Talk:Buyeo Pung

Concerning Use of "Hostage"
What Japanese editors of East Asian history need to understand is that the Korean word 볼모 was considerably different in meaning during the Three Kingdoms Period compared to later eras. While 볼모 later meant "hostage" as in a figure being kidnapped to achieve cooperation from an unwilling state or obtain tribute, during the Three Kingdoms Period, 볼모 represented a person sent to reside in another nation in order to maintain an alliance or as a form of trade-off, such as military assistance. In short, 볼모 originally indicated an exchange of favors, and later came to represent a one-sided threat. In the case of Baekje aristocracy and royalty in Japan, most were there as envoys or guests to ensure goodwill and continued support from the Yamato court. This is different from the example of the Joseon Dynasty, when King Injo's two sons were kidnapped and Korea was forced to send military assistance, acknowledge the Qing Dynasty as the new empire of China, etc, a rather one-sided deal (if it had been the Three Kingdoms Period, it would be the Qing, not Joseon, that would have sent a royal to the Korean court in exchange for recognition and support). I hope this clears up confusion concerning why supposed Korean "hostages" in Japan were dignitaries. --Jh.daniell 00:28, 25 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)


 * English "hostage" and Korean "볼모" is not the same word. While "볼모" may now epresent a one-sided threat, "hostage" does not. 'hostage' in English means 'person given as a pledge or security for the performance of the conditions of a treaty or stipulations of any kind, on the performance of which the person is to be released.' Which fits your description 'a person sent to reside in another nation in order to maintain an alliance or as a form of trade-off, such as military assistance.' I think the use of "hostage" is appropriate. You also have not provided any reliable source that describe the Baekje princes "sent as a dignitary" yet. --Kusunose 05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've been running around fixing all references to Buyeo Pung or Jeonji as dignitaries, Kusonose, and that you've been working extra hard to degrade Korea. I rather understand your feelings (especially considering Japan's disgusting attempts to beautify its history), but this has gone far enough. A hostage and 볼모 today would indicate someone taken forcibly to initiate the performance of a condition, but 볼모 during the Three Kingdoms Period meant a resident of a foreign country so that the host nation would do something for the state the individual represents. Perhaps a diagram would help.
 * ex) --(?)->: Consensus / ->(?): Unconsensual
 * Three Kingdoms Period: Baekje             --Buyeo Pung->            Wa (Beneficial for both sides)
 * <-Military Assistance, Good Relations--
 * Modern Era:           Family               ->Daughter               Kidnapper (Beneficial for one side)
 * --Money Bundles->

That is why "hostage" cannot be considered an appropriate interpretation for the ancient meaning of 볼모. Considering that my point should be clear by now, I shall have to turn "hostage" back to "pledge".--Jh.daniell 19:08, 2 June 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)


 * It's not about my feeling but verifiability. While there are several papers describing Baekje princes sent to Japan as 'hostages', you have never provided any citations that support your argument. --Kusunose 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not understand your insistence on turning the neutral term "pledge" back to "hostage." I've explained myself thoroughly, so I certainly won't be posting another explanation or diagram, but seriously, does it feel any better by changing a perfectly unbiased word into a term that carries negative ethical connotations? Does it change history into making Wa Japan a model country to Baekje as China was? No, but never mind. I've had enough of dealing with Japanese revisionists, nationalists, apologists, and sock puppets, so I'll have to revert whatever you did.--Jh.daniell 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cite your sources and refrain from doing original research. --Kusunose 08:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (I am a chinese.)I don't understand the meaning of 볼모. But I know that in ancient Chinese, "王子扶餘豊嘗質於倭國者立之爲王":嘗"質"於倭國者,"質"="質子". A "質子" is not a captor, but a willing royal hostage. I think "ward and hostage" is appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.31.170.208 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Descriptions of being against the historical facts significantly appear throughout the articles regarding Korean history. Please stop to write down your own theory and quote general and authoritative background materials including history books and peer-reviewed journal articles.Airaseed (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bokshin?
In the article, there is a red link to 'Bokshin' who is described as "General Bokshin of Baekje revival forces". Then in the next sentence mentions 'general Boksin'. Is the former a typo of the latter? Or they are different person? I can't find any references to Bokshin so I guess it's typo. --Kusunose 07:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes,Bokshin=Boksin(hanja=福信),in fact, his full name is "鬼室福信"(鬼室 is his family name). See

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AC%BC%E5%AE%A4%E7%A6%8F%E4%BF%A1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.31.165.82 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buyeo Pung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000151/http://www.koreandb.net/sam/bon/samkuk/04_280_2001521.htm to http://www.koreandb.net/sam/bon/samkuk/04_280_2001521.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)