Talk:Korea/Archive 4

discussion archive 1

---

Anonymous note

I am going to attempt a rehaul of this page and all other Korea-related articles. Please be patient as I make the edits. I will offer evidence as I go along, but not immediately. So, I'd like to ask you to not revert or edit out things until I am done. Thank you.--222.233.205.96 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Please make sure that your edits can stand on their own merit. We are all equal here, and we are all working toward better coverage of Korea-related topics. If your edits abide by our shared policies of NPOV and verifiability, then you should not have to worry about being reverted or edited out.

Also, in the future, please place your talk page comments at the bottom of the talk page. This can be most efficiently done by clicking the "+" tab above. Have a nice day! -- Visviva 11:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Korea

Do most people mean "South Korea" when they say "Korea"? If so, does it merit a mention beyond linking to the disambiguation page? -- Visviva 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

from what i've seen, in the media, korea is often used as second mention (after id'ing south korea first) for south korea, and, less often, as second mention for north korea. the intro can be clarified further, as meaning some combination of the civilization, former united country, both south & north korea together, & sometimes just south korea. but i think defining it mainly as the geographic peninsula is inappropriate since there is a separate article Korean peninsula. Appleby 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, what you're effectively doing is allowing people to continue to refer to Korea as the "Korean peninsula" and not "Korea", especially in the context of ancient history. I find it very frustrating to see people talk about "Japan", "China", and the "Korean peninsula" when referring to this period. I think the Korea article should be modeled after the China article in saying that this is a "geographical region" and a "civilization" at the same time. Don't you think having THREE Korea articles (Korea, Korean peninsula, and South Korea) is confusing? Also, the Korea article is the weakest one and yet, this is the one most people will find first.

In addition, I think there should be a link saying "For the state known as Korea in common usage, see Republic of Korea." When people refer to "Korea", about 90% of the time they're talking about South Korea and 10% of the time about the Korean peninsula.--Mapo 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right, it is generally defined as the peninsula in other encyclopedias & dictionaries. i thought we could distinguish the geographic korean peninsula article from this one, but that creates consistency problems, especially in historical contexts.

how about something like:

Korea refers to the former country and ancient civilization on the Korean peninsula in East Asia. The Korean people are a homogeneous ethnic group, speaking the distinct Korean language and using the unique script Hangul.

Since 1948, Korea has been partitioned into the Communist North Korea and the liberal democracy South Korea. In modern usage, "Korea" often refers to South Korea or, less commonly, North Korea individually. Appleby 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who refers to North Korea as simply "Korea". That's why I've changed the text at the top of the article so that the modern state redirect points to the Republic of Korea article.--Sir Edgar 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to Appleby. Korea refers to North and/or South Korea from the context. If appleby insist so, please show reputable sources.--Mochi 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of Korea (South Korea) is the dominant power on the Korean Peninsula. When people say "Korea", they are referring to either the Korean Peninsula, South Korea, or both South and North Korea together, not North Korea. Most people who read this article will also want to look at the South Korea article. Anyhow, there is already a link for North Korea in the introduction.

The China article does the same thing by referring readers to the People's Republic of China article for more information.--Sir Edgar 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

longest dynasty

trying to put an end to the long dynasty silliness:

• longest-lived dynasty in East Asian history [1]
• perhaps the longest-lived actively ruling dynasty in East Asia [2]
• one of the longest periods of domination by a single dynasty in world history [3]
• one of the world's longest continuously ruling royal families [4] [5]

Appleby 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

March 1st Movement

My recent edit, which is reverted by Appleby, removed the qualifier 'General Governor-General of Korea', which is changed from 'Japanese' by Kamosuke, from 'police and soldiers' and reference to Britanica which supports the use of 'Japanese' adjective. I forgot to comment my reasoning so here goes: at the time, Korea was part of Japan; protestants ware of Japanese nationality and killed by police and soldiers of their own country. They were not killed by foreign organizations thus the qualifier is not neccesary. --Kusunose 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think calling Japanese colonialists who suppressed the movement "police and solider of their (the protestors) country" is a bit of stretch. I agree with Appleby's edits; Korea may have been annexed by Japan at the time, but the protesters were ethnically and culturally Korean. The whole point of the movement was to demonstrate Korean desire for independence and such. The excerpt has to be clear on the sense that the movement was largely Korean, and was oppressed by Japanese opposition. Calling the oppressors "police and soldiers' creates the confusion that the movement was suppressed by Korean authorities, not Japanese authorities. Granted, some people who participated in the suppression were Korean soldier detachment, but the suppression of the movement itself was orchestrated by Japanese authorities. I think that's similar to stating that ghetto uprising movement was suppressed by their(Polish jew's) own "police and soldiers", when it was largely suppressed by Nazi authorities and soldiers with small Polish detachment. Deiaemeth 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If only the fact is written, 'General Governor-General of Korea' is a correct answer. Simply, the insistence of the Korean that most Koreans resisted Japan is a mistake. The Korean doesn't agree. However, a lot of South Koreans supported the modernization of a Korean peninsula by Japan. (Their descendant is suppressed in present South Korea. )--Kamosuke 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke always try to change the subject about the Japanese's brutally supressed his neibour countries in World war2, like the present Japanese official; deny the past wrong doing. No wonder Japan can not become the permenent menber in the United Nations. In Vietnam War. Japan only tried to make money while Korean helped to fight the Communists.

The phrase "Fabrication of the history" exists for the Koreans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.159.231.103 (talk • contribs)

Denial of past doings is not just a Japanese theme. Let's not be jingoistic here. There are more incidents of US denial of events that later were proven to be true (El Mozote, El Salvador, Guatemala, My Lai, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. and more). If necessary, I will be glad to list them in the spirit of compromise, learning, and truth. In so far as Japan not being a member of the security council for the United Nations, well the switch or what some academic enthusiasts call betrayal by the US (Shanghai communique) of Taiwan being removed and replaced by China within the United Nations has a lot to do with that since China has a large influence in refusing Japan that opportunity. Regardless of what others think about China standing up for principles, if Japan names the right price, then opposition for its entry into the security council will be disabused. We forget that China has had recent imperialistic ambitions and committed recent atrocities (in comparison to past) (Kashmir and Tibet). I think the previous comment about the fabrication of history is wrongly applied to Korea alone, it is existent in Japan, US, Soviet Union, and other countries. Unfortunately the fabrication of history is a dilemma for all historians of almost every country. In reference to the Korean war, yes Japan made money off of it, but South Koreans massacred innocent Vietnamese during that war (Binh Dinh and others). Look that up and read some more about the Vietnam War. Ill be glad to send you military and civilian documentation of this aforementioned event. Just respond below with request.Its ironic you use this fact immediately following your accusation of denial of atrocities by Japan though, LOL.

"North" before "South"

In English, we generally mention North before South. I am fully aware that South Korea is more prominent in politics, economics, etc. and agree that when we talk of "Korea" we should refer to the South. However, in most instances, I think North should be mentioned first.

Although I agree that in English language geography North comes before South, since the 1970s South Korea has emerged as the dominant power on the peninsula while North Korea has stagnated. Thus, when we refer to "Korea", we are usually talking about South Korea. So, I am reverting the order back to South Korea first, then North Korea. In addition, I know that in the Korean language it goes "East-West-South-North".--Sir Edgar 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which goes FIRST in the Korean language. In the English Wikipedia, North goes before South.

Images

I find the images for this article severely lacking. Can anyone get another image of Korea to avoid repeating the same one from the Korean Peninsula article? Also, the other images appear really old, especially the one with the hanbok.

I've noticed someone putting up some great new images. The one of the Buddhist scroll is really nice. But can we please get something to replace the hanbok one. In my opinion, it looks ugly. I've seen much prettier hanbok in Korea.--Sir Edgar 00:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

that would be me, but it's tough finding gfdl or creative commons images. there are some more pics i got from flickr at my subpage User:Appleby/Images. feel free to use, esp the food pics.

we're safe (as i understand the rules) if the author died more than 100 yrs ago, but this only applies to photos of 2-dimensional works. it'd be nice to get more images of sculpture/pottery/artifacts, but then the photographer has to release the image. anyone know of a good online gallery of old korean paintings? Appleby 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those images. But how can you tell which are safe to use? Also, do you think you could find one to replace the map? This is the same one used for the Korean Peninsula article. It doesn't need to be another map. For example, the China article uses a beautiful picture of the Great Wall at sunrise as a symbolic image for the country. Perhaps Gyeongbokgung or an image from Gyeongju? Also, we should include modern images in this article, too, like one of downtown Seoul.--Sir Edgar 00:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am currently living in Seoul, I could provide images but do not know how to do so. For downtown Seoul an image from Namsan would be good I believe and Gyeongbokgung is also easy to take pictures of. It is probable that I could get other images too (for instance I have several from the Yeoido Cherry Blossom festival) Is there a list of desired Images? and if not should we make one? Rufusde 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! The Yeoido pictures would be most excellent. Maybe you could also take some pictures of Korean traditions like taekwondo and perhaps even performances of gayageum and the fan dance, if possible. We also need better pictures of the hanbok.--Sir Edgar 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

at the top of this very page, there's a template box of korea-related links. on the last line, "Tasks you can help with," if you click on [show], the current requests will drop down. take a look & edit boldly, it's some pretty nifty trick by visviva. Appleby 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Korea" in hangul

How come "Korea" in hangul was removed from the intro? Am I the only one that finds that to be beneficial? Hong Qi Gong 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i was trying to make the sentence readable. i know the native script is usually in the first mention, but in this case, there are two separate native words, each with 2 romanizations and hanja. in the previous version, i counted 18 words between "korea" and "is"!!! this was part of the reason for creating the names of korea section in the first place. if you feel strongly about it, i won't object, though. Appleby 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read a little more about it, and I just now realised that apparently North Korea does not use 한국 (Hanguk), it uses 조선 (Choson). And I also just found that wiki entry on the Names of Korea. So to avoid a convoluted explanation of the native name for Korea, I propose this:

"Korea (see Names of Korea) refers to the..."

What do you think? Hong Qi Gong 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion?

Does anyone know how to remove this?

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›

--Sir Edgar 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's attached to the Special Characters template. You'd either have to remove the template, or remove the deletion template from the special character template. --Hong Qi Gong 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you remove the deletion template? Can you do this?--Sir Edgar 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

citations

for "brutal" occupation:

• "Koreans lived under often brutal Japanese colonial domination." Encyc of World History
• "a proposed Japanese apology for its brutal military annexation of the Korean Peninsula from 1910-1945" CNN
• "Millions of Koreans took to the streets in non-violent demonstrations for independence, but ... Japanese power was great, and the movement was brutally suppressed." Encarta
• "But his visits to Yasukuni are still viewed with suspicion in those countries that suffered most brutally under Japanese occupation—and Mr Koizumi seems unconcerned about riling them." The Economist
• "Japan's brutal colonization of the Korean peninsula" Time Asia
• "Japan's often brutal colonial rule of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945." BBC News
• "history textbook which plays down the brutality of its imperial past." BBC News
• "The Japanese colonial period (1910-1945) was a brutal experience for most Koreans." PBS Frontline
• "Japanese colonial authorities responded to these demonstrations with characteristic brutality." GlobalSecurity.org
• "Japan had no opportunity to reflect on its historical wrongdoings, especially its brutality against its neighbors" Washington Times
• "Korea, which had endured four decades of brutal Japanese occupation" Discovery
• "Japan colonized the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945 and, because of the brutality of the occupation, resentments against Japan linger in both South and North Korea." Asia Times
• "The Japanese respond with a brutal campaign of repression" PBS Commanding Heights
• "Japan alternated brutal repression with divide and rule techniques" Korean War Memorial, US NPS
• "In the 20th Century Korea suffered a brutal occupation by Japan" Truman library
• "Japan ruled Korea in a manner that was strict and often brutal" AskAsia.org
• "Japan's aggression in Korea from the 1890s forward was, indeed, brutal." Japan Focus Asia Times

So, "brutal" is a perfectly NPOV, accurate, and properly referenced description. Appleby 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, didnt you get on somebody's else case about listing a thesis like description. Because all of these sources are the exact thing I did in the article on Japan, but they were deleted because some people including you stated that doing what you did above was unecessarily taking up room on the discussion board. Yet here you are doing it, but you and your team of peole erased my facts supporting what I said citing what you just did above as a reason. Im glad I copied this page so that the email I sent to the ACLU will be supported by documentation. Hypocrisy is such a characterisitc of the weak minded. P.S. by the way, I agree with the following entry about the word "Brutal". It seems as I have stated in the article about Japan that there seems to be a fluent idea of good and bad taught to us when we are young. It is hard to get past this lie. There are good things and bad things. Japan did do a lot more bad things during World War II, yet there were some good things.Please correct me if I am wrong but, I beleive that you are heavily influenced by the tradition like cycle within this country of demonizing the Japanese during World War II.Those 'EVIL' Japanese! Have we spoken about No Gun Ri or Kwangju? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs)

The Japanese "BRUTAL" rule improved the public health ,reduced the percentage of the illiterate on the Korean Penisula.The Koreans can not recognise the conception of the word "brutal".

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC) <　｀∀´>

cool idea Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

cultural importance

Hello, I read your writing on the sports section of this article. As a sports history enthusiast who has taken classes with two different professors whom are sports historians, one issue pertaining to Korea and sports history is the unfortunate event where the popular and well known boxing figure, Roy Jones Jr. , lost his medal at the Olympics in South Korea during the Olympics. I hear this all the time in sports classes when the topic of modern amateur olympic pugilism and professional boxing within the US. I just was surprised to not see this in your article when it is so well known amongst sports historians. I am referring to when Roy Jones Jr was cheated out of his medal in the Olympics in South Korea, and then later South Korean judges admitted to being bribed in favor of a South Korean pugilist. Not only is it still spoken of in sports history classes, it is also spoken of in the sports of boxing where I am a participant and in both records made by Roy Jones Jr. (Round One, and Body Head Bangers). I can list sources for this if you need, if not, hopefully you can explain to me why this isnt listed in this article? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs)

Both the article Roy Jones Jr. and the article 1988 Summer Olympics mention the boxing controversy in some detail, and the page for the 1988 summer Olumpics is linked to in the sports section of the article, so I really don't see what benefit would be gained by including a mention of this particular subject. After all, I haven't seen any other Olympic judging scandals mentioned in the 'sports' sections of other country articles. --Zonath 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you mention these other incidents of 'similar' circumstances which occured. I think there are some but none were indicated by the links you provided, thanks. Not all historical information is beneficial, a lot is interesting and thus mentioned as a result of that. It is even more significant because it effected the international spirit of fairness and cooperation for sports being that its constituents were nations combining their efforts to symbolze world cooperation and a means of finding a common interest amongst such. It is also interesting because it directly effects the western world and the trust sports enthusiasts within this geographical perspective has for this international cooperation. Though I disagree in this event's importance and that any historical information should be beneficial to be worth mentioning, I agree that this probably is better served under either the Olympics or pugilism article. Please respond with information I requested above for my interest, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs)

Again, it certainly is significant, but not necessarily so much so as to be included in the page for 'Korea', seeing as if we were to include every sports scandal (or even just the Olympic judging scandals) on region pages like this one, it would inflate the size of the articles quite a lot. As for similar incidents... Just about every Olympic games generates some sort of controversy, especially in sports that are won or lost on the decisions of a judge rather than some more objective criteria (such as figure skating, gymnastics, boxing, etc...) Even if you're just looking for ones in which South Korea was involved, you could look up Paul Hamm, Apolo Anton Ohno, or even the 2002 World Cup. International sporting events breed controversy and accusations of unfair play, and it makes little sense to single out any particular event for inclusion on a page that doesn't even really represent the country that actually participated in the controversial event, much less the country page itself. --Zonath 05:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am in agreement of the issue of where this fact belongs and its significance. However I am in confusion here. I am grateful that you supplied the links above which I have looked up. Thank you, but your last assertion I dont think I understand. The stealing of the medal of Roy Jones Jr. involved South Korean judges at the Seoul Olympics. So it does involve this country and a lot of the African American communities (even ones that are not boxing fans) remember this. So I dont agree or understand your last comment. Yet I do also agree with controversy stirred up more in specific sports pertaining to power being given to judges. Wait a minute, how many of the sports within the Olympics involve judges? Because I think the mojority of them do.In fact it does make a lot of sense to single out one country because they were participants of this controversy and you have a sports section within this article. Anybody could read this article, skim down to your sports section and say, huumm, nothign interesting. So please, comment again with your reasons. I am trying to understand because some but not all of what you say makes sense. Then again, I just realized that of you have a sports section for Korea, what better way to attract attention for the public to your article than to mention those controversies. In fact , the stealing of the medal for Roy Jones Jr. wasnt a controversy since I stated that it is fact because the South Korean judges or judge admitted recently to accepting a bribe. So scrath my first statement about where I think this fact should go.My questions are:

If you have a sports section on Korea then why not include the controversies and the proven foul plays by the Korean Judges within Seoul, Korea which obviously attracts more attention to your article?

I don think I understand your last statement, I reiterate that it was in Korea and involved Korean judges. What were you saying?

Wouldnt your article be even better if you mentioned these aforementioned facts with links to the articles to explain more?

Arent the majority of the sports at the Olympics based on judges whether they count or measure?

Ping Pong diplomacy led to the Shanghai communique, now, boxing enthusiasts, pugilists, and sports historians still mention this event which i well remembered and written about in college. Did this event in any way effect people's outlook of the country and isnt it significant if this topic is still written and talked about inside and outside of college?

Well, first of all, the purpose of this article isn't really to 'attract attention' or sensationalize things, but rather to inform people. Yes, most Olympic sports involve judges and referees in one sense or another, but in many sports, the impact of the judges are much less obvious than in ones where the decisions of the judges determine the winner and the loser. So, a sport like the marathon typically has far less controversy associated with it than something like boxing or figure skating. As for my last statement... The sports section of this page isn't really meant to be representative of South Korean sports, as those are more thoroughly discussed in the South Korea and the Sports in South Korea pages, where the main emphasis of the sports section on this page seems to be more upon the cooperative measures between the countries of North Korea and South Korea. If we're really going to mention Roy Jones, Jr. in a country article, then we should do so in the South Korea article, seeing as it seems more pertinent to place it there. This is not a page on a country (or at least, not a page on a country that exists anymore, or which existed at the time of the 1988 summer olympics), and it would probably be a miscategorization to put a scandal involving just South Korea here. Additionally, I would question whether or not mention of a single incident like this would really deserve mention on a country page (which is really meant more as an overview) rather than on a more specialized page. After all, several historical facts of much greater importance than a mere boxing match have been either glossed over or even omitted for considerations of space, if for nothing else. Personally, I think it would be more appropriate to limit any explicit mention of this particular controversy to the page Sports in South Korea, seeing as that is the more specialized article (and could use a bit more 'meat' as it were, anyhow.) --Zonath 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. First ,I disagree with you about the importance of judges with the roles of power and control they have differing according to individual sport. As anyone whom has participated in sports and has succeeded greatly like myself knows that detail and every bit counts (JKA/AAU county, state, regional, and national gold medal champion in kumite and kata both). Regardless of the judges role, if the judge has any influence in the sport whether negligible or not in reference to count or measure, they effect the game so their importance is significant, and I ask you to ask any sports participant or yourself, "would you like a biased judge against you while you are participating in sports?" Whether obvious or not, judges count tremenduously and are significant, if they werent , then those sports where you state judges have less obvious influence should not have any complaint documented within its history because , the judges are less obvious, and thus less significant a factor. Is there any sport you can state right now that doesnt have a single complaint against judges? If there are like I know there are, can you explain to those people that complained that they were complaining over nothing because judges are less abvious? Yes there are a difference in degrees but I reiterate the question which hasnt been answered, arent the majority of the sports within the Olympics sports where judges do have influence in the outcome? Although it may appear I am delivering a diatribe, I am not. I just disagree with your logic about the first thing but I agree about your assertion above that this article is about the former Korea which is now partitioned and have their own individual articles. Though your attempted refutation above about the significance of judges in sports is tenuous and could have been strenghthened by listing sports in the Olympics where judges are and are not significant to make a comparison and go from there, you have provided a very good and acceptable answer that I overlooked. Again like you said, this article is about Korea (former) not South or North, so you are absolutely right and I am wrong. Good reply and thank you for correcting me. Some authors I have come across dont even make the effort to argue which you have and though I am not in full agreement, you have corrected me with LOGIC and thats what counts. It is not personal. I am not going to argue about the last reference of importance because I dont agree, yet good try in attempting to onvince about that. Thanks for your reply and informing me.

WHAT THE HECK LAY OFF KOREA GUYS!! LOL

LOL i strongly disagree with sir edgar because why should the north be mentioned before south? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO PRAISE THE COMMUNISTS? Im sorry but i maybe korean and i want Korea to be unified again, but worship the communist?!?? NEVER! the seperation of Korea is mostly Joseph Stalin's fault. He was occupying the northern part of Korea and turned it into a communist country. This is why i dont like Chinese, japanese or Russians because THEY INTERFERE TOO MUCH IN KOREA! I mean look in the 1800's when Germany and France wanted to convert Korea into christianity and trade and stuff the Koreans wouldnt allow it. BECAUSE IT WAS A INTEREFERENCE WITH A COUNTRY'S AFFAIRS AN INTERVENTION!! Then the U.S. naval force came and tried to show a display of power to let Korea to open up its ports and trade. But when the Koreans fired cannons at the U.S. naval ships the U.S> naval ships blew up a fortress and the Koreans gave them a note "We do not want to deal with you or the rest of the world! We are content as we are" So guys if you don't know anything about Korea or stuff please just lay off your keyboard and get your mouse cursour somewhere else! -KoreanHistorist

As a Japanese American, I am not offended by you hating Japanese or any other ethnic group. In facts I see more honesty in your remark than many other writers of Wikipedia. Kudos. Also I am in agreement with you over Sir Edgar, good job ! Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia otherwise you will not be a significant person to respect and understand. I am not biased and agree that Japan does interfere too much in Korea's business as well as other coutries. I reiterate, I support you regardless of my national affiliations because what you are saying is honest and contains truth. Both Japan and the US have ambitions in Korea and you find both nations trying so hard to play or brainwash the Koreans into hating their opposition. As a fellow asian, I would hope and pray that the actions of imperialism on the part of Japan which resulted in the allowance of influences which seperated, partitioned, or balkanized Korea are someday reversed. Japan has equal fault and understandably more in some eyes because of their imperial ambitions for the condition of Korea now. An apology by the Japanese I feel is an insult to Koreans for what Japan has allowed. Centuries might be the accurate period necessary for Koreans to forgive and one day enjoy a fruitful relationship.

First of all, you two need to sign your comments. Second, initially I put North first, then South. But I have since been editing to put South first, then North. Third, please focus on improving the article and not opinionated rants that make no difference in the process of improving the article. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we sign with four tildes or two? Second, I think you are doing a good job with the edits, I was just reaffirming the request by above mentioned individual. Thirdly, I offered condolences and opinion to the above author of paragraph because I felt compelled to offer reply to the statement above. In honesty, what is odd, is that I find more room for ranting to be accused for above parapgraph than in comparison to mine, however , I believe your comment was directed toward me and not the person above, am I correct? I think a consensus is necessary to judge which of the above paragraphs classifies as ranting more and why mine was chosen when it demonstrates less intolerance and timid views. This is what I am talking about in so far singling out, with obvious and neglegent equitable treatment to others' decorum. The difference is obvious. We can argue that later when the time comes. Thnk you 66.32.34.243 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)collective concious

rant One entry found for rant.

Main Entry: 1rant Pronunciation: 'rant Function: verb Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen intransitive senses 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently transitive senses : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion Please explain which definiton you are using for ranting since ou brought it up.

Annexation of Korea by Japan

The annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910 was illegal-do not try to dispute that point without sufficient evidence. While it may seem to Wikipedia users that any word with negative connotations is POV and thus liable to deletion, you cannot, with all due respect, ignore the fact that the Japanese enforced the Ganghwa Treaty of 1876, the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, and Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty 0f 1910 by use of intimidation and force. Ultranationalists and conservatives in Japan rather like to refute this argument by employing the Taft-Katsura Memorandum and international recognition granted at the time of Korea's downfall to a colony, but modern standards of international law state that treaties (especially those concerning colonization) forced upon a nation by threat of force and without the approval of that nations's people are invalid; as such, by the modern point of view, Korea's annexation as part of the expanding Japanese Empire, achieved with intimidation and without the will of Koreans, is illegitimate. Furthermore, because the Korean emperor (the Korean head of state) refused to sign his signature as requested by the treaties of 1905 and 1910, even with the international recognition at the time, the treaty can be best described as having been one-sided, without the approval of the head of state on the Korean side. Since I seem to have made my point clear why this article should have the word "illegally" kept within its context, I ask that editors in the future do not assume "illegally " as POV and go delete it without any other excuse than "point of view." All claims against my argument here are of course welcome, and will be politely received. You should, of course, expect a refutation.--Jh.Daniell 10:04, 23 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

This above paragraph is from someone that sounds like they know what they are talking about. Good reply. Looking forward to a response from author for my own benefit becasue I assert my ignorance in this aforementioned area. Thanks for contribution. 04:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)collective concious

although i understand your point, i think such an adjective is not widely found in reference works or other country profiles. your knowledge would be better integrated into specific articles, such as Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty and Korea under Japanese rule, rather than this general overview, imho. thanks. Appleby 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

US Sanctions

How come there is no mention of U.S. sanctions against North Korea? It only states that the NK is isolationist, even under times of famine. As with the case of Cuba (which has a trade embargo), the U.S. is disallowing trade with itself and allies. Anarkial 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar this may be a discussion page and improve it for people who must research about something, but we need truths and not lies. I am currently trying to make all the related pages-Korea improved, so do not be so hard on my comments or discussions. -KoreanHistorist

I did not post the above comment. In fact, there are numerous comments that have been attributed to me that were not posted by me. I always sign my comments.--Sir Edgar 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then put an end to it SirEdgar-KoreanHistorist

I'm sorry Sir Edgar, it was me. To KoreanHistorist: What do you mean lies? Anarkial 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC) To Anarkial: What i mean is false information for people who has to research about something like in school,(etc.) and false information might drop their grades and teachers would know the real information. -KoreanHistorist

Are you saying that the sanctions are not actually in place?Anarkial 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Annexation of Korea-Japan illegal or legal?

Many people says it was illegal to annex Korea. And other people might say its legal since the Korean King did sign it (but was forced to) and the Japanese also did fight China and give Korea independence from China. So it was "legal" to have annexed Korea since some world leaders thought Japan would do good to Korea since they fought for Korea's Independence from China. Well the good part about the annexation i admit was the public order and manufactured rail roads and economic improvement. But the Koreans were shocked and stunned. They thought that if they got independence from China they would improve their government and have freedom and do whatever they want. Unfortunately the Japanese banned all korean cultures and language and also put students and teachers in jail for they protested against Japanese rule. Then in 1910 Japanese assasins assasinated King Sejong's wife and the king had to flee from Korea to Russia. So he did. All the Koreans were hopelessly lost and confused. Then Koreans went into a church meeting someday with Japanese soldiers around them to hear the meeting if it was a rebellion meeting or not and the pastor kept repeating the story of David and Goliath. The Japanese thought they were the Goliath and the Koreans David, who killed Goliath with a single pebble. So then the Japanese captured the pastor and soon imprisoned hundreds of innocent civilians and tortured them with bambbo sticks which were sharp deep into the skin under their nails, or hung them upside down, or whipped them. And there were 72 other ways of torturing. The Japanese were trying to get a 'confession' out of the Koreans and when the Koreans said they didn't know what they were talking about, they tortured them more. Then Syngman Rhee (who is to be the 1st president of South Korea) wanted to 'shoo' away the Japanese. When the Japanese heard this they imprisoned SyngMan Rhee and soon he got out of jail and went to America, not to return until 1945. Soon Syngman Rhee graduated from Princeton, and etc etc. Soon when the Koreans in Hawaii who migrated from Korea in 1903 in the S.S. Gaelic heard that the korean culture was banned and the language too, they began to teducate their children, work harder, and form armies to repel the Japanese armies. The Korean-Americans in the U.S. also heard this and formed parades and flags of the taegukgi were waving in the streets of the United States. Meanwhile Hitler began the Holocraust and Japan began more horrible things. Korean women were sent to 'comfort' camps where the Japanese raped them and they were only allowed to rape 2 a day. Then Korean rebellions and guerillas sprang up and cried out to chase away Japanese from their country. The rebellions were hopeless and guerillas were soon killed and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and etc etc world war 2 happens and Korea was liberated by U.S. troops, and China who was too under the control of Japan greeted the U.S. marines welcomingly. Meanwhile the Japanese before were still torturing the Koreans before the Pearl Harbor incident and over thousands of Koreans died and only 10 or 5 survived those meaningless interogattions. Then in 1945 Korea was liberated and soon Russia was occupying the North of Korea and U.S. the South of Korea. So after all these things many people from there thought the annexation was illegal and some thought it was still legal. But it really is partly legal and the rest is illegal. So what do you think it was? Illegal or legal? If you want put your comments below i will accept any thing that contributes to my information. -KoreanHistorist

Please indent your paragraphs using the semi-colon. You need to define "illegal". Also, wouldn't most colonial acquisitions be considered "illegal" anyhow? Is there a need to explicitly state the word "illegal". Seems POV to me.--Sir Edgar 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where international laws are concerned, 'legal' and 'illegal' are pretty slippery concepts, even today - around the turn of the last century, international law was quite a bit less developed. Certainly, by post-Nuremburg standards, the annexation could be considered some form of a crime against peace as defined by the UN Charter, and would have been illegal (no matter whether the treaty was properly signed or not, seeing as Korea was giving up its sovereignty under duress). Of course, the main problem with that is that there was no UN back in 1905. While the International Military Tribunal for the Far East used the concept of crimes against peace as its definition of a class A war crime, the annexation of Korea was not considered in the tribunal, so there isn't a clear-cut verdict in this case, unfortunately.

There's also the problem that the annexation of Korea was not an extraordinary event when measured by the standards of the times... Hawai'i's was annexed by the United States under similar circumstances in 1898, and the United States was fighting a bloody and protracted war against the natives of the Philippines (which was ceded to the US by Spain in the Spanish-American War.) At the time, several similar annexations were seen to have been perfectly legitimate. Would the annexation of Hawai'i be legal by today's standards? Probably not, but as a practical matter, it really makes no difference. --Zonath 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar-There seems to be a need to cite Japan's occuaption of Korea as illegal because some Japanese today continue to suffer from the illusion that Korea's annexation as part of Japan was legitimate because it was internationally recognized and welcomed by the Koreans themselves, leading a great deal of them to post their conservative viewpoints all over Wikipedia. Thanks for asking, though.--Jh.daniell 22:11, 24 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

The problem with using the word 'illegal' to describe the annexation of Korea is that there has (as of yet) been no identification of what laws were broken, as far as I know. The great powers of the time were basically bending over backwards to allow Japan to annex Korea, and the annexation of Korea was seen as more or less legitimate up until it was reversed when Japan was stripped of its colonies after WWII. Heck, the methods Japan used to annex Korea weren't even considered to be particularily troublesome at the time. Certainly, by the standards of today's international laws, the annexation of Korea would be illegal, but it seems troubling at the least to apply the standards of today to actions in the past. I think that using the word 'illegal' to describe this annexation is fundamentally flawed. If we really want to editorialize the annexation of Korea, there are several, much truer adjectives we could use. We could call this annexation 'coercive', 'immoral', 'imperialistic', etc... --Zonath 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussions and contirbutions to my paragraph. -KoreanHistorist