Talk:Kofun period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 22:47, March 21, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The reliability of the source[edit]

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([[1]]). 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 [[2]].--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs)'s duplicated posting. His comment has absolute no backing up source.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich and
Talk:Baekje#The reliability of the source(permanent link). --Caspian blue 09:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Do not come here if you do not intend to have a discussion.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is a duplication with the one in Talk:Baekje, so I left a pointer directing the page and your suspicious behavior. I've already answered with links to your insistence while you have no intention of presenting sources. That is just the same practice as you did to Talk:Kumdo. Argument without sources are meaningless. Moreover, do not throw false accusations and personal attacks any more.--Caspian blue 10:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered questioning whether you are biased yourself before accusing others of bias? Here's the source in question ( written by a professor at Seoul National University, which should be as authoritative of a source as any. Read it and come back and point out its problems once you've found them, instead of taking speculative potshots at the source's reliability. Until you do so, the NPOV is getting taken down. Unbal3 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to revisit this?[edit]

I noticed that there has been no new information regarding the "keyhole" tombs since 2008. Also this article states that one implied reason they are closed is the IHA fears links to Korea would emerge, but the article that quote is sourced from also says this:

But Walter Edwards, professor of Japanese studies at Tenri University in Nara, argues that the "Korean bones" issue is a red herring. "Blood links between Korea and the Japanese imperial family are documented from the eighth century," he said. "Even the current emperor [Akihito] has said that he has Korean ancestry."

So if we are going to include one quote from the article should we not include both? What has happened since? Are the tombs still closed or are they opening up? I will try to find some info but I could use some help on that.

Also this page has some POV and Clean-up tags that need dealing with. I know there are Nationalist attitudes involved and it has been hard to reach consensus. But there is also a lot of good research out there that can be relied upon. If there are other reliable sources that disagree we can put that in too. In other-words it should not matter which "side" of any debate you are on, we can still cover the debate neutrally.

I hope to tackle some of these issues, but I ask anyone who feels strongly about this article to remember I am making all my edits in good faith for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistant article[edit]

  • Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court in exchange for military support.

under 'Korean Immigrants' conflicts with the text under 'Controversy'. I think the text in the whole article should be edited to add that the 'fact' that they were hostages is under controversy, instead of stating them as, indeed, 'facts'. Many of the supposed descendants of the hostages (= Koreans) would strongly disagree with the 'fact' that Baekje and Silla sent hostages to Japan. I want to cautiously state that this article may be biased. It also seems like the cited text is in original Chinese characters (not Mandarin) and cannot be easily read; the cited [4] is a broken link. -Ispin (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC) ((Question : How do I remove that box around my name?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IspinIm (talkcontribs) 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The bit about hostages was added by a suspect anon IP user -- the English grammar was so bad that the meaning was obscured, the new text contradicted other sections of the article, it was unsourced, and it claimed that these Baekje / Japanese people were part of a clan named for medieval Spanish petty nobility ("left a son in Japan who settled there and became an ancestor of Yamato no Fubito (和史, lit. "Scribe of Yamato") clan of hidalgo": "hidalgo" is a Spanish word). This is all so dubious that I can only see this as an attempt at trolling. I have since backed out that change. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 07:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't revert an edit from one side, just place [citation needed] instead. The claim Baekje sent a hostage to Yamato is widely accepted among historians other than Korean scholars. "Hidalgo" is probably translated from 下級貴族 (lower class aristocrat)[3] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I saw a change made by an anon, adding very suspect content. I backed that out as suspected vandalism / trolling -- not least since that change also removed older content that was better-written and properly cited.
Thank you for adding all those citations. The anon IP has re-added nonsense which I am about to fix again. Their edit summary makes the very-POV point that "Emperor Kammu is not a descendant of the royal family Baekje. , And ancestor of Japanese Imperial Family is not a royal family of Baekje" -- yet in the very content they added, the line of succession goes King Muryeong -> son in Japan -> clan of "hidalgo" nonsense -> Takano no Niigasa of this clan -> this Takano (female) is the mother (i.e. ancestor) of Emperor Kammu. I.e., King Muryeong is an ancestor of Emperor Kammu, albeit distantly.
I suspect this anon is not a native English speaker, and that they do not understand WP:NPOV.
I have also reverted their change to the notes about the Inariyama Sword. I have read the Japan Society of Radiological Technology document they helpfully linked to at, but this document does not say what the IP user say it says -- see my addition to the Inaryiyama Sword article for details. -- Cheers, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 07:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To IP user Special:Contributions/, regarding text about the Inariyama sword[edit]

Hello IP user,

You recently reverted an edit I'd made to the Kofun period article. Your edit comment noted, "What is the Korean 'Idu' system of writing? Why do you replace a source of information of ”Japan Society of Radiological Technology” and "Museum of The Sakitama Ancient Burial Mounds " with a Korean publication?" I answer each of your questions below:

  1. "What is the Korean 'Idu' system of writing?"
    Please see Idu_script.
  2. "Why do you replace a source of information of ”Japan Society of Radiological Technology” and "Museum of The Sakitama Ancient Burial Mounds " with a Korean publication?"
    The Korean publication was an existing source that you previously removed with this edit. Removing properly cited text is generally frowned upon.
    In addition, you kept the Seeley citation as a reference for your own text, but the Seeley citation belongs to text stating that the sword maker was not a vassal of Emperor Yūryaku. Changing citations to say the opposite is also generally frowned upon.
    In addition, I have read the Japan Society of Radiological Technology article that you linked, , and I used this document to add a citation to the Inariyama Sword article, in this edit. That document does not say that the sword was made using techniques found in Shandong. That document only mentions Shandong once, as the probable location where the metal used in the sword had been smelted from raw ore:

...保管していた位置を確定でいない錆の分析の結果, 中国山東省から揚子江沿岸の江南地方の含銅磁鉄鉱を精錬して作られた地金であり, 大陸から輸入して国内で鍛冶を行い剣とされたことが推定できた。

Please stop with this particular edit. You are welcome to add text stating an alternate argument, but please do not remove citations or edit citations to say the opposite. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added this same post to User_talk:

There are problems with the edit Eirikr reverted to.

  1. The book by Seeley mentions nothing about the owner of the sword. It only discusses about "writing in early Japan". The description "leading to speculation that the owner, though claiming to be a Japanese aristocrat, possibly could have been an immigrant" was added later without a source. So it should be removed. It is also irrelevant to "Language".
  2. The controversial description "The swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings." The techniques for making these swords were the same styles from Korea." is irrelevant to "Language". It should be removed from this article.
  3. The book by Covell is a Self-published source. The description backed by the book should be removed.
    1. The publisher "Hollym International Corp" is a private company with only three employees.[4] Its office is a small house located in a residential area.[5] So the book never be a "peer-reviewed publication".
    2. WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." However Alan Carter Covell's only qualifications are that "having spent many years in Texas, [he] knows horses and their capacities as well as their weaknesses. (Dust jacket)" (Guth)
    3. There are two book reviews regarding Covell's book. You can access to these books at your local academic library.[6]
      These reviews criticize harshly (or with sarcasm). Some of the examples are as follows:
      • "In this slender volume of one―hundred pages, the authors describe the Korean impact on Japanese Culture from the Prehistoric through the modern era. Such a task presupposes an understanding of and ability to synthesize a vast body of confusing and often conflicting historical, political, and artistic evidence. This subject, more than any other in Japanese and Korean studies, requires objectivity and well-rounded scholarship. All are lacking in this book intended, according to the dust jacket, "for Popular consumption rather than the specialist's tedious reading."" (Guth)
      • ... "Covell's presentation of this provocative thesis is sloppy and full of factual errors. Furthermore, his text suffers from a lack of editing." .... (Guth)
      • " Whereas Part I attempts a broad characterization of early Japan through sometimes questionable interpretation of historical sources such as the eighth century Kojiki and Nihonshoki,..." (Guth)
      • "... Dr. Covell deliberately presents a distorted picture of the state of Japanese scholarship in the field of Buddhist sculpture.... This statement is both unnecessary inflammatory and historically inaccurate." (Guth)
      • "There is a need for a publication aimed at a general audience that explains the close relationship that has traditionally existed between Japan and Korea. This book, however, does not fill that need." (Guth)
      • "A close scholarly critiquing of the volume would prove even more tedious for all concerned." (Best)
      • " Approximately four‐fifths of the book's hundred pages are devoted to Korean inpact on Japan prior to the eighth century, It is this section that is the most plagued by the Covelis' propensity to take uncritically a single entry from a historical source.... and to elaborate it exponentially in a fashion to suit their particular historical notions and sensationalizing literary style." (Best)
      • "... Where does one begin to critique such a presentation? It is basically the stuff of historical novels, not of history." (Best)
      • "... but the potential value of its message is seriously impaired both by the numerous historical inaccuracies that appear on its pages and by the historically unsupportable elaboration of minimal evidence in which its authors repeatedly indulge." (Best)
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that follow-up, Phoenix7777. Given this background, I'm perfectly happy for these sources and related text to be removed. My main concerns with the anon IP were 1) changing (what I thought was) properly cited text to say something different, and 2) making a claim with a new apparent citation, but where that citation does not back up the point made (about the forging techniques being the same as those in Shandong). Your research above resolves my concerns about point 1. -- Cheers, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my belated response. I removed the descriptions. Thank you for your cooperation. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content by[edit], you removed a large amount of description, moved "Keyhole kofun" section and changed a context of the description from Korean tomb to Japanese tomb without explanation. There are two opposing views on the subject of this article, Japanese view and Korean view. Therefore if someone overwrite other view with their own view, the edit will be reverted and edit war continues. So please keep the following principles of editing this article.

  • Do not remove or overwrite other view with an opposing view without consensus. Instead, add an opposing view with an attribution. i.e. ""A Korean scholar claims ..."

Also your addition to section "Relations between the Yamato court and the Korean kingdoms" is inappropriate to this article. It should be written in Japan–Korea disputes. Moreover the description "Japan's interpretation of the 4th century was incorrect" is not appropriate. Both agreed the name "Imna Japanese Headquarters" is incorrect. A Korean scholar proposed to call it "Anna Japanese minister office". However a Japanese scholar still claimed the Japanese independent activity in Anna was existed.

I reverted your edit. Please explain the rationale of your edit without reverting again. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reverted without participating this discussion. However I assumed good faith as you didn't notice this talk page. Please participate this discussion. And I didn't revert your edit because it would resume an edit war although your edit is inappropriate as described above. Please note that any edit with a reliable source may not eligible to be this article. As I noted above, the description related to Japanese history textbook controversies is inappropriate to this article. This article is about the history of Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Another editor reverted a part of IP's edit. I further revert the problematic edit indicated above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The agreement was not the naming of the office, it was that Japan did not have a colony in Korea. It doesn't matter what another Japanese scholar claimed after the experts from both counties in a 3 year study concluded that there was no colony. That was the whole point, no colony, then the weird quotes from partial books who did not have official contact with Shilla in the 4th century and the impossibility of time travel by Japan, makes all the quotes incorrect. Will add back since all the quotes should technically go under Korea Japan disputed article as well, but only the Korea section gets put under disputed, and the Japanese POV keeps getting added back. By the way, most Universities in the US do not use this Japanese theory either. We state that it is disputed. Korea and Japan experts believe that there was no colony in Korea during the kofun period like Japan believes. We even state that we are not sure why Japan still use's quotes which have been proven to be incorrect in early Japanese history class's for kids and move on. -- (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, what ever happens do not delete the whole thing with references, just edit it. -- (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist Japanese POV. You guys have to stop trying to insinuate that Japan some how ruled Korea during the Kofun period. This was concluded as false by western historians and recently concluded again as false by top expert historians from Japan after a 3 year study. I realize that some Nationalists might feel tough by stating we had hostages, when they seem to be family. The hostages From the Southern part of Korea going to Koguryeo did not take command of Korguryeos Navy when they went in to battle. They did not set up schools like these family member/hostages did in Japan. And stop taking quotes that make no sense trying to insinuate that Japan ruled something in Southern Korea. The kingdoms named in the quotes did not exist at the same time that the Japanese leader is supposed to have lived and the Kingdoms mentions are the previous Kingdoms to Shilla. That would make the Japanese time travelers or they lived for more than 300 years. No matter what that would be controversial and will be moved. Kanji edits by Japan of missing text books from Song/Sui cannot be used as being legitimate as well. We need the original ancient Chinese. Stop using Kanji translations of translations as direct quotes (who knows if the original Japanese translator correctly translated the text), becuase the translation can be wrong and make it controversial. Please stop making insinuations or misleading statements out of context to make the reader of the article believe something a 3 year study by a panel of experts from both Japan and Korea concluded was incorrect.-- (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If you believe the translation of ancient Chinese text or not. It is a barbarous act to remove the vast text with source. If you want to claim those interpretation has controversy, you need source of opposite POV and add them. Removal by POV is not recommanded.-- (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't remove it, I moved it to the same area that others moved the opposite POV referenced with sources. I didn't claim the interpretation as controversy, the Joint history project in a 3 year study by experts from Japan and Korea stated there was no Japanese rule in Korea at this time. It is very misleading to take quotes out of context to insinuate something that has been proven to be incorrect by the top experts from both countries after a 3 year study. As long as we are not misleading with odd insinuations, or show both POV as fact instead of moving the opposite POV as controversial while leaving the Japanese POV as fact. This is really odd since the top experts historians in Japan are stating this is not a fact.-- (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are scientists, historians, men and women of fact! You frustrate each other over trivial things. Please reconsider your biased approach to such matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)