Talk:Sōshi-kaimei

Korean title not the same

I'll bring it up here because it's not such a big deal that it requires an edit war (or anything even close to that). I removed the link not because the Korean title was NPOV but because it only refers to one part of the subject, much in the same way that an article on "Colonization of the Moon" would not be quite the same as one called "NASA plans for moon bases" for example; the latter is only a single part of the first subject and not the whole thing.

Nice work on the page, by the way. Mithridates 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the clarification/compliment, missed your comment earlier. Anyway, the corresponding Korean page is just a substub right now. I'll keep an eye on it; if it starts developing in a direction that makes it very different from the content of this page, then let's remove the link. Cheers, cab 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "Forcing of Japanese surnames" title is the Korean goverment's new name for the incident. Korean history textbooks (which are published by a government bureau) use the new term now. I don't like it either, but I think it's currently in use. --Kjoonlee 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: Significant Discrepancies with Another Source

I put up a POV tag because I came across another source on this information and there was an alarmingly large difference between the information between it and this entry. This source (http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=145071) states that the adoption of the surnames were forced, that there were consequences to not abiding by the forced surname changes, and that the percentage of households that ended up changing their surnames reached approximately 80% at 322 million. And this isn't some random online encyclopedia - it's transcribed material from the Doosan Encyclopedia, which is a fairly reliable source of information as far as I'm aware. Also, I've heard a lot about Japanese far-rights trying to "modify history" regarding their imperial era, so even though I'm not certain how much of that was just yellow journalism, this difference in information does worry me. I'm not the biggest history buff but if someone more knowledgeable than me could look into why there's such difference in information I'd be rather grateful. Unbal3 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

322 million? Korean people?? That would be more than the current population of the United States! And that's only 80% of the Korean population in, when? 1939? There is a serious flaw in your source, and based on that, I would say that it is not so very reliable.Boneyard90 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Unbal3's source is excellent, and the figure is correct in the source as cited. The misunderstanding lies in an erroneous translation of "322만" into "322 million." The correct number is 3.22 million -- 3.22 million households -- which jibes with the percentage figure and the combined North-South population at the time (roughly 23 million). Unbal3 is also correct regarding the existence of editors aiming to skew the modern read of well recorded history. The slant to the article is evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.146 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

wtf is this crap

while some Sakhalin Koreans who had taken Japanese names were registered by Soviet authorities under those names (which appeared on their Japanese identity papers) after the Red Army occupied Karafuto, and up to the present day have been unable to revert their legal names to their original Korean ones

everybody can change their name in russia whatever they want; do these koreans need a special law concerning their special right to change their name or what 77.34.217.54 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Italicize title?

Do we italicize "Sōshi-kaimei" given MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? toobigtokale (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)