Talk:Korea/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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).  --ZonathYak 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Oyo321. Dokdo is an important island unlike the islands mentioned in Reuben's comment.  He is either judging the island's "importance" in terms of size (like Zonath, although he does have a good point about the island being very small, Dokdo can still be represented as a dot like many other islands around the world).  Perhaps we should find a map which labels the island as "Dokdo/Takeshima (disputed)" until it is resolved if it ever does get resolved?  I'll try to find such a map. I recommend the same for Daemado/Tsushima. Wikichung 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going into Dokdo/Takeshima here, but AFAIK no national government challenges Japan's sovereignty over Tsushima, nor do its inhabitants. Tsushima was not Joseon and is not Korea. Wikipeditor 03:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islands of Korea

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Resilience of Korean Identity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I have requested protection at the page. Good friend100 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to Make the Article Pass Next time

message: 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)
thread_title:  retarded errors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  poll 

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

message: 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.Book of Goryeo (高麗史) 　惟彼日本　未蒙聖化　故発詔。使継糴軍容　戦艦兵糧　方在所須。儻以此事委臣　勉尽心力　小助王師 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. http://152.99.71.184/warp/webapp/content/view?meta_id=english&id=62
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. OFFSPRING OF EMPIRE : The Koch'ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism 1876-1945〈Eckert, Carter J.>  , 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.宮田 節子 [Miyata, Setsuko]. "創氏改名" [(Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names}, 明石書店 [Akashi-shoten], 1992, al.   Numerous Korean cultural artifacts were numbered and managed(This numbering system has been left in South Korea), destroyedhttp://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/66 or taken to Japan.Newsweek.com. Who rightfully owns Korean artifacts looted by Japan? To this day, valuable Korean artifacts can often be found in Japanese museums or among private collectors.destroyedhttp://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/66 or taken to Japan.Newsweek.com. Who rightfully owns Korean artifacts looted by 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. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6919593/site/newsweek/
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism??

message: Anybody who is interested in Joseonsa_Pyeonsuhoe, please edit the article--Hairwizard91 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This book burning policy in the early 1900s by Japan for Korean books is common knowledge in East Asia but it will be difficult to get an exact idea of why they picked certain books to burn and the impact it had on the study of history of ancient Korea and ancient Japan.--Tyler 11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 조선사편수회