Talk:Japan–South Korea trade dispute

Information to contribute

So I created a sandbox a while back for the exact same topic (same name too) thinking nobody was covering this trade dispute (until now). Even better according to the revision history both pages were created only a day apart. Heh...lol. Anyways I was wondering if I can link my sandbox to this talk page to allow other editors to see if there are any information of use that can be contributed to this article. I read Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox and I don't think there is anything regarding adding a sandbox link onto a talk page. It's certainly not a redirect. The only other guideline I know that might be involved is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but I'm cool with anybody using information from my sandbox to contribute to this article. Please let me know. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Anti-Japanese banner which are set up in the city of seoul.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

English

The English in this article is pretty dreadful, to the point that it is unclear what some "sentences" (if we want to call them that) mean. "They even cancelling a trip to Japan to protest the country's move" means what, that they were going to cancel future trips, they did cancel a trip that had been planned? Such poor grammar is throughout the article. 216.154.62.174 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to replace sentences "country's move" because There was a ambiguity over grammar Yayan550 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Issue might be that a lot of edits have been from non-Native English speakers since Korea-Japan related articles seem to have the same issues plaguing it.

Date format and spelling?

According to me, the variant of English spelling can write whether British, American, or others. Despite you can edit the article according to national English varieties do you want and even this mainly British English article have many American spelling have (ize, fulfills, etc), in order to differentiate this article with China–United States trade war which use m-d-y format, the date format in this article should be Day Month Year (d-m-y). Yayan550 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I was surprise to read this article Made by you because unlike many Korea or Japan-related article which use American English as US influence is strong in both countries, this article use British English, and sometimes British spelling was preferred, for example:

• Centre instead of Center
• Labour instead of Labor
• Favour instead of Favor
• Fulfil instead of fulfill
• Travelled instead of traveled, etc

I think this article was made to applease readers in Britain, Australia, Canada, etc when these variants preferred. But there was one exception: -ize was preferred instead of -ise (that i thought that there was Oxford spelling use through out the article)

I also surprised that there are two trade wars in English Wikipedia that each one use different spellings. The China-United States trade war use American English, but this one (between Japan and Korea) use British English (yet with ize variant preferred). And there are two different date format used, US China trade war use MDY but Japan Korea trade war use DMY. Hinosaxs (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Both accounts above; Yayan550 and Hinosaxs turned out to be the same user's sockpuppets. (see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry)
Then regards to date format and spelling, American style with MDY date is preferred here for consistency. I think the template of "British English Oxford spelling" should be deleted.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

After i read the article about the trade dispute between Japan and South Korea and related effects, i think that article is more than 100 KB. I proposed that some section should be split to multiple articles. For information regarding boycott of Japanese products in Korea, it should be split out to new article named 2019 South Korean boycott of Japanese products and for information regarding General Security of Military information agreement (GSOMIA) also should be split to new article named Japan–South Korea General Security of Military Information Agreement because Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Wikipedia have the article about GSOMIA. You thoughts? Yayan550 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate description regarding to the list of 156 strategic goods

I'm opening this topic since this change could cause unintended result. According to the Korean government and some media, the list is actually a list of already exposed items, but it is not written in this wiki article.

I found some sources confirming that the list is already exposed items, in Korean and English.

• https://www.gov.kr/portal/ntnadmNews/1926106 (Korean)
• http://yna.kr/AEN20190711004100315 (English) - "But the data actually listed cases in which the Korean authorities took administrative action against exporters who were caught illegally shipping strategic items."
• http://biz.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201907101853001 (Korean)
• https://www.gov.kr/portal/ntnadmNews/1926106 (Korean, official govrenment announcement)

Could we change the description for neutrality? --Rtyu1120 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I found another source: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/901497.html (English) --Rtyu1120 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the claim to evidence that there were about 156 strategic goods need a official source from Korean government since the official government documents have more accurate to describe the info than Japanese media source. You can edit these claim to reflect the neutrality Yayan550 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You can replace the link below https://www.fnn.jp/posts/00047178HDK/201907101700_WatanabeYasuhiro_HDK I think the fuji tv claims was unclear. You can replace it with link from official government source Yayan550 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check NPOV . In article preval korean point of view. And korean expert mentioned as "other side"109.239.216.248 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. And this topic has essentially asymmetric nature. Describing as it is, asymmetric, may be possible.
• Also, there are very few experts on Multilateral export control regime. Actually misunderstanding of "export control" may have been the problem bringing confusion. Although this term sounds like a everyday conversation, it is a very different and difficult topic even for Japanese. It is a term for government officials, affiliated agencies and involved researchers.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I check the Hosokawa masahiko's claim If this is true on >MITI’s support for South Korea to become a member of global export control regime. In short, the import and export control system of strategic goods was created in the Cold War between the United States and its allies. It is a U.S.-led international system. An international treaty or system that prevents the export of weapons or supplies to communist countries. It is a system created by the U.S. against communist countries that call for cooperation and export control with its allies. Korea's strategic goods import and export control system was signed in September 1987 by the U.S. and South Korea. and Memorandum of Understanding on Technical Data Protection was concluded.Related regulations were made in the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act and the Regulations on Foreign Trade Management to implement the Korean law.From May 11, 1989, laws such as the COCOM (Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls) have already been passed and went into effect in Korea.As for the import of strategic materials, the government has been implementing a system to issue certificates of acceptance and customs clearance since July 1, 1990.1993 on the export of strategic materials The Act on Foreign Trade and the Enforcement Decree of the revised Foreign Trade Act, which took effect on July 1, provided legal grounds for the export permit system.In September 2004, Korea's strategic export and import control system was implemented mainly by the Foreign Trade Act (Article 21), the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 39-45), and the Strategic Commodity Export-Import Notice (public notice by the Ministry of Industry and Resources).Before 1990, it had already signed a treaty with the United States and made laws to take effect.It is a treaty led by the United States. However, I translated his entire article containing the Japanese claim. It represents Japan's position.It had already signed a negotiation treaty with the United States before 1990 and the law had been in effect before 1990. However, he stated that Korea was grateful for Japan's help, claiming that Korea joined the international multilateral import and export country with the help of the Japanese government in 1990.It is an American-led system to fight against the Soviet Union and communist countries during the Cold War. If people read without the background knowledge and facts that the United States had asked allies to join, this biased opinion of Masahiko Hosokawa could be misleading to readers. I think there is a problem with doing biased descriptions.

Soruce:Korea-U.S. Memorandum of Understanding on the Protection of Strategic Materials for Korea-U.S. Economic Cooperation Effective https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/1989041100791 Site of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy of Korea https://www.motie.go.kr/motie/py/brf/motiebriefing/motiebriefing17.do#header

Multilateral Export Control System and Inter-Korean Economic Co-operation Page.17 http://www.kiep.go.kr/cmm/fms/FileDown.do;jsessionid=JvGw0Il8O6Jk17Vsi7P3zWoS4NYQcjvxACwFc2MRKuMOaeMxgpf2YdJAgyhe9ydiKIEPWEB_NEW_servlet_Engine4?atchFileId=00000000000000004630&fileSn=2&bbsId=expertMeeRslt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperfect IMTFE (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Banner on 'Comfort Women' section

• Comfort women issue is not writen from NPOV, and at the same time it has no relationship with export control from the Japan side view. Nonetheless we can not keep as it is. As there is Main article: Comfort women, it may be deleted with remaining the link.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I moved the above user's comments to this section to better deal with this issue. As for the NPOV, I've tried to make some changes to the language which are available in the edit history. As for the above user's argument with relevancy (although not related to the NPOV banner), I think it would be helpful to provide at least a brief background on this issue. Many of the sources included in this section and article state that this issue forms a significant part of the background behind the current trade dispute, one which is founded on lingering sentiments. Therefore, I/d recommend editing this section to deal with any NPOV concerns rather than simply deleting it. NettingFish15019 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Just adding onto my previous note on deletion, Wikipedia's deletion policy for NPOV banners state that the conditions for deleting the banner (and not the section) are if 1. there is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved, 2. it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given, or 3. in the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. As the banner was only up for two weeks, I think it would be helpful to further discuss this issue to reach a consensus. In any case, NPOV banners are not supposed to be resolved by deleting the section in question but rather rewritten to try and achieve a neutral point of view <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>. NettingFish15019 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• • From Japan viewpoint, trade dispute issue of this article has started as updating/downgrading implementation of global export control regime to prevent resale of strategic goods, and it has nothing to do with so called Comfort Women issue. It may be potentially related to the South Korea side. I understand that there is asymmetric nature on this dispute. It will be the Korean side turn to explain reasonably how it is related to this trade dispute. Current text seems not described as the background information for this trade dispute started in 2019. Then, care about the signed international agreement in 2015 which is still deemed final and irreversible. And, current text is too long and seems redundant.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• • From what I understand from your comment, I believe that you are saying that the section is non-relevant because the Japanese government does not officially cite it as a cause. While I recognize that there are multiple cited causes behind the conflict, offered by both the Japanese and South Korean governments and external observers, the fact that many sources have cited the issue surrounding 'comfort women' as forming a background to this conflict suggests that it's relevant to the article as a whole. Furthermore, the fact that it's related to, at least from your viewpoint, to South Korea's response to the conflict makes the issue worth mentioning. The issue itself is one of the main topics of discussion between the two countries, and is an important factor to note when understanding the recent court decisions. I've edited the article's intro with some of these sources to address the NPOV concern. As for the 'final and irreversible' note, the treaty was essentially voided in 2018, which shows the current tension between the two countries. If you still have NPOV concerns, you could highlight that this issue is not officially cited by the Japanese government as being a factor behind the conflict. However, the fact that a quick google shows this topic coming up repeatedly suggests that it's relevant to the overall conflict and therefore should stay, even if edited. NettingFish15019 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Your recognizing is not mine. My point is that this article is titled "Japan–South Korea trade dispute". I'm trying to understand your view and understood that the South Korean side is considering so-called Comfort Women issue is a reasonable background for South Korea's response. On the other side, you became to understand that it is out-of-scope on Japan side. Then, you may try to edit as the South Korean side background. This section's place may be wrong, and unfortunately the text became longer and seems more redundant. It is disappointing to know that South Korea is violating the international agreement in 2015 again.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• • I've tried to make the language fit to make it clear that the Japanese government's official position apparently does not reflect this issue. I also fail to see your point regarding the text becoming longer and more redundant; if anything, it's become shorter and more focused on quick summaries of events that have happened than it was in its initial state. I would also object to your sentence 'it is disappointing to know that South Korea is violating the international agreement in 2015 again', as I feel this has to do with your personal opinion on this topic rather than on improving the article as a whole; talk pages are not meant for general discussions of the subject. All in all, I don't think there's much more to be done in terms of addressing the NPOV issue. Much of the text is informational rather than advocating for one side over another, and is in alignment with the main page on the topic. I'd recommend removing the banner under Wikipedia's policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>. NettingFish15019 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• • There is no mention of comfort women in both the Japanese and Korean versions of this article. It is inexplicable that the English version of the article, which is not by a party to the conflict, mentions comfort women.--Shockingblue (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

    Since this article is about the trade dispute between Japan and South Korea, and not about comfort women, it seems appropriate to remove much of the text in the "Comfort women" section, which contains only general information about World War II and comfort women that is not specifically related to the subject of this article. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)