Talk:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea/Archive 2

Article Content

The name of this article is "Anti-Japanese Sentiment in Korea," yet the article seems like it deals more about the history of the relations between Japan and Korea rather than the relationship between them. In that case, propose that the relevant contents of this article be merged to History of Japan–Korea relations (per WP: CRITERIA) or change the contents so that they reflect the title.kkj11210 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This page does not say very much about "Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" but reads more like a justification, like, "here are all the reasons why it is completely justified for all Koreans to hate all Japanese nearly a century after they had anything to do with each other..." The article should be re-written almost completely or else just retitled, "Why Koreans Hate Japan". It would not be so misleading. 72.26.42.23 (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)NWA

Lack of a corresponding page about Japanese attitudes

Why is there no page of Anti-Korean sentiments in Japan? Without it this page looks like a stitch up job. Massacres and racism in Japan against Koreans would seem to me to exceed mere sentiment but there is plenty else. DMC (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought. . .

There should be some mention of the overwhelming affinity between Koreans and Japanese when it comes to pop culture and the close economic and cultural relationships. I would wager that Japanese people as a country will be either first or second in terms of the number of individual familial, friendships and business relationships with Koreans. Many Koreans have at least one Japanese acquaintance or business partner they respect and admire.

The relationships between Koreans and Japanese are complex and multilayered. While we are angered by Japanese atrocities in WW2 and Occupation of Korea 1910-1945, we also admire and respect Japanese culture and craftmanship - Zojirushi rice cookers were the rage in Korea even during the 1980's before globalized world trade and Toyota/Lexus cars are favored even amongst older Korean Americans who remember the discrimination they faced during the Occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanhwe.kim (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that idea. Being Korean myself, I think that Japan and Korea are very related -such as both having simular grammer. If only Japan would apologize for the atrocities committed during the war, and if Korea dropped the idea of Japan being the root of evil.... perhaps...? --Ispin (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of war apology statements issued by Japan. I think Japan has apologized many times... What do you need more...? Being Japanese myself, I do not understand what the Korean people want Japan to do...--Seven-Year Child (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because Japan as a nation has never shown genuine remorse for the war but has instead always rationalised its aims. Nevertheless you both misunderstand Wikipedia. it is not a place to air politically correct statements or take up political grievances. Stick to giving accurate information. DMC (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

2channel's watchlist

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on the watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets related to the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

• Relevant articles.
  • Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets (in WP:ANI archive380)
  • Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 (diff 1diff 2)
  • Special:Whatlinkshere(see the RFCU and SSP files)

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for merge

I think this article is still not fully developed yet, and Anti-Japanese sentiment culture of Korea looks like a collection list containing several items. I suggest the latter is merged to this article. --Appletrees (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Imperial family with Korean roots?

Let me explain why the whole section should be removed.

Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history, with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan. In Japan this history is downplayed or omitted causing anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. The terms that Japan prefer instead of Korea is "the peninsula", "mainland" or the all encompassing China. If they decide to mention Korea there seems to be a odd need to write "via" Korea instead of just Korea. When Japan is asked about "the peninsula" usage the answer is that Korea as we know it did not exist at the time, but Japan does not oppose using the term "Japan" or "China" which also did not exist as we know it at that time. This odd practice has added to the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

There is no supporting evidence so fat. Japan prefers to call Korea "the peninsula". I've never heard such an idea. Japan calls Korea "the peninsula" because Korea as we know it did not exist at the time? There is no source for this claim. This section should be removed because there is no supporting evidence.

Emperor Kammu's grandfather was Korean but this is not mentioned often in Japan nor is it studied

Shoku Nihongi says that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of Korean ancestory. But there is no proof that this is not mentioned often in Japan nor is it studied.

indept to find their Korean lineage, instead Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists

The source, the website of National Geographic, doesn't say anything like this. The website does not say anything about Emperor Kammu. It is true that Imperial tombs are blocked but the website does not say it is because of the Korean lineage. This is not a proper citation.

and historiacal errors from the early 1900s are not updated.

This is not a fact but a claim by DPRK. This matter is controversial and gf you want to mention this website, you should say say "DPRK claims....". Besides, this section is about the Imperial family, isn't it? What does "the early 1900s" have to do with this section?

The National geographics wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"

You can see the word "rumors". The source does not say Japan denies the connection between Korea and the Imperial family or anything like that.

Other historians have pointed to "Korean type pottery, crowns, earrings, and weapons are artifacts that are commonly found in fifth century Japanese tombs, and the stone-corridor-and-chambered tombs in northern Kyūshū are perhaps “the tombs of descendents of Koguryŏ immigrants from Korea." and "The importation of Korea-style jewelry at this time implies [that]…the techniques of inlaying and inscribing also entered Japan in the fifth century. Once again it seems apparent that peninsular master metalworkers taught the native of the island their important skills.” (Farris, 1996: 13)"

It is true that Japan learned a lot from Korea. However, it does not have anything to do with the article because the next sentence is not properly cited.

Whenever the Japanese downplay these facts, it causes tension and mistrust in Korea.

There is no source for this sentence. When and how did the Japanese downplay these facts? When the "denial" caused tension and mistrust in Korea? There is no supporting evidence for this claim.

Many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea, "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings" The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

It is true that many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea. But there is no source for the claim that Japan "denies" these facts.

In conclusion, this section has several sources but most of them are irrelevant or not properly cited. Moreover, the section repeatedly uses the word "denial", but there is no evidence that Japan "denies" these "facts".

Therefore, this section should be removed from wikipedia.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Research II

>>This pirate raids were considered a nuisance in Korea disrupting commerce much like the pirate raids of today in Somolia.

Much like the pirate raids of today in Somalia? Perfectly original research.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Je suis tres fatigue's blanking campaign

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich

I'm tired of dealing with all the same people who are likely sockpuppeters of banned users withe same agendas. According to the new user's logic, any sourced information should stay when it comes to Korea regardless of the fact that what he added is totally irrelevant to the main topic, and the source is a primary source with no secondary backups. Wokou itself means "Japanese pirate, or thief", but Je suis tres fatigue tries to inflate the fake Japanese pirates based on only a primary source to decrease the bad reputation of Japanese pirates. Moreover, to my eyes, his obsession with his opponent Objectiveye (talk · contribs) drives him into the blanking campaign to delete his edits as "original research". However since his disruptive edit to Kumdo and he even labeled my valid edits of sourcing with various reliable sources as the false labeling, so I can not trust this guy's ongoing blanking campaign.--Caspian blue 13:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand you at all. You say that I deleted sourced information but I never did. My disruptive edit to Kumdo?? Did I label your valid edits of sourcing with various reliable sources as the false labeling?? I don't understand what you are referring to. As you can see here, all I did on Kumdo in the end is to remove the sentence "Kumdo is distinctive from japanese Kendo", which is not sourced, and to add tags such as {{fact}} and {{who}}. Is this disruptive? Which sentence are you calling your "valid edits"? When did I remove your sentences? I never added any information without sources. Your claim that "according to my logic, any sourced information can be added regardless of whether it is relevant or not" does not make sense at all. When did I add information irrelevant to the article?

I believe my deleting of Objectiveye's edit makes sense because his claim does not have anything to do with the article. It is true that Japan learned much from Korea. But the claim that Japan denies the "fact" and that causes Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea is purely an original research. I think you actually understand what I want to say.

Anyway, I don't understand what you are calling "my logic" since all I did so far is to delete unsourced sentences and to add some tags.

If your referring to my adding the sentence "According to Sejong Sillok(世宗實錄), one to two out of ten members of wokou were Japanese and the rest were lowly people from Korea" is irrelevant to the article, I am ready to remove it although it is sourced. I have no intention to decrease the bad reputation of the pirates. I just tried to add the fact that the "Japanese" pirates were made up of people from various countries and they were rather stateless, which is mentioned on wokou. If many readers think this fact is not needed in this article, I am quite ready to remove the sentence. Actually, I already did.

All I want to do is to remove original researches and false information, which disrupt articles. I don't intend to add any new information for the time being. I have just removed the sentence you regard irrelevant. I think now you have nothing to complain about.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Which do you think is better?

Previous Version
==Japanese Imperial family with Korean roots==
Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history, with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan. In Japan this history is downplayed or omitted causing anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. Emperor Kammu's grandfather was recorded to be of Korean ancestry but this is disputed by some Japanese historians, citing the source as unreliable. Accordingly, Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists, and historical errors from the early 1900s are not updated. The National geographics wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea" Other historians have pointed to "Korean type pottery, crowns, earrings, and weapons are artifacts that are commonly found in fifth century Japanese tombs, and the stone-corridor-and-chambered tombs in northern Kyūshū are perhaps “the tombs of descendents of Koguryŏ immigrants from Korea." and "The importation of Korea-style jewelry at this time implies [that]…the techniques of inlaying and inscribing also entered Japan in the fifth century. Once again it seems apparent that peninsular master metalworkers taught the native of the island their important skills.” (Farris, 1996: 13)" Many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea, "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings" The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

My version
==Relation between the Japanese Imperial Family and Korea==
Japan and Korea have had close relations throughout history. The record that Emperor Kammu's mother, Takano no Niigasa, was the tenth descendant of Muryeong of Baekje is an example. There are rumours that the Japanese officials fear that the bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea would be revealed one day and some believe this is the reason why Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists. These kinds of rumours sometimes stimulate Koreans' anti-Japanese sentiment.

Don't you think my version is far much better than the current version? I think the previous version is too offensive and Korean-sided. My version is much more nutral. It is much easier to read and understand, too. My version is also more detailed (It mentions Takano no Niigasa). If there is no objection with in a week, I will change the current version to mine.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

No. Not far better, unfortunately. You blanked out information and citation without any reason and Japan-sided such as "These kinds of rumours sometimes stimulate Koreans' anti-Japanese sentiment.". If you think your version is better, that is your POV.--Caspian blue 08:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But I cited the rumor from the National Geographics's website. I only removed the phrase "historical errors from the early 1900s are not updated" because it does not have anything to do with the relations between the Imperial family and Korea. It is not "blanking".

I left all the other pieces of information described in the previous version except those without citation.

Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history, with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan. In Japan this history is downplayed or omitted causing anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

These phrases do not have any citations although they are the most important information for this section. It is true that Korea transmitted major technological advances to Japan, but Japan also transmitted major technological advances to Korea in modern times. Stationg only about Korean technology is not nutral. There is no citation that describes that Japan "downplays" or "denies" these "facts". There is no citation for

The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea

either.

The previous version states that the Japanese "denial" is the reason for anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. But the website of national geographic states that it is only a "rumor" that the Japanese officials blocked the tumbs fearing that the bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea would be revealed. That's why I descriped that "These kinds of rumours sometimes stimulate Koreans' anti-Japanese sentiment" because there is no source that shows that the Japanese deny these facts although there is a source that shows that the there are rumours that the Japanese are trying to deny the relationship between the Imperial family and Korea.

This is why I think my edition is much better and nutral than the previous version. The previous version is too offensive and do not have source for that most important information. If you think the previous version is better, that is you POV.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Most important would be to use sources that deal with the topic in a more comprehensive way, instead of putting together bits of information from news articles. I don't think that the issue of the ethnicity of a grandfather of a Japanese emperor should be the main focus of the first section of this article, as anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea most likely has more important causes and origins.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean we don't need the whole first section? If so, I cannot agree with you more because the first section seems like original research and is not important. It may have sources for the relation between ancient Japan and Korea, but it has no sources that proves that Japan is "downplaying" and "denying" that kind of things and that Japanese "denial" is causing anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. --Seven-Year Child (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say whether the article should contain the section. We need sources that specifically say that the information presented in the section is connected to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. This may well be the case. I doubt, however, that this is an important aspect of the causes of this sentiment. Moreover, the article should not just present the causes and origins of that sentiment, but also describe what kinds of expression of that sentiment are most prevalent etc.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain what is "too offensive"? Unless you explain your assessment to us, we don't read your mind. Moreover, don't forget that this article is not about Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.--Caspian blue 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"this article is not about Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea"? Isn't it? Then, what is it about? This article is about Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, isn't it?

I think every Japanese would think the current version is offensive to the Japanese because it talks as if it's all Japan's fault that Koreans have anti-Japanese sentiment. For example, words like "downplay" and "denial" are not sourced and give readers impression that Japanese are to blame although the matter is more complicated. The section also gives readers impression that the relation between Japan and Korea has been a one-way trade and only Korea transmitted things to Japan although Japan also transmitted a lot of things to Korea. --Seven-Year Child (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I misspelled "anti-Korean sentiment" and you know it. Show the evidence that Japan transmitted Korea a lot of things in ancient time. If you want to blame the wording, you must ask the question to the original editor. I asked your explanation because you changed a lot of content without any rationale nor justification.--Caspian blue 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The magatama was used as a decoration of the ancient Korean crown, but was transmitted from Japan. It is the indirect evidence that trade product from Japan has been done convenience of in Korea. According to the Book of Sui, the ancient history record of China, Korea respected Japan as a great country with many rare products and kept trading. FYI.--Arstriker (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Gogok or as the Japanese called them, 'magatamas' are of Altaic (Scythian) origin. Definitely not from the Japanese archipelago. Gogoks came to Japan by the way of Southern Korean kingdoms such as the Gaya Confederacy, further evidence of Korean presence in Japan. See Pazyryk burials. Akkies (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazing... I learnt gogok theory for the first time... However, the oldest magatama in the world was discovered in Japan, and it is the one in 5000 in B.C.. Moreover, jadeite(not nephrite) is produced only in Japan and Burma in the asia though jadeite is used for the magatama.--Arstriker (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

--Caspian blue 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I misspelled "anti-Korean sentiment" and you know it.

How should I know it...? Besides, I have not mention anything about anti-Korean sentiment.

Show the evidence that Japan transmitted Korea a lot of things in ancient time.

I didn't say Japan transmitted a lot of things to Korea in ancient times. The original section says

Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history, with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan.

It says "throughout history", not "in ancient times" and this sentence sounds as if Korea has been transmitting major technological advances to Japan throughout history and Japan has never transmitted anything to Korea.
I believe the best way to solve this issue is to remove the whole section because there is no source that shows Japan has been downplaying or denying facts or that the Japanese "denial" is the reason for the Koreans' anti-Japanese sentiment. The section does not make sense to begin with. My version is at least far better because it is much more nutral.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that no one has come here for a few days. I think the best way to solve this problem is to remove the section because it is only a patchwork of inconsistent pieces of information and is lacking of comprehensive information sources. If nobody comes here by the 11th of March to object, I will put my idea of removing the section into practice.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN --Caspian blue 15:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia...

Am I?

If you are against my proposal, please say something, not just adding WP:BAN. I am ready for discussion.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad.--Caspian blue 15:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I read WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad but I do not understand what is the problem. What do you want to say I should do? The page says

(Users will be banned) for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other users

but what problem have I made?--Seven-Year Child (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Caspian blue, if you think there are severe problems with Seven-Year Child, please pursue appropriate steps for dispute resolution. Statements that can be legitimately perceived as threats, but don't contain any arguments that might help us to improve the article are inappropriate. Such statements are especially unhelpful on talk pages like this one.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware, but Caspian blue and a certain user here have a long and convoluted history together. Now I've advised Caspain blue to quit entertaining this sock, which I believe is what he's doing right now. Akkies (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Akkies, that should be talked here?Arstriker (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems nobody objects to my idea of removing the section. I'll wait one more day. If there is no objection, I'll remove it. If you try to object, please explain the reason in detail.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading image caption

The image on this page has the caption "Arirang is a Korean language movie that the Korean film director Na Woon-gyu produced in 1926", while showing the poster for a remake done in 1957. This is made even worse by the image itself being titled Arirang 1926 poster in Wikimedia. I couldn't find a documented way to have the name changed in Wikimedia. Anyway, this caption needs clarification.

Reference: http://www.kmdb.or.kr/movie/md_basic.asp?nation=K&p_dataid=00323&keyword=%BE%C6%B8%AE%B6%FB (In Korean, but the poster and the number 1957 are easi to spot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. It is not a poster of 1926 movie. "故春史20回忌追悼記念作品" on the top. It means "In memory of late Na Woon-gyu (pen name 春史) on the 20th anniversary". 原作:羅雲奎 is Original work:Na Woon-gyu. The words on the top right, 監督、脚色　金蘇東 is Direction, Adaptation by Kim??. It's a poster of a 1957 remake of a 1926 silent film. The poster of the original film must be this. Oda Mari (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)