This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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).
Article is Focused on Atrocities, Neglects Beneficial Development
There's no doubt that negative events and atrocities occurred during colonial rule. Nearly every colony during the age of colonialism suffered. Many indigenous people did not survive colonialism and became (near)-extinct such as in North / South America, Australia. This article is too focused on that, while omitting or downplaying positive development that occurred during that era. The chapter called "Legacy" focusses almost exclusively on negative events. So it would be more fair to (while keeping objective existing content) also include or expand with information about (please see the Japanese Wiki page for more information ja:日本統治時代の朝鮮:
Improvement of education system and improvement of literacy rate
Development of resorts (hot springs, climbing, ski, parks, pools, waterfalls, beaches)
Culture (expositions: Joseon Industrial Exhibition of 1915, local specialty (food), fashion / makeup changes during colonial rule, Theater, dance, music, art, sports, movies, broadcast, beverages)
City development: important historical buildings during this era.
Projects for modernization
This is feedback to help make the article balanced and hopefully others who are more knowledgeable about the subject can improve it. - Artanisen (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an argument I've seen before in other media, and it's very much in line with uyoku dantai talking points, which like to either gloss over or completely ignore factual reality or the overwhelmingly negative character of Japanese occupation (it should be noted that nearly all of the developments noted in your points were developed to benefit Japanese colonial rule and imperial military-industrial development at the expense of Korea; few, if any, were instituted for the benefit of Korea or Koreans). Importantly, the line that "nearly every colony suffered...many indigenous people did not survive" neglects the fact that many such peoples did not have a history of centralized statehood or organized civilization comparable to that of Korea. However, the truly fatal flaw in this argument is that it fails to account for the fact that within 5 years of Japanese withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula, Korea was embroiled in the 3-year Korean War, which resulted in a near-total destruction of infrastructure, non-residential buildings, industry, and so on - much of which was from Japanese occupation-era development - which had to be replaced from the ground up. Thus most Japanese imperial-era contributions to Korean development were effectively wiped out during the Korean War and replaced with Korean equivalents, mostly underwritten by the United States. If any tangible Japanese contribution should be considered with regards to Korean development in the modern era, it should be the substantial (something like 800 million USD at the time, corresponding to roughly 7.6 billion USD today) financial contribution from Japan given as part of the 1965 normalization treaty with South Korea (which of course did not benefit North Korea). In addition, post-WWII Japan's development also benefited South Korea by providing an example for design and development and being a source of industrial know-how in many circumstances (e.g. certain aspects of automobile manufacture). But note that these things come from post-WWII Japan, not Imperial Japan.Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article you've linked contains only one reference, which is to another JP Wikipedia article. I guess I'll look in the stuff in the Further Reading to see if it's got anything to try and balance it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if I end up having a hard time finding any authors who have anything positive to say about the Japanese Empire. Loafiewa (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Japanese wiki page has lots of references which are useful. You could also check wiki pages in other languages about this subject. So your statement that "a hard time finding any authors who have anything positive to say" is false and a biased attitude. - Artanisen (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the context meant was positive as far as the Japanese Empire's occupation of Korea; some of the points you have made assume Korea would not have accomplished these things without Japanese help/prodding, which is sheer speculation. It will be difficult to find objective historians who will be able to come forward with much in the way of positive accomplishments when balanced with so much absolute misery perpetrated upon the Korean people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I kidnapped your child and did horrific things to them, but I also bought them a car so that makes it more acceptable"
I agree that any information about development during the colonial period should be included, but not because of some false sense of balance, but because we should include true and notable things. Actively seeking out "balance" when horrific things happened signals ulterior non-neutral POV motives.
Also you writing this is bewildering: Nearly every colony during the age of colonialism suffered. Many indigenous people did not survive colonialism and became (near)-extinct such as in North / South America, Australia. This is the lowest tier of whataboutism. You're saying Korea is supposed to be grateful it wasn't wiped out? These types of arguments signal explicit non-neutral POV. You're actively trying to paint this situation brighter by trying to justify the horrific things that happened. Completely unacceptable. toobigtokale (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the entire article need an “unreliable sources” template?
I found a recent edit by Yuorvee drastic enough to warrant input from other editors. They want to add a template warning readers that the entire article’s sources are unreliable. Because of the highly fraught politics involved with this article’s subject, I have no doubt that individual sources may be questionable and partisan, but not everything. If other editors want to go ahead and approve using such a template, I have no problem with it, but it would be preferable to get consensus on it first. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make sure to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The facts are already horrific enough; extra emotion just makes the atrocities seem exaggerated and gives fuel to denialists. toobigtokale (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]