Talk:Koreans in Japan/Archive 1

Differences

South Korean government did not help Koreans living in Japan during hard times. North Korean government isolated and poor they were 60 years ahead supporting Koreans living in Japan during economical and political hard times. Majority of 80 percent Koreans living in Japan are from Southern Province island " Chejudo". Koreans living in Japan do not like to divide political alliances between North or South because majority of them came from South Korea whereas to preserve Korean cultural identity they studied or supported North Korean government run schools.

Populations: If you combine all Korean populations in Japan. ( Main island plus Sakhalin island) it would be about 1 million. ( Korean, Korean/Japanese ( mix), Korean/Russian (mix).

Koreans have been settling in Japan for centuries. I think its wise and smart idea Past and Present history. Korean racial and cultural contribution to Japan. It is fair to say racial gene makeup Japanese race thier were tremendous Korean racial influence. Koreans historical settlement existed before WW.II. Koreans existed in Japanese island for centuries. I think its important to mention Past and Present History of Koreans in Japan.

It's obvious that there's big difference between 'Zainichi Korean' and 'Korean Japanese'. The article 'Korean Japanese' should be firmly separated. The absent-minded redirection is thought to be just ridiculous. In that case, what's the purpose for 'Korean American'? According to this illogical process, the article 'Korean American' should be merged to just 'Korean'. No doubt about another stupid redirection!? Besides, Almost of Koreans living in Korea don't know the Japanese-pronunciated word 'Zainichi'! Japanese word has been just already standardized for even topics on Koreans? Totally not understandable. 'Zainichi Korean' must be renamed to 'Jaeil Korean'.

I intend to move this article to Zainichi Korean. The Zainichi article will instead describe the Japanese word zainichi as zainichi gaikokujin in general and of course link to Zainichi Korean. It is true that zainichi used alone in daily speech does tend to refer to zainichi koreans, but it is a slightly offensive term for Japan's Korean minority and as such, I don't think it is appropriate as the title of an encyclopedic article about them. Please post any objections to this here. -Himasaram 16:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hermeneus: Regarding "Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese at the time of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal of 1946. 148 Korean-Japanese in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted of Class B and C war crimes, 23 of whom were sentenced to death. " What is the source of this? I checked Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and found the following "There were 28 defendants tried, mostly military and political leaders." Are the 28 defendants A class? If so, how many Japanese B and C class were convicted? I would update Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal accordingly --Hunfe 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

They were tried at local tribunals in Asia, not the Tokyo Tribunal. See [1] or look up "朝鮮人BC級戦犯" in Japanese google. Hermeneus (talk) July 9, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Since I can't read japanese, I can't assess how relevant is the link you provided. Since Class B and C were not mentioned in Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, it looks like these criminals were not the main focus of the trials. Since Zainichi Korean is not about war crimes, I suggest eliminating this information. I would like to get your agreement before I make any changes. --Hunfe 01:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hermeneus, I am still waiting for a reply on eliminating information on war crimes due to irrelevancy. Please see my prior post --Hunfe 20:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What part of the current description are you talking about? I don't see any irrelevant info that needs be deleted. Like I said those zainichi Koreans were all legitimate war criminals as defined by the international law and had been punished accordingly at local war crime tribunals throughout Asia. Zainichi is an unfortunate product of the war (a product of the expansionist policy of the Imperial Japan in the early 20th century to be precise) and so their involvement in the war merits reference on this article, positive or negative or otherwise. Hermeneus (talk) 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do the statistics for "Japanese-Korean" war criminals refer specifically to Zainichi Koreans (i.e. Koreans who were based in Japan) or to all Koreans in the Japanese military? If it is the former, it should be made clear. If it is the latter, then the information is irrelevant to the article and should either be deleted or the statistics modified so they refer to Zainichis only. Phonemonkey 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Zainichi Koreans

While there is a section listing Zainichi Koreans reguarding usage of their names, I think it would be useful to list people who are (self-)identified as Zainichi or Korean Japanese. --Jbluex 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1) MATSUTATSU OYAMA IS "KYUKUSHIN KARATE FOUNDER". NOT JUST MARTIAL ARTIST. ( PLEASE CORRECT MISINFORMED INFORMATION!!!)

Pachinko and Yakuza

What the hell are the last comments at the end about pachinko and funding nuclear weapons? Thats utterly bizarre, ridiculous, and uncited. I am removing it. User:SiberioS

I don't know about way to spend the money, but about pachino businesses and illigal transferring are considered as true. --Ypacaraí 14:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Pachinko businesses have obvious ties to Yakuza organizations. Last time I checked, the idea of Yakuzas funding North Koreas nuclear ambitions is ridiculous, unless somehow the Yakuza, who are notorious about demanding racial purity at their top ranks, have all of a sudden voided their own policies. Is it true that many koreans fill the lower ranks and the grunt force of the yakuza? Yes. Does that mean that pachinko, an oft dubious enterprise, is running a complicated international money scheme to fund north kroean nuclear arms? No. Considering the tight scrutiny of any visit to North Korea, and the fact that no one I know is somehow making magical runs through the DMZ, it seems a little ludicrous that any money would be intentionally transferred for the express purpose of nuclear arms development.SiberioS 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am saying for the express purpose. I have no doubt, obviously, that the country steals money or siphons things off remittances back home. But as to whether or not there is an actual pipeline of money, for the express intended purpose of funding nuclear ambitions, I have my doubts. If such a large flow of cash existd, it would seem that the North Korean army would be much better off than it is, considering reports of lack of fuel and maintenace in its Air Force, and the lack of supplies in general for its military. Moreover, the statement seems irrelevent in the context of the article. Does this make all zainichi koreans nculear weapons runners, by basis of sending money home, presuming of course that they are from the north? Picking on the koreans, in an industry of dubious legality and funding of other things (yakuza, triads, other forms of curroption etc), seems a bit going out of the way.SiberioS 13:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are many Koreans in the yakuza industry as well, for the same reason that many of them are engaged in the gambling industry: "The Korean yakuza are a powerful presence in Japan, despite the fact that Koreans suffer discrimination in Japanese society. Although Japanese-born people of Korean ancestry are a significant segment of the Japanese population, they are still considered resident aliens. But Koreans, who are often shunned in legitimate trades, are embraced by the Japanese yakuza precisely because they fit the group's "outsider" image. The man who paved the way for Koreans in Japanese organized crime was the Korean yakuza godfather Hisayuki Machii." [2] 218.222.11.215 13:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseon / Chosun / Chosen

These three are used interchangebly in the article and should be standardised, the question is which one to use. Or is this a trivial matter? Phonemonkey 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

"Many Zainichi today are 4th generation descendants and predominantly use Japanese as their primary language." This is a fluffy, meaningless statement. Certainly Zainichi culture has entered the 4th (and even 5th) generation but there has to be a better way of expressing this. More importantly, of course these people primarily use Japanese, in most instances their families have been in Japan since the 1920's and 1930's! Their GRANDPARENTS haven't lived in Korea since they were children, would you expect such people not to know or use Japanese, what do you think they all live underground in a cave enclave of Chosenjin or something? Other than JETS instructors and their ilk, who lives in Japan and doesn't primarily use Japanese anyway? Kind of insulting, do we point out that fourth generation Polish-Americans predominantly use English as their primary language? Isn't that a bit obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardk1 (talk • contribs)

Ethnic minorities could form a more autonomous and sizable community within the state and its members do not necessarily know the language of the dominant ethnic that rules the encompassing state. You don't need to know English language to live in the French-speaking Quebec province or Chinese language to live in Tibet. In contrast it's very difficult to live in Japan without knowing Japanese language. Korean language hardly constitutes an alternative to Japanese like French is in Quebec (/Canada). --222.3.76.75 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes . . . in a country of 120 million, 600,000 ethnic Koreans hardly constitute the sort of critical mass who do not have to learn the common language. Besides, unlike the Quebecois who are not only numerous but politically powerful and have all the legal rights of other Canadians, Zainichi Koreans traditionally could neither obtain citizenship or vote, and were legally second class citizens. Without political or legal power it's a bit tough to impose your will on the majority.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardk1 (talk • contribs)

The point is that there is nothing "meaningless" about the sentence "4th generation descendants and predominantly use Japanese as their primary language" because most readers of Wikipedia don't know that "600,000 ethnic Koreans hardly constitute the sort of critical mass who do not have to learn the common language" like yourself.

Also "traditionally" (prior to 1945) the Koreans were the subjects of the Empire of Japan and had both a right to vote and a right to hold office. Park Choon-Geum (박춘금, 朴春琴) was the first Korean to be elected into the House of Representatives in 1932, and re-elected in 1938. Several members of the Korean Royalty were appointed to the House of Peers (貴族院) including Park Young-Hyo (박영효, 朴泳孝) in 1932. 38 Koreans were elected into local assemblies in 1942. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --222.3.78.211 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some improvements on the introduction, including clarifications and corrections, while not touching the issue discussed above. I took the freedom of commenting out the paragraph below, which is bad in several senses. Feel free to improve and add back parts of it:

They conflict with a Japanese society as a deputy in North Korea. Moreover, they have the strong influence in the underground in Japan. A lot of Zainichi manages the gambling of Japan that is called Pachinko. Zainichi are important money sources of North Korea. [3][4] Because Zainichi is not Japanese, it is difficult for them to obtain employment from the Japanese. Therefore, it is a not little numerical Zainichi is a leader of Boryokudan that the National Police Agency in Japan specified. [5]

Looking at the latter link, reveals that three or four of the 21 gang "representatives" listed has Korean names, so I don't see what it proves. --Himasaram 09:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

KOREANS IN JAPAN HAVE EXISTED BEFORE WWII. KOREANS HAVE BEEN LIVING IN JAPAN FOR CENTURIES. HISTORY: KOREANS IN JAPAN HISTORY SHOULD COVER PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE.

1) YAYOI POPULATION: KOREAN. 2) JOMAON POPULATION: KOREAN. 3) KOREAN NOBLE ( KORGURYO, PAEKJE, SHILLA KINGDOMS) 4) KOREAN BUDDHIST MONK ( ASUKA PERIOD) 5) KOREAN CULTURAL/GENE CONTRIBUTION: NARA-ASUKA PERIOD. 6) KOREAN POTTERY ARTISANS/ CONTRIBUTION: HIDEYOSHI INVASION OF KOREA. 7) KOREAN SETTLEMENT IN DAEMADO/TSUSHIMA ISLAND. 8) KOREAN SETTLEMENT IN KANSAI, KYOTO, KYUSHU ISLANDS. 9) KOREAN MIGRATION TO JAPAN 1910. 10) KOREAN ZAINICHI/ KOREAN CONTRIBUTION IN MODERN JAPAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

From the article: "The Allied occupation of Japan ended in April 28, 1952 with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Japan formally abandoned her territorial claim to the Korean Peninsula, and as a result, Zainichi Koreans formally lost their Japanese nationality."

This is the often cited excuse given by Japanese politicians for why America is responsible for the current situation of the Zainichi in Japan. As always, foreigners are responsible for any of Japan's problems. Ho hum.

Its premise is that the Zainichi had Japanese nationality prior to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which I do not think is true. The main article even states that they were registered as Koreans on the Japanese national register. So the article is contradicting itself.

I don't want this king of polemic to be continually recited so that it eventually becomes 'fact', so I'm going to make a notation on the main article that the quote is suspect, and needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.237.243 (talk • contribs)

1. That they are "registered as Koreans" is after the war, not before when they were the subjects of the Empire of Japan. 2. What exactly is the "problem" here anyway? Are you suggesting that all those Koreans wanted to remain Japanese and didn't like getting Korean nationality back or what? [6] --222.3.79.196 06:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simply the promulgation of the claim that the Zainichi 'lost' their Japanese nationality after the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, thereby laying down the blame for 60-80 years of xenophobic culture squarely at the feet of the US. I doubt that Koreans in Japan before and during the war were ever offered anything close to what you and I would call citizenship. Surely, if their descendants were alive today under a Japanese-led Asia, they would still face enormous ‘racial’ and cultural hardships. From the minute they set foot in the country they were destined to be second class citizens within the Japanese system. Claiming that the Treaty, signed 60 years ago, is to blame for the current inequalities, is expedient blame-shifting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.35.146 (talk • contribs)

That "problem" of "laying down the blame for 60-80 years of xenophobic culture squarely at the feet of the US" only exists in your head and don't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that only states objective facts. It's not your personal blog to grumble about things that you don' like. If some statement in the article is incorrect or contradicts the historical facts, then correct it with objective sources. You don't insert personal commentaries like "I don't like this part" on Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not once, and please sign your post on talk page by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). --211.126.51.61 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The article makes an assertion that Zainichi loss of nationality is due to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. That claim makes the assumption that Zainichi had Japanese nationality before the treaty was signed. And given that its so expedient for the Japanese to claim so, I think a cited reference is needed. After all, the one who makes the claim should be able to back it up, right? Otherwise its open to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.35.146 (talk • contribs)

That's simply a historical fact.

• United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (26 September 2000): "E. Korean residents in Japan 32. The majority of Korean residents, who constitute about one third of the foreign population in Japan, are Koreans (or their descendants) who came to reside in Japan for various reasons during the 36 years (1910-1945) of Japan's so-called rule over Korea and who continued to reside in Japan after having lost Japanese nationality, which they held during the time of Japan's rule, with the enforcement of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (28 April 1952).
• IHT/Asahi (December 3, 2003): "Korean residents of Japan who lost Japanese nationality under the San Francisco Peace Treaty were long excluded from compensation under the Japanese pension and war-victims relief laws."
• Migration News @ UC-Davis (Vol. 5 No. 2, April 1998): "Koreans were no longer Japanese citizens after the San Francisco peace treaty took effect in April 1952"
• Saitama University Review, Vol.31, No.1.: "In 1991, the Japanese government awarded special permanent residency to thos e who lost Japanese nationality in accordance with the Peace Treaty in 1952 and their descendants."

--211.126.51.61 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The above listed sources, none of which could be considered primary sources, merely state what the main article states, and as we all know, merely stating something does not make it true.

In any case, I’ve put the quotes from the main article in chronological order so that you can see the contradiction:

From the main article:

“Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese in 1945, ... . Japan's defeat in the war left the nationality status of Zainichi Koreans in an ambiguous position in terms of law.”

- This is confusing to me, although I am no expert on such matters, so I ask what mechanism of law changes citizens to non-citizens in this situation?

“Alien Registration Ordinance (外国人登録令) in May 2, 1947 classified all Korean-Japanese as foreign nationals.”

- That’s not so ambiguous anymore, is it? I would say that at this point they lost their citizenship, wouldn’t you agree? But I do wonder how they managed to figure out which of their ‘citizens’ were originally from Korea, now that they were so assimilated into the Japanese public. Unless of course there was a registry kept which allowed people to track who was a ‘real’ Japanese from others who were ‘pretend’ Japanese.

“The Allied occupation of Japan ended in April 28, 1952 with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Japan formally abandoned her territorial claim to the Korean Peninsula, and as a result, Zainichi Koreans formally lost their Japanese nationality.” (emphasis added)

So, I repeat – I think its wrong to say that Korean zainichi lost their citizenship due to the San Francisco Peace Treaty because in fact they lost it much earlier, if they ever really had it in the first place.

222.144.237.243 05:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan lost sovereignty in 1945 and regained it in 1952. The existence of Japan (as well as Korea) as a nation during the occupation period was "ambiguous." Anyway the bottom line is that as far as you cannot provide any reliable sources to back up your personal opinion it doesn't merit reference on wikipedia, and you have provided none so far. --211.126.51.61 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Alien Registration Ordinance of 1947 is only a "provisional" classification made by the post-war provisional government of Japan as requested under the Potsdam declaration (ポツダム勅令第207号), and was replaced by the new Alien Registration Law of 1952 (外国人登録法) following San Francisco Peace Treaty when Japan regained sovereignty (and official capacity to assign nationality). Hermeneus (user/talk) 04:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? "This is the often cited excuse given by Japanese politicians for why America is responsible for the current situation of the Zainichi in Japan". Which politicians, and when? Sources? Phonemonkey 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Zainichi Koreans' koseki (戸籍) after Japan lost the war and the San Francisco Treaty was signed? Does anyone know this? Thanks in advance˝˝˝˝ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.17.77.25 (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found out. The Korean zainichi weren't allowed to have a koseki registration in Japan. They had to be registered in Korea. So for those of you who are interested, they were never treated like true Japanese. 122.27.250.213 (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

125.175.142.228's edit

Re: “Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese in 1945, and 148 Zainichi Koreans in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted at local war crime tribunals in Asia of Class B and C war crimes, 23 of whom were sentenced to death.”

The sentence is poorly written as it conflates the two unrelated themes of nationality on the one hand, and war crimes on the other in a single sentence. It also needlessly confuses the two distinct concepts of (a) ethnic/cultural identity and (b) nationality – plainly it’s internally inconsistant to state that “Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese in 1945, and 148 Zainichi Koreans in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted at …”. Much better to state that “Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese in 1945, and 148 Japanese in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted …” (Although in which case the actual figures should be increased to reflect the true numbers of those Japanese who were convicted). 125.175.142.228 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"148 Japanese in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted..." makes no sense at all. Rewritten as follows: "Koreans were still Japanese nationals in 1945. 148 ethnic Koreans in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted as Japanese war criminals at local war crime tribunals in Asia of Class B and C war crimes, 23 of whom were sentenced to death." --Saintjust 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the very first word in your rewrite, 'Koreans', need some further modification. To put it simply, not all ethnic 'Koreans' were part of the Japanese army in 1945 nor were all ethnic 'Koreans' Japanese nationals in 1945.

In fact, I think this war crimes entry is not suitable for this page. Do you see a war crimes entry under the 'American' or even 'Japanese' pages? No, because it has nothing to do with the essence of those topics. It's best left to the page on war crimes themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.35.146 (talk • contribs)

Ofcourse that is very much relevant. That's a good example that shows that the Koreans were still treated as Japanese at the time. Also, unlike articles such as Japanese people, this article is not limited to the people as an ethnographic category; it describes their history, community, and practically everything about the Zainichi Koreans. In the case of the Japanese people there are separate articles about their nation and history, and the articles Japan as well as History of Japan do mention WWII war crimes. --Saintjust 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I see that argument that anything factual is relevant above, but its wrong. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to simply list everything that is factual about the subject. If that were true, we would have entries such as - "most zainichi have black hair". It's true but irrelevant because it is assumed knowledge. Similarly, an entry "zainichi typically have an allele distribution of x:y" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. We use an internal filter when we decide what is relevant to put into an entry. If the purpose is to show that Zainichi were treated as Japanese nationals then why not just say "There were x number of zainichi officers serving in the Japanese Imperial Forces". Instead, the chosen sentence in question is something that is pejorative when it could just as easily be neutral. Why not keep the tone of the article neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.175.142.228 (talk • contribs)

This is an important event of history that exemplifies the existence and treatment of the Zainichi Koreans during the post-war transitional period when they started to be distinguished from the Japanese again. Those Koreans were tried by the Allied Powers as Japanese war criminals because the Koreans fought on the side of the Imperial Japan and were involved in some of the war crimes that the Imperia Japan had committed (willingly or not). They were not treated simply as the innocent victims of Japanese colonialism. Nor were they treated as the fellow members of the victorious Allied nations (thus called "Sangokujin"). The war trial is noteworthy because it was possibly the last occasion when the Koreans were treated as Japanese as they would be deprived of Japanese nationality and cease to be full Japanese shortly after. Also noteworthy in association with this is the story of a Korean veteran of the Imperial Japanese military who cannot receive pensions under Japanese war pension law because he is no longer Japanese: "High court rejects suit by disabled S. Korean WWII vet" (Asian Political News, Jan 3, 2000). That "there were x number of zainichi officers serving in the Japanese Imperial Forces" is a fact before and during the war, not after.

Rejecting this info as trivial a fact as that "most zainichi have black hair" is utterly ridiculous. What is "pejorative" about it anyway? Is comfort woman also pejorative? There is a support group called "Group to Support the ex-Korean BC Class War Criminals Who Were Held Responsible in place of Japanese" (日本の戦争責任を肩代わりさせられた韓国・朝鮮人BC級戦犯を支える会) [7] that claims that those Korean war criminals are rather victims because they were made the scapegoat for the Japanse and so need compensation just like there are support groups for former comfort women and Korean hibakusha (atomic bomb victims). The sentence may be unpleasant for the Korean people like yourself as much as mention of the Japanese war criminals is for the Japanese people. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is meant to compile knowledge from a neutral point of view. You cannot censor info just because it is negative toward yourself. --Saintjust 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m not the only person to have stated that the construction of this paragraph is jarring to read because its suddenly jumps from the topic of nationality to war crimes (see comments above in previous sections). I think it’s also because this wiki article is supposed to be about Zainichi Koreans not Koreans in general. People reading the article could be forgiven for thinking that you are saying that the 148 people convicted of war crimes were Zainichi.58.90.242.39 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted the entry. I don't think it is pejorative, but its not really relevant and is certainly misleading. If it is to go back in, I think it needs to be heavily reworded in order to make it fit into context. Phonemonkey 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Repatriation

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge about Zainichi Koreans (regardless of whether they align with the North or South) who return permanently to one of the Koreas. In "The Hidden Gulag" by David Hawk (U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea), it's mentioned that some who repatriate to the North are considered unsuitable for life there because they've been 'spoiled' by capitalist life in Japan, and are incarcerated. But then on the other hand, zainichis who align with the North are allowed to go back and visit, I think (zainichi students at the Chongryon-run schools who go on school trips to the North via the Mangyonbon, for example). As far as those who repatriate to South Korea, I have no idea. If some information about this could be added to the Zainichi Korean article, or to a separate article perhaps about ethnic Koreans who repatriate from various countries, I'd be really interested to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesandzeros (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 November 2006

Here's one article a cursory Google search found: [8]; I'm working on improving sourcing for articles on Koreans outside of Korea and will get around to writing about this sometime soon. cab 06:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious language breakdown under the heading "Crime by a Korean & Zainichi-Korean privilege"

That should say it all. I'd fix up the vocab and grammar myself, but I have no idea what it means. 220.244.236.157 10:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Korean Japanese' (コリアンジャパニーズ, 韓国系日本人, 朝鮮系日本人) should be separated from the article

PASS NAMES??? I THINK ITS APPROPRIATE TO SAY AND WRITE " ALIAS" INSTEAD PASS NAMES. FOR EXAMPLE, DOES JEWISH LIVING AROUND THE WORLD OR HOLLYWOOD JEWS USE REAL JEWISH NAMES?? THEIR ARE MAJORITY AMERICAN JEWS MOVIE STARS USE " ANGLO-ALIAS" NAMES IS THIS PASS NAMES???? PLEASE WRITE ALIAS INSTEAD PASS NAMES. WIKIPEDIA USER OR AS A EDUCATOR IT WOULD BE WISE TO CORRECT MISINFORMED WORD DESCRIPTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherjj1 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with this idea strongly; ethnic Koreans in Japan share a similar community history, regardless of what citizenship they happen to hold. You can say that discussing of "Korean Japanese" doesn't belong under an article entitled "Zainichi Korean"; but that's an argument for moving the article to a different title, e.g. "Koreans in Japan"; not removing content that is logically connected to the subject. cab 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THERE WERE 6 MILLION KOREAN-JAPANESE OR JAPANESE ( KOREAN BLOOD OR KOREAN DESCENTS). SO MANY KOREANS INVADED OR MIGRATED FROM KOREAN PENINSULA TO ISLAND WE CALLED TODAY JAPAN. YAYOI, JOMON, JAPANESE EMPEROR, JAPANESE EARLY NOBLE FAMILIES, HATA,AYA,KOMA CLANS THEY WERE KOREANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV edits and rewrites needed

This article is ridiculously POV. The Origins and WWII sections are epecially egregious and should be rewritten and sentences reworded to reflect a NPOV statement of facts. As they stand now, they're extremely revisionist.Melonbarmonster 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't understand what this is saying

I move the latest addition by 125.198.93.186 (talk · contribs) here. The only thing I can understand from here is the claim that Koreans receive more favourable tax treatment than Japanese. If anyone can rewrite it and provide citations, you are welcome to put it back into the article.

The Korean Peninsula was Japan the wartime period. People were only impressed into the state. Although the Japanese government paid expense after the war and there was a repatriation program repeatedly, the present Korean resident in Japan did not go back. This is said to be less also than 1000 persons. The refugee who avoided war fire after that at the time of the Korean War, and has deserted the country is also the present Korean resident in Japan. They pretend that it was taken into the Second World War, are favorably treated also in respect of a taxation system in Japan, and have brought a result from which Japanese people are segregated conversely. The Korean resident in Japan became local branches in formation and North Korea about the in Japan Korea total joint association, and it is also clear to have assisted Japanese abduction.

Thanks, cab 12:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zainichi Korean → Koreans in Japan — Proposed title is more inclusive and allows a more complete treatment of the topic (including permanent residents of Japan with NK/SK citizenship, ethnic Koreans with Japanese citizenship, South Korean expatriates in Japan, etc). Recently, the article Korean Japanese was created on the grounds that the title "Zainichi Koreans" can't include ethnic Koreans who have taken Japanese citizenship. However, ethnic Koreans in Japan have the same history and face many of the same social issues regardless of what passport they happen to hold; splitting them into two different articles based on their citizenship status doesn't make sense to me. Also, the proposed title matches with others in the Korean diaspora series. If this is moved, Korean Japanese should be merged back into this article. cab 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. I was the one who removed the prod from Korean Japanese, but I agree that this can be treated as one topic under the proposed title. This is a strong argument. It also mirrors the title of Chinese in Japan (although that should probably be at Chinese people in Japan instead). Dekimasuよ! 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. though I think it should be Korean people in Japan (and Chinese people in Japan). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

   There's no consensus for a naming convention on the ethnic group nexus of articles, and I don't think it's likely that there will be one anytime soon. Since the article about "Korean people" is at Koreans, I think the proposed title makes sense. Dekimasuよ! 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

   I went ahead and performed the associated move on the article about Chinese people. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Support. Why couldn't I think of that before? (Wikimachine 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
4. Support. As to 'Koreans' vs 'Korean people', see Talk:Koreans#Requested move why it's at "Koreans" and not at "Korean people". --Kusunose 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support — per WP:UE; the word "Zainichi" is virtually unused in the English language.--Endroit 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - per above. John Smith's 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Agree with above, "Zainichi" is not used in English. --Hunfe 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

   After reading the discussion on the use of the term Zainichi in english, I am withdrawing my support. I also see that Zainichi Gaikokujin has its own term. --Hunfe 11:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - the word is used plenty in English..! [9][10] [11][12] are just a few examples, of which there are many more available, scholarly sources using the term "Zainichi". While I can see some of the benefit of using a broader definition to encompass all ethnic Koreans, I think "Koreans in Japan" is bordering on being a neologism, or at the very least, a dumbening down of the original title. I question that any scholar specializing on Japan would use any other term to describe "Zainichi" than just that word. While it might be true that some ethnical Koreans holding Japanese passports too suffer from occasional discrimination, that can easily be covered in the Zainichi article, in two lines. I do agree that splitting them into two articles doesn't make much sense - but on the other hand, I think the Korean Japanese article should have been deleted in the first case. I'd like to see some concrete examples of what kind of well sourced, relevant information on "non-Zainichi" Korean Japanese that could be included in "Koreans in Japan" - otherwise, I can see no valid reason for moving the article. Mackan 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment I also disagree with the WP:UE rationale, which is why I didn't mention it in my move proposal. On the other hand, "Koreans in Japan" is widely used among scholars (especially by Sonia Ryang, who used the exact phrase in the titles of two of her books), or 759 google scholar hits on the phrase [13] (which doesn't even count other permutations like "korean residents in/of japan", "korean nationals in japan", etc.) vs only 424 for the single word zainichi [14]. Anyway I'll admit that I'm not really sure that renaming articles in response to this and other recent edit wars on ethnic minority-related articles is the optimal solution, but it's at least a workable one. cab 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   Zainichi (在日) already goes to a disambiguation page like it should based on the Japanese definition, which includes ANY foreign people or group who "reside in Japan". If you are claiming a different English definition (to override the Japanese definition) for Zainichi, you would need a lot more evidence than that (i.e. dictionary definitions, Google counts, etc.).

   Having said that, "Zainichi Korean" is a neologism with a very low Google count. And I still stand by my WP:UE argument, adding that most English speakers have never even heard of the word Zainichi, and will not be able to tell the difference between Zainichi and Zatoichi.

   A similar term for "Chinese people in Japan", Kakyō (華僑), already redirects to Chinese people in Japan, and Huáqiáo (華僑) already redirects to Overseas Chinese.--Endroit 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   Endroit, most people have probably not heard about the Randall-Sundrum model, but that's not a reason to change its name to "Model imagining that the real world is a higher-dimensional universe". The fact that "Zainichi Korean" doesn't have the highest of google counts does not mean it's a neologism. Except for being used extensively in Japanese, the sources I mentioned above are good examples of it's use in English literature. The "Chinese people in Japan" example is irrelevant because the word "kakyo" is not, as far as I know, used in English literature.Mackan 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   On the contrary Mackan, if you look at Google results:

   • Zainichi Korean: 640
   • Koreans in Japan: 57,400

   Now which is more common in English?--Endroit 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   Did I ever say that "Zainichi Korean" was more common in English? In what way does the google count prove that "Zainichi Korean" is a neologism? Mackan 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   You've said "'Koreans in Japan' is bordering on being a neologism". So I responded that "'Zainichi Korean' IS a neologism", with ONLY 640 GOOGLE HITS. Other people can agree or disagree and vote here.--Endroit 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   Additionally, a search on "Zainichi" alone gives 58,200 hits [15]. Feel free to elaborate on how many of these which are not about Zainichi Koreans. Mackan 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'll go ahead and comment on the English Google results. Most of these links have some kind of a dual mention, where the word "Zainichi" is accompanied by a description, defining or explaining how the word is used in Japan. That proves that the word is still assumed to be unknown to most English readers, and the word "Zainichi" is perhaps at a stage where it's being introduced into the English language. That explains why the combination "Zainichi Korean" in English has such a low Google count. "Zainichi" is simply not used that much in English.--Endroit 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

   Zainichi already goes to a disambiguation page. We're discussing Zainichi Korean here, and that's not a generally accepted usage.--Endroit 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   Endroit, you're wrong. See the sources I presented. Is your only argument that "Zainichi Korean" has a low google count? Mackan 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   My argument is that per WP:UE, we should use the English name "Koreans in Japan", which has a higher Google count, by a factor of almost 100.--Endroit 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Here's some evidence as to how the word "Zainichi" is used in Japanese, based on (sorry) Google counts again. Set your Google preference to "Japanese" pages only:

• Zainichi (在日) : 1,290,000
• Zainichi Beigun (在日米軍, lit. Zainichi U.S. Forces) : 633,000
• Zainichi Chōsenjin (在日朝鮮人, lit. Zainichi Koreans (especially North Koreans)) : 595,000
• Zainichi Gaikokujin (在日外国人, lit. Zainichi Foreigners) : 464,000
• Zainichi Kankokujin (在日韓国人, lit. Zainichi South Koreans) : 426,000
• Zainichi Korian (在日コリアン, lit. Zainichi Koreans) : 328,000
• Zainichi Chūgokujin (在日中国人, lit. Zainichi Chinese people) : 165,000
• Zainichi Taishikan (在日大使館, lit. Zainichi Embassy) : 60,000
• Zainichi Kajin (在日華人, lit. Zainichi Chinese people) : 43,000
• Zainichi Burajirujin (在日ブラジル人, lit. Zainichi Brazilians) : 32,600
• Zainichi Amerikajin (在日アメリカ人, lit. Zainichi Americans) : 10,600
• Zainichi Roshiajin (在日ロシア人, lit. Zainichi Russians) : 463

I will make a slight adjustment to the Zainichi disambiguation page accordingly, for the usages of Zainichi Korean.--Endroit 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The kanji don't really seem necessary on that disambiguation page, though. Dekimasuよ! 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways in disambiguation pages. For example Yoko (name) and Keiko have kanji. It's not really important, though.

Also, perhaps we should add the definition of Zainichi at the top, based on the definition we use in this article. Zainichi means something different to different people, and defining it at the top of the disambiguation page should be very helpful.--Endroit 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Zainichi Korean to Koreans in Japan as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the move too. "Koreans In Japan”, who thought that was a good idea? How confusing. There are plenty of ‘Koreans in Japan’ who have nothing to do with zainichi. Lots and lots of people who come here from Korea to study or work and end up staying. Is this article about them too? It certainly sounds like it from the title. But zainichi are a completely different cultural group. To put the same two groups together demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge. Surely this mistake was unintentional? What is going to happen to the “Kurdish” wiki page? Retitle it to “Ay-rabs” because not enough people have heard of the Kurds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.27.250.213 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)