Revision as of 00:01, 23 August 2015 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,585,480 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2015-08-22. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:06, 18 October 2015 edit undoKoreanidentity10000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,408 edits →Korean LanguageNext edit → | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
|indexhere=yes}} | |indexhere=yes}} | ||
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|index=/Archive index}} | {{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|index=/Archive index}} | ||
== Korean Language == | |||
I've added twice { { citation needed } } on the sentence "The Japanese administrative policy shifted further towards cultural assimilation in the 1930s (同化政策; dōka seisaku), and as a result, all public classes were taught in Japanese language with a Korean language as an elective", having it removed the first time by someone else. I have never seen a single citation indicating this might be true but I have seen a lot of anti-Japanese radicals online blindly stating this as a fact. | |||
After scanning the Japanese and Korean wiki articles with the help of google translate I have figured out | |||
1) After the second sino-japanese war, the idea of a unified Japan-Korea became prominent meaning after a few years of this idea becoming popular, both inside Japan and Korea alike, Koreans were taught they were Japanese, that Korea was part of Japan, and that the Korean language was a dialect of Japanese. | |||
2) Despite apparently placing a lot of resources teaching the Korean language and hangul in schools (Japanese educators can almost be credited for reviving Korean hangul from Chinese hanja), including standardizing the entire spelling system etc, in 1942 Korean language courses became mostly optional. Japanese was not used for normal classes but there was a greater push to teach Japanese at this point. | |||
3) After this point there are statistics like by 1944, 8 times as many Koreans could speak Japanese than before. *This doesn't mean the Korean language was eradicated or that the government forced people to stop speaking Korean, an educated guess would say most were bilingual and spoke Japanese for business etc, it just appears maybe towards 1942 there was a greater push to teach people Japanese than earlier periods. Certainly 1930 is the wrong date as during 1930 all courses were taught in Korean and there was a strong emphasis on hangul by the Japanese government. | |||
At any rate the entire section seems misguided and written on false premises. "The Korean Language Society and Alphabet Day being founded as a reaction to the Koran language being banned in 1930?" No, if anything it was established during the period of time hangul was most celebrated and standardized by Japanese educators, as a testament to hangul having replaced hanja at that point in Korean history. To imply that it was in some way reactionary to Japanese pushes to outright ban the Korean language appears to be pulling on straws. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::: I've found a couple amazing sources discussing the occupation period in detail, with dates, policy, and relevant background information during the time period -- all in English and without these vague, loaded statements you find everywhere. | |||
:::: A lot of sources on the Internet appear very biased, even some "official" looking sources which might have a single page mentioning a lot of vague, "bad things" that happened during the occupation period, never going into detail but clearly carrying an agenda. Of course there was a great deal of assimilation occurring during the entire period but it wasn't quite as dramatic as “Japan destroyed Korean culture, banned Korean history, and then outlawed Korean language” etc etc. Contrary to this notion of “destruction”, for most of the period, Korean culture was promoted, and not just inside Korea but in Japan as well (not out of benevolence, but promoted nonetheless). | |||
:::: Some of the more dramatic policies were outlined and started during the 1940s (particularly in 1943) as an effort to strengthen the war effort but were never fully implemented. Simply listing a bunch policy from a government report that was planed (though not fully realized) during the last couple of years as de facto what was going on for half a century is a bit dishonest (and so I have added these dates and policies, some for earlier periods, which included for example discrimination which I mention, but also real advances in social standing which I did not comment on). | |||
:::: At any rate I've added citation to the sentence in question with an accurate date and an accurate policy. I also updated a paragraph in /* Education */, adding mention of the two education systems present in Korea and the fact that Korean history was taught not just in Korean language schools but in Japanese schools as well. The paragraph wasn't in my opinion biased but, as it stood, was factually incorrect. I've added citation there as well. ] (]) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Should an article about a country include anecdotes from newspaper reports? == | == Should an article about a country include anecdotes from newspaper reports? == |
Revision as of 00:06, 18 October 2015
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
On September 25, 2007, Korea under Japanese rule was linked from Daum, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 22, 2007, August 22, 2013, and August 22, 2015. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Archives | |||
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Should an article about a country include anecdotes from newspaper reports?
The lengthy excerpt from New York Outlook is fascinating but hardly encyclopedic. An academic source justifying the use of anecdotes is desirable, otherwise I will simply remove this quote. Shii (tock) 15:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- serious analysis written by a leading scholar (Kennan) is a good reliable source for Misplaced Pages. This was not written by a casual reporter. There is no requirement that it be in a book. please keep it. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- If he's a leading scholar why did he have to publish in a news magazine? Shii (tock) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- today there are hundreds of scholarly journals that would publish his material--in 1905 the political science association had not yet been formed and there were only a couple of scholarly journals. Therefore scholars (like Frederick Jackson Turner or Alfred Thayer Mahan) commonly used elite newspapers to report their findings. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- If he's a leading scholar why did he have to publish in a news magazine? Shii (tock) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- serious analysis written by a leading scholar (Kennan) is a good reliable source for Misplaced Pages. This was not written by a casual reporter. There is no requirement that it be in a book. please keep it. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:RSN determined that the section was a primary source and should not have been quoted at such length. Shii (tock) 22:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Serious concerns about citing R.J. Rummel
Reviewing his published online work "Statistics of Democide: Chapter 3", I do not believe R.J. Rummel to be a reliable source. His claims are substantiated by his own exceedingly diverse estimates, such as a death toll of "3,000,000 to over 10,000,000" by the Japanese government, including "270,000 to 810,000" Korean labourers. These data are averaged without precision-frequently, statistics are given only a 'probably' to support them. Additionally, his language shows blatant contempt for the Japanese government; he has not even finished his opening before declaring the institution "morally bankrupt". The only outside source employed is the official death toll presented at the Tokyo War Crime Trial, used to defend PoW and interned civilian deaths. I find no compelling reason to believe his other findings (being a professor emeritus does not make one immune from bias), and therefore move that his claims on Korean laborers be removed from the article. Secretkeeper12 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow reply, I was looking into the claims made by Rummel, but I agree with you -- he doesn't seem to have good enough evidence for his rather extreme claims. Shii (tock) 15:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Unnatural wording, unverifiable claims
The last paragraph under section 7 - Korean Independence Movement concerns me in a couple of places. Aside from a few grammatical errors, which I didn't think important to correct if the paragraph needs to be cleaned up anyway, there are a few claims which are either unverifiable, conflict another article, or lack sources. For example, the sentence, "However, they never fought against Japan" (referring to the Korean Liberation Army) is vague, and contradicts the linked article on the Korean Liberation Army. Also vague is the following sentence, "Afterwards, they became leaders of South Korea." Following that is an un-cited claim that "On the other hand, Kim Il-Sung led tens of thousands of Koreans volunteered (sic) for the National Revolutionary Army and the People's Liberation Army." Whether or not he led these volunteers is not verified, and where or to what he led them is also in question here. The assumption could be in a fight against Japan (in contrast to the claim made that the Korean Liberation Army did not fight against Japan), but the evidence is not strong enough to make that inference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.208.107 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're right that section is a mess and requires a thorough clean-up.
- Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Korea-related articles
- Top-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- C-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- Unassessed Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- Unassessed Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- Unassessed Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- Unassessed World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Articles linked from high traffic sites
- Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2013)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2015)