![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Efrobe8700 (
article contribs).
There are two different reference sections in the article, one in the normal position and format but there's another in the center of the article... Plus, one reference section is longer than the other. Maybe you could either merge them or something, but i think that needs to be fixed. 173.79.68.101 ( talk) 21:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC) An IP address :D
OK i got it. There's one reference section for Korea's POV and Japan's POV. While i think this is absolutely fine, it is a bit confusing... I still think merging the references would be a better idea, but if not, that's perfectly ok. 173.79.68.101 ( talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC) The Same IP reviewing his earlier comment :)
I agree that having two separate reference section is confusing. It also gives off the impression that the two viewpoints of two nations are so irreconcilable that they need separate sets of sources to back themselves. Even then the references are quite disorganized. It is unclear what source "Kōzō (1997:308–310)" refers to. I tried using WorldCat but could not determine which book this is referring to. Aqua3993 ( talk) 21:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This is very complicated, and it will not be simple. There are 2 points of views and multiple references. The last version was under Japanese POV. Please update my version but please do not delete my references you may fix the sentences but you can't keep information hidden because you do not like what the facts state. The Gosashi tomb is a huge part of relations between these two countries. National Geographics thinks the countries related to each other in terms of Imperial line. You can't just leave that out because you don't like it. New York Met Museum sees the relationship of ancient Korea to Japan, any Japan cannot just ignore it because you don't like it. Please edit fairly. -- 4.23.83.100 ( talk) 05:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that deleting the references is the solution here, rather merging them. And yes, I think the points of views should be separated.
173.79.68.101 ( talk) 03:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) The IP from above commenting again
The anonymous user did not give historical background on the "compensation" that the President Park Jung-hyee received from Japan. For example, the president was a dictator, and most South Koreans at the time protested against the contract. And this article lacks proper citation. Without proper citation, please don't put anything new. ( Wikimachine 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
Before I begin with anything, let me tell you a Wikipedia policy. When a dispute on an edit arises, the dispute is settled while the article remains in previous form. This means that without the community consensus (including mine), you can't revert my revert. And entering a revert war is heavily discouraged - you can be blocked for a certain span of time for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours.
Now, to answer your statement, yes. If it's POV, it's deleted. If it's NPOV, it remains. It's simple as that. I don't care what historical fact there might be, if it's written in POV tone, somebody better fix it, or it gets deleted. ( Wikimachine 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
I'll give everything straight.
( Wikimachine 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
I'll keep the Hate the Japan wave info. ( Wikimachine 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
I'm going to repeat for the last time for the persistent flow of anonymous users.
Now, to answer the anonymous user's comment on how I only remove JPOV stuffs, I say that I am not obligated to remove what might be KPOV in this article, although it is my intention to try my best to remove any POV. I'm busy with my areas of expertise & interests, I only reacted to a POV edit that I happened to cross. And yes, I do remove a lot of KPOV, so don't worry.
AND, that only JPOV arguments are being removed should never be used as a justification for anything. ( Wikimachine 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) P.S. By the way, anonymous users should comment on the talk page rather than reverting & communicating to me with the "edit summary" feature. ( Wikimachine 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Please take a look at this. Getting rid of "East Sea" could be understandable, but changing "Dokdo" to "Takeshima", switching the order of the words Korea and Japan (from "Korea-Japan Friendship Year" to "Japan-Korea Friendship Year"), and adding nonsensical and useless statements such as "Now, The Japanese literature is the highest ratio in the foreign literature translated into South Korea." are exactly what I wanted to prevent in this article. Here goes another revert. The article is pretty much messed up, I don't see much benefit in trying to improve it -POV will always ruin the works I've invested in it. ( Wikimachine 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Hi, another anonymous user. Welcome to POV revert warfare and 3RR violation. See the previous discussions? Your edits must be discussed while the article's in the form previous to your edits. That's Wikipedia policy.
Anyways, line by line.
Sales of audience rating and book on sales of movie and television... Please explain the reason to want to conceal a lot of sources that prove a Japanese boom. -- Sir Joestar 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, you don't even understand English. I never accused you of removing any source. What are you complaining about? Which specific edits? ( Wikimachine 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
The section below the "2005 a tempestuous one despite being 'Japan-Korea friendship year'" paragraph is JPOV.
( Wikimachine 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) Reference is here: [1].
Now, I completely understand the situation (having done some serious research). The "secret" compensation thingie and all other JPOV criticisms should be reserved for the Korea-Japanese disputes article. This article should be limited to a brief summary of the political and economical relations between the two country, not ethnic and historical disputes. ( Wikimachine 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
By the way, please use appropriate modes of citing. For news, [2]. See formats for many other citation templates here. ( Wikimachine 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
Um... huh? My best guess is this means "The Japanese animated film Howl's Moving Castle sold 3,000,000 tickets in South Korea in 2005", which I've changed the article to read. (Translating the statement's source using Google didn't help much.) But if I'm wrong, feel free to change it. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That should be the standard international naming schemes for studies in international relations. Alphabetical. JK. ( Wikimachine 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC))
Before I talk about KPOV, let me remind Sir Joestar to discuss before reverting.
Please write the drama in South Korea that succeeds in Japan. I can examine the audience rating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.212.102.244 ( talk) 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, Please write the South Korea drama that succeeds in Japan. It is the simplest answer. -- 61.116.113.149 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not alter quotes from a reputable English newspaper. If the reputable source says many, then it doesn't matter what you think. Etimesoy 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Japanese Box Office [3] Why did 'Gemul' fail in Japan? [4] "King man" failed from "Gemul". [5] Challenge of the last South Korea movie "Natsumonogatari" was failed [6] The South Korea movie did not succeed in Japan at all. [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.209.158.205 ( talk) 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
There have been a lot of collaborations on films as of late as well between Japan and Korea. This might be a good thing to add. Because it's not just importation, but cooperation on artistic ventures. -- Hitsuji Kinno 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Could the map be updated to zoom to south Asia more? -- Cat chi? 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This article makes it look like the two countries hate each other. As a Korean national, I can say for certain that the vast majority of people treat citizens from the other side(s) with respect and general politeness. While there are underlying tensions, the extreme-right minority (on both sides) is blown way out of proportion by western media. Although there may be initial resistance, cultural exchange and cooperation is happening on a huge scale, in public or behind closed doors. 154.20.68.26 08:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone stop the constant vandalism of this page? Apparently some Japanese nationalists are trying hard to make some kind of a point, but the additions are really, really badly written, the points are written in a really derogatory way, and most of them are not relevant to Japan-Korea relations anyway, but are just some random rants. Let's try to make this into an encyclopedia article. I agree with the user above, some more positive progress in the relationship needs to be added here as well. DoubtingMary ( talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
222.1.40.208, this article is largely based on the Library of Congress study, linked to in the article. I think we can all agree that is a reputable independent source. There is no mention of any plagiarism issue as a Japan-Korea issue there, and I don't see any sources discussing the issue as a bilateral relationship topic. Let's try to be objective here, instead of plastering Wikipedia with some personal viewpoint. DoubtingMary ( talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I see that the whole "Korea plagiarazes Japan" angle is already in the other article mentioned by Guidales. I don't think it even belongs there, but we certainly don't need it in both articles. Those accusations belong in the individual artist/movie/song pages, if that. Certainly not at a state-to-state relations summary like this encyclopedia article is supposed to be. DoubtingMary ( talk) 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to be under the impression that you own this article. You are not in a position to permit certain changes or not. I'm here to improve this article, and will continue to do so, for the reasons already explained above. DoubtingMary ( talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should remind all of you edit warring is against the rules. Transcendence ( talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The South Korean insists that the South Korea culture is popular in Japan on the Japanese culture that succeeds in South Korea. The Japanese insists it is unpopular on the South Korea culture in Japan. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.131.136 ( talk) 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading this article, it seems to be based mostly on japanese POV. For example, when the article states, "In recent years, South Korea tried to spread South Korean pop culture to Japan.", it subconciously makes one think as if South Korea was the bad one. When it states, "South Korea tried", does it mean that South Korea, as a nation purposley attempted a spreading of Korean Culture on Japan, but failed? Overall, I am a bit dissatisfied with the article, and I think it should be either rewritten, or enourmously revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.49.57 ( talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Talking to a Japanese friend, he told me that there are about 600,000 North Korean citizens currently living in Japan (this figure might possibly include all South and North Korean citizens). After Japanese colonization efforts in Korea, many Korean citizens chose to settle in Japan apparently, and Japan did not issue Japanese citizenship to them. These people were issued citizenship in North and South Korea, depending on their place of origin. Since Japan does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, this means that there are significant numbers of people who have been living for decades in Japan with no recognized citizenship. The children of these people go to North Korean ethnic schools in Japan. There have apparently been scandals where children in these North Korean ethnic schools in Japan have been taught highly biased accounts of Japanese history that are not complimentary to Japan. Many of the North and South Koreans in Japan are involved in the Pachinko (sp?) gaming industry.
Do we have any material on this strange situation? Should we?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There are more disputes between Japan and North Korea not mentioned in this article and should include the missile launches and hostile relations. While South Korea and Japan relations go deeper in territory dispute and pop culture exchange. So I suggest that we should split this article. One about North Korea-Japan relations and a article about South Korea-Japan relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorRabbit ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I skimmed through the discussion, and it looks like this issue has never been discussed. So, I want to ask one question: why the article is dealing with both "Japan-ROK" and "Japan-DPRK" relations? Maybe it should be obvious to some, but in my humble opinion these two different relations should be covered separately. In fact, this is the only article that ROKs diplomatic relations is mentioned side by side with DPRK. See
People's Republic of China–North Korea relations and
People's Republic of China–South Korea relations. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? Thanks, ---
PBJT (
talk)
03:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a number of relatively quick and sizable additions and deletions on this page in my Watchlist. A cursory look suggested that user Juzumaru may have been adding in POV content, which also unfortunately wasn't written very well (various grammar and spelling problems). Juzumaru's edits were either missing edit summaries, or had not-very-explanatory edit summaries, so I reverted Juzumaru. I noticed a bit more back-and-forthing between Juzumaru and one or two anons, and looked further into the history of the article, which made it clear that Juzumaru probably wasn't adding in new POV content so much as reverting its previous removal, and also that the anon users have been adding substantial additional content in small bits. The large changes I noticed happened after Juzumaru reverted a bunch of anon edits in one go, touching off the current editing spat.
I regret wading into this. I'm not sure which party is in the right, but whichever it is, this article needs a major overhaul. The structure of the article is confusing, and despite the title, it does not appear to be organized along historical lines. Moreover, there are numerous grammatical and mechanical issues in the writing. Some of it is frankly just gibberish, such as this gem:
Yìlóues(korean) is Chinese and Japanese were differed from. A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling.
Some of it is more understandable, but plainly wrong:
In 660, Japan was attacked by Tang Dynasty China and fell.
I can't tell if this is vandalism, weird POV pushing, a horribly incorrect attempt at translation, or evidence of some alternate universe. Whatever the case, this article is dreadfully in need of help in its present state. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
An answer is very easy.
Yìlóues(korean) is Chinese and Japanese were differed from. A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling.
Yìlóues is an ancestor of South Korean people who live in the Korean Peninsula now. They are the slaves taken to the present position by Tang Dynasty.
In 660, Japan was attacked by Tang Dynasty China and fell.
Korea is not an independent country. Korea of those days was a han territory autonomous region of Tang Dynasty. Japan fought with Tang Dynasty,Risk the hegemony of the Korean Peninsula.
I think that Juzumaru is Korean.
He is trying to hide the fact that Korean was a slave.
123.225.236.178 20:30 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.225.236.178 ( talk)
All the reports added have a basis. An Imperial Japan law and ancient documents, such as 隋書. Don't hide a historical fact with a lie.
Starfox2013 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfox2013 ( talk • contribs)
This article doesn't even mention this rather key concept... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who is more knowledgable about Korean-Japanese history please help clean up the grammar in this article. I'm doing what I can, but it's really hard to understand. Kortoso ( talk) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
"Tsushinshi were sent from Korea to pay homage to a new shogun or to celebrate the birth of an heir to a shogun. Korean envoys were provided with the same role as an envoy to bring tributes to a Chinese emperor or was used for showing the prestige of Tokugawa shogunate."
Kortoso ( talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Under the Japanese section, it makes it look like sakoku was initiated to protect Korea from Japanese piracy. Furthermore, I doubt that Hideyoshi invaded the mainland to protect Korea from pirates. Please cherish the truth. Kortoso ( talk) 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of Japan–Korea relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Japan–Korea relations. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Translated from retardese: Me dumb dumb, me likey make retard post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:B9C3:D9A:E841:C075 ( talk) 22:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Not too long ago, an anon removed the following text from the bottom of the #Ancient Era section:
At the time of Mongol invasions of Japan, Japanese people were scared by the attacks of the Mongol and Goryeo army, saying, 'moko kokuri no oni ga kuru (the devils of the Mongol and Goryeo will come)', which phrase later came to represent something scary; thus a tradition spread to the whole country to scare children into obedience by saying 'mukuri kokuri, oni ga kuru'.
Their edit comment was "Zero sources cited for a sentence that seems like a folk-etymology description that doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the main paragraph."
I agree that the removed text was out of place. Digging around in the page history, it seems like it was more fitting in an earlier version, but not anymore.
That said, this is not a folk etymology, so in case it's useful, and in case anyone can figure out a relevant place to put this, I'd like to expand on the etymology here.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Efrobe8700 (
article contribs).
There are two different reference sections in the article, one in the normal position and format but there's another in the center of the article... Plus, one reference section is longer than the other. Maybe you could either merge them or something, but i think that needs to be fixed. 173.79.68.101 ( talk) 21:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC) An IP address :D
OK i got it. There's one reference section for Korea's POV and Japan's POV. While i think this is absolutely fine, it is a bit confusing... I still think merging the references would be a better idea, but if not, that's perfectly ok. 173.79.68.101 ( talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC) The Same IP reviewing his earlier comment :)
I agree that having two separate reference section is confusing. It also gives off the impression that the two viewpoints of two nations are so irreconcilable that they need separate sets of sources to back themselves. Even then the references are quite disorganized. It is unclear what source "Kōzō (1997:308–310)" refers to. I tried using WorldCat but could not determine which book this is referring to. Aqua3993 ( talk) 21:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This is very complicated, and it will not be simple. There are 2 points of views and multiple references. The last version was under Japanese POV. Please update my version but please do not delete my references you may fix the sentences but you can't keep information hidden because you do not like what the facts state. The Gosashi tomb is a huge part of relations between these two countries. National Geographics thinks the countries related to each other in terms of Imperial line. You can't just leave that out because you don't like it. New York Met Museum sees the relationship of ancient Korea to Japan, any Japan cannot just ignore it because you don't like it. Please edit fairly. -- 4.23.83.100 ( talk) 05:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that deleting the references is the solution here, rather merging them. And yes, I think the points of views should be separated.
173.79.68.101 ( talk) 03:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) The IP from above commenting again
The anonymous user did not give historical background on the "compensation" that the President Park Jung-hyee received from Japan. For example, the president was a dictator, and most South Koreans at the time protested against the contract. And this article lacks proper citation. Without proper citation, please don't put anything new. ( Wikimachine 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
Before I begin with anything, let me tell you a Wikipedia policy. When a dispute on an edit arises, the dispute is settled while the article remains in previous form. This means that without the community consensus (including mine), you can't revert my revert. And entering a revert war is heavily discouraged - you can be blocked for a certain span of time for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours.
Now, to answer your statement, yes. If it's POV, it's deleted. If it's NPOV, it remains. It's simple as that. I don't care what historical fact there might be, if it's written in POV tone, somebody better fix it, or it gets deleted. ( Wikimachine 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
I'll give everything straight.
( Wikimachine 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
I'll keep the Hate the Japan wave info. ( Wikimachine 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
I'm going to repeat for the last time for the persistent flow of anonymous users.
Now, to answer the anonymous user's comment on how I only remove JPOV stuffs, I say that I am not obligated to remove what might be KPOV in this article, although it is my intention to try my best to remove any POV. I'm busy with my areas of expertise & interests, I only reacted to a POV edit that I happened to cross. And yes, I do remove a lot of KPOV, so don't worry.
AND, that only JPOV arguments are being removed should never be used as a justification for anything. ( Wikimachine 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) P.S. By the way, anonymous users should comment on the talk page rather than reverting & communicating to me with the "edit summary" feature. ( Wikimachine 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Please take a look at this. Getting rid of "East Sea" could be understandable, but changing "Dokdo" to "Takeshima", switching the order of the words Korea and Japan (from "Korea-Japan Friendship Year" to "Japan-Korea Friendship Year"), and adding nonsensical and useless statements such as "Now, The Japanese literature is the highest ratio in the foreign literature translated into South Korea." are exactly what I wanted to prevent in this article. Here goes another revert. The article is pretty much messed up, I don't see much benefit in trying to improve it -POV will always ruin the works I've invested in it. ( Wikimachine 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Hi, another anonymous user. Welcome to POV revert warfare and 3RR violation. See the previous discussions? Your edits must be discussed while the article's in the form previous to your edits. That's Wikipedia policy.
Anyways, line by line.
Sales of audience rating and book on sales of movie and television... Please explain the reason to want to conceal a lot of sources that prove a Japanese boom. -- Sir Joestar 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, you don't even understand English. I never accused you of removing any source. What are you complaining about? Which specific edits? ( Wikimachine 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
The section below the "2005 a tempestuous one despite being 'Japan-Korea friendship year'" paragraph is JPOV.
( Wikimachine 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) Reference is here: [1].
Now, I completely understand the situation (having done some serious research). The "secret" compensation thingie and all other JPOV criticisms should be reserved for the Korea-Japanese disputes article. This article should be limited to a brief summary of the political and economical relations between the two country, not ethnic and historical disputes. ( Wikimachine 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
By the way, please use appropriate modes of citing. For news, [2]. See formats for many other citation templates here. ( Wikimachine 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
Um... huh? My best guess is this means "The Japanese animated film Howl's Moving Castle sold 3,000,000 tickets in South Korea in 2005", which I've changed the article to read. (Translating the statement's source using Google didn't help much.) But if I'm wrong, feel free to change it. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That should be the standard international naming schemes for studies in international relations. Alphabetical. JK. ( Wikimachine 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC))
Before I talk about KPOV, let me remind Sir Joestar to discuss before reverting.
Please write the drama in South Korea that succeeds in Japan. I can examine the audience rating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.212.102.244 ( talk) 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, Please write the South Korea drama that succeeds in Japan. It is the simplest answer. -- 61.116.113.149 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not alter quotes from a reputable English newspaper. If the reputable source says many, then it doesn't matter what you think. Etimesoy 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Japanese Box Office [3] Why did 'Gemul' fail in Japan? [4] "King man" failed from "Gemul". [5] Challenge of the last South Korea movie "Natsumonogatari" was failed [6] The South Korea movie did not succeed in Japan at all. [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.209.158.205 ( talk) 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
There have been a lot of collaborations on films as of late as well between Japan and Korea. This might be a good thing to add. Because it's not just importation, but cooperation on artistic ventures. -- Hitsuji Kinno 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Could the map be updated to zoom to south Asia more? -- Cat chi? 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This article makes it look like the two countries hate each other. As a Korean national, I can say for certain that the vast majority of people treat citizens from the other side(s) with respect and general politeness. While there are underlying tensions, the extreme-right minority (on both sides) is blown way out of proportion by western media. Although there may be initial resistance, cultural exchange and cooperation is happening on a huge scale, in public or behind closed doors. 154.20.68.26 08:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone stop the constant vandalism of this page? Apparently some Japanese nationalists are trying hard to make some kind of a point, but the additions are really, really badly written, the points are written in a really derogatory way, and most of them are not relevant to Japan-Korea relations anyway, but are just some random rants. Let's try to make this into an encyclopedia article. I agree with the user above, some more positive progress in the relationship needs to be added here as well. DoubtingMary ( talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
222.1.40.208, this article is largely based on the Library of Congress study, linked to in the article. I think we can all agree that is a reputable independent source. There is no mention of any plagiarism issue as a Japan-Korea issue there, and I don't see any sources discussing the issue as a bilateral relationship topic. Let's try to be objective here, instead of plastering Wikipedia with some personal viewpoint. DoubtingMary ( talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I see that the whole "Korea plagiarazes Japan" angle is already in the other article mentioned by Guidales. I don't think it even belongs there, but we certainly don't need it in both articles. Those accusations belong in the individual artist/movie/song pages, if that. Certainly not at a state-to-state relations summary like this encyclopedia article is supposed to be. DoubtingMary ( talk) 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to be under the impression that you own this article. You are not in a position to permit certain changes or not. I'm here to improve this article, and will continue to do so, for the reasons already explained above. DoubtingMary ( talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should remind all of you edit warring is against the rules. Transcendence ( talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The South Korean insists that the South Korea culture is popular in Japan on the Japanese culture that succeeds in South Korea. The Japanese insists it is unpopular on the South Korea culture in Japan. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.131.136 ( talk) 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading this article, it seems to be based mostly on japanese POV. For example, when the article states, "In recent years, South Korea tried to spread South Korean pop culture to Japan.", it subconciously makes one think as if South Korea was the bad one. When it states, "South Korea tried", does it mean that South Korea, as a nation purposley attempted a spreading of Korean Culture on Japan, but failed? Overall, I am a bit dissatisfied with the article, and I think it should be either rewritten, or enourmously revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.49.57 ( talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Talking to a Japanese friend, he told me that there are about 600,000 North Korean citizens currently living in Japan (this figure might possibly include all South and North Korean citizens). After Japanese colonization efforts in Korea, many Korean citizens chose to settle in Japan apparently, and Japan did not issue Japanese citizenship to them. These people were issued citizenship in North and South Korea, depending on their place of origin. Since Japan does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, this means that there are significant numbers of people who have been living for decades in Japan with no recognized citizenship. The children of these people go to North Korean ethnic schools in Japan. There have apparently been scandals where children in these North Korean ethnic schools in Japan have been taught highly biased accounts of Japanese history that are not complimentary to Japan. Many of the North and South Koreans in Japan are involved in the Pachinko (sp?) gaming industry.
Do we have any material on this strange situation? Should we?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There are more disputes between Japan and North Korea not mentioned in this article and should include the missile launches and hostile relations. While South Korea and Japan relations go deeper in territory dispute and pop culture exchange. So I suggest that we should split this article. One about North Korea-Japan relations and a article about South Korea-Japan relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorRabbit ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I skimmed through the discussion, and it looks like this issue has never been discussed. So, I want to ask one question: why the article is dealing with both "Japan-ROK" and "Japan-DPRK" relations? Maybe it should be obvious to some, but in my humble opinion these two different relations should be covered separately. In fact, this is the only article that ROKs diplomatic relations is mentioned side by side with DPRK. See
People's Republic of China–North Korea relations and
People's Republic of China–South Korea relations. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? Thanks, ---
PBJT (
talk)
03:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a number of relatively quick and sizable additions and deletions on this page in my Watchlist. A cursory look suggested that user Juzumaru may have been adding in POV content, which also unfortunately wasn't written very well (various grammar and spelling problems). Juzumaru's edits were either missing edit summaries, or had not-very-explanatory edit summaries, so I reverted Juzumaru. I noticed a bit more back-and-forthing between Juzumaru and one or two anons, and looked further into the history of the article, which made it clear that Juzumaru probably wasn't adding in new POV content so much as reverting its previous removal, and also that the anon users have been adding substantial additional content in small bits. The large changes I noticed happened after Juzumaru reverted a bunch of anon edits in one go, touching off the current editing spat.
I regret wading into this. I'm not sure which party is in the right, but whichever it is, this article needs a major overhaul. The structure of the article is confusing, and despite the title, it does not appear to be organized along historical lines. Moreover, there are numerous grammatical and mechanical issues in the writing. Some of it is frankly just gibberish, such as this gem:
Yìlóues(korean) is Chinese and Japanese were differed from. A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling.
Some of it is more understandable, but plainly wrong:
In 660, Japan was attacked by Tang Dynasty China and fell.
I can't tell if this is vandalism, weird POV pushing, a horribly incorrect attempt at translation, or evidence of some alternate universe. Whatever the case, this article is dreadfully in need of help in its present state. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
An answer is very easy.
Yìlóues(korean) is Chinese and Japanese were differed from. A feces pool is surrounded and it is structure about a dwelling.
Yìlóues is an ancestor of South Korean people who live in the Korean Peninsula now. They are the slaves taken to the present position by Tang Dynasty.
In 660, Japan was attacked by Tang Dynasty China and fell.
Korea is not an independent country. Korea of those days was a han territory autonomous region of Tang Dynasty. Japan fought with Tang Dynasty,Risk the hegemony of the Korean Peninsula.
I think that Juzumaru is Korean.
He is trying to hide the fact that Korean was a slave.
123.225.236.178 20:30 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.225.236.178 ( talk)
All the reports added have a basis. An Imperial Japan law and ancient documents, such as 隋書. Don't hide a historical fact with a lie.
Starfox2013 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfox2013 ( talk • contribs)
This article doesn't even mention this rather key concept... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who is more knowledgable about Korean-Japanese history please help clean up the grammar in this article. I'm doing what I can, but it's really hard to understand. Kortoso ( talk) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
"Tsushinshi were sent from Korea to pay homage to a new shogun or to celebrate the birth of an heir to a shogun. Korean envoys were provided with the same role as an envoy to bring tributes to a Chinese emperor or was used for showing the prestige of Tokugawa shogunate."
Kortoso ( talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Under the Japanese section, it makes it look like sakoku was initiated to protect Korea from Japanese piracy. Furthermore, I doubt that Hideyoshi invaded the mainland to protect Korea from pirates. Please cherish the truth. Kortoso ( talk) 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of Japan–Korea relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Japan–Korea relations. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Translated from retardese: Me dumb dumb, me likey make retard post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:B9C3:D9A:E841:C075 ( talk) 22:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Not too long ago, an anon removed the following text from the bottom of the #Ancient Era section:
At the time of Mongol invasions of Japan, Japanese people were scared by the attacks of the Mongol and Goryeo army, saying, 'moko kokuri no oni ga kuru (the devils of the Mongol and Goryeo will come)', which phrase later came to represent something scary; thus a tradition spread to the whole country to scare children into obedience by saying 'mukuri kokuri, oni ga kuru'.
Their edit comment was "Zero sources cited for a sentence that seems like a folk-etymology description that doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the main paragraph."
I agree that the removed text was out of place. Digging around in the page history, it seems like it was more fitting in an earlier version, but not anymore.
That said, this is not a folk etymology, so in case it's useful, and in case anyone can figure out a relevant place to put this, I'd like to expand on the etymology here.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)