Talk:History of Japan/Archive 3

Recent addition by Judayxlo
This text has nothing to do with post-occupation Japan. Equally a long description of rule in Korea is not suitable for this article - it is supposed to cover all of Japanese history. We can't have that level of detail here. Perhaps if someone wants to have a bit on Japanese colonialism that might be interesting, but in the meantime we need to keep this as tight and fluid as possible. So I have removed the new addition. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Link under Muromachi Period section
At the end of the Muromachi Period section, we see this link:

See also: Christianity in Japan

I would propose changing this to simply say "See also Kirishitan" because the title "Christianity in Japan" is misleading, given that the article in question only deals with Christianity within a two century period, and not in the modern day. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the article it links to is Kirishitan, not Christianity in Japan, it's less surprising to display "Kirishitan" than "Christianity in Japan" as the link text. The change you proposed is in agreement with the so-called "principle of least surprise" and so I favor it.

powerful clan in ancient Japan
The Korean user Caspian blue wrote. "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan seem to be of Korean descent."  However, this is a theory only of South Korea. (He is using not the source of Japan but the source of South Korea.[]) According to the history book on legitimate Japan, Rulers of Japan is not a descendant of Korean. It is Chinese's descendant or Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.245.112 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04T07:00:55 (UTC)

powerful clans

 * Mononobe clan:descendants of Ninigi-haya-no-Mikoto (Japanese)
 * Hata clan:descendants of Qin Shi Huang (Chinese)
 * Soga clan:descendants of Takenouchi no Sukune (Japanese)
 * Takamuko no Kuromaro(Takamuko clan):descendant of Cao Cao.(Chinese)
 * Kasuga clan:descendants of Takefuru kuma no mikoto (Japanese)
 * Sakagami Clan:descendants of Emperor Ling of Han(Chinese)
 * Ōtomo clan:descendants of Michi no omi mikoto(Japanese) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.245.112 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04T07:00:55 (UTC)

Same old stuff and same writing style. Why are afraid of logging in your current account? (I already figure out who you're though). Read the cited sources. Whether you do not like the content or not, those are properly cited "academic sources" unlike your insertion of mere primary sources. One is even from National Geography, which is clearly not a South Korean source. In the article, a professor at a Japanese university claimed so as mentioning Akihito's own admission. Moreover, you must present "academic source", not your original research nor interpretation since you're not obviously an academic.--Caspian blue 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you introduce "the rulers of Japan seem to be of Korean descent"?. Whether you do not like the content or not, In ancient Japan, a Korean immigrant was a class that was lower than the Chinese immigrant. Therefore, You will not be able to introduce "the rulers of Japan seem to be of Korean descent". and the source is being written, "It was published in Seoul in 1994". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.43.24 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04T21:23:55 (UTC) & —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.209.170.123 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04T21:44:52 (UTC)


 * Having said many times, read the sources. Why are you also copying my comment to you? Therefore,.. Being written, same gamit again, Azukimonka--Caspian blue 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of the comment. The preceding sentence says that military aid was sent to Japan - how does the belief that Japanese rulers were of Korean origin counter this? Furthermore this seems to be a fringe/controversial view. If it is to be fitted in it needs to be done much more carefully in a relevant section, specifically detailing the exact theory, etc. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your playing such double standard. You have let the primary source stayed without following reputable academic sources which mislead the content and history. You're rather supporting the fringe theory of Japan's imaginary rule over some art of Korea in ancient time. The deleted sources by you are not a fringe theory. If you think those are as such, present your source to back u your claim. --Caspian blue 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are misusing the source, national geographic []. They say only that "prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea—or that some tombs hold no royal remains". This is a rumor, and futher, they never say that "the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent.", because this source give suggestions that the rulers of Korea could be of Japanese descent (written in prior) either. And so the writing in this point can not be countercharge of prior context.Windybluesea (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Windybluesea, welcome back, well. You're still misreading the source as always. The source says like these.

they never say that "the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent." - You're blatantly dishonest about the source. I also did not know that Akihito is not the ruler of the Japan although the position is rather symbolic in politics. Note the word "seem" from the passage, "the rulers of Japan seem to be of Korean descent". I recommend you re-read the source and others.--Caspian blue 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First, who are "the rulers of Japan"? It is a meaningless statement. Second, my earlier point has not been answered. How does this disputed topic contradict the statement that "The Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) recorded Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Wa to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[15] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son in 402.[16]"? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, the content was not originally inserted by me. However, I have assumed the editor who inserted it is a non-native English speaker, so "the ruler of Japan" would be a wrong grammar of "rulers of Japan". When we refer to rulers of a kingdom in general, if king's name is not specified, we say "the king of the state". Second, everything has two sided stories, but you deleted it for just one side being kept. That is not hardly a NPOV. The primary sources strongly insinuate that Japan ruled some part of Korea in ancient time. the fringe theory was coined by Japanese scholars during the Meiji period, and is rejected by general scholars. It has been suggested that Korea and Wa had a "special kinship", so the kingdoms of Korea sent their prince, not as simply as mere hostages to a stronger state. Now, your turn, you have not answered to any of my question. Also why you're playing such dual standard? --Caspian blue 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding you as English is not your first language. It doesn't matter whether it's singular or plural - "ruler/rulers" is vague and not specific enough. For the second point I'm only removing what seems immediately bad to me. If you want to make a case for removing other text then please make the case - I don't know everything about every disputed part of Japanese history so I can't immediately say whether you are right or wrong on any point you raise.
 * For the primary sources, they're primary sources and difficult to dismiss unless you can give some reason to show they're a forgery. We already have text saying "claiming there is no evidence of Japanese rule in Gaya or any other part of Korea" so why are you claiming only one side of the story is represented? If it needs tweaking, fine but please stop reinserting badly worded text because you're not happy with the current content. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sockpuppeter from 2channel

 * Note for future visitors

This section was initiated by long term sockpuppeter, and his offspring including dear See Requests for checkuser/Case/Eichikiyama and Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka--Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue's Proposal

 * Note This section is related to the above thread and was proposed by another IP user with a different Japanese ISP, --Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue demands to add the part of the bold-type.

The Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) recorded Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Wa to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son in 402. This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent.

Affirmative Constructive Speech
He presented the source of his grounds.
 * "PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN" First published 1994 by Kudara International (The address is Kangnam-ku, Seoul, in KOREA)

But the agency has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea—or that some tombs hold no royal remains at all.Other experts have suggested that the hesitation is because courtiers and conservatives fear excavation will uncover blood ties between the supposedly pure Japanese imperial line and the Asian mainland, specifically Korea.But Walter Edwards, professor of Japanese studies at Tenri University in Nara, argues that the "Korean bones" issue is a red herring. "Even the current emperor Akihito has said that he has Korean ancestry." Edwards suggests that the agency's attitude has more to do with trying to maintain the imperial family's dignity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T11:55:10 (UTC)
 * National Geographic News (April 28, 2008) "Japanese Royal Tomb Opened to Scholars for First Time"

His insistence is as follows.

Korean Bones

Other experts have suggested that the hesitation is because courtiers and conservatives fear excavation will uncover blood ties between the supposedly pure Japanese imperial line and the Asian mainland, specifically Korea.

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." Edwards suggests that the agency's attitude has more to do with trying to maintain the imperial family's dignity.}}

they never say that "the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent." - You're blatantly dishonest about the source. I also did not know that Akihito is not the ruler of the Japan although the position is rather symbolic in politics. Note the word "seem" from the passage, "the rulers of Japan seem to be of Korean descent". I recommend you re-read the source and others. --210.175.255.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross Examination
His proposal received the cross-examination.
 * Who is doing the claim?
 * Who is Korean descent of rulers of Japan? The immigrant who became a powerful clan in Japan (Hata/Sakagami etc) is a Chinese immigrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T11:55:10 (UTC)

Reference
Explanation by Britannica'''  Thus, by the end of the 4th century, Yamato was a kingdom well settled on the Nara plain with considerable control over the peoples of the archipelago. It was in contact with Chinese rulers, exchanged diplomatic envoys with several of the kingdoms on the Korean peninsula, and was even strong enough to have sent an army against the powerful state of Koguryo, which then dominated the peninsula. Yamato was most closely associated with the southeastern kingdom of Paekche, whence came the "seven-pronged sword." Contact with the mainland, although involving conflict, also encouraged a marked rise in standards of living in the archipelago, as many of the fruits of advanced Chinese civilization reached Japan via people from the peninsula. Weavers, smiths, and irrigation experts migrated to Japan, and the Chinese ideographic script also was introduced at that time, together with Confucian works written in this script. Claims by historians prior to World War II that Paekche paid "tribute" to Japan, and that Japan conquered the southern tip of the peninsula where it established a "colony" called Mimana have since been largely discounted by historians in both Japan and Korea.   If the 5th century represents an expansion of power throughout the archipelago, it also was a time of involvement in Korean affairs, as the struggle for peninsular hegemony intensified. At the time of Yamato's expedition against Koguryo in the late 4th century, Paekche and Yamato found themselves allied against Silla or Koguryo (or both); while the latter looked to northern Chinese kingdoms for support and legitimation, Yamato and Paekche usually turned to southern China. In fact, Yamato dispatched some 10 embassies to the Southern Sung between 421 and 478.

Paekche was frequently attacked by Koguryo during the century, prompting continued requests for assistance from Yamato; it is recorded that Paekche even sent a crown prince to Yamato as a hostage on one occasion and the mother of the king on another. Yet, probably because of internal dissension, Yamato did not dispatch any troops to the peninsula, although a lengthy memorial sent with the embassy of 478 and presented to the Southern Sung emperor requested that the Yamato king Yuryaku be appointed commander of a large army being raised for dispatch against Koguryo.

Yamato's interest in Korea was apparently a desire for access to improved continental technology and resources, especially iron, which was especially plentiful near the lower reaches of the Naktong River in the south. Yamato apparently gained a modicum of power in this region, controlled by the league of the Kaya (Japanese: Mimana) states between Paekche and Silla, though the exact relationship--whether ally or tributary--is unclear. But in the 6th century, Silla became militarily powerful, and Yamato faced several reversals in the area, ultimately being driven entirely from the peninsula when Silla annexed the Kaya league in 562.

The 6th century, in fact, represented a decline of Yamato power both at home and abroad. It was also marked by another shift of the court, this time back to the old region around Mount Miwa sometime late in the reign of Keitai (507-c. 531). From Keitai's reign there was a marked reduction in royal power. A large force assembled to be sent against Silla, for example, had to be detoured to Kyushu in 527 to put down the rebellion of a local chieftain named Iwai, who had apparently refused to raise soldiers and supplies for the continental campaign. That campaign on the continent also ended in defeat, signaling the decline of Yamato power. The rest of the 6th century can be characterized by the growing accumulation of power by regional clan leaders and a weakening of royal power, as well as the rise of new clans, mostly of recent continental origin, who managed technical service groups.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T11:55:10 (UTC)

issue

 * 1. Is "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent." useful for the explanation of "History of Japan" ?
 * 2. How is "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent." proven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T11:55:10 (UTC)

Affirmative Rebuttal Speech

 * This section was initiated by long term sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · block log) and his offspring including dear Windybluesea　- Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This section is related to the above thread and was proposed by another IP user with a different Japanese ISP.　- Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:Caspian blue is Korean　 --210.175.255.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative Rebuttal Speech
1. Caspian blue did not clarify the definition of Rurers. The reader can do some interpretations by the knowledge of a Japanese history. However, the fact of the history of Japan denies all the insistences on Caspian blue.


 * The powerful clan in ancient Japan has the title of Omi or muraji(Soga clan, Mononobe clan, Nakatomi clan etc). The powerful clan who has this title doesn't have Korean descendant. There is no descendant of Korean people as a powerful clan who has the title.
 * Ancient Japanese emperors are not Korean descendant.
 * Mother of Emperor Kammu was born in the eighth century. Why does she relate to The rulers of Japan of the fifth century?

2. "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent." This is Caspian blue's personal impression. This information is a noise to understand "History of Japan".

--210.175.255.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See also (Similar controversy)

 * Talk:Imperial House of Japan
 * Talk:Kofun period
 * Talk:Yayoi period
 * Talk:Japanese people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T12:21:07 (UTC)

Please write your opinion
About this unisgned comment «...it is recorded in the Shoku Nihongi (Chronicles of Japan, compiled in 797), that the mother of Emperor Kammu (reign 781～806) was of the line of King Muryong (reign 501～523) of the Kingdom of Paekche*»... So, how this does contradicts the article of National Geographic ? The point is you do not have to delete a third party source even if you do not like what it says. Add another stating the opposite view if you have one... --Flying tiger (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From your Akihito's citations :


 * As long as it is properly cited, I have no problem with the assertion that there exist claims that the Emperors of Japan could be of Korean descent. "Rulers" certainly is too vague, as "rulers" could mean the Prime Minister, the Diet, or going back in history, the Shoguns, the shikken, Sekkan, or others such as Nobunaga and Hideyoshi. However we wish to phrase it, I think "Emperors" or "Imperial line" or "Imperial family" should be used instead of the overly vague "rulers". But I am not opposed to the inclusion of the statement. LordAmeth (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, "rulers" is too vague. Whether I have a source or not is completely irrelevent - it must be changed to something more specific, period. Second, if for example Kammu's mother really was Korean the statement that the emperors were of "Korean descent" would be misleading/not specific enough. That implies they are Korean/came from Korea/all had Korean blood. It would be more accurate to say that the specific emperor's mother was of Muyong's line.


 * Also, again how is the statement that Japanese rulers were of Korean descent relevant to the comment that The Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) recorded Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Wa to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son in 402.? I don't see how it is. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, gentlemen, you've been very fast with the reversions and now the page is protected as you want it you've fallen silent. Does this mean you accept my POV and I can go to Joe to say we have consensus? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The 7th or 8th cent Korean line to Japan's Imperial family isn't really disputed. The reason why the older tombs are kept in secrect and not open to international study is what is in question. Many people and national geographics believe that this is because the Korean lineage issue may be even older all the way back to Japan first emperor. The Kinship statement is included in the military support part because we don't know the exact nature of the relationship. Is it a hostage or a friendly Kinship visitor who takes command of the Japanese navy. Without the "Paekche Korea to origin of yamato Japan" info and national geographic info, the article seems to lean towards the old invalidated theory of a Japan that controlled the southern part of Korea. If we leave it like this we need to start talking about the movement of artifacts from NE China to North Korea by Japan to justify Japan's theory. We are going to get in to how it doesn't make since that a nation without iron weapons/horse/advanced tech is able to make any trouble in a nation with already has these items. I think we need to leave in the sentence about Japan's rulers being of Korean descent to make it neutral and not leaning toward the old invalidated Japanese theory. You can see it split like this the Koreans look at read the statement in the Nihongi about how emperor jingu is a descendant of Korea (Silla) and Japan keeps looking at the possible hostage statement. It just seems to go back and forth from that --4.23.83.100 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there is no Korean blood amongst the emperors after 8th century (or whatever it is). The issue is whether this particular statement is relevant where it is in the article. I.e. I believe it needs to be moved somewhere else or the whole section re-worded to make it relevant. Saying "Japanese rulers are of Korean descent" has no relevance to the comment that hostages were sent. My issue is about relevance, not inclusion anywhere under any circumstance. I find it hard to understand why no one is addressing this point. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the question is what was the nature of the relationship of the people being sent. Is it pure hostages as Japan claims or is it a familial kinship who came to teach and foster good ties. It is relevant because Japan won't let the international community have full access to evaluate the tombs, they have this one theory that they like push, I think we can take both statements out, since no one seems to be able to agree on the nature of the relationship other than it was some sort of Kinship or we need to expand it to encompass all points of view and talk about the movement of artifacts by Japan from NE China to North Korea, and how they only let partial access to the Imperial tombs, etc. (And I think you meant before the 8th cent.) I think the relevance is if the tombs and Nihongi are correct and the Yamato are Koreans that migrated to Kyushu, like the book "From Paekche Korea to the origin of Yamato Japan" believe, then the people are the same race/group and they are dealing with themselves. Then you know the hostage idea would be complicated, it could be just a cousin or brother coming to visit. Also, historical references about the Yamato would be complicated too, if they are referring to Yamato Korea, then whatever idea Japan might have had about those statements on Yamato would actually be about Korea. Then the fact that Japan the island not having iron weapons/horse/modern tech of that time and still being in Korea on the same level might make some sense (Because they didn't come to Korea but started out there). At least that is what the book "From Paekche Korea to the origin of Yamato Japan" is evaluating. Then the direction is a simple flow from Korea to Japan vs what Japan believes which is a flow from China to Japan then up to Korea (as Japan's power grew) then back to Japan when Silla becomes powerful or something like that. In any case, I think we should take both statements out or expand it to include both theories. By the way what was the relevance of that hostage statement if we are unwilling to review all theories and info like the Nihongi. What is the relevance of the comment at all, does it add anything to the article? Is there a point to that statement? --4.23.83.100 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you know the hostage idea would be complicated, it could be just a cousin or brother coming to visit. Why is it complicated? Hostages have been used in the same "ethnic groups" across history in many countries. If the captor is from ethnic group A and the hostages from A or B doesn't matter. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, they are argueing that these people were family or Kin that were visiting and not being treated like a hostage but instead took command of the Navy and also taught setting up schools etc. It does matter because it has implications for how technology was transferred and where someone originated from. Questions that most cultures openly (open to international scrutiny) ask themselves like who are we? where did we come from? Also, you have to start mentioning that the international community has limited access to the imperial tombs and other scholars versions of that hostage statement. The book "From Paekchae KOrea to the origin of Yamato Japan" has a different translation of that hostage statement. Remember the Samguk sagi was written in the 12th cen. If you go the the original re-translation material like the book "From Paekche KOrea to origin of Yamato Japan" did the context becomes complicated by the fact that it was written by the enemy of two warring nations, the statement is vague and difficult to tell if it was meant as an insult. Most scholars end up stating that the text are inconclusive because of conflicting statements that follow/lack of puncuation/conflicting text from other historical documents and they only know that there was a close friendly kinship between them. (It gets too long and complex to deal with this but if you want to include just that statement, then lets put in all points of view.) In any case, again I think we should take both statements out or expand it to include both theories. And again what was the relevance of that hostage statement if we are unwilling to review all theories and info like the Nihongi. What is the relevance of the comment at all, does it add anything to the article? Is there a point to that statement? --4.23.83.100 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't accept that the comment about ethnicity is relevant to whether hostages were sent or not. Not all hostages were locked up in towers in history - many were treated like ordinary people of their rank or even honoured guests. But that didn't mean they weren't hostages. If it really comes down to that then the hostage comment can be removed, but only if people are actually disputing that happened at all. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way that whole book of Song and book of Sui info are incorrect you know that weird stuff about the Wa kings: "As Egami (1964) notes, it may look very strange that the names of six or seven states listed in the self-claimed titles included Chin-han and Ma-han which had preceded, respectively, the states of Silla and Paekche. Perhaps the King of Wa had included the names of six or seven south Korean states in his title merely to boast of the extent of his rule. But Wa Kings could not have included the names of nonexistent states." The Mahan and Chinhan were predecessor nations, so they didn't exist with Silla and Paekche in the same time period nor did they exist with the Japanese Wa and definately not in the same time as the Wa Kings.

May be the Wa kings were able to have sovereignty in Korea by breaking the laws of physics and time. One nation was the predecessor to the other but by Bending Time Japan can be the King to both. (eventhough one nation existed before Japan existed) We know the Japanese can travel back in time. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How does that have any relevance to whether hostages were sent and Japanese "rulers" were of Korean descent? It doesn't help that those who support the disputed text on Japanese rulers are not making their points clear (or not making them at all) as to relevance. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This Japan history section has inconclusive text as if they were real and are trying to protray it that way to fit Japan's invalidated theories. "Some Japanese scholars have attempted to fill the gaps" from five kings of Wa the yamato chronicles. Just because a Japanese person from the past filled in the unreadable text and translated it doesn't mean that is the only translation. Always look at the original :) Can someone fix this weird non-sensical wa king gets military sovereignty sections. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I love it when the Japanese fill in stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Song  "some volumes were already missing. Later editors reconstructed those volumes" and "Modern historians believe that it had glaring problems; one of them being that the book maintained a very foggy attitude and was biased against the surrounding ethnic groups" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, only the Japanese "fill in stuff"? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How does your long speech prove "The ruler in the Kofun period was Korean descendant." ? --210.175.255.217 (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN" was edited by the South Korean. And, it was published in South Korea. Is the source fringe sources? --210.175.255.217 (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say we can't use any Japanese sources. If you try to exlude this book which are used in many universities, then you really have to exclude all the Japanese sources. Remember it was the Japanese sources that keep using the Book of Song/sui stuff (Only way this is possible is if travelling thru time by breaking the laws of physics is achieved). If you find english encyclopedias that mimic these Book of Sui/song/hostage statements in the end it's always a Japanese source they got the info from. I think the english encyclopedias would agree that we have not figured out how to bend the fabric of time. Also it was the Japanese who were found guilty of one of the worlds biggest archeological hoax, remember Fujimura. Also remember it was the Japanese who moved monuments/artifacts from NE China to North Korea to try to validate their theories. And you know the Japanese are only allowing limited access to the imperial tombs for international scholars. With all these problems I would be more worried about Japanese sources. Talk about fringe sources--4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary
The discussion of one week ended. Caspian blue's proposal has the following problems.


 * Caspian blue's proposal is WP:AWW - Caspian blue kept disregarding question "Who is the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent？"
 * Caspian blue's proposal is not "is clear". - "Japanese rulers are of Korean descent" has no relevance to the comment that hostages were sent.
 * Caspian blue's proposal is WP:OR - He insists "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent". However, "This interpretation is complicated" is based on his unique historical view. A universal source such as Britannica doesn't touch his worry at all.
 * Caspian blue's source is WP:V - Please look at his source. We will not be able to discover grounds of his insistence.

It is appropriate that his proposal is rejected by occasion of the above-mentioned. I will report on this conclusion to the Administrator in several days. Thank you. --210.175.255.217 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the lack of discussion from Caspian Blue is a real problem if he wishes to maintain his position. He should really start taking part in this discussion again - otherwise when the page is no longer protected there is a danger of reversions happening again. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * John Smith, I think I already said what I want to say. Since you've been debating another anon who is the original editor inserting the contents, I did not think my involvement is necessary.--Caspian blue 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made a point several times about relevance, as well as others, that you really should address. That the editor has not registered does not matter as he has been editing since 2004. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you strongly urge me to input more on this, I would make separate threads; That would be about Emperor Ōjin and relationship between Wa and Korean kingdoms at that time. The anon to whom I referred is not 4.23.83.100, but the ip user from an internet cafe who began participated in editing Wiki just one weeks ago. More sources would be discussed. --Caspian blue 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevance is addressed. In order for this article to be good it needs to have equal points of view. The fact that the 12th cent writing was a retranslation and it was a translation of warring states and the context made the original statement unclear whether they were Kin who takes control of the Yamato Navy or hostages is still questioned. In historical sense the term Wa in NE Asia was a derogatory term meaning migit pirate makes it unclear what was really being stated.

I am also going to assume that no one on this board believes Japan can travel through time, break the laws of physics or bend the fabric of time so the whole paragraph on the Book of Song and book of Sui insinuating Wa kings haveing soveriegnty in Korea will be systematically changed or deleted. If you don't want it changed please let us know how to travel through time.--4.23.83.100 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the matter of the Book of Song, etc, I have no problem with the section being written to say that "according to the Book....blaablaa...., but so-and-so says/this has been criticised as being problematic because......".
 * On the matter of the "hostages", if you're saying that there are sources that counter that then fine we can just lift the entire passage as being disputed (and not necessarily important either). John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with what most historians end up saying which is that they do not know the exact nature of the relationship but it was a close friendly kinship and everything else is inconclusive due to conflicting or inconsistent info, text which lack punctuation which can be translated in multiple ways, text with missing sections etc...all end up with people stating inconclusive. Lets just stick to this standard or if someone keeps insisting on inserting this Book of Sui/Song/hostage stuff include the opposite translations and interpretations. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To IP user from a Manga & Internet cafe

 * Question: IP user, Who are "we"? I don't see any here except you and the block evading sockpuppeter who've been constantly antagonazing me. I know you're writing here with the static IP which is assigned to a Manga & Internet cafe, ja:カキタ during only "6 to 10 pm". That tactic just proves yourself gaming to avoid scrutiny. This conclusive summary is yours, not others. So do not pretend as if this mispresentation of your "unique view" and false accusation in such rude manner are of people's opinion here. Well, wait some time. Since I don't think the contents inserted by an anon is "My proposal" as you allege, I must comply to your expectation. Although the content was originally not inserted by me nor I'm the only one who supports the content that you dislike, you're only targeting at me over others. Your false accusation and attack based on my ethnicity are all harassment and personal attack. Funny. --Caspian blue 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WTF Caspian? I have no idea what nasty things were said to you, but you might want to ignore the fact that someone is from Japan, is using an internet cafe or what time they are editing - I am starting to get pissed off with the constant "reverted edit by Japanese IP" style comments from you. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor - if you think it is a sockpuppet, then address those concerns elsewhere. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, your typical WTF attack. If you're a little careful, the anon constantly has emphasized my ethnicity as Korean and attacked me for that. The only reason that he dislike and denounces Korean academic sources is just because those are written by Koreans and not favored his fringe theory. I've been here to build u articles not to be harassed by sockpuppeters for my ethnicity. Of course, You've been already pissed off with your constant blocks as the results of your reverting, wikistalking and harassment against me. I would appreciate you if you really practice the last comment by yourself. --Caspian blue 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, you defend yourself against an attack based on your nationality, with an attack on someone's nationality. Nice one. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to be careful when you make an accusion just like the last your failed attempt (by the way, I did not intentionally input my thought from good faith again not to prolong the AN report that you're afraid). I did not say the anon is a Japanese. You're being so "colorful" in my wiki life.--Caspian blue 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange I would have thought the link to the Japanese organisation would imply that they were Japanese. I found the accusations of gaming to be laughable, considering you just reported me for 3RR for edits I had already been blocked for. Pot/Kettle/Black カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're responsible for your own misinterpretaton. I thought my note with the diffs clearly speaks out just like what the admin, Aitias properly understood. I did not demanded you to be "reblocked" at all for your 3RR violation at the same article for which you were blocked. Those are rather for clarification for your own sake since you strongly feel yourself having treated unfairly by the admin. I did not see any composure in you at that time like here: you seemed to freak out over the admin's idea.--Caspian blue 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To Korea User Caspian blue
Hello, Caspian blue. Please present grounds of your insistence "Ancient Japan was being ruled by Korean." --219.105.45.141 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Due to slow edit warring, this article has been protected. Please continue the discussion above to come to a consensus, and then let me know. I will unprotect the article once a wording is reached which is acceptable to everyone involved. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese rulers of Korean descendants
Hello,, another Ip user. You seem to have the same writing style as that of the above Ip as well as,  or  (geez, all indef.blocked for sockpupetry and harassment, what a coincidence!). Could you provide diffs that I insisted that "Ancient Japan was being ruled by Korean."? Many scholars claim as such though. I think I restored your blanking of "rulers of Japan seems to be Korean descendants". Anyway, don't worry. I'm preparing something to please for you. Well, here is just for a quick preview.

--Caspian blue 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Background
I adapt the IP user's format.--Caspian blue 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) --Caspian blue 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why had such the edit war occurred over the section of Kofun period for months (or a year)?
 * Because the period is considered very obscure to define the relationship between southern part of Korean peninsular and Japanese archipelago. Not only scarce are existing documents but also those are contradictory between them.
 * What policies have the editors who has unilaterally insert the primary sources in support for the "controversial theory" to here along with other related articles? Prof. William Wayne Farris and other scholars pointed out that the theory is based on Colonialism, Imperialism and Nationalism to justify Japanese superiority over Korea. Since 1960s, the titled theory has widely been rejected in both Korea and Japan according to Britaenica, and book sources such as Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures.
 * WP:NPOV, the deliberate exclusion of the other side is POV itself.
 * WP:Primary source, misuse of primary sources without providing any secondary academic sources is dangerous.
 * WP:Own, the article also dealing with Korean history is not owned by Japanese.

Similar disputes
--Caspian blue 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gwanggaeto Stele
 * Gaya
 * Baekje
 * Silla

Please write your opinion, the IP user or others

 * This is just a brief review, I will add more later why Japanese rulers of Korean descendants should be mentioned to the article. --Caspian blue 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue's Proposal (the second)
Korean User Caspian blue demands to add the part of the bold-type again.

The Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) recorded Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Wa to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son in 402. This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent.

His suggestion was rejected. The one of the reasons is the lack of the source of information.And, he submitted the source again.

Emperor Ojin is Korean prince

 * 1.Emperor Ojin, 15th ruler, Korean prince of Baekje according to 百済から渡来した応神天皇―騎馬民族王朝の成立 by Ishiwatari Shin'ichiro (石渡信一郎) and 日本古代の國家形成 (講談社: 1978)by Yū Mizuno (水野祐), professor at Waseda University

Evaluation
 * Ishiwatari Shin'ichiro (石渡信一郎) is a "self-proclaimed" historian. His book has not been published by an academic publisher. And, there are none of historians who quote his book.
 * The book is not Peer Reviewed Book. It is Vanity press based on his own blog.
 * "日本古代の國家形成" is a source that only the South Korean is quoting. 　"日本古代の國家形成"(or "日本古代の国家形成") did not exist anywhere.

--Pkakita (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Pkakita (=Azukimonaka)
 * 1) I'm curious as to why you did not present any evidence for your claim that Ishiwatari Shin'ichiro is a "self-proclaimed" historian. (by whom? you?) He has authored quite a lot of history books and even was interviewed by Japanese TV for his achievement.
 * 2) Why you do only want to credit Japanese sites? Korean sites are inferior than Japanese?
 * 3) Harvard University, Yenching Library has the book written by Ishiwatari Shin'ichiro, interesting.
 * 4) I do not understand what "Vanity press" is.
 * 5) As for Yū Mizuno (水野祐)'s book Nihon kodai no kokka keisei, you know that in Japan, 国 is more commonly used than 國, and why didn't you show the result with "日本古代の国家形成"? I googled it with 水野祐 in Japanese setting because the title is too broad to find relevant mentions about the book. As you see that 342 Japanese pages for "日本古代の国家形成" 水野祐 and 107 hits on books. It is used as a "reference" not only for books, university educational references, journals. Waseda University preserves the book, or you can find it from second hand book stores or "visit" US or other countries.
 * 6) Or I can direct you to read this since you like quoting "Korean sources" such as Samguk Sagi on contrary to your attempt to discredit Korean news and websites,
 * 7) Even prof. Inoue Mitsusad (井上光貞) also claim in his book Nihon kokka no kigen (日本国家の起源, 岩波書店 : 1967) that King Ojin who received the Seven branched sword from Baekje was in fact Baekje royalty and the Japanese imperial house itself were immigrants from Korea. The book is also used as a reference for other books published in Engish and Jaanese
 * 8) An interesting thing is that such books that claim Korean origin of Japanese imperial line can be found more libraries in UK and US than that in Japan.
 * 9) The point is such claims are existing not only in South Korea, but also in Japan and others, unlike your assertion that no credible scholar argues about it.--Caspian blue 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) You should not answer me because that act means your another block evasion. I know that you're very persistent enough to endlessly evade your block sanction for the past year, but let's deal the issue with other editors, not with you.--Caspian blue 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Nintoku is Korean prince

 * 2.Emperor Nintoku, 16th ruler, a descendant of Baekje according to 天皇家の秘密 (山手書房: 1977/06) by Yū Mizuno (水野祐), professor at Waseda University

Evaluation This book was published in 1977. And, this book was not reprinted. The source cannot be verified. You should present another source. If "Emperor Nintoku is Korean prince" is historic common sense, you can easily present another source.

--Pkakita (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Bidatsu is Korean prince

 * 3.Emperor Bidatsu, 30th ruler, a Korean descendant of Baekje royalty according to Shinsen Shōjiroku, and 日本の神話を考える" (ISBN 409460065) written by Ueda Masaaki (上田正昭), professor of University of Kyoto.
 * Ohohara Nomahito (大原眞人), a man from one of the most powerful 30 royal clans of Yamato Japan was a grandson of the founder, Emperor Bidatsu who was of Baekje royalty according to Shinsen Shōjiroku.

Evaluation 
 * This topic has already been discussed. Can you add the explanation?
 * Well, somebody added a very interesting information on Yayoi period but it was blanked by . After checked on the source, the latter is partially right on the point that the content does not fit the Yayoi period but Heian period or this article. Shinsen shoji roku (新撰姓氏錄), the royal genealogy book proves that Japanese imperial house is indeed rooted from the Baekje royal house. "日本の神話を考える" (ISBN 4094600655) written by a noted Japanese historian and emeritus professor at Kyoto University, Ueda Masaaki (上田正昭) presents such claim. He is also famous for his analysis on Chiljido, one of evidences for Wa of Japan was a colony of Baekje (倭国の世界 (1976年)). You know that Shinsen shoji roku was written by commission of Emperor Kammu, whose mother was a Korean descendant. With the book, the 30th emperor Bidatsu was also a Korean. The section has many potential to be expanded indeed, so what is your rationale? --Appletrees (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret that Appletrees edited it based on such history knowledge.
 * Ueda Masaaki introduces the difference point and the common feature of the myth of Korea and the myth of Japan.
 * "The Bidatsu emperor is Korean" is one of the ear dusters that the South Korean tried to make popular. "大原真人 出自謚敏達孫百済王也" is translated into "Ohara no mahito takayasu is Bidatu emperor's king grandchild's Kudara descendant.". However, South Koreans misinterpreted it. "The grandchild of Bidatu is a royal family of Baekje. Therefore, Bidatu is South Korean." 百済王 is a name of a person. The Baekje coming from is written 出自百済國. For instance, father of Takano Nigasa is written like this. "和史乙継 出自百済國都慕王十八世孫武寧王也" --Princesunta (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You regret? www That's a good one. You visit here with the ID as I'm getting to almost forget this matter. Your appearance always draw my attention back to the ancient history of Japan. Yeah, I'm studying it hard. I have to take a nap, so see yeah soooooooooon--Appletrees (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)



--Pkakita (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Kammu's mother was a descendant of Korean

 * 4.Emperor Kammu (737–806) - 50th ruler whose mother Takano no Niigasa was a descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje according to Shoku Nihongi and Akihito.

Evaluation
 * Emperor Kammu He is not a ruler in Japan of the fourth century.

--Pkakita (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ōuchi family was a descendant of Korean

 * 5.Ōuchi family - The Ōuchi family's descendants, beginning with Hiromichi (dates unknown), allegedly the son of a king of Paekche, reserved the element hiro in eight upper and four lower positions Ōuchi Yoshihiro claimed to King Jeongjong of Joseon that he is a descendant of King Onjo of Baekje according to Annals of the Joseon Dynasty

Evaluation
 * The Ōuchi family (大内氏, Ōuchi-shi?) was one of the most powerful and important families in Japan during the reign of the Ashikaga shogunate in the 12th to 14th centuries.

--Pkakita (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Soga clan was a descendant of Korean

 * 6.Soga clan, Korean descendants according to 日本古代の国家形成 : 征服王朝と天皇家 written by Yū Mizuno and Nara prefecture website

Evaluation The same kind of burial mounds, such as the Saki mounds in Nara City and the Umami mounds of Koryo Town and Kawai Town were constructed in the northern and the western part of the basin between the late fourth and the fifth century. In the sixth century, the Soga Clan, one of the political powers of that time, moved to Asuka and then strengthened their power by intermarrying with the imperial family. As the clan had close ties with the immigrants from the Korean Peninsular, they supported the immigrants' efforts to bring Buddhist faith throughout the region. Eventually, the Buddhist culture flourished in and around Asuka and Ikaruga, where Horyuji Temple was erected.
 * "日本古代の國家形成" is a source that only the South Korean is quoting. 　"日本古代の國家形成"(or "日本古代の国家形成") did not exist anywhere.
 * URL "http://www.pref.nara.jp/pro-e/rekishi.htm" that you presented is quoted. It is not being written, "Soga clan is Korean descendant".

--Pkakita (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and sockpuppetry by IP user and Pkakita
I see that intentionally and unnecessarily put my name to every "threads" to attack me. I feel very offended by such rude manner. You overly emphasize my ethnicity, and try to discredit sources that I brought in here because scholars (even Japanese) suggested that the imperial lines may be Korean descendants. Besides, you might have forgotten that the material is not originally inserted by me, and Flyingtiger see no problem with the contents. You have constantly antagonized me from the start which is clear harassment and racist attack. The funny thing is after the sockpueppter was (again) indef.blocked, you have appeared and asked help from several editors which selection looks odd such as Kintetsubuffalo and Badagnani whom I had disputes 3 months ago. A certain editor tried to console the former. You also use the internet cafe IP to avoid scrutiny which is also odd coincidence given the fact that Azukimonaka/Eichikiyama's underlying IPs have been range-blocked for 3 months. I don't see any coincidence with this. Besides, I looked trough every talk pages that you suggested to compare. I found the very same format as you have done here. I paste it here


 * 1) 2009-01-06T00:51:13 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked  (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎
 * 2) 2009-01-06T00:48:25 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked  (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎
 * 3) 2009-01-06T00:45:52 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked  (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎
 * 4) 2009-01-06T00:43:40 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked  (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎

{| class="wikitable collapsed collapsible" border="1" width="100%" !Sockpuppeter, at Talk:Kofun_period

Part Article that South Korean deletes
According to an official history record at a Liu Song Dynasty [1]. Liu Song Dynasty recognized that the Yamato Imperial Court reigned over Silla and Baekje and Gaya confederacy. According to an official history record Sui Dynasty [2], Silla and Baekje feared and respected the power of Yamato. They always dispatched the messenger and wished Japan friendship. According to an official history record at a Goryeo(Samguk Sagi). Baekje submitted the royal prince of Baekje (Jeonji of Baekje) to the Yamato Imperial Court in 394. [3]Silla submitted the royal prince of Silla (Misaheun) to the Yamato Imperial Court in 402. [4] Influence of Japan in Korean peninsula continued until being defeated at Silla and Tang Dynasty in the Battle of Hakusukinoe in the 7th century.

'''The South Korean deletes this part many times. However, All Koreans never write the deletion reason.'''

Korean's hypothesis
Korean civilization ? A Korean peninsula of this age is being written the same barbarian as Japan. Concretely, could you teach the civilization of South Korea?

Korean immigrants in Japan
If current Japanese Emperor traces his family genelogy to Koreans/ Korean kingdom Baekje. This makes Chinese immigrant is more important then Korean immigrant in the history of Japan?? Please refrain yourself making bias opinion.

The Chinese immigrant is more important than the South Korean immigrant in the history of Japan. According to the history record　"Shinsen-Joujouroku (新撰姓氏録)"

"Detailed research by historians had made clear that the greatest wave of immigration took place immediately after the unification of Japan by the Yamato court. If the Yamato court was established without any relation to Korea, how can these facts be explained?"

：Perhaps, I think, the source in this part is "Japanese race's origin (日本民族の起源)" published in 1958. However, this insistence is being denied by most historians now.

Ruling class
Japan's Emperor Kammu's mother is known to be a Baekje descendant.
 * It is a story at the Heian era.

Many important figures in Emperor Ojin's reign were immigrants from the Korean kingdom of Baekje.
 * who?

according to the Nihongi, a Korean was in charge of taxes levied on shipments. The introduction of Chinese writing to Yamato was one Baekje's most important gifts to the court
 * who? according to the Nihongi, Katsuragi or Heguri or Kose... There is no Korean.

One-third of the noble families on a list compiled in 815 had their origins in China or Korea: 170 of the 1200 listed were from China, 240 from different parts of Korea.
 * It is not corresponding to the history record of Japan. ("Shinsen-Joujouroku (新撰姓氏録)")

These immigrants received noble titles from the rulers of the Yamato, and were valued as experts, especially on iron-working, horseriding and writing.
 * Who became a high class?　Most Korean aristocrats were low classes. (The only exception was Kudara-no-Konishiki.)

Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes.
 * There is no fact. (Two priests of Chinese are recorded in Nihonshoki. )

Eight of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were from Korean immigrant families while none were from China proper.
 * Complete mistake.　The Korean is not participating. Two Chinese is participating. And, a lot of members are the international students who returned home from China.

Further, idea of local administrative districts and the tribute tax are based on Korean models.
 * Complete mistake.The system of China is a model. (永徽律令 produced in China in 651 years)

--Kamosuke 12:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And also very same arguments and same writing pattern can be seen from
 * Talk:Kofun_period which was written by Sockpuppeter,
 * Talk:Kofun_period which was written by Sockpuppeter,

--Caspian blue 13:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Kofun_period which was written by Sockpuppeter,
 * }

RFC
'''Note: Please confirm the reliable source of information. ''' --Pkakita (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 The Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) recorded Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Wa to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son in 402. This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent. 

removed Pkakita's comment because he thought that is a clear personal attack.--Caspian blue 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please compare with existent theories.--Caspian''' blue 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The objection to the possibility on Korean bloodline of the imperial ruler is by Pkakita and other indef.blocked sockpuppeter here, not my issue or others. So to be fair, has to combine my argument for the RFC as well. I do not want the whole misleading contents on Gwanggaeto Stele, vassal state, and hostages in the below table and its so-called evidences from "primary sources" which initially had no academic sources until an anon inserted counter materials. The reason that Pkakita only seems to want to take out the theory regarding Japanese rulers of Korean descendants is because that way can secure a "fringe theory" that ancient Japan ruled southern kingdoms of Korea. The theory was cooked up by colonialism scholars since the Meiji era of Japan until 1960s and Pkakita already confirmed himself with the above Britannica source that the theory is rejected in both Korea and Japan.


 * The dispute is especially about "Kofun period" in which the imperial line was established around the late fourth century according to scholars. With analysis on archaeological evidences and documents, they concluded that various tribes and chiefdoms of Japan did not begin to form into states until 300 AD. Before King Ojin, the 15th imperial ruler, the geology written in Nihon Shoki was considered unverified myth and incorrect and fabricated info to justify the lineage from Heaven. After the WW2, various scholars have contested to the now-fringe theory that Ancient Japan had a colony in Gaya and a stronger power than southern part of Korea such as Baekje, and Silla. However, sockpuppets and meatpuppeters from 2channel (biggest forum in Japan) have inserted such theory and tried to erase any theory against it over not only to the article but also other related ones.


 * Of theories relating to Korean blood, Japanese scholar, Egami Namio suggested the horse-rider theory that the formation of the Yamato Wa at the end of the fourth century resulted from an invasion of a horse-riding people from southern part of Korean peninsular. Gari Ledyard has modified the theory to from south part of Korean peninsular to Buyeo, northern part of Korea. Also, the former resident of North Korean Academy, Kim Sok-hyong presented the theory called "Korean satellite theory" that Korean immigrants established colonies in Japan, especially in Kyushu and Kinai area. Besides, the technology of Korea was much advanced than Japan at that time and there is no historical document to back up claim, so scholars have been debating and the imperial agency of Japan has(or had) refused to oen the tombs to excavate which has caused more controversies about Korean origin of Japan.


 * My point is that (1), the origin of the imperial line is important enough to be addressed here because it was established in the era and (2) it has been debated by scholars over possibility of foreign rulers from Korea becoming imperial rulers based on Nihon Shoki, Shinsen Shōjiroku, archaeological evidences and scholar speculations. (3) Moreover, this article is a summary of history of Japan and also deals with history of Korea, why should such selectively woven stories such as Korean princes as hostages only be addressed here? Pkakita wants to keep the misleading contents which are also very controversial, but wants to remove the last sentence which practice is not fair. I only want WP:NPOV and the whole section should be re-written based on "academic sources" not on "primary sources" that users including Pkakita have tried to make WP:POINT.

--Caspian blue 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is repeating comments that I've made earlier, but for sake of clarity I will make them again. Who is this "imperial ruler" you mention? The current comment "rulers of Japan" is so vague it is meaningless and must be cut or changed. If someone wants to clarify it and improve it, please do. But if no one can be bothered/is able to then that is too bad. Blue, I can see that you are not completely fluent in English. Please understand that I am coming from the position of someone who does speak English as my first language - what we have now is very sloppy. Also despite your feelings I do not have an interest in the squabbles between Japanese and Koreans over their history. That's why earlier on I said I was happy to have the hostages reference removed if it was the only way to get rid of the comment about "rulers of Japan" in that inappropriate part of the article.

I am not objecting to any discussion of the possibility that an emperor's mother was from Korea in any part of the article. But whether that is true or not is not a rejoinder to the source that states hostages were sent to Japan as it was then. If you want to criticise the source you need a citation that says the princes were not hostages. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all of my response to your comments are irrelevant of the subject unlike your assertion. I already answered to you query on the names of rulers just right under the your first comment, but you deleted it (I did not agree that "you" removed "my comments"). Thus, this answer is also very much repeating. I've provided other existing theories claimed by mostly Japanese scholars (not solely by Korean scholars as the socks insists). There were "rulers" who seems like Korean descendants: "Tennno", and "clans": Emperor Ojin, Nitonku, Bitastu and Kanmu, as well as Soga clan, and Ouchi family. At that time, the Baekje prince was sent to Wa, King Ojin ruled the Wa. Why didn't you catch up it from my previous answers? Prof. Hong Wontack, author of the attached pdf file claims that the hostages are interpreted within the "special kinship" between Wa Japan and Baekje. On the other hand, why do you think that the mention of the hostages is more valuable than the origin of the Yamato family? In the period, the state by the current imperial family was formed from hundred tribes. Since you strongly want to keep the hostage mention, you're resonsible for providing secondary sources to describe the texts. Your selective support for the primary sources which mislead to the discredited theory that Wa ruled southern part of Korea. Our policy warns about making original research by misusing "primary sources". Besides, I do think that Seven-Branched Sword is much worthy to be mentioned into the Kofun period. 泰(和)四年十(一)月十六日丙午正陽造百錬(銕)七支刀(出)辟百兵宜供供候王####(作 or 祥) 先世以來未有此刀百濟王世(子)奇生聖音故爲倭王旨造傳示後世 Since you support for using bare primary sources, you would not oppose to include it. Funnily, this contradicts the alleged (currently with no backing academic sources in the section) "strong" influence upon Korea because the text says that Wa of Japan was a vassal state of Baekje based on the form, material, character, and letter of the sword. Also, you're not a judge to decide to which should be kept and taken out. As I've said enough, this section should be rewritten based on reliable sources.--Caspian blue 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First up, when you reply can you please use paragraphs? It's difficult to read your comments if you're writing in large blocks - that's why I sometimes miss what you say. Thanks.
 * There were "rulers" who seems like Korean descendants Can you clarify what you mean by "seems like"? Thanks.
 * Prof. Hong Wontack, author of the attached pdf file claims that the hostages are interpreted within the "special kinship" between Wa Japan and Baekje. That's fine. As I indicated previously, I was asking that the reference to Japanese rulers being replaced with sources that dispute the reference to "hostages" from the primary source. Such sources as you mention would be relevant to whether someone is a hostage or not. Whether Japanese rulers have Korean blood in them is not.
 * Since you strongly want to keep the hostage mention No, I said quite clearly that I was willing to have it deleted. Look what I said above - That's why earlier on I said I was happy to have the hostages reference removed if it was the only way to get rid of the comment about "rulers of Japan" in that inappropriate part of the article.
 * On the other hand, why do you think that the mention of the hostages is more valuable than the origin of the Yamato family? Are you actually reading my comments? I have never said that. I said that a discussion of where Japanese rulers came from had no relevance to a discussion on whether person X was a hostage or not and that it would be more appropriate for a different part of the article.
 * Your selective support for the primary sources Excuse me, which primary sources have I argued should be removed here? I can't remember backing some and arguing against others.
 * Since you support for using bare primary sources This is getting annoying. I have never said that anywhere. From now on next time you want to say "you support X" just quickly look through the talk page and see if you can find such comments. You don't have to post them, just to ensure you're not getting confused try to check first please. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my rhetoric tone and poor English; that is my best though. All right, I now try to believe that you are interested in resolving the issue in peace. Actually, the scholars that I mentioned in other threads assert that the imperial line was established by Korean immigrants/royalty/intruders. Some says they were from Gaya, others says Buyeo and relatively many say Baekje. The original editor (anon in Washington?) chose to describe the relationship with the "seem like" and I believe that is to avoide bigger confrontation by editors here. Another apologies for my prejudice on you but please understand me a little in this situation. I only want to describe the section in a neutral manner. Could you tell me about your opinion on Seven Branched Sword as well? Thansk.--Caspian blue 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please understand that when I mentioned the fact I speak English as a first language I wasn't saying "I win, you lose" I was indicating that I'm here to make things into good English.
 * I don't have an opinion on the Seven Branched Sword. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue's insistences of 騎馬民族征服王朝説 and 王朝交替説
The horse riding race conquest dynasty theory"騎馬民族征服王朝説" is a theory that will lose logical grounds at latest by the 1980's. It is negative from the result of archeology clearly. Moreover, the alternation theory of the dynasty"王朝交替説" doesn't necessarily mean a Yamato king is a Korean peninsula coming from. Because the theory related to a Korean peninsula has received a strong influence of the horse riding race conquest dynasty theory to a multi amount, Caspian blue may still say that it loses logical grounds by 20 years ago. Even if the writing of the researcher in a center standpoint of the ancient history research (present age of 吉田孝『日本の誕生』岩波新書 1997、吉村武彦編『古代史の基礎知識』角川選書 2005 and 白石太一郎『古墳の語る古代史』岩波現代文庫 2000) is seen, there was no description that those from a Korean peninsula who introduced established the royal prerogative of Yamato at all, and it was possible to look to the receipt of the horse riding race culture for "It was caused by the collision of a Yamato country that advanced to the southern part of a Korean peninsula for the iron resource and Koguryo that had gone south"'s common opinion at present.--Forestfarmer (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Forestfarmer's insistence to denounce existing theories
, use Engish, since "Here is English Wikiedia". a theory that will lose logical . Interesting choice of word; that means "your hopeful thinking based on "no academic journals or book or news"?. Wikiedia calls it "original research". If it is so ridiculed by academics, why still his theory are still introduced to "many" reputable books by reputabe scholars or even advanced by them like Gari Ledyard? Evidences from journals and books or news please if you want to insist more? You know the theory that Wa of Japan ruled southern tip of Korean peninsular cooked up during the Meiji period has been generally discredited since 1960s, but why you've insisted on keeping it and "deleting counter theories" over multiple articles? Given you involvement in anti-Korean forum, 2channel and secret plots regarding liancourt Rocks, I would not be surprised by your appearance here though. On contrary to your assertion with no evidence that the theories are discredited since 1980s, I have read published books in Angloshere in 21st century. You're losing your logical ground here. Funny.--Caspian blue 15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How can you know about his "plots" if they're secret? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, your cynical "question". Because I found out their secrete discussion and wikistalking from 2channel and ja.Wiki. If you want to know about it more, seek through ANI and RFCUs.-Caspian blue 00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it's not secret, is it? If you talk about "secret plots" it makes you sound paranoid. Though it would help if you linked to where he engaged in these plots for clarification. I'm not going to search through all the ANI threads ever opened on wikipedia. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Until the discover in public, that "secret plots" had been kept in secret. Since you're using English card, your misinterpretation is not your language ability. Your accusation of "paranoid" is another nice clean personal attack of yours. You've been not focusing on the real points, I do not help you for your entertainment. Do best looking through his user page, and ANI.--Caspian blue 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're assuming bad faith by reading my comment as a personal attack and indicating poor English skills. I said "it makes you sound paranoid" - i.e. potentially to other people. I can't control what other people think, only give you advice to moderate your language. And people will assume you're being paranoid if you don't have evidence to present to the administrators. So please either report and ban this "plotter" or be aware that your assertion he is part of a "plot" may be read as paranoia by others. Your choice. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're accusing me in the tone and wikilawyering. I'm very tired of talking with you; totally useless. You don't see my main point in the thread at all; talking about his logical fallacy of the "unverified expectation" in future tense. Of course, I did report his cabals with evidences, but all are written in Japanese and many did not bother to read non-English evidences even thought they had translation. Admins in ANI just said "file an Arbcom case or we can't help it. They are too many to track on". Only a couple of admins including Future. Perfect who has been keeping eye on liancourt Rocks. Satisfied? I also am very bemused at your ability to divert the main topic endlessly. What a meaningless "discussion".--Caspian blue 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was considering contributing to this talk page, however certain anti-Japanese editors who like to write 5000 word essays accusing everyone of being racist, a sock-puppet, a member of 2ch or shooting JFK, make it annoying to even start reading. Good Luck Guys, when the dust clears I might contribute. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not that naive to be fooled by your personal attack and harassment again just like your recent amusement. Don't worry.Caspian blue 12:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Page unlocked - please do not make big changes without discussing here
4.23.83.100, most of your edits were original research and not supported by sources. Given we had a stale edit-war don't you think we should discuss your edits here and at Kofun period first to reach consensus? You had a month to discuss them yet I didn't hear a peep from you. Why make so many changes without discussing them first? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't make huge changes, I assumed everyone on this board believes that Time Travel is/was not possible for the Japanese during the Kofun period I thought we all agreed that time travel was not possible. If you insist on putting this weird stuff about the Book of Song/Sui without the opposing views, then lets link it to the Time travelers of Japan section You can create that article. Which part of this article did you have problems with, please let me know and we can modify that. But if you want to put in statements that insinuate that the Japanese were time travelers, I may have to disagree. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the article about time-travel, so don't be silly. I have never advocated keeping anything from the Book of Song/Sui in at all. I am objecting to you inserting original research. If you want to delete sections then fine. But don't make it worse by adding OR material in. This is very simple, and it's a point I've made a half dozen time on this talk page but for some reason no one listens.
 * Please, just indicate what it is you want to delete along with the OR you added. Do the same at the Kofun article. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The sections that I put in are from Egami and the Book From Paeche Korea to the Origin of Yamato Japan. Ok I agree with you, the Book of Song and Sui should be deleted. Maybe the whole section should be shortened and we should just put Japan and Korea had a close friendly relationship with each other during the Kofun period and the exact nature of the relationship is not conclusive. It was Egami who stated you can't rule over non-existing states. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please mark the section(s) that you dispute? You can do this by removing them in an edit and then self-reverting so I can see. Thanks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All I want is if you 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. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets try this if you guys don't want to insert opposing views then lets keep it simple. How about: Close relationships between the Three Kingdoms of Korea and Japan began during the middle of this period, around the end of the 4th century. They had a close friendly relationship during the Kofun period, but the exact nature of the relationship is not conclusive. Maybe something like this? Or lets put in both opposing translations and intrepretations. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like the first suggestion is better, perhaps with a comment that the relationship isn't conclusive because of disputed primary sources (name them). Do you have some sort of general reference that would support that? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the five sources such as the National Geographics, Cambridge studies, the book From Paekchae to the origin of Yamato Japan, the UCLA edu website on Korean studies and Googles Origins of humans Asia section has the contradictions to the Book of Song/Sui and Hostages and Korguryeo Stele information. I guess we can list them. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So a bit more detail about how relations were close and friendly? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed all the text that was at the centre of this dispute. If anyone wants to expand, please do - but use sources we can all agree on at least for the moment. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)