Talk:Baekje

Facts

Hata Clan is Korean clan from Baekje Kingdom. Not Chinese or Jewish. The logic does not make sense Hata Clan migrated from BaekJe/ Kudara Kingdom but the clan came from far far away from China or Isreal????? Its says Hata clan came from Korean Kingdom Baekje Kingdom. Hata clan is Korean clan from Baekje Kingdom.

Some historical "facts" are apparently fake, would someone with a better understanding in history correct them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.77.145 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What "facts" are you referring to? --Korsentry 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

facts are you referring to?? Referring to historical logic.

If Nihon Shoki ( Oldest Japanese script) refers Hata clan origin is from Baekje Kingdom. Korean Prince brought thousand of his followers. How can Korean Kingdom Baekje Kingdom and Korean Price brought thousand of his followers be translated into Hata clan being Chinese???? Historical Logic does not flow. It cleary says Hata clan is being Korean from Korean Kingdom Baekje Kingdom. Not Chinese or Jewish.

Baekje and Gwangetto

it is a unrelation info.[1] Gwangetto is a King fo Gogutyeo. not baekje. Manacpowers (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwanggaeto Stele

• 而 倭 以 辛 卯 年 來 渡 海 破 百 殘 X X [X斤 (新)] 羅 以 爲 臣 民

description about Baekje.Do not ignore the history document. --Bentecbye (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.Cleary, in Gwanggaeto Stele,百 殘 word exist. However, your edit is not relation with Baekje. if Chinese Stele mentioned Japan word, is it relation topic of Japan? Manacpowers (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The first Korean scholar's study was reported by Chang in 1955.(鄭寅普, 庸斎白楽濬博士還甲記念国学論叢, 1995) He supposed that the subjects of the sentence 渡海破 and 以爲臣民 are respectively Goguryeo and Baekje.

Korean scholar said Baekje.--Bentecbye (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

any reason that why unrelated material must be include? Manacpowers (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is not necessary.Korean scholar said Baekje. Jananese scholar said Baekje.Gwanggaeto Stele is necessary.--Bentecbye (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Gwangetto is a King fo Gogutyeo. not baekje. if Chinese Stele mentioned Japan word, is it relation topic of Japan? Manacpowers (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Gwangetto is reason why Baekje became part of Goguryeo-Baekje alliance partner; also Baekje founder came from Goguryeo as well. Both Kingdoms are result of Buyeo migration. When Baekje Kingdom is mentioned we can't ignore Goguryeo factor. Two Kingdoms shared blood, royal lines, similar language and once served same Gods.--Korsentry 01:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

translation

隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來

• translation

Book of Sui"Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a great country, with many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, and regularly send embassies there."

User:Kuebie　Do not describe false translation.[2]　--Bentecbye (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

to User:Kuebie

Why do you edit this？[3]　

Book of Sui;隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來

" Silla and Baekje take Wa (Japan) to be a big country, many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, regularly send emissary there."

"並" is also[4]. "敬仰" is respect and look up. "敬" is respect[5]. "仰 " is look up[6].

your translation[7]." Sui Dynasty says that Japan provided military support to Baekje and Silla" . Where of the source is YOUR translation written? Please Teach.--Propastop (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit

"Most likely the origin of Japan as a state lies in Korea. "Peakche of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan" is the standard most historians follow." This is not true. It is true that there are some historians who claim such a thing, but it is not true that "most historians follow" that claim. Who are the "most historians"? I removed these sentences because of that. This is an original research.

I find no reason to hide the information on Chinese and Japanese study on Gwanggaeto Stele. Although there are scholars who controvert the Conspiracy theories, stating only the information on Korean study on the stele is not fair.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you add edited versions of Gwanggaeto Stele from China & Japan? Who study Gwanggaeto Stele the most? Koreans/Chinese/Japanese? Koreans of course. Also, There are little information to support that Yamato Japan ruled parts of Korea, why would Yamato royals served Shaman gods? Why all the Yamato archaeological evidence connects with Baekje and Gaya confederacy and Silla which is much more older than Yamato?--Korsentry 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

edited？ where is proof？ and that's fact Peakche and Silla sent royal hostages to Wa. advanced culture can't explain superiority on power. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

B. in "China"

The section starts with "Although controversial, some Chinese and Korean records indicate that Baekje territory included parts of present-day China, across the Yellow Sea," but then goes on, as far as I can tell, to only give examples that support the claim. so, what is the reason for saying that it is controversial? 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because Chinese Wiki members complaint.Korsentry 03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Paekje Kingdom covered from Korean Peninsula, Kyushu, Kansai, Shikoku Japan, land surrouding Korea and China. Please check out wikipedia china geography site. Go down the page and you will see China cultural map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wa's Invasion/related to Invasion records in Samguk Sagi

삼국사기 신라편(Samguk Sagi - Silla Chronicle)

• A.D 73(Talhae Isageum 17) : 왜인이 목출도를 침범해왔다. 각간 우오를 보내 물리치게 했으나 이기지 못하고, 우오는 전사했다.(Wa peoples invade Mok-chul island. king sent gak-gan Uoh for defeat them, but can't win and Uoh had been died in war.)
• A.D 123 봄 3월, 왜국과 강화했다. (in march, Silla make peace with Wa.)
• A.D 208 여름 4월, 왜적이 국경을 침범하므로 이벌찬 이음에게 군사를 주어 적을 막게 했다.(King give command of military to Ibeolchan I-eum for defend Wa army's invade to Silla's border.)
• A.D 232 여름 4월, 왜인이 갑자기 쳐들어와 금성을 포위했다.(in April, Wa suddenly invade to Silla and seige Kyongju)
• A.D 249 여름 4월, 왜인이 서불한 우로를 죽였다. (in April, Wa killed Seobulhan Uro.)
• A.D 292 여름, 왜병이 쳐들어와 사도성이 함락되었다. (in Summer, Wa army occupy Sado Castle)

• • • A.D 295 봄, 왕이 신하들에게 물었다. "왜인이 자주 우리 성읍을 침범하여 백성들이 편히 살 수 없다. 백제와 모의하여 함께 바다를 건너 왜국을 치고자 하는데 어떻겠는가" 서불한 홍권이 대답했다. "우리는 수전에 익숙지 못한데 위험을 무릅쓰고 원정하면 예측할 수 없는 위험이 있을 것이옵니다. 게다가 백제는 거짓이 많고 항상 우리 나라를 삼킬 생각을 가지고 있으니 함께 모의하기가 어려울 듯하옵니다. 왕이 옳게 여겼다.(in Summer, king said to subjects. "Wa oftenly invade our territory that cause the people's hardship. how about across sea and attack to Wa with Peakche？"Seobulhan Hong-gwon said, "we don't good at naval war and Peakche is deceitful also wants take our country, that makes allience with Peakche impossible." King concluded that opinion is right.)

it says Wa already good at naval war than Silla and Silla had a lots of invade from Wa Japan. in Samguk Sagi Silla Chronicle, their is more than 30 records about Wa's invasion.

so, I think this(↓) KPOV section is highly one-sided and even violate most believable Korean source.

[[Scholars believe that the "Nihon Shoki" gives the invasion date of Silla and Baekje as the late 4th century. However, by this time, Japan was a confederation of local tribes, while the Three Kingdoms of Korea were fully developed, centralized powers. It is very unlikely that a developing state such as Yamato had the capacity to cross the sea and engage in battles with Baekje and Silla.]]

in addition, I don't want discuss about who made this article's criterion of developing state and fully developed state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.99.38.227 (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would question the "Wa" origin, this is the time when height of Gaya and Shilla went war.--Korsentry 06:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

I knew you want to say this chronicle's Wa means Gaya. then, I also question to you, why Silla need to across sea for attack Gaya？ 61.99.38.227 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

thus, this chronicle mention Gaya and in Baekje chronicle of Samguk Sagi, it also mention Beakje allied with Wa and often attacked the Gaya. those facts doesn't mean this chronicle's Gaya is not Wa？ In my opinion, Wa is Wa. It is last question, you don't know Gaya was also confederation state？ why you think Gaya has capacity to attack Silla but same confederation state Yamato has no ability to attack Silla？ 61.99.38.227 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

'Wa's Invasion/related to Invasion records in Samguk Sagi?' That is the your own original research. Exactly When Japan won the battle? Japan really have enough technology of naval? Piarates level and Country war level are highly difference. according to your logic, japanese pirates invaded China numerous times, so, really wa or japan was strong country than china? Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not saying about Wa's superiority. but, I think this article and your POV of Wa is greatly one-sided, don't you think？ Samguk Sagi saying Wa has enough naval technology for invade coastal regions of Southern Korea and Wa wins several times over Silla. if you think it is false, bring the source. thus, Samguk Sagi is not my origial text. does you really seen a page of Samguk Sagi？ I can't show you my 'Samguk Sagi' book, but this Korean blog can show you record of A.D73's Wa invasion of Silla. http://blog.naver.com/junhoo10288?Redirect=Log&logNo=80052905216 61.99.38.214 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

thus, both Silla and Beakje sent royal hostages to Wa Japan. Silla started in 402(after fallen their capital by Wa and Allies.) for sent them. that shows Wa Japan sited in higher place than Beakje or Silla in Eastern Asian politics. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of Wa was Yamato, we can only assumed Wa is something do with Gaya because archaeological items discovered from Gaya regions and Kyushu are identical. Thus Gaya would have off shore colony in Kyushu regions that often referred to as Gaya. Btw, Nihon Sheoki is not accurate in everything, good example is errors in dating. Also meaning the original Nihon Sheoki have been edited.--Korsentry 03:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

As i previously said, both Wa and Gaya are mentioned in Samguk Sagi as different nations. Wikipedia is not place for accepting your Korea-Centric fabricated historical view. if their is source support your POV, bring that. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki

KoreanSentry was written. " Also complicating the matter is that in the Nihongi a Korean named Amenohiboko is supposed to be the maternal predecessor of Empress Jingū. "

However, Nohon shoki(Nihongi) writes the lineage of Empress like this. (Nihon Shoki Vol.9)
"気長足姫尊。稚日本根子彦大日日天皇之曾孫。気長宿禰王之女也。母曰葛城高顙媛"
(Empress Jingu is Emperor Kaika's grandchild, and her mother is Katuragi clan. )

Moreover, Nohonshoki explains Amehikohoiko like this.
"天日槍對曰　僕新羅國主之子也　然聞日本國有聖皇　則以己國授弟知古而化歸之" (Nihon Shoki, Vol.6)
(Amehiboko was said. "I am a prince in Korea. I heard that there was saint's king in Japan. To become a vassal of the king in Japan, I transferred the country to younger brother. ")
"故天日槍娶但馬出嶋人　太耳女麻多烏　生但馬諸助也　諸助生但馬日楢杵　日楢杵生清彦　清彦生田道間守也"
He married the woman who lived in Tajima Province in Japan, he lived in Tajima Province. He was called Amenohiboko. His descendant is Tajima mori.

KoreanSentry, Where of this book is "Amenohiboko is supposed to be the maternal predecessor of Empress Jingū." written?　--青鬼よし (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I wantched all of 青鬼よし's POV pushing edits, His numerous edits are based on his own original Research and definitely POV Pushing.

• 1. Please prove any credible academic source. (not your own original research)
• 2. Your Nohonshoki translation was definitely fabrication.

Here is the original full text.

三年春三月新羅王子天日槍來歸焉將來物羽太玉一箇足高玉一箇鹿鹿赤石玉一箇出石小刀一口出石毛牟一枝日鏡一面熊神籬一具幷七物則藏于但馬國常爲神物也 一云初天日槍乘碇泊于播磨國在於肉束邑時天皇遣三輪君祖大友主與倭直祖長尾市於播磨而問天日槍曰汝也誰人且何國人也天日槍對曰僕新羅國主之子也然聞日本國有聖皇則以己國授弟知古而化歸之仍貢獻物葉細珠足高珠鹿鹿赤石珠出石刀子出石槍日鏡熊神籬膽狹淺大刀幷八物仍詔天日槍曰播磨國肉束邑淡路島出淺邑是二邑汝任意居之」日本書紀 垂仁天皇紀 三年條

When 垂仁天皇 period, silla prince 天日槍 came. Japanese' king said, "where are you from?" "I am prince of silla, I heard that there was saint's king in nippon.(maybe this sentence also ninhon shoki made fabrication. In that time(B.C 29 - A.D 70), there is no "nippon" country existed. 2nd, it was impossible that prince go to uncivilized and savage country. 3rd, there is no record that written in korea, china) I came to Japan with my younger brother.

I am a prince in Korea(X) = He said, He is a prince of silla.(not korea)

To become a vassal of the king in Japan(X) = this is 100% your own made fabricated translation.

• 3. Originally ninhon shoki was based on Japanese nationalism and not credible source. Because That source is very unmatch with old korean, old chinese sources. for exmaple, There is no 任那日本府 written in old korean, old chinese sources.

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@Blue Ghost, please provide citations, so that we can verify the edits in question. @Cherry, I'd doubt that there was any advanced notion of Japanese nationalism back in 720AD. A biased view may be in all historical documents from any side or country, but I'd doubt nationalism is the problem, given that most of Japan's nationalism formulated after the Meiji Restoration. I don't see how nationalism links with this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, meaning that personal interpretations of ancient texts are considered original research. Even if you are one of the few people that fully understand the form and language of these documents, there is no way to prove your credentials. Therefore, please cite sources where real scholars make the interpretations, and not your personal opinion or a blog piece. William George Aston has translated the Nihon Shoki into English, if that helps. Disputes between scholarly, published interpretations should be fully represented (with cites) on either side. If you approach Wikipedia with this in mind, you'll see that there is really no reason to bicker this way, as the sole aim becomes to archive relevant information regardless of personal opinion.

In that vein, the Cambridge's History of Japan has several references based on the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki about Ame-no-Hiboko, his Korean (Silla) ancestry, and how he traveled to Japan bearing gifts. I can provide inline citations for this if needed, but this is generally not in contention. I do not have references regarding his relationship with Empress Jingū. If you can provide a secondary source for this like I did above, please do.

Finally, the Nihon Shoki is not a comparatively "nationalistic" or unreliable source. I'm afraid this notion has been overblown by people seeking to unfairly undermine the document. It does display internal bias, self-aggrandizement, and there is a political purpose behind its composition. This however, is hardly uncommon amongst ancient texts in Asia or around the world. Furthermore, the inaccuracies are pointed out in virtually every publication within the last few decades; I have never read a book that bought the texts literally without at least a followup caveat sentence, if not a full refutation. Again, one must simply portray both sides of the argument instead of disputing over which one side is favourable. I hope this helps both parties involved here to achieve neutrality. AMorozov (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

beside the point

The discussion advanced the following steps.
1. KoreanSentry was written, 'Nohonshoki is written that Korean was her ancestor'.
2. The information is not written in Nohonshoki. Please teach the page to which the information is written.
3. Current status 　― Answer of KoreanSentry (panding)

The credibility of Nohonshoki is not a problem that we discuss. I feel that "Empress Jingū's ancestor is Korean" is his original research. Thus, I demand explanation from him.--青鬼よし (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's Nihon Shoki not Nohon, secondly even Nihon Shoki is based from collection of clan chronicles and native myths and it was heavily edited, the original draft copy is no longer existed anymore. So it's not historically accurate considering many dating is incorrect and logically does not provide citing. Therefore we can only make final conclusion with archaeological evidence to prove that some accounts from Nihon Shoki. Btw, This Empress Jingu story is based from c. AD 169 - 269 period, at this time, all major Kingdoms of Korea were well established and much older than so called Jingu. And this is the period of Gaya Kingdom of Korea was busy fighting with their neighbors like Shilla. Even from Japanese POV, the horse rider invasion theory of early Japan pointing to Korean peninsula. identical copies of Gaya, Shilla and Baekje artifacts are discovered from early Japan's tombs. Not too mention, all of Japan's kofuns were made accordingly very Korean style. Also, considering Japanese also have distorted many historical data, I can only assumed that Jingu theory goes back to chaotic periods of ancient Korea, not Japan. Mind you this Jingu origin is still being debated among Japanese/Korean and East Asian scholars because of inaccuracy of Japanese claims.--Korsentry 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

An unrelated speech to my question is unnecessary. Where is the '"Jingu is Korean's descendant' written on Nihon Shoki? --青鬼よし (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof from Japanese side that Jingu was Japanese, the term "Korean" is again modern term, archeologists believes Yamatai kingdom of early Japan were originated from early Korea when notion of "modern ethnicity" didn't existed back then. You still believe myths and legends of early Japan but putting down Korean claims? wow you're really biased person just like your right wing Japanese group.--KSentry(talk) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

maps

We have two, as far as i can see identical, maps of Baekje at its height. It would be more helpful to replace the one in the running text with a map showing Baekje before its major expansion. Kdammers (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim Tae-sik's source

This source wrongly quoted.[8] from this document, I can't find such theory. On the contrary, Kim Tae-sik heavily denied Japan's theory (dominated south korea peninsula and so on). Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it. This source first inserted by Bentecbye [9] who is a abusive sock and vandalism editor[10]. This source wrongly quoted, maybe vandalism editor wrongly inserted source by his own POV. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source

It seems many of the Korea-related pages and the Japan-related pages have information cited from a book named 'Paekche of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan', and this page is no exception. You might think it is properly cited, but do you think the source is worth trusting? It appears that the book even states that the Nihon Shoki refers the Koreans to be the progenitor of Yamato([[11]]). However, is that true? I would love to know which part of the Nihon Shoki claims such a thing. I never heard such a strange theory.

Many Koreans love to claim that Baekje was the origin of Japan. But I must say that most evidence they use is out of the question. For example, I know several books saying the Japanese word "kudaranai"(worthless) originally meant that "kudara-nai"(No Baekje) because the Japanese respected Baekje so much that they regarded anything that had not come from Baekje as worthless. This belief is, however, completely ignorant of the origin of the word or grammatical rules of the Japanese language. According to Japanese grammar, it is impossible to coin a adjective using a noun "kudara" and anegation "nai". Moreover, the word "kudaranai" first appeared about 1000 years after the extinction of Baekjo. There are, however, so many books written by Koreans that still claim this false ethymology.

I cannot help thinking that the book 'Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan' is one of those books that arouse their Korea-centrism and the sence of superiority to Japan, using so-called "evidence" which actually has no historical evidence.

I belive this book cannot be used as a reliable source. If you called this book reliable, you would have to call any book, even including textbooks by Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, reliable.

I suggest removing information using the book from wikipedia for being against [[12]].--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion has no backing source. While the book that you contest based on your WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been referenced in numerous academic sources[13][14][15], so please present "academic reviews" from academic sites by academics, scholars that the book is not reliable. Your own assessment is not a reliable source, or valuable. Please do not continue the blanking campaign for your agenda any more.--Caspian blue 09:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't but think the one who cited the book interpreted the source in a strange way. It is true that a Silla prince named Amenohiboko is mentioned in Kojiki and Nihon Shoki. Kojiki (not Nihon Shoki) does mention a connection between the prince and the Japanese emperor. However, it does not mean the Koreans are the progenitor of Yamato. It is impossible to come to such a conclusion from Kojiki or Nihon Shoki. No serious historians would have such an idea.

I don't know what the source really says. But I am pretty sure that the one who cited the source misinterpreted it. He could have reached the conclusion that the Koreans are the progenitor of Yamato only from the information that the Prince of Silla's connection to the Japanese Imperial Family. If it is not the wikipedia editor who misinterpreted the story of the Silla Prince, it may be the author of the source.

Anyway, we need to know what the book exactly says. Without the knowledge of it, it is impossible to finish this discussion.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't even bother to check what the book says and then just blanked out for your suspicion? The author claims that he implemented the theory presentd by Egami's horse rider theory and Leryard's one, so please "present" academic sources to counter the theory that you want to blank out.---Caspian blue 06:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

moved

Moved to "Baekje kingdom" by analogy to other kingdoms. Saw the article was move locked, but no discussion on why; I assumed it was a fight over romanization. I'll move it back if this name is inappropriate for some reason. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't prefer 'Baekje kingdom' rather than Baekje. I don't know what other kingdoms you mean. Two of Ancient 3 kingdoms are still Silla and Goguryeo. I urged to reconsider the renaming. --Cheol (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with him. If you put it that way, all of Korean kingdoms should be changed its names.--Historiographer (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy Between Facts

In the introduction part, it clearly says that at its height, Baekje controlled Chinese colonies and all of the western coast of Korea. And yet in the map, which the caption reads as, "Baekje at its height in 375 BC shows Baekje as only half of the western Korean coast. We should resolve this discrepancy. Any help??? Jonathansuh (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Presence on the continent

I undo a deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baekje&action=historysubmit&diff=417028689&oldid=417022041 .

Although controversial, some Chinese and Korean records indicate that Baekje territory included parts of present-day China, across the Yellow Sea.'

I want to brief the reason. We could not describe a minor theory as the main stream theory. But as it clearly explains there is a theory and it's controversial, it's not inappropriate and a reasonable description. --Cheol (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Baekje Founding

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of its legitimacy here, but it seems odd to cite the Samguk Sagi without at least explaining that it was compiled 1000 years after the Baekje founding. Shouldn't there be a caveat somewhere in the text, as in the Goguryeo page, which describes it as "a 12th century CE Goryeo text"? 222.109.146.73 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Relations with China

Please change "In 372, King Geunchogo paid tribute to the Jin Dynasty of China" to In 372, King Geunchogo established relations with the Jin Dynasty of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieodoiskorean (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)