Talk:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Explanation for POV language removal

Here is a breakdown as to why this section that continues to be restored by various accounts is not Neutral in its viewpoint:

• In south Korea, Present President of South Korea was supported by the generation who were educated with a strong anti-Japanese bias in the 1960s and 1970s.

-this is an opinion and a generalization, and the reference for it: http://www.asahi.com/english/asianet/hatsu/eng_hatsu050421.html is a broken link and not in english.

• The anti-Japanese sentiment education is being continued in South Korea now.[1]

-the link shows a forum posting selective school children drawings that are anti-japanese. again, this is a generalization and unsupported claim that therefore the education POLICY is anti-japanese. Also, a forum with pictures is not an academic source and there is no analysis cited on the forum as to the education system as a whole.

• DELETED TEXT: and increased with the subsequent assassination of Empress Myeongseong at the hands of Japanese agents in 1895.

-removing this is an attempt to remove citation of a significant event effecting the anti-japanese sentiment.

• which made Korea a protectorate of Japan

-the anti-japanese sentiment is more readily understood if it is explained that Korea's governmental rights were removed instead of using colorful language like "protectorate" without explaining what that means.

• Comfort women: Approximately 60,000 to 200,000 girls and women...

-the estimate of 200,000 is the one provided by the source. changing it to 60,000 to 200,000 does not match the conclusion of the source being cited.

• mostly from Japan, Korea and China

-adding the word "japan" to this sentence eliminates the fuction of the word "most". the source explains most were brought from Korea and China.

• (military prostitutes)

-using this term instead of "sex slaves" is an attempt to color the language and is not the language that the source being cited uses.

The section titled "PRO-JAPANESE KOREAN SUPPRESSION" is fine and simply explaining a current policy that resulted from the post-colonial period. That paragraph should stay.

• Anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korean popular culture

-this section is a collection of film and literature. To generalize that the expressions of the artists who created these works somehow speaks for the entire population of Korea is unsubstantiable. The academic value of this section is marginal at best.

• Anti-Japanese Emperor

-after reading the source being cited it seems this section is trying to convey the resentment of the title of "emperor" felt by the koreans who lived through the period of colonization by the japanese empire. However, the source claiming to represent the "korean media opinion" (another generalization) is written in korean and not english. Furthermore, the distinction between "king" and "emperor" is not found in english so if it is a matter of word choice among koreans that has significance it should be explained as such, but for now it makes no sense. Lastly, there is little value to this paragraph in general as it is far to narrow in scope to say anything new that contributes to the article.

In conclusion (finally!), please do not revert POV text as it violates Wikipedia's rules/guidelines for content, and only serves to drive wedges into an already obviously divisive issue. As neither a korean nor a japanese person, i am simply trying to maintain some neutrality in these articles to make them as objectively helpful as possible.

thanks! Icactus 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of comfort women

Icactus reverted my edit as well as an anon IP's, maybe you mistook me for one of the Japanese socks/"meats" active on this page, for which I don't blame you, they're hell dealing with. However, it was me, not one of them, who changed the estimates of comfort women - because what I wrote is true, there are very many different estimates around, see the talk page of the Comfort women article. Unfortunately, Japanese vandals have made sure it won't get unprotected any time soon, so changes which there actually is a consensus on don't generally get implemented. If you want sources for the 20,000 number, you can find loads of them there. Mackan 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

origin of comfort women

this article is not an article on the morality of comfort women. It is an article on the anti-japanese sentiment held in korea and its origins. Adding language such as "korea and china, but also Japan" is beside the point. the point is that women forcibly removed from their countries were primarily from korea and china were taken to japan and that was a source of anti-japanese sentiment. it is unhelpful to note that some participants were already in japan. the issue at hand is the removal of koreans from korea to japan and that is the source of anti-japanese sentiment. please leave the article as neutral as possible by staying on topic as much as possible. Icactus 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, and I totally agree with your last edits. Mackan 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Assessment

A fine start, and largely NPOV (congratulations). Still, the majority of the article consists of justifications for Korean anti-Japanese sentiment, and devotes little attention to the negative consequences or violent expressions of this sentiment, nor to attempts to reconcile the problem. LordAmeth 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody put some of this information in a more general context, the article looks too much like a anti-Japan rant. For example, can the feelings about Japan in S.Korea be compared to the perception of Germany in Europe after WWII, and can a more balanced picture be presented. For example can some of these feelings be due to jingoism and let's blame japan for a problems type movements? (I'm not asserting that myself. I'm just asking the question, since I find some of the anti-japanese sentiment in asia in general to be suspicious)

I don't see any reason to make comparisons of the korean-japanese relationship to any european situation merely for those who don't care to actually learn about the unique situation for korea and japan and only prefer to here that it is similar to something they already have an idea about. I think there is enough Eurocentric writing on asian topics and it would benefit everyone to learn about other cultures and historical conflicts on their own merits. Making comparisons only leads to endless debates about the parts that don't line up. Lets keep a historical issue of korea's within the context of korea. Icactus 20:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

page move

i propose moving this page to "Origins of Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" to prevent this page from becoming a catalogue of instances where anti-japanese activities have taken place (as has happened in the past with pop culture lists and the school children drawings "proving" institutionalized racism. this way the page can focus on what the content here is already limited to - that being the origins of this sentiment. Icactus 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we describe the outcomes in Anti-Japanese sentiment? Is it problem that the school children drawings proves institutionalized racism? Both the origin and the current major outcomes are important topics of the article. Jjok 03:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse it

It is a Chinese government that protested against the textbook and Yasukuni of Japan first. You must introduce an official document of the South Korea government if there is a rebuttal.　It is you that changed to the anti-Japanese sentiment of original South Korea. I did the edit along your hope. Thank you. --219.66.46.134 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove text from pages if you do not have a understanding of the material you are removing. Vandalism is fine to remove, or blatantly pov text, but what has been removed is important to the topic and i have added a few sources, perhaps unnecessarily but none-the-less, to support the points being made. China and Korea often have similar grievances with japan over Japanese actions during WWII and the Korean colonization, so issues like textbook revisionism and the march 1st movement suppression ring with both chinese and koreans. The fighting in Manchuria against japan that took place with both korean and chinese soldiers during WWII was an important factor that has led to similar attitudes toward japan between both china and korea, which is why there are very few issues that are actually only between china and japan or only between korea and japan. I would like to avoid getting into a lecture on the topic here, so please only remove information that is vandalism or a blatant violation of wikipedia rules - otherwise please discuss first on this talk page in case others have provided the information for a reason. Icactus 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

racism

Webster's defines racism as: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. This article addresses the national conflict between Korea and Japan, specifically the origins of the anti-japanese sentiment in Korea. Korea (as a nation) and it's conflict with Japan (as a nation) has nothing to do with the race of the japanese people (though some koreans and japanese may say they find inferior any other korean or japanese person - which would be racism). This article addresses the issue of popular sentiment against Japan as a nation and it's national policies toward korea. Being angry at Japan as a nation or even the leaders of japan specifically over issues is different from racism. Racism by definition necessitates a superiority or inferiority toward another race which is not part of this article. If someone wishes to start an article titled "Racism toward Japanese people in Korea" that would be a different subject altogether (and a very difficult one to keep NPOV i imagine). This article is attempting to avoid the issue of race and instead make this an issue between two nations. For a comparison, you could say that during the American revolution there was anti-british sentiment in the country, but you wouldn't say that the US had a racist policy toward britain.

There is definitely ground for articles on Korean racism toward Japanese people living in Korea, and also Japanese racism toward Koreans living in Japan. However, that is not this article so feel free to create one and discuss the issue of racism there. Icactus 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits and deletions

The annonymous user:219.66.46.34 wrote: As for the lawsuit of Ienaga, a Korean peninsula is not included at all. Please look at evidence. (lawsuit document of Ienaga))

The lawsuit of Ienaga is not cited at any point in the article. The previous source was a TIME magazine article explaining the South Korean governments outrage at the Japanese textbook revision issue. It is not claiming that South Korea joined the lawsuit. And just because the country was not part of the lawsuit does not mean that they were not outraged over the March 1st movement language (which the source states). Removing this source and replacing it with japanese text also goes against Wikipedia policy for using English sources on the english wikipedia cite.

Korea doesn't go up to the topic at all according to the newspaper on June 26, 1982. You should find Korea to the newspaper June 26, 1982. The newspaper was exposed that wrote that the Japanese army invaded Northern China to rewrite it to (invasion)"Advanced into (progress)"　--Sir Joestar 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And, please write this minister's name. A South Korean Cabinet minister asked, "Perhaps the Japanese are not capable of thinking like human beings?"　--Sir Joestar 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The King of Japan issue has been addressed many time already in this very talk page. The language is poorly written and it has nothing to do with causing anti-japanese sentiment. To be clear, this page is not for citing instances when Korea has upset/insulted/angered/anything japan. it is about the origins of a national sentiment against the country of japan and its policies. The South Korea choice to pick words between King and Emperor is not a CAUSE or ORIGIN of anti-japanese sentiment. As has been stated before, this page is not served well if it becomes an archive of events that can be viewed as "anti-japan" that would belong on a page titled :Anti-Japanese actions of South Korea" and that would be extremely POV.

OK. Let's make the article of anti-Japanese sentiment culture of Korea. And, you are not pointing out the mistake of a concrete grammar. --Sir Joestar 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the list of pop culture movies and books that can be viewed as "anti-japan" has no place on this page discussing the ORIGINS of ANTI-JAPANESE SENTIMENT.

Finally the edits of user:219.66.46.34 seem to constitute POV pushing on many other articles (without sourcing) and a case will be made for blocking.

I regret that this case has to be restated so many times and in the future some form of protection would be helpful. Icactus 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Icactus

• South Korea is not being written in the original of the lawsuit of Ienaga at all. You must explain the reason to misinterpret this fact.

• Please introduce the country that calls the emperor in Japan a king.

• Do neither literature nor the movie that you concealed completely have the anti-Japanese sentiment?

　　—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joestar (talk • contribs)

Please sign your statements. Icactus 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand what this page is about. This page is titled the "ORIGINS of anti-japan sentiment". That means that the page is about explaining how anti-japan sentiment originated in Korea. It means identifying what Japan did that created an sentiment against the country of japan. When you try to add this "King/Emperor" part you are trying to list something that offended japanese people. This is not a page about "Thing Korea did that offended Japan". It is "ORIGINS of ANTI-JAPANESE SENTIMENT IN KOREA". It is about causation. if you have trouble understanding the difference please do not contribute to this english wikipedia page.Icactus 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Movies you keep reposting. A list of moving you find "Anti-japanese" is not what this page is about. A list of contemporary movies has nothing to do with "THE ORIGINS" of sentiment agaisnt japan. It may be an expression of that sentiment, but that is not what this page is about. If you do not understand the difference please do not post on this english wikipedia page.Icactus 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ienaga lawsuit you mention: You cannot use Japanese texts as references on the english wikipedia as english users cannot read them. I translated it to english poorly and you were correct that korea is not mentioned in that lawsuit. However, this wikipedia article does not directly mention the Ienaga lawsuit specifically and only states that the ministry of education wanted text changed. here is the text from the TIME magazine source: experts from the Japanese Ministry of Education had set out to soften references in high school history textbooks to Japan's aggression before and during World War II. The Japanese invasion of China in 1937, for example, became a mere "advance." Passages describing the fall of Nanking seemed to suggest that Japanese atrocities had been provoked by stiff Chinese resistance, and the Korean national uprising against Japanese colonial rule in 1919 was "mob violence."

This is what the ministry wanted to happen and it mentions Korea. This is what provoked outrage from the Korean government. That the Ienaga lawsuit did not mention this reference to Korea doesn't change the fact that korea was outraged over the ministry's prefered wording. I will rephrase the sentence to make the point more clear. In the future please do not revert sourced material unless you have a counter source. Simply showing that a particular lawsuit didn't mention korea is not sufficient when that particular lawsuit is not being referenced. Icactus 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ienaga Lawsuit: I went back to reread the lawsuit and it doesn't mention at any point all the revisions that were done, it simply lists the china as an example. Further, this is not a document to show what the ministry censored, it shows what Ienaga was suing the government over. Thus, your source doesn't not "prove" that the text about korea didn't exist, it only proves that the korea text wasn't mentioned when Ienaga sued the government. That doesn't mean the government didn't censor it on their own anyway, which is what the TIME magazine article says. I reworded the paragraph to stick to the time article so that the Ienaga's lawsuits have nothing to do with the paragraph. Please read carefully before any further edits. Icactus 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

merge

this was made into a separate article because the main "anti-japanese sentiment" was far too long with both a korea and china section so they were made into unique sections. As for the series of recent edits - i have no idea what is being written because they english is so bad. please stop trying to color this issue to make it pro-japanese if you cannot write intelligently in english. Also, please read the actual sources that are cited before asking questions. The TIME article does not give the name of the cabinet minster so i only put what the article provides and that is fine. Also, please stick to the origins or else create your own new article but please stop trying to make this into an incredibly POV article full of everything you feel is "racist" of koreans. This page is NOT ABOUT RACISM so dont' make it that way please. This is just examining WHAT CAUSED KOREANS to be mad at japan and nothing more. If you can't undrestand that please stop editing. Icactus 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Icactus, Please write the reason to misinterpret these facts.

• (Fact) The Korea language was not prohibited at all. The movie and the newspaper of the Korea language were open to the public. (See Category:Pre-1948 Korean films, )
• (Lie of Icactus) formally forbid Koreans to write or speak the Korean language in schools, businesses, or public places.　(Could you write evidence?　For instance, who was punished?)--61.209.168.56 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a source. Read the source i provided before asking me bad questions. if you intend to make edits you must provide sources. non sourced edits, and especially removal of edits without source will be reverted. please stop the non-constructive edits. Icactus 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI on User:Sennen goroshi unsupported edits regarding Comfort Women

I noticed this user made an unsupported statement on Korean women actually freely wanting to be prostitutes, alleged since the "positions were advertized in the newspaper". This user made the edit and I reverted 1 time in my attempt to remove it. I feel due to the very controversial nature of the comments with regards to bias and accuracy, it should be left out of the article until a concrete reference (specifically a primary source) could be provided. Let me know what you think. Thanks CJ DUB (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have cited the statement, I hope that clears up any confusionSennen goroshi (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The comment reeks of certitude, as I have mentioned this is a controversial issue that need not be mentioned in the article. We all know that the purpose of your insertion was to defend the japanese position; one could find just as many refs refuting this assertion. Finally, unless those authors have seen the newspapers, which i doubt, their opinions are excatly that: opinions. CJ DUB (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

of course it needs to be mentioned, wikipedia is not here to provide a POV and editors should never have a POV, the facts stated are just that FACTS. What you consider my purpose to be, or if you doubt someone has seen something, means aprox. zero.

BTW if you are so keen to see the newspapers with the advertisement, here you go

Hope you can read it.Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (Renaming this artice)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I propose to change the name of this article to "Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" for the following reasons:

• Anti-J sentiment in Korea is a significant phenomenon which deserves an article.
• By restricting itself to "origins of anti-J sentiment in Korea" it excludes all other aspect of this phenomenon (like its effects and current situation / developments) many of which I am sure is encyclopedic.
• Some of the current contents already on this article do not come under the current title of "origin of..", they will be more at home in a general article about anti-J sentiment in Korea.
• By restricting its contents to "origin of anti-J sentiment in Korea" the article leaves itself open to accusations of inherent POV (i.e. that it is an article title which basicaly means "why Koreans are pissed off with Japan")

Al comments welcome. Phonemonkey 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Yongjik 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's bring this back to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. Jjok 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Support) I don't see any problems into your proposal. Please move to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.--W/mint^-Talk- 14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Support) The origin is only a part of things. The origin can be narrated in a part of the article so that many articles may be equipped with history section. --Nightshadow28 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Support: in the absence of a main article, this needs to serve as one. Relata refero 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.