Talk:Japan–Korea disputes/Archive 1

message: When I finished reading this entire dispute page, I feel that there are more pro Japanese people than pro Korean.....  Especially the one with Tae Kwon Do being originated from Karate is really pushy by the pro Japanese.....  I am not trying to take the Korean's side but Tae Kwon Do existed before Karate and and it was introduced to Japan by Baekjae through trade.....  Also, if Japan claims Tsushima, why are they unfairly trying to claim Tokdo as well?????  And I believe there should be more peaceful or neutral term used rather than "Sea of Japan".Thanks(MCASGT 01:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-read this dispute page and saw that Appleby presented inaccurate information.  I also read on the controversy section of this person signed "Daniel McBeth" had some key points since there were records of Oxford receiving money from Japan to change the sea name to "Sea of Japan".....  My views follow, 
1)The Sea name should be the Marginal Sea(neutral)
2)The Liancourt Rokcs should be called Dokdo(Koreans had longer historical eefect on these Isles)
3)Tsushima should belong to Japan(The Japanese had longer cultural influence on these Islands...)
4)Japan should sincerely apologize to Korea about their atrocities that they have commited.
5)Japan should not write inaccurate books like Far Away from the Bamboo grove since the Japanese mistreated the Koreans and the Japanese refugees were guaranteed a safe voyage back to Japan....  The authors father was also in jail by the Imperial Japanese army for stealing money..... These Japanese books are very inaccurate....
6)Pro-Koreans should not write inaccurate informations on these pages....
7)Both sides must not use inaccurate information without a valid evidence....
Thanks(MCASGT 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: I don't mean to interfere on the controversy here and I don't have a personal stake in this article. But I was bothered enough by a lot of the small little grammatical and spelling errors that I felt compelled to clean it up. I tried to retain as much of the original flavoring as the article had but there were some cases where I was forced to clarify as best as I could when the grammar used was mutilated to the point where it wasn't understandable. Please watch the English in the article as it's no use to have some perceived point appear in the article if it's not written well. Thanks! --Kainee 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article as "current disputes", not "resentment over historical disputes".
Umm.. No. It is not "Current Disputes", It is "Japanese-Korean disputes". (Read the title before responding.)
Second of all, pleanty of people are and will be affected by forced Shinto, annexation, illegalizing the korean language, etc. if we do not learn from out mistakes. so, yeah, it has a lot to do with contemporary society ok?
----
Kadzuwo: the external link you added (Korea, the Preposterous World) is to a highly POV personal Web site maintained by Wikipedia user Nanshu.  Nanshu has already published a lot of the material from that site here and has caused numerous edit disputes because of it.  We don't need any more hateful material from him than he has already contributed.  I have removed the link to the site.  And don't tell me I'm censoring the truth or whatever: there is already too much anti-Korean nonsense on Wikipedia.  --Sewing 16:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It is not hate site but factual error corrections. Please don't brand but read it carefully!!Kadzuwo 16:59, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have known about that site for months and have read it carefully; I discussed the site with him and several other Wikipedians last autumn (2003).  Some of what he says is true, and he has repeated those things on this site.  Other things he says are nonsense, and do not belong on Wikipedia.  --Sewing 17:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will search better site(s). Thank you so much, everyone!! m(_ _)mKadzuwo 18:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling & Grammar

message: Starting NPOV mine field.  My god, aren't we (Korean & Japanese) such kids. :D FWBOarticle 00:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We might add the fact that Japanese attempted to downplay Korea's role in its development by promoting Chinese influences. (Wikimachine 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to second guess, but I think Wikimachine is making a central point here. Something like ... attempt to downplay Korea's major role in Japan's development by claiming that everything came directly from China.FasterPussycatWooHoo 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Dispute

message: Boy, if I had to guess, I would swear the DPRK are starting to post on the Wikipedia (welcome comrades!).  I am tempted to go through and clean up the POV and goofy unproven tripe on this page, but then I think this page may actually serve a purpose: gives the trolls a nice sandbox to post their rants and keep them off the Japan or Korea page.... Davejenk1ns 15:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  DPRK propogandist? 

message: Under the dispute "North Korean abductions of Japanese", the last sentence is completely incoherent.  I can't tell if the meaning is that during WWII the Japanese also kidnapped North Korean citizens and this doesn't bother them so why should North Korea care about Japanese citizens, OR that during WWII other nations also kidnapped Japanese citizens but this isn't a problem because it was not North Korea that did it. In any case, this needs to be made comprehensible and NPOV, or it needs to be removed. As this is a potentially controversial topic, I'm posting this to the discussion page first. Munkymu 22:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove it since it doesn't have anything to do with "North abductions of Japanese." --Nc622 11:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean abductions of Japanese 

message: The Japanese Ministry of Education is now Ministry of Education and Science. I think we should rename the title to "Publications on History in Japan" or something to put the issue in broader context. The textbooks must pass a governmental inspections before they're issued to each school, but publications other than textbooks can contain anything regardless of their nature, meaning whether they're right-wing or left-wing. It's also important to clarify what whatwashings of wartime atrocities the Koreans are pointing out, like the use of the term "invasion."
The problems with the Korean publications on history should be put in the article too. There is only one history textbook in Korea, written and edited by the goverment. And due to the anti-Japanese educational policy, the "good" side of the nation/people is hardly written in any publications.
I'd also like to have non-Korean/Japanese discussing this issue. Some could provide a neutral point of view. --Nc622 11:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Textbooks 

message: Taekwondo was originated from Takkyun Korean martial art. I think many ill-minded people who falsely believe Taekwondo was influenced by Karate are getting confused with ( Tang Soo Do).
Taekwondo is home grown Korean martial art. Japanese cannot accept the fact that Taekwondo is more popular than karate. Taekwondo is chosen has Olympic Sport.
Taekwondo and Tang Soo Do are two different martial arts.
Removed the part about Taekwondo and culture taught wrongly in Japan. This is false; they mention the Korean influence in their culture in textbooks. I think we've had enough of the falseness of the claim on Taekwondo not originating from Karate.
:Taekwondo did not originate from Karate. I will change it unless somebody replies to this. It began around the three kingdoms period when soldiers were taught to the soldiesr to dismount enemy cavalrymen. (Wikimachine 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone claim Taekwondo came from Karate? Wow. Something you should be reading would be the Korean influence on Japan when the Baekje court moved to Japan and introduced new culture. Good friend100 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean adoptation of Japanese culture 

message: This claim is groundless. No documented records are found that can prove that the Japanese empire changed the name. The name Korea was used before the Japanese annexed Korea. Until the 20th century French was normally used for international conferences, in these documents Korea's written Corée because in Roman languages in general to start with C is linguistically correct. It's after Versailles Treaty when English became prevalent. So it's just a difference of whether they prefer the French way or the English way. It's your choice... It's kinda scary the whole nation believes this Japanese conspiracy theory though. Same with the name of the sea... Personally I don't care about that "sea" (it's just a sea, for your's sake), but... I'm sorry but I have to say the reasonings in these claims are extremely poor.--Nc622 11:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corea/Korea 

message: The more and more I find about these "brutalities commited by Japanese army," I notice that they're all made ups by the Chinese and the Koreans... Unbelievable.
Look the Nanking Massacre, comfort women, death railway, the murder of Empress Min, Manila massacre, unit 731, unit 100, etc these are not made up.
The Nanking Massacre and comfort women are exactly the made ups. The comfort women issues are the worst though. There're no documented records or whatsoever to suggest that these "comfort women" were slaves that the military forced to be. These were prostitutes, and there're only testimonies by the women themselves, which somehow constantly change with each trial they faced. --Nc622 09:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The very fact that you think this is about belief shows you're not doing academic research. You seem not to understand my point either. Give me the names of the German historians denying holocaust since I've never heard about it. You're trying to make a very rough contrast. There are numerous legitimate evidences that suggest holocaust did happen, which is, in comparison, exactly my point on the two issues: there are NO legitimate evidences (testimonies, documentations, etc.) that suggest these happened. Just for your information, the first ones who denied the comfort women were Korean journalists themselves, and the Tokyo trial is largely considerred by historians as illegal and unjust for the Japanese.--Nc622 11:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese and Korean Propaganda 

message: : The content of this article is based on Korean fabrication(and imagination) plus propaganda. I strongly suggest that this article should be revised, after a thorough and careful discussion. Observed from an objective perspective the article is too illogical, lacks historical and scientific proof. A crystal of anti-Japanism and racism. It goes without saying that such a hostile and disrepectful attitude will exacerbate the relationship between two countries. As a non-Japanese and non-Korean, I believe that the quality of the article itself is in question. : Tangfe 14:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats new..... The Koreans never asserted this.... Do u have evidence????? and Koreans talk bout the Japanese b/c u do know wut atrocities they commited to the Koreans right????  One possibility of this is that the Homo sapien migration route leads from Korea into Japan.....  and another maybe that mostof the Japanese culture sprung from trade with korea.....  And spread some love, Koreans love Japanese food and the Japanese love Korean Wave.....  There are those few that nationalists from both countries that hate each other hardcore.....  Thanks(MCASGT 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of the Page is in Big Question 

message: Under Japanese invasion, this occurs <trying to expose some "perceived" distortion of history by Korea>. What does it mean that "perceived" is in quotes? Usually something is in quotes to indicate that it is not actually so, but only allegedly so. But, here, that would mean the perceived distortion were not really perceived? That doesn't make much sense to me. Sivamo 08:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "perceived" 

message: I'm starting to clean up this article. I'm planning to erase basically the entire section on the cultural disputes since most of them are worthless, except for Zainichi and Corea/Korea(I think this is quite idiotic too, but considering how big the issue became in Korea during the World Cup, I decided to leave it).--Nc622 17:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: :The opinion that it is established that Russia of the imperialism age began to use "Corea" for "Korea" with the Russian notation, and it is used even now is leading.
It is used even now is leading? Huh? - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: There seem to be two "sides" currently editing two sections of this page.
Comfort women
Someone is anonymously changing well established facts on this page about the comfort women issue. (Japan is currently just about the only country in which this issue is denied in varying degrees). If someone wants to present radically different point of view, then please present it here on the talk page. I suggest using the term "Comfort women" instead of "Sex slaves", the meaning of the term is properly explained on Comfort women. The section should for the most part be a summary of that article, not a political statement. JeroenHoek 10:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Koreans living in Japan use Japanese names to hide their origin, since Koreans are hated in Japan due to their high crime rate. Criticism against Zainichi people who have their origin in North Korea are increasing, because tha fact has revealed that some leading members of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chosen Soren in Japanese, Chongryun in Korean), an organizing body for North Koreans in Japan, were involved in the kidnapping of many innocent Japanese as an agent of the goverment of North Korea.
The kidnapping issue is real (acknowledged by North Korea and Japan) and is as such an "issue" that should be present on this page. It does however recquire a new section in my opinion, because the current wording seems insulting to the Korean population in Japan as a generalisation. If someone has some text for such a parahraph, please post it, but I suggest we don't shuffle it in with the "Zainichi Koreans" section. JeroenHoek 10:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open issues on this page 

message: Any specific references to support such a claim? If it is unsupported, remove. Kokiri 21:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean government policies 

message: anyone think a brief section on korean/chinese demand for apologies would be appropriate? i'm thinking something along the lines of 3~4 sentences describing the history of the apologies (there's already a wiki list), & why korea thinks they're inadequate, that japan is tired of repeating them, that korea thinks japan's actions undermines their sincerity. i was sorta surprised there wasn't a section, but i'm ambivalent about whether one should be created. Appleby 17:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  section on apologies

message: I found an interesteing point of view from the first paragraphs in the article:
:The two nations have had an often antagonistic relationship, despite sharing many cultural ties. Historical and archeological records indicate that Koreans transmitted to Japan such developments as rice farming, shamanism, ceremonial burial, pottery techniques, iron and bronze working, Chinese writing system, and Buddhism. However, subsequent Japanese invasions and the 1910-1945 annexation of Korea underly the two side's current political relations.
Does this article want to say "Japan owes what it is today to Korea, so why does Japan ignores such facts while doing harm to Korea?" I find awkwardness in the usage of "However"---in the sentence before "However" it's claimed how enthusiastically Korea helped Japan develop, and after the "However" come invasion and annexation. What's the relation between these sentences?
And there seem to be some "contributions" by Korea cited above under debate. Rice farming is harder in the northern regions, especially in prehistory time. It developed later even in the northern China, and did cultivation of rice really begin earlier in Korea than Japan? I have thought that it was brought from southern China, via Taiwan and OKinawa Islands. Similarly, shamanism, ceremonial burial and pottery techniques can be questioned. Do ancient Korean shamanism and burial tradition resemble that of Japan? In this paragraph it's stated "Historical and archeological records indicate that..." so there seems to be evidence to support this, but I don't know it. -222.4.16.15 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea has kindly educated Japan but Japan betrayed 

message: *Dolmen was first created near the Liaodong Peninsula 1500BC, then spread to the Jilin are, and to the Korean peninsula around 500BC and Japan during the Jomon period. please provide cite; 
:see above for citation for my edit.Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please provide cite; see above for citation for "modern ideas"Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: see above citation; article doesn't say "invented" Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: please provide cite. see above for citation, in fact the cite you provided, for current wording. Appleby 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Wikipedia articles on each. Key terms are wikified. None of your cited articles say that those cultural developments originated in Korea. Like I said earlier, since most of them originally came from China, it's more accurate to say that they came from China to Japan by way of Korea. If you don't like the expression "came from China to Japan by way of Korea," then you should be more spesific about which cultures were invented in "Korea." Your cited articles don't help you on this because they don't distinguish which was invented in Korea and which came form somewhere else originally. (For they are articles about ancient Japan after all.) You could either (1) write "came from China to Japan by way of Korea," or (2) limit to spesific cultures of Korean origin and stop using expressions like "modern ideas" and the other generic terms. It's your choice. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goguryeo people were Koreans. Koreans have no claim to Goguryeo is definitely wrong. Watch your manner of speech, Hermeneus. (Wikimachine 01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appleby's "cultural developments of Korea" 

message: The South Korean government agreed not to demand any further compensations because the Japanese government has already compensated individual victims with the treaty. In other words, the Japanese government fulfilled the obligation, not just "waived." You can't demand an infinite amount of compensation from Japan forever. 
The liability is merely transferred to the South Korean government. Victims' right to compensation is not waived. The treaty has not deprived individuals of the right to seek any compensations. It has only changed the body from whom the victims could demand compensations. They only need to exercise the right toward the South Korean government now. 
The South Korean government only paid measly 2,570 million won to victims out of 800 million dollars received from Japan. Let the South Korean government use the rest of the money to compensate comfort women before requesting more "liability." 
That old UN report, published 4 years before the disclosure of those important documents, is wrong for assuming that Japan has only paid state-to-state compensation and has not compensated any individual victims. As a matter of fact the Japanese government paid 800  million dollars to the South Korean government on the assumption that the South Korean government will take care of the compensation of individual victims. That the South Korean government failed to do so is not something that could be blamed on the Japanese government. The criticism presented in the UN report has become invalid now because it is based on an assumption that has been proven wrong by the secret documents that came out last year. Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whatever the terms, it was a gov't to gov't agreement. the link is saying, in cases of crimes against humanity (which must be the exception to the normal rule), the (korean) gov't's purported settlement (accept payment in exchange for waiving claim against japanese gov't) on behalf of the individual victims (obviously, not talking about korean gov't being unable to settle on its own behalf) was legally ineffective. the japanese courts, at trial & on appeal, didn't say the treaty precluded the lawsuit (obviously, japan knew the terms of the treaty it signed, & would have thrown out the cases at the courthouse door on that basis if the treaty were applicable as you interpret it), nor does any source i can find. as a matter of policy, not by the legal effect of the treaty itself, Japanese gov't's position is that the treaty resolved everything. Appleby 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appleby's UN report 

message: Dear Deiaemeth. If you lived in Japan, you could see that "most Japan teachers' union are against the textbook by the Tsukurukai". 
*One thing. Tsukurukai's textbook has been adopted by less than 0.1% of the schools, as this article says.
*Parents of Suginami -protesting Tsukurukai-
*Kyoto teacher's union
*Chofu Teaching Group
*Ehime
*
......There're too much information. See  and .
I don't get why you change "Comfort Women" to Sex Slaves.
: Good. If you want to reinstate that into the article, that would be good. I'm glad to see many Japanese teachers have the morality and senses not to take the Historical revionist approach to a controversial topic. Also, the statistics provided by other editors about adoption of the textbook itself - 0.1% (I think it increased slightly recently, but not significantly anyway), was not challeneged by any editors. Also, the problem is you and one other editors kept deleting the citations that came with the excerpt. As Per Wikipedia Policies, unless a justifiable reason is given, that constitutes a vandalism. I see you're quite new here, and I recommend Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Citing sources - it's a good read. When I first started editing here, I was confused about Wikipedian policies and these pages help a lot. Also, adding four tildes (Deiaemeth 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for understanding. Please don't take all the Japanese for Mr. Koizumi and some other conservative politicians. It is true that it's a big problem most Japanese people have little knowledge of what Japan did in the early 20th century, but it is also true that there are not so many people who support those conservative points of view on history. Regards. Michael Friedrich 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsukurukai

message: *Support (Wikimachine 04:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Korean-Japanese relationship 

message: Yes, korea had been invaded by japan in the 20th century during world war 2, but it was becauses of imperialistic tactics that were imposed on japn years ago by America creating the meiji era. The Shinto is a traditional prayer to the elders and the "god" which is the Tenno himself. Much like korean confuscism, Japanese shinto is culture, not a religion. Also during the colonization of korea by japan, industry rose up and the massive indusrialaztion that took europe and America almost 200 years to finish and take korea and japan 50 years. And yes it was not intended by the japanese to industrialize kore, infact they were order by the government in Japan to keep the numbers of korean employers as minimal as possible. In the end, i say it was not the intent of the whole japanese people but the idea of individuals in politics hoping to expand an island country due to angry ex-bushido code warriors and new imperialistic ideas that was set on them too early. It was not japan, it was the times.
:Imperialistic tactics imposed by the US had nothing to do with Japanese imperialism. Imperialism and holocausts are two different things. What Japanese did was holocaust. And, yes, I agree that Japanese people today and most of them back then are not responsible for the cruelties. But that doesn't matter because that's not what Koreans are really angry about. They are enraged by the fact that the Japanese historians and people themselves (even Tokyo University professor) do not admit that these things happened, and don't show apologetic attitudes. Instead of repent, you guys make excuses on why those were not Japan's fault or just simply deny the historical truths. (Wikimachine 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i have a answer for you 

message: Even today, in many other European languages, Korea is spelled as Corea. Furthermore, at the time in question, Japan desired to be called Nippon in English ("N" coming after both "C" and "K"). Korea counters this by saying that Japan knew that the "Western World" would not listen. So Japan ultimately thought of Korea as "Korea" with a K and not a C. In the end, no one will really know what happened.
This is SO LOL. But could anybody provide reference for this? (Wikimachine 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny Quote That Needs Evidence 

message: I think the Racist Magnas such as: "Hate The Korean Wave" or "Why we should Hate South Korea" among others Showing Sterotypical And Racist Images of Koreans and Chinese should be included as a part of Korean-Japanese Disputes. just my 2 cents I plan on creating it or helping if someone else wants to take the Reins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate The Korean Wave 

message: Following Japan-Korea relations, I'd like to suggest moving the article to Japan-Korea disputes, following the alphabetically arranged naming scheme for titles of international relations studies. (Wikimachine 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no contrary, it moved.--Forestfarmer 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move 

message: ===Liancourt Rocks===
It seems that a few editors wish rewriting of the intro like the following from the current version.
"Currently under South Korean control, these islets are also claimed by Japan. The islets are called "Dokdo" in Korean and "Takeshima" in Japanese. There are valuable fishing grounds around the islets and reserves of natural gas have also been found recently."
However, it already discussed about this intro issue for long time on the main article's talk page, and it has reached agreement with the current version. If you will force revert without an explanation from now on, it will be regarded as vandalism. Because you will be violate of POV fork unless you are able to be convinced of other editors in the main article.--Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no objection, I had corrected such as . --Watermint 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I found several sources that Japanese companies copy Korean products such as cell phone, and LCD products. That also should be added. --Appletrees 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent controversy issues

message: It seems that a few editors wish rewriting of the intro like the following from the current version.
"Currently under South Korean control, these islets are also claimed by Japan. The islets are called "Dokdo" in Korean and "Takeshima" in Japanese. There are valuable fishing grounds around the islets and reserves of natural gas have also been found recently."
However, it already discussed about this intro issue for long time on the main article's talk page, and it has reached agreement with the current version. If you will force revert without an explanation from now on, it will be regarded as vandalism. Because you will be violate of POV fork unless you are able to be convinced of other editors in the main article.--Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liancourt Rocks

message: The current intro seems to me surely Japanese POV. Therefore, I propose rewriting as follows;
The Japanese government protests that the name "Sea of Japan" is geographically and historically established in Europe from the late 18th century to the early 19th century and is currently used all over the world. But, both North and South Korean governments protest insist that Japan promoted the usage of the name "Sea of Japan" while Korea lost effective control over its foreign policy under Japanese imperial expansion. South Korea argues that the name "East Sea," which was one of the most common names found on ancient European maps of this sea, should be the official name instead of (or at least used concurrently with) "Sea of Japan."
The description which is "the same with the title of "East Sea"" should be attached the reliable citation. At first, please present us the reliable citation.--Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no objection, I had corrected such as . --Watermint 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea of Japan

message: Personally, I'm thinking that the paragraph does not need to delete cause I seem to be written based on some sources.  --Watermint 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found several sources that Japanese companies copy Korean products such as cell phone, and LCD products. That also should be added. --Appletrees 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism of Japanese products

message: 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 relevant 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
 The watchlist of 2channel editors
Japan / WW2	Korea	Korean culture/ China
*Articles related to Japan
**Anti-Japanese sentiment ●
**Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea ●
**Japanese people
**Japanese nationalism ●
**Japanese fascism ●
**Japanese war crimes ●
**Japanese history textbook controversies
**Kimi ga Yo
**Masayoshi Son
**Shimane Prefecture
**Ironclad warship
**Kofun period
**Horyu-ji
**Occidentalism
**Norimitsu Onishi
**Shimazu Yoshihiro
**Tsushima Basin
**Takamatsuzuka Tomb
**Emperor of Japan
**Hirohito
**Akihito
**Japanese imperial regalia
*Articles related to World War II
**Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period
**Japanese central government (WWII)
**List of Japanese secret agents (1930s to World War Two)
**List of Japanese supporters of the WWII period	
*Korea related articles
**Korea ●
**South Korea ●
**:Category:Japanese-Korean relations
**Japanese-Korean disputes
**Syngman Rhee line
**Sea of Japan ○
**Sea of Japan naming dispute○
**Liancourt Rocks ○
*History of Korea
**Goguryeo
**Baekje
**Silla
**Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)
***Battle of Noryang
***Battle of Myeongnyang
***Siege of Jinju (1592)
**Oei Invasion
**Tsushima Island
**An Jung-geun
**Comfort women ●○
**Empress Myeongseong
**Korea under Japanese rule
**Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty
**Japanese-Korean relations
**Rusk documents ●○
**Magatama / Gogok
**Joseon dynasty
**Yi Sun-sin
**Bukgwan Victory Monument
**Zainichi Korean	
*Articles related to Korean culture
**:Category:Korean culture
**Culture of Korea
**:Category:Korean swords
**Korean swords
**:Category:Korean art
**:Category:Korean martial arts
**Taekwondo, :Category:Taekwondo
**Kumdo
**:Category:Korean beverages
**Korean tea ceremony
**:Category:National Treasures of South Korea
**Bangasayusang
**Archaic smile
**Baekje smile
**:Category:Buddhist art and culture
*Football World Cup 2002 naming controversy
*Developed country
*Voluntary Agency Network of Korea
*Pepero
*Articles related to China
**Foreign relations between China and Japan
**Second Sino-Japanese War
**First Sino-Japanese War
**Nanking Massacre ●○
**The Rape of Nanking (book)
**Senkaku Islands
**Okinotorishima
**Battle of Shanghai
**Marco Polo Bridge Incident
**2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations
I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is on 2channel's watchlist 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese-Korean_disputes&diff=195226158&oldid=194097498 
Since it is proved at WP:ANI that Jjok has violated several important rules in editing articles, I checked this disputed article which he edited and not surprisingly he did wonderful job like the above. Well, I saw Jjok expanded environment issues of Japan, so he likely put the almost same contents to there. I think this section be revised and discussed. Besides, Sea of Japan (East Sea) is not solely administered by Japan, but Jjok described such which is a violation on WP:NPOV.--Appletrees (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{User|Jjok}}'s addition about "Environment" issues 

message: "Zainichi (在日, Resident Japan) refers to Koreans currently residing in Japan"
If you look at the "Zainichi Koreans" article is points to it clearly says that Zainichi usually refers to Koreans that permanently live in Japan.  It can be used for any group that permanently live in Japan like Zainichi Chinese, etc...
this should be changed to
"Zainichi (在日, Resident Japan) usually refers to Koreans currently residing in Japan"
--Hydenobuyuki (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zainichi term