Jump to content

Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Moving forward

The printing issue seems to have been resolved, but I am still interested in eliminating any defects in this article, so I am soliciting recommendations from all users. I want to discuss the question: what specific steps can be taken to improve this article? I will be proactive in making the article better and hope that other users will be as well.TH1980 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The printing section issue, for one, wasn't resolved. All that emerged was that a claim was made of a major impact; this was shown to be untrue. You wittled it down to book looting. I showed how bizarre that looked. So you reintroduced what you had eradicated, which still makes no sense, because it does not measure up to the criterion of influence. These points were made, and you did not grasp their import, and now have convinced yourself we have consensus. We don't. That this ongoing mess was foreseen and predicted in the debate over deletion has been confirmed consistently in the editing history ever since, which shows how intrinsically unstable the page is. Imaginatorium is quite correct. It's a pity, but that comes of not being amenable to an intelligent neutral approach to a hot-button topic, by a failure to see the nationalist point-scoring that has contaminated this subject for a century. Japan, and then China, devastated the magnificent achievements of the early Choson civilization, but that is no excuse for this kind of retaliation, in 2016.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the citations that are now in the article do mention the books and moveable type from Korea as being part of "cultural exchange" from Korea to Japan. Do you agree that Marceau is a reliable source, because, upon checking his essay, he clearly notes that Korean moveable type was one of "two overseas sources [that] combined to stimulate the development of domestic printing technology." Do you not call that influence? Are you proposing a change to this section or are you proposing that the entire section on printing be deleted?CurtisNaito (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the article should be left alone. Wikipedia is full of crap, and I am not a deletionist. It won't get past GA, because the two editors controlling the page are not amenable to close analysis of sources, the relevant scholarship and rational compromise with other editors, several of whom have disappeared out of sheer exasperation. They compromise at the very last moment, and the resulting fix is, as in the printing and neo-Confucian sections, ridiculous. I'm sure, in competent hands, that something eventually might be made of this material, but to attempt to fix it in the present environment is only a recipe for nightmares.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It won't get past GA—yeah, it will, if History of Japan could. Seriously, lots of unforgiveable horsehsit gets through—the Bicholim conflict made it to GA. These guys are just going to keep nomming it til it gets through—just as CurtisNaito re-nommed History of Japan twelve minutes after it was delisted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I won't lose any sleep if it does. It's ironic, that the only good items added to the page are those that have been corrective of the primary bullshit, by editors who argued and argue for deletion, or editors who think it should never be nominated for GA. So if the two whose POV pushing has made working here a nightmare do seek, and manage to obtain, some obscure glory by 'renomming' it will be an award earned by parasitism.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The comment about "parasitism" was not appropriate here. All Wikipedia articles are built through collaboration. I've added most of the citations that are currently in the article and fixed plenty of your edits. However, almost no Wikipedia member makes an article single-handedly. I do not agree that "the article should be left alone". That will not help anything. If the article really does have major problems, it likely has smaller problems as well. Tell me in concrete terms the changes you want to see, starting perhaps with the smaller issues, and we can gradually improve the article from there.TH1980 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The most concrete problem is that you refuse to sufficiently familiarize yourself with the literature on the subject. This is far from the first time you've been told, and the problems it causes have been demonstrated in great detail here and elsewhere. We've come to expect nothing more than that you will ignore it—again—and bury the discussion—again. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You told me yourself recently that you are "not familiar with the sources". You can see from all the new information I have added to the article that I am familiar with the sources. The overwhelming majority of the article was not cited until I fixed it up with CurtisNaito and others, and it was only after I fixed the article up that it's class was upgraded. I know that my edits are fine, but even so I have still tried to compromise with others and have worked cooperatively with other editors. However, if my edits really are not up to your standards, then you can build the article up to GA status yourself. I will not stop you. However, if you do not have time for that project, then you can either help me do it, or just let me do me do it myself with whoever is willing to work cooperatively with me.TH1980 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, you've demonstrated time and again that you are not familiar with the sources, which is why these problems have arisen in the first place. Also, given the months of disruption you and CN caused at History of Japan, nobody here is about to believe that you're going to "allow" any of us to improve the article ourselves. Oh, look—you're burying the discussion again. Same pattern as always—keep burying the conversation into we all give up, and then pretend our silence is "consensus" and renominate. I guess we'll see you at ANI again in a couple of months. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh-uh. All the stuff I wrote above about this discussion being civil? This thread is heading in a very bad direction and I strongly encourage editors involved to refactor their comments. Discuss the content, not other editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Piotrus—'twould be nice, but unfortunately we're dealing with behavioural problems going back at least three years and spanning several articles. One of the editors has been blocked twice for these behavioural problems. These problems have to be kept front and centre, as they are why progress has been so exasperatingly slow. Did you skip the part about how TH1980 simply reinserted the bit about printing that had been causing so much debate? That's a behaviour pattern. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It was not clear. What would be, would be diffs or quotes and links to sections showing consensus for removal of given content, and a diff showing it was restored. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I had thought that there was consensus to include the material in some form (three users seemed to agree), but even if I did misread the situation, I titled this section "moving forward" in the hopes that we could think less about the past and more about improvements to the current version of the article. In accordance with your advice, I will make sure to discuss only article content from now on. Also, if you have any good ideas on how to improve the article's current content, please do not hesitate to either edit the article yourself, or else to post your suggestion on this talk page for further discussion.TH1980 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem with this "article" is much more fundamental. It reads like a bizarre shopping list, with no coherent theme. Of course there was massive influence from Korea on Japan, but this influence is spread over 2000+ years, and every field of human existence. Imagine why there is no WP article titled "French influence on English culture", not to mention "Chinese influence on Japanese culture" (see the GA review). Just to take a specific example: the section titled Science, medicine, and math starts with one sentence about sending "soothsayers, doctors, and calendrical scholars" in 553, then there is a jump of more than 1000 years ... (oh, no, it doesn't; that was a typo). Well anyway, I think that really the article should be deleted; the GA nomination was obviously absurd, because it would need a somewhat longer lead to summarise what it is about, and it is difficult to do that for a shopping list. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I see that the GA review does mention a Chinese influence on Korean culture article, which seems to be a sort of corollary to this one. I agree that the lead ought to be longer though.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right, so there is. But Chinese influence on Korean culture is a similar sort of shopping list. What would you write to summarize a shopping list? Imaginatorium (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The failed deletion review also mentioned Spanish influence on Filipino culture and Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures. As for the intro, my advice is that we focus on mentioning the article's five constituent components: "Prehistoric contacts and the Jomon-Yayoi transition", "Korean peninsular influences on ancient and classical Japan", "Artistic influence", "Cultural transfers during Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea", and "Historiography". I advise that we include a summary or a few examples of each of these topics.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Though I'm satisfied with the structure of the article myself, just to throw out the idea, there are some similar articles structured outright as lists such as the featured article List of Chinese inventions.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I added an expanded introduction. I am still taking requests from any users on how to improve the article.TH1980 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Request: take a few months off to thoroughly familiarize yourself with the literature. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I am familiar with the sources. I've added more academic sources to the article than any single user. You told me that you are not familiar with the sources. However, for the purposes of this part of the talk page, all that I want to know is: do you know of any problems with the current article's content? If you don't know of any, there's no need to post further in this part of the talk page. Let's keep the discussion on track.TH1980 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Any response to this should focus on sources, not on anyone's POVs or their presumed knowledge of something or lack of thereof. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am really not sure what is the best strategy for this article. I just removed the sentence: "Japan's capital between 710 and 784 was Nara, a Korean word meaning 'country'." -- which is true, in that there is a word nara in modern Korean*, but then, there is a language in Eritrea called Nara, and a river in Russia called Nara. Read the discussion about the etymology of Nara: this is just one fringe theory, which should not be taken out of context, as though significant... By "not sure", I mean that the article is so frankly ridiculous, that it will not confuse anyone with a brain, and it might be better to let the shopping list expand indefinitely, to keep it that way, rather than trying to make it reasonable. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Just on that, which you often see, the OKorean form may in turn reflect a Koguryo borrowing of a Han period Chinese dialect spoken in the northern Chinese commanderies, like Lelang. Whatever, it was transmitted somehow to Old Japanese as the word for their capital. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I know that you have favored deleting the article altogether in the past. Any user can open a deletion review to see if there is consensus for deletion, but as long as there is consensus to keep the article, there should be some guidelines we can use to improve the content. As for Nara, I did notice from the main article that there are several theories, but the source I cited for it was added to the article by Nishidani[1], so I supposed that the source at least was good enough. I'm fine with removal, but my own view, after listening to other users, is now similar to the opinion that Piotrus' explained above. "it is sadly not our job to say, in text, whether a scholarship piece is bad or good. We can refrain from using some, if there is a consensus here on its quality. Otherwise, the best we can do is to note the contradiction… we cannot discard them - we can just try to assign them less due weight". Therefore, when a reliable source makes a claim of Korean influence, we'll keep it in the article, but if there are also alternative theories denying Korean influence in other reliable sources, we'll add those as well alongside the original claim. The same thing is done in the Nara article, it mentions each claim equally. I've read most of the available literature on Korean influence on Japanese culture, and I don't think that this article is likely to expand a great deal further. I think that it already covers the great majority of the claims currently in existence. If you still favor deletion, I suppose you could open a deletion review, but as long as the article still exists, I think we can keep it manageable and neutral using Piotrus' standard. I appreciate your comments on this matter.TH1980 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The source was added by me, yes, in a long section,Background which alerted readers that all that follows is to be read as part of a highly controversial century-long set of arguments. The first ploy was to eject it from the page - that didn't work. The next step was to bury it at the very bottom under a different title Historiography, where probably it won't be read, and which of course is misleading. The third point was to pick out of it the fact that 奈良/乃樂 prob is of peninsula origin, a peninsula word mind you probably of Chinese origin. If you wanted a historiography of the question, it would be several times longer than this page. Ultimately this has never been a collegial effort, because those who have tried to contribute have invariably found that the final form is insistently that either you or the other chap decide on. And that's why it's pointless helping out.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I never tried to delete the background from the article. I moved it to the bottom because it was noted that parts of what you inserted at the top of the article were almost exact repeats of sentences and viewpoints already long since included at the bottom of the article. At the time I never heard you object. A historiography section was a good way to express modern views on old events, so, chronologically, I put it all at the bottom to sum the situation up. Do you want that whole section moved to the top instead? Actually, I don't think a single citation that you inserted into the article is not still in the article, and I have always taken your advice into account, like when I deleted most of the citations to Rhee et al. Obviously, everyone has an equal say on what gets to stay in the article, and it seems to me that your contributions have all been maintained. Thus, there's no reason why you shouldn't put forward additional suggestions for discussion, like perhaps your ideas on how to include the etymology of Nara in the article, if you have any more such suggestions.TH1980 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The idea that Nara comes from the modern Korean nara, somehow, is at best a fringe theory. (In fact most of the theories look like something noted by a dictionary-scanner.) In any event, even if by the wildest chance the name Nara was somehow derived from Korean, this really is not an influence on "Government and administration", unless you are just determined to list every conceivable link of any sort. That is why the article (already) reads like a shopping list. It does not read like a real essay, just a collage of pasted factoids. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the scholarship is structured in a similar way though. For example, have you read William Wayne Farris's "Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures"? It is structured in the same way as this article, going through all Korean influences on Japanese weaponry, government, weaving, etc., section by section. If you are arguing for deletion of the article, then a deletion review is the place for that. If you are not arguing for deletion of the article, then we just need suggestions on how the existing material can be presented more clearly.TH1980 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I was addressing the issue of the claim of "Korean influence on Government etc" in the etymology of Nara. I have not read Farris's book, and doubt if I will; I do not claim to be an expert in this field at all, but I can detect the noise of grinding axes. For a start, the first section about prehistoric transfer of rice growing has surely nothing to do with "Korea" or "Japan": it is the transfer from China, down the peninsula, and across the archipelago. Imagine if an article on "French influence on English culture" had stuff about prehistoric movements of people like the beaker folk, or the creators of Stonehenge. There are lots of bits of shared Celtic culture across Britanny and Great Britain, but it would be quite anacronistic to title them as above. So perhaps that section should be removed from this article, to something about Japanese prehistory. For example. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not feel that we should eliminate it altogether. The "Korean" role in the Jomon-Yayoi transition in Japan is dealt with extensively in the peer reviewed essay entitled "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". Farris' book mentions the immigration of ancient Korean peninsular peoples in the chapter entitled "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection". Satoru Nakazono described the Jomon-Yayoi transition as a period "characterized by the systematic introduction of Korean peninsula culture". It was more Mumun culture than Chinese culture that was being transferred to Japan. Considering all the scholars emphasizing the role of Korea, I do not feel we should delete it. Do you think that maybe the section can instead be rephrased for neutrality? Is there some other way we can include the opinions of these scholars, like Nakazono and Farris, while maintaining neutrality?TH1980 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as Yayoi pottery is found in Korea, in some sites abundantly. All of these evaluations for the prehistoric period depend on how you read or conjecture the flow and refluxes of populations (of varied kinds) from the peninsula into Kyushu, and back, for there was undoubtedly reverse migration which brought back to peninsular Korea what had been developed in Japan (Mumun pottery neck burnishing etc). That large nos. of peninsular people moved to the Japanese archipelago, developed a culture there, and retained links with peninsula tribes is obvious. But if, as the Chinese and Japanese annals assert, Wa held significant parts of the peninsula for long periods, the reverse flow indicated by pottery renders this one-way model jejunely simplistic.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you possibly suggesting that we add in the theory that Japan ruled southern Korea for a time as "Mimana Nihonfu"? I was not sure if it was within the scope of the article, so I have not mentioned it yet. However, it is mentioned in Rhee et al. (though they personally disagree with it).TH1980 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that. That is a theory, not an established fact. My point throughout is that for the early period there are no 'Koreans' as there are no 'Japanese' since we are dealing with diverse ethnic groups defined geographically, not nationally. People of Baekje descent lines in Japan would have differed from those of Silla, or Koguryo descent, and each immigrant group would have had different influences on Yamato policy, regarding the geopolitical developments in the peninsular. Baekje was an important source for Japanese Buddhism because Baekje strove to adopt many Chinese institutions to cultivate the patronage and military-diplomatic power of the Chinese empire against Silla and Koguryo, for example. So, case by case, you aren't talking about 'Korean' influence, since Korea (like Japan) was a congeries of power centres of varying ethnic units.
The article would have been impeccably neutral, subject to no litigation, and written much more cooperatively had it been entitled: Cultural flows between the Korean peninsular and the Japanese Archepelago.
The third point is that the lead correctly states:'Korean influence on Japanese culture refers to the impact of continental Asian influences transmitted through or originating in the Korean Peninsula on Japanese institutions, culture, language and society. ' Concretely this means, for editors, that the article needs considerable expansion on the Chinese and Indian impacts. Let me illustrate, Fennollosa's outworn opinion on the Tamamushi shrine's statuary is highlighted, merely because in 1912 he used the word 'Corean'. The modern scholarship is far more complex, since much of that has Sui Dynasty characteristics. The only reason this indifferent opinion is retained is because it says 'Corean'. Like much of the superficial stuff here, it's barrel-scraping to get the nationalistic reading over, a 'nationalistic' slant that is completely ill-focused, because we are dealing, for the most part with a general East Asian system of cultural and technological flows that are not ethnic or national.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
This article does not neglect influence that ultimately came from China and India through Korea. There is an entire section on Buddhism, and the article clearly says, "many of the ideas and technologies which filtered into Japan from Korea were originally Chinese". The book by Beatrix von Ragué (who is not nationalist) emphasized the Korean influence on Tamamushi Shrine, but I will add a sentence on the Chinese influence on Tamamushi Shrine later. What concerns me about the rest of what you are saying is the element of original research. Most of the sources just call it "Korean influence", and they all refer only to Korean influence on Japan, not vice-versa. I do not understand why we should adopt a title at variance with the scholarship. For instance, I know that you have read William Wayne Farris' book, which you must know is not nationalist at all, but the relevant chapter in his book is titled "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection". Can you name any article or book chapter named something like, "The Ancient Japanese Archipelago's Mutual Cultural Flows with the Korean Peninsula"? But alright, what about the title of "Cultural flows from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago". This title uses some usual terms like "Japanese Archipelago" when all the sources just call it "Japan", but this title at least reflects the scope of the article and the scholarship, which concerns Korean transfers to Japan. What do you think?TH1980 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
What you call 'original research' means knowledge of the subject matter, as opposed to googling tidbits à la 'Korea'+influence'+'Japan'.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I just checked Beatrix von Ragué. Nowhere in the German original, somewhat dated (1967), does she aappear to write anything to justify what is written here, namely 'is decorated with a uniquely Korean inlay composed of the wings of tamamushi beetles.[71]. See Beatrix von Ragué, Geschichte der japanischen Lackkunst, Walter de Gruyter, 1967 pp.3,5. You'd better cite the whole passage you have in the English version given in the bibliography.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will provide a direct quote in the article. Von Rague says that, "the technique of tamamushi inlay is evidently native to Korea."TH1980 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
So you see my problem with this editing. Through the talk pages I have noted this several times. Had I, for one, not checked the German original, the prior travesty of paraphrase would have been taken on trust you've adjusted, but you should never have tried to misrepresent it in the first place. This has happened all too often to make me feel comfortable with the formatting that doesn't allow all editors to click on each ref note and immediately have the source page on which it was based visible for verification (I did this for an FA article once).Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is the whole discussion in her original text:

Bei der Entstehung der buddhistischen Kunst und Kultur Japans waren zunächst Koreaner und Chinesen als Vermittler und Lehrer tätig, die ältesten Werke hochentwickelter Lackkunst in Japan sind sicherlich von ihnen oder unter ihrem unmittelbaren Einfluß geschaffen worden.

Das früheste erhaltene Beispiel ist der berühmte Tamamushi-Schrein im Hōryū-ji, wohl um die Mitte des 7. Jahrhunderts entstanden. . .So schön und wichtig dieser Schrein auch ist, so wenig kann man ihn jedoch als typisch japanisch bezeichnen, ja nicht einmal mit Sicherheit als japanische Arbeit überhaupt. Der Stil der figürlichen Malerei und der Landschaftsformen erinnert an chinesische Bilder der Ost-Wei- und Nord-Ch’i-Zeit (534-550 bzw.550.577), und noch enger sind die Beziehungen zu Korea. Dort sind bei Ausgrabungen zahlreiche mit Tamamushi-Flügeln unterlegte Metallarbeiten gefunden worden, vor allem in dem sogenannten Goldkronengrab in Kyônju (Südost-Koreas), das aus den 5.-6 Jahrhundert stammt. …Auch in Gräben des koreanischen Kokuryō-Reiches (37 v.Chr.-668 n.Chr.) sind Metall-Zierbeschläge mit dieser Verwendung von Tamamushi-Flügeln gefunden worden, es handelt sich also bei Tamamushi-Einlagen offensichtlich um eine in Korea beheimatete Technik. In Japan gibt es außer dem Tamamushi-Schrein kein weiteres Beispeil dieser Dekorationsweise. Einige dekoirative Elemente innerhalb der Malerei des Schreins weisen ebenfalls nach Korea.

Nun bedeuten all diese Hinweise auf Korea nicht, daß der Tamamushi-Schrein in Korea entstanden sein müßte – sein Material, Hinoki-Holz, spricht sogar für Japan. Aber die Beziehungen zwischen beiden Ländern waren damals eng. . Wahrscheinlich ist es richtig, den Tamamushi-Schrein in den Stralungsbereich koreanischer Kunst in Japan zu rücken, sei es, daß er von Koreanern selbst dort hergesellt wurde, sei es, daß Japaner ihn in Anlehnung an koreanische Arbeiten schufen. Er ist das älteste Werk wirklicher Lackkunst, das in Japan erhalten und vermutlich auch dort entstanden ist.pp.3,5

So, even the compromise edit you make drops all of the carefully nuanced extended argument von Ragué makes, and therefore is inadequate. This is not a good sign, so you'd better write out the whole passage in the English version, which I don't have, and let other editors examine it and make the edit. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
One thing I can add to this is that I have an article from the Asahi Shimbun, quoting a number of leading scholars, which points out that very little has ever been written concerning cultural transfers from Japan to Korea in ancient and medieval times. However, the Asahi article does state that there are three examples of reverse flow: ceremonial bronze objects, keyhole shaped burial mounds, and, during the Tokugawa period, some forms of pottery. This is the only source I know of, outside of twentieth century events, specifically on Japanese cultural transfers to Korea, and it could only find three things. Whatever title we choose, it should not be bidirectional, because right now scholars have simply not written enough to make that subject possible. My compromise proposal is Korean peninsular influence on Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
CurtisNaito, you should add that source into the article whenever you have time in order to provide balance. Nishidani, since there were at least three ways in which Japanese culture came to Korea in this period, I've changed my mind and decided that I could support the title of "Cultural flows between the Korean peninsular and the Japanese Archepelago" in order to end the title controversy for good. But first, Nishidani, what do you think about the titles "Korean peninsular influence on Japan" or "Cultural flows from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago"? Is "Cultural flows between the Korean peninsular and the Japanese Archepelago" the only title that you will accept, or do you think one of these two proposals might also work as alternatives?TH1980 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I could provisionally accept those modifications to my proposal. It all depends on the way other parties who have worked this page consider our reflections. The only reason I formulated my version is that, though peninsular flows were mainly one way, it seems quite clear from the use of the Baekje annals, and the frontier role of the Gaya confederacy, that the clans and tribes that ended up going east, retained ties with their peninsular families (the norm in history), and that there was some form of consistent international to-and-froing involved for a few centuries. I have always been a strong proponent of the key role these peninsular elements had in the formation of the early Japanese state. It's not a difficult position. It is obvious. I start getting my hackles up whenever this is reformulated nationalistically (everything came from Korea, etc.) Take the tamamushi inlay - you have that earlier in Korea, but the motif of lacquered insect inlay goes way back, centuries, to China). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Are we making any progress on the possibility of changing the title? Would anyone object if I renamed the article "Cultural flows from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese archipelago"?TH1980 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you think the problem is the title? Is that title being suggested to allow for greater flexibility in what in can be included? Because right now, it seems like the difficult is the current title limits you to actually finding Korean influences on Japanese culture rather than other influences on Japanese culture that could possibly mention Korean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I was against changing the title. The sources cited have titles like "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection" and "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", which is similar to the current title. However, Nishidani strongly believed that title should be changed to "Cultural flows between the Korean peninsular and the Japanese Archepelago". Even though I like the current title, I'm trying to find a compromise that is similar to the title Nishidani wants.TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you prefer to have the title reflect your preferred sources to make it easier to exclude the sources you do not prefer. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the current title is okay, but I was not the one who selected it. The current title was already set before I started editing. However, I am willing to accept other titles if that's what Nishidani wants. What title do you prefer?TH1980 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jomon-Yayoi transition

According to Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Prehistoric_contacts_and_the_Jomon-Yayoi_transition, there was a transition across Japan " based on the wet-rice farming practiced in Korea." To confirm the source states that this entire transition was due to the wet-rice farming? That's a pretty broad statement. In contrast, Yayoi period attributes this transition to "an irrigated, wet-rice culture from the Yangtze estuary in southern China via the Ryukyu Islands or Korean Peninsula." These two articles need to be reconciled in the interests of WP:NPOV. There is one source here and two sources there. Are either sources considered WP:FRINGE theories or should both theories be considered? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wet-rice farming exemplified the style of living said to have been brought from Korea, but it came as part of a package. The first source by Gina Barnes says, "The Initial Yayoi culture is considered to be a 'package' derived from the southwestern Peninsula and consisting of the new agricultural technology as well as new ways of thinking and interacting with each other." The essay by Rhee et al says, "the initial paddy rice agriculture in Japan exemplified a whole complex identifiable with Mumun Korea’s cultural system".
The source directly cited for wet-rice farming is Nakazono, who says, "It is during the 'Jomon-Yayoi transition' that the long-term process of structural change from the Jomon sociocultural system based on hunting, gathering, and millet cultivation to the establishment of the Yayoi sociocultural system characterized by the systematic introduction of Korean peninsula culture, including wet-rice farming, took place."
The essay by Rhee et al. note the alterative theory, but, like Barnes and Nakazono, disagree with it. "The hypothesis of a direct Chinese connection will remain problematic, according to its critics, until it can adequately explain a number of crucial issues: (1) why the paddy field cultivation first appeared in the Hakata and Karatsu Bays—areas of northern Kyushu that are points in the archipelago closest to southern Korea—rather than along the southwest coastal region of Kyushu facing the East China Sea; (2) why only the short-grain O. S. japonica type, adapted to cool climate and grown in Mumun Korea, first appeared in northern Kyushu when both O. S. japonica and the long-grain O. S. indica types were grown in the Yangtze River basin; (3) why grooved adzes, triangular reaping knives, polished stone daggers, pottery vessels, settlement patterns, and mortuary practices closely associated with the early Yayoi farming communities are found only in southern Korea but not in the Yangtze River basin; and (4) why the initial paddy rice agriculture in Japan exemplified a whole complex identifiable with Mumun Korea’s cultural system rather than that of the lower Yangtze River basin."TH1980 (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The first cited source in the Yayoi period article tells us:
There is general agreement that the ultimate origin of rice is the east-central lowlands of China. A southern route via the Ryukyu islands into southern Kyushu seems generally out of favor. I think both the Chinese archaeological and environmental evidence argue strongly against a northern route via northeastern China and northern Korea, although some archaeologists do favor that hypothesis. The present evidence neither confirms nor denies either a direct route to Kyushu from China or a route via southern Korea.
The second states:
Rice cultivation in paddies is widely believed to have emerged along the Yangtze River in central China about 8000 B.C. How and when it spread eastward is less clear. One theory holds that immigrants fleeing the turmoil of China's Warring States period, beginning about 450 B.C., took the technology overland to present-day Korea, then across the relatively narrow Korea Strait to Japan's Kyushu Island. An alternative theory is that seafaring traders carried the technique to lands bordering the Yellow and East China seas around 1000 B.C. or earlier.
In other words, scholars disagree, but this article gives us the black-and-white "based on the wet-rice farming practiced in Korea". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The statement "Gradually the Jōmon culture was supplanted across Japan by the Yayoi culture, based on the wet-rice farming practiced in Korea." is cited to Nakazono, p. 59, but p. 59 talks about "shell bracelet exchange" and abstract stuff about an "other world". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
TH1980, if you are taking a source that explicitly states both and just popping in the Korean part here without a thought about the conflict, I can see why there's concerns. Both articles need to reflect the same WP:NPOV. We can't claim it's a Chinese influence in one and a Korean influence in another. The sources here all state from China and the exact language, if Curly is correct, has zero to do with the specifics of wet-rice farming. TH1980, do you agree with that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The same sources are not cited in the two Wikipedia articles. In this Wikipedia article, Nakazono, Barnes, and Rhee et al all focus on Mumun Korean wet rice agriculture being transferred to Japan. Rhee et al only mentions the other theory of a direct Chinese connection in order to refute it. Of course, no one has ever disagreed that paddy agriculture originated in China. Like the top of the Wikipedia article says, "Many Korean influences on Japan originated in China, but were adapted and modified in Korea before reaching Japan." The sources cited in this Wikipedia article state that the form of wet rice agriculture that came to Japan was adapted in Korea first before being transferred to Japan. If you would like to add in the alternative theory of a direct Chinese connection, I could add it, but the sources currently cited in this article (quoted in my post above, as you can see) all stress the Mumun Korean connection.TH1980 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In order to standardize the two Wikipedia pages, I added in the source cited in the Yayoi period article that contains an alternative viewpoint of a direct link between China and Japan concerning wet rice farming. However, since Gina Barnes and Nakazono clearly support the Korean link, that is likely the dominant theory.TH1980 (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is that the dominant theory? Do you have a source that it is the dominant theory? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I would not say in the Wikipedia article itself that it is the dominant theory, but I believe it is because the most recent books that I consulted, written by leading scholars, do not even bother to mention the theory of direct transfer from China to Japan. Rhee et al mentions it in order to refute it, but most accounts like Nakazono (2011) and Barnes (2015) did not consider the theory to be even worthy of mention. CurlyTurkey took two website links from the Yayoi period article, one of which I recently included in this Wikipedia article, that accept the possibility of a direct transfer. However, these are just website links, not published scholarship, and they are from 2003 and 2006, which is a little older than the published scholarship that I have used.TH1980 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Ricky, the rice issue, like everything else here, is deeply contested between nationalists, and regards the areas of North Korean/Manchuria/and eastern China. The way such things are handled by each side, as opposed to the way the topic is analysed by international scholarship, is well set forth in an article we have, which I noticed yesterday, i.e.Goguryeo controversies. All the material being pushed and plunked into this article is the standard nationalist Korean spin basically on events which are continental in scope. TH1980 has 1,000 edits, mainly on this kind of thing. The 2 last editors driven off have close to 100,000 contributions to Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
We might want to ask TH1980 what he means by "just website links", when the second is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
We can include the new website links, but what I originally wrote cited Barnes and Nakazono, who are definitely reliable sources. I think everyone can agree that historians like Barnes and Nakazono are better sources than Dennis Normile, who is not a specialist on this matter. Still, I have included the alternative theory of a direct link to China in accordance with what you recommended.TH1980 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
How about we stop minimizing sources by referring to them as "website links", and stop calling your less preferred theory the "alternative theory"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It does not matter what we call them on the talk page. It is the article's text that matters. But remember that Dennis Normile is not a specialist, whereas the academic paper by the specialists Rhee et al said, "The hypothesis of a direct Chinese connection will remain problematic until it can adequately explain a number of crucial issues..." (quoted in full above).TH1980 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It matters a great deal what we call these things, as it is further evidence of the bias in your editing. More of the behavioural issues that are the core of the dispute, and we'll be keeping these extensive behavioural issues in the spotlight. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There are 3 hypothesized roots for the transmission of rice to Japan, all originating in China, and two not regarding southern Korea Nishidani (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
So everyone knows what Nishidani's talking about, the three major hypotheses are:
  1. Northern route (via the Korean peninsula)
  2. Direct overseas route from the central coastal Jiangnan area of China
  3. Southern overseas route via the Ryūkyūs
It has also been posited that there were multiple routes, and even that cultivation developed from wild native varieties. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This (Rice, Agriculture, and the Food Supply in Premodern Japan by Charlotte von Verschuer) is a just-published paper source that makes for interesting reading on the subject. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As the great nationalist organ-grinding grounds on

Many Korean influences on Japan originated in China, but were adapted and modified in Korea before reaching Japan." The sources cited in this Wikipedia article state that the form of wet rice agriculture that came to Japan was adapted in Korea first before being transferred to Japan. If you would like to add in the alternative theory of a direct Chinese connection, I could add it, but the sources currently cited in this article (quoted in my post above, as you can see) all stress the Mumun Korean connection

This is really fucking brilliant. The Mumun wet rice culture arose almost contemporaneous with early Yayoi wet-rice culture (see Mark J. Hudson 1999), both coming from China. Only someone who has subzero knowledge of genetics could imagine that the oryza sativa japonica (Chinese) underwent a genetic mutation in 'Korean' hands before they then brought their unique Korean variety of that rice strain down to early Yayoi a few years or decades later. Now we have, between the lines, a novelistic fantasy of unique 'Korean' farming techniques managing circa 1,000 BCE onwards to alter Chinese rice in a way that allowed them to send it onto those poor isolated Nips languished in the late Jomon famine of the eastern archipelago. Can't wait for the next exciting installment of this romance.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So loosen up Curley, take it as a skit, draw up a seat and watch this page as a piece of slapstick. I've already decided to play the role of Mo, on furlough, and just for once look on a farce instead of being a part of it.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani, you called Gina Barnes "one of the foremost scholars in this field", and her book that I cited in this Wikipedia article says "Yayoi culture is considered to be a package, derived from the southwestern Peninsula and consisting of new agricultural technology as well as new ways of thinking". Barnes is not known to be anti-Japanese or Korean nationalist, but she states that wet rice farming came from Korea. Imamura Keiji went over three different theories on paddy rice and dismissed all but one. He says, "In contrast with the former two [routes from China and the Ryukyu Islands], for which their is scant archeological evidence, the third route is supported by a great wealth of evidence that links northern Kyushu to southern Korea... Most Japanese archeologists support this route..." Why give so much credence to theories "for which their is scant archeological evidence"? Concerning CurlyTurkey's new sources, I think Yoko Williams is not the best because even the most recent sources she cites are dated to 1986. Gina Barnes' book is from 2015 and is much more up-to-date. Charlotte von Verschuer and Wendy Cobcroft is a better source. This source does acknowledge two possible routes, direct from China or from Korea, but also attributes the spread of wet rice agriculture to "groups from the continent, mainly from the Korean peninsula". If CurlyTurkey wants to add this book to the Wikipedia article, fine, but I think that the information is not much different from the information already in the article.TH1980 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Wet rice cultivation is not a Korean Influence on Japanese Culture, any more than a computer technology invented in America, and manufactured in China, when it enters Italy, is evidence for a 'Chinese influence on Italian culture'. I could give attribution to 10 different scholars on this topic, all differing it emphasis. You have GB pp.271-3, it should be Gina Barnes pp.25, 270,.275,309,32I, at a minimum. But I am not going to reply seriously because I asked you a question, answer it. What was the 'Korean' adaptation of wet-rice culture brought to Japan? Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not you agree with Rhee et al, it is an up-to-date peer reviewed paper written by real historians that a majority of users on this talk page clearly identified as an acceptable reliable source, just as reliable as any source you personally favor. Rhee et al. is about "Korean contributions" to Japanese culture. Rhee et al says, "only the short-grain O. S. japonica type, adapted to cool climate and grown in Mumun Korea, first appeared in northern Kyushu". Likewise, Satoru Nakazono describes the Jomon-Yayoi transition as "characterized by the systematic introduction of Korean peninsula culture".TH1980 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you intend to stick with the RSes that reinforce your bias, and reject all the other RSes that don't. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I would like all points of view represented in the article. I do not see any sources listed above that say that the Jomon-Yayoi transition was NOT an example of Korean influence on Japanese culture. I also do not see any sources listed above saying that rice crops were NOT adapted in Korea before being transferred to Japan (except for the sources denying Korean transfer altogether which are already included in the article). If such sources are presented, then they should also be included.TH1980 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
What is this gibberish? The sources are explicit that the source of rice has not been established and that there are competing theories—the article as you've edited it gives one of these theories as an established fact. Your gibberish comment doesn't even address that. Is that deliberate? I pose the question because you do this with shocking frequency. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I already added the theory of a direct Chinese transfer into the Wikipedia article, but Keiji Imamura did say that "most Japanese archeologists" support the Korea transfer theory. There are already sources cited in this Wikipedia article stating that the Yayoi-Jomon transition was an instance of Korean influence on Japanese culture due in part to Chinese rice being adapted in Korea before being transferred to Japan. However, I take no issue with including all other theories.TH1980 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah. The problem is that Wikipedia seeks to be an Encyclopaedia, and an Encyclopaedia is a collection of Articles. But this is not an Article, it is a collage of factoids with an Agenda. As I have said before, I do not think it will fool or mislead anyone, so in a sense it doesn't matter, and you can carry on. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Just another comment: if you read the section Yayoi period#Origin of the Yayoi people, it sounds like someone (well, ok, a small committee) trying to make sense and convey information to the reader. What does the part of this Collage add to that? Nothing, basically. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Farris peaks quotation

I can't find Farris' explicit quotations that Japanese culture borrowing "hit peaks in the mid-fifth, mid-sixth, and late seventh centuries" and "helped to define a material culture that lasted as long as a thousand years" in page 68 of this source. As such, I removed the reference to that page. I find it generally odd how much citations here with very specific citations are to multiple pages in the same source. Can someone confirm whether these explicit quotes are actually in page 120 as stated? It should be pretty straightforward since these are direct quotations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hiroshi Tsude estimate

According to footnote 7 here, historian Hiroshi Tsude estimated that 1.8 million Koreans immigrated to Japan during the Yayoi period. That's a pretty straightforward fact that should be easy to confirm. Strangely the citation isn't Tsude himself but a secondary source from Farris. However, I can't find any mention of this straightfoward statement on page 67 cited. I can't see page 109 but is it there? It's also used for a complex idea that these immigrants were known as kikajin in Japanese and came during the 4th-7th centuries due to regional warfare in Korea. The source on page 67 though only briefly mentions the term kikajin refers to Koreans moving to Japan for "the civilizing influence" of the court there but nothing that specific. It goes into the Korean satellite theory in the prior two to three pages but nothing for this specific claim and it is said to be weak from a historians perspective. It seems like page 67 doesn't assert either of these claims, does page 109 assert both, anyone know? I also believe that Tsude is alive so there is also a BLP implication if we are incorrect about a historian's factual assertion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Farris says on page 109, "How many persons went from Korea to Japan? No one has any way of knowing precisely, but one can make estimates. For the six centuries of the Yayoi period, one Japanese anthropologist has argued that as many as 3,000 people per annum, or about 1,800,000 immigrants, entered Japan." In the footnote, the "one Japanese anthropologist" Farris cites is Hiroshi Tsude.TH1980 (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have skipped the whole "as many as" thing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Corrected then. Thanks TH1980. Does the same page give some explanation for the other citation? Can we at least agree that page 67 does not say anything about these immigrants were expressly coming during the 4th-7th centuries because of regional warfare in Korea? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Page 109 of Farris' book says, "The frequent wars on the Korean peninsula that began in the second half of the fourth century and raged on and off until the end of the seventh undoubtedly created a recurring flow of refugees."TH1980 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
All this is pointless, unless someone writes a section. 'Yayoi population' with full coverage of the various theories. (a)Jomon population dropped, (related also to the deciduous/evergreen divide in Japan) and (b) was rare in the ecologically distinct West Kyushu area anyway (c) population drift from the continent was continuous and (d) with rice that came in 1,000 BCE circa, a slow increment followed by rapid increments as paddy-rice agriculture spread 500 BCE., occurred, the latter again spurred by peninsular tribes. (e) the population increments have 2 extremes (i) an indigenous immigrant demographic growth based on the great nutrient yield of riziculture or (ii) vast immigration year by year, or a combination of both.
To pick one or two items out of the several variables and their associated controversies is not acceptable. As to Korean peninsula wars, they were constant from the pre-BCE era, with population drifts from eastern China, Manchuria and northern Asia complicated by the consistent relocation under Chinese planning of Han groups (of diff ethnic compositions) throughout the north. On each occasion, these pressures from fighting among peninsular tribes, or chiefdoms fighting Chinese, or Chinese trying to impose their hegemony, etc., created population drifts and flight south, and on each occasion you would have had a natural spillover to the Japanese archipelago. The question is absolutely not that Yayoi culture was a result of continental drift. Everyone knows that. The point is you cannot call this 'Korean' in an ethnic sense. From 500 BCE onwards there was population overlap between the southern Korean peninsular peoples and the Yayoi peoples - they were neither 'Korean' nor 'Japanese' but a congeries of tribes speaking different but mostly related languages. All uses of 'Korean' are shorthand for geographical location, not for a nationality or an ethnic group. Idem for 'Japanese' for the Yayoi-Kofun period.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
We could just call the new arrivals "Korean immigrants". That's what William Wayne Farris calls them on the page in question and everyone agrees that he is a reliable source. We are just following the lead of the historians here. Also, expanded information on the Yayoi period is a good idea, and I could add some of the information in myself if you like, but the section is not "pointless" without it. William Wayne Farris' book includes a chapter on Korean influence on Japanese culture that does mention the "Korean immigrants" but does not mention all those other details like the drop in Jomon population, etc... When one writes a Wikipedia article on Korean influence on Japan, it should not be controversial to base the general structure of that article on the existing scholarly literature on Korean influence. In this case, Farris is the source cited for Korean immigration, but he does not bother to discuss the extraneous details about the whole span of Yayoi demographic history in the same chapter.TH1980 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Go and read the point. You haven't understood about 6 pages of slow careful exposition. You can find anything you like in these texts. You can even find a source saying that the Yayoi immigrants came from Yangzi, where this variety of rice was domesticated.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

‘In terms of the Yayoi origin (see also chapter 28), archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates the Korean peninsula as the most likely final disembarkation point. Regardless of the actual migratory route, skeletal and mt DNA analyses indicate that the original homeland of the Yayoi colonists was in the Yanzji River region of China (Nakahashi & LI 2002), with close affinities noted between Japanese Yayoi immigrants and populations from the Eastern Zhou and Western Han dynastic periods (c.,1000 BCE to 200 CE).(Hirofumi Matsumura and Marc Oxenheim ‘East Asia and Japan: Human Biology,’ in Peter Bellwood (ed.) The Global Prehistory of Human Migration, John Wiley & Sons, 2014 pp.217.223 p.219)

See, that totally screws up all of your POV thesis, would appear to confirm the view that the Yayoi rice culture came directly from Yangzi region etc. I've had that on file for years, but was never tempted to put it into this article because it is just one of many points of viewa, and not worth adding until I can be assured that the tagteamer nationalistic push goes away to allow this to be written correctly, to double its present length. I should add that I am not convinced of that theory either.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You can get started now if you have time. However, I think that we should focus on the Jomon-Yayoi connections between the Korean peninsula and Japan, not for any biased reasons but only in order to ensure that we are staying on subject. Naturally, we do not want to simply rewrite the prehistory of Japan here. Even if we really do change the title to your preferred "Cultural flows between the Korean peninsular and the Japanese Archepelago", the focus would still be on Korea and Japan. Whichever theories we include, we can still note the role of Korea at least as a cultural bridge, if not much more. Even if immigrants did come from China, the Cambridge History of Japan says that "archeologists have found no exclusively Chinese tools at northern Kyushu sites", as opposed to Korean ones, meaning that the transition through Korea was significant. Rhee et al, a source that is about Korean influence, spends several pages on the pros and cons of various such theories.TH1980 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You can get started now if you have time.—everyone's really, really sick of this game. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ovens

Does the Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Ovens section seem on point? The section admits that they came from China (although Kamado#History_of_Asian_Kamado states without a source that they were earlier found in India a thousand years before that). Other than what seems like an euphemism calling them "Korean ovens", does that really constitute a Korean "influence"? There's no indication that the idea or the design or the usage is Korean in any manner? Does Farris provide any further explanation for why an item originated in China (or India) would be called "Korean"? I think that's the more interesting influence question. More of a question than anything here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Farris'sTH1980 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC) book is an extended list of Korean influences on Japan, so at least Farris does believe it to be a Korean influence. According to Farris, "The oven (kamado) eventually had a profound effect on daily life in ancient Japan... The Chinese may have invented this oven, but the version that came to the Japanese archipelago during the fifth century had the peculiar imprint of the peninsular peoples. Writing in The History of the Wei Dynasty, Chen Shou noted that third-century ancestors of the peoples of Kaya and Silla were fond of ovens. Scientists have uncovered an example from a dwelling near Kimhae in former Kaya territory and have dated the artifact to around 300. The discovery that Japan's first ovens in northern Kyushu and the Kinai are associated with early stoneware also lends support to the idea of Korean origin... In the eighth and ninth centuries, these appliances were so closely associated with southern Korea that the Japanese called them 'Korean ovens' (Kara kamado)."TH1980 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sewing

In the opposite vein, should the Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Sewing section be better merged into a history section or something? It's not based on historians from what I can tell. It seems to be saying that a historical book that started with the creation myth mentions that the villagers of a particular village who were seamstresses were said to be "hailed" from a particular woman who was from Korea. Shouldn't we be looking for sewing techniques or something more? It's also not clear how much time has passed since this single Korean immigrant came to the village versus the history book's description. The book was in the 8th century but she could have been there like a year earlier or been there five hundred years earlier? At what point does this become a list of "people who's ancestors are from Korea hundreds of years prior"? Either way, does it make sense to discuss it in the context of the history or is it just a weird one off in the book? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani added that[2], so you might want to wait for him to post to get all the details.TH1980 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Gwalleuk

Does it really seems like an example of Korean influence if a Korean person taught Chinese astronomy and the Chinese calendrical system? I guess it's the same question as to how much should be written about Wani (scholar) above that since it's another example of allegedly Korean influence being that a Korean person came and taught Chinese ideas to the Japanese. Both seem more like example of Chinese influence with the Korean person just being the conduit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The role of Korea as a cultural conduit between Japan and China was itself significant, according to a number of historians. William Wayne Farris's book, which is specifically about Korean influence on Japan, describes many ways in which Koreans transferred Chinese culture to Japan. Farris' book discusses Wani on page 98. There are also some books that refer to Gwalleuk in the context of Korean influence. For example, Song-nae Pak's book "Science and Technology in Korean History" includes a chapter entitled "Science and Technology of Ancient Japan - From Korea?" that refers to Gwalleuk as a Korean influence on Japan.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved article

The last time it was moved, the only editors who objected are the two editors who are currently the subject of an ANI report, regarding meat puppetry etc. Considering this point, I think that moving the article is still a very valid option. This is the most neutral article name. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new title

I would like to to help rework this article from top to bottom with a wider scope best explained by a provisional title:

  • State Formation, development and cultural flows in Korea and Japan,
  • China, Korea and Japan: state formation and cultural flows, etc.

or something like these. Any views? Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Second choice looks really good. They all influenced each other to different degrees. I'm sure that now topic bans are in effect as per ANI, that it will be a lot easier to resolve any potential issues. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that the scope suggested by any of your titles is simply too vast. There really is no connection between what happened in Jomon jidai and miscellaneous bits of interaction between the modern states of Korea and Japan. So I think the first thing to do would be to sort out the usable content (and I think there is some, even if it is swamped by Agendal factoids) into different historical periods. But then, for example, as I have pointed out above, perhaps this belongs in Yayoi period#Origin of the Yayoi people. Or again, a good article about the transmission of rice-growing across East Asia would be titled something like that. I really really think that anacronistic use of the modern state names is problematic, particularly in the case of "Korea", which seems to be used to mean "anywhere in any state part of which was at some time or other within the boundaries of modern Korea". Imagine doing that for "Germany"... Anyway, I do not think any problems will be solved simply by changing the title. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have a huge earlier academic output, still influential, of such 'nationalistic-tinted' spinning of cultural flows between France and English, Normans and Celts (though you can find it in popular expositions pre-WW2). Suffice it to take Farris (secponded by others)'s remark in his chapter on this:'it is wise to use the words Korea and Japan sparingly , and even then only as geographic terms' (Farris 1998:57)). A lead citing this, corroborated by several others scholars would then allow editors to harmonize usage (Korean =(Korean) peninsular, and Japanese = (Yamato)archipelago/insular Japan etc.)a and rewrite according to this principle. That is why I think the 'Historiography' sections should follow the lead and set down the controversy. Thus done, this becomes a useful source for readers who want to understand both the ideological pulls, and the raw data as assessed by denationalized scholarship, something that would have definite encyclopedic value, since this crap is everywhere, as T H1980s' sources constantly show.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. I personally think the section Jomon and Yayoi Transition should belong to History of Japan, rather than to this article. Jagello (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess the key issue is whether there is any way to distinguish so-called Korean influence from mainland China or other nations since it was probably more of a cultural mix of areas those hundreds of years ago. The scope suggested with those titles is more akin to a history of Japan article than what is done now. Maybe we should do the opposite and split this article into separate articles based on each nation influencing Japan. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Please think about this: the whole problem is that the historical background to Japan's culture has been split into the different "nations" influencing it... or at least into this particular one. It makes much more sense to look at different periods of cultural transfer. Of course there is a huge problem with SPAs who are only here to pump out Korea-this Korea-that, but if all of the many bits of history were written about fairly, one could consider a sort of "list" of cultural inflows, serving as a signpost to the various articles. I doubt if there is an article "List of cultural invasions[?] of Britain", but there could be, and it would list the Celts (if there is any history of this), the Beaker folk, the Romans, the Vikings, and so on. But it doesn't make much sense just to pick out the bits that might have come from or via the second nearest other bit of land. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Titles should be as simple and short as possible. How about just Influences on Japanese culture? That gets right to the point, and allows for content from anywhere, not just Korea. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That'd be an awfully long article, especially once it gets into the modern era. Maybe throw soemthing like an "ancient" in there? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to write an article with different content, a different title and a different scope then this would be best done separately as a fresh start. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That is a good idea. And I think some content or sections of this article could be relocated to the new article with a different title and a different scope. Jagello (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Influences on ancient Japanese culture would be a good choice. Just because there is content out there that goes into extreme detail about how one particular part of Japanese culture may or may not have been influenced by something else, doesn't mean we have to include it. This article was getting pretty close to becoming a list, not an article. I can't see any reasons for a focus on any one nation influencing Japanese culture, unless it is in an attempt to score nationalistic points. I took the article back to a previous stable version, however the one nationalistic editor who hasn't been topic banned (yet) wants to edit war over it. I suggest a previous version, before the two topic banned editors touched the article, a title change and move on from there. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not even a main editor of this article. I just have restored the vandalism you made without any reasonable and valid argument. I have noticed that you are the only one, who are insisting on the earlier vandalized version done by Hijiri88, who got a topic ban. Jagello (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I personally liked one of the previous suggestions made a while back, something along the lines of; Influence of mainland Asia on Japanese culture (or similar). If this is a bit unwieldy then it can be broken down into Influence of mainland Asia on ancient Japanese culture and Influence of mainland Asia on modern Japanese culture. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Too big. I've no allergy to keeping the original restriction of focus onto Korea and Japan. What was wrong this this was the POV that identified Korea as a nation and 'Koreans' as a people who impacted 'Japan' and the 'Japanese people' in the very best tradition of nationalist point-scoring. That is why I suggest one think in terms of 'Peninsular Korea and the Japanese archipelago'. Introduce China and it would be huge. Written according to the lights of contemporary scholarship, and one would have an interesting survey of the intense interactions between the two geographical areas as they struggled to develop a state.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There was discussion at one point about Cultural flows between the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago. Would this be preferred to "mainland Asia" (i.e. incl. China). Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Nishidani are you suggesting keeping the article focus on Korea/Japan, but outlining the cultural influences that both nations had on each other? I think when a more modern focus is included there has been a lot of Japanese influence on Korean culture, and vice versa. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I guess so. I'm not unnerved by whatever ideologists, bible-thumpers, cultural nationalists, or political POv pushers say. I'm pissed off when the elementary confusion, rampant among such types, between the documentary record as established by secular denationalized, de-ideologized scholarship and the mouthings of true believers exists. The topic is an important one in nationalism: if you want to pull the rug from under the tub-thumping nationalism which fueled the article's composition, suffice it to reshape the page in terms of scholarship. You'd never gather from this that Farris, for one, said one should never speak of 'Koreans' or 'Japanese' in discussing cultural flow at this early time, but only of a transit from one geographical area to another. Were that principle established, everything else could be adjusted.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Basically, get rid of the nations and focus on the regions. Korean Peninsula not Korea and Japanese Archipelago not Japan. Nationality out the window. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Jagello, Myself, Spacecowboy420, CurleyTurkey and Nishidani agree that the title of the article as it was is inappropriate and the scope has changed to include moves to and fro the archipelago and peninsula. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think yourself and Imaginatorium have expressed oppositon, is anybody else actively involved in this? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's just a sleeping sock account. I have zero good faith in accounts that sleep until their pet article is touched and then just revert. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, if it is (a sock), it's my job to AGF until that rope is exhausted and other measures become necessary. I have no intention to edit-war and if editors have a disagreement with my edits and took it to the article talk page (where it belongs) I would have no issue discussing it with them. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the article back as there is no consensus to change to that title. Please open an RfC if you wish to move it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure an RFC is the best way forward. Surely, we should be trying to gain consensus for a move on the article talk page? If that doesn't result in consensus then we can look at the more complicated options. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, create the RfC right here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Wilco, I have done it once before, I'll have a shot at it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for now, but legitimate questions about the titling and article scope. Emerging proposals from the discussion would be Korean influence on ancient Japanese culture or Foreign influences on ancient Japanese culture depending on desired article coverage. Note that I don't see any support for the nominator's proposal to discuss bi-directional cultural flows in the region, and I do see consensus that the scope should be limited to ancient history. A new RM taking these factors into account may well succeed in short order. New RM encouraged. — JFG talk 10:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Korean influence on Japanese culture → Cultural flows between the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago – The reason for this move is to prevent the continuous issues this article has been facing (for years) regarding the conflicting POV of Korean nationalists versus Japanese nationalists versus Western sources and whatever points of view they hold. By changing this article's title, to that recommended, all of these POVs will be duly addressed with due weight and without creating significant strain on the article in terms of size. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: I can't support the move, because I do not believe it would actually solve any of the problems. I think the problem is that the topic is simultaneously too wide (the whole of history, recorded or not), but too narrow (just those bits of the transfer of rice culture to Japan which involved the Korean peninsula). (Nihonjoe's suggestion does at least narrow it down in time.) Consider an article Moments in history in which men with red beards did rather well, if you want a caricature. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
" Foreign influences on ancient Japanese culture" would be the best choice, if the above was not chosen. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question, "cultural flows between..." meaning in both directions. Korea on Japan and Japan on Korea. Though, that is assuming the title we'd been using is accepted, other suggestions have cropped up here as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose But I like the title 'Korean influence on ancient Japanese culture' or 'Korean influence on Japanese culture before modern era' because the article for now describes a directional cultural flow. I also love to read an article titled as 'Japanese influence on ancient Korean culture'. --Cheol (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

The section "Arms and Armament" contains a grammatical error: "In 660 following the fall its ally," should read, "In 660 following the fall of its ally."

Kb3guy (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I find the sentence awkward, but changing the comma to a period does not fix the grammar. It makes it worse, as it becomes a sentence fragment. -- ferret (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I did this with slight difference, as seen here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. I totally misread this one, my bad. I focused in on the period at the end of the request.... :) Thanks for spotting what my eyes skipped past. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Comes from years of experience as a technical writer and editor. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Koryosaram

@Koryosaram: I'm not sure if you understood why I reverted you. You need consensus to add that content to the article. And if it is "quoted from a book" you need to use quotation marks; otherwise it is a copyright violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

A huge amount of the sources cited are extremely old, unreliable, and biased. Especially the source cited at the bottom, "New York Times, The. 1901-07-07". How would anyone take that obscure random piece of writing as something one can trust? The bias of this article is evident. M tartessos (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@M tartessos what do you mean by neutrality? Like what pov is this biased towards? You just said it had bad sources. Also that was not actually a cited source, just an external links article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@ImmanuelleThis article has as contributors Koreans who think "their" culture (which derives 99,9% from Chinese culture) had an impact on Japanese culture bigger than it actually was. For instance, it is mentioned that the Magatama jewels were one of the three "Korean treasures" transmitted into Japan. While in reality, Magatama were produced in Japan during the Jomon period, that is, before any continental influence. Similarly, the pseudo fact that the Japanese syllabary katakana derived from Gugyeol is suggested by the fellas who wrote this abysmal article. This is also wishful thinking, since katakana was derived directly from Chinese hanzi. With articles like this, no wonder Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source in schools and universities. M tartessos (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@M tartessos The kana part is demonstrably false do you should remove it from the article if you see it. But the Jomon period was by no means free from foreign influence, see pottery as an example.
I’d try to avoid removing things unless you have a source debunking them. What you removed from the article earlier was not badly sourced, it just had an older citation style. I somewhat updated the citation.
But if anything is citation needed feel free to remove it or put in sourced counter arguments to claims. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Immanuelle Fine then. I will add counter arguments (always with trustworthy sources) so as to fix this mess of an article, whenever I have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M tartessos (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out obvious mistakes

1 Japanese swords were not brought in by immigrants

2 Japanese politics and law are modeled after China's Sui and Tang dynasties

3 Katakana is directly derived from Kanji

4 Magatama was born in Japan. As a result of the inspection, it turned out that the magatama found in South Korea was made in Japan. The Japanese have been making magatama since primitive people in 5000 BC.

5 Kofun is a culture unique to Japan. More than 5,000 burial mounds have been excavated in Japan, but only a few dozen have been found in South Korea.

6 The 50th emperor's mother is of Baekje descent, but that doesn't mean the imperial family started in Korea. The Joseon dynasty also had a Japanese spouse, so does that mean the first Joseon king will be Japanese?

Finally, as a Japanese, I do not intend to deny the crimes committed against Koreans. We must apologize repeatedly for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans in Japan. However, Japanese culture and history are not Korean.


please. Please Correct Iwao24 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I cannot speak English and I'm using a translation tool. I will provide information from sources outside Japan. Will you at least acknowledge that "Japanese swords, magatama, the Emperor, and ancient tombs are of Japanese origin"? I would appreciate it if the article could be corrected to state that there are alternative theories.
Japanese sword
Inspiration for the shaved sword comes from Ezo in the Tohoku region, while the technique comes from China.
https://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/k/Katana.htm
kofun
There have been more than 5,000 ancient tumuli (kofun) discovered in Japan. If tumuli were of Korean origin, why have only a few dozen been excavated in Korea?
https://heritageofjapan.wordpress.com/following-the-trail-of-tumuli/types-of-tumuli-and-haniwa-cylinders/did-keyhole-shaped-tombs-originate-in-the-korean-peninsula/
emperor
n、the 4th century, there is a monument called the "Monument of King Gwanggaeto the Great" with an inscription by the king of Goguryeo. It depicts the following: "Wa (Japan) made Baekje and Silla its vassal states and attacked our country, but we repelled them." This monument is intended to praise the king of Goguryeo and does not specifically glorify Japan. Of course, the truth is uncertain. This represents a one-sided claim from the king of Goguryeo. However, Japan's foundation as a nation dates back to around the 4th to 5th centuries. How could a country perceived in such a way by Goguryeo conquer Japan?
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%9B%BD%E5%86%88%E4%B8%8A%E5%B9%BF%E5%BC%80%E5%9C%9F%E5%A2%83%E5%B9%B3%E5%AE%89%E5%A5%BD%E5%A4%AA%E7%8E%8B%E7%A2%91/7544541
magatama
Jade, the raw material used for making magatama, is found only in specific regions in Asia, including the westernmost parts of China (Tibet) and Japan. Recent examinations have revealed that even the magatama found in Korea can be traced back to archaeological sites around the Itoigawa area in Japan.
https://www.jadeite-atelier.com/blogs/jade-articles/where-does-jade-come-from Iwao24 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
addition
In the article, it is said that Hideyoshi stole a Korean sword, and Japanese swords prospered because of this technique.
Still, it was in the 11th century that Dojigiri Yasutsuna, a Japanese treasure, was made.
Japanese swords have also been used for trade since 10 centuries ago, and Ouyang Shu, a politician in the Song dynasty of China, wrote a poem called "Japanese Sword Song" and praised Japanese swords. Iwao24 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me? is there anyone If you don't mind, can I write this content in the article? Iwao24 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iwao24: You may not. Most of these sources are not regarded as Wikipedia:RS here. The first one that is somewhat reliable can not verify your claim. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 21:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

China claimed the origin of kimchi On the other hand, what about South Korea?

I'm using a translator. I am Japanese of Okinawan descent. I have a relatively neutral view of Japan-Korea relations, but this article is terrible. Was it written by a Korean nationalist? There are too many corrections to keep up with, so I will pick up only the representative ones.

1 Japanese swords are not of Korean origin

Japan acquired iron-making technology through China and Korea, but Japanese swords are a product of Japan's unique culture and Japanese sensibility. It is not of Chinese or Korean origin. Not made by immigrants. If a Frenchman writes a book with a pen he bought in China, does the book come from China?

2 Magatama is not of Korean origin.

In Japan, it has been excavated from the Sannai-Maruyama site and the Kamegaoka site in Aomori Prefecture, the Chojagahara site in Itoigawa in Niigata Prefecture, and the Hanareyama site in Nagano Prefecture. The Japanese have been making magatama since the mid-Jomon period (5000 BC). In addition, as a result of investigating the chemical composition of the magatama excavated from the Korean Peninsula, it was found that it had the same composition as the magatama discovered at the Itoigawa area ruins (Japan). In the first place, the production areas of jade used for magatama are mostly limited to Japan and Myanmar in Asia.

3 Japan's politics and legal system is a unique refinement of what was learned from China. I'm not a liar, so I can't say without the influence of Korea, but I can assure you that it would be wrong to say that without Korea the Japanese would have turned into monkeys.

I'm not a Japanese nationalist, so I won't correct it directly (because I can't use English in the first place) So let the writer write the article.

Finally, China recently claimed the origin of kimchi. I think Koreans are hurt. I respect Korean culture, so I consider kimchi to be a Korean product. I would like people who respect Japanese culture to raise their voices in the same way. Iwao24 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iwao24 I see this. I tend to agree with your perspective that at the very least there's too much emphasis on ancient things. I think on the other side there is not enough discussion of things which are more easily provable such as Yakiniku or other korean stuff in Japan right now.
btw do you have any ideas of things to add to this draft article I am working on Draft:Japanese influence on Chinese culture Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Yakiniku is a Korean dish. Kimchi is from Korea. Ramen is Chinese food. I think that Japanese yakiniku and ramen are just as delicious as the authentic ones, but they are Korean and Chinese dishes made by Japanese people. I have no intention of arguing that it is a Japanese product.
I have respect for Korean and Chinese culture. I have no intention of denying the sins of the Empire of Japan. As a citizen of Okinawa, I understand the pain of minorities. This article is just wrong.
At least I want you to correct the Japanese sword, magatama, politics, law, and katakana.
I am using a translator. I can't even use simple English. I hope that someone with good intentions will fix the article. 2400:4152:9242:6900:F876:C9BF:98A1:D283 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't bother, my friend. This article is "moderated" by Korean fanatic nationalists who are using second rate sources (many of them cannot even be accessed), in order to impose their biased views. This joke of an article itself is just made so as to pander to Korean zealots of the non-existent influence of Korean culture on the Japanese. Even if we provide valid sources, they will be deleted since they don't coincide with their biased views. M tartessos (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible that the IP is different and you are not receiving it?
excuse me. I'm not used to the wikipedia system yet. I was replying without logging in
The ip above is mine. Iwao24 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources in bibliography

M tartessos, I observed your edit warring and I think that I understand the source of your confusion. You keep on saying that "only surnames" are being provided, but that's because you're not looking at the bibliography section. The citation format in this article uses surnames in the reference column, which refer to the full source data in the bibliography column. Therefore, you're reverting based on a misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the sources are cited correctly, so you shouldn't be removing them. I will restore the article to its previous state.Hko2333 (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hko: Thank you for your clarification, and apologies for my ignorance. Understood. However, many of the sources used are of second rate scholars who have obnoxious views. I will not delete them anymore, though, but I would like to add other sources that prove them wrong. Will that be fine? Better to let readers know all the points of view and let them believe whichever they want, I think. M tartessos (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's fine to add new sources, as long as they are of high quality and on topic to the subject. However, make sure to read the sources carefully, since several of the sentences that you recently modified in the article directly contradicted what the cited sources actually said. The text of the Wikipedia page must match the ideas contained within the cited reference.
When it comes to deleting sources, it's important that you only delete them if there are more reliable sources expressing calling them into question. For example, you deleted books/articles by the historians William Wayne Farris, Yoko Williams, Mikiso Hane, and Satoru Nakazono, but as far as I can tell, you concluded that they were poor historians based only on original research. For it to not be original research, you need a reliable source that explicitly says, "Mikiso Hane' book contains many inaccuracies", not simply gathering related data that you perceive to contradict Mikiso Hane.Hko2333 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Immigration from ancient Korea to Japan

This genealogy should be deleted because it misleads people into thinking that Emperor Kanmu, the Minamoto, Taira, and other famous warlord clans are of Baekje descent. The author of this genealogy clearly misleads the reader by giving extreme importance to the specific fact that Emperor Kanmu's mother is a distant descendant of the king of Baekje. The title of this page is even more misleading because of the Korean influence on Japanese culture. So I think this genealogy is WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK.

If the distant ancestors of the emperor's mother were from Baekje, it is absurd to say that all subsequent people are of Baekje descent. Emperor Kammu's mother, Takano no Niigasa, was descended from Prince Junda of Baekje more than 200 years later. The descendants of Junda naturally intermarried with the Japanese in Japan.

In addition, Japan is a patriarchal society, and emperors in particular had to be of male lineage. Eight of the successive emperors were women, but they were all of male lineage. Therefore, the emperor's genealogy is written on the basis of male lineage. On the other hand, Takano no Niigasa was the mother of Kanmu.

Moreover, the Oda, Tokugawa, and various other clans who claim to have ancestors in the Minamoto or Taira clans are only self-proclaimed, and their lineage is not scientifically supported.

This genealogy is the same as misleading people into thinking that a drop of kimchi juice in a swimming pool will turn the entire pool into kimchi. I am sure that almost all Japanese who see this genealogy will have strong doubts about it.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is another problem. This user has definitively concluded that the Hata clan is descended from Silla, but there are many theories. Even though Kyoto and the Fushimi Inari Shrine insist on the Silla theory, there is also the Baekje theory, the Later Qin theory, and the Jinhan confederation theory. It is obviously misleading to present it as a definitive genealogy.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Those are reputable sources whose claims are endorsed and backed by the Japanese government of Kyoto and the official shrine built by the Hata clan. It is illogical to discard such evidence as mere "opinions" by non-credible sources. The modern consensus in Japan leans heavily towards Silla and is not questioned outside of the major sphere. Therefore, your criticism regarding the qualitative aspect of the sources is moot. Kolossoni (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Emperor Kanmu had mentioned about his Baekje heritage since his ascension to the throne. In fact, he is the one who had stretched the conversation to the times of ancient Goguryeo and Habaek. it is not some propaganda made by Koreans, but a talking point the emperor himself commented on several times in ancient records. The genealogy was to demonstrate from which king from Baekje stretched to which individuals/clans throughout history as is the point of a family tree. It is not up to you to dictate which ancestors descended from whom. The fact remains unchanged.
"This genealogy is the same as misleading people into thinking that a drop of kimchi juice in a swimming pool will turn the entire pool into kimchi."
Your "Kimchi juice" analogy is unnecessary, not to mention deemed as an act of negatively stereotyping the Korean demographic. Kolossoni (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I fully agree. Emperor Akihito himself mentioned his lineage in 2001, despite being centuries ago. A family tree should not be discarded simply because some nationalistic Japanese might feel uncomfortable facing the facts. If the mentioned clans (Oda clan, Tokugawa clan, etc) are not truly of Kanmu (and his descendants)'s line, then it should simply be removed from the tree, not delete the tree as a whole. Turtle Historian (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

About the Baekje genealogy

I know that what Emperor Akihito said is true, and I am not saying that the genealogy should be removed from the Japanese nationalist point of view. On the other hand, it should be noted that this genealogy is the same as the claim often made by some Korean nationalists that the Japanese are Baekje itself.
I have no objection to your writing that Emperor Kammu's mother was Takano no Niigasa and that Takano no Niigasa descended from Prince Junda more than 200 years later. However, the inclusion of the Taira and Minamoto clans and later warrior clans in this genealogy is WP:WEIGHT, WP:COATRACK and WP:VERIFY and should be removed.
You created this genealogy by giving extreme weight to a person named Takano no Niigasa, the mother of Emperor Kammu. In fact, Emperor Akihito mentioned the Baekje connection based on the fact that Emperor Kanmu's mother was Takano no Niigasa. However, this genealogy somehow fails to mention that Takano no Niigasa was a woman more than 200 years after the Baekje prince, and that her child was Emperor Kanmu.
Since Japan's genealogy is based on the male lineage, the fact that only King Kammu's maternal line, King Muryeong, and Prince Junda are listed in the genealogy will surely lead to the misconception that any family following Emperor Kammu is from the male lineage of the Baekje royal family.
And to include in this genealogy the Taira and Minamito clans descended from Emperor Kanmu, as well as the various clans claiming to have Minamoto and Taira as ancestors, is highly misleading since the page is titled Korean Influence on Japanese Culture. In no way were these clans influenced by King Muryeong or Prince Junda, and even if these people really did inherit the bloodline of Emperor Kanmu, the people of each of these clans intermarried with other people for a long time in each period. Therefore, the "concentration" of the blood of King Muryeong and Prince Junda in the blood of the people of these clans is extremely small, and there is no need to write about it on this page.
Furthermore it is almost certainly not true that many of the warrior clans are descended from the Minamito and Taira clans. Warrior clans have considered ancient lineages valuable and have claimed that their clans are descended from the Minamito, Taira, Fujiwara, and Tachibana clans. However, it is common knowledge in Japanese history that these claims are completely unreliable. The most famous examples of this are the Oda and Tokugawa clans. It is absolutely wrong to write definitively about the many clans that followed the Taira and Minamoto, genealogies that have absolutely no historical authenticity.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
You have claimed multiple times that the tree should be removed from a "Korean nationalist" point of view (or whatever that means) which gives me red flags since you were the one who made a racist analogy in regards to the Korean people being "Kimchi" from the start which clearly screams "agenda" (it doesn't matter if you're English is not your native language, you should know better even if it was in your own language). Regardless, you failed to realize that the clans claimed descent from those specific emperors hence why they're named "SAGA Genji" and etc.
Clans claim descent from emperors -> Emperors (Kanmu) claim descent from Muryeong -> Muryeong claimed descent from Chumo -> Chumo claimed descent from Habaek
It is not chronology that matters when it comes to genealogy. According to your logic, Muryeong should not claim descent from Chumo since it was hundreds of years ago AND Chumo should not claim descent from Habaek because it was not from his father's side. It's purely illogical and nonsensical, not to mention, contradictory to the things you have said.
"the "concentration" of the blood of King Muryeong and Prince Junda in the blood of the people of these clans is extremely small, and there is no need to write about it on this page."
You keep asserting your personal bias and assumptions into this debate. It does not matter if YOU think they intermarried. Those clans claimed descent from Kanmu's descendants, which the prior claimed descent from Korea.
A "concetration" of blood is not important if the fact remains unchanged. By saying this, you are denying the claims made by Emperor Kanmu and Akihito who literally came out and claimed descent of Korea which in my opinion is rather disgraceful.
Here's a question:
If a Japanese clan claims descent from a "kami" should it then be removed simply because it is highly unlikely due to lack of "scientific evidence" and they probably intermarried with regular "humans" for HUNDREDS of years and their "concentration" is extremely low?
I'm interested in hearing your answer. Kolossoni (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
You are obsessed with claiming in various pages that some important Japanese figure is a descendant of a Korean. I would like to know your motive for drawing this inaccurate genealogical chart with King Baekje at the top and the Japanese clans at the bottom.
I began to suspect that you had deliberately drawn that genealogical chart to exaggerate or fabricate the influence of the Koreans over Japan and mislead the reader. My suspicion was deepened when you claimed to have participated in Wikipedia while discussing it with your Korean-Australian housemate on the discord. This is because it is important to have the cooperation of friends in order to enforce demands that do not make sense.
So I have two questions for you.
The first question is, why did you draw a misleading genealogy of Emperor Kanmu of Japan, as if he were a descendant of the patrilineal lineage of the king of Korea, without writing down the most important information?
The only connection Emperor Kanmu of Japan has with the royalty of Korea is his mother, Takano no Niiigasa, and she is almost 300 years after the Baekje　(Korea) royalty. However, you have somehow left out the most important information about her and mislead us into believing that Emperor Kammu is a patrilineal descendant of the king of Baekje. The reason why this point is important is that Japanese emperors from that time to the present are required to be patrilineal descendants, and who the emperor's mother is is not important in the lineage of Japanese emperors. Emperor Akihito mentioned Takano no Niigasa to deepen his friendship with Korea, but there is no influence of the Baekje royalty on the Taira and Minamoto clans descended from Emperor Kammu. I suspect that you understand this fact, which is why you deliberately drew a genealogy that misleads us into believing that Emperor Kanmu was a paternal descendant of the Baekje royal family.
The second question is why did you apply double standards in drawing up your ridiculous genealogical chart of Japanese warlords related to the lineage of King Baekje (Korea)?
Your editorial history shows that you gave more weight to the claims of some historians that the person was of Korean descent than to the descriptions in authoritative books of the time on the ancestry of Japanese figures and their official genealogical trees. The pages on Sakanoue no Tamuramaro and the Hata clan are good examples.
However, you completely ignore the views of modern historians only with regard to this genealogy. The clans in this genealogy, especially the Oda and Tokugawa clans, are almost certainly not actual descendants of the Taira or Minamoto clans. For some reason, you only emphasize in this genealogy that the Japanese clans claimed to be descended from the Taira and Minamoto clans.
Of course, the Japanese clans in this genealogy had absolutely no cultural influence from the Baekje (Korean) royal family.
This double standard of yours is another reason why I am suspicious of you.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong fellow editor. I was on Wikipedia for a LONG time. Over 8 years in total. Not THIS particular account, but another previous one that I made that is inactive due to the rather inappropriate naming choice I made back when I was a lot younger and immature. Second, it is not an "obsession" but rather trying to set the records straight. The only individuals who I have tackled and/or edited extensively on WP are Yuzuki no Kimi (an article I started btw), Achi no omi and Wani from the level of most to least input. these individuals coincide with my thorough investigations with the Hata clan, Yamatonoaya clan (page created bu yours truly) and the Kawachinofumi clan (page created bu yours truly). In fact, I became interested in the aforementioned clans after reading about Vovin's books in regards to the origins of the Japanese language, something that got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. If you read Vovin's books about Peninsular Japonic and Toraijins, he mentions several times the clans that are mentioned above as evidence as to why Japanese and Korean could be separate language families that were only affected through the sprachbund effect.
If you look at the pages of the clans and the individuals prior to my edits, you would clearly tell that it was VERY under-sourced, alluding to unreliable whataboutisms and personal takes that are not backed by any sources. I took the time and liberty to find CREDIBLE sources to back the claims made by prominent Japanese publishers and improved on making them be more readable not to mention accurate to modern standards.
why did you draw a misleading genealogy of Emperor Kanmu of Japan, as if he were a descendant of the patrilineal lineage of the king of Korea, without writing down the most important information?
Simply put, I did not. At least under the pretext you're giving. The emperor is NOT a descendant of the patrilineal lineage of Baekje. His mother is, but not Yamabe. Second, I have a hard time understanding what "most important information" is.
why did you apply double standards in drawing up your ridiculous genealogical chart of Japanese warlords related to the lineage of King Baekje (Korea)?
It was to provide an insight to which clans were related to one another, hence why the clan names were listed FIRST with the founders (if any) were listed inside (brackets). You must also realize that this is specifically on the article of "Korean influences in Japan" and it was done under the certain monarch's title. Again, you are complaining about something that is SOLELY pertained within a very specific topic.
"Your editorial history shows that you gave more weight to the claims of some historians that the person was of Korean descent than to the descriptions in authoritative books of the time on the ancestry of Japanese figures and their official genealogical trees. The pages on Sakanoue no Tamuramaro and the Hata clan are good examples."
And judging by your nuance, you are not fond of associating the Japanese with the Koreans unless it's blatantly obvious. But regardless, the claims made in those articles are backed by valuable, reasonable and official sources from multiple Japanese published academia.
IN FACT!
I added information that is not taken kindly by nationalistic Koreans who deny ANY influence of Japan in their homeland. See here: Yamatonoaya clan Etymology.
"Some nationalist historians used this to support the claims over the Mimana controversy stating that Mimana (Gaya) was in fact Japanese due to the relations between the kingdom of Aya and the Aya clans of Japan. Despite the lukewarm reception in Korea, evidence alludes to the possibilities of Japanese speakers in the region."
I am a firm believer of Japanese influence in Korea through Vovin's Peninsular Japonic theory, despite backlash from certain individuals.
Of course, the Japanese clans in this genealogy had absolutely no cultural influence from the Baekje (Korean) royal family. This double standard of yours is another reason why I am suspicious of you.
And frankly, I do not care. I am not personally motivated by Korean propaganda. I read, research and translate by reading into MULTIPLE sources across SEVERAL languages and the conclusions I end up are mostly objective except for articles that lack MUCH research in East Asian history sphere.
-
So, now that I have answered your questions, I think it's human decency to answer back to mine.
If a Japanese clan claims descent from a "kami" should it then be removed simply because it is highly unlikely due to lack of "scientific evidence" and they probably intermarried with regular "humans" for HUNDREDS of years and their "concentration" is extremely low?
Thanks, and good day. Kolossoni (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Since this article is about cultural influence, it is inappropriate to describe only blood-related genealogy without mentioning cultural influence. I agree that genealogy should be removed. 薔薇騎士団 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture/Archive_4&oldid=1226764591"