Talk:Korea/Archive 4

Korean: [unstable] Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help); Hanja: [top] Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help)

discussion archive 1

discussion archive 2 (through July 2006)

---

Islands of Korea

About the maps, shouldn't there be at least one map showing the many islands that surround Korea? It explains where some are, but there is no picture.--KiteString 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If we do, then all the Japanese editors will start complaining and whining if we include Dokdo in the map. I don't think we should have a map of the islands, its just going to make this article messy and I don't want that to happen. Good friend100 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Dokdo is such a small islet, it would be kind of silly to include it in any map that's drawn to a scale small enough to fit on the article page. Heck, Ulleungdo would barely be large enough register as more than a dot in the middle of the sea on a map of the entire Korean peninsula. --Zonath 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree with it, I don't want to mess this article up. Arguments can stay at the Dokdo page. Good friend100 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As KiteString said "many islands", the problem seems not about Dokdo. We have two maps here (Image:Locationmap Korea.png and Image:Three Kingdoms of Korea Map.png) but both of them does not fit well with the geography section. The former does not show any islands at all and although the latter show Jeju-do and Ulleung-do, it does not have names of islands (understandable as it's for history and not for geography). We mihgt use Image:MapofKorea.png, used in the main article Korean Peninsula, which shows both islands clearly and has names. Or there might be another map which fits the scope of the geography section. --Kusunose 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are maps with Dokdo cut off. We can use those. I agree that including Dokdo would not be a good idea.--KiteString 01:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It is currently under South Korean control and it is not wrong to include Dokdo in the map of Korea. This is the article for Korea and it is appropiate to include what it controls. Good friend100 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, though, it's way too small to show up on the scale of map we're talking about here. Unless we're going to fudge facts and artifically enlarge the islets essentially just to make a point, pretty much any map of Korea that's suitable for this page is going to by necessaity exclude Dokdo (as well as several hundred other extremely minor islands). --Zonath^Yak 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not necessary to show minor islands such as Dokdo. This would be consistent with other articles. Looking over the maps in a few other countries' articles: United Kingdom leaves out the smaller Channel Islands and Rockall, Chile doesn't show Easter Island or Sala-y-Gomez, Japan leaves off Dokdo as well as Senkaku, New Zealand leaves out the Chatham Islands among others, France leaves out a a number of islands (and surprisingly enough, even the quite notable French Guiana is not shown). United States shows Alaska and Hawaii, but not Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, or others. On the scale of a map of Korea, I think that Cheju-do definitely needs to be included, Ulleungdo probably merits inclusion but could reasonably be left off, and Dokdo can safely be omitted. --Reuben 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree highly. The inconsistance in the island names in other countries is a problem-we should be fixing that. And Dokdo is an island important not only through Korean nationalism, it symbolizes the hostility among Korea/Japan relations. Dokdo also carries a long history of the "dispute," and important evidence is included among it. Such an island CANNOT be omitted from Wikipedia. All our arguments would have been to waste, too. Oyo321 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Resilience of Korean Identity

I am a Korean American, recently my Grandfather from Korea visited me and we discussed Korean politics. I am on and off with my cultural pride (the main reason being other Koreans of my generation :-/) and because I am used to the ultra-patriotic, zealous Korean spirit from other friends and family (especially around World Cup time) it surprised me when my Grandfather said "Koreans are weak." (My Grandfather is in no way un-patriotic, he was just stating his views.) What he meant was that we are often dominated or "annexed" by neighboring powers. After going over the Korea article, it also occured to me that the Korean people were constantly being assailed by "stronger" powers but we still retained our cultural, and to some extent, our political identity. I was just curious to why. Any thoughts? Hot.pork 07:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the reason either, but it is very surprising and interesting that Korea has been keeping her identity in many ways through the whole history despite overwhelming influence of China. Korea could have been assimilated to China long time ago as many ethnic minorities did in China. (Japan is different. She was separated by water from the continent.). It's definitely worth some research :). Ginnre 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Its simply a power struggle. Good friend100 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hotpork how old is your grandfather? Reason for that is, if he is old enough to have been a grade school student during the annexation of Korea by Japan, there could be a possiblity of brainwashing. As you know, as Japan tried to destroy Korea and let it assimilate into Japanese culture, the Japanese reformed schools to talk, write, speak, act, support Japan. Escpecially young students during the annexation period. They continuosly hammered the false point homw-that Koreans suck and that they can't do anything.

It may be the brainwashing. Many elderly Koreans today still act and talk wrongly of Korea today, whereas the effects of the terrible "education" has still survived.

And I agree that Korea is very impressive. 5000 years of survival from China/Japan/Russia...escpecially China. Oyo321 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How to Make the Article Pass Next time

1. It is well written.

True, it is.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Obviously not, you have the unsourced tag on this page.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

No problems.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

It is fine in NPOV for such a controversial topic.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

This is where it fails. Your history record shows many reverts and constant vandalism. I suggest locking the page.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

Your images are just fine.

This article is excellent, though I seriously doubt the stability and verity of the references. Please lock this article and get reliable sources.

--Evan 01:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I lock the page? Good friend100 15:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If you do so, you'll want to request Semi-protection rather than full protection. If the page is fully protected, only administrators will be able to edit it. I'm not sure if semi-protection is a good idea here, or if the problems on this page rise to the level of those noted on Wikipedia:Semi-protection; however, the chronic vandalism and trolling here (and on other high-profile Korea pages) have long made serious editing difficult. I might even try to contribute to this page again if it was semi-protected.  :-) -- Visviva 11:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have requested protection at the page. Good friend100 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

retarded errors

HEIGHT of korea was not at 15th century, it was in 5th century when Gogureyo was at its maximum.

TURTLE SHIPS WERE NOT BUILT IN KING SEJONGS TIME WHOEVER WROTE THAT IS RETARDED

Maybe its vandalism. Good friend100 15:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of slave labor to build is it considered exploitation?

The use of slave labor to build bridges/roads for the purposes of invading Manchuria, building factories to support the war effort and build more railroads to mine for resources to take back to Japan for the purpose's of Japan's enrichment is exploitation. I know that the origin of the Japanese people, in addition to the origin of the yayoi and Japanese aggression in East Asia where more than 20 million people died is a touchy subject matter for the Japanese. I feel that building roads and bridges for the purposes of extracting mineral and deforestation of land, then taking them to Japan to enrich Japan are considered exploitation. The use of slave labor in my definition is considered exploitation. If this is not considered neurtal POV, please provide me the information were Japan did not use Korean slave labor and they did not extract resources for Japan's needs. Please provide me information about Mitsubishi and Mitsumi not using Korean slaves..

To write in this article that Korea underwent social and economic modernization without mentioning the exploitative reasoning would be a weasel word paragraph and is misleading. Also considering that 80 to 90% of the infrastruture in Korea was wiped out during the Korean War would make that sentence above pretty pointless. In addition, from the social modernization point of view, Korea doesn't adopt Japanese Facism but adopts Communism and Democratic society. So the social impact is pointless.

We already know most of the statistical info is pointless regarding the good Japan did in East Asia. Like the statistical info on people living longer or more schools being built, etc. It only has info about people living longer comparing 2 different time periods 1850s versus 1930's. That doesn't prove anything other than the fact people lived longer when comparing 1850 to 1930. I can give you statistical information about people living longer in 1960 compared to 1980. If Korea was left alone, what would the life expectancy have been, you won't know that so that information above is useless. And you have to subtract from the Japanese statistics information that included Japanese migrants in Korea.

In any event, you have to compare the stats to the world stats, what was the percentage increase in the world life expectancy. And all this info needs to be done with out including Japanese migrants in Korea which would skew the data of the quality of life for Koreans. Around this time their were huge medical break throughs such as Penicillin and information on how to prevent disease. Also, you would have to compare inforamtion with a country that went through a change without foreign influence/interference, lets take France, what was the quality of life for French citizens under a Monarchy then after a revolution what was the quality of life for french men in a democracy. Did the life expectancy increase in France between 1750 to 1850. Then how about 1850 and 1930. What was the life expectancy increase in France compared to Korea. You would have to make multiple comparisons with many countries to make any of this info relevent. You also have to look at information about Colonies. Lets take India, what was the increase in life expectancy for someone from India between 1850 and 1930. Did it increase. Did it increase more than Korea's life expectancy data. You would have to do multiple comparisons of many colonized countries in this situation also to make it relevent. Then you would have to compare the life expectancy increase in a non-colonized countries to a colonized countries. Did people in a non-colonized countries live longer compared to people in a colonized countries. You also need to get percentages cause their are huge population size differences. Then all of this info needs to be compared to what Korea's life expectancy would have been if left alone. We don't know that info, so the stat are useless. Anyways this doesn't tell you anything other than that people were better off in the world as a whole when comparing 1850 to 1930.

Then as population increases obviously more schools will be built. That in itself doesn't tell you anything other than, the more people you have the more schools you need. You would again have to compare this data with the world data, then you would have to compare it with how many schools would Korea have built if left alone. Again we don't have this info, so that is not very useful stats. You can't make any conclusion with the stats were Japan is trying to justify World War 2 in Asia. Also, the stat on more Japanese graduating in Korea from Med school and Law school than the Koreans themselves in Korea is something to investigate further.

In any event you can't mention social and economic modernization without including for the purposes of exploitation. I know this is a touchy subject for some people and they will delete it calling it POV, but to me slave labor and extracting resources to take back to another country is exploitation and I think most people will agree with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.23.83.100 (talk • contribs) 12:57, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you take the time to write your reasoning, but unfortunately it's still a strongly POV edit. The fact is many of the countries that modernized under Japanese control give tremendous credit (and even friendship today) to Japan. The kernel of fact in this statement is simply that Korea was modernized. We can even discuss whether its because Japan wanted to modernize all sectors of itself (since it firmly believed Korea to be part of Japan) or because they needed war materials, or whatever else. However, using the phrase "for its exploitative needs" really sounds like propaganda, and is not encyclopedic. Komdori 14:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Komdori & LactoseTI. You both are tremendously POV. I'll keep watch on this article, buddy. (Wikimachine 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

The use of slave labor to build bridges/roads for the purposes of invading Manchuria, building factories to support the war effort and build more railroads to mine for resources to take back to Japan for the purpose's of Japan's enrichment is exploitation

It doesn't matter if the other end of the Japanese rule did Korea good or not. It was still exploitative. Distinguish between the two, "my fellow Korean"(Wikimachine 15:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

It is true that Japan modernized Korea during Korea's annexation. Its kind of silly to think that a country eats up another country by force and then helps them advance in technology. By simply stating how Japan modernized Korea and how "if it wasn't for Japan, Korea wouldn't be as it would be now" is totally POV. If you actually think that Japan's objective was to modernize Korea during its occupation, you seriously need to retake a history class.

Japan occupied Korea for food, tress, people, metal, etc basically anything for WWII. After Japan surrendered in 1945, Korean mountains appeared an ugly brownish red color because ther were no trees on the mountains anymore because Japan stripped them all off. Thanks to Bak Chung-hee, Korean mountains appear the way they are today. Good friend100 20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

LactoseTI, your edits have weasel words, and even if I concede to not use the term "exploitative", I am definitely not letting "Syngman Rhee rule more brutal" statement go. You slipped in there, buddy. You made those changes while the discussion about them were already going on. That means that your changes must be unmade.

(Wikimachine 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Actually, it's not your fault. Some edits by anon user slipped in. (Wikimachine 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

poll

[1]

There is a debate whether or not to move the Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea article to a different title. If you would like to participate in the poll, please visit the talk page. Good friend100 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge articles North Korea and South Korea into Korea

Since Korea is one nation divided, we should merge North Korea and South Korea into this. My proposal is to keep all the information from these articles (barring any redundant/irrelevant/biased information) and put the information in the articles in their respective subsections in this one Korea article.

RigVeda 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Need I say more? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please justify why you disagree with this.

RigVeda 05:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike. North Korea and South Korea are two separate nations. Korea is a region and only a historical political entity. Ryūlóng 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. To say that Korea is simply a region and not a nation is untrue. Korea is inhabited by Koreans, the people of this nation.

RigVeda 05:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just it, though, "Korea" is not one nation. Ethnic Koreans live in two separate countries, "North Korea" and "South Korea." Was Germany one country between 1949 and 1991? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea is a specific entity that exists right now. South Korea is another separate entity. They are both two separate nation-states. Korea refers to the peninsula, or how it was united before. It is not united now. It is divided now, yes. As in, it is NOT one nation, and it has not been once since the 1950s. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nation: A part, or division, of the people of the earth,

distinguished from the rest by common descent, language,

or institutions; a race; a stock.

[1913 Webster]

Clearly Korea is one nation.

RigVeda 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, in 1913, Korea was a province of Japan. Let's not even play. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1913 Korea was occupied by the invading Japanese. But it still remained the nation of Korea. RigVeda 05:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea and South Korea are two separate political identities. They may have been united in the past as "Korea", but they are currently too different politically, economically, etc to ever be considered to be one state. They may have the same national identity, but they are not the same place; they have not been for over fifty years. Thus, this article will be about Korea as a former political identity and geographic region of East Asia. Ryūlóng 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. And please DNFT -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Only if I can merge North Dakota and South Dakota into Dakota. --Hemlock Martinis 05:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! Then let's merge North America and South America into America! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's already an article on Korea. Merging this article and the North Korea article into that one would do nothing more than greatly confuse people and make the article too long. Having separate articles for North Korea and South Korea also makes perfect sense, even if they do comprise one 'nation' (which is dubious at best), since they would be political divisions of that putative nation. I don't see anyone arguing that the article on New Mexico should be merged with the article on The United States of America, do you? --Zonath^Yak 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Zonath: User talk:RigVeda was trolling for a reaction...which he got. He has now been indefinitely blocked for his trouble. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we not going to unite West Virginia and Virginia then? Ryūlóng 07:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Corea

Why don't we change the name of "Korea" to "Corea?" Historically correct, though less common. Oyo321 05:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You answered your own question. As Corea is less common than Korea, renaming to Corea does not conform to the establishd naming convension, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Kusunose 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism??

What is going on with this article? Some one please correct the grammar in the Goryeo section;

In 1238, the Mongolian Empire invaded. After nearly thirty years of war, the two sides signed a treaty that favored the Mongols. Korea requested the Japan conquest to Mongolia in 1279. When Mongolia started invading in Japan, Korea was engaged in a Mongolian army. In the 1340s, the Mongol Empire declined rapidly due to internal strife, and Korea was able to pursue political reform without Mongol interference. At this time, General Yi Seong-gye distinguished himself by repelling Japan-based pirates, known as Wokou.

And what is with all these Japanese references. Please for the english version of wikipedia please use english references. You can use a Japanese reference, but if you do please add additional english references. Other people might not be able to verify Japanese sources written only in Japanese. I do remember from east Asian studies courses, that Korea and mainland Asia as a whole believed Japan would be easy prey for the Mongolians, cause they were not centrally organized (they hadn't gone through their fuedal system yet) and lacked the sophistication (weapons technology, etc) that the mainland had. I'm not saying that the Japanese references are wrong, cause I do vaguely remember reading about it at one point with the reason above as their logic for invading Japan, but I would perfer for the english version of wikipedia to have english sources in addition to the Japanese source.

Now what's going on with this section.

For more than 30 years under the Japanese occupation, To make a Korean peninsula a Asia front base, Japan did an enormous investment to a Korean peninsula. Therefore, A lot of Korean capitalists were born by the modernization of Japan. Infrastructure of a Korean peninsula has developed very much. , and traditional Korean culture suffered heavy losses by the modern culture that Japan had introduced. The Korean language was banned in official documents and Koreans were obligated to adopt Japanese names. Numerous Korean cultural artifacts were numbered and managed(This numbering system has been left in South Korea), destroyed or taken to Japan. To this day, valuable Korean artifacts can often be found in Japanese museums or among private collectors.destroyed or taken to Japan. According to the investigation of the South Korea government, There are 75,311 cultural assets that were taken from Korea. Japan has 34,369, The United States has 17,803. A lot of Koreans think the cultural asset to have been stolen by Japan. Therefore, A present South Korean steals the cultural asset of Japan.

One I'm not sure how that modernization statement is suppose add to the article, after the Korean War Korea's infrastruture was 80-90% destroyed. And most of the modernization was for the purpose's of exploitative needs and not investments in good will. Next the bottom sentence is silly cause you are talking about people taking back ancient cultural assets of Korea. The artifacts/items in question were made by Koreans so to call it cultural assets of Japan is misleading and a weasel word sentence.

Which part is Vandalism?　You must explain based on the source. In your insistence, the bias to the Japanese is not a strong, neutral aspect.--61.116.115.189 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought someone was trying to vandalize cause some of the logic was so silly. How is colonization and slave labor good for the country that was invaded. Also, you can't make any absolute analysis of modernization cause you don't know how Korea would have modernized with out the foreign invasions. Could their have been a better industrialization of Korea that was good for the Koreans themselves versus the exploitative nature of their industrialization with Japan. Then you have to take in to account that 80 to 90% of Korea's modernization or infrastruture was completely destroyed after the Korean war. Anyways until someone can explain how slave labor is good for the slave and not exploitative, I'm going to have to insist on changing the above paragraph. --4.23.83.100 12:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just edit the article! If it is vandalism, edit and fix it. Nobody's going to stop you from doing a good thing. Good friend100 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Work towards consensus

Hi folks, let's work towards a consensus version of the article. I have tried to make a first start that with a version that should be reasonably neutral, and cleans up some of the more glaring language issues. I encourage all parties to participate in the talk page and say what problems they have with this version. I think we should be able to have a consensus, as the recent edit wars are basically about presentation rather than substance. --Reuben 02:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Reuben, You misinterpret and are writing the content being written in the source. (You are writing a content that insists by Eckerd and is opposite. )　Your edit is not neutral. You be based on data, and write an academic article?　--219.66.44.84 10:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What part are you talking about? I'm really not sure what you mean, since my version and yours mostly say the same thing, except that yours has lots of run-on sentences and grammatical errors. --Reuben 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

...But my main objection is to the comparison of Syngman Rhee and Japanese occupation. That sentence makes a value judgement that I can't see passing NPOV muster. Do you care about that sentence, or did you just include it as part of the past version you're reverting to? --Reuben 15:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please write your objection concretely. I want to offer data to your rebuttal. --211.3.124.93 18:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a right behavior that corrects a wrong grammar. However, the act of falsifying the source is not correct. "Cruel Japan" is a wish of the South Korean, and it is not true. Economics person's Eckerd is evaluating the modernization campaign for Japan investigating Korean's capitalists. --211.3.124.93 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about "falsifying the source." "Cruel Japan" doesn't appear anywhere in the text, so what are you referring to? I really don't know what part of the article you're referring to when you keep talking about "falsifying the source."

As for my concrete objection, my main objection is to the statement that the Rhee administration was "more brutal" than the Japanese colonial government. This is an inherently POV value judgement, and it's not really on topic to the section it appeared in. The article should describe the facts, such as the Jeju massacre, but not make loaded comparisons. --Reuben 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Any other editors care to weigh in on this? I suspect there's a consensus for not having the article say "The rule of Syngman Rhee was more brutal than Japanese occupation," and I'd like to hear from others. --Reuben 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not pertinent here. For such a potentially inflammatory statement to be made at all requires significant support, specifying which scholars assert it and on what grounds. If a statement like this does belong in Wikipedia, it belongs in First Republic of South Korea, not in a general survey article like Korea. -- Visviva 07:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Korean editors of this article?

Does this article have any Korean editors, it is simply not neutral point of view, it is biased towards the white man.

65.97.14.167 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Point out what exactly is not NPOV, and you are encouraged to edit it as well in a NPOV manner yourself. Race- and ethnicity-based attacks are not well-taken. --Nlu (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimming

I'd like to trim the History section to one paragraph per major period, i.e. one paragraph for each of the currently existing sections, such that the entire section fills one screen, or at least less than two screens, in a typical browser view. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, the "History" section here should summarize the information in History of Korea, which summarizes the full details present in the individual period articles. At the moment we have an embarrassment of detail, particularly regarding the comparatively brief Japanese occupation. -- Visviva 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thoughts? -- Visviva 08:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this so that we can put more details in History of Korea, North Korea, South Korea, etc? Good friend100 13:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the general idea; Korea should provide a very general survey of and introduction to Korea. Articles with more specific topics should provide commensurately more detail. Consider History of Korea --> History of South Korea --> First Republic of South Korea --> April Revolution.

Since "History" is just one aspect of Korea, I think it's best to keep it to standard section length, i.e. about one screenful of text. -- Visviva 13:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort on the article. Shouldn't the history part be at least categorized and subcategorized with each period? It would be like the Japan article. Good friend100 15:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this trimming is working out. It is following western or European format of categorization. Most Asian histories are divided in to Dynasties not pre-history, medivial history, and modern history. The timing and impact of significant innovations/events in Asia are different than in Europe, so it doesn't make sense to follow western categorization. Also we need to re-edit the categories to reflect the amount of time it encompassed. For example the Japanese occupation is only 35 years but the paragraph is longer than the 300 years of unified Silla section. If you want to shorten this article we should shorten everything proportionately and equally and move the majority of the information to the history section or various other related sections. In addition, this trimming edit erased significant links, mostly from the Japanese occupation section, such as murder of Empress Min, Japanese War crimes, and many more links that were available in previous article. We should go back to the old format & article and trim that article instead of this re-categorization. Certain events such as the murder of Empress Min is highly significant in Korean history and should not be relegated to a "See Also" link or in this articles case, not even be mentioned at all. This event should be in the body of the paragraph. Please reconsider this current edit, if Queen Elizabeth had been murdered, I think it would be mentioned in the England main article instead of being linked as "See Also" or delegated to some small difficult to find history link. I'm going to revert back to the old article after I hear some feed back. Thanks --Tyler 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's obvious that I disagree. I certainly wasn't trying to follow European categorization, and one can find plenty of works on Korean history that follow similar schemes. I also think the Japan article's history section is bloated. See India#History for a much better example of what a history section should be. India is a featured article, while Japan does not even have GA status.

I'm not sure why the murder of Queen Min is that much more important than the murders of Jeong Mong-ju, Prince Sado, etc., but as long as it is presented in a simple and clear way that does not invite elaboration I don't personally object to its inclusion. The problem is that its previous inclusion invited the piling-on of detail upon trivial POV-pushing detail. I think we serve Wikipedia much better in the long run by keeping this section short and sweet, and describing controversial details in more specialized articles.

Even if you feel the need to restore a lot of the old content, please don't just revert. The reason I felt the need to step in is that the section was not only bloated, but full of self-contradiction, bizarre unreferenced claims, and random insertions of Korean and Japanese nationalist POV. Rewriting from scratch would be a much better option, if you really think it's necessary. If you do that maybe you can give us a better set of in-line citations too. Happiness, -- Visviva 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Koreans were Accomplice of Japanese war crimes. A lot of Korean servicemen found guilty in Tokyo war crimes tribuna" why has this been editted? from Koreans became victims of Japanese War Crimes to Koreans were Accomplices of Japanaese war crimes. now, of course many Koreans were forced into the Imperial Army and abused and killed POW's during the war but it leaves out crimes the Japanese inflicted on Koreans such as starvation,Mass Killings, Experiments on human beings, comfort women etc etc

Recently changed by anon, now fixed. An excellent demonstration of my point, above, although it seems clear that much more cleanup is needed. -- Visviva 04:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The significance of Empress Min's death was that it was committed by foreignors. If the French royal family as killed by Germans the signifance would change in France also. If the Royal family in England were killed by German Nazi's the significance would be different than nobles being killed from internal civil unrest. Also, this was a prelude to what was to come with Japan and it adds credit to government officials in Korea who stated they signed treaties with Japan under duress. The reason for use of European style categorization is to let westerners have a sense of time frame reference. In most cases if that style is used the category is subdivided again into dynasties. Your not going to get away from the trivial POV that random users keep adding. Even on your edit it is happening again, the only difference is the trivial POV have much more of an impact cause the explaination in the Japanese occupation section is short and vague. A long time ago that section was a 5 sentence paragraph, people kept adding to it and it got to be the size it is now. --4.23.83.100 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

조선사편수회

Anybody who is interested in Joseonsa_Pyeonsuhoe, please edit the article--Hairwizard91 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)