Jump to content

Talk:Japan/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Please object, Tyler111

Please object to what? Mr. Harada. I thought the Korea - Japan thing was concluded months ago by other people and the multiple citations and references above. If you keep going up you will see even more citation and references. Why are were changing things when other people already concluded that multiple references were more reliable than one reference. The use of the term Korean Penisula indicates no civiliation existed on the Penisula other than being a bridge which is not accurate and that the borders of China and Korea today are not what it used to be in the 1st to 6th centuries. Please read above citations by other people. Tyler111

Did Talk end?　No, a lot of Talk doesn't obtain mutual agreement.
For instance, no one can explain the custom of South Korea not included in the custom of China. Can you explain?
And, Britannica is being written.[1]
The cultivation of rice, probably introduced from the Yangtze River delta area of southern China, was one of the most important features of Yayoi culture.
This insistence has been proven by the gene investigation of National Museum in Japan.National Science Museum of Japan You must explain the reason to deny this insistence.　 --HaradaSanosuke 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
日本には、約2500年前に稲作の技術を身につけた人々が朝鮮半島から渡来して水田稲作が始まったとする考えが、土器や石器あるいは人骨の研究から有力です。Rough translation: "Studies of pottery, stone tools and bones support the theory that people who had learned how to cultivate rice came to Japan from the Korean Peninsula around 2,500 years ago." And it then goes on to say that based on DNA studies, another theory (考え) is proposed (提唱) that people might have come directly from China. That's not proof. Do you have any more baseless arguments for us? - Sekicho 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
TO Sekicho, please see this[2]. You can understand that studies of DNA of rice support the theory that the skills of cultivation is directly originated in South region of China. At least, the present studies have not support the theory that the cultivation in Japan derives from Korea.--Questionfromjapan 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
For Endroit: This additional "proposed theory" that the Yayoi "might" have come directly from China is quite common. That's why the Japan article says "and possibly China". As Sekicho has stated, it's not proof.--Sir Edgar 01:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you or I or anybody else personally believes, or would like to believe. We have the sources cited here. It's just a matter of correctly interpreting them per WP:NOR. I've understood your position, Sir Edgar. I'd also like to hear from Tensaibuta, Sekicho, Tortfeasor, and Kusunose, how China fits in with the Yayoi, and how we should to mention China with respect to Yayoi.--Endroit 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm doing. You're only taking quotes from select articles. The current phrasing is accurate.--Sir Edgar 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anybody missed it (or chose to ignore it) I DID give citations above for the most recent DNA studies, pertaining to this. Along with the Yayoi migration originating in Korea, DNA studies show some significant migration originating in either South China or Southeast Asia and moving through Korea (albeit fewer than the migrations originating in Korea). HaradaSanosuke's citation somehow ignores the "moving through Korea" part. But recent DNA evidence supports the view that some significant migration originated in China. Please review these citations again....

by Han-Jun Jin, Kyoung-Don Kwak, Michael F. Hammer, Yutaka Nakahori, Toshikatsu Sinka, Ju-Won Lee, Feng Jin, Xuming Jia, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim
Published online: 18 September 2003
Selected excerpt regarding Yayoi: "... these results provide convincing evidence for recent male migration, originally from China into Japan moving through Korea."
by Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking, Satoshi Horai
Published online: 18 November 2005
Selected summary pertaining to Yayoi....
  1. Describes the Yayoi migration from Korea based on the O-SRY(465) genes and other genes with close lineage (haplogroups O-M122 and O-M95).
  2. Reiterates that "the entire O haplogroup has been proposed to have a Southeast Asian origin." (Their definition of Southeast Asia includes southern China). Then hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan."
  3. In the concluding paragraph, it states "we propose that the Yayoi Y chromosomes descend from prehistoric farmers that had their origins in southeastern Asia, perhaps going back to the origin of agriculture in this region."
  4. Hammer's DNA study is based on a "global sample consisted of > 2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago."

--Endroit 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You still need to explain the fact that Southeast Asia didn't have the technology we are talking about that was transferred from Korea to Japan. Even if pre-historically their is a theoretical genetic link, you need to look at the technology that was around in these cultures. Northern China sends technology to Korea then it ends up in Japan.

Read the cited materials completely, on how the term "Southeast Asia" is used. Hammer's quoted definition of "Southeast Asia" INCLUDES "Southern China" as well as "Southeast Asia" proper, as I stated above. Rice farming originated in "Southern China", and then were introduced into Korea from China. Bronze, and iron were also introduced into Korea from China. So if the DNA shows that such a migration took place, it's natural to assume that the technology transfer followed the same route.--Endroit 07:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean all this happened over a short peroid of time or was it a slow process where migrating people moved from South China with rice cultivation to North China and stopped developed and mixed with people there for a new culture over 100s of years, then moved again to Korea stopped, mixed with people there to developed another culture over 100s of years then finally moved to Japan. Or was it a process in which these migrating people had an ultimate goal of heading to Japan using China and Korea as nothing more than a bridge to Japan. Lets not confuse rice farming with bronze and iron use. These are 2 different technologies. We know Northern China introduced lots of technology to Korea then Korea finally took it to Japan. But were these rice farmers a group of migrating people who had an ultimate goal of heading to Japan. Or did they do it slowly mixing with Chinese and Koreans along the way to Japan over time. The current article states "from Korea and possibly China", cause both Koreans and possibly migrating Chinese from genetic theory were traveling to Japan. How else would you like to word the article?

Speaking strictly of recent DNA studies.... DNA studies have always shown that the Yayoi migration occurred from Korea into Japan. The recent DNA results trace the roots of Yayoi DNA further into "Southeast Asia" (Southern China & Southeast Asia proper), and link this with the spread of rice cultivation. These new results say that the origin of Yayoi is mostly of (close to 100%) "Southeast Asian" rather than "Northeast Asian" origin. Hammer suggests that the migration, from "Southeast Asia" into Korea and Japan, was in conjunction with the spread of wet rice agriculture. Han-Jun Jin further suggests that much of the Chinese migration into Korea correspond with the political chaos "during its Warring Period (476-221 BC)" as well as with the spread of rice cultivation. Han-Jun Jin also says that many Chinese moved through Korea and into Japan during the Yayoi migration. In summary, the DNA researchers seem to believe the various migrations occurred contemporaneously during a span of few hundred years, and that the Chinese contribution was significant.
I believe all other sources we have regarding Yayoi mention the Chinese contribution as being significant, and none of them downplay Chinese significance.
With respect to our Wikipedia's Japan article, the Chinese contribution needs to be mentioned as a certainty, not using ambiguous words such as "possibly". The following wording should be more informative and accurate:
  • "from Korea and China (via Korea)"
  • "from Korea and indirectly from China"
Or any variation of these should be fine too, as long as you aviod wording such as "probably China". I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.--Endroit 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your sources are only suggestive and again, relying on one or two sources with recent discovery does not change the mainstream opinion. In other words, it is not conclusive and thus, the status quo should remain.--Sir Edgar 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The wording "from Korea and China (via Korea)" IS consistent with all sources, including all the "mainstream" sources, the new sources, and some POV sources as well. What's wrong with it?--Endroit 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
One must use sentences that are well-structured and to the point. The phrase "from Korea and China (via Korea)" simplified means "from Korea". So, we should probably just delete ", and possibly from China" then. You need to stop making convoluted sentences, just to add a side note. Perhaps a footnote would be more suitable?--Sir Edgar 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edgar, I'm happy you understood the gist of what I wanted to say. I know, my sentences tend to be awkward, and you do a better job of fixing it. My concern here is that there are 2 things happening: the migration of people and the transfer of technologies. The following (or a variation) would seem OK to me, I think:
...brought by migrants from Korea (though some may have come from China).
Anyways, I know we tried our bests. Let's hear what the others have to say.--Endroit 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've edited it again to the phrase "from the Korean Peninsula" which I'm not exactly happy with. But it is vague enough about the origins of the people that it should satisfy all parties. The fact of the matter is the Yayoi came to Japan from Korea. We do not know for certain where their original origins are. Some may have come from China or Mongolia. But they all arrived in Japan from Korea. In addition, the evidence points to mostly Korean qualities in their DNA and the artifacts found in modern day Japan. However, there is also evidence of a Chinese or even a Mongolian connection. So, we must rely on a more specifically geographically-oriented reference in the phrase "from the Korean Peninsula" at this time. Though we should not sacrifice accuracy, being concise is of utmost importance.--Sir Edgar 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edgar, I believe the "Mongolia --> Korea" migration occurs much later, in conjunction with Genghis Khan, therefore unrelated to the Yayoi migration. I think you meant "Manchuria --> Korea --> Japan". But with respect to rice, I think the "mainstream" already talks about "Yangtze River Basin --> Korea --> Japan" being the most plausible route. Can you squeeze in the word "Yangtze" somewhere, as the "Yangtze" part of it seems undisputed?--Endroit 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Mongolia-Korea connection is much older and way before Genghis Khan. Korea, Mongolia and Manchuria are closely related going back to 7000 BC. Looking at the types of food these cultures ate the similar recreational and other aspects of their culture. It is also believed that Koreans and Mongolians descented from the same area in Lake Baikal.

Recent DNA data does not seem to show that people with Mongolian DNA migrated to Japan (during the Yayoi migration). That can mean several things:
1) Mongolians have not migrated to Korea until after the Yayoi migration. ...OR...
2) The Mongolians were in Korea but did not migrate to Japan. ...OR...
3) We are talking about 2 different Mongolians with different DNA compositions.
--Endroit 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So the Koreans are some mix of Mongolian, Manchurian, South Chinese and Chinese. And Koreans are the closest related asian group to the Japanese per DNA evidence (even more than Chinese, South Chinese or Mongolian/Manchurian), more than any other asian group even dating back to Yayoi migration. I wonder how we should interepret this data in the Japan sections regarding ancient Japanese history.

Nope. Actually, Han-Jun Jin carefully tries to avoid making any conclusions about the Mongolians based on his own study. He says... "In this study, the Koreans appear to be most closely related overall to the Manchurians among east Asian ethnic groups (Fig. 2), although a principal components analysis of haplogroup frequencies reveals that they also cluster with populations from Yunnan and Vietnam (Fig. 3). The genetic relationship with Manchuria is consistent with the historical evidence that the Ancient Chosun, the first state-level society, was established in the region of southern Manchuria and later moved into the Pyongyang area of the northwestern Korean Peninsula." And in fact this is what his data shows. Go ahead, look at Figure 3 (PC analysis of haplogroup frequencies...) in Han-Jun Jin's study. Look carefully at the researchers' data and the conclusions based on his own data. Ask somebody who knows how to read the data, if you don't know how to.--Endroit 05:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Koreans are related to the Manchurians. The Manchurians, Mongolians and the Koreans were suppose to be from all from Lake Baikal. If the Koreans are closest to the Manchurian that doesn't suprise anyone. Just like the Japanese are closest to the Koreans among all other Asian groups. I was talking about who the Japanese were closest to not who the Koreans were closest to. Just because the Japanese were derived from Korean gene pool does not translate to Koreans being closest to them. So there is no suprise about the Manchu-Korean connection. But since we know that the Japanese are the closest to Koreans per DNA data, even dating back to the Yayoi period how should be interpret this in the Japanese section of ancient Japanese history.

NPOV

Yes, omitting Korea is often the Japanese bias, even in academic circles in Japan. We try to offer a more balanced and accurate perspective based on facts in Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sources for Japanese bias in Japan for omitting Korea. Do you have the names of certain schools with curriculums that perpetuate that bias? I will immediately contact the department heads if this accusation is true. I don't disagree with you entirely, but to state in academic CIRCLES, do you mean students or the curriculum, or the culture? I acknowledge there is bias against Korea by academic enthusiasts in Japan but academic CIRCLES is a stretch unless we are willing to rid the jingoistic urge and acknowledge too the American bias against asians within academic CIRCLES here in the U.S. Or maybe Asian bias here in the U.S. For example, 1871 massacre of Chinese in California by Caucasians. About maybe 100 died, but this isn't mentioned within history books as a massacre regardless of the fact that only 5 died in the Boston Massacre which is found in almost all textbooks pertaining to the period of the American Revolution. Is this the kind of academic CIRCLE you are talking about? PLease specify.Another one might be the lack of information in academic textbooks stating that asian immigration was severaly limited or disallowed until 1965 while white European immigration went unrestrained. In a society where the majority rules, how can Asian-Americans get past this handicapp or political repression? This isn't mentioned in academic textbooks, does that mean there is American bias against Asians here in the United States? Sir Edgar, as I have reminded you I am a constituent of that academic community so please use facts and not conjectures or popular opinions or myths. I am very aware of text and books published by well know acadmic CIRCLE people, lol,so either provide evidence ot back your credibility or pease be careful where you venture. I though about critiquing your article but I dont have the time, I am hopin this second summer session to maybe look at it so that my critiques may contribute in good spirit.

Sincerely, 66.32.126.12 07:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Collective Conscious ganbate kudosai Lo siento Amyangnigaseo

(sigh) Didn't you get the memo that only the winners are allowed to write history? - Sekicho 09:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Winners in what? Japan won WWII? Or winners in the Imjin War. Yes, it is Koreans fault for being ignorant and stupid to get annexed in 1910. But that doesn't mean the winners write history. Do you mean rewrite "Dokdo is Japanese territory" in the Annals of Joseon?

No. There are many sources from the Joseon Dynasty or Unified Silla where they state Dokdo is Korean territory, even Japanese sources. In 1785, Hayashi Shihei, a scholar of Japan produced a map called "Map of Three Adjoining Countries" namely, China, Korea, and Japan. Hayashi color coded his map. Green for Japan and yellow for Korea. In it, it clearly states Dokdo and Ulleungdo are Korean territory and they are marked yellow. -From the Dokdo Research and Preservation Association & Dokdo Institute. Good friend100 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:%E4%B8%89%E5%9B%BD%E9%80%9A%E8%A6%A7%E5%9B%B3%E8%AA%AC%E4%B8%80%E9%83%A8.jpg --LittleTree 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Source

Bronze and iron appear to have been introduced simultaneously into Yayoi Japan. Iron was mainly used for agricultural and other tools, whereas ritual and ceremonial artifacts were mainly made of bronze. Some casting of bronze and iron began in Japan by about 100 BCE, but the raw materials for both metals were introduced from Korea and China. Han-dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) bronze mirrors were the most important prestige items imported from China.

After about 100 B.C., separate parts of cemeteries were set aside for the graves of what was evidently an emerging elite class, marked by luxury goods imported from China, such as beautiful jade objects and bronze mirrors.The Genetic Origins of the Japanese. The culture identified with the Japanese was not brought to the islands of Japan until about 300 B.C. It was brought by a people called the Yayoi from the Korean peninsula.　

Much remains unknown about religion in Japan during the Paleolithic and Neolithic ages. It is unlikely, however, that the religion of these ages has any direct connection with Shinto. Yayoi culture, which originated in the northern area of the island of Kyushu in about the 3rd or 2nd century BC, is directly related to later Japanese culture and hence to Shinto. Among the primary Yayoi religious phenomena were agricultural rites and shamanism.

These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan. The fact that Yayoi culture had iron implements from the outset, and bronze implements somewhat later, probably indicates borrowings from Han culture. Since iron rusts easily, comparatively few objects have been found, but they seem to have been widespread at the time. These include axes, knives, sickles and hoes, arrowheads, and swords. The bronze objects are also varied, including halberds, swords, spears, taku (bell-shaped devotional objects from China), and mirrors. The halberds, swords, and spears seem not to have been used in Japan for the practical purposes for which they were evolved in China but rather to have been prized as precious objects.

A major, long-established East Asian route of trade and influence ran from northern China down the Korean peninsula and across the Korea Strait to Japan. Traveling along this route, Mahayana Buddhism was introduced into Japan from Korea in the sixth century (traditionally, in either 538 or 552), as part of a diplomatic mission that included gifts such as an image of Shakyamuni Buddha and several volumes of Buddhist texts. As in Korea, the religion had a lasting effect on the native culture; today, Buddhism is the dominant religion in Japan.

Kanji, one of the three scripts used in the Japanese language, are Chinese characters, which were first introduced to Japan in the 5th century via Korea.

Kofun period Under the Soga a new wave of cultural influence hit Japan in the 6th century AD. The kofun burial mounds from that time suddenly began being filled with weapons - not just mirrors and jewels. This indicates that a militarized aristocracy had come into the ascendant. At this time Korea was at its cultural peak despite - or thanks to - being split into three feuding kingdoms. The kingdom facing Japan, Paekche, formed a strategic alliance with Japan. As part of the deal it made some revolutionary inputs into Japanese history, namely: a stream of various craftsmen, among them metal workers who introduced more sophisticated armor and weapons Buddhist treasures a scholar who taught writing and Confucian thought. With the political state of things in Korea, Japan had gained control of some territory. However late in the same century, with the breakdown of the alliance, a huge number of Koreans who had been living on Japanese territory migrated to Japan.

Requesting everyone to discuss and build consensus / Pre-history section

I'd like to make it clear that I don't agree with Kamosuke's unilateral deletion of citations and the stuff about Baekje, etc.
However, some of Kamosuke's edits and comments are starting to show some progress, and I'd like to elaborate further on one of it. Above, I think Kamosuke is trying to show that the cited sources refer to both "China" and "Korea".
With respect to the "Pre-history" section, we have:
The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from the Korean Peninsula.
I know Sir Edgar already compromised by using "...from the Korean Peninsula".
But I see that Kamosuke tried changing it to "... from Chinese Han Dynasty and Korean Peninsula".
I think what he meant to do was use a variation of "...from China and Korea".
Sir Edgar prefers using "...from Korea, and possibly China".
My previous compromise, therefore, was to use "...from Korea and China (via Korea)".
I am assuming that we all agree on the "China --> Korea --> Japan" path in addition to the "Korea --> Japan" path, with respect to Yayoi technology transfer and migration. Furthermore, various cited sources (including "mainstream" ones) specifically mention the word "China" as well as "Korea", moreso than any other areas such as "Manchuria". I believe Kamosuke insists on using the word "China" somewhere.
I am asking everyone to think of the wording, which specifically includes the words "China" and "Korea" here. You guys obviously need to compromise here.
Once we have some candidates, we can discuss further and gain consensus. If that fails, we can try RfC or Mediation. I am really hoping that Sir Edgar, Sekicho, Onetwo1, Tortfeasor, Tensaibuta, and others help out here.
Also, I see that many of you (on both sides) are revert-warring without any discussions. Please stop that, and don't break any rules in WP:3RR and maybe Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You should be discussing here instead.--Endroit 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • IMO, it should be "from Korea and China" or a slight variation thereof. There are theories (as mentioned at the cited NDL link) that these practices have come directly from both. Adding the "via Korea" bit kills the straight-from-China theory outright; I'd rather keep the article from picking theories. We know that this stuff came from Korea and China somehow, but the particulars are still pretty hazy. - Sekicho 06:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There must be consistency in the article. Should it be edited to "from Korea and China", then the introduction should say "east of Korea and China" and the Culture section should also say "Korea and China", not "China and Korea". It is evident that Korea is closer to Japan and brought culture to Japan first, but others continue to put China ahead of Korea. We know that the Yayoi came from Korea. There is evidence that they MAY have originally come from elsewhere, possibly China. That is why the current "from Korea, and most likely China" or some variation thereof is appropriate. Another option is that it can read "Korean Peninsula" to appease those who insist "there was no Korea".--Sir Edgar 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyone, please try to restrict your arguments to the "Pre-History" section, and read WP:Consensus. OK, so Sir Edgar suggested "...from Korea, and most likely China" (or variations) but will agree to use "...from the Korean Peninsula". Any other suggestions or comments? BTW, there IS sufficient evidence for a dual Korea/China origin of the Yayoi, and Sir Edgar refuses to accept it.--Endroit 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is "primarily via Korea and secondarily via China" or something to that effect. The reason being that wet rice farming and japonica had to be adopted from northern climes to southern ones before it could make the jump to southern Japan so the predominant theory, from what I understand, is via the Korean route. Also, bronze mirrors and the like could be attributed to the Chinese commandaries in Korea. So even if they were "Chinese" they came by Korea. Shamanism too suggests an ultimate origin in Scytho-Siberia, and I'm not too sure of how much of a connection China has with shamanism. To be honest, Endroit, I don't understand a word from the pdf you cited a couple of months ago so I'll take your word. I do know that I don't like the use of "Korean peninsula" and "Korea and China" seems fine although I think Sir Edgar's point is that Korea seems to be the main route and I would agree. Tortfeasor 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan as superpower

Should japan be added as a superpower?--Blog Mav Rick 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not unless they get rid of Article 9.-Jefu 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Change Imperial Japan

  • This sentence in the Imperial Japan section is at worst wrong, at least misleading. Japan invaded China, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, occupying Manchuria in 1931. ----Abaddon 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A - Japan didn't invade Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines until after they bombed Pearl Harbour in 1941 NOT in 1931.
    • B - Some of these countries were Allied colonies and didn't exist as countries until after World War II
  • It should be changed to reflect the date of attack, perhaps by adding to this sentence, In 1941, Japan attacked the United States naval base in Pearl Harbor as well as British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia, bringing the United States into the war.
  • It could read:

In 1941, Japan attacked the United States naval base in Pearl Harbor and declared war on the Allies, bringing the United States into the war. After the attack on Pearl Harbor Japan invaded and occupied British, American and Dutch Southeast Asian colonies that now make up a number of present day countries like Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines .

Fixed following your guidelines. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Korean Bias

The Korean often criticizes a Japanese bias. However, Korean's bias is stronger....

I am getting the impression that the Japanese are total ingrates. Please prove me wrong by changing your attitude on Korean contributions to Japanese civilization. Baekje played a key role in Japan's development. If not for Baekje, Japan would likely remain a backwater in Asia for many more centuries and become probably something of a mix of Mongolian and Southeast Asian cultures. --Sir Edgar 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree to this Korean's insistence at all.

  • The cultural level of Baekje was far lower than that of China. Therefore, the Japanese did not go to study to Baekje.

Your logic is in error. Even if what you say is true and Baekje's cultural level was lower than that of China, Baekje's cultural level was far higher than that of Japan. Japan did and can study in Baekje for this reason.

  • Baekje had received strong interference of Japan. Baekje submitted the royal family to Japan as a hostage. And, the Buddhism was presented to Japan.

Well, Baekje might have had some sort of family tie or kindred tie to Japan cause so many of Japans elite were of Baekje origin or descent. For example Emperor Kammu. Japan's interference in Baekje was that the Baekje King was calling on his subjects in Japan to help in battle.

  • Taika Reform was promoted by the international student to China.

Please read all the archived material about Korean influence on Japan

  • The Buddhism of Japan has been succeeded to from the priest in China. (It has not been succeeded to at all by the priest of Baekje. )

Please read all the archived material about Korean influence on Japan.

It has not proven his insistence at all though I saw the source that the Korean introduces.

Please state what was wrong with the PBS, British, American and Korean sources. Why do you selectively pick the Chinese ones as being proven but reject the Korean ones, when an article states from Korea and China.

The user that there is a rebuttal in my judgment must prove the hypothesis of Edger. "If not for Baekje, Japan would likely remain a backwater in Asia for many more centuries and become probably something of a mix of Mongolian and Southeast Asian cultures. "

Am I ingrates?　--HaradaSanosuke 16:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't continue the Japanese-Korean ethnic issue. This is not about differences between our countries; it's about writing an accurate article. - Sekicho 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
our countries？ Please do a more detailed explanation. --HaradaSanosuke 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Japan your country, Sekicho? Not that it matters, but I thought that "our countries" was an interesting comment.--Sir Edgar 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I love natto and sea urchin, I am not Japanese. I only meant to say that it's wrong to discount anyone's opinion solely based on where they come from. Our countries of origin have no relevance so long as our explanations are reasoned and supported by evidence. - Sekicho 13:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Baekje kingdom retreated to Japan is true, during the Three Kingdom period. When Goguryeo was attacking the other two kingdoms Silla and Baekje, the Baekje court fleed to Japan. Goguryeo eventually unifed the entire Korean peninsula.

The descendents of the Baekje kingdom arrived in Japan and began influencing the Japanese culturally. Japan at the time was not one country and was divided into states. Also, it is true that Japan's cultural level was significantly lower than China or Korea's. It is not wrong to say that the Baekje descendents taught the Japanese and helped it develop into a strong country.

It is also true that Korea highly influenced Japan because Chinese culture went to Japan as well and Korea was a gateway for Japan. Zen Buddhism developed in Japan when Korea introduced Buddhism to Japan. Hiragana developed from Chinese charecters that were introduced to Japan as well.

If it was not for Baekje, as someone has already mentioned, Japan would have developed culturally and technologically much slower than Korea or China.

I'm pretty sure several years ago a Japanese descendent of the Japanese royal family announced that his ancestors were from Baekje and Korean. I don't think Japan was surprised because they already knew it all along.

Japanese people know that their culture was highly influenced by Korea but don't like showing it. Good friend100 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Event of important history of Japan

  • 552? Introduction of Buddism to Japan

Buddism introduced by Baekje, Korea

Japan was declared to be a nation equal with China. "日出處天子致書日沒處天子無恙云云"　

Didn't Japan declare itself to be equal to China. I can declare myself to be emperor of China if I wanted.

...Is there an added event?--HaradaSanosuke 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? - Sekicho 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the introduction of writing should be considered important.

History should be in history section

I think that the history that is written in the introduction like two paragraphs really should be in the history section of the article. It does summarize the "history" real well so that's why it should be in "history" section. It doesn't summarize the whole article in the introduction Does anyone agree? 168.253.19.124 23:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding history into the introduction wasn't my idea. I just helped expand and edit it. In fact, I prefered the zen-like short summary. However, I think every country article should have a good historical overview in its introduction.--Sir Edgar 00:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting a list of a few specific events up top is bad. Take Murasaki Shikibu and Tale of Genji. Yeah, people call it "the first novel" and all, but it really doesn't have much historical significance except that it's a good record of its era. Likewise Commodore Perry: people say he "opened" Japan, but Japan's closure had been unraveling for some time; Perry's role could be better described as "pushing the process forward." Certainly some of the broad historical themes are worth a note for understanding Japan: the country developed a strong imperial bureaucracy, then went through a lengthy feudal era, was closed off, reopened, Westernized, tried to take over Asia, failed, and ended up developing into an economic superpower. Picking certain people or events for their importance is kind of POV. When we do so, it should be in the "History" section where it's actually possible to list most of the really important figures side by side. - Sekicho 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that I should explain the flow of the history of Japan to explain a special national character of Japan. I am not a patchwork of a big event, and hope for the article based on "Reason and result". For instance, The Tale of Genji is useful for explanation of "Mono no aware". This is a Japanese, special, important sense of values. This thought might be a reason why countries of the sense of values of the Confucianism conflict with Japan. Moreover, there are a lot of mysteries of an ancient history. It is necessary to avoid concluding article. (especially, South Korean's editors)　--HaradaSanosuke 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think the fact was "All other Chinese character found in Japan prior to the 8th century were of foreign origin." , you must prove it. If you can't it. You only propose a hypotesis. And the chinese character in 2nd century was written on a pottery as you see. The pottery is yayoi type. I think your hypotesis is practically impossible. Mythologia 12:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Begining History

Beging history is 8c.And the relation Bekje's scholors and beging of writing is not proved.Mythologia 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mythologia/Objectman/100doors, deleting cited information is vandalism and it isn't enough that you merely write the reason for your deletion down on this talk page. Instead, you need to reach consensus. Tortfeasor 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the distance of Bekuje' scholars and Begining the hisory over 100 yeas is the clear evidence of there are no relation. And the relation also beginging the writeing and Bekuje is usually negative in a learned society. YOU must bring forward the evidance .Or YOU are the doing vandalism.>Tortfeasor Mythologia 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, the value of Begcha is low in the history of Japan. It might be a bias based on the nationalism though the Korean thinks about Begcha as a root of the Japanese culture.
Begcha was a small country where the cultural level is lower than China. Therefore, most Japanese went to study to China.
Begcha was important as the relay point of a Chinese culture. However, after Japan had exchanged it with China, cultural value was lost.
By the way, it is cultural of South Korea not included in a Chinese culture. And, it is cultural that influences Japan. What is it?　--HaradaSanosuke 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mythologia/Objectman/100doors: I have produced a lot of citations about Baekje's introduction of writing, etc. They are now in the archive. Like I said earlier, deletion of cited information is vandalism. Restoring that vandalism is not. I am unimpressed by your own lack of citations, continual blanking of cited information after you have been warned repeatedly, use of sockpuppets, willful ignorance of Wikipedia policy after it has been pointed out to you multiple times, and gerenal point of view pushing. At the very least please try and reach a consensus here before you delete any more cited information. Thanks. Tortfeasor 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
First.What you must prove is the relation of Beakje's scholars etc and The beging of the history . You never prove it. If you can it, I will be surprised. And the relation begining of the writig and Bekuje's scholar's usually is thought to be nagative by scholars but it is the article of the history beiging, so it is apparently superfluous. It must be deleted.Mythologia 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Kamosuke/HaradaSanosuke: If you don't accept Google sources I don't know what else to do and I see little point in this talk. Tortfeasor 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting the source doesn't justify your insistence. Please progress the theory based on the source. You must explain the culture of Begja not included in the culture of China. --HaradaSanosuke 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Baekje (百濟) / ja:百済 is very well documented, and has had extensive relations with Yamato Japan since the 5th century. There's no need to delete that text. Please check various historical sources. It's called 百済 (kudara) in Japanese. Also, if anybody can find any relevant info in Nihon Shoki regarding 百済 (kudara), please present it here. Thank you very much.--Endroit 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The relation of the History and Bekuje is the problem >Endoit. I don't deny the Beakje's relation general. But it is apparently superfluous for the article of beging of history.Mythologia 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way of course you know the Kojiki was write from oral tradition of "hiedano are(稗田阿礼)" in 8th century? >Endrot Mythologia 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
　An important thing is a priority. The doubt is lean in the value of this article. I think that there is a more important event in the limited character. (Though Korean often deletes those articles. )　--HaradaSanosuke 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In the article on Begja, value is not 0. However, it is not an article on "Must" like Tokugawa Ieyasu. It is thought that it can explain the history of Japan even if Begja is deleted. --HaradaSanosuke 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is getting pointless. This isn't 2channel's encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. Editors don't have to follow rules made up on the spot by Objectman and Kamosuke. Instead, we follow the guidelines of what Wikipedia is, like citing verifiable information from credible English sources (which both users hardly do). It's that simple and I know Kamosuke has been told this repeatedly for several months in English and Japanese.

And if there is a reasonable argument that Baekje's value to Japan was negligble I would still disagree because of the amount and number of citations I have provided where the mainstream scholarly consensus suggests otherwise. Tortfeasor 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is the beging of History you know? Not the article of Japan and Bekuje relations's. Write what will be. Mythologia 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar and I asked Harada on his talk page (in both English and Japanese) to stop this behavior. After replying to me that he would, he promptly wrote the above series of posts. So all I can say is: please do not feed the troll. - Sekicho 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase "The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until" seems to conflict with the next paragraph, because the Kojiki was written in 712. However the Nihon Shoki article says:
"The Nihon Shoki is said to be based on older documents, specifically on the records that had been continuously kept in the Yamato court since the sixth century. It also includes documents and folklore submitted by clans serving the court. Prior to Nihon Shoki, there were Tennoki (Chronicle of the Emperors), and Kokki (Chronicle of the State) compiled by Prince Shotoku and Soga no Umako, but as they were stored in Soga's residence, they were burned at the time of the Isshi Incident."
Can we go into some of these details, rather than deleting material? Anyways, the paragraph on Baekje should stay, although the intro phrase may be reconsidered only after discussion and consensus.--Endroit 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
>Ediot Wikipeda is not the popaganda space of Bekuje. >First.What you must prove is the relation of Beakje's scholars etc and The beging of the history . You never prove it. And the relation begining of the writig and Bekuje's scholar's usually is thought to be nagative by scholars. This is is the article of the beging of history, so it is apparently superfluous. It must be deleted. Mythologia 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the section is titled "Classical era", not "Beginning history". And I only see 2 problems with the Baekje paragraph:
  1. The intro phrase "The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until".
  2. "Advanced pottery", which I believe belongs in the earlier "Pre-history" section.
No other corrections (or deletions) are necessary.--Endroit 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For the pottery, I think that Jomon pottery was fired over an open flame while kiln firing and the potters wheel came by way of the Yayoi. Additionally, Japanese pottery from the 300s to 600s (approximately) is Sue ware which is related/derived more from Gaya and Silla wares than Baekje. For the written history, I think it should be changed to the first extant written history of Japan or something like that. Tortfeasor 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
First problem is negative among a learned society general. The evidence must be need if you want to leave it. The chinese charactors are discovered in ruins in Yayoi pirod. Mythologia 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
See this. The chinese charactor in 2nd century and others in Japan.(This page is Japanese only sorry.)[[3]]Mythologia 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sue ware introduced from southern Korea. [4].
Gaya, Silla, and possibly Baekje pottery styles were imitated by the people of Japan. [5].
“ca. late 300s–early 400s A.D. High-fired gray pottery is introduced from Kaya Federation in Korea to Japan, where it is initially produced by or with the help of immigrant potters for the ruling elite. This ware, known in Japan as Sueki, is made using the potter's wheel and fired in a single tunnel-like chamber kiln (anagama) built along a hill slope and able to reach 1100–1200ºC, temperatures high enough for stoneware and porcelain.” [6].
Korean style Sue ware was made in the Kyoto area during the tumulus period. [7].
Seto-ware, inspired by Korea [8].
Local handicrafts evolved from both Chinese and Korean prototypes. [9].
Korean potters instrumental in training Japanese in continental pottery styles and starting Japan’s porcelain industry. [10].
Some Japanese castles incorporated Korean castle architecture. [11].
Satsuma pottery was Korean inspired. [12].
Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Paekche prototypes from the sixth and seventh century. [13].
Asuka period art had a Korean influence. [14].
Green-ash glazed stoneware made during the Hakuho-Nara periods were inspired by Chinese and Korean works. [15].
There was a Korean influence on Japanese culture and dress. [16]. The paintings at the Takamatsu tomb show woman dressed in clothing reminiscent of Korean dress [17].
The Hata clan was from Silla. [18].
Nyorin Kannon, Miroku Bodhisattva, and the image at the Chugu-ji nunnery all show the influence of Korean art of that day.
Tori Busshi, the grandson of Korean immigrants. [19].
Japanese tomb painting inspired by Chinese and Korean culture. [20].
Yumendo Kannon, has Korean influences. [21].
New type tombs in the seventh century are allied with well-established Korean customs and distantly related to Chinese ones. [22].
The kondo of Horyu-ji temple has paintings from Korean and Chinese prototypes. [23]. In the Kinto hall, a Koguryeo monk painted murals. [24]. The temple itself resembles ones excavated in the former Koguryeo kingdom and follows Paekche layouts. [25]. The pagoda is Tang style or Korean styles.
Korean-style swords made in the southern Yamato basin in the fifth century CE. [26].
Virtually all early grave goods have Korean or Chinese prototypes. [27].
The Be system, adopted from Paekche, that contributed most significantly to centralization of the Yamato polity in the sixth century. [28].
Fifth century tombs in Japan follow the Paekche-style corridor tombs. [29].
Japan absorbed and imitated centralized government institutions in Korea and espcially China. [30]. Emperor Tenji focused on establishing new systems from the Chinese and Korean models. [31].

These sources and citations were introduced earlier in these discussions by other people like Tortfeasor, they seem to always get deleted or archived, then some one else keeps asking for proof of Korean influence on Japan or importance of Baekje. People keep deleting sections that mention Korea in the article. I believe the introduction of writing and Buddhism by Baekje were important to Japan. Maybe we should not archive or delete these references. If we do need to archive we should re-copy these citations, so that we are not constantly having to fend off individuals that want to delete any mention of Korea in the Japan article.

The problem we discuss now is 'the relation of Japanese Beging history in 8th century and Bekje's scholors and also the relation to beging of writing in Japan. ' And it is apparently nagative because
  1. Begining of Useing chainese charactor in Japan is at least in 2nd century.See this. The chinese charactor in 2nd century and others in Japan.(This page is Japanese only sorry.)[[http://www.city.matsusaka.mie.jp/kankou/ureshino/doki/doki.html
  2. Kojiki (the first Japanese history )which commented in the artcle was written from the voice transfer of 'Hiedanano Are(稗田阿礼)in 8th century.
We discuss about Japan not Baekje and this article is not Baekje propaganda.Mythologia 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But Baekje has alot to due with early writing in Japan. And the writings that were present in Japan prior to 8th Century are from Baekje or some other foreign source. Whether the 2nd Century Chinese characters were of Koguryeo, Baekje or some other origin, early writing in Japan was definately from a foreign source prior to 8th Century. Because the writing in 4th thru 7th is definately Baekje in origin that is referred.

See this. The chinese charactor in 2nd century and others in Japan.(This page is Japanese only sorry.)[[32]] This is Yayoi ruins in Japan not Koguryeo. We should write what it was as exactly as possible. Mythologia 08:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what people are talking about, so if the ruins in Japan have a foreign character to it, it needs to be mentioned. The way we note that the Yayoi were from Korea and China, we need to note if the Chinese characters found in 2nd Century Japan were from Baekje or Korguryeo or some other foreign source. If the character mention horses riders or some other aspect that didn't exist in Japan at that time, this needs to be mentioned. We can't just say this site is about Japan and state that what ever is found in the 2nd century are from the Sun gods and just ignore the foreign source.

It is natural if we know when and where Japan had the chinese character, we will write it. The problem is when was not the 5th and 6th century. And where was probably not Bekuje if it came in 2nd century or earlier. And we have a more big problem that we have no evidence about where and when yet. So I think the article must be as it is. Mythologia 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be remambered that we talk about Chinese character not about what the Sun Gods made.Mythologia 12:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What that particular paragraph is saying is that Japan and Japanese people back then (4-6th cent) were being taught for the first time on a massive scale in the 4th, 5th and 6th century how to write in Chinese characters by people of Baekje. Then it isn't until the 8th century when you see definate Japanese written work in Chinese characters. All other Chinese character found in Japan prior to the 8th century were of foreign origin. The significance of Baekje in the 4th-6th cent. was that they taught the Japanese how to write in Chinese characters. If a Japanese person saw some Koguryeo person or Baekje person or some other person in the 2nd Century writing in Chinese characters, they would have just seen pretty pictures written by foreignors that have no meaning to them. But in the 4th thru 6th or 7th Century, the concept of how to write was being taught directly to the Japanese person. For this reason that paragraph must stay.

If you think the fact was "All other Chinese character found in Japan prior to the 8th century were of foreign origin." , you must prove it. If you can't it. You only propose a hypotesis. And the chinese character in 2nd century was written on a pottery as you see. The pottery is yayoi type. I think your hypotesis is practically impossible. Mythologia 12:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Even Japanese themselves admit that it wasn't until the 8th cent. when they start writing so where else do you think writing prior to 8th cent. came from. Also, the importance of the 4th thru 6th cent teaching of how to write is because of its relatively massive scale. If a few migrating Koreans or Chinese teach one or two Japanese how to write in the 2nd Cent. It wouldn't have much of an impact until it is done on a massive level involving the aristocrats of that time who can then pass on that concept to their subjects and followers.

What ever imported Chinese characters or horse shaped artifacts or other foreign products that are found in Japan in the 2nd cent. would have no meaning to the Japanese in the 2nd century and so is not as important even though it could be significant in terms of historical ramifications. When this system of writing was being taught to them on a massive scale during the 4th thru 6th cent. is important because it lead to the massive writing by Japanese themselves in the 8th cent.

It is your hypothesis or POV. Wiki is not for POV.Mythologia 12:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is based on the references and research done by other people. please read all the citations above in archived sections there are more than 30 references and articles other people have brought about this discussion regarding Baekje's influence on Japan.

It is apparently that Japan had writing system in 2nd cent or earlier. This fact is not mentiond in your citation. And more impritent what you talk about is 5th and 6th century but the Kojiki was written form oral tradition in 8th century. You never prove the relation of the beging of history and Bekuje by your citatin with the time difference of 200-300years. The fact that scholars of Bekuje were sent to Japan isn't the evidence of it because Japan had already chinese character in 2nd cent. Mythologia 13:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But it appears that no one knows who wrote the 2nd century writing in Japan other than knowing it is most likely of foreign origin. You must see the significance of the buddhist schools started and run by people of Baekje in Japan in terms of proliferation of reading and writing.

It's really ridiculous. Acceptance of scholars like buddhist needs fundamental literacy. Infant cannot study higher education(such as Buddhism).--Questionfromjapan 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is why it took many centuries. They needed a fundamental level of literacy so it took so many centuries to get to that point 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th centuries. I agree infants can not study higher education, so it took so many centuries.

It is thought that the yayoi people were from around the Yangtze River recently in a learned society. So it is probable that the chinese character was taken Japan with them. But we had no evidence about it. So the fact with evidence is the existence of the chinese character in 2nd cent in Japan only. And as you know Baekje was proved about exitence by chinese text only from 4th cent, and before the 4th cent Baekje's exitence is legendary. It is unreasonalbe to talk about the Baekje' with no evidence, if you want.Mythologia 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ignore the citations above. There are plenty of evidence. Every one seems to agree that writing in Japan prior to 8th Century was of foreign origin. Even Japanese historians point this out. And they know that as buddhist teachings and schools were set up by Baekje, it had a massive impact on the proliferation of reading and writing. And if you look at the DNA data and other data above everyone came to the consensus that the Yayoi people were from Korea and in theory possible from China (Yangtze River). Are you not reading to information above. Everyone agrees that Yayoi are definately from Korea, but there are some theories about China.

We talk about "Beging history is 8c.And the relation Bekje's scholors and beging of writing is not proved", not the 8th Century of foreign origin general. Read again please. Mythologia 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If your not willing to accept all the references and data and archeological citations above and in the archive section which is agreed upon by most international historians, all we can do is tell you to read more multiple references. Because these references are from multiple regions, PBS, Britian, America, Korea and Japan. You still need to mention them in the Japan article with the citation and let the reader decide for themselves if they agree with the dozens of citations or not. We can't just delete the whole sentence cause you don't agree with the dozens of references. Let the readers decide for themselves. Or if you want re-word the paragraph after you read all the references. Maybe you can find a better way to summarize the references.

It looks like that you want to write up about the Baekuje about two points. One is its relation to the beging of history of Japan with no evidence, and the other is disregarding the alliance with Japan and Baekuje in 5th and 6th cent. Japan sent army and fought with Baekuje against Tang, and Japan accepted Beakuje's royal families as hostage. In this surroundings Japan accepted Baekuje's scholar and several tributes. It was not one-sided. Every one pointed out these facts, but you never agree this simple fact.Mythologia 06:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you not reading the references, why do you keep saying no evidence their are over 30 citations and references above about Baekje's relation to Japan in Japans early history. You agree their was a flow of scholars from Baekje to Japan. It doesn't matter what the reason is as long as you acknowledge the flow of information from Baekje to Japan. Now I think we have an understanding and can work with each other to build a more accurate article.

You'd better to read the title "Beging history is 8c.And the relation Bekje's scholors and beging of writing is not proved" your citations and no one prove it yet. We talk about "Begining of history and Begining of writing",and these are all negative as discussed above.
I don't know why you can think that Baekuje sent precious human resource such as scholars and royal families to Japan with no return.Mythologia 06:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember your version of the relation between Japan and Baekje is also a theory. There is another theory that the Yamato are of Baekje origin and the alliance was more of brother nations versus two foreign nations. The theory about Yamato being a expedition force from Baekje is just as accepted as the Japanese exchange of royalty for military. Also, if the Yamato are of Baekje origin you can see why Baekje would send scholars to their brothers in Kyushu. The fact that many of the elite and royal family in Japan have Korean ancestors can also explain their relation. The reason why Japans emperor stated he knows about his ancestorial ties to Korea also adds to this theory. The fact that when one of the imperial tombs were dug up and Korean artifacts started to come out of them, that is when Japan decided that these tombs are sacred and should not be dug up, tells alot to the international community. They wonder why Japan dug up one tomb then decide to stop. Anyway, even you admit Baekje sent "precious human resouce such as scholars and royal families to Japan" so you can see the impact they will have on Japans ability to read and write after that exchange.

We talk about the relation of Japan and Baekuje in 5th and 6th cent. The existence of aliance is thought to be historical fact. About the origin of two countrys is another problem. In what some see as, the country which sent army to help another is more powerful, and in these days the population of Japan was more than Baekuje. But talk it in appropriate point.Mythologia 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In one of the articles above it talks about how more sophisticated weaponary and armor which existed in Korea and Baekje all of a sudden appeared in Japan after their relation to Baekje, this means that what Baekje wanted from Japan was troops not weapon or military technology. If the US uses troops from Mongolia for the war in Iraq today, does that mean Mongolias military is more powerful than US military. You should understand that no matter what the relation between Baekje and Yamato, just because Yamato helped Baekje fight the military of Koguryeo does not mean that Yamato had a stronger military than Baekje. If Baekje and Yamato went to war the nation with more sophisticated technology would probably win as most wars in the past have proven. Korea was at frequent war at this time period. Japan was not at war, this can have an impact of population, military sophistication versus troop availability. If your logic above is to hold then any time a nation sends their military to help another nation then the helping nation is more powerful. Hhhmmm....does that mean Mongolia's military is more powerful than the US military. When South Korea sent troops to Vietnam in the 60s and 70s to help the US military, does your logic still hold. In the Iraq war today, Thailand sent troops to help the US. Everyone knows how much more powerful the Thai military is compared to the US military. Just like Yamato and Baekje. Also, when these nations helped the US they also got a positive feed back from the US. Weather it was economic contracts, US computer technology, better military technology from the US, etc....Does this situation sound familiar. In away the US is paying "tribute".
I think you are disregarding the hostages and tributes. In ancient, the hostages had more importance than now. You'd better to refer another history like Rome. If Baekje had stronger power than Japan, she never sent the hostage of Royal familys.Mythologia
Your confusing Rome and East Asia. Hostages could also mean good faith gesture or a liason type individual. You also have to realize that your theory is under the idea that Baekje and Yamato are not familially related. If Yamato was an expedition force from Baekje, Baekje could send royalty to be safe in Japan. And what kind of hostage takes control of Japans Navy after the fall of Baekje. Your also ignoring military weapons and armor technology that appears in Japan all of a sudden in terms of who was more powerful. Hostages can be seen today as the ambassadors of today or high ranking US officials that go to nations that are helping them in the war in Iraq. If Baekje wasn't at constant war it would not need an alliance with anyone. That was the diplomacy of that time. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Baekje had been at war for a long time this can affect how many other wars they can take on. If Baekje is fighting with Silla, and Koguryeo and Yamato attacks, most people can guess the outcome even if Baekje had the more sophisticated weapons or armor. But if their was a war between Baekje and Yamato, when Baekje was at peace like Yamato was most people will guess a different outcome.
You'd better to refer Chunqiu era in china. The context of hostage and an alliance was same as Rome. You'd bettet to see the hostages were endangered their life.Mythologia 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The hostage or emissaries took control of Japans navy, You know this wasn't exactly what you are thinking, something is alittle off, when a hostage takes command of your navy to win their Kingdom back. Also, alot of the details of that situation came from Koguryeo who was at war with Baekje. And again your ignoring the archeological data and the fact that Baekje was at war on 2 fronts. Alot of people are saying that is why it looks like a family relation cause so many Baekje descendants were in high ranking positions in Japan.
It is natural of royal hostage to have take control the army for renascence of Baekje. If they won, he would be a king of Baekje. About Beakje descendants, I think you thougtht about Emperor Kammu mother, but the mother went back for more than 10 generations, and her family was't so high ranking. Please read up again. You know Baekje descendants exile to Japan after the defeat? Mythologia 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who can have an emperor as a descendant needs to be of some high rank.
Epress, not emperor. Usually in asia the imperial line was male line as you know.Mythologia 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we seemed to agree that Japan was introduced to many new technology by Baekje, at least we can work with that. What ever the reasons for the transfer of technology we seem to agree that their was a transfer. And you agree that more sophisticated military technology and armor was transferred from Baekje in addition to many other new technology. These technology transfers are significant to Japan so the information about Baekje in the Japan article needs to stay.

I think we can make the agreement. But the other side about Japanese military aid to Baekje and other countrys must be mentioned too. And relation of "the begining the history" and Baekje is not proved or negative, so the description must be deleted. Mythologia 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the criteria:

A featured article has the following attributes.

  1. It exemplifies our very best work.
  2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
    • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
    • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;
    • (c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
    • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
    • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
  3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
  4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
  5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.

I'd like to see Japan get nominated and approved. The previous FA nomination comments are not very useful, so I'd like to discuss here exactly how closely this article matchesd the attributes above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tuned out during the recent edit wars (#2e) but prior to them it was really pretty darn good! We were able to get a very good lead section, mostly thanks to Sekicho, and we did some cleanup on the article as a whole. I noted on the talk page some sources for some statements, but didn't put the citations in the article. More citations are certainly needed. The edit wars remain a problem to be solved... Fg2 07:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone cite a source for the statement "96% of high school graduates attend a university, junior college, trade school, or other post-secondary institution"? Is it factually accurate? Fg2 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I can find is a reference that states that 95% graduate from high school [33]. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What citations needed are you talking about? I've already put the sources for all the "citation needed" parts, especially in the Economy section. My opinion is that the article should not be nominated until people stop reverting it back and forth. The pared down version is not up to standard. Should things remain stable and stay as they currently are, then I can support a nomination.--Sir Edgar 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not a one-man show, Sir Edgar. You have obviously failed to come to consensus with the others, and have deleted my citation. Everybody, just take a look at the discussions above and the edit wars. Now this needs to be solved with a wider consensus, before we go into FA nomination.--Endroit 07:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is you who has failed to come to "consensus with the others". As far as I recall, you alone kept reverting that one sentence while I and others edited it back to the original prose.--Sir Edgar 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's your word against mine, Sir Edgar. That's why we need a wider consensus, to determine the points of contention. Unless others step in here, this may go on forever.--Endroit 07:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not look at the edit history? One can see that you kept reverting, despite edits back to the original by me and other users. At 17:52 on May 17 2006, for example, you stated: "Sir Edgar and others, please respond specifically to MY issues in the discussion, if you revert my wording. Others are welcome to correct my grammar/English usage w/o discussion." You were engaging in a one-man battle at the time, as I recall.--Sir Edgar 08:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. That edit was reverted by none other than Sir Edgar at 01:57, 18 May 2006. Look carefully. And who else reverted me besides Sir Edgar? Seems more like a one-to-one battle between you and me, Sir Edgar.--Endroit 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You make it seem like I failed "to come to consensus with others" and now you retract to saying it's "a one-to-one battle between you and me". I think you should be careful with your statements.--Sir Edgar 08:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edgar, I just corrected you by saying that that particular edit (revert-war) was a one-to-one battle between us, rather than my one-man battle; that's an old story. I haven't "retracted" from my statements about the need to reach consensus now, etc., at this point in time. My main point is that everyone needs to evaluate the situation WRT the revert-wars by discussing and reaching consensus.--Endroit 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Japan article is not stable yet and there are disputes on history and whether they are right or wrong. Good friend100 15:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Baekje's Treatment

Doubts

  • Source
  • Culture given by other countries　(Ex.Silk in China)
  • Culture not transmitted from Baekje　(Bridal grave)

Which source do you have doubts about. There are over 30 sources cited above in the archive section. There are a dozen re-copied from archived sources also. The sources are from various nations, PBS, British, American, Korean, Japanese, etc.

Even if part of the culture is given by other countries, you need to mention the nation that gave Japan the culture. That is why China is mention more frequently on information about Buddism in Korea than India is mentioned. Also, part of what was transmitted to Japan by Korea was of Baekje origin, that is why Japan is not identical, but similar to Chinese culture.

Most historians agree Korea transmitted burial graves to Japan, weather it was of Koguryeo or Baekje source?

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because The article fails to meet Criterion 5: "It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars." The ongoing edit war is now a month old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) . (Apologies for forgetting to sign! Fg2 22:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

LOL. The Japanese ruined their own article. LMAO!!! Only people in the world that would vandalize their own country's page. This is hilarious.--222.233.205.228 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No, A lot of Japanese came because the Korean had hijacked the article on Japan. --61.209.162.93 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe it is Koreans only who are referencing and citing documented studies. The references provided are from various sources and wikipedians involved are not only Koreans but other ethnic backgrounds. They are only referencing and citing information, why does this bother the user above.

At least to say the formerly version made a clear mistake. For example the begining of the writing. See this. The chinese charactor in 2nd century and others in Japan.(This page is Japanese only sorry.)[[34]]Mythologia 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is talking about beginning of Japanese being taught how to write themselves on a mass level and not have foreign writing around that was imported. The 2nd Cent. writing is from a foreign source. Even in Korea when they have contact with the Zhou Dynasty in the 7th thru 4th Century BC (BC not AD) you can find things in Korea with Chinese characters and culture. Also in 3rd and 2nd Cent. BC you can find that more foreign technology comes in to Korea (Iron use). Then in the 108 BC with the Chinese invasion hugh aspects of Chinese culture are imported to Korea. The important times on these imports are when the Koreans themselves use this technology and when that particular technology changes that region or country. So if you find something in Japan in the 2nd Cent. from a foreign source, it is just that. An imported item from a foreign source. The importance of Baekje was that they taught Japan how to write on a massive scale that changed things versus writing something and taking with you as you migrate to Japan.

It is impossible to begin revert war with oneside writers only. Do you know who is otherside?>222.233.205.228 Mythologia 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If Koreans came and vandalized the Japan article, then thats their fault and shame. But that doesn't mean Japan has a clean record. About a month ago, Japanese users were caught using sock puppet accounts when voting and also vandalized the entire talk page of the Dokdo article by using sock puppets to overload the talk page with written sentences about Korea's fault, Japan is great, Koreans are trying to steal Takeshima, Koreans have fake information, etc etc. Good friend100 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You think the vandals are Koreans in this areticle? About Dokdo conducts,it looks like that Korean's surprise atatack preceded the events. But,talk about this article. You look like saying a poor excuse. Mythologia 11:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe some of the vandals were Koreans. Koreans are the most susceptible since this is an article about Japan and the Korea-Japan relationship is doing pretty bad. There is an edit war and the article is not stable enough.

"Korean's surprise attack"? you sound like as if Korea has attacked Japan with tomohawk missiles. I'm not trying to say Japan is horrible. To me, it seems like the Japanese editors think the Koreans are all at fault, while their own fellow Japanese users messed up the Dokdo article because they got angry at changing to article name to "Dokdo".

I read that several users are trying to boost the Japan article into a featured article. In my opinion, articles like Japan, Korea, Dokdo, Tsushima Basin etc etc are going to have a hard time getting to that position. For example, take a look at the Tsushima Basin or Dokdo article. Editors are disputed about several things that they cannot decide on. Scan all the featured articles or previous featured articles. They are all articles that have no disputes and are stable (i.e a bicyle or an iPod). Good friend100 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know several problem around the Japan-Korea relations, so we have many points of controversy. For the reason we must talk about this article not others. Mythologia 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Japan article is very broad, considering all the information we can write in it. Tsushima Basin or Dokdo are subjects under the Japan article as well as the Korea article. They are points that are controversial and its not going to be easy to solve them. This is one reason why its not going to be easy putting the Japan or Korea article up as a featured article. Good friend100 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting referenced material

A few months ago people kept deleting information about Korea and their interaction with ancient Japan. So various people started asking why they were deleting this info. The users that were deleting the info stated they wanted more references. So a few other users came back with multiple references over 30 and re-entered the information about Yayoi and Baekje and other cultural influences. Then someone modified the multiple references to only show up as one footnote saying it was taking up space and looked ridiculous to have a sentence with footnotes going out the 7 or 8. Then the references brought to the discussion sections were archived. Now we are having the same arguement we had months ago and someone keeps deleting referenced and cited material from the article about Baekje and some one completely deleted the original paragraphs about Chinese and Korean culture. I know other users went thru this arguement a month ago, but I think it is time for this question again. Why are referenced material being deleted without any logical explaination.

Ok first of all, whoever wrote this needs to sign their username. Some users are not signing their username and Wikipedia asks you sign your name.
Some Japanese users just cannot admit that they are partly descendents of Baekje and Korea. The deleted the info because "they wanted more references". That quote? That's just an excuse to delete the information. So, literally, I could delete all the information on the Japan article that are not referenced? What kind of logic is that? "Without any logical explanation"? Yes, no logical information. Deleting information without any good reason can be considered vandalism and I can refer you to a coordinator if that keeps happening.
Some of you need to change your attitude toward Korea. If you want to mess things up, go do it on a forum or something. This is Wikipedia and the talk pages are there for discussion. Good friend100 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't anybody have anything to say? Good friend100 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I really wish the people who are here for purely political reasons (on both sides of the issue) would leave so that the article can be edited properly. Mythologia, you are a good example (though there is fault on the other side as well). Presumably your motivation in editing this articles is to protect the image of Japan in the eyes of the world from what you (incorrectly) believe is the negative connotation of early Korean influence on Japanese culture. What is ironic is that your actions symbolically do hundreds of times more damage to the image of Japan than any substantive damage that may be done by the edits of others. As someone who has lived here on and off for the past 20 years and who has a great fondness for Japan, I can say that people like you are a clearly a minority. But you make it very difficult for me to convince others that this is the case. You are hurting your own cause and you don't even realize it.日本語でもいいから、何度も削除している段落について具体的に何の異議があるか教えてもらえますか？-Jefu 16:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Please read 'Begining History'. I think the answers of your question is already written. My purpose is realization of "I think we can make the agreement. But the other side about Japanese military aid to Baekje and other countrys must be mentioned too. And relation of "the begining the history" and Baekje is not proved or negative (as follows), so the description must be deleted. Mythologia 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)". If you can agree with this point, plesae join to write both sides interchanges.Mythologia 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
For example read this article Battle of Baekgang. The interchages were both sides, not one side. In Japanese history this war is thought to be a historical major event. Mythologia 08:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this conduct of unmentioning the one side of interchanges is The Bias of this artcle.Mythologia 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
(a summary in Japanse) あの記述には明白な誤りがあり（下記参照）、また、双方向の記述になっておらず、改良中です。内容については、'Begining History'のところを見てください。Mythologia 08:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


The problem we discuss now is 'the relation of Japanese Beging history in 8th century and Baekje's scholors and also the relation to beging of writing in Japan. ' And it is apparently nagative because
  1. Begining of Useing chainese charactor in Japan is at least in 2nd century.See this. The chinese charactor in 2nd century and others in Japan.(This page is Japanese only sorry.)[[35]]
  2. Kojiki (the first Japanese history )which commented in the artcle was written from the voice transfer of 'Hiedanano Are(稗田阿礼)in 8th century. (The becomings of Baekje scholars in Japan was 5-6 cnet., so at least to say the becoming was not the final straw.)
（Japanese）問題となっていいるのは、日本の８世紀の日本の歴史記述の始まりが百済の学者によるという記述と、それと関連する漢字使用の始まりについてです。これは、明らかに現在、関連が否定的にありつつあります。なぜなら、
  1. 日本における漢字使用の始まりは、少なくとも２世紀までさかのぼります。これを見てください。[[36]]
  2. 最初の歴史書である古事記は稗田阿礼の口伝を８世紀に書き起こした物です。（百済の学者は５－６世紀で２００年から３００年の隔絶があるので、少なくとも来訪がきっかけにはなっていないといえます。）Mythologia 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Okay. I understand some of the points that you are trying to make. Let's deal with them one issue at a time. And I really hope the Koreans and the Japanese here can all be reasonable and try and get along. There is no culture (or language) in the world that is closer to Korea than Japan, and no culture in the world closer to Japan than Korea. After all, part of the reason we are having this conversation is that there have been such close ties between the two since the dawn of history. I think we should all just kiss and make up and try to move past things that happened 50 or 60 years ago that none of us actually participated in (by which I don't mean to make light of it, but dwelling on it isn't a productive use of anyone's time).
First, regarding Mythologia's claim that Chinese characters were in use from the second century, The page that you reference is certainly a valid one, but I think we need to be cautious about making too much of it. If you look at the examples of pottery that have been unearthed and found to be decorated with kanji, the earliest examples from the second and third century only show the use of single characters like "rice paddy", "peace", "large", etc. I would hardly conclude from these examples that Japan was literate by the second or third century. They seem to be more decorative than for the purpose of conveying meaning. Western artists sometimes decorate things with Chinese characters too, but it doesn't mean they can use them to write anything meaningful. The examples do show that the Japanese (and let's not forget that this pottery may have been produced by immigrant clans from the Korean peninsula) were aware of kanji by at least the second or third century, which is an important point to make), but not that they were using them to record anything meaningful. Further evidence of this comes from the fact that the examples in the article that are more symoblic in nature (for example, the one that says 王賜 or "gift of the king" and the one that says 辛亥年, which most likely means "the year 471 AD") are both much later, from the fifth century.
Bottom line: I think we can probably edit the language in the controversial paragraph in a way to indicate that Chinese characters began to appear in Japan as early as the second century (which seems to be a fact), but I think the accepted view is still that the use of kanji as a literary tool really took hold from around the fifth or sixth century. Would this solution be acceptable to everyone?-Jefu 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Make sure of 'The problem we discuss now is 'the relation of Japanese Beging history in 8th century and Baekje's scholors and also the relation to beging of writing in Japan. ' And it is apparently nagative'. I only fix the description too excess to be correct. About the pottery and propinquity of culture, I think it natural because the Jomon lived in South Korean Peninsula, and Yayoi who is thought to come from the SE China, lived in in South Korean Peninsula too. So Japan and South Korean nations have same origins, though the later histories of two regions were very different.Mythologia 11:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
About the view ' the use of kanji as a literary tool really took hold from around the fifth or sixth century ' is also negative or at least doubtful. Because in chanese history Book of Later Han Japan 'Wa' had diplomacy with China Houhan and Japan was gifted great seal as feudality (mentioned below). So it is thought that in 57 A.D. Japanese government clerks could read the diplomatic documents. And make sure of the Kojiki was't written until in 8th cent, so it is thought that the begining of history had other trigger. Mythologia 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Book of Later Han:In chinese
"建武中元二年 倭奴國奉貢朝賀 使人自稱大夫 倭國之極南界也 光武賜以印綬"
Book of Later Han:In English
"In 57 A.D. Na of Wa(Japan) brought a tribute. The servant called himself an ambassador. Na is in far south of Wa. Emperor Guangwu of Han gave a great seal as feudality.
Book of Later Han:In Japanese
"建武中元二年（57年）、倭の奴国、貢を奉り朝賀す。使人、自ら太夫と称す。倭国の極南界なり。光武、賜ふに印綬を以てす".後漢の光武帝が奴国からの朝賀使に（冊封のしるしとして）印綬を送った。
And about this diplomacy read also "倭奴国王印" in Japanese Wiki [[37]].
I'm sorry Mythologia, but it is much easier to understand what you are trying to say when you write in Japanese. What do you mean when you keep saying something is "negative"? If you mean that it presents a negative image or view of Japan, that is up to the interpretation of the reader. It is not a reason to depart from historical evidence or create theories that you wish were true. And the fact that an envoy traveled to China and obtained a seal with Chinese writing on it (a story that I'm well aware of) is only evidence that the Chinese could write, not the Japanese recipient. How can you take this to assume that the Japanese used kanji, were literate and understood anything beyond what the Chinese explained to them regarding the markings on that particular seal? Such seals were presented to ambassadors from all kinds of Asian satellite nations. Are you saying that all such societies were literate in Chinese characters merely because they received these seals? I have read several books that specialize in ancient Japanese history (all in Japanese) and I have never come across anyone who argues that the Japanese were literate prior to the fifth or sixth century. As I said, I am in agreement that we should make mention that kanji begin to appear in Japan as early as the second or third century, but you still have not shown me anything to refute the commonly held view (among Japanese historians) that literacy took hold around the fifth or sixth century. If you have such a source, please present it. The theories that you seem to be creating do not follow from the evidence that you site. 返事は日本語でもお願いします。-Jefu 13:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean that your opinon of this point is probably incorrect. Sorry for my odd mode of expression. About the beginig of chinese character, I write above "So it is thought that in 57 A.D. Japanese government clerks could read the diplomatic documents. ". This fact show dubitation of introduction of chinese character in 5th and 6th. And chinse character of 2nd cent. that is refered above is discovered recently, I think the papers in Englsh don't buck up yet.
(in Japanse)私が言いたかったのは、あなたのこの問題に対する意見はたぶん間違っているということです。変な表現ですみません。漢字の伝来についてですが、私が書いたのは「だから、５７年頃、日本の官吏は外交文書を読めただろう。」ということです。この事実は、５，６世紀の漢字の伝来という事に疑問を投げかけます。それから、２世紀の漢字の記述は、最近発見されたので、英語の論文ではまだ追いついていないでしょうね。Mythologia 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Make the history section as broad and vague as possible. I think that's the best solution here. We cannot possibly address all the particulars, all the probabilities and all the unanswered questions in one article without making some POV judgments. If the only problem is that everything is being attributed to Baekje, then we can reword that sentence (or make a broader statement about the exchanges with Baekje) and move the particulars to a separate article, where they can be described as accurately and neutrally as possible. - Sekicho 10:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is, the Japanese language was heavily influenced by Chinese charecters. Hey, I am learning Japanese currently, and it is very similar to Korean. The structure of a sentence is nearly the same. A lot of words that have a Kanji counterpart are pronounced the same too.
And whats with the Japanese usage here? Is it like a "secret message talking" together or something? Erm, other's would like to read the discussion too. Good friend100 21:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice going, editors, making a bad impression in front of someone who respects your country. Good friend100 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


I wonder how Japanese editors are going to resond to this. Good friend100 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The gaining of writing and Buddhism is very important to the history of Japan. The problem with this passage is that it makes it sound like Baekje invented all these wonderful things while Japan sat in the dark and chewed cud, and then Baekje gave them to Japan out of the graciousness of good Koreans. In reality, Baekje was merely conveying Chinese knowledge, and the gifts were a thank-you because Japan had given Baekje military back-up and kept them alive. I tried to reword this to make it less clouded by nationalism. Ashibaka tock 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your description of this article. It's almost what I want to write. I changed "chinese writing system" to sophisticated "chinese writing system". Mythologia 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefu: When you are requesting a translation in Japanese please say what you are doing in English so that it doesn't look like you two are having some sort of covert communication. Ashibaka tock 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey we don't need to point out specific people. About Baekje and Japan...Chinese culture went from Korea to Japan. The reason why the Baekje court went to Japan was because of Goguryeo. Goguryeo, the most powerful of the three kingdoms claimed land in Manchuria and then waged war on Silla and Baekje to unify Korea.
Eventually the Baekje kingdom fell to Goguryeo hands and the Baekje people ran away to Japan. Baekje did not go to Japan to give "the graciousness of good Koreans". They went to Japan to escape Goguryeo. So, the Baekje people met the Japanese and taught them, introducing both Buddhism and Chinses calligraphy, which developed into Hiragana.
This wasn't a "thank you gift" and Japan never gave Baekje military backup, that was later, after Unified Silla. In fact, all of Korea had a common enemy against Japanese pirates. Baekje merely ran away to Japan and taught the Japanese. This is the reason why Japanese people have Baekje ancestors today. Good friend100 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
>Good friend100, Are you not aware at all about Battle of Baekgang, the Battle between Yamato Japan, and its ally, Baekje, against the allied forces of Silla and the Tang Dynasty of China. in 663? Read the article and think again.Mythologia 18:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both the Cambridge History and Sansom demonstrate a direct connection between the Silla war and the rise of Buddhism. The presence of Baekje immigrants practicing Buddhism had zero effect on Japanese culture. Ashibaka tock 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Baekje court eventually lost the wars and retreated to Japan, where they introduced Buddhism and Chinese calligraphy. Good friend100 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
>Good friend100, Are you not aware at all about Battle of Baekgang, the Battle between Yamato Japan, and its ally, Baekje, against the allied forces of Silla and the Tang Dynasty of China. in 663? Read the article and think again.Mythologia 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First read what Jefu has written. Its pretty hard for me to digest if I was in a certain position.

Chill out, I get the message after 3 cut and paste messages. Good friend100 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Japan helped Baekje, but Baekje lost the war, so their help was nulled. I already explained this, the Baekje court ran to Japan to escape execution (or slavery). It wasn't a "thank you gift" that is not right. The Baekje people moved to Japan because of war and the Baekje kingdom eventually crumbled under Koguryeo. Good friend100 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Late Tokugawa shogunate:Possible copyvio:Possible deletion

Late Tokugawa shogunate is currently being considered for deletion because of possible copyvio. Can anyone either revert this article to an earlier non-problematical version, or start a new good stub? If you do either of these, please leave a note in the article's Talk page. Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

buddhism

or, how about the wording of these:

  • In the sixth century, visiting envoys from Paekche contributed to the adoption of Buddhism by Japan [38]
  • According to Japanese sources, Buddhism was introduced from the Korean kingdom of Paekche in either 538 or 552 as part of a series of diplomatic exchanges that also led to a broader awareness of the beliefs and material culture of China and Korea [39]

Appleby 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you make it sound like Japan did nothing to deserve this kindness. Both of the sources I've quoted (which are standard texts for Japanese history) demonstrate that the Baekche were struggling and sent an envoy to introduce Buddhism as a thank-you for the military support Japan continuously provided throughout the period. Ashibaka tock 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source how Japan gave military backup? You repeated this already and I'm wondering if it is really true. Good friend100 18:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
>Good friend100, Are you not aware at all about Battle of Baekgang, the Battle between Yamato Japan, and its ally, Baekje, against the allied forces of Silla and the Tang Dynasty of China. in 663? Read the article and think again.Mythologia 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Battle of Baekgang was in 663 against Silla and Tang, Buddhism was introduced to Japan by Paekche in 538, how can you state Buddhism and other technology transfers that happened a hundred years before be called a gift for military support which did not happen yet. And your forgetting they lost. Thank you for lossing the war with us??

Prior to that, by 663, many people of Baekje had immigrated to Japan, bringing technologies and culture with them Does this mean the Baekje people went to Japan before the battle? Then the "thank you" gift makes no sense at all. The introduction of the article is too misleading. It sounds as if Korea and Japan were good friends back then.

Anyways, the Silla and Tang Dynast won the battle. The Baekje court sailed to Japan and taught the Japanese. I'm not trying to say Japan was a primitive place with half naked people running around a fire. Both China and Korea were both culturally advanced than Japan, but Japan was still an organized country.

The reason why I keep writing that the Baekje court taught the Japanese, is because, like Jefu said, some users believe Korea did not have a large influence on Japan, and to my opinion, their attitude toward the Korean influence is not very respected. The point is, Korea influenced Japan. Good friend100 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior to that, by 663, many people of Baekje had immigrated to Japan, bringing technologies and culture with them and Prior to that, by 663, Japan aided Korean nations military support or had some influences For example read this article Gwanggaeto_Stele. You are clearly willing to write one sided influence of Korea to Japan. But of course the two area had influenced eachother. And Wiki is not the advertising display, but a dictionary, as you know.Mythologia 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the article on Gwanggaeto Stele? It was altered with lime powder by the Japanese historian who had possession of it. All historians do not follow those altered portions and wonder why Japan still uses it as a reference.

And Wiki is not the advertising display, but a dictionary, as you know I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia.

"Japan aided Korean nations military support" Maybe for the Baekgang battle. If Japan was so friendly with Korea what about Japanese pirates during Unified Silla or Chosun?

The Gwanggaeto Stele has nothing to do with this. The stele was erected by Goguryeo which claimed land in Manchuria and China when Goguryeo was at its most powerful stage. The Japanese aided Korean forces, thats something I didn't expect to come out of Wikipedia so clearly.

The Japanese, during the annexation period of Korea in 1910, rewrote some of the writings on the stele, making it look as if Japan did nothing, or helped Korea. What the Japanese did can be still found on the stele. How does the stele have to do with "Japan's aiding of Korean nations"

We are talking about Baekje's influence on Japan, not a stele that was vandalized. Good friend100 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the island of Japan had Baekje immigrants. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that any Japanese people wanted anything to do with these immigrants. Before the ruler of Baekje sent an envoy in exchange for Japan's help, the immigrants were seen as practicing an alien religion. Ashibaka tock 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Burden of proof is on me? Are you accusing me of not being able to prove that the Japanese wanted to do anything with the Baekje people? What are you even talking about? The point is, Koreans went to Japan and influenced their culture. I told you this before, I'm not accusing Japan that "Japan was an uncivilized country until the Koreans saved them by teaching them." I'm not trying to glorify Korea. Merely, I am pointing out that Japan was influenced by Korean and Chinese culture heavily.
Try learning Korean, and see the striking similiarities in the pronounciation of Kanji and the word structure.
The reason why I keep saying that Korea heavily influenced Japan is because it is true, and because, in my opinion, some users are denying that Korea influenced Japan and that "Korea was merely a gateway for Chinese culture to Japan" or Korean culture did not influence Japan a lot. Remember, about 10 years ago, a Japanese prince (or part of the Japanese royal family I can't remember), announced his ancestors were from Baekje? Good friend100 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Are you accusing me of not being able to prove that the Japanese wanted to do anything with the Baekje people?" Yes. Because I have cited sources, and you have not. That is what I mean by "burden of proof".

"Try learning Korean, and see the striking similiarities in the pronounciation of Kanji and the word structure." Huh?! Are you saying that Korean immigrants came over during the formative period of the Japanese language? The passage I'm discussing is roughly 6th century CE!

"Some users are denying that Korea influenced Japan" -- Those are the users who were removing your paragraph from the article entirely. I have opted to fix it up instead so that it isn't biased towards Korean nationalism (which I think you'll agree doesn't belong in a summary article about Japan). My version is backed up by two major works of Japanese history, so I believe it is safe to say that it is more accurate than this stuff about Baekje immigrants showing up beforehand. Ashibaka tock 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? You are responding literally as a weapon like everyone else opposite of my opinion. Korea in the 6th century did not use Chinese. "Huh" for you! From the beginning, Koreans used the Korean language, it was just that they didn't have a written alphabet until the 1400s. I am not saying Japan didn't even have a language, its just that when Koreans came to Japan, their language was heavily influenced. Hiragana was made from Chinese. Japan definitely had a language by the 600s, but the point is that Baekje heavily influenced Japan is because they introduced Chinese charecters to Japan.
Good job on your sources wait until I find mine. Don't do the "I have sources you don't have any" as a weapon. Just because they are sources, doesn't mean that they are always 100% true and it goes for any source.
Yes "some users deny Korea influenced Japan" the point is that there are users that decide that they can distort history. Those users, I don't care if they are Korean or Japanese, they need to realize that Korea influenced Japan and it wasn't just a "Oh Korea was only a gateway for Chinese culture". Good friend100 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciating Baekje, Silla, etc

I just can't stand some people when they pronounce Korean words incorrectly.

Below shows how to pronounce some Korean words (in a better way).

Baekje: Baek-jeh

"Baehk", not "Baik"

Goguryeo: Goh-goo-ryo

Silla: Shil-la

not "Cilla"

Koryeo: Goh-ryo

Sorry, if you still have a hard time with this stuff, I'm not a linguist. Good friend100 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Imjin War

But Ming China came to Korea's aid and after several defeats and following Hideyoshi's death, Japanese troops were quickly withdrawn in 1598.

I can't believe that I have to repeat this again. Peoples!!! Japan did not retreat from Korea during the Imjin War because Hideyoshi died! Some users keep writing like this and it seems like an excuse to cover defeat at the hands of the Chinese and Korean forces.

The Japanese lost the Imjin War because firstly, China's manpower and military was a match for Japan, secondly, the Koreans were ready for the second invasion, and thirdly, Admiral Yi's naval victories in 1597 and 1598 prevented Japanese supplies and reinforcements from reaching Japanese troops in the north.

Hideyoshi's death did have a profound effect on the Japanese commanders, and they hurried to keep it a secret so Japanese morale wouldn't drop. The Japanese commanders were already planning to retreat from Korea, and Japanese armies began moving south before Hideyoshi died. Good friend100 18:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

After the Hideyoshi's death, Council of five regents ordered army to reteat from Korea. Commandants of expeditionary force had no such power to decide the retreat. Admiral Yi's victories in 1597 were after the armistice agreement with Japan and Ming for evacuation . And in the battle Japan navy had big damage, but the evacuation was completed without problems. So the article would be But Ming China came to Korea's aid and following Hideyoshi's death, Japanese troops were quickly withdrawn in 1598. . Mythologia 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence misleads that because of Hideyoshi's death, Japan retreated. Japan retreated because of losses on land and from Admiral Yi. Good friend100 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality of this article keeps going down.

The recent edits and changes to the content of the Japan article is making its quality drop quickly. The introduction is too vaguely written and not helpful at all. More importantly, there are sentences that run unnecessarily. You should not write sentences like that for a concise article that is supposed to focus on only the most important facts. For example, you don't say: "During the morning school break, Jane gave Mary the first piece of peppermint candy she ever had, but Mary already had gotten a lot of other types of candy that she bought at the store earlier in the day. The latter part is secondary and almost irrelevant. Don't write like that, especially for political purposes. This article is supposed to get to the point, not explain side notes.--Sir Edgar 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is concise and neutral. And, it is liberated.The number of characters that can be used has been limited. We will make a concise article. --Kamosuke 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There are too many controversial issues during Japan's history between other countries for the article to be truly agreed by everyone. Good friend100 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary the quality is getting significantly better and the content is more neutral now. This article has been at the mercy of the group of Korean pov-pushing nationalists way too long. This is an article about Japan after all, not a vanity gallery for the Koreans to brag about their proud achievements in ancient history and whine how the Japanese are ignorant ingrates to the great Koreans. --61.10.12.190 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your not helping this article by aggravating the other users with name calling. Good friend100 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan/Archive_7&oldid=1136359144"