Talk:Kofun period

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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

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

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

References / Notes

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

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

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

Odd insinuations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy section

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

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

POV Pushing

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

---

that translation was definitely wrong and POV forking. Japanese wikipedia user depict as "Japan was Great than Korea". but, it was a definitely wrong. Check full text[1],

• "安帝时，又遣使朝贡，谓之倭奴国。"

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

• "无文字，唯刻木结绳。敬佛法，于百济求得佛经，始有文字。"

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

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

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

敬仰(jìng yǎng) highly esteemed[2]

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

Rewinding of five months

Suddenly, the user Cherry Blossom OK who participated in the ancient history of Japan keeps demanding to return the article five months ago. (He rewound the article until March 15, 2009.[3]) His insistence is "I do not like his edit" and "I think that he is Socks."[4][5] Therefore, he is insisting that he should return this article to the state five months ago.[6] Because he keeps returning the article by force five months ago, I cannot add new information to the article. Should we throw away information accumulated for five months in support of his insistence? And, after obtaining the approval of Cherry Blossom OK, should we edit the article in the Kofun age?　--青鬼よし (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

About the quotation of the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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