User talk:Kamosuke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Test

Test

[edit] Request for mediation

Hi, I've filed a request for mediation regarding the dispute you're having with Appleby. I have no opinion on whether either of you is "right" or either of you is "wrong," but I would like to see the dispute resolved. If you wish to comment there, please do so. --Nlu 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

'Bold text'Bold text:Please indicate here whether you are interested in mediation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Kamosuke, it appears from the talk page that you are interested in mediation. If you are, would you mind reaffirming that at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Korea? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Please direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korea now. Thanks again. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Description under preparation　

Korean war crime person in WW2 [International Military Tribunal for the Far East] The Korean war crime people are 148 people. The executed Korean war crime people are 23 people. (Hong Sa Ik) (Do UP after finding the material of an English version. )


[edit] Korea - Foreign relations　

Korea - Foreign relations　(Summary) North Korea and South Korea was conflicting over the standpoint of "Right successor in a Korean peninsula". And, Korean War occurred in 1950. However, South Korea and North Korea approached rapidly after North-South presidential summit corruption allegations in June, 2000 had been done. Two Koreas are participating from the Sydney Olympics to the Turin Olympics in the entrance ceremony as one country.

The United States is a nation that contributed to the establishment of the South Korea government most. The relation between the United States and South Korea was strengthened more by the military alliance in 1953. South Korea allied in the United States took an active part in the Vietnam war and the Iraq war. However, the United States and South Korea are often conflicting over the treatment to North Korea recently. However, the United States and South Korea are often conflicting when South Korea starts approaching in North Korea.

China and South Korea were hostile to Korean War because China had supported North Korea in 1951. However, South Korea and China connected the diplomatic relation on August 24, 1992. After that, China became the most intimate country for South Korea though a South Korea government and a Chinese government conflicted over the occupational health program of the imported Kimchi temporarily. (It has not been treated by the intergovernmental of the two countries as an official problem though various history issues exist. )

The relation to Japan has the most a lot of problems. Refer to the Korean-Japanese disputes for other disputes. Sea of Japan naming dispute, Yasukuni Shrine visits, and ownership of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean, Takeshima in Japanese). Refer to the Korean-Japanese disputes for other disputes. The anti-Japanese policy was promoted to South Korea when leader Rhee Syngman of the South Korea independence movement assumed the presidency in 1948. (Syngman Rhee line, Japanese culture prohibition, and pro-Japanese sect banishment)South Korea was connected with the diplomatic relation of Japan by Park Chunghee who was the serviceman of a Japanese army. The South Korea -Japan relation temporarily became excellent by Football World Cup 2002. however, a present South Korea government is rejecting the summit with Japanese Government for the reasons that "Apology and compensation" of Japan is insufficient.



[edit] Relation between Japan and South Korea　

Korea - Foreign relations　(Details) The South Korea-Japan relation became intimate by Kim Dae-jung. (Japanese culture openness policy etc)　However, the South Korea-Japan relation is returned by Roh Moo-hyun in the age of "Apology and compensation".[1] South Korea is politically conflicting with Japan after the president Roh Moo Hyun spoke the possibility of diplomacy War to Japan by the speech in March, 2005. [2] South Korea and Japan promised the biannual summit in 2004. [3] However,President Roh Moo-hyun canceled the summit in South Korea and Japan in December, 2005.

A diplomatic war to Japan started from Commision on Human Rights in 2005. South Korea united with North Korea and did the complaint to the history education of Japan. [4] [5]　To contrasting,　South Korea abstained from the North Korea human rights resolution.[6]

Descendants of the South Korean who worked in a Japanese empire were punished by law 친일진상규명법 [7]; that had been approved in December, 2004. As a result, the politician who had the network with Japan was lost one after another. Therefore, the communication of South Korea and Japan is more difficult. Because Japanese Government doesn't approve the demand of the South Korea government, the South Korea government is not doing an intergovernmental exchange now. Therefore, the relation between South Korea and Japan is cooled fast.

[edit] Headline text

[edit] Diplomatic policy of South Korea

Please stop your continued and persistant POV vandalism on foreign relations section of South Korea article, - POV claims, deleting proper citations, misinterpretation of quotes and UN resolutions, using outdated sources, etc, etc. Please read the article NPOV before considering your actions. Thank you! Deiaemeth 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Public utterances after 2005 are quoted. And, an official government is not correcting it now. In a word, your deletion reason is obviously wrong.

Stop making unexplained deletions on several articles regarding Korean History, including Germany and Japan's response to World War II article, where you deleted the part about Japanese colonial rule of Korea saying "it is not part of WWII". Well, it was from 1910-1945, and was part of WWII. Deiaemeth 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Commonsensibly, Japanese colonial rule of Korea is not included in WW2. Therefore, I move it to an appropriate place. Basic information The South Korea annexation is 1910. (In a word, it is before World War I. )

Please stop with your continued and persistant POV editing on foreign relations of SOuth Korea article and stop remoing the Chinese govenrment and Goguryeo part.

A Chinese government also examined official information on the South Korea government. However, neither South Korea nor China are mentioning this problem. It is necessary to delete the description without the source. For an excellent relation between China and South Korea

The South Korea-Japan relation became intimate by Kim Dae-jung. (Japanese culture openness policy etc)　However, the South Korea-Japan relation is returned by Roh Moo-hyun in the age of "Apology and compensation".[8] South Korea is politically conflicting with Japan after the president Roh Moo Hyun spoke the possibility of diplomacy War to Japan by the speech in March, 2005. [9]

again, poorly worded, he did not speak of a "Diplomacy war", if you read his exact quote,

He is officially speaking "Diplomatic war". (Refer to a red character part. )

These tasks will not be easy to achieve. It is not only a tough but also uncomfortable thing to try to find fault with and point fingers at others. The two countries may confront each other more often than they did. It could also be very embarrassing to quarrel with each other for the whole world to see.There could be a tough diplomatic war　. And that may adversely affect exchanges in economic, social, cultural and various other sectors, especially causing concern about possible economic difficulties. But we do not have to worry too much about it. I believe that we are capable of enduring a great many difficulties.

But I will try to manage the situation judiciously so as to prevent unbearably difficult burdens.

He specifically says he wants to prevent diplomatic quarrels from happening and advises the people against it.

You misinterpret and are writing the original. And, you are making your opinion according to the misinterpreted content.

But we do not have to worry too much about it. I believe that we are capable of enduring a great many difficulties. And we must be determined to bear the hardship on our shoulders if we have to for the sake of our nation.　


Thus, Roh Moo-hyun is requesting the agreement of a diplomatic war from the South Korea people.

Is there no comment on the explanation of "Apology and compensation". Let's move on to the next subject.　

However,President Roh Moo-hyun canceled the summit in South Korea and Japan in December, 2005. Commision on Human Rights clarified an intimacy in North Korea and a diplomatic war to Japan in South Korea with South Korea. 2005/04/07､South Korea united with North Korea and did the complaint to the history education of Japan. South Korea abstained from the North Korea human rights resolution.South Koreans are angry the history education of Japan more than human-right violations of North Korea now.

[10] [11]


There is no mention about UNHCR denoucning South Korea for "diplomatic war" on Japan. Although SK did complain about new Revionist historical textbooks in Japan, there is no mention of "SK unifying with NK to complaint to Japan"

Let's think easily. Contrasted activity of South Korea in Commision on Human Rights. South Korea abused "History education of Japan". South Korea abandoned "Human rights resolution of North Korea". (Please look at the source. ) Commonsensibly, what does this result show?

South Korea abstained on the part that SK resolution proposed by UN because of.. exact quote : In a general statement after the vote, the representative of the Republic of Korea said his country was making efforts to achieve advances in the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and those efforts were being pursued in the framework of cooperation and openness. For that reason the Republic of Korea had abstained. His Government was providing humanitarian assistance to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea while encouraging its move towards more openness and towards improving its human rights situation. Noting the international community’s concerns, he said he expected the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would faithfully implement the international human rights convention it had voluntarily joined. He also called on that country’s officials to engage in constructive dialogue and cooperation with the international community

Claiming that South Koreans are more angry at Japan's revionist historical textbook then DPRK human rights problem is a biased, POV,

South Korea abstained from the human rights resolution of North Korea by the reason "The human rights policy of North Korea is evaluated". South Korea and North Korea jointly proposed the history education of Japan to Commision on Human Rights. Please think about this fact well again.

and unsupported view as seen on South Korean delegate's quote. I have given you ample amounts of warning.

You should supplement if you feel the lack of the support. You were not able to object if it said from the conclusion. The article based on the source was deleted for that. Please try objecting again by one week later about the relation between South Korea and Japan. (Without misinterpreting an official document. )

Please cease and desist your POV, deliberate fact-misinterprating edits to South Korea article. Deiaemeth 08:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything is based on an official document. Do you summarize the South Korea-Japan relation?

Please stop deleting the Korean part from Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes - this is your 2nd warning regarding this article. The article is about Germany and Japan's responses to crimes they have committed during WWII, and the Korean part deals with the crimes they have committed in Korea during WWII ( and colonial period ) and their apology, compensation, and criticisms received. I have amply warned you. Please cease and desist your POV edits to Korea-related articles. Deiaemeth 07:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

World War II and the colonialization of South Korea are another topics though said many times. It is necessary to classify it appropriately.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Nlu (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Togo Heihachiro

Hi Kamosuke. The book "Togo Heihachiro. Visual account of the Meiji Navy" doesn't have an ISBN, but you can purchase at the Togo Shrine in Harajuku. Please also search Google with the phrase: 自分は李舜臣将軍には遠く及ばない. By the way, I am having a hard time understanding your prose, as well as your position against the text content. I don't think I am not particularly Korean-POV in my edits. Regards. PHG 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)　

[edit] Tsushima Island

Hello there Kamosuke --

I understand that you're not happy with the inclusion of statements by a South Korean on the Tsushima Island page, as evidenced by your repeated removal of the content such as here. However, this content is verified, and is also relevant within the flow of the article, and as such should not be unilaterally removed -- especially when other editors are reverting the removal. If you still have issues with the content, please bring it up on the Talk page at Talk:Tsushima Island and cultivate a consensus before deleting again. I'm afraid you're very close to violating the Wikipedia:3RR rule for this article, which would cause an automatic block on your account. I urge you to discuss on the Talk page before removing the content again. As you seem to be Japanese, judging from your user page, I suggest you look at the Talk pages as good opportunities for 根回し. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

1) First, do you think this conversation would be more constructive if Eirikr facilitated it in a language that you are more comfortable in?

Yes. I welcome his mediation.

2) Secondly, I don't think there are a problem with the sources cited in the article unless you can explain to me how they are bad.

Simply, Korean customize sources. The article that the Korean customized is not corresponding to the history record.
The Korean prohibits translating the history article on China into English. And, the Korean prohibits translating Wikipedia of Japan. They never explain the reason.
First, please define Koreans' POV. Koreans'rule is often changed without consent.

2.1) On the other hand, you are insisting that western sources are "customized" to the South Korean point of view. Please explain how that is so.

Simply, you must look at the link. Korean doesn't accurately write the article on the link.

2.2) Let me reiterate, we won't be going anywhere if you insist on your own subjective interpretation of the sources instead of citing credible, English analysis of the ancient sources.

First of all, please translate the record of the history of China into English.
I can not understand the reason why the South Korean rejects the translation of an original source. (It is easy Chinese. )

3) I agree that the organization could be better and I think both versions of "Ruling Class" can fit better.

4) Right now your complaints seem to be organizational complaints (and I agree they can be made to flow better) and citation complaints (of which I think you have the burden to provide credible, English citations because I already have done so). If you can agree those are the problems and I am not misunderstanding you, I am happy to help work towards a consensus.

I regret that the quality of the history article on Japan has been lowered by the Korean.

5) Let me know what you think.

I respect the editor who has knowledge concerning a Japanese history. (Mahal Aly has marvelous knowledge. I respect him. )
However, the editor who doesn't have the knowledge of Japan, He participates in the article to advertise Korea. He deletes an important part of the history article on Japan, and introduces Korea exaggeratedly.
After it agrees with Mr. Eirikr, I want to edit it.
I know a lot of Koreans are good editors. However, some Koreans users' edit attitudes are not respectable. --Kamosuke 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Tortfeasor 18:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1) I would be happy for Eirikr to mediate. But keep in mind that consensus means everyone who is interested in the topic has a say so I can't speak for anyone but myself.
2) Simply quoting sources is not a customization of the source because the source says what it says and one is allowed to quote sources to back up one's assertion. That is a universal standard for using sources.
I am not denying the quotation of the source.
Korean is criticized to add the article that doesn't exist in the source.
For instance,　"The South Korean was the most important immigrant. "　This is a childish wish of the Koreans. It is not being written in any source.
3) Just because a source disagrees with what your interpretation of ancient sources is does not make it wrong. Can you understand that people can have differing interpretation of ancient sources, etc.? While you claim that people have been reverting your edits without reason, that claim is wrong as well because you have been provided links with Wikipedia policy.
interpretation?　No, it is a translation.
Please translate. This is not difficult Chinese.
興死，弟武立，自稱使持節、都督倭百濟新羅任那加羅秦韓慕韓七國諸軍事、安東大將軍、倭國王　Book of Song　宋書 列傳第五十七 夷蠻
  • 遮って、失礼します。ここでの "interpretation" は「通訳」ではなく、「解釈」です。解釈であるかぎり、翻訳は残念ながらほとんど無関係です。
  • Pardon me for interrupting. The "interpretation" here is not as in interpreting a speech, but as in interpreting a meaning. Inasmuch as this has to do with interpreting the meaning, translation unfortunately has almost nothing to do with it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I am asking for the translation of an original source. I am not questioning on your policy.
First of all, please explain the translation result to me. Afterwards, let's add information.
私が言っているのはただの翻訳が不十分で無関係だということです。その点は完全に理解しているのでしょうか？侮辱する気はないです、ただカモスケさんの返事に混乱させられたわけです。
And what I'm saying is that just a translation is insufficient and has nothing to do with this issue. Are you fully understanding this point? I'm not trying to insult, I'm just confused by your reply. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
4) Wikipedia policy requires that we cite verifiable material from reputable sources. Your subjective interpretation of ancient sources is not good enough. Think about it, if any one could just interpret things the way they want then anyone could anything they want to Wikipedia. No one is prohibiting you from translating Chinese into English. However, what you are doing is violating original research. Please read this link: [12]. Instead, to make an article credible, there is a requirement from academic sources, preferably in English. No one is rejecting translations of Chinese into English. However, your subjective interpretation can be rejected because it is original research. Your claims would have more merit if you can cite an academic commentary on the ancient sources, not the original material itself.
I am requesting only the translation result.
This is an important question that proves your history knowledge and policy.
differing interpretation?　No, it is an accurate translation. And, Samguk Sagi is a history document of Korea.
元年 三月 與倭國通好 以奈勿王子未斯欣爲質　Samguk Sagi　三國史記 百済本紀
And, The Korean often falsifies the source. To point out the　Korean's falsification, I quote the original source.
  • またいいますが、この課題は原文だけの解釈によるのではなくて、その原文を取り巻く環境の全ての解釈によりまして、しかも当時の政治や原文が書かれた時代から発掘された考古学的な証拠もの解釈によります。例えばプロパガンダを精密に翻訳しても訳文はまだプロパガンダに過ぎません。原文か訳文かいずれを正確に理解するためにはその背景全てを、異なる意見も含めて、把握するのは不可欠です。従って、繰り返しますが、古代文献の翻訳だけでは正しくても不十分です。だからこそ「他の参考文献がほしい、とくに学問的な参考文献が」と周りの編集者が主張しています。
  • Again, this issue depends on the interpretation not just of the source texts themselves, but of the whole context surrounding the documents, including the politics of the times and archaeological evidence discovered since those documents were written. For example, an accurate translation of propaganda is still a translation of propaganda, and accurately understanding that propaganda (either in the source or target languages) is impossible without also understanding the whole context, including alternate views. So again, translation of ancient documents alone, even if correct, does not suffice. This is why other editors keep asking for other sources, particularly academic sources. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is only Korean that requests, "Please give evidence that Korea ruled Japan to me". First of all, you must translate. And, it is not necessary to interpret it.
Perhaps, I think that the Korean rejects the translation because of being being written for the fact for which the South Korean doesn't hope.
ごめんなさいが、何で翻訳しなければなりませんか？また、「理解する」には「解釈する」のがなくてはならないです。それでカモスケさんが言っているのは「理解しなくていい」というわけですか。カモスケさんの論理はちょっと洗練されていないみたいですが、それは自分の解釈のせいかもしれません。
Pardon me, but why must we translate? Furthermore, there can be no understanding without interpreting the meaning. Are you saying then that we don't need to understand? Your line of reasoning doesn't seem very refined, but then that might just be due to my interpretation. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
5) Whether you like it or not, there was Korean activity in early Japan. It is not the most important part of this part of Japan's history but it is there and it should be mentioned. I hope we can keep working together to make this article better.
Whether Korean like it or not, The South Korean only submitted a Chinese culture to Japan. And, the South Korean was not able to take an active part than Chinese. I do not deny South Korean's topic to be done.

However, please think about the priority level. --Kamosuke 07:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1) I don't think anyone is trying to say Koreans were number one in early Japan. But, Koreans were in early Japan and that should be noted.

I am explaining that I should think about the priority level and the importance

degree of the episode.

2) Interpretation/Translation, regardless you're missing the obvious point. No original reasearch. I provided the link in my previous message for the Wikipedia policy. Did you read it? You are in violation of that policy.

It is your Interpretation.
Kamosuke,

History is interpretation.

3) What you need to do is provide credible English citations. Tortfeasor 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply, please translate an original source of China. Please explain the result to me.
I think that it can do significant mutual agreement if you participate in the edit

activity with the knowledge of the history of Japan. :-)　--Kamosuke 18:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No original research:
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
[omission...]
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
[omission...]
"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.
Kamosuke, your edits have been problematic primarily due to 1) your lack of citations, making the content you added appear to be purely original, and 2) your synthesis of other material instead of quoting published reliable sources.
Regarding translations, translations of ancient documents alone to make a point is problematic if you do not also include other sources that make that same point. For instance, you point to the Shinsen Shōjiroku, Nihongi, and other ancient writings as evidence that Chinese immigrants were much more important in Yamato-period Japan, and insist that these ancient documents alone are sufficient to prove that Chinese immigrants were more important. However, you fail to reference any modern source that might either 1) agree with this point, and thereby back up your argument, or 2) explain these circumstances in any greater detail based on more recent archaeology and / or other viewpoints expressed in ancient documents. This failure to include any other references is what makes your content "original research", as it is "an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research" and would therefore be unacceptable here on Wikipedia.
As I and other editors have stated before, what you need to do is provide credible English-language citations. If you would be kind enough to do so, we can begin to work with you. Without credible English-language sources, we cannot incorporate your contributions. I am not saying this to be mean. I am saying this because reputable published sources are absolutely required for the academic integrity of Wikipedia. Note: en -> ja translations to follow later if deemed necessary.

No you are saying this to handicap the opposition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

I hope this helps clarify the issues somewhat. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with original work. In fact I may find more value in original work because it isnt tainted with nationalism, racism, and all those other predispositioned biases taught to us at early ages. Albert Einstein - "Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18". Reputable published sources are not necessary for academic integrity, if the person who wrote the above paragraph has ever taken a graduate course in historiography and paid attention about the 'displinary matrix' and as a result the 'disciplinary nexus" of history and its approach to evaluating and asserting stories from facts was at one time controlled by academic superiors. In other words, until recently, history has been written under the supervision of reputable historians such as professors with one of their primary goals to be to control the thought and perspectives of its students. This has changed now. Diverse appraoches and perspectives are now being allowed within the scholarly community (whether popular or not) because too much controlling of information by professors of the past left those students vulnerable to different perspectives supported by facts. In other words , students were made to look stupid by others because someone else with a different perspective supplied a different view with just as credible and significant or even more credible and significant facts. Whomever wrote this above paragraph doesnt knwo what they are talking about and if you ever take my class, I will guarantee you will fail miserably because this is one of the emphasized points within historiography needed to be learned. Have you ever heard of the saying that the story of custard and the western days werent written by Native Americans? So , if you rely on published accounts within the US, who wrote them? Are you really getting the truth, or the American truth? In order to sufficently be an expert or erudite of a historical topic, learn various perspectives, otherwise remember what I have written here, because I promise whether you like it or not, you will look real bad one day as a result of this. This is what seperates a dilettente and a professional historian. Credibility is EVERYTHING and if you only rely or study one perspective, your credibility is in danger of being attacked by a different perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

66.32.117.147, I understand your points, but you need to read up more on how Wikipedia operates before diving in. Wikipedia has specific policies and rules, and posting original work to Wikipedia happens to be a no-no. Please have a look at Wikipedia:No original research for further details.
On a side note, it's very much appreciated (and it makes discussion threads much easier to read) if you sign your posts. Simply add four tildes at the end of your post like this: ~~~~ This will add your username (or IP if you're not logged in), and the date and time. Thanks! Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamosuke please read

I am an avid public audience of Wikipedia and have wished nothing but positive things for this platform. I have even gone along with suggesting to others withim my academic community that Wikipedia is a good scholarly source. In fact better than Encyclopedia Britannica because of its wide variety of available topics, its objectivity, and differing perspectives along with loads of information not covered within Encyclopedia Brittanica. However, I have unfortunately began to question the disadvantages of this platform as I and my peers have witnessed a certain clique of people whom allow their biases to effect their decisions pertaining to the writing of articles. I have written a paragraph for you under the topic Hello in this page concerning the attacks you have received on the basis of ORIGINAL research and the necessity for published articles as references. This is hogwash and as a succesful and continuing member of the academic community (research institutes and universities) I apologize if you have taken or have been forced to accept these fallacious corrections. They are worng and what those participants of ORIGINAL research and published articles have asserted is not only wrong but disgusting and a bit hillarious according to one of my peers. History is the process of making a story based on facts. If you can provide credible and significant facts, then your history is fine. If your facts are more credible and significant, then proponents of history are compelled if they are true members of the preceding category to change their views. This is the linking formula that keeps history from deteriorating into the common cliches of "his-story" and the winners write history. If a thesis or dissertation can be accepted by an academic community when at times those aforementioned communication means of the "paradigm" are ORIGINAL or based on unpublished sources, then why cant they be published in Wikipedia? Are we not to think here, or are we to just write. Because if we are to just write , then please forgive me and give my 7 year-old daughter a job because she writes well for her age. My purpose is to hopefully make you aware that you are receiving critics that are terribly wrong. I dont know who you are but it is unconscionable for any of the assertions or attacks against your efforts to be taken seriously. If you need help in refuting these attacks I would be more than willing to provide sources and letters from esteemed professors of reputable institutions to support what I am saying because this is ridiculous and intolerable. I wouldnt question if your critics are right, I would question their motives or ascertain as to whether they were horribly misinformed. PLease keep contributing to Wikipedia, I dont know much of about what you have written but if you are criticised for nothing , then obviously someone or some people have their own problems and are taking it out on you because for some reason they were predispositioned to believe something about you or what you say is axiomatic to label you as opposition. I give my support for you. Sincerely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

66.32.117.147, again, please read Wikipedia:No original research. While this policy may well be considered "hogwash" and "hillarious" [sic] in some academic circles, it is nonetheless one of the basic policies of Wikipedia, and all article editors here are expected to abide by it. Postings to Talk pages are not bound by this provision, but anything placed into the main article text is subject to Wikipedia policies, and if other editors find something objectionable, it is generally either changed, or at least brought up for discussion.
Please be aware that Wikipedia is not just a resource, it is also a community. Part of the opposition Kamosuke has faced has been due to Kamosuke inadvertently acting against the norms of this community -- a kind of culture clash. I too sincerely hope that Kamosuke continues to contribute, and as part of that hope, I also look forward to him/her learning more about these community norms that s/he may contribute more effectively. As I'm sure you're aware, how you say something is often at least as important as what you say. Regards, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS

I dont know if you are a part of the adademic (institution) community in so far as being a professor or graduate student, but I would like to suggest that you partake in this venture. As we all learn in historiography, the interpretations of professional historians may not be accepted widely, but the methodology and logic applied by professional historians make them superior to the amateurs. We can not ignore amateurs of history because by doing so would ignore viewpoints which may catch up with us and bite us in the _ _ _, yet I have witnessed amateurs within Wikipedia that because of their lack of objectivity and approach in evaluating history provide opportuniites for us professionals to tear their infant attempts apart. Because you have a more open mind then your critics, this is what we want within the scholarly and graduate community. We are tired of timid and mythological stories based on chauvinistic perspectives. Because of your open minded approach, you have better chances then these dilettantes and I urge you to consider furtheing your interests in the field of professional history. If you need halp , respond to any paragraphs I have written. Thank you for your different and open-minded ORIGINAL contributions to Wikipedia. Hopefully, they will promote good stock such as yourself amongst their constituents.

Also, I noticed that some one within the My Lai massacre page made the statement that Koreans partook in the Vietnam War while the Japanese got rich off of it. This follows the comment about Japanese brutality in Korea during World War II. However, what is so idiotic about that whole mparagraph is that yes Japan made money off of it, but South Koreans massacred innocent Vietnamese in Binh Dinh and other villages while the Japanese didnt. This is supported by both civilian and military documents. Look at the My Lai page, I have stated this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] re: Liancourt Rocks

Duplicated from my talk page: I'm not sure how clearer I could have written my closure statement & edit summary. I suggest people actually read what I wrote. The RFD closure for Liancourt Rocks is unrelated to what should be the correct name of the article. RFD is simply the wrong place for this. If you want the page moved, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. As I had nothing to do with the rename, you will have to ask your other questions to those involved. Please make use of page histories and user contributions instead of making assumptions. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated from my talk page: As I said, please make use of page histories and user contributions instead of making assumptions. I did not start anything. I am not the one who renamed it and I am not the one who nominated the redirect for deletion. My only involvement has been to close a misguided redirect deletion request. RFD was not the place to bring this argument. Saying "this is not the place to fight, go fight over there" is not the same as picking a side in the fight. I have made no statement regarding what is the correct title and, not having been involved, I don't really have an opinion. -- JLaTondre 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polite warning

As stated in Talk:Japan, kindly avoid making remarks that one might consider rude and do not make unfounded accusations towards other users. In other words, I ask you to observe civility in your comments. There is certainly no need for such behavior. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more information. You will need to be very careful about your statements going forward. Should you make another unfounded accusation that I "falsify" sources, I will have no choice but to report you immediately. I promise you I shall not be so forgiving the next time. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 07:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English + article history

I think it is necessary to write good or decent English to contribute. The additions you just made to the Korea article are full of grammatical mistakes, which could be a minor problem, but is not, in this case. Another user had shortened the "Japanese occupation" section, arguing that the article is an overview, and obviously, you overlooked the comment, in the discussion section. Can you please make any changes related to this period in the appropriate article? Then changes to the general "Korea" article can be made, I believe. Shogo Kawada 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

あなたは従軍慰安婦と女子挺身隊を混同してカウントしています。この誇張は日本が残酷だと宣伝をするためのものですか？　--Kamosuke 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

大変 返事が遅くなってしまいました。すみませんでした。 最も深刻なことは　女子挺身隊ではなくて　従軍慰安婦問題そうです。。。 日本が残酷だと　思いませんですけど。　 日本が残酷だと宣伝をする積もりではありません。 しかし、現代と比較すれば悲惨な時代であることは間違いないです。 現在の日本が 決して過去の日本と違うものであると　思います。 Shogo Kawada 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Nice to see you here! Chris 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New vote over Sea of Japan edit

Hi, I've started a new vote with the proposal I outlined beforehand. I would appreciate it if you could head on over to the talk page and vote. Thanks, John Smith's 14:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for sockpuppetry

This user is a confirmed sock puppet of HaradaSanosuke,
established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.
See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

Please indicate which of your two accounts you'd like to keep (Kamosuke or HaradaSanosuke) and I'll unblock the one you wish to keep. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)