Talk:Kofun period/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page move

Kofun moved to Kofun era to leave room for a "kofun" article about the tombs.

In the process of redirecting the links which point to kofun to here, but the server is very slow now, will continue later. Rama 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Another move, to Kofun period

The "History of Japan" template lists this as "Kofun period", not "era". I propose we move this page accordingly to be consistent with the other Japanese history pages. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Shilkanni 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support let's unify these titles. Fg2 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mass blanking not appropriate

Kamosuke -- Please do not unilaterally remove chunks of content from a page, unless that chunk is obvious vandalism. I just reverted your recent blanking of a substantial portion of this page. Please do not do this again without first getting concensus here on the Talk page. You have already been asked not to do this on 18 15 April over at Talk:Yamato period#Recent mass deletions Talk:Yamato period#Continuing mass deletions. Continued blanking will be viewed as vandalism. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) -- Edited, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke -- Again, please stop mass blanking pages. If you have something you disagree with, bring it up on the Talk page first. Continued mass blanking will be viewed as vandalism. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful example how sometimes happens here in Wikipedia :) see Astronomer and Amateur. This reminds me what could happen when someone keeps an opinionated opinion (about whatever, be it possibly about interaction between Koreans and Japanese over 15 centuries ago) Shilkanni 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How sad, and yet how poignantly relevant... Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruling Class

As contents of first four paragraphs are duplicated with "Ruling Class" entry in Asuka period, I'd like to replace it with some informations about clans up to 5th century. Here I put some drafts below. If people here think it's appropriate, let me replace it.

--From Here--

Many of clans and local chieftains consisting Yamato polity claimed its taproot to imperial family or other tribal Gods(Kami). The archeological evidence of such clans is found in inscription of the ancient iron sword discovered in Inariyama Kofun of Saitama, on which the bearer recorded the names of his ancestors to claim its origin to Ōbiko(大彦) who was recorded in Nihongi as a son of Emperor Kōgen. On the other hand, there are also considerable number of clans having origins in Korea or China. According to Nihongi, the oldest record of Korean imigrant is Amenohiboko(天日槍), a legendary prince of Silla who settled to Japan at the era of Emperor Suinin, perhaps around 3rd or 4th century. Ironically, Amenohiboko is described in Nihongi as a maternal ancestor of Empress Jingū whose controversial legend says that she conquered Silla.

Among many Korean imigrants settled continuously from 4th century, some oldcomers seem to set their origins to imperial family or some major clans. Soga no Machi(蘇我満智), the ancestor of Soga clan, is believed by some scholars to be equivalent of Baekje noble Moku Manchi(木満致). Korean imigrants even include their royal family. King_Muryeong_of_Baekje was born in Japan in 462, and left a son settled there. The naturalized prince established Wa clan(和氏). This clan's women Takano Niigasa became the second wife of Emperor Kōnin and gave birth to Emperor Kammu in 737.

At 5th century, Kazuraki clan(葛城氏), descending from the legendary grandson of Emperor Kogen, was the most prominent power in the court and intermarried with imperial family. After Kazuraki faded in late 5th century, Otomo clan(大伴氏) temporarily took its place. When Emperor Buretsu died with no apparent heir, it was Otomo no Kanamura who recommended Emperor Keitai, a very distant imperial relative resided in Koshi district(current Fukui Prefecture), to be a new monarch. However, Kanamura was fired due to failures on diplomatic pilicies, and the court was eventually controlled by Mononobe clan (物部氏) and Soga clan(蘇我氏) at the beginning of Asuka Period.

--To Here--

Also, since fifth paragraph of this chapter has little to do with ruling class, I think it should be written in a different chapter e.g.)"Continental Influences", etc.Mahal Aly 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

a week passed since I placed the draft and seemed to have less objection, I placed paragraphs above to the article. Any correction of errors are welcomed. Thank you.Mahal Aly 10:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Korean's hypothesis

Part Article that South Korean deletes

According to an official history record at a Liu Song Dynasty [1]. Liu Song Dynasty recognized that the Yamato Imperial Court reigned over Silla and Baekje and Gaya confederacy.　According to an official history record Sui Dynasty [2], Silla and Baekje feared and respected the power of Yamato. They always dispatched the messenger and wished Japan friendship. According to an official history record at a Goryeo(Samguk Sagi). Baekje submitted the royal prince of Baekje (Jeonji of Baekje) to the Yamato Imperial Court in 394. [3]Silla submitted the royal prince of Silla (Misaheun) to the Yamato Imperial Court in 402. [4] Influence of Japan in Korean peninsula continued until being defeated at Silla and Tang Dynasty in the Battle of Hakusukinoe in the 7th century.

The South Korean deletes this part many times. However, All Koreans never write the deletion reason.

Korean's hypothesis

Korean civilization ? A Korean peninsula of this age is being written the same barbarian as Japan. Concretely, could you teach the civilization of South Korea?

Korean immigrants in Japan

If current Japanese Emperor traces his family genelogy to Koreans/ Korean kingdom Baekje. This makes Chinese immigrant is more important then Korean immigrant in the history of Japan?? Please refrain yourself making bias opinion.

The Chinese immigrant is more important than the South Korean immigrant in the history of Japan. According to the history record　"Shinsen-Joujouroku (新撰姓氏録)[1]"

"Detailed research by historians had made clear that the greatest wave of immigration took place immediately after the unification of Japan by the Yamato court. If the Yamato court was established without any relation to Korea, how can these facts be explained?"

：Perhaps, I think, the source in this part is "Japanese race's origin (日本民族の起源)" published in 1958. However, this insistence is being denied by most historians now.[2]

Ruling class

Japan's Emperor Kammu's mother is known to be a Baekje descendant.

It is a story at the Heian era.

Many important figures in Emperor Ojin's reign were immigrants from the Korean kingdom of Baekje.

who?

according to the Nihongi, a Korean was in charge of taxes levied on shipments. The introduction of Chinese writing to Yamato was one Baekje's most important gifts to the court

who? according to the Nihongi, Katsuragi or Heguri or Kose... There is no Korean.

One-third of the noble families on a list compiled in 815 had their origins in China or Korea: 170 of the 1200 listed were from China, 240 from different parts of Korea.

It is not corresponding to the history record of Japan. ("Shinsen-Joujouroku (新撰姓氏録)[3]")

These immigrants received noble titles from the rulers of the Yamato, and were valued as experts, especially on iron-working, horseriding and writing.

Who became a high class?　Most Korean aristocrats were low classes. (The only exception was Kudara-no-Konishiki.)

Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes.

There is no fact. (Two priests of Chinese are recorded in Nihonshoki. )

Eight of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were from Korean immigrant families while none were from China proper.

Complete mistake.　The Korean is not participating. Two Chinese is participating. And, a lot of members are the international students who returned home from China.

Further, idea of local administrative districts and the tribute tax are based on Korean models.

Complete mistake.The system of China is a model. (永徽律令 produced in China in 651 years)

--Kamosuke 12:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk

In Taiho Ritsuryo, there are several compiling members whose ancestor is Korean or Chinese (i.e. Kifumi no Sonafu, Shirabe no Okina, etc). Maybe not many of them are native Korean, but immigrants after several generations. Perhaps some of them has Japansese in maternal line, and some are not. Since there is no idea on defining nationalities or identities of those, maybe it would be more neutral to correct as following;

Among 19 members of the comittee drafting the Taiho Code, two were Chinese, and also included several offsprings of Korean imigrants. Many of Japanese members were international students who returned home from China.

Anyway, I don't think it appropriate to note something about Taiho Ritsuryo here in Kofun Period entry. The paragraph should be merged to that of Asuka Period.

Sorry, I forgot to sign. The talk above is mine. Mahal Aly 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to your insistence. Please compare it with this article and the article on Wikipedia of Japan. The article on an English version is not arranged. I regret that the article on Japan has fallen into disorder by the South Koreans' edits. By the way, my insistence is based on volume 2 of Shokunihongi though it is an episode of Taiho Ritsuryo.

癸卯,遣三品-刑部親王,正三位-藤原朝臣-不比等,從四位下-下毛野朝臣-古麻呂,從五位下-伊吉連-博德、伊余部連-馬養,撰定律令,於是始成.大略以淨御原朝庭為准正.仍賜祿,有差.

There is no Korean immigrant in this. There is a scholar who goes to study to China. 続守言 ＆ 薩弘恪. They were Chinise translators in the Yamato court.(音博士) They are related to an official document of Japan at that time. This episode is not appropriate to the Kofun age as you say. --Kamosuke 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kamosuke:

1) Please, if you don't mind, explain how these theories you are so vehmently against are Korean theories as opposed to general theories.

1)　Simply, the Koreans only insists, "Korean immigrant had a big influence on Japan". Actually, the society in Japan has been greatly changed depending on a Chinese immigrant. (EX Kuratsukuri Tori) --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1.5) Don't you think that mass deletion, even if you disagree with the theories promulaged, are simply enforcing one point of view?

Simply, the South Korean only added a large amount of articles "The origin of Japan is South Korea". The problem is not in what deletes it at all. Please compare it with the article on a Japanese version. As for the article on an English version, the quality has been obviously lowered by the Koreans. --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2) There is a distinction between simply citing ancient sources and citing scholarly analysis via credible sources of the ancient sources. The former is okay to use as a source per Wikipedia policy, while the latter is not. (Perhaps a source that said, explicitly, there was zero Korean impact in Japan during this time period, in English, would be sufficient. I have never come across that viewpoint in print yet myself.)

Simply, Chinese was only translated into English. However, the Koreans publishes without analyzing the source. It is a problem. --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3) If you wouldn't mind and read the sources cited I would appreciate it.

If you hope, shall I introduce the history record of China to the article on the ancient history of Korea? --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

4) Finally, in response to Mahal Aly, I would argue that Korean and Chinese immigrants were not considered "Japanese" during this time period but retained their status as "immigrants" despite the fact that they had lived for generations in Japan which is backed up by sources cited. If that was their classification in the past I think it is reasonable to include and actually an important piece of information.

Submit the history record that proves your analysis. Wikipedia is not a place where it makes a speech on the Koreans. --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tortfeasor 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor;

You might mension that Japansese did distinguished foreign immigrants' clans as seen in Shoban (諸蕃; "miscellaneous barbarians" in English) entries of Shojiroku. However, it is not that such disciminations means that Japanese court didn't give so-called nationality to foreign immigrants. On the contrary, giving uji-i.e.)clan- itself is a granting of some kind of a nationality (Baekje royal families were given uji named Kudara no Konikishi because they were settled to Japan and were no longer intended for restoration).

But of course, many immigrants had their expertises, which helped them to serve the court. In case of those technocrats in Taiho Ritsuryo, they believed to have more literal skill than indigenous clans of the same class (who had no members to send scholars to China or Silla), and thus selected as compiler for the new laws.

talk above by Mahal Aly 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What you says sounds good. As long as we discuss the various classifications of immigrants, like torai-ji (which is more appropriate for the Yayoi period people who shipped people from south Korea to western Japan, and recent immigrants who came during the tomb period (forget the name), and then at the fall of Baekje and Goguryeo, and finally those families with acknowledged ties to their Korean and Chinese acestors, etc., etc. (My main concern is the continued mass deletions which seem to be more about a point of view than a rational discussion of immigrants in Japan and their integral role in the state formation process.) Thanks for the reply. Tortfeasor 04:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor;

As immigrants from continent is coming continuously from prehistoric era up to the end of 7th century, we should probably build an independent entry like Toraijin. BTW, how do you find my draft on "Ruling class" chapter I've written in talk page above? If many feels it is neutral enough, I would like to replace with current one, which is a little bit mixed up with Asuka Period entries.Mahal Aly 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor;

Simply, your opinion is not based on evidence. It is based on Korean's feelings. Please bear the description based on the fact in mind. I will be able to cooperate in you if you present the source.

Kamosuke,

FYI, full members of Taiho Ritsuryo compilers are listed in Vol,1 of Shoku Nihongi in June 16, 700 (4th year of Mommu) entry. As far as I saw the members and their Uji in Shojiroku, five or maybe six are of immigrant clans(諸蕃), nine are Japanese. For others I couldn't find their origins. I wondered where the idea of "eight members" come from.Mahal Aly 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I confirmed it. Thank you !

勅淨大參刑部親王。直廣壹藤原朝臣不比等。直大貳粟田朝臣眞人。直廣參下毛野朝臣古麻呂。直廣肆伊岐連博得。直廣肆伊余部連馬養。勤大壹薩弘恪。勤廣參土部宿祢甥。勤大肆坂合部宿祢唐。務大壹白猪史骨。追大壹黄文連備。田邊史百枝。道君首名。狹井宿祢尺麻呂。追大壹鍜造大角。進大壹額田部連林。進大貳田邊史首名。山口伊美伎大麻呂。直廣肆調伊美伎老人等。撰定律令。賜祿各有差。

Who in this member is South Korean?　The South Korean will answer it. Because this article is a topic that he offered. --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

we shouldn't be doing original research by trying to interpret ancient foreign language texts ourselves. WP:NOR: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published," such as reputable scholarly articles/books/reference works.

It is not prohibited to translate Chinese into English. It is not correct to announce a original research without having the source. WP:NOR--Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

also, english sources are preferred over foreign language sources. please review WP:V. thanks. Appleby 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To Korean. If you think that you introduced history of Japan correctly, you should carry out description based on history record of China, South Korea, and Japan.(Mahal Aly is talking based on history record of Japan.)　To our regret, the Korean tends to introduce the hypothesis that the Korean based on　"Japan had a big influence on South Korea". (Appleby. You kept insisting that the episode of Takano-Nigasa be arranged in TOP by the article on "Emperor". And, you were warned from a lot of people. "Korean's POV").　A lot of Japanese hope to add the fact. And, I regret that the Korean's decorated boast has lowered the level of the article on Japan. --Kamosuke 07:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke's edits

ok, this has really gone on long enough. kamosuke, please provide reputable english sources here in talk. please, let other editors read the sources and integrate them into the article. your edits are 1) egregiously biased 2) poorly written 3) unsourced or sourced to japanese blogs or japanese wikipedia, and 4) simply contradicted by existing proper reputable english sources.

i agree there doesn't need to be so much focus on korean influence, but you must provide the balancing content by referencing reputable english sources, following wikipedia policy.

if you stop the massive destruction of the content, i will stop reverting you. let's agree, you and me, to not edit the article directly, and to only provide reputable english sources here in talk for others to work on. Appleby 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahal Aly: Your ruling class article sounds good. Also, I agree that Torai-jin should be it's own article. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the term distinctly described the people who came to Japan during the Yayoi period only and there were other terms for Korean immigrants who came during the Rival Kingdoms period and after the fall of Baekje, etc. I think that this Yamato/Kofun/Asuka period articles should be summaries and then each subsection should have a link to a more indepth article.

Kamosuke: I'm sorry if it's just a language barrier and I am almost tempted to ask someone with infinite patience (Eiríkr) to translate to facilitate a more efficient discussion but I don't think you answered/understood my questions. Tortfeasor 16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor;

Actually, Torai-jin (also called Kika-jin, both means "immigrants", but in latter's nuance more Japanese POV, and less frequently used) is a term that defines immigrants mainly through Kofun period or early Asuka Period, mostly recorded in Nihonshoki. However, some recent scholars use this term also for prehistoric Korean immigrants in Yayoi period or older. Those who came after Hakusukinoe are rather "refugees" than "immigrants", and some call them "Bōmei Kudarajin"(Baekje refugees), or so. As a Japanese, the historic term Torai-jin generally has nuance of technocrats or experts of Continental cultures, namely Wani, Achi no Omi, or Yuzuki no Kimi.Mahal Aly 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

there's a reason that mere translation of ancient text is not the same thing as history. take 百濟遼西經略, for example. baekje is said to have colonized parts of eastern china, recorded in china's history book 宋書 (by 沈約, 441∼513), which says baekje controlled 遼西, setting up 晋平郡 to rule this territory.

梁書 also says baekje conquered 遼西 and 晋平 and installed commanderies. the same in 職貢圖's 百濟國記, baekje conquered 遼西 and 晋平, during the latter part of 晋. 南史 and 通典 邊防門 also confirm this, saying 遼西 and 晋平 lay between 柳城 and 北坪.

needless to say, these "facts" are not in wikipedia, even though the translations are undisputed, and the sources are widely studied original historical texts. due to contextual and archeological evidence, the majority of korean and western historians do not believe korea's baekje actually colonized part of china. this is the reason for distinguishing scholarly consensus history, and mere translation, however accurate, of ancient texts.

so, again, please provide citations to reputable english scholarly publications, per wikipedia policy. Appleby 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of reputable citation, I am slightly suspicious on whether the former editors of this article has "properly" cited English sources to compile this article. For instance, there is no quotation on "older" literal sources in this article, i.e.) Shichishito of Isonokami Shrine, Kwangaeto Stele, Inariyama Sword, or King Bu's tribute document on Book of Song. As those records are treated to have "more credibility" in academic field than Nihonshoki compiled in 8th century, I wonder why no one had cited English sources dealing with resources above. Without refers to those, it seems to me that this article is below quality, as it misses to refer the "base" information. If there are no such English sources refering those, I think the assist of non-English sources are required to meet academic standard as an encyclopedia.Mahal Aly 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Those real artifacts are all good things to bring into the article but in all honesty they provide very little real information about the Kofun period and most of them are heavily controversial/contested. I don't think there is any motivation to "hide" older literal sources because there are articles for all of the literal sources you have mentioned. For instance, all that the Chiljido tells us (that most historians can agree on) is that there was a relationship between the Baekje and the Wa and the article there highlights the controversy of the artifact. Similarly, the Gwanggaeto Stele isn't a clear cut source for anything and while there are credible, academic English sources describing the controversy they are discussed on the stele page specifically itself. The Inariyama Sword (and the Eta Funayama Sword) are mentioned in this article under Languages, I believe, unless someone managed to delete it into oblivion in the recent rash of mass blankings. Finally, if King Bu is one of the Five kings of Wa, there is an article talking about them too, and it too has its requisite controversy. I think that if you would like to incorporate those artifacts into this article it would help it a lot. There are many and multpile credible English sources discussing each one. I hope you believe me when I say there is no intent to censor information. I hope you can help fix it up. (Also, there is an obvious difference between simply citing and personally interpretting an ancient source versus citing verifiable information from an academic source.) Tortfeasor 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I added those articles on ancient artifacts in See Also section. If I can take some time, maybe I will write another drafts on development of Yamato court. Thanks. Mahal Aly 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor;

Speaking of "controversy", almost everything in this quasi-illiterate age's topics tend to become pretty controversial. e,g,) Although this article cites Egami Namio's theory without any critics, Egami's theory is also well argued in Japan for decades failing to become an established theory and is not widely supported among the majority of scholars. Now, do we have to delete the citing of Egami's theory at the first paragraph of this article because of its controversy? IMHO, it's better to introduce the multiple views to be neutral.Mahal Aly 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. What I meant to say is that if it's in the article all sides should be written about. Tortfeasor 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible intermediation?

Hello all --

I recently felt the need to bring up WP:3RR with Kamosuke on his/er user page, as s/he was close to stepping over the line with the Tsushima Island article. In that posting, I suggested that the Talk pages could be an excellent opportunity for 根回し, a Japanese word for "consensus building". In response, Kamosuke wrote me on my user page in Japanese. I am still mulling over the correct course and have yet to respond directly beyond translating Kamosuke's post into English, but Tortfeasor saw this and was interested in whether I might be willing to mediate a bilingual discussion, as Kamosuke's grasp of Japanese appears to be significantly better than his/er grasp of English.

As I wrote to Tortfeasor, I am happy to help as and when I can. I am not sure what would be the best way to proceed, but in looking over the general issues (i.e. not confined to any single article), I've identified a few basic underlying points of contention we could use as the basis for discussion.

• Proper citations

  Sources should be written in English, as this is the English-language Wikipedia.

• Discussion on Talk pages

  Any problems, disagreements, etc., should be brought up first on the relevant Talk pages before any editing of the main article. Edit summaries should not be used as a forum for arguing. Concensus is important, and should be cultivated. Compromise is sometimes needed. But to reach concensus and identify what we need to compromise on, we must first discuss.

• No mass blanking

  Removal of cited and relevant article content is widely frowned upon. Reworking is one thing, but outright deletion is generally a big no-no.

• Assume good faith

  Nine times out of ten, an editor's actions are in earnest, however disruptive they might appear to be. However, in order for the rest of the editor community to incorporate changes, we must be able to talk about those changes -- which brings us back to the need to discuss.

I might be wrong, but it appears as if a good bit of the difficulties surrounding Kamosuke's edits might arise from linguistic difficulties. It is clear from Kamosuke's behaviour that s/he does not fully comprehend how to comport him/erself in accordance with Wikipedia policies and community norms. Kamosuke's additions, though containing what appear to be valuable information, elude easy understanding by native English speakers, and might as a result be viewed as vandalous instead of simply ineloquent. Moreover, attempts at engaging on the Talk pages have been less than ideally fruitful, with Kamosuke and the various other parties apparently missing each others' messages.

I am a Japanese - English translator by trade. I don't have oceans of time, but I am interested in seeing Wikipedia function, and more specifically in seeing this smaller subset of the Wikipedia community function better than it has been so far. As I noted on my own Talk page in responding to Tortfeasor, I don't think Japanese is Kamosuke's mother tongue, but Kamosuke's own posting suggests that s/he is more comfortable with Japanese than with English. As such, if I may be of some service in mediating a translated Japanese - English discussion with Kamosuke, I am happy to help as best I can. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrangement of chapters

After a couple of edits, I feel it necessary to arrange the sequence of chapters in this article. Current contents shows

• 1 Kofun tombs
  • 1.1 Development of Kofun
• 2 Kofun society
  • 2.1 Korean migration
  • 2.2 Okimi
• 3 Language
• 4 Ruling class
  • 4.1 Clans of the Yamato Court
  • 4.2 Introduction of equine culture to Japan
  • 4.3 Torai-Jin
  • 4.4 Yamato court
  • 4.5 Territorial expansion of Yamato
• 5 Towards Asuka period
• 6 History texts
  • 6.1 Chinese and Korean records
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 Notes

Equine culture seems rather appropriate to be on Kofun Society chapter and so it should be chapter 2.2. On the other hand Okimi should be in ruling class chapter, probably on 4.1. Also, explanation of Yamato court should be prior to that of ruling class. Maybe current 4.4 and 4.5 should be in an independent chapter prior to chapter 4. My proposal for new contents is following.

• 1 Kofun tombs
  • 1.1 Development of Kofun
• 2 Kofun society
  • 2.1 Korean migration
  • 2.2 Introduction of equine culture to Japan
• 3 Language
• 4 Yamato court
  • 4.1 Territorial expansion of Yamato
• 5 Ruling class
  • 5.1 Okimi
  • 5.2 Clans of the Yamato Court
  • 5.3 Torai-Jin
• 6 Towards Asuka period
• 7 History texts
  • 7.1 Chinese and Korean records
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 Notes

Please have some opinions or objections so we can make this article better. Thank you. Mahal Aly 10:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We wish to express our gratitude for a good proposal. I introduce the form in the Kofun age of Wikipedia of Japan. I recommend this template.

古墳時代

• 1 Outline
• 2 Objection
• 3 History of Kohun form
  • 3-1 early kofun era
  • 3-2 Middle kofun era
  • 3-3 Latter kofun era
  • 3-4 End kofun era
• 4 Growth process from regional nation to unified country
  • 4-1 early Yamato era　(Yamato Takeru myth)
  • 4-2 Five kings of Wa
  • 4-3 Maturity of national system　(Soga clan and Mononobe clan)
• 5 Event
• 6 See also

"2 Kofun society" can be included in "5.3 Torai-Jin" "2.1 Korean migration"　 It is necessary to consider "Chineses migration". Moreover, the pioneer in the Kofun age and the refugee of Baekje should distinguish. "3 Language"　I think that this is an episode about which it talks in the specialty on a Japanese Language.

My proposal for new contents is following.

• 1 Outline
• 2 Kofun tombs
  • 2.1 Development of Kofun
• 3 Yamato court
  • 3.1 Territorial expansion of Yamato
  • 3.2 Five kings of Wa
  • 3.3 Maturity of national system　(Soga clan and Mononobe clan)
• 4 Ruling class
  • 4.1 Okimi
  • 4.2 Clans of the Yamato Court
  • 4.3 Torai-Jin
    • • 4.3.1　Korean migration
      • 4.3.2　Chineses migration
• 5 Towards Asuka period
• 6 History texts
  • 6.1 Chinese and Korean records
• 7 Event
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 Notes

--Kamosuke 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke;

Maybe we need to have chapters dedicated to cultural topics of this age. Perhaps we can move some topics regarding Kofun age culture (equine culture, language or so on) to certain chapter, and have some future contributors to expand it (For instance, I think there should be more info on Kofun materials and rituals of this age. As I am amateur and have limited access to sources, I hope someone come in and help for it). Mahal Aly 12:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the outline right above what I'm typing would probably be the best organized. And if we use it, there should be a 3.4 discussing the Yamato/Yamatai controversy in depth along with the Kinki/Kyushu controversy as well. Although, another way to organize it would be by doing a outline of the formation of the Yamato polity.

• 1 KOFUN: The beginnings of a Yamato polity (and a discussion of whether the Yamatai/Wa/Yamato are all the same thing or not)
  • 1.1 Earliest mentions in Chinese history (0-100CE approximate dates only)
  • 1.2 Himiko/Pimiko (pros and cons) (150-250)
  • 1.3 Mysterious 4th Century (250-400) (probably warfare among the many 100 kingdoms of Japan)
  • 1.4 Beginnings of Kofun building (300)
  • 1.5 Introduction of the horse and the change in material objects in Kofun from local artifacts to horsetrappings around 400
  • 1.6 Five Kings of Wa (pros and cons) (400-500)
  • 1.7 Beginning of when the Nihon Shoki/Nihongi begins to corroborate with material artifacts (when adjusted) (400)
• 2 Centralization of the Yamato polity into a state
  • 2.1 Soga and Monobe clans
  • 2.2 End of the Soga clan
• 3 Society
  • 3.1 Immigrants (Korean and Chinese)
  • 3.2 Ruling class
  • 3.3 Introduction to Buddhism
  • 3.4 Art and architechture

• 1 ASUKA: Consolidation and organization of the Yamato state (600 and on)
  • 1.1 Taiho reform
  • 1.2 Risturyo
  • 1.3 Prince Shotuku
  • 1.4 Preperation on the coast of Kyushu for invasion
• 2 Society
  • 2.1 Art and architechture
• Tortfeasor 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor;

I think Yamatai argument is appropriate to be on Yayoi Period article. Although current studies making the border of Yayoi and Kofun periods ambiguous, the history of Yamatai is still included to Yayoi by Japanese historicans. Generally those two eras are archeologically distinguished by bronze bell(dotaku) culture vs. keyhole kofun culture, Yamatai is likely to be former.

Also, formation of Yamato polity beginning with Mysterious 4c is appropritate to be overviewed in Yamato Period article, and have some detailed topics in Kofun and Asuka articles. Mahal Aly 12:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Taiho reform has been mistaken for Taika reform. And, it is necessary to set Prince Shotuku first. Is "Preperation on the coast of Kyushu for invasion" a "Sakimori" or "Dazaifu" ? This system has been approved at the Nara era.

By the way, I think the source for which the login account is necessary to be unkind. What do you think? --Kamosuke 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

MH: From these sources, the impression I get is that there is some who want to equate Yamatai polity with Yamato polity while others simply state the controversy. Although, since you seem to know what you're talking about, you're way seems fine to me. However, also if we are defining the History of Japan via the Jomon, Yayoi, Yamato (Kofun/Asuka/Nara), etc. instead of by archaeological or artisitc divisions then since Kofun is generally said to be 250-538 according to the introduction to this article (although I've seen it defined in other ways) than I think the Yamatai polity is in a position between both eras and might have to be in both? simply because we are defining Japanese History here by the eras and the time periods associated with each.

Kamosuke: I have put those links up for convenience. You do need to sign up for a g-mail account at www.google.com because some of the links will require a membership. However, you can also click on the link and see the ISBN and title and author so that you can physically check out the book yourself. I know it's probably not the most convenient way to make sure a cite is okay but if you look at Jomon you will also see an example where the cited source is only available if you check the book out physically.

The source that doesn't need the account makes the user pleased than the source for which the account is necessary. I regret that the South Korean does an unkind guide to interested user in the history of Japan. Could you cooperate in an easy-to-use edit?

And, you must examine the event in the Asuka again. --Kamosuke 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's make the outline first. --Kamosuke 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Kamosuke, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources before making assertions that google books are "South Korean unkind guide". Google books are akin to text sources, and are perfectly acceptable sources. Please don't besmirch the name of valid and reputable sources in light of your blatant Pov. Thank you =). Deiaemeth 01:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To the Korean

You add the word not being written in the source and make the article. This is not a correct attitude. You should study the failure of Hwang Woo-Suk.

The Korean described it.

"Japan of the Kofun Period was very positive towards the introduction of Korean culture". For example, Yamato links to the mainland and the Liu Sung Dynasty in 425 and 478 were facilitated by the maritime knowledge and diplomatic connections of Baekje. [9]. Iron working technology was introduced into Japan from Korea around 300.

However, there are neither Korea nor Baekje in the site linking ahead.

The Japanese Experience is an authoritative history of Japan from the sixth century to the present day. Only a writer of W.G. Beasley's stature could render Japan's complicated past so concisely and elegantly. This is the history of a society and a culture with a distinct sense of itself, one of the few nations never conquered by a foreign power in historic times (until the twentieth century) and the home of the longest-reigning imperial dynasty that still survives. The Japanese have always occupied part or all of the same territory, its borders defined by the sea. They have spoken and written a common language, (once it had taken firm shape in about the tenth century) and their population has been largely homogeneous, little touched by immigration except in very early periods. Yet Japanese society and culture have changed more through time than these statements seem to imply. Developments within Japan have been greatly influenced by ideas and institutions, art and literature, imported from elsewhere. In this work Beasley, a leading authority on Japan and the author of a number of acclaimed works on Japanese history, examines the changing society and culture of Japan and considers what, apart from the land and the people, is specifically Japanese about the history of Japan.

The arrival of Buddhism in the sixth century brought a substantially Chinese-style society to Japan, not only in religion but in political institutions, writing system, and the lifestyle of the ruling class. By the eleventh century the Chinese element was waning and the country was entering a long and essentially "Japanese" feudal period--with two rulers, an emperor and a Shogun--which was to last until the nineteenth century. Under the Togukawa shogunate (1600-1868), Chinese culture enjoyed something of a renaissance, though popular culture owed more to Japanese

--Kamosuke 10:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor, Kamosuke.

For arrangement of chapters, it seems to be the best to separate roughly into "Political" chapter and "Society, Culture" chapter as Tortfeasor listed. On the other hand, as this is "Kofun" period, we probably need to explain some about Kofun first. So can I try arrange the topics in these ways, as "Kofun tombs; Yamato court|polity; Society and Culture"? Maybe by tomorrow, I will have time to arrange. Thank you for giving me ideas.

Mahal Aly 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahal Aly: Glad you're back. Sounds good to me. Tortfeasor 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Language Why only Korean's hypotheses ?

Japanese origin has various hypotheses. see also Japanese language classification However, this Korean is introducing only hypotheses."Some linguists believe that modern Japanese evolved from the version of Korean spoken in Goguryeo and Baekje of Korea". I think "Language" is one of Korean's POV. and I should delete this Topic.--Kamosuke 10:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke;

I think we may well just simply add link to Wikipedia article above so that it is easy to know that it's one of the hypothesis. That letters are imported is true, and it is probably worth remaining. However, it is one of culture topic, so maybe it's better to re-arrange under culture chapter. Mahal Aly 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Horse-rider Paper

I found this online and thought it was interesting. I'm not sure if it is a 2004 article or 1978 article and I'm not sure from whence it came. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to read it if interested. [10]. Tortfeasor 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking Horese-rider theory is out of NPOV. Read newly papers.Mythologia 07:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mythologia: You seem to be so fond of using the "." Can you show me a citation yourself to back up your assertion. Perhaps a new paper. Thanks. Tortfeasor 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See below. Thanks.Mythologia 07:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Horse rider" theory by Egami and Japanese supplied military force to various sides of the inter-kingdom disputes

"The second section of the book concerns Japan's relationship with Korea during the 4th and 5th centuries, a subject that has consequences and repercussions that continue today: it was Japan's claim that parts of Korea were colonized by Japan at this time that was partly behind their "re" colonization of Korea in the 20th century. In the 1950's, Egami put forward his controversial "Horse rider" theory - that Japan had been colonized by a northern people through the Korean peninsular. Since then the controversy has been was Japan a colony of Korea, or vice versa? On this topic Farris does offer a conclusion. During the period in question, the Korean Peninsular consisted of 4 separate kingdoms, with changing borders and alliances. Japan was dependent on Korea for technologies and natural resources, most notable metals, and in return for these Japan supplied military force to various sides of the inter-kingdom disputes. The conclusion reached by Farris is that all the Korean kingdoms and Japan were roughly equal to each other with no one being dominant enough to colonize another, though the Korean kingdoms were generally more advanced technologically." Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures: Issues in the Historical Archaeology of Ancient Japan by William Wayne Farris [11]

In ancient history academi "Horse rider" theory by Egami is scarcely supported. The theory is thought to be denied.More imporitant thing is that the military expedition by Japan to Korean peniciula in those days.

M: Look, I'm not even sure if you're reading your own source. The above paragraph clearly says the Korean kingdoms were generally more advanced technologically and Farris states that Wa troops were probably just bodies equiped with Korean military technology. [12]. If you believe that Egami is discredited, that is fine but you have to acknowledge that there have been many variants and modifications to that theory since then and I still don't see a source proving your statement that the "important thing is that military expedition by Japan Archipelago to Korea in those days." Thanks. Tortfeasor 09:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Horse rider"theory has many variants but what you must proof is the fact of one side" wave of Baekje immigrants to Yamato. " It is clearly incorrect "for these Japan supplied military force to various sides of the inter-kingdom disputes. " . Read newly papers or not write more if you know a shame.Mythologia 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

M: Your above statement needs a . Thanks. Tortfeasor 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandalism

Please stop deleting cited information that is breaking the neutral point of view policy. If you have an issue with what is written please discuss it here. Tortfeasor 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User 65.54.154.152 made 7 consecutive edits to this page which blanked large portions of the article. It seems like all the deleted text involved any mentioning of China. I'm new to this, but I thought the revert was justified as there is no reason given for the blanking and it seemed like outright vandalism, perhaps for political reasons. Perhaps this page needs to be protected? CF84 05:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"the oldest era of recorded history in Japan"?

I thought the oldest Japanese document was the Kojiki, and Louis Frédéric's Japan Encyclopedia states outright that the historical period began in the mid-sixth century. The existence of later Japanese documents that describe events in this period is irrelevant, because they describe events a millennium earlier that are considered to have no basis in reality. Korean and Chinese documents describe events from an earlier period anyway (see Himiko). elvenscout742 11:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

histry text

It is necessary to move to nihon shoki this episode not related to the Kofun age. （Perhaps, this is one of the Japanese history criticism campaigns of the Korean.）

Please answer two points if you keep publishing this article.

• 1. Why should I write in the Kofun age?　(Nihon Shoki was writen in the Nara age. )
• 2. Evaluation compared with history record of Korea*
• 3. Reason not reprinted in Nohonshoki

Articles

Can I please make a suggestion? For anyone who feels the need to change "Korea" to "Korean peninsula," please write "the Korean peninsula." I realize that most East Asian languages do not have articles (like "the", "a", and "an"), but in English we do, and though it may be difficult to know when to use them, you need to use them. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Korean Spamers

Spam by Room218　http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Room218

Please explain the reason why the Soga clan is Korean. You have a lot of questions. Please come for the discussion.[13] --218.218.129.57 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Goguryeo.

Room218 has many Sockpuppets.--Gettystein 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To Spamer of Korean

You are machines. Therefore, the material given from VANK is only pasted. I explain how the South Korean is destroying the article on Japan.

---

A unified Yamato state may have coincided with large migration of Korea's Baekje people at the end of the fourth century. [14]

• This source doesn't exist(The South Korean doesn't confirm material so. )
• According to official material of Japanese Government Shinsen-shōjiroku (新撰姓氏録), A lot of foreigners who are are Chinese. China had 163 clans. Baekje had 104 clans. Moreover, famous Klan like the Hata clan and the Takamuko clan, etc. was all Chinese.　--KoreanShoriSenyou 09:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Most scholars believe that there were massive transmissions of technology and culture from Korea to Japan which is evidenced by material artifacts in tombs of both states in the Proto-Three Kingdoms of Korea and Kofun eras, and the later wave of Baekje immigrants to Yamato. This view was popularized in Japan by Egami Namio's theory of a powerful horse-riding race from the north who brought about the dramatic change from Jomon to Yayoi culture, [15] a revised version of which was advanced by Gari Ledyard [16]

• Please write scholar's name.
• The history study of present Japan points out a strong relation to Yangtze River in China. (It is explained with the bronze mirror. )
• Egami Namio's theory assumes the immigrant from a Mongolian area. Why does Baekje relate?

---

In Emperor Ojin's reign, many immigrants were recorded to be sent from the Korean kingdom of Baekje for the introduction of various continental culture. In Emperor Kimmei's reign, according to the Nihongi, Soga no Iname assigned a Korean in charge of taxes levied on shipments. The introduction of Chinese writing to Yamato was one Baekje's most important gifts to the court.

• The source doesn't exist.
• This episode doesn't exist in Nihonshoki. Please specify the place if it exists.
• The Yamato court has used the Chinese writing since the fourth century. When a diplomatic envoy was sent to China, they submitted the document of the Chinese writing.

---

Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. Eight of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were from Korean immigrant families while none were from China proper. Further, idea of local administrative districts and the tribute tax are based on Korean models.

It is a complete lie.

• 19 members did not have Korean's name.
• 19 members had Chinese. (続守言 and 薩弘恪)
• The model of Japnese laws(Ritsuryo) is Chinese Tang Dynasty.
• Ritsuryo system is a topic in the Asuka Period.

---

Among the many Korean imigrants who settled in Japan beginning in the 4th century, some came to be the progenitors of Japanese clans. According to Nihongi, the oldest record of Silla immigrant is Amenohiboko, a legendary prince of Silla who settled to Japan at the era of Emperor Suinin, perhaps around 3rd or 4th century. Ironically, Amenohiboko is described in Nihongi as a maternal ancestor of Empress Jingū whose controversial legend says that she conquered Silla. On the other hand, Korean immigrants also include the Baekje royal family. King Muryeong of Baekje was born in Japan in 462, and left a son who settled there. In Emperor Ojin's reign, Geunchogo of Baekje dedicated a lot of treasures and scholars to the Japanese emperor. The elements of Chinese culture introduced to Yamato Imperial Court are very important.

• Please explain the reason why the South Korean desperately deletes this part.

---

Korean immigrants played an important role in introducing Chinese civilization to early Japan.[17]. Not only are there many material objects from China and Korea that were exported to Japan such as bronze mirrors, iron, and pottery. Ceramic manufacturing in kilns and horse-riding are two important technologies transmitted to Japan by Korean immigrants.

• The source doesn't exist.
• The bronze mirror(三角縁神獣鏡) has not been discovered from a Korean peninsula though is discovered from Yangtze River.
• Please explain the reason to emphasize a Korean peninsula disregarding the relation between ancient Japan and China.

---

Iron working technology was introduced into Japan from Korea around 300. Korea was an important source of iron ingots to Japan and the Koreans were famous for the iron-working skills in that time period. Korean paintings in Goguryeo tombs had important influences in Japan. Decorated tombs and painted tumuli which date from the fifth century and later found in Japan are generally accepted as Korean exports to Japan. The Takamatsuzuka Tomb even has paintings of woman dressed in distinctive Korean pleated skirts.

• The source doesn't exist. [18]

---

These "Koreanisms" of written Chinese are also found on the Eta Funayama Sword dated to about the fifth century.

• There is no Koreanisms in this source.

---

The horse is one of the treasures given by the king of Silla to Jingu of Japan according to the record of Nihonshoki.

• Falsification of source
• 從今以後,長與乾坤,伏為飼部.其不乾船柂而春秋獻馬梳及馬鞭.復不煩海遠以每年貢男女之調,非東日更出西,且除阿利那禮河返以之逆流,及河石昇為星辰,而殊闕春秋之朝,怠廢梳、鞭之貢,天神地祇共討焉
• The horse is one of the treasures presented when the king of Silla surrenders to Jingu of Japan

---

the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy.　According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan. According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.

• Please explain the reason to delete an original source.

---

Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) and Samguk Yusa (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms), both written in the Goryeo period of Korea, identify Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla as highly independent and centralized states in comparison to the fledgling Yamato court. They also cite the great deal of Korean culture that was adpted by Wa, which in turn had been adopted by the Three Kingdoms from China.

• Explain the reason to delete the history material of China and the reason to use material in the counterfeit.

Article version while content discussion continue

I have been asked to alter the version of the article from the current to this version, the one prior to protecting the article. The basis for this is that refernces are to noexisitant sources, or restricted access articles. After investigating these myself I find that the current article version doesnt comply with WP:V, WP:RS. To quote Jimmy Wales (2006-05-19). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". With this in mind I have decided to go with this version. Additionally this restores the see also and reference section to the article.

This is not a statement on content.

Above this section are a number of queries that have been raised in reltion to the article. What I ask is that editors refrain from personal attacks only refer to editors by their User:name/IP address. Please take a moment to re-read WP:CIVIL and assume good faith when considering the positions of other editors. The nationality, politics of individuals makes no difference to the content as the article should cover all aspects of the subject, where there are multiple views they should all be properly sourced and given equalivant weight.

I'm available for assistance to all editors if they require help of any kind. The only thing I wont do is make adjustments that arent the result of a consensus arrived at on this discussion page. Gnangarra 12:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Torai-Jin section, the link to "Korean" should point to "Korean people"... either when this is unlocked, or when someone has a chance to fix it. Dekimasu 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab has been done Gnangarra 12:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Not sure if you're supposed to list minor edits here, but have just corrected a spelling to Kyūshū from Kyushū in the introduction

Also, Gozoku should be changed to Gōzoku.

A Theory on the Origins of the Japanese People

The Relatedness between the Origins of Japanese and Korean Ethnicity.

Although there is an extensive literature discussing the origins of the Japanese we still lack strong hypothesis or theories which are widely agreed upon. While many argue that most of cultural elements in ancient Japan were influenced by Chinese culture, the cultural history of Korea is seen as pivotal in the development of Japanese traditions. Major sources for these inferences include linguistic, historical,archaeological, and bioanthropological studies. This strategy attempts to interweave large-scale phenomenon and small-scale events from the Korean peninsula, based on historic and archaeological investigation of Korean, and how these features influenced the people of the Japanese archipelago. While there are still unanswered questions it seems clear from this that there were extensive and intensive contacts between Japan and Korea and these relations must be taken into consideration when looking at the development of the Japanese peoples. It is likely that these connections extend into the pre- and proto-historic periods. It also seems likely that there were large and small migrations from Korea to Japan even into the end of Kofun period ( A.D.7th). The origins of both Japanese and Koreans are very closely linked and deserves a more objective interpretive effort than has been previously formulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreankudarakansai (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Koreans have repeatedly insisted that the origins of both the Yayoi people and the Yamato state is the Korean peninsular. In that aspect alone, they might be right to some extent. Archaeological findings on the Yayoi culture has shown that it has links with both Korean peninsular (a geographical term here) and the Yangzi delta of China.

The sudden rise of important states on the peninsular following the decline of the Chinese Han Dynasty is however, not necessarily indigineous. Of the 3 larges states which formed, the view most popularly held is that Silla is a native proto-Korean dynasty (descended indirectly from the Sino-Korean state of Wiman Joseon?). Goguryeo and Baekje, however, appeared to be the result of Buyeo migrants from Manchuria who are of a different ethnic make-up. The Goguryeo language has been attested to be cognate with Old Japanese based on the limited evidence available. Since Goguryeo and Baekje claimed shared ancestry from Buyeo, it is therefore not surprising that Baekje should also be of the same stock. The language of Silla is understood to be different from that of both Goguryeo and Baekje, which should be considered ancient extinct branches of Japonic peoples who have been since assimilated into the Silla Korean people.

I thus postulate that the Kofun culture and the succeeding Yamato state was founded by proto-Japonic immigrants from Baekje who ruled over an existing Yayoi/Jomon population. It would also explain the close relationship enjoyed between Yamato Japan and Baekje, for both are of shared origin.

As such Goguyreo and Baekje should be studied as part of the history of the Japonic people rather than the Korean people even though these are states which existed on the Korean peninsular.

According to the linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeo-Japonic hypothesis, some Japonic toponymes, (place names) found in the central part of Korean peninsula, don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language in the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.

Firstly, None of the Japonic toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated. Secondly, some Japonic toponymes (such as Japonic numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in the southern part of Korean peninsula. On the contrary, many Koreanic toponymes were evenly distributed all around the territory of Goguryeo kingdom from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula.

The fact that proto-Japonic people lived in the central and southern part of Korean Peninsula (including Jeju, a big southwestern Island where some elements of Japonic Language have survived) suggests that at least the linguistic ancestors of the Japanese-Ryukuan people (it may be worth considering the possibility that some of the Yayoi people were originated from the lower basin of Yangzi River) migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago and made a important contribution to the formation of Yayoi culture in Japan. On the other hand, proto-Japonic people who remained on the peninsula were pushed to the south by proto-Korean peoples who expanded southwards from Manchuria into the peninsula and founded successively new states on the prehistoric Korean peninsula. Eventually indigenous proto-Japonic people on the central and southern Korean peninsula were assimilated into Koreanic peoples

Jagello 14:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Justifications

Records written in Baekje may have been the basis for the quotes in the Nihongi but textual criticism shows that scholars fleeing the destruction of the Baekje Kingdom to Yamato wrote these histories and the authors of the Nihongi heavily relied upon those sources. This, in and of itself, is a perfect reason why Nihongi and other old (not just Japanese either, but Korean and Chinese too) records must not be assumed to always be the literal truth. It is clearly a conflict of interest for Yamato, later a rival of Silla, to rely upon the historical records of Baekje, a vanquished rival of Silla, as the major source for a history of northeast Asia. Therefore, bias must at first be assumed.

1. The Six National Histories of Japan. Taro Sakamoto. http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0774803797&id=7jDuhnI6r9UC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=paekche+nihon+shoki&vq=paekche+nihon&sig=xBY33KY86TN2LOHQVltH4RJLI6Y

Grounds for Caution Notes on Mythological Characters and All Historical Records

In the Korean Samguk Sagi, there is very little mention of Goguryeo or Baekje. This is because the author, Kim Bu-sik wrote the record as that of the successor state to Silla, a traditional rival of both Goguryeo and Baekje. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that some bias has taken place in the Samguk Sagi with regards to the two other nations, and this is an example of bias in historical documents, and it is not the only bias.

The veracity of the Book of Song is disputed because of its missing sections and the tone with which it is written, as well as its treatment of surrounding nations and ethnic groups. In addition, at the time when the record was written, the Liu Song dynasty was on friendly terms with Baekje only; when it established ties with Yamato Japan, the nations listed (except for Baekje) are diplomatically unknown entities.

Namio Egami (I will use the first name, last name format for all names) notes in 1964 that it may look very strange that the names of six or seven states listed in the self-claimed titles included Chin-han and Ma-han which had preceded, respectively, the states of Silla and Paekche. Perhaps the King of Wa had included the names of six or seven south Korean states in his title merely to boast of the extent of his rule. But Wa Kings could not have included the names of nonexistent states. One may then conclude that the remnants of Chin-han or Ma-han existed as other members of the Kaya Federation by the time Wa Kings sent their embassies to China in the fifth century, because according to the Samguk Sagi, Silla established the first contact with the Southern Chinese Dynasties in A.D. 521 by sending an envoy to the Court of Liang along with the Paekche envoy.

In Nihongi book 1, page 263, in the 16th year of Ojin's reign, King Ahwa (same as King Asin) died. King Ahwa reigned in Baekje from AD 392-405 (i.e. he was in his 14th year when he died), so this means Ojin's reign begins in AD 390 (two years before King Ahwa of Baekje, although because of Nihongi's time system Ojin's reign is listed as starting in AD 270, exactly 120 years, or two 60-year cycles, before it actually began). In that record, Emperor Ojin sends Baekje Prince Työnchi (Cheonji) back to Baekje, saying to effect: "return to your country and continue the royal line." Then Ojin granted the prince the territory of the Eastern Han. This record indicates that Ojin formally renounced all claims to Baekje territory. This record also shows that Yamato Japan and Baekje were very close.

Aston says about Nihongi: "Even so late as the beginning of the 5th century the chronology can be shown to be wrong in several cases by no less an interval than 120 years.... The first date in the Nihongi which is corroborated by external evidence is A.D. 461, but the chronology is a little vague for some time longer. Perhaps if we take A.D. 500 as the time when the correctness of the Nihongi dates begins to be trustworthy, we shall not be very far wrong."

In addition, Sokichi Tsuda wrote that when writing of matters related to Paekche, Silla and Kara, they (referring to the authors of the Japanese histories, in this case Nihongi and Kojiki) applied the writing method of uplifting the current authority in the fashion of Chinese and Confucian ideologies. Tsuda states that those were the authors’ ideologies, and had nothing to do with realities. It is possible that they were written in this way because of the tensions between Silla and Yamato at the time they were written.

All of this shows that historical texts and what they say must be considered carefully and what they say, especially in the print versions (as they were all written by one or a limited number of individuals) cannot be taken as completely literal truth.

1. "Book of Song." Wikipedia. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Book_of_Song
2. "Five Kings of Wa." Baekche of Korea and the Origins of Yamato Wa of Japan. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf p.255
3. "Five Kings of Wa." Baekche of Korea and the Origins of Yamato Wa of Japan. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf p.256
4. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697, translated from the original Chinese and Japanese. W.G. Aston. http://books.google.com/books?id=1IJrNAKBpycC&dq=aston+nihongi&pg=PP1&ots=MHQwccyV_A&sig=R1mo5I2d7VSgLrkEcrJNxdkEejQ&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Aston+nihongi&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1 p.xvii-xviii
5. "History Texts." ML (Machine-Learning) Shopping. http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html
6. "History Texts." ML (Machine-Learning) Shopping. http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html

Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please write the evaluation of Book of Song in Book of Song. Here is an article in the Kofun age of Japan. --Orchis29 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only listed here as justification, since the main article here cites it.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion. Please do not misinterpret the original of the Chinese history book with your bias. --Orchis29 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article locked

Due to seemingly endless edit warring, I have placed full page protection on this article for the next four days. I encourage all parties to continue the discussion here, keeping the following points in mind:

• This is a valid content dispute, not a matter of vandalism.
• {{fact}} tags should not be removed without the addition of a reliable source.
• Discuss the content of the article, not the character of the contributors.

If a clear agreement has not been reached after 4 days, I will extend page protection as needed and the issue can begin moving through the dispute resolution process. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am insisting that the explanation of the Chinese history book by a Korean user is unnecessary. They insist that the Chinese history book has the bias. However, Bais of Korea is included also as for their insistences. --Orchis29 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't insist that users not be allowed to edit articles because of their ethnicity. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

However, this article is an article in the Kofun age of Japan. "Twenty-Four Histories is wrong" I want him to write this speech in Talk Page of Twenty-Four Histories. --Orchis29 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss that with him politely, but you can't make demands. You do not own this article. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Koream?

Under the section "Relation of Yamato court and Korean peninsula," it is clear that Koream needs to be changed to Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.38.60 (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese and Korean records

I removed the following sentences.

• NOTE: This claim, along with many other claims made in that record, are viewed with great suspicion by the vast majority of current historians due to the glaring errors contained within that record itself. See the Book of Song entry for more details. It is assumed that almost all of the records of the time, this record included, contain varying degrees of political bias simply due to the practice of elevating or legitimizing the current authorities in written records, which was a Chinese practice borrowed by Korean and Japanese historians.

The content of the shown web page was imported from here. This is just a self-reference.--Amagase (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bestowed title of the King of Wa

The original Chinese text of the Book of Song is as follows;[19]

列傳第五十七　夷蠻

(...) 讃死,弟珍立,遣使貢獻.自稱使持節,都督倭百濟新羅任那秦韓慕韓六國諸軍事,安東大將軍,倭國王.表求除正,詔除安東將軍,倭國王.珍又求除正倭隋等十三人平西,征虜,冠軍,輔國將軍號,詔竝聽.二十年,倭國王濟遣使奉獻,復以爲安東將軍,倭國王.二十八年,加使持節,都督倭新羅任那加羅秦韓慕韓六國諸軍事,安東將軍如故.并除所上二十三人軍,郡.濟死,丗子興遣使貢献.丗祖大明六年,詔曰.倭王丗子興,奕丗載忠,作藩外海,稟化寧境,恭修貢職.新嗣邊業,宜授爵號,可安東將軍,倭國王.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.

(...)詔除武使持節,都督倭新羅任那加羅秦韓慕韓六國諸軍事,安東大將軍,倭王.

The Emperor of China bestowed the military sovereignty over Silla, Imna, Gaya, Jinhan, and Mohan (都督倭新羅任那加羅秦韓慕韓六國諸軍事) on King Sai 済 of Wa. After the death of Koo 興, his brother Bu 武 sent a tribute and he called himself as the title including Baekje (都督倭百濟新羅任那加羅秦韓慕韓七國諸軍事). This demand was not permitted by the Emperor. Bu was only bestowed the same title as hispredecessor the next year.--Amagase (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the full citation from the Book of Song, Amagase. It looks like we should change the wiki page to reflect the fact that it was originally King Sai who was granted the title "overseer of all military affairs of the six countries of Wa, Silla, Imna, Gara, Jinhan, Mohan," and the later King Bu only presumed to add Baekje to his title.

It is also interesting that even before the time of King Sai, King Chin (珍) presumed to style himself as overseer of the six countries of Wa, Baekje, Silla, Imna, Jinhan, and Mohan; in the later lists that were actually approved by China, "Baekje" is replaced by "Gara." Did the Emperor of China never confirm King Chin's title including "Wa, Baekje, Silla, Imna, Jinhan, Mohan"? Ebizur (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I translated the table in the article of Five kings of Wa. Please check it out. If you have any knowledge about the English names of the titles, please change them. I know the meanings of them but have no ability to translate these Chinese titles to English.

Because Baekje had sent envoys to Jin Dynasty prior to Wa, she was accorded precedence by the emperors. Actually the kings of Baekje were received rather higher rank (鎮東将軍) than the kings of Wa. --Amagase (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal against Appletrees

Appletrees declared in 15 April 2008.
You regret? www That's a good one. You visit here with the ID as I'm getting to almost forget this matter. Your appearance always draw my attention back to the ancient history of Japan. Yeah, I'm studying it hard. I have to take a nap, so see yeah soooooooooon [20]

And, this Korean is repeating harassment to the ancient history of Japan.

I'm warning you, Princesunta, you resorting to personal attack and making nonsense does not justify what you're doing here. --Appletrees (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Redacted the false and horrendous slur by Princesunta. Your mentioning indecency (the primarily meaning is obscenity or inappropriate sexual behavior)[21] is really not related to this subject. --Appletrees (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1. "百濟國主照古王 以牡馬壹疋 牝馬壹疋 付阿知吉師以貢上"

The document of this China was rewritten to an opposite meaning by Appletrees. [22]

The meaning of "貢上" is "dedicated".[23]
However, he rewrote "dedicated" in "granted". The meaning of "granted" is "下賜".[24]

Appletrees did a similarly wrong translation, and ruined Imperial House of Japan.
Appletrees said. the 30th Japanese emperor Bidatsu was also a Korean. The section has many potential to be expanded indeed, so what is your rationale?[25]

He translated "大原真人 出自謚敏達孫百済王也". (Quotation 新撰姓氏録) into "大原真人 is Korean emperor(百済王) Bidatsu(敏達)'s grandchild". Of course, Appletrees's translation is completely wrong. A correct translation is "大原真人 is a descendant of the grandchild "百済王" of emperor Bidatsu(敏達)".

2. Korean civilization

"The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern" P56 [26] is being written. Via these Korean contacts, Japan opened her doors to continental culture and Chinese civilization. This also enabled direct contacts with China.

And, "JapaneseHistory.info" [27] is being written. Chinese and Korean immigrants played an important role in introducing Chinese civilization to early Japan.

Though a Korean civilization was not written at all, He rewrote, "A Korean civilization introduced the culture to Japan". [28]

Appletrees often misinterprets the source.
For instance Shakuhachi

"Diplomatic and cultural exchanges between Chinese continent and Japan being common, we can think that this flute was introduced in Japan with other musical instruments that were intended to give entertainments at the court (Gagaku; court music)."

This source is not writing Korea at all. However, he rewrote it.
"The bamboo flute first came to Japan from China via Korea. The shakuhachi proper, however, is quite distinct from its Chinese and Korean ancestors, the result of centuries of isolated evolution in Japan. [29] --Princesunta (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About the both points about Imperial House of Japan, and "Korean civilization", I am approve of Princesunta's opinion. Appletrees seems to be too korean nationalistc. It should be written more neutral position, and correctly along with citations. Blue011011 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody doubts that you're a very much Japanese nationalistic editor as several people pointed out already on your behaviors. I say editors should only rely on reliable sources with NPOV approach. Altering informations or blankings by you is totally not constructive. I've only defended articles from blanking campaigns by Azukimonaka or or other banned Japanese users. Besides, you're not in the position to approve anything. By the way, you may already acknowledge that User:Princesunta has been indefinitely banned for his sockpuppeting and abusive personal attacks, so learn some lesson from the incident. REGARDS.--Appletrees (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Princesunta (talk · contribs)'s personal attacks

_{Princesunta, are you sure of what the noun "turn of somebody" means in English? That could be interpreted in a very assaultive personal attack if you did not know. So I changed the title. --Appletrees (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)}

You always have followed almost every step of User:Azukimonaka who has been indefintely blocked and you came to here to discuss things with the obvious sock. You altered the Chinese continent and mispresented that Japan, consisted of islands has her "continent" and the sentence was not even introduced by myself. Well, I do not have a time to deal with you who has been making personal attacks. If you want to discuss with me, be as civil as possible you can.--Appletrees (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Was your rebuttal completed? Then, let's have the decision. --Princesunta (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question for you. Why didn't you ask a meditation (a.k.a only for your side) to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise? You visited every single person whom I seemingly had dispute but you did not go to the admin, why, because of your sockpuppetry case? You know me so well on contrary to your contribution history. --Appletrees (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not obstruct your behavior. You are expected to bring a lot of users. By the way, Did you end the rebuttal for the mistake of a Korean civilization and the translation? --Princesunta (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not present any mistake on this subject unlike you who always alter information and make personal attacks.[30][31][32]--Appletrees (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected due to the slow revert war recently. Please discuss your issues here first, and once you come to a consensus, let me know. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I should note that if you don't discuss your differences and come to some sort of consensus, I'll likely keep this page protected to keep you from continuing your little war. So, I recommend you start working out your differences. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "sui" :
  • Chinese History Record [[Book of Sui]] : 隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來 [http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/suisu/sui_081.htm][http://www.chinakyl.com/rbbook/big5/25/suishu/suis81.html]
  • Chinese History Record [[Book of Sui]], Vol. 81, ''Liezhuan'' 46 : 隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來 "Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a great country, with many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, and regularly send embassies there." [http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/suisu/sui_081.htm][http://www.chinakyl.com/rbbook/big5/25/suishu/suis81.html]

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

References / Notes

The References and Notes for this article are seriously lacking. Besides the style problems...

• generally incomplete bibliographic info
• direct quotes from 1300+ year old primary sources, again with no bibliographic info
• links to Google book scans when the real book would be more appropriate

I'll attempt to clean some of it up. Bendono (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd insinuations

It seems odd this whole article seems to relegate Korea as a mysterious region "the Peninsula" with no people or culture. All the Chinese technology is admittedly transmitted from this "Peninsula" but nothing else. We need to write the article in a way that satisfies both interpretations.

Also, the tomb section needs to be saved in the format that I am favoring, so people reading this article can understand why the Japanese and Koreans are argueing about who developed the Keyhole tomb. The other way doesn't make any sense.

Yes the Prince's were sent to Japan, but was it a hostage or a diplomat, because these people set up schools and took control of the Japanese navy. Hostages in China and Koguryeo never did such things and they definately did not take command of the navy in China or Koguryeo. Also, the interpretations need clarification:

If you guys insert sections like the Book of Song/Sui or passages from the Koguryeo Stele put in the opposing interpretations or don't put it in at all. Think about this, if you find a sentence like this say (something blank) ____ ____ Jane Mighty Kate Subjugate ___ ___ (something blank). How would you read this, is it (something blank) ___ ___ Jane the mighty, Kate is subjugated ___ ___ (something blank) or would you read this as (something blank) ___ ___ Jane, the mighty Kate subjugates ___ ___ (something blank). If you put in one intrepretation of something you have to insert the opposing view or intrepretation.

And the "Wa" was a derogatory term in NE Asia at this time (translation was migit pirate or dwarf pirate). It complicates how you interpret a statement. Was the statement written as an insult or derogatory manner. Was it written by the opposite Kingdom they were at war with, then maybe the statement can interpreted correctly.

Some how this whole article is insinuating that Japan (who was at the stage of state development/formation) was somehow able to be rule a culture which was already a full Kingdom with iron weapons/horses/writting/technology etc. Archeology doesn't support Japan's theory, please be neutral and lets put in a section on why the Japanese today only let the international community have limited access to their tombs after Korean artifacts were found in the original excavation of the Imperial tomb (or what was believed to be the imperial tomb) Also, why is Korea referred to as "Peninsula" but China is referred to as China (Back then China was not as big as it is today and present day China was not like ancient China and wasn't even called China.) And if you guys don't want to refer to Korea as Korea because it is different from present day Korea and the name was different then you have to do the same for Japan and China. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've marked the Controversy subsection as POV, as it was written by someone who clearly has a bias. I've also added copyedit to it since the grammar and sentence structure in the section need a great deal of work. Please do not remove the tags until the issues are dealt with. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire section "Relations between the Yamato court and the Korean kingdoms" is full of problems. Footnotes 21 through 28 are primary sources, which are discouraged. The rest looks like an elaborate refutation of the claim that Japan once controlled part of Korea, which has already been done elsewhere in the article. Sorry, but as a copy editor I don't want to touch this. If someone wants to document Korean cultural influence in 5th century Japan, that's fine. But not when it's all presented as evidence for a tendentious political argument. First get a historian to bring some balance into the argument. Then we can worry about the grammar and sentence structure. -- Margin1522 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This section is clearly someone's college essay. I only hope they received the C or lower grade they deserved for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.111.136 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

• • Chinese History Record [[Book of Sui]], Vol. 81, ''Liezhuan'' 46 : 隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來 "Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a great country, with many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, and regularly send embassies there." [http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/suisu/sui_081.htm][http://www.chinakyl.com/rbbook/big5/25/suishu/suis81.html]

---

that translation was definitely wrong and POV forking. Japanese wikipedia user depict as "Japan was Great than Korea". but, it was a definitely wrong. Check full text[33],

• "安帝时，又遣使朝贡，谓之倭奴国。"

On Emperor An of Han period, They sent envoy to han China, and tribute to Han China, Japan called as "Slave state" [by China].

• "无文字，唯刻木结绳。敬佛法，于百济求得佛经，始有文字。"

Japanese learned characters and buddhism from baekje, this is the origin of characters in Japan

• "有如意宝珠，其色青，大如鸡卵，夜则有光，云鱼眼精也。新罗、百济皆以倭为大国，多珍物，并敬仰之，恆通使往来。故大业三年，其王多利思北孤遣使朝贡。"

有如意宝珠(Japan have treasure things)，其色青(color is blue)，大如鸡卵(size as egg)，夜则有光(bright at night)，云鱼眼精也。(it called as 鱼眼精) 新罗、百济皆以倭为大国，多珍物，并敬仰之，恆通使往来 (Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a big country of treasure source, with many rare and precious things in Japan; also [Silla and Baekje] highly esteemed it(many rare and precious things), and regularly send their person there." 故大业三年，其王多利思北孤遣使朝贡。(On 大业三年 period, Japan's King tributed to China)

敬仰(jìng yǎng) highly esteemed[34]

'Japan land' have some treasure things, so, Silla and Baekje want their treasure things. [Silla and Baekje] highly esteemed treasure things. This is not mean, Japan is stronger or great country than Korea. Previous edit was definitely wrong translation.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter Azukimonaka's block evasions in 2009

Since Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki), indefinitely blocked sockpuppeter, has kept evading his block sanction with sock accounts and IPs such as 青鬼よし (talk · contribs · logs · block log) this time here again, the header and box are added to differentiate other discussions from his comments instead of blanking per WP:BAN. See WP:SPI/Azukimonaka and its chronicle. --Caspian blue 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rewinding of five months

Suddenly, the user Cherry Blossom OK who participated in the ancient history of Japan keeps demanding to return the article five months ago. (He rewound the article until March 15, 2009.[35]) His insistence is "I do not like his edit" and "I think that he is Socks."[36][37] Therefore, he is insisting that he should return this article to the state five months ago.[38] Because he keeps returning the article by force five months ago, I cannot add new information to the article. Should we throw away information accumulated for five months in support of his insistence? And, after obtaining the approval of Cherry Blossom OK, should we edit the article in the Kofun age?　--青鬼よし (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

About the quotation of the source

(This is the first question.) The source of Lee (1997:31-35) and Kōzō (1997:308-310) was quoted like this.

The Yamato court had ties to the Gaya confederacy, called Mimana in Japanese. There is archaeological evidence from the Kofun tombs, which show similarities in form, art, and clothing of the depicted nobles. Based on the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, Japanese kokugaku historians claimed Gaya to be a colony of the Yamato state, a theory that is now widely rejected. More likely all these states were tributaries to the Chinese dynasties to some extent. However, Chinese scholars point to the Book of Song of the Liu Song Dynasty, written by the Chinese historian Shen Yue (441-513), presenting the sovereign of Japan as the suzerain of the Gaya Confederacy. This interpretation is also widely rejected even in Japan as there is no evidence of Japanese rule in Gaya or any other part of Korea.

Objectiveye and Caspian blue quoted this same source like this, and rewrote it.

The biggest problem with the book of Song and book of Sui is that many of the volumes of the books were missing and re-written later in a biased manner. In addition the Gaya do not have official contact with the Chinese until after the period this book is referring to making this timeline of events impossible. It is difficult to make any sense of what the relationship was like in the past.

Which quotation is correct?　--青鬼よし (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain why are you objecting the inclusion of the counter argument on the "dubious primary sources" since you're the one opening the discussion. I smell the same thing.--Caspian blue 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Caspian blue, Which quotation is correct?　My question is only it. --青鬼よし (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain your reason why the addition should be blanked out first as well as your tagging dubious template to the academic source unlike your insistence over the "dubious primary source" with no secondary source. Also do you have proof that the two references cover all of the paragraph or the last sentence?; "This interpretation is also widely rejected even in Japan as there is no evidence of Japanese rule in Gaya or any other part of Korea?" Given that the conflict between Korean and Japanese scholarship, to maintain WP:NPOV, the counter argument should remain. However, you are insisting that the only Japanese theory should remain regardless of the fact that the current and general scholarship does not support. Britannica discredits the Japanese theory as you know well. --Caspian blue 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am questioning though I do not know which correctly quotes The source of Lee (1997:31-35) and Kōzō (1997:308-310). Please answer only it. --青鬼よし (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I already answered to your question while you have refused to explain your blanking and edits by just engaging in edit warring. If you're not capable of interpreting my answer, you're not qualified to edit English Wikipedia. Now, answer to my question.--Caspian blue 03:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.