Talk:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ilpa (일파)? Who says so? I've NEVER heard that phrase.

This heading needs some reworking. I'll just post it here, so if anybody can find a source or give an argument that the word "Ilpa" is common, please insert it back (with appropriate reference if possible). Yongjik 04:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinilpa (친일파, 親日派, literally 'people friendly to Japan') or Ilpa (일파, 日派) is a Korean slur for pro-Japanese Koreans, including but not limited to the pro-Japanese activists and collaborators as well as those who worked for the better relationship with Japan during the periods of Korean Empire and Korea under Japanese rule, who are recognized as national traitors in Korea. In contrast with Japanophile, chinilpa has no positive meaning.

---

On a second thought, I think somebody might have confused the slang il-ppa (일빠) with Chinilpa. (Note the two p's --- it is a different character in Korean!) In some internet subculture, the slang ppa ("fan"; usually disparaging) became quite productive and may attach to virtually anything. I've seen "hwang-ppa" (fans of Hwang Woo-Suk), "hwan-ppa" (fans of Hwandan Gogi), "peulto-ppa" (fans of StarCraft Protoss players), and even "guk-ppa" (fans of anything Korean).

If this is the case, then it clearly does NOT belong to this article about Korean collaborators to Japanese colonial government. Yongjik 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yongjik, thank you very much. I did not know they wright two way for one hanja (日派). I retrieved 일빠 and found that 친일파 and 일빠 are basically the same and bad meaning. 일빠 seems a net slang and a lighter warning to a person blindly supports Japanese stuffs and not used for historical pro-Japanese collaborators before WWII while 친일파 is more official. The usage itself is commonly found. Following are some examples found in Korean forums while they may not be completely representative.

• (in Korean) 일빠의 역습
• (in Korean) ★일류 일빠.. 내가 본 여러 모습들 use like 일빠들

• yamatosniper 여기서는 꽤 오래 쓰여진 용어입니다. "일본 빠순(빠돌)이"의 축약어 w 『친일파나 친일 행위를 하는 사람』을 가리키는 말이지요.
• tjtmdeo valkyrie17cm야 정신병적 행동으로 일본을 찬양하는 사람들을 일빠(친일파)라고 욕하는것은 맞지만 너의 의견에 동의하지 않는다고 일빠(친일파)라고 욕하는것도 어느정도 니가 정신병이 있다는거 아니겠니?

• 일본박사Joy 8

Jjok 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to people who would accuse others of being "일빠"... Especially those who think "일빠" and "친일파" are the same.... :) The term "Chinilpa" has a historic meaning, and whatever a contemporary person does online doesn't make himself a Chinilpa... I mean, how can you support a colonial government that was dissolved 62 years ago? Those idiots are just playing at insulting others, just like some Americans will say "u are a TERRORIST LOL go to hell" online.

By the way, the character 빠 (ppa) is NOT the hanja 派; it comes from another slang ppasuni (빠순이). As far as I know, it originally meant "a brainless teenager girl who is a fan of (some singer you don't like)." Yongjik 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about ppasuni (빠순이). I am not sure why some online translator returns 日派 for 일빠. However, ilppa is also bad meaning in Korea, and Korean kids need to be very careful about avoiding people's recognition of themselves as Japanophile when they enjoy (or not?) Japanese anime and manga.

• ˝우리가 일본을 좋아하는 것은 아니야˝ (동아리투어) 서울디지텍고 코스프레 동아리 <카르페디엠>, VOICE OF PEOPLE, 2007-04-13.
• 방송 애니메이션 '일장기' 노출 당혹, empas news, 2004-01-20.

Jjok 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Korean collaborators to Japanese colonial government"

• Note: The thread was originally titled Move to "Korean collaborators to Japanese colonial government", but Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) redacted it without permission[1]. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note2: My original edit to match correct move template was on 03:56, 16 July 2008 . It retained an immediate note of the original title. This was only removed later by Caspian blue (talk · contribs)/Appletrees (talk · contribs) themselves, at 04:06, 16 July 2008 --Ex-oneatf (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note3: Nope. Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) redacted the title as if he was the creator. The user who created his account on 2008-07-10T03:48:39 has been targeting and bashing me as if I'm using a sock. That is a pathetic personal attack. It highly unlikely that the user who knows more my changed name and Wikiknowledges is a real newbie unlike his self-claim. I hope the user stops such disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note4: Restored original section title. Created a new discussion area at the bottom of the page for the actual move request that is listed at WP:RM. PC78 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this article be moved as such. After all, the term "Chinilpa" is NOT a proper noun, so is not appropriate for an English wikipedia. Because of this title, the article starts with some irrelevant discussions on what the hell the word means, how it is used, and how it might/might not be confused with some other terms... all of which are not really that interesting to most English speakers.

Are we trying to explain the Korean word here, or the concept? I think it should be the latter: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, after all.

Once we move the article, all such stuff can be simply cut out or kicked away to footnotes. The article would look a lot better. Yongjik 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only "not really that interesting to most English speakers" but also unfamiliar or unknown to most students of Japanese history. We should pick something in English that's easily understandable and recognizable. What that should be, however... I'm really not sure. LordAmeth 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's the concept that is importance. Since the main article is Korea under Japanese rule, perhaps Korean collaborators under Japanese rule would be more elegant (that "to" is just wrong). On the other hand "collaborator" is a bit of a loaded word, probably quite a good match for "Chinilpa" in fact, so perhaps a more general article such as Korean people under Japanese rule would allow the wider story to be told in a more NPOV way, I'm sure that noone was 100% "collaborator" or "anti" in any case.FlagSteward 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A small conundrum, wot. It is more challenging to come up with a short and meaningful equivalent in English because we are asked to consider an alternative to a Korean noun that describes a sub-group of individuals, no? Thus, "Korean collaborators to Japanese colonial government" is a little awkward. In particular, the preposition "to" seems strange. What about this:

Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea

This might be better considering that many Chinilpa are still alive and living in Korea and other parts of the world. 74.12.83.52 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea sounds just fine. Korean people under Japanese rule sounds like a good article to create, though based on the title alone, I should expect it to be more about the general lifestyle/society issues concerning the Korean people in general, under Japanese rule, a subject within which collaborators would get buried in some sub-section. LordAmeth 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds great! Korean people under Japanese rule would certainly be an interesting article to create, but that is a totally different story. After all, the majority (>95%?) of Korean people under Japanese rule were neither "Chinilpa" nor "independence fighters (독립투사)," but simply a bunch of farmers, fishers, teachers, and artisans trying to live through difficult days.

(Off-topic) It is somewhat unfortunate that some Korean school textbooks and folk tales give the impression that Koreans of 1910--1945 consisted solely of devilish Chinilpa, oppressed common folks supporting independence fighters, and nothing between... Fortunately this view is changing in these days. (Or perhaps it's just that I grew up and learned the whole story.) If anybody can read Korean, I highly recommend "Allow Dance Halls in Seoul: Birth of Modernity" (서울에 딴스홀을 허하라: 현대성의 형성) by Kim Jinsong (김진송): A link in Korean bookstore, ISBN 9788987057989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yongjik (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the term is rare and should not be overused like I do, however, "Chinilpa = Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea" is too narrow usage. It is similar to say "Wokou is Japanese pirates". The appearance of chinilpa in English has been rare since most of chinilpa arguments except the official Pro-Japanese collaborators are really domestic issues in (South) Korea. The actual meaning is much wider, deeper, and current. Let's see the definition in Chosun Ilbo:

• (in Korean) '양상훈칼럼' 조영남씨가 친일파인가, Chosun Ilbo, 2005.04.26.
• (in Japanese) 【コラム】趙英男氏が親日派なのか, Chosun Ilbo, 2005/04/27.

In the article describing about an issue of the author of "맞아죽을 각오로 쓴 100년만의 친일선언", the columnist defines chinilpa as "친일파는 우리나라와 일본이 싸울 때 일본 편을 드는 사람이다." "親日派は韓国と日本が戦うとき、日本の肩を持つ人だ。" I could not find the English version but it means Chinilpa is a person who sides with Japan when Korea and Japan are fighting and it is very common view in South Korea. So, chinilpa is not limitedly used for historic pro-Japanese collaborators and relatively well-known people who are nowadays denoted as Neo-chinilpa, such as Cho YoungNam, O Seonhwa, Han Seung-Jo, Gim Wanseop, Ji Man Won, Lee Yeonghun, and Ahn Byong-Jik. If a Korean man cheering a Japanese soccer team fighting against a Korean team in a South Korean stadium, he will be recognized as chinilpa. It sounds incredible but it actually is.

The practical meaning of chinilpa is actually the same as Japanophile. The difference is it is a bad thing in Korea. I chose chinilpa as article title instead of "Japanophile in Korea" to describe the specific concept and aspects in Korea. If it is necessary to move the article, it should be Japanophile in Korea, but not Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea. The latter is one specific part of chinilpa and does not properly describe the whole concept of the term. Jjok 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are trying to fit too much things into a single basket. A word like "Chinilpa" (with its loaded tone) can be (ab)used to denounce many different people, and that is precisely why this article should be renamed. We cannot agree on what "Chinilpa" means, but at least we can agree on what "Pro-Japanese collaborator in Korea" means.

Let's take a look at your list.

1. Cho Youngnam (조영남) is a singer and, IMHO, just being sensational by playing word games. (I think he had some honest intention, but doubtlessly such a controversy helped his book sale.)
2. Kim Wanseop (김완섭) is a notorious bastard, well known in some internet circle. He once claimed that "All graduates of Ewha Womans University are whores." (I think he also claimed that "all married women are whores." Such a distasteful garbage, I can't remember the details.) He even wrote a book named... more or less... "whore-ology" (창녀론). I'm surprised that you admit knowing his name... where did you get that?
3. O Seonhwa (오선화) is making her living by writing sensational third-class books in Japan that hates Korea, which generates rage in Korea, which in turn helps her celebrity in Japan... I haven't read anything by her, but from what I heard, her reputation is on the same level with that of Kim Wanseop.
   Added: She even has a wiki article! (ko:고젠카) She claimed that she graduated Daegu University (대구대학교), which turned out to be false. It seems her first books weren't even written by helself at all. She has also changed her nationality to Japanese, but is apparently hiding the fact because "A Korean who says Korea sucks" sells much better. [2]
4. Ji Manwon (지만원) is a political extreme-right nut who claims that the current Roh Moo-hyun regime is communist and is controlled by North Korea. He also served in prison for defamation(?) for saying the Gwangju Massacre (5.18) was a riot masterminded by North Korea and communist dissidents. [3]
5. Han Seungjo (한승조) was a professor in Korea University, who wrote a column in Japanese right-wing magazine that says "Japan's colonization of Korea was a blessing." Interestingly, he also claimed that the current Roh government's attempt to prosecute (well, more like "catalog" in reality) Chinilpa is a "conspiracy for the extended rule of South Korea by leftists." [4] He seems to be well regarded by Ji. Birds of a feather...
6. Lee Yeonghun (이영훈), a professor of economics in Seoul National University, might be the only guy worth listening to in the list. He is also politicaly conservative. He is famous for his contention that Korea achieved substantial economic development during the Japanese colonization period, for which, yes, he was attacked as a Chinilpa. But I also heard his reputation is largely built by people who wouldn't even bother to read what he actually says. For example, here he is quoted as saying:
   1. So I viewed that Japan's colonial regime of Korea was filled with logical contradiction, doomed to disintegrate. 그래서 저는 일제의 조선 지배 체제는 조만간 해체될 수밖에 없는 모순에 가득 찬 것이었다고 보았지요.
   2. Whether there was exploitation or not, imperialism deserves criticism by itself. Why? Because it is a regime that is against human nature. 수탈 여부와 무관하게 제국주의는 그 자체로 비판의 대상입니다. 왜 그럴까요? 다름아니라 인간 본성에 반하는 체제가 제국주의이기 때문입니다.
   3. Now then, what happens if such economic development continues? Land, natural resources, and industrial facilitis of Joseon would become more and more possessed by Japanese. Now this is a colonial exploitation in essence. 그런데 그런 식의 경제 성장이 계속 되면 결국 어떻게 됩니까? 조선의 토지와 자원과 공업시설은 점점 일본인의 소유가 되지요. 바로 이것이 진정한 의미의 식민지적 수탈이지요.
7. I don't know much about Ahn Byong-Jik (안병직), a professor Emeritus(?) in Seoul National University, except that his name rhymes with mine. It seems he was once a prominent leftist thinker, and then he became one of the "new rights." My 30-second googling didn't find anything that might make him earn the title of Chinilpa.

Now let's see, what do they have in common? Would Professor Lee Yeonghun consider his opinion as even remotely related to those of Kim Wanseop or O Seonwha? It is like creating a single article that covers Bush, Blair, bin Laden, Hitler, Ariel Sharon, and Kim Jong-il, named "people who are called terrorists."

Besides, I disagree with you on whether "the practical meaning of Chinilpa is actually the same as Japanophile." In South Korea there are hundreds of thousands of anime, manga, and J-pop fans. Go to any bookstore in Korea, you will find a whole shelf of Japanese manga, and another of Japanese novels. Japanese anime are broadcast on TV every day. Only the most hopeless trolls would call them Chinilpa.

If you insist, these guys might get lumped together in a section called "Contemporary usage of the term Chinilpa in South Korea". But I doubt its utility, and it might even be considered libelous for some guys... Who would want to be classified in the same group as Kim Wanseop, "the guy who called your mom a whore"? Yongjik 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, take an article by Chosun Ilbo with caution. It is the most ultra-conservative newspaper in South Korea, unfortunately also Korea's most popular newspaper. It has a vested interest in attacking the current Roh government, and also in derailing the government's attempt at cataloging and prosecuting Chinilpa --- its former CEO, Bang Eung-mo (방응모) was a Chinilpa himself. For example, he voluntarily donated machine guns to the Japanese colonial government. [5] Chosun Ilbo has a lot to gain by confusing the public and mixing the issue of prosecuting Chinilpa with general anti-Japanese sentiments. Yongjik 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my points, Yongjik. Yes, Chosun Ilbo represents conservative view but that means they are less critical on chinilpa compared to the left, while there is no difference in which medias (left or right) think what Korean people recognize as Japanophile. For example,

• ‘친일 발언’ 조영남씨 방송 재개할듯 MBC ‘지금은 라디오시대’ 진행자로 내정, The Hankyoreh, 2006-11-09 "조씨는 지난해 4월 일본 〈산케이신문〉과 한 인터뷰에서 독도 문제와 관련해 “(냉정하게 대처하는) 일본이 한 수 위”라고 발언해 친일 논란을 빚은 뒤 모든 방송활동을 접었다."

Again, if people think the person is taking side with Japan, they recognize the person as chinilpa, especially in the cases of controversy issues between Korea and Japan. I also think Cho Youngnam does not deserve chinilpa while he called himself so.

• ＜生と文化＞私が親日派になった理由, JoongAng Ilbo, 2003.06.30. I could not find original Korean version.
• (부일시론) 친일파 선언, Busan Ilbo, 2004-12-21.

He just pointed out that Japan was one up on Korea and Koreans should behave cool on the Dokdo issue, however, he had to apology and quit his program. Following article even warns that persons in show business should avoid any Japanophilic behavior which pulls the trigger of rage of people.

• 한국 연예인이 해서는 안될 3가지 금기, STARNEWS, 09/18/2007.

If you want to release a movie in Korea, never positively describe the Japanese rule.

• 박찬욱 감독 `한국영화의 두가지 금기는 친북과 친일`, JoongAng Ilbo, 2006.04.10 11.

About Japanese anime, manga, and J-pop stuffs, people can enjoy them but they also need to be careful not to be recognized as Japanophile and need to excuse that "we like these stuffs but we do not like Japan".

• ˝우리가 일본을 좋아하는 것은 아니야˝ (동아리투어) 서울디지텍고 코스프레 동아리 <카르페디엠>, VOICE OF PEOPLE, 2007-04-13.

Of course, when someone would open a web site in Korea that advocates "Dokdo is Japanese territory and Korea should return it to Japan", such Japanophilic site shall be shut down.

• 정통윤, 친일 정보 41건 삭제 요청, JoongAng Ilbo, 2005.11.01.

Kim Wanseop may be notorious bastard, O Seonhwa (오선화) might be writing sensational third-class books in Japan, and Ji Manwon may be political extreme-right nut. However, that is not the reason why they were designated as neo-chinilpa. People think they side with Japan. That is the reason.

Other peoples have points in common to some extent. They do not agree at claims such as 200,000 forced Korean sex slaves, 40% confiscation of land, Japan did not make any contribution to the modernization of Korea, etc, which oppose common Korean view. Their views can be represented by following:

• 교과서포럼 이어 안병직 “위안부 자발적” 망언 파문 MBC 뉴스초점 출연 “강제동원 증거없어…토지수탈도 없었다”, Daily Surprise, 2006-12-06.
• (in Korean) MBC interview with Professor Ahn Byong-Jik, starts from ~23 min: mms://newsvod.imnews.imbc.com/imnews/noon/2006/12/mbc_noon_20061206_0_300k.asf

Others are

• "위안부 출신 할머니 가짜일수도"지만원씨 “위안부 중 80% 몸팔아 생계유지 창녀” 또 망언 파문, Hankook Ilbo, 2005/04/14.
• "너희가 교수야!"-"니네들이 깡패야!" 아수라장된 뉴라이트 '교과서포럼' 심포지움, OhmyNews, 2006.11.30.
• '분노한 4.19', CBS nocut news, 2006-11-30]
• (뉴라이트교과서) ① “5·16이 혁명이면 일제산업화도 혁명인가” 진보학자 “이념색맹 수준”…5·16 정당화 배경에 의혹, The Hankyoreh, 2006-11-30.

In the above three articles, the fighting and kicked guys are professors Lee Yeonghun and Ahn Byong-Jik, respectively.

• 안병직 영입과 MB의 “안창호 씨”…한나라 역사관은? 안 이사장 임명에 누리꾼 비난 봇물 “친일파 영입 말도 안돼”, Daily Surprise, 2007-09-29.

• "日帝, 영구병합 목적 조선 근대화에 주력" (고정관념을 깨는 사람들) <5> 이영훈 낙성대경제硏 소장, Hankook Ilbo, 2004/04/22.
• 이영훈 교수 '나눔의 집' 방문 사과, Chosun Ilbo, 2004.09.06.
• "'아리랑'은 광기어린 증오의 역사소설", Chosun Ilbo, 2007.05.28.
• 이영훈 사학의 결정판 '대한민국 이야기' “’민족’ 대신 이기심 갖춘 인간 개체를”, Chosun Ilbo, 2007.05.30.
• 李栄薫教授「韓国の暴力的民族主義が歴史論争を封殺」, Chosun Ilbo, 2007/06/03.

Actually, what professor Lee Yeonghun says is not so different from what Japanese rights say, including former Japanese PM Abe, since both rely on (the same) reliable sources without nationalistic speculation. Jjok 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved this topic as per discussion to Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea. I note there is now some confusion over articles and titles.

I consider that this is an English language encyclopedia that Chinilpa is not commonly known to English language readers and therefore this article is somewhat hidden. A redirect would surely suffice?

I also note that the individual that moved it did not join the discussion. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to merge matching categories

I see Chinilpa also has a category. This is duplicated with the more obvious Collaborators with Imperial Japan. I suggest they are also combined for the same reasons as above; use of common English terms.

There may be a special way of doing this. I wil look into it. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting Statements in the first Paragraph

• they were never properly put to trial; contadicts
• It handled a total of 682 cases, 559 cases were handed over to a special prosecutor's office, which handed down indictments in 221 cases.

• Even though the Chinese characters of Chinilpa (親日派) literally denote "people friendly to Japan," this word is never used as such. ;contradicts
• Sometimes Chinilpa is used as a derogatory slang for pro-Japanese Koreans.

I erase these sentences to prevent confusions.61.24.95.4 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. They were never properly put to trial. President Rhee sabotaged and then dissolved the Special Committee (the committee members were even arrested by the police, which was being governed by a Chinilpa), none were executed, and their properties mostly (if not entirely) stayed with them and were not confiscated.

To summarize (and I'll admit this is my POV): those Chinilpa and their descendants continue to be a dominant power in Korean political landscape, although they did lose recent two presidential elections.

As for the second pair, again I will try to clarify the issue: consider "terrorist." It is frequently used as a slur for Muslims... any muslims.  :( Therefore, it is an (unfortunate) fact that the word "terrorist" is used as a slur. However, the word "terrorist" does NOT mean "Muslim" and no respectable scholar or reporter would (or should) confuse these two terms. The situation is similar with "Chinilpa." Retracted---see below.

Could you please tell me if you are satisfied with my arguments, or still find it uncompelling? I hope we could reach an agreement. Okay, I'll try to find some more references to back up these claims... wait for somemany days... (drum roll plz...) Yongjik 02:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I realized that the word "Chinilpa" has a more complicated history than I initially thought. (Shrug... as my page says, I'm not a historian.) Anyway, I hope the following is a correct summary: In contemporary South Korea, when the word "Chinilpa" is used in an official context (e.g., not in an internet flame war) it almost always means Pro-Japanese Collaborators who helped the Japanese colonial government. Yongjik 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

The term is exclusively used in Korea, not by others. That is proper noun like hwabyeong that Japanese editors enjoy using in here. Besides, please do not say a lie. You created your account one weeks ago and never opened any discussion when you unilaterally moving the title. That is very disruptive. Since you alleged on your participation in previous discussions, which means you're a sock or former editor of the other editors here. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that this is an English language encyclopedia and we should assist English language readers first. I understand this is the policy. As stated, academics point out that the word has a variety of meanings not limited to Pro-Japanese collaborators which is what this topic is about.

I fear that the topic is being obscured because it is use.--Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you owe me an apology for your blatant lies against me here and there before we proceed a further discussion. If you want to communicate with somebody, do not commit such behaviors. Besides, your fear is your own fear, not related to others or English speakers.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinilpa → Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea — In line with the Wikipedia policy relating to the use of common English language terminology, this obscure title should be moved to the widely used and commonly understood term. Discussion started in 2007. I moved it. It was immediate reverted by another editor who quite correctly stated it was a term commonly used in Korea. The pages appear to duplicate now and need tidying up. I would argue that a redirect from the Korean term is sufficient for the English language Wikipedia. (posted by Ex-oneatf at WP:RM) — PC78 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. The term has been exclusively used in Korea to refer people "not only actual collaborators" but also people with "pro-Japanese agenda" during the Japanese occupation. The term includes certain attitudes regarding betraying his own country. Besides, Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea is not quite right translation (that may be original research). Chinilpa literally means "people friendly to Japan". However, it holds more than its literal meaning such gaijin, or nihonjinron. Many of those people lived in Korean as well as in Japan. It is a historical term, but still widely used to indicate people like Ko Zenka (吳善花) who was born in 1956. Well, besides, I could only see what the intention of Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) on this is in light of his recent disruptions.[6] --Caspian blue (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose- This doesn't seem as much a "commonly used term" as a definition. Perhaps it should be at Koreans who were friendly towards Japan during the period of 1910-1945 (who were considered by other Koreans to have betrayed their own country). I do not see an English phrase that would be clear and accurate (this proposal isn't either, nor was the last unproposed move to Korean collaborators to Japanese colonial government), and until one is found, it should stay where it is. Chinilpa is succinct, accurate, and unique (it is unlikely to need disambiguation). There is no reason to make up English names for things that do not exist in English-speaking countries. Readers who do not wish to see a Korean word for an exclusively Korean thing probably don't want to be reading about Korea in the first place. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I shall refrain from supporting or opposing a move due to my lack of familiarity with the subject. Having said that, I do think it would be preferable to have an English-language title for the article, particuarly as it is discussing a concept and not the Korean word Chinilpa. However, the subject does appear to relate to a specific period of Korean history, and this is not indicated in the proposed article title. Perhaps there is something more suitable? PC78 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2008 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinilpa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191442/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/nation_view.asp?newsIdx=8259&categoryCode=117 to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/nation_view.asp?newsIdx=8259&categoryCode=117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928192006/http://www.icjcp.go.kr/ to http://www.icjcp.go.kr/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chinilpa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521193351/http://www.pcic.go.kr:8088/pcic/english-1.htm to http://www.pcic.go.kr:8088/pcic/english-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051106075738/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=29160 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=29160
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091303/http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/200612/h2006120700235521950.htm to http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/200612/h2006120700235521950.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521193351/http://www.pcic.go.kr:8088/pcic/english-1.htm to http://www.pcic.go.kr:8088/pcic/english-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522005338/http://www.pcic.go.kr:8088/pcic/english.htm to http://www.pcic.go.kr:8088/pcic/english.htm

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) 23:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

By South Korean political standards, Chinilpa is a fascist.

There is a source to it has a source. The contents of the article describing Chinilpa as a fascist should never be removed. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Chinilpa refers to Korean collaborators during the Japanese occupation of Korea, and they existed even before the ideology of fascism was established. Sfdsfs (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, there was only one article in the documentation that described the Chinilpa as fascists, and even then it only briefly mentioned that the Chinilpa created the anthem, not why they were fascists. Sfdsfs (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

" Some South Korean political left looks at 'fascism' and 'nationalism' separately. They argue that fascism is essentially colonialism, not nationalism. Therefore, according to them, Korean nationalists cannot be fascists. However, the South Korean political left exceptionally recognizes Ilminism as fascism because it is a fake nationalism based on pro-American colonialism" This is an unsourced personal opinion. Sfdsfs (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Should I bring more sources? It is clear that Chinilpa is regarded as a fascist in Korea. In Korea, the Japanese Empire itself is viewed negatively, so it tends not to separate the fascist Japanese Empire from the Japanese Empire of the previous era. But what's clear is that other imperialist countries, the United States, Britain, and France, were not Axis powers. Mureungdowon (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

In Korea, the distinction between the Japanese Empire during fascism and the Japanese Empire before it is often blurred, but historically, the distinction is clear: Chinilpa is not a political group that was directly affected by fascism, but rather individuals who collaborated with Japan even before the rise of fascism. Sfdsfs (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Only one of the Korean articles cited as a source describes Chinilpa as a fascist, and that's only Ahn Eak-tae. Sfdsfs (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is not wrong. However, in South and North Korea, there is a strong dichotomy that the Japanese Empire and Japanese nationalism are fascism and Korean nationalism is anti-fascism. (This is also why North Korea's Korean ethnic ultranationalism has long been considered far-left, not far-right.) Most importantly, Japanese war criminals or Japanese fascists who are 'ethnically Korean' in South Korea are also viewed as Chinilpa. Therefore, Chinilpa after the 1930s cannot be separated from Japanese fascism. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it really true that South Koreans consider their nationalism to be anti-fascist and Japanese nationalism to be fascist? There were certainly Korean nationalist fascists like Lee Beom-seok and Ahn Hosang. 39.7.51.223 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

스스로 반파시스트로 여기고 상대를 파시스트로 여긴다고 객관적 사실이 그렇게 변하지는 않습니다 39.7.51.223 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In South Korea, Korean nationalism is more relatable to left-wing. Lee Bum-seok and Ahn Ho-sang are accused by some nationalists of being fake nationalists. Because the real tradition of Korean nationalism is to oppose sadaejuui to a great power, and Lee or Ahn supported the pro-American sadaejuui. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

From 1945 to 1950, Korean nationalists were divided into two main groups in South Korea:

• Case A: "We must forgive Chinilpa and rebuild South Korean society through them. Let's set up a single government of South Korea based on pro-Americanism and execute the communists."
• Case B: "Execute Chinilpa and establish a social democratic nationalst government in which South and North Korea become one."

Today, the Korean nationalist or Korean ethnic nationalist tradition represents the 'Case B'. Ilminism belongs to 'Case A'. Ilminists were diplomatically hostile to Japan, but internally they worked actively with Chinilpa. Therefore, Korean nationalists belonging to 'Case B' do not recognize Ilminists as Korean nationalists. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Traditional Korean nationalism is basically defined as opposing Japanese imperialism and Japanese nationalism. Ilminism is a non-traditional Korean nationalism supported by the United States, and it did not exist at all before 1945. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/book/569821.html

I don't agree that Lee Bum-seok or Ahn Ho-sang are pro-American. Also, Ahn Ho-sang was arrested under the National Security Act in 1954 for criticizing the United States and capitalism. 2001:E60:109E:91D0:0:23:24E:2C01 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What is certain is that Chinilpa after the 1930s is on the same side as the Japanese fascists. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Serving the system you're in doesn't mean following an ideology The reason these people collaborated with the Japanese Empire wasn't because they were into fascist political movements. Sfdsfs (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Since this is Korean politics, it should be judged by Korean standards. I think cooperating with Nazi Germany is a fascist. Likewise, if you cooperate with the Japanese Empire after the 1930s, the fascists will be able to do so. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't classify CHINILPA as a fascist movement by Korean standards, and if I were to argue that CHINILPA is fascist because it is classified as fascist by Korean standards, would I have to classify all pro-Ukrainians as neo-Nazis in an article dealing with Russian politics? Sfdsfs (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia is not a liberal democracy. Above all, it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, and Japan invaded Korea. As of 2023, the political forces advocating anti-Chinilpa politics in South Korea are liberals who resisted dictatorships in the past. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You said that documents dealing with Korea should be based on representative Korean perceptions, not objective facts. By that logic, shouldn't documents dealing with Russia be based on Russian perceptions? Sfdsfs (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The term Chinilpa is very complicated. In South Korea, war criminals who served in the Japanese Empire are usually called Chinilpa. In South Korea, there are many points where it is very ambiguous to distinguish Chinilpa colonists and war criminals/pro-Axis fascists. Since 1945, Korean nationalists have argued that Chinilpa is socially punished because they are fascists, but the United States and the Soviet Union have not accepted it. Even by European standards, war criminals/pro-Axis fascists were not punished in Korea. They called them "Chinilpa" in Korea. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's one thing to collaborate with the Japanese Empire, it's another to support its fascist ideology and mass movements. Sfdsfs (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it wrong to use Nazi-related categories in articles related to Nazi collaborators? After the 1930s, Chinilpa collaborated with the Fascist Japanese Empire. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Collaborating with Nazis and being a National Socialist are two very different things. Same goes for chinilpa's example. Sfdsfs (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Even by Korean standards, Chinilpa is rarely perceived as a fascist movement Sfdsfs (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to classifying Lee or Ahn as fascists. However, from the 1930s to 1945, Chinilpa cooperated with the Japanese fascist (Shōwa Statist) system. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In the first place, the term 'Chinilpa' itself is an analysis from a Korean nationalist point of view, and it should be considered that the Korean nationalist bias in South Korean history does not strictly distinguish 'Chinilpa' from 'ethnic Korean Japanese fascists'. I understand you're confused. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This section is now above 1250 words and there is not one mention of a specific source; just a lot of WP:FORUMing. Looking over the edit history of the article, the disputed content appears to be the inclusion of Categories: "Fascism in Asia" & "Fascism in South Korea", and the text "fascists" (파시스트), or "pro-Japanese anti-nationalist" (친일 반민족주의자) in the sentence Chinilpa is often identified with "far-right" (극우), "Nazi collaborators" (나치 협력자), "war criminals" (전범), "fascists" (파시스트), or "pro-Japanese anti-nationalist" (친일 반민족주의자), because Japan was a member of the Axis powers during World War II in the past.

That sentence references 6 sources:

"김상수 "친일찬양금지법 입법하라..언제까지 시민들이 나서서 거리에서 싸우게 만드는가?"". 뉴스프리존. 11 October 2022.

"김원웅 "북한 3대세습, 종북좌파 아닌 친일파 이승만·박정희 때문"". 시사오늘. 26 September 2019. Retrieved 3 March 2023.

"대한민국의 '독버섯'". 경기일보. 15 November 2020. Retrieved 3 March 2023.

"부끄러운 역사 친일 '미완의 청산'". 경향신문. 15 August 2010. Retrieved 3 March 2023.

"반민특위에서 풀려난 친일 헌병, 김주열을 쐈다". 미디어오늘. 11 September 2016. Retrieved 3 March 2023.

"적극적 반민족주의자 백선엽은 어떻게 '국립묘지'로 갔나". 프레시안. 21 July 2020. Retrieved 13 April 2023.

Which of those sources, and what text from those sources, directly supports the disputed text & categories? - Rotary Engine ^talk 06:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

To solve the problem, I will edit the Chinilpa article, so please wait 20 minutes. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I have completed the correction of the Chinilpa article. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Which of those sources, and what text from those sources, directly supports the disputed text & categories? - Rotary Engine ^talk 07:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• This source described 백선엽 as a "pro-Japanese anti-nationalist" (친일 반민족주의자), and 백선엽 is known as Chinilpa in South Korea. In South Korea, "반민족주의자" and "친일파" are synonymous.
• In this source, there is a statement from a politician who equates South Korea's "Chinilpa" with France's "Nazi collaborators"

Mureungdowon (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There's one problem. These are all Korean, so there are many phrases that are difficult to translate easily into English. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the Korean articles you cite claim Chinilpa is a fascist movement, and none of them have any evidence. Sfdsfs (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at those two sources:

sisaon.co.kr: 1. the source is an interview and ideally should be treated per WP:INTERVIEWS. 2. a statement from a politician should be attributed in text. 3. a single comparison isn't generalisable into often identified; (there's a broader question of what "identified" means in this context; a less vague term would be better). 4. a comparison in a single opinion source might not be WP:DUE inclusion.

pressian.com: 5. a statement about Paik Sun-yup (and his followers) isn't generalisable into a statement about all collaborators. 6. a single comparison isn't generalisable into often identified 7. a comparison in a single opinion source might not be WP:DUE inclusion.

Neither of these two sources mentions Fascists (파시스트) so cannot be used to verify that particular content. Of the 6 sources referenced, only one mentions 파시스트; in the context of describing Yi Gwangsu, an individual. Similar to the two sources discussed above, that statement can't be generalised into either a description of all collaborators or "often".

Korean language sources aren't a problem; though it might benefit the reader to have a slightly higher proportion of English language sources. It would be good, however, for the article to have more focus on content from academic sources and less focus on content from opinion sources (per WP:BESTSOURCES & WP:IRS#Scholarship); and for it to stick strongly to content that is directly supported by the sources (per WP:V). - Rotary Engine ^talk 10:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

References