardized by Japanese educators, as a testament to hangul having replaced hanja at that point in Korean history. To imply that it was in some way reactionary to Japanese pushes to outright ban the Korean language appears to be pulling on straws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.157.56 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've found a couple amazing sources discussing the occupation period in detail, with dates, policy, and relevant background information during the time period -- all in English and without these vague, loaded statements you find everywhere.
A lot of sources on the Internet appear very biased, even some "official" looking sources which might have a single page mentioning a lot of vague, "bad things" that happened during the occupation period, never going into detail but clearly carrying an agenda. Of course there was a great deal of assimilation occurring during the entire period but it wasn't quite as dramatic as “Japan destroyed Korean culture, banned Korean history, and then outlawed Korean language” etc etc. Contrary to this notion of “destruction”, for most of the period, Korean culture was promoted, and not just inside Korea but in Japan as well (not out of benevolence, but promoted nonetheless).
Some of the more dramatic policies were outlined and started during the 1940s (particularly in 1943) as an effort to strengthen the war effort but were never fully implemented. Simply listing a bunch policy from a government report that was planed (though not fully realized) during the last couple of years as de facto what was going on for half a century is a bit dishonest (and so I have added these dates and policies, some for earlier periods, which included for example discrimination which I mention, but also real advances in social standing which I did not comment on).
At any rate I've added citation to the sentence in question with an accurate date and an accurate policy. I also updated a paragraph in /* Education */, adding mention of the two education systems present in Korea and the fact that Korean history was taught not just in Korean language schools but in Japanese schools as well. The paragraph wasn't in my opinion biased but, as it stood, was factually incorrect. I've added citation there as well. 75.108.157.56 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


-Really? I wasn't aware that King Sejong didn't actually create the hangul and that the Korean language was never separate from neither China or Japan. Too bad the Japanese revived the hangul to keep China away only to ban it again in Korea as a way to flex their muscles to them.

Should an article about a country include anecdotes from newspaper reports?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The lengthy excerpt from New York Outlook is fascinating but hardly encyclopedic. An academic source justifying the use of anecdotes is desirable, otherwise I will simply remove this quote. Shii (tock) 15:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

serious analysis written by a leading scholar (Kennan) is a good reliable source for Wikipedia. This was not written by a casual reporter. There is no requirement that it be in a book. please keep it. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If he's a leading scholar why did he have to publish in a news magazine? Shii (tock) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
today there are hundreds of scholarly journals that would publish his material--in 1905 the political science association had not yet been formed and there were only a couple of scholarly journals. Therefore scholars (like Frederick Jackson Turner or Alfred Thayer Mahan) commonly used elite newspapers to report their findings. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN determined that the section was a primary source and should not have been quoted at such length. Shii (tock) 22:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Serious concerns about citing R.J. Rummel

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reviewing his published online work "Statistics of Democide: Chapter 3", I do not believe R.J. Rummel to be a reliable source. His claims are substantiated by his own exceedingly diverse estimates, such as a death toll of "3,000,000 to over 10,000,000" by the Japanese government, including "270,000 to 810,000" Korean labourers. These data are averaged without precision-frequently, statistics are given only a 'probably' to support them. Additionally, his language shows blatant contempt for the Japanese government; he has not even finished his opening before declaring the institution "morally bankrupt". The only outside source employed is the official death toll presented at the Tokyo War Crime Trial, used to defend PoW and interned civilian deaths. I find no compelling reason to believe his other findings (being a professor emeritus does not make one immune from bias), and therefore move that his claims on Korean laborers be removed from the article. Secretkeeper12 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, I was looking into the claims made by Rummel, but I agree with you -- he doesn't seem to have good enough evidence for his rather extreme claims. Shii (tock) 15:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnatural wording, unverifiable claims

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last paragraph under section 7 - Korean Independence Movement concerns me in a couple of places. Aside from a few grammatical errors, which I didn't think important to correct if the paragraph needs to be cleaned up anyway, there are a few claims which are either unverifiable, conflict another article, or lack sources. For example, the sentence, "However, they never fought against Japan" (referring to the Korean Liberation Army) is vague, and contradicts the linked article on the Korean Liberation Army. Also vague is the following sentence, "Afterwards, they became leaders of South Korea." Following that is an un-cited claim that "On the other hand, Kim Il-Sung led tens of thousands of Koreans volunteered (sic) for the National Revolutionary Army and the People's Liberation Army." Whether or not he led these volunteers is not verified, and where or to what he led them is also in question here. The assumption could be in a fight against Japan (in contrast to the claim made that the Korean Liberation Army did not fight against Japan), but the evidence is not strong enough to make that inference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.208.107 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right that section is a mess and requires a thorough clean-up.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Korea under Japanese rule. 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 to let others know.

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 10:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Korea under Japanese rule. 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) 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

potential sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I identified the following sources for the claim "On May 3, 1894, 1,500 Qing forces appeared in Incheon...." in section Korea under Japanese rule#Donghak Revolution and First Sino-Japanese War by checking the article for the Donghak Revolution.

  • McClain, James L. (2002). Japan, a Modern History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. p. 297. ISBN 9780-3930-4156-9.
  • Boulger, Demetrius Charles; Hazeltine, Mayo W. (1893). "The War with Japan and Subsequent Events". China. Kessinger Publishing (reprint 2010). p. ???. ISBN 9781-1633-3067-8.

If anyone would verify and add them that would be great. -- Grand dad mania (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

eyewitness account of the assassination of queen min

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose to remove the unverifiable claim (highlighted in bold) "according to a Russian eyewitness, [...], a group of Japanese agents [...] killed Queen Min, and desecrated her body in the north wing of the palace." at the end of Korea under Japanese rule#Assassination of Queen Min. Particularly because in the full eyewitness account, available on the internet archive (follow citation in the main article), there is no mention of such a claim and furthermore, in the account, he claims to have never seen the queen nor does he know where the queen was. Thus this claim does not derive from the eyewitness account in question and should be removed. Rewording is possible as it is mentioned in the account that "some Japanese were rummaging around in every corner of the palace and in the various annexes, others burst into the queen's wing and threw themselves upon the women they found there" however this may be irrelevant. -- Grand dad mania (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Korea under Japanese rule. 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) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The spanish flu occured during this time period

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any knowledgable sources on how that affected the country at the time? How many Koreans and Japanese died, did it contibute to the 1918 rice shortage, etc? Did it affect the culture at the time in any way? Did it affect Japans power at all? Alexamato (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

First sentence under "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was the first sentence of that section copy-pasted from another article? Because it is formatted as if there was a section in the article that talked about events three years before 1876. It seems to just be a minor formatting mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.1.96 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Japanese population?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How many Japanese were in Korea at its peak and when the country surrendered in August of '45? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 
@Illegitimate Barrister: According to the Statistical Yearbook of Korea in 1942 published in 1944, Population of Japanese was 752,823, Korean was 25,525,409, and others was 83,169. This is the last statistics of Korea under Japanese rule.[1]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "朝鮮総督府統計年報" [Statistical yearbook of Korea 1942]. Governor General of Korea. 1944. p. Frame Number 19.
Precisely what I was looking for, thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Korean laborers in combat roles during WWII

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During World War II, American soldiers frequently encountered Korean soldiers within the ranks of the Imperial Japanese Army. Most notably was in the Battle of Tarawa, which was considered during that time to be one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. military history. A fifth of the Japanese garrison during this battle consisted of Korean laborers who were trained in combat roles. Like their Japanese counterparts, they put up a ferocious defense and fought to the death.

This paragraph in the article cites two sources, but neither of them claims Korean laborers were trained in combat roles. Are there any better sources for if Koreans, effectively slave laborers the Japanese brought in to make up manpower shortages, actually fought against American troops? If so, did they hate Americans or were they at gunpoint from the Japanese?

I believe that the Korean laborers were youths and untrained in combat, which would explain the lack of source material.
I remember hearing somewhere that there were Korean kamikaze pilots who flew for Japan. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page in infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first infobox (Template:Infobox country), the word 'government' links to Politics of Korea. It somehow does this automatically, I've looked at the template syntax but I can't figure out why it does. However, Politics of Korea is a disambiguation page, because the topic can refer to the politics of Joseon Korea, South Korea or North Korea - none of which are applicable here, so it shouldn't link to anything at all. I don't now how to fix this, however! Lennart97 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies on cause of death of Yi Tjoune in Wikipedia

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article cites a source that he commited suicide. However, Hague_Secret_Emissary_Affair claims that this is a myth, but I don't find any sources for that. The Wiki page on Yi Tjoune claims that his cause of death is unkown, which is maybe a more careful statement, though it is lacking sources as well. So I think it should be good to:

  • find and compare (contradictory) sources on Yi Tjoune
  • choose a more careful, neutral phrasing
  • make it consistent the different Wikipedia pages mentioning his death

--Elimik31 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I just found this problem was already mentioned Talk:Hague_Secret_Emissary_Affair#Did_Yi_Tjoune_commit_suicide? --Elimik31 (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chosen, Japan" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chosen, Japan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 26#Chosen, Japan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Does the entire article need an “unreliable sources” template?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found a recent edit by Yuorvee drastic enough to warrant input from other editors. They want to add a template warning readers that the entire article’s sources are unreliable. Because of the highly fraught politics involved with this article’s subject, I have no doubt that individual sources may be questionable and partisan, but not everything. If other editors want to go ahead and approve using such a template, I have no problem with it, but it would be preferable to get consensus on it first. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please make sure to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The facts are already horrific enough; extra emotion just makes the atrocities seem exaggerated and gives fuel to denialists. toobigtokale (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Article is Focused on Atrocities, Neglects Beneficial Development

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

There's no doubt that negative events and atrocities occurred during colonial rule. Nearly every colony during the age of colonialism suffered. Many indigenous people did not survive colonialism and became (near)-extinct such as in North / South America, Australia. This article is too focused on that, while omitting or downplaying positive development that occurred during that era. The chapter called "Legacy" focusses almost exclusively on negative events. So it would be more fair to (while keeping objective existing content) also include or expand with information about (please see the Japanese Wiki page for more information ja:日本統治時代の朝鮮:

  • Improvement of education system and improvement of literacy rate
  • Currency, banks
  • Korean suffrage
  • Traffic development, infrastructure (railroad, automobile, bicycle, ferry, aviation)
  • Development of resorts (hot springs, climbing, ski, parks, pools, waterfalls, beaches)
  • Culture (expositions: Joseon Industrial Exhibition of 1915, local specialty (food), fashion / makeup changes during colonial rule, Theater, dance, music, art, sports, movies, broadcast, beverages)
  • City development: important historical buildings during this era.
  • Industrialization projects
  • Projects for modernization

This is feedback to help make the article balanced and hopefully others who are more knowledgeable about the subject can improve it. - Artanisen (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an argument I've seen before in other media, and it's very much in line with uyoku dantai talking points, which like to either gloss over or completely ignore factual reality or the overwhelmingly negative character of Japanese occupation (it should be noted that nearly all of the developments noted in your points were developed to benefit Japanese colonial rule and imperial military-industrial development at the expense of Korea; few, if any, were instituted for the benefit of Korea or Koreans). Importantly, the line that "nearly every colony suffered...many indigenous people did not survive" neglects the fact that many such peoples did not have a history of centralized statehood or organized civilization comparable to that of Korea. However, the truly fatal flaw in this argument is that it fails to account for the fact that within 5 years of Japanese withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula, Korea was embroiled in the 3-year Korean War, which resulted in a near-total destruction of infrastructure, non-residential buildings, industry, and so on - much of which was from Japanese occupation-era development - which had to be replaced from the ground up. Thus most Japanese imperial-era contributions to Korean development were effectively wiped out during the Korean War and replaced with Korean equivalents, mostly underwritten by the United States. If any tangible Japanese contribution should be considered with regards to Korean development in the modern era, it should be the substantial (something like 800 million USD at the time, corresponding to roughly 7.6 billion USD today) financial contribution from Japan given as part of the 1965 normalization treaty with South Korea (which of course did not benefit North Korea). In addition, post-WWII Japan's development also benefited South Korea by providing an example for design and development and being a source of industrial know-how in many circumstances (e.g. certain aspects of automobile manufacture). But note that these things come from post-WWII Japan, not Imperial Japan.Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The article you've linked contains only one reference, which is to another JP Wikipedia article. I guess I'll look in the stuff in the Further Reading to see if it's got anything to try and balance it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if I end up having a hard time finding any authors who have anything positive to say about the Japanese Empire. Loafiewa (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The Japanese wiki page has lots of references which are useful. You could also check wiki pages in other languages about this subject. So your statement that "a hard time finding any authors who have anything positive to say" is false and a biased attitude. - Artanisen (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the context meant was positive as far as the Japanese Empire's occupation of Korea; some of the points you have made assume Korea would not have accomplished these things without Japanese help/prodding, which is sheer speculation. It will be difficult to find objective historians who will be able to come forward with much in the way of positive accomplishments when balanced with so much absolute misery perpetrated upon the Korean people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
"I kidnapped your child and did horrific things to them, but I also bought them a car so that makes it more acceptable"
I agree that any information about development during the colonial period should be included, but not because of some false sense of balance, but because we should include true and notable things. Actively seeking out "balance" when horrific things happened signals ulterior non-neutral POV motives.
Also you writing this is bewildering: Nearly every colony during the age of colonialism suffered. Many indigenous people did not survive colonialism and became (near)-extinct such as in North / South America, Australia. This is the lowest tier of whataboutism. You're saying Korea is supposed to be grateful it wasn't wiped out? These types of arguments signal explicit non-neutral POV. You're actively trying to paint this situation brighter by trying to justify the horrific things that happened. Completely unacceptable. toobigtokale (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

1905 or 1910 for start date?

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A few weeks ago, @Magyar Andreasz set the start date of the period to 1905. I'm unsure of this, so wanted to double check.

For the infobox, the params are: 

| status                 = Part of the Empire of Japan
| year_start             = 1905

In the lead, it states Korea was a protectorate in 1905. From that article: It is a dependent territory that enjoys autonomy over most of its internal affairs, while still recognizing the suzerainty of a more powerful sovereign state without being a possession. This suggests to me that we shouldn't use 1905 as the start date. However, it may be that language is being imprecisely used; I don't really know the details of the 1905 treaty, maybe it was really part of the Empire. toobigtokale (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

if no reply in a week, I may revert back to 1910 fyi toobigtokale (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Your revert was the correct move. Yue🌙 08:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule/Archive_3&oldid=1239468933"