Talk:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910

message: The link to this article is broken.
* Yutaka Kawasaki, "Was the 1910 Annexation Treaty Between Korea and Japan Concluded Legally?", Murdoch University Journal of Law, Volume 3, Number 2 (July 1996).
: Thanks for pointing this out; I've fixed it. — Haeleth Talk 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: The title photo of this page is not document image of "Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty", which may mislead historical facts. So, it must be removed.129.254.33.196 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False Photo Image

message: I don't know the poster's intention!129.254.33.196 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The reposted image is still false in view of the article

message: Gyeongsul Gukchi (경술국치) is NOT the treaty, but rather a term that refers to the event that is signified by the Treaty, i.e., Korea's loss of its status as a sovereign state.
Moreover, we should mention that the "day of national shame (Gukchi-il, 국치일)" is August 29th, when the treaty was proclaimed to public.  ("Proclaim" may be the wrong word to use here --- please forgive me if it's wrong.  I'm not an expert on English legal terms. :)
Similarly, I think it's misleading to say that "Hanil Hapbang Neugyak (한일합방늑약)" is a Korean term for it.  It is certainly NOT an official term --- neugyak (늑약) merely means "a forced (and hence, illegitimate) treaty," and "Hanil Hapbang" is just another term for "Japan's annexation of Korea."  So it just means "A forced treaty that made Korea a part of Japan."
The Korean version of this article is named "Hanil Byeonghap Joyak" :ko:한일 병합 조약, which is just like the Japanese version with the first two letters ("Korea" and "Japan") reversed.  I think that's a more common way to refer to the treaty.
I'll implement these changes if nobody disagrees. Yongjik 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented as such. Yongjik 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article confuses the "treaty" and the "event" of Korea's annexation to Japan. 

message: 日韓基本条約の前交渉は1951年7月頃より連合国司令部（SCAP）の仲介によりおこなわれ、当初から英語表記での文面が論題とされ紛糾した経緯が文献資料としてのこされています。「already　null and void（もはや無効）」とするか「null and void（当初から無効）」とするかが重要な焦点だったわけですから、良く勉強していないWikipedianが都合よく「日本語の読みかたのあいまいさ」などと定義して恥をかかないよう。くりかえしますがこれは日韓基本条約をめぐり棚上げされた「歴史認識問題」に関わる重要な論点です。また「解決せざるをもって解決したとみなす」の東洋的含蓄に満ちた著名な「密約」は歴史認識問題にも関連しているものです。--大和屋敷 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 「語の解釈」

message: 日韓併合条約 
Hiragana にっかんへいごうじょうやく 
Rōmaji Nikkan Heigō Jōyaku 
 
Hangul 한일병합조약
(한일합방조약, 한일합방늑약) 
Hanja 韓日倂合条約
(韓日合邦条約, 韓日合邦勒約 
 
It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty
PL, refer !
 
--안성균 (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928224938/http://www.kf.or.kr/eng/01_sks/sks_not_view.asp?BIZBASE=ALL&SearchText=&SearchValue=&Page=&BBS_NO=147 to http://www.kf.or.kr/eng/01_sks/sks_not_view.asp?BIZBASE=ALL&SearchText=&SearchValue=&Page=&BBS_NO=147
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although this article gives the Japanese name as 日韓併合条約, the ja.wikipedia article is titled 韓国併合ニ関スル条約. From what I can see after perusing the Web, the latter is the official name and the more numerous form in primary Japanese language sources, with secondary sources sometimes using the former form. Is there any reason not to harmonize the name given in this article with the title of the ja.wikipedia article? I imagine an argument could be made that both forms should be listed, so that is also a reasonable approach, but 韓国併合ニ関スル条約 should be included here, I think. I will make this revision in a few days unless someone raises a major objection.
Spventi (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Name of This Treaty