Talk:Yalu River
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) |
 |
This article needs a map. |
Japanese Occupation of Korea is non-NPOV and unreasonable. I prefer more neutral Japanese rule of Korea.
"occupation" in that sense means
- Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. --American Heritage
Japan's administration of Korea, which was decided by the treaty of annexation, included both civil and military ones. In addition, "occupation" sounds temporal control to me, but Japan planed permanent rule. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- "Japanese rule" sounds just as bad, for the opposite reason: it seems to legitimize the 35-year period of colonial rule. Every word that describes power relationships has connotations of justification or protest. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why "rule" legitimizes Japan's administration. "rule" is more accurate than "occupation".
- 1a. Governing power or its possession or use; authority. b. The duration of such power.
--Nanshu
- Whatever. All I know is that the US "allowed" Japan to take control of Korea in 1905 through the Eul-Sa Treaty of Protection and that from 1910-1945 Japan exploited Korea like a colony. They tried to eliminate Korean culture, forbidding the use of Korean surnames and written language; they suppressed Christianity. Now you can call that 'occupation' or 'rule' as you wish. Just don't try to conceal what Japan did to Korea is all I ask. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- If Japanese Occupation is too contentious, maybe we should use the term Japanese Colonial Period. The term is used in some Korean and western academic sources, so it should be acceptable to most people (from my own personal POV, I can live with it). Also, it more or less translates the two neutral Korean terms Iljeong sidae (일정 시대; 日政時代) and Ilje sidae (일제 시대; 日帝時代) which mean "Japanese government period" and "Japanese imperial period" respectively. --Sewing 00:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Sound cho-wa-yo (good) to me. Let's put some text at Japanese Colonial Period, then. But I'd like to hear what Nanshu thinks, too. I hope the 3 of us can find terminology that we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 13:36, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- I added text and moved the article to Japanese Colonial Period (Korea) to clarify the title. --Sewing 22:47, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm busy for a couple of days. I have no objection to Sewing's motion. --Nanshu 23:22, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Changed "Baitou Mountain" to "Beakdu Mountain" since its article shows "Beakdu Mountain" --dandan
