Talk:Japan/Archive 8

judo in the 12th century???
The article says that beginning in the 12th century martial arts consisting of judo, karate, etc were practiced. I contend this fact because Judo was founded sometime around 1882 (http://www.judoinfo.com/jhist4.htm) and karate was formalized a few years after. "The first public demonstration of karate in Japan was in 1917 by Gichin Funakoshi, at the Butoku-den in Kyoto (Hassell 1984)." (http://www.karateinternational.net/karatehistory.php) Mustamike 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)mustamike


 * Please leave your username after you write. IF you think Judo was founded later than the 12th century, then it is probably ok to edit the article if you have sufficient sources. Good friend100 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

blanking of the page
I don't want to get into another edit war but I don't think blanking of a lot of information that had citations is okay. If you have an issue with the information, it should be discussed first I think. Tortfeasor 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The section which keeps getting blanked out are the ones that mention Korea. In the intro everyone agreed that the Yayoi were from Korea and may be China. But people keep deleteing Korea from the summary section at the bottom of the article. In addition, people keep modifying the Baekje section or deleteing it. I think the current paragraph is neutral and should be left as is about Baekje. We don't need to bring in theories about a tributory relationship (Almost all historians have thrown this idea out about Baekje and Minima) and we don't need to bring in the current theory about Yamato being a colony or expeditionary force from Baekje cause trying to get an agreement on the wording of this paragraph would be difficult. I think leaving the sentence as the relationship between Baekje and Yamato was close but the exact nature is unresolved is neutral and will have to do.


 * The most important thing is a balance. Kudara is small parts in the history of Japan. You must describe an event that is more important than Kudara. (for instance, Battle of Nagashino). And, you should contribute to the article on Kudara. No one will oppose your writing the article on Kudara. You must not begin the edit battle.


 * What is considered significant to people now an days. Is the introduction of writing a significant event, is introduction of buddhism significant. Should the people who introduced these concepts be left out. What if we can name the King who introduced these ideas in detail and we still had the scrolls and text that were transferred. Should India be the only nation mentioned when talking about buddhism? Objectiveye


 * Let me make a point.>Objectiveye. Baekje is not Korea. Don't mix up it. The establishment of Korean ethnic group was done gradually after Beakuje ruined. Mythologia 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I get tired of Korean's falsification and exaggeration. The forged history is not important. Wikipedia is not encyclopedia for Korean self-satisfaction. Gegesongs 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any non-biased editor who would like to drop their two-cents? Just based on the sources it's pretty obvious that Baekje is a Korean kingdom and Baekje was integral in the development of the Yamato polity.  I don't think thats arguable based on the sources.  Tortfeasor 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are biased like that "Baekje is a Korean kingdom". You know the Baekje and other nations had different languages?>Tortfeasor. Like Japan in Korean peninsula there are various ethnic groupes. Don't interpret the past with today's Korean desires. Mythologia 17:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My lesser point is that you're not going to find a reputable English source that says Baekje is not a Korean kingdom. If you want to put that assertion in, please provide a source.  But, that isn't what I'm talking about anyways.  You can't just delete anything that you disagree with.  A neutral point of view means all theories should be presented in a neutral way, etc., etc.  Tortfeasor 17:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Baekje was in Korean peninsula is not a evidence of that was Korean Nation. In ancient times various ethinic groups were gradually merged and then Korea, Japan and other nations were made. Todays Japan was made partially of Baekje's refugees. This is thought to be a matter of course, so people don't pretend to write it. For instance do you know the history of Great Britain? >Tortfeasor Mythologia 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, if anyone else would like to suggest a rational solution to the continual blanking of relevant and cited information, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Tortfeasor 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I want you to understand are that if using Korea as a ethnic name, the descendants of Baekje were not only Korea but also Japan partially, and that Korea's influence was not so big as China in ancient times. At least equivalent references of two areas are off balance.  Don't break the balance of this article,please.>Tortfeasor  Mythologia 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, part of the problem is the deletion of Korea from the Yayoi section. The majority of sources say that the Yayoi are from Korea, not China.  So your point about Baekje isn't a good reason to delete information from people arriving circa 400 BCE.


 * Second, it's pretty clear that Baekje primarily, but the other two kingdoms as well, were very important to the development of early Japan. That is based on neutral third party sources.


 * It doesn't matter what you (Mythologia et al) personally think about those sources, etc. A neutral point of view means presenting information fairly.  That is my main point and that is why there shouldn't be mass blanking of information.  Tortfeasor 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Yayoi people were form SE China is becoming to be a commonly accepted theory. If we prefer majority of all books, we might not write it forever. And this article is not one that everything of Japan were written. Your conducts of off balances are vandalism  clearly. Don't repaet again. Mythologia 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on now. This "Baekje is not a Korean kingdom" logic is a play on semantics. Just look at the Baekje article, everything indicates that it is a "Korean kingdom". --- Hong Qi Gong 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Tortfeasor.　If you hope, I write Nohonshoki and based on the history book on Korea　or china. In a word, ancient Korea is a country in Japan that presented the hostage as for the royal family.


 * In a general way, nations with diffrent langeges are not thought as same ethnic group. So I want to ask you when the Korean nation was born? >HongQiGong Mythologia 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"people keep deleteing Korea from the summary section at the bottom of the article. In addition, people keep modifying the Baekje section or deleteing it."

Its obvious. Some users cannot admit to the fact that Japanese culture came from Asia, namely China and Baekje. This is probably the third time I saw a user start a discussion about how some users are deleting information about Baekje.

Baekje is a Korean kingdom! During the Three Kingdoms period. Make sure you know what happened in Korean history before writing things down on talk pages. Read History of Korea. Good friend100 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Baekje is Baekje of course. They fought with Japan(Yamato) against Silla and Tang, and ruind. Baekje's refugees are part of Japanse ancestors. History like this is common in everywhere of the world. Why Korean can't understand this common fact? Mythologia 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we not go off topic because some user has a special understanding of Korean history? Is there a solution to the continual mass blanking that is going on in this page?  That's my question (hence the title of the topic).


 * The blanking of the page is the continuos removal of Koreans going to Japan and literally teaching them.


 * You make everyone and me laugh with a arrogance like this. >Good friend100 Mythologia 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mythologia, I understand about the Baekje and Japan relations. I am commenting that this is the 3rd time someone has put up a complaint because several users keep deleting material referencing Baekje. It is the Japan side that doesn't understand the "common fact" when they delete all the material. Good friend100 19:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I want to tell you is not to write too much to break balance of this article. This article is not a Baekje propaganda board. Mythologia 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not write anything in the Japan article. Most of the content is something I have not studied before. I am not trying to endorse Baekje. The point is, that the Baekje information is being deleted frequently! Good friend100 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote in this article. See history, you don't remember it? And if you have not studied before most of the content, don't write this article. That's acts are same as a sock. The Baekje information is not so imporitant as china in ancient Japan. So many persons are against to write the information. In my view it is all right to write Baekje's infomation with references of Japanse military support to Baekje simplicity. But I think it is not essential of Japanese history. Mythologia 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The only part I wrote in was the change from "Seven Year War" to "Imjin War". I don't write false information to articles that I don't even know and I take your comment about "socks" offensive, buddy.

Baekej literally taught Japan. They introduced Chinese calligraphy and Chinese culture. Japan before that was at a much lower cultural level than China or Korea. Baekje's influence has been an important part of Japanese history.

How is the Baekje information not as important as Chinese information? Korea itself was the gateway to Chinese culture from Japan and brought Chinese culture to Japan, especially Buddhism.

I believe the users against Baekje information are either denieing a larger Baekje influence in the article, or are wholly believing Korea was only a "gateway" to China. Good friend100 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote "I did not write anything in the Japan article." and "Most of the content is something I have not studied before.". Your writings are full of contradiction. I respeak that if you have not studied before most of the content, don't write this article. That's acts are same as a sock. Mythologia 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are repeating your comments you have already said since you have nothing else to say. Good friend100 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already said what I want to say, you are writing conflicting statements. You wrote "I did not write anything in the Japan article. Most of the content is something I have not studied before. I am not trying to endorse Baekje. ". But you wrote as above. It endorse Baekje clearly. It is irreconcilable. I can't make out your irreconcilable words. Let's look at things more reasonably. Mythologia 22:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you don't fully understand what "endorse" means. Endorsing something is To give approval of or support to as written in a dictionary. I may have written "I don't endorse" but that is because endorse may also mean "advertise", for example you endorse a type of cereal on TV.

Of course I would support that Baekje influenced Japan! Of course you would endorse that Tokyo is the capital of Japan. Or you would of course endorse that Mount Everest is currently the tallest mountain on Earth.

Baekje influenced Japan and the subject of this discussion is about how there are several users that decide to erase Baekje off of this article. Good friend100 22:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote "Most of the content is something I have not studied before." But you endorse Baekje. You are amusing but adversity of this article. Mythologia 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The amusing point to me is that it seems you don't understand that Baekje is part of Korean history as well.


 * I said "most of the content". Does that mean I have zero knowledge about Japan myself? Ummmm no. Korean history has a lot of connection with Japanese history.


 * Your statements seem to mean as if I "don't know anything about Japanese history but trying to look like I am a pro at it". Good friend100 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem is, you and the Japan side's overall attitude on the Baekje/Yamato is wrong.


 * I read a "Baekje does not mean its Korea". What does that mean?? Does that mean Korean never influenced Japan and instead some other "country" influenced Japan?


 * When several users produced sources of Baekje influence or the Japanese emperor's declaration of Korean ancestry, who had the most to say? Certainly not the Japan side.


 * This discussion started out with the "blanking of the page", I remind you again. Read the title and the first paragraph. Good friend100 03:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On the section on Baekje, the paragraph states Buddism, pottery, burial style etc..., these technologies were passed around 538, 300, 250 AD. Yamato helps Baekje in 663 AD and lose the war together. How can these technologies be a gift or tribute for help with military when the technology was passed on prior to military support and they lose the war? Here's a gift, Thanks for helping us lose the war??? Which you won't help us for 100s of years after the gifts are given??? We have to at least make the paragraph chronologically sensical. If you mention the transfer of technology as a gift or tribute you are forced to mention the current belief of Baekje being the origin of Yamato From Paekche to Origin of Yamato. There is no other way to explain 100s of years in difference. Otherwise we can not mention tribute or colony of Baekje and write the nature of the relationship is not resolved yet. Tyler111

The mass introduction of Chinese writing system is not a gift or tribute either, it was because they lost the war and people of Baekje fled to Japan.


 * I have nothing to say other than I agree with you. How loudly is everyone else going to react?Good friend100 12:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

grammatical error
Hideyoshi launched Seven-Year War.

I changed the above statement to "Hideyoshi launched the Imjin War" because of the grammatical error and the name of the article as changed as well, is that ok? Good friend100 02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you call it with a Korean name? Is it well known in the world? At least it is not in Japan. It seems that some people keep removing the sentence while others keep adding just because of the name. Can't we just agree about the fact and put a name acceptable to everyone or just "a war"? --Litte Tree 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its better to discuss at the Imjin War talk page. There is much to say there. Good friend100 13:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

request:remove cat pro-whaling
as per cfd

??
Why did you just delete all the information about Korea and China on the article???

Just because there is an edit war doesn't mean that is an excuse to delete all information about Korea and China. Please revert the changes. Also, the deleted information are all true.

??? Good friend100 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on China has not been deleted at all. The content is exaggerated though South Koreans contribute the article on Korea.　Therefore, the South Korean's contribution is rejected.

Name of Dokuto will be an edit battle if there are a lot of Japanese nationalists. If you hope for the friendship of Japan and South Korea, the article on Japan must be stopped and the South Korean must stop the hijacking.

Ok
First before I go on I am going to ask everyone this. Why are all these people attacking Korea and not leaving their own name. Is because you are too shameful to even show your own name to the public? If you believe the Koreans are nationalists, POVs, hijackers, vandalizers etc etc... then why don't you come out boldly, instead of skimpering around in the back?

Is it because you know we're right, or are you not strong enough to attack Korea, or specifically me? Its just rididulous with that excuse just to delete "exxagerated" content that "Korean hijackers" wrote.

I don't believe the "exxagerated" material had information such as "Korea went to Japan and found barbarians" or "Koreans taught the Japanese everything" or "Japan should thank Korea for helping them" or "Japan is actually Korea".

All the content that were deleted are true and they are not exxagerated. The edit should be reverted. Good friend100 19:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Treatment of Korea
Finally... --Kamosuke 09:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are the multiple citations being deleted and any mention of Korea being deleted. Although the terms China or mainland may be used like the term Rome you need to acknowledge the nation the brought the culture especially if it is 100s of years later. Also, when you have so much evidence it would be silly to word things vaguely and gloss over 3 or more centuries as if nothing was happening in Japan in those centuries and popping up all of a sudden in the mid 7th to 8th century. When we speak of America which is heavily Roman influenced, England is always mentioned as the source of various culture and technology. Even though the Romans or sometimes the French or German may have introduced things to England, if England was the source or reason for America practicing a certain culture/tradition or technology England is mentioned even if the origin is Roman or European. Especially if they have the name of the King or scholar that brought the technology to America. We need to find a compromise, if some users do not want any mention of Korea, please bring in multiple references to counter the multiple references above and in archive sections. It is almost impossible to talk of ancient Japan without mentioning Korea, please don't let your emotions work against logic and evidence. Tyler111

Friendly reminder of referenced citations by other people again:

1. Many people from Korea emigrated to Japan. Those people brought rice cultivation and metal work to Japan during the Late Jomon Period. Jomon people started to learn and practice those new things. The cultural effect from Korea was reflected in the shape of earthenware vessels, tools, technology and society in Yayoi period. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html

2. According to one estimate, Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html

3. The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2131.html

4. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/PacificRimReadings/JapaneseRoots.html

5. In this sense, a very great part of Japan's origins, both culturally and ethnically, can be traced back to Korea. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ getarticle.pl5?nn20020312b6.htm

6) Cambridge History of Japan:
 * A) Archaeological evidence from the Fujinoki tomb suggests that the person burried there, "like the Soga, was made up largely of immigrants with close cultural ties to Korea."  Any horse related materials were imports from Korea because the native Japanese of the day would not know what the "meaning" of the artifacts "nor how to make such fittings.".
 * B) The establishment of an urban civilization that was "definitely Korean in character" based on this evidence:
 * a) Imported grave goods
 * b) The "Korean style" of the three great temples of the Asuka period
 * c) The "continental" origins of Asuka period treasures at the Horyu-ji Temple collection.
 * d) The prominence of "Korean priests" of 1384 clerics (815 priests, 569 nuns) serving in the 46 temple compounds by 624 CE
 * e) And the dominance of the Soga clan and its strong Korean connection (also sourced in Japan's Name Culture.

7) The rank system adopted by Japan in 603 CE, although based on the Chinese Wei, was most directly influenced by "Koguryeo (Goguryeo) and Paekche(Baekje).".

8) Korean immigrant:  Kuratsukuri no Obitotori who cast a bronze Buddha at Asuka-dera.

9) The "conclusion that Yamato's relations with the Korean kingdoms had become more active in the last half of the fourth century":
 * A) Archaeological sites that show that there was a "continuous flow of materials, techniques, and immigrants from the Korean peninsula into Japan.".

10) There is "little doubt that the Japanese court was determined" to "make extensive use of Korean experts for an accelerated and wide-ranging program of modernization.".
 * A) Tenji's order to adopt continental methods was finished in 671 CE, the same time many former Paekche officials were awarded high ranks for services rendered in special fields of knowledge..

11) Disovering the Arts of Japan: "Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Korean Paekche temples of the sixth and seventh centuries.".

12) Korea: A Religious History states that monks sent to Japan include Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japan), Hyeja (Keiji in Japan) was the tutor of Prince Shotoku..

13) Gateway to Japan:  The famous artist, Tori Busshi, "was of Korean descent.".

14) A History of Writing in Japan:  The Nihon Shoki states that King of Paekche sent Atiki, who taught about horse culture.  Also, it menions a Wani of Paekche who tutored the crown prince..

15) The New York Times:  Japanese National Treasure No. 1, a famous contemplative Maitreya, was "almost certainly carved in Korea and sent to Japan..


 * Korea by James Huntley Grayson: "Paekche(Baekje) was paramount" in the development of early Yamato-ese Buddhism..
 * Writing Systmes: A Linguistic Approach by Henry Rogers: "Korean tutors came to Japan to teach the Chinese language"  (also, please refer to Wani and Atiki, sent by the king of Baekje, metioned in the Nihongi/Nihonshoki (if the source can be determined reliable) which also states that they brought written language, 1,000 Chinese characters, and the 'Analects' to the Yamato polity.


 * 538 - 552 Buddhism is introduced to Japan, as King Song of Baekje sends Buddhist statues and scriptures to Japan under Emperor Kimmei and Soga clan
 * 560 Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese) goes to Japan
 * 577 King Widok sends more artisans to Japan
 * 607 Empress Suiko of Japan sends an envoy to Sui Dynasty of China to copy Sutra (see Buddhism in Japan)


 * This is really annoying me. What Tyler111 has said has been repeated at least 3 or 4 times already among this article, history of Korea, history of Japan, or any other article regarding Korea and Japan. And the Japan side? How do they respond? They don't even say anything. Good friend100 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Compare:

"Government-industry cooperation, a strong work ethic, mastery of high technology, and a comparatively small defense allocation (1% of GDP) helped Japan advance with extraordinary rapidity to the rank of second most technologically powerful economy in the world after the US and the third-largest economy in the world after the US and China, measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis." - CIA Factbook

"Government-industry cooperation, a strong work ethic, mastery of high technology, and a comparatively small defense allocation have helped Japan advance with extraordinary speed to become one of the largest economies in the world." - wiki article

Please choose more original wording. 70.187.164.216 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on new version.
1. Introduction The introduction is vague and does not deliver valuable information to the reader. The details it does have are almost irrelevant. Nobody cares if Japan is at "over 377,873 square miles... the 62nd largest country by area". Being a G4 member is not significant. It's just a group of countries trying to get seats as permanent members of the UN Secruity Council.

Instead, the introduction should highlight key points of Japan: 660BC founding, early Chinese/Korean influence, the Heian period, the Tokugawa shogunate, the Meiji Restoration, WWII, and re-emergence as an economic power.

2. Korea references Any references to Korea have these strange additional comments that make the sentences convoluted and difficult to comprehend. The edits seem to have political motivations behind them, somehow trying to dilute Korean influence and even denigrate Korea.

Example A) "The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from Korea and probably China."

Read this from "Japan's Delayed Transition Into Early Civilization" by Edward Kaplan:

"The evidence seems conclusive that at least the beginnings of the shift to the Yayoi archaeological stage was effected by Mongoloidal ethnic type people from the Korean peninsula. (Some Japanese prefer to believe these migrants came from the lower Yangzi, but this contradicts the linguistic evidence for a Korean connection.)"

"Korea is a much more likely point of origin for the Yayoi than China. It is not likely that they came from as far south as the mouth of the Yangzi at the bottom of subzone C1, as some recent Japanese scholars have proposed. Even scholars, if they are Japanese, do not fancy having Korean ancestors. (Remember, Korea was a Japanese colony from 1909 to 1945, and imported Korean labors still do the kinds of dirty jobs in Japan that we reserve for migrant laborers from Latin America.)"

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~kaplan/eas201/201-13.pdf

If French statesmen were to introduce the concept of democracy to Britain, then it is stated so. There is no need to mention that democracy originated in Greece or that it came to France from Rome. We're grasping at straws here to find this non-Korea connection by way of rice DNA and some random Chinese artifacts (all brought to Japan via Korea anyhow).

Example B) "During the 5th and 6th centuries, the sophisticated Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, and ceremonial burial were all introduced as tributes from the neighboring kingdom of Baekje in exchange for military support from Japan which they were dependent on."

The "tribute" claim by Japanese scholars is in dispute and largely dismissed by both Korean and Western scholars. The point of the sentence is to describe when important advances were introduced to Japan and how. Instead, it seems to focus on trying to make an entirely different statement.

3. Pictures This article is cluttered with pictures. Also, there is constant change in the pictures included. Having a stable article is important and there is no need for some of these pictures (Meiji era Emperor Jimmu, two pictures of the imperial family, parliament floor that is barely visible, stock exchange symbols, etc.)

4. Repetitive statements and general need for copy editing On the emperor: "He performs ceremonial duties and holds no real power; not even emergency reserve powers. Power is mainly held by the Prime Minister, and other elected members of the Diet. Sovereignty is vested in the Japanese people by the constitution." Power is mentioned three times in two sentences. Okay, we know the emperor has no real power and power is with politicians who are elected by the people. I don't know why this was edited like this.--Sir Edgar 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sentences from a course material for distance learning written by an associate professor of West Washington University who majors in Mongolian culture... accompanied by no citation of primary souces... instead followed by heavily prejudiced political comments like "Even scholars, if they are Japanese, do not fancy having Korean ancestors," "Remember, Korea was a Japanese colony from 1909 to 1945, and imported Korean labors still do the kinds of dirty jobs in Japan that we reserve for migrant laborers from Latin America." This is a joke, right? --Saintjust 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree to his history knowledge. He doesn't understand the relation of the history of Japan and China at all. --Kamosuke 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am getting the impression that the Japanese are total ingrates. Please prove me wrong by changing your attitude on Korean contributions to Japanese civilization. Baekje played a key role in Japan's development. If not for Baekje, Japan would likely remain a backwater in Asia for many more centuries and become probably something of a mix of Mongolian and Southeast Asian cultures. --Sir Edgar 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir Edgar: You are in violation of WP:Civil.  The last time, 2 or 3 non-Japanese editors have warned you to cool it, but it appears you appear to be doing the same thing again.  Regardless of which position you appear to be taking, it is inexcusable to use such language.  Please rephrase your language, and make your proposals more concise.  (And drop all your negative comments.)  Otherwise, your suggestions here are totally '''unacceptable.--Endroit 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many Japan side editors that have used nasty words worse than this. I will not point them out but don't just reprimand the Korea side. Your statement makes it seem like the Korea side is all at fault. Good friend100 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think there's a "Korean side" and a "Japanese side" to this discussion, then you must be a Troll or a misguided person. If you didn't understand what I said above, I'll rephrase myself:  Regardless of which position you are taking, you shouldn't use negative language.  Ask youself, everbody... "Am I trying to improve this article or not?" --Endroit 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Endroit, if you look at the Edit History of this page, you will see that it is Kamosuke who merely re-inserted a previous post of mine. See the date of the post: June 15, 2006. Even so, I don't think the recent edits by some of Japanese users have changed my impression. Regardless, I am not on a "Japanese side" or a "Korean side". I have tried very hard to improve all the articles I work on, especially Japan. And I resent the fact that people who are destroying this article, bringing it from A- quality to C+ quality by inserting their political bias and personal prejudices, are allowed to do this.--Sir Edgar 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We should write a Japanese historic fact. This article is not for Korean patriotism and satisfaction. Please, please read WP:NOT and WP:NOT once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegesongs (talk • contribs)


 * Sign your posts on talk pages. Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * &gt; "The edits seem to have political motivations behind them...."


 * Here goes again Edgar's pet conspiracy theory of Japanese rightists "trying to minimize Korean contributions to Japan." You surely are quick to judge others as being biased and nationalistic.


 * &gt; "I am not on a "Japanese side" or a "Korean side". I have tried very
 * &gt; hard to improve all the articles I work on, especially Japan."


 * This is what you just confessed earlier last month: "I believe Japan has the upper hand vis-a-vis Korea. This is because Japan is far more advanced, has a better and longer relationship with the West (especially the U.S.), and is better at PR. I will continue to edit Japan/Korea articles to help improve them." A self-appointed PR campaign manager of Korea accusing other editors of having "political motivations behind them." You are exactly what you are accusing of. Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I might be violating a personal policy of Edger. However, why do I admit the name of Dokuto if I am a nationalist?
 * I have strong dissatisfaction in your change of the name to Dokuto for Liancourt Rocks. However, the name has been approved according to the system of Wikipedia. (Of course, I use the name of Liancourt Rocks if becoming the name of Liancourt Rocks. )　--Kamosuke 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hermeneus, I think you are confusing efforts to provide accurate information in articles with efforts to politicize. By the way, it's quite laughable that you call me a "PR campaign manager of Korea" and put a link to VANK when I've only visited their site once in my entire life and I've worked five times more on Japan-related articles than Korea-related ones. Really, I'm quite upset that after putting in so much content and work into editing Japan that all the focus is on Korea-related references. What is up with this obsession with deleting all references to Korea, except for colonization of it? Baffling.--Sir Edgar 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It should seem even more funny to you Sir Edgar that I myself am beginning to wonder if Hermeneus has made an accusation that warrants investigation. collective Conscious An yong ni gaseo Chingu.

The Japanese nationalism on Wikipedia, specifically anti-Korean bias on countless articles, has really gotten out of hand, with the concerted revert wars, destruction of months of hard work by many editors, vote-stuffing, personal attacks, and on and on. It is really driving away many well-intentioned editors and weakening the credibility and quality, as well as damaging the image of Japan. It will take months or years of patient work to undo the childish tantrums. Dollarfifty 05:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:Assume good faith. In general, if the person is not revert-warring, you should assume good faith.  Since Sir Edgar is not revert-warring and says he's not taking sides, we need to believe him.  Also, Kamosuke and HaradaSanosuke should have discussed first before making drastic changes.  (Please discuss more in the future).  Hermeneus and Dollarfifty, what suggestions do you have to improve this article, rather than just complaining?  We should all be discussing how to improve this article, rather than making negative comments about others.  I think those negative comments just feed on each other and keep snowballing, with nothing getting accomplished.
 * Let's discuss how to improve this article instead. So, ... Korea (... or the kingdoms in the Korean peninsula) was instrumental in the early stages of Japanese history.  How do we mention this properly so that everyone is happy?  Any suggestions?  changes? --Endroit 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The talk page here is becoming too political, like the Dokdo talk page. Refering to "Japan side" or "Korea side" was meant for who supported Korea's large influence on Japan and who thought Korea did nothing to influence Japan. Good friend100 17:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke and IP 130.127.67.137 (aka "Collective Conscious"), you are in violation of Assume good faith, No personal attacks, and Harassment. I have warned you previously. Focus on the article and avoid personal references. You may apologize to me now for your rude and inappropriate behavior or I have no choice but to report you both, especially IP 130.127.67.137 for wikistalking and making threats.--Sir Edgar 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

READ THIS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,625427,00.html

"I, on my part, feel a certain kinship with Korea, given the fact that it is recorded in the Chronicles of Japan that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of the line of King Muryong of Paekche," he [Emperor Akihito] told reporters.


 * PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN


 * Japanese Art and Its Korean Secret

Unfortunately, many of Korea's greatest monuments were burned down by the Japanese. National treasures were looted and destroyed. This can give the impression of cultural superiority.


 * Who rightfully owns Korean artifacts looted by Japan?

"Historians believe Japan carried away the bulk of its Korean cultural assets during two aggressions: the 16th-century invasion of the Korean peninsula and its 20th-century occupation."

"But the size of the haul is astounding. Eighty percent of all Korean Buddhist paintings are believed to be in Japan. And, says Seoul art historian Kwon Cheeyun, "35,000 Korean art objects and 30,000 rare books have been confirmed to be there, too." That's only the tip of the iceberg: much more is believed to be hidden away in private collections."

"More than 1,000 bronze, gold and celadon pieces owned by the late businessman Takenosuke Ogura now make up the core of the Tokyo National Museum's Korean section. Another precious item is a two-meter-tall stone tablet, originally built in northern Korea to commemorate the country's repelling of the 16th-century Japanese invasion."

Taeguk Warrior 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you remember what happened when the emperor declared Korean ancestry? Japan was really quiet. They weren't surprised because they already knew it. Japanese people already know of Korean ancestry, they just don't talk about it. Good friend100 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Japanese are mostly the same ethnic group as Mongolians. Of course, it's nearly impossible to avoid intermingling with Koreans to some degree given the fact that Japan often had a presence in one form of another on the Korean peninsula.  What's more, the emperor's line is from the continent as opposed to the island, and his comments were that his line was not so much a mix of native islanders (the Ainu) but originally derived from the continent (he felt kinship with Koreans, who are also derived thusly). Komdori 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder why the emperor didn't declare his kinship to Mongolian ancestry, maybe it had something to do with Emperor Kammu and the influx of Baekje scholars, in addition to the influx of Yayoi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Japan#Korean_influences Taeguk Warrior 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason to delete Tendai & Kokugaku
Korean often deletes an important event of the history of Japan. They has value that is higher than Begja by these events though they insist, "It is worthless" on this event.

What can be higher in value than learning how to write?

militarism of Japan.
 * Tendai　Tendai is a Buddhism sect by which it had a big influence on the history of Japan. The priest such as Shinran,Nichiren,dougen is training with Tendai. And, the political influence power continued until the age of Oda Nobunaga.
 * Kokugaku Kokugaku became basic of the Sonnō jōi thought at the end of Tokugawa shogunate. This thought helped Meiji Restoration. And, it has a strong influence on the

Koreans,　Explain the reason to delete this event. --HaradaSanosuke 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop referring to people as Koreans. Should you continue to resort to ethnic labeling, you will be reported. Racism is not acceptable at Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that I have already warned you on your User talk:HaradaSanosuke page. Even one hint of a racist remark by you again and I will do my best to see that you are banned from Wikipedia forever.


 * If you would like to edit in Tendai & Kokugaku, then do so. But please do not delete other content. I think that's why your edits are being reverted. What you are doing is vandalism and people don't like that.--Sir Edgar 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These articles were deleted by you. (for the reason worthlessly. )If you understood the value of this article, you should return this article. 　--HaradaSanosuke 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall, some people need to change their attitude toward Koreans. Good friend100 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that in Japan it is still widely believed that 倭国 established 任那日本府 somewhere in Baekje? That was the main evidence for Japanese to deny any significant influence from Baekje, I think. However, as you know, 任那日本府 was a representative example of the manipulated history of Japanese imperialism before WWII. It is ridiculous to say that the culture of Baekje was inferior to that in Japan at that time. Ginnre 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The main point is, Japan was highly influenced by Korea, or Baekje (as some people say "Baekje is not Korea"). I don't think you would disagree with the Japanese royal line, who even admitted their Baekje descent? Good friend100 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

CONFLICTING INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE　(Korean Problem)
In the main article the Yayoi are referenced to be from Korea and maybe China. This agreement was difficultly reached last month because of the overwhelming evidence about Korea and DNA theory adding to the Korea evidence and including South China as well. Then in the bottom summary section people keep deleteing any mention of Korea. Instead it states China as the influence such as Yayoi culture etc. This needs to be corrected. Either the information above about the Yayoi needs new references pointing to mainly China as the Yayoi or the summary at the bottom of the article needs to mention "China and Korea". Please do not let your emotions work against logic and evidence. Tyler11


 * Please think about the entire balance. And, please have consideration one by one. There are a lot of hypotheses of ancient information. more insistences become edit battles.


 * I agree. This article is about JAPAN, not Korea and korean history. We should think about the balance of the article. Gegesongs 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also not about China, America, England or Germany but can't exclude them if they are a part of your past, You can't just say this is about Japan and exclude ALL these countries.


 * With respect to the Yayoi, "Korea and maybe China" is wrong. This needs to be corrected to "Korea and China", due to the evidences relating to human DNA and rice.--Endroit 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a common ancestry is not the same thing as the Korean ancestry of the Japanese. If they share some ancestors, then they just share some ancestors. It doesn't necessarily follow that the Korean nation became independent out of the supposed common ancestral tribe first and then the Japanese diverged from the Koreans. Indeed DNA researches suggest that the Japanese and the Koreans diverged from each other way earlier than when the Koreans started identify themselves as "Koreans" or whatever name of the ancient kingdom that the Koreans claim to be theirs. --Hermeneus (user/talk) 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say the same for South Chinese who are not part of Chinese culture yet but bring the rice cultivation to them and Korea. Why is it ok to only write Chinese when we are talking about people from South Chinese region and people from the Korean region. Please stay consistent. If you wish to exclude Korea then bring in the evidence and references and change the above information about Yayoi in the main article to match the summary. Tyler111


 * What same thing? The point is that DNA is DNA and it's got nothing to do with Korea or China or whatever other nation influencing Japan in the Yayoi period or later. BTW login and sign your edit with " ~ " rather than hand-inputting username. Hermeneus (user/talk) 10:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ???What??? DNA is DNA which traces Japanese to Korea, then further traces Koreans to Manchuria, China and South China. I didn't understand the point of the above paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.96.104 (talk • contribs)


 * DNA doesn't "trace Japanese to Korea, then further traces Koreans to Manchuria, China and South China." The DNA research only shows that the Japanese and the Koreans share the same ancestors. It doesn't say which originated from which. Hermeneus (user/talk) 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But if you look at the DNA evidence and combine it with archeological and linguistic evidence you can further trace Japanese to Korea then trace Koreans to Mongolia, Manchuria, China and South China. But you are right if you only look at the DNA evidence and ignore the other historical records like artifacts/archeology and linguistic roots, then all you can conclude is that Japanese and Koreans share a common ancestor and Japanese are closest to the Koreans genetically. But why would you want to ignore the other evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk • contribs)


 * You are the one biasedly selecting evidences that support your theory only while deliberately ignoring evidences that are contradictory or unfavorable. DNA is DNA. It doesn't absolutely substantiate your theory. Neither do other evidences. It's only your biased selection and interpretation of evidences that make your theory appear right. Stop trying to impose your theory on others as if it's the ultimate truth when it's only a weak hypothesis at best, and show some understanding to the supporters of rival theories. Hermeneus (user/talk) 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All I asked was why would you want to ignore the other evidence and only rely on DNA. Do you believe that PBS and other american historians who did archeological research in East Asia are all biased? And what are they being biased on. Yes, these historians relied on archeological, artifact and carbon dating information. What are you talking about? Contradictory and unfavorable to what or who? I'm just pointing out what a simple Google search will tell you, which mainly states what the current beliefs and theories are. Don't get me wrong if later lots of new carbon dated artifacts or new archeological evidence is found the current theory might change again, to what it will change to who knows. The current belief is information flowed from China to Korea then to Japan. And I did say you are right if you only look at the DNA data you can not conclude anything other than Japanese and Koreans sharing a common ancestor, in addition to Japanese being closest to Koreans genetically. But why would you ignore the other evidence? --4.23.83.100 11:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one alleging that it is "conflicting" to remove some references to the Korean influence on Japan in ancient times while retaining info on the Chinese influence when there is "overwhelming evidence" such as a DNA research that "traces Japanese to Korea." Like I pointed out earlier, in reality the DNA research proves nothing like what you claim, and therefore your allegation on "CONFLICTING INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE" is invalid.


 * If you want to include some info on the Korean influence on certain aspects of the Japanese society in ancient times, then state spesifically who influenced what and when with concrete citation of objective sources. Stop complaining in general terms because it won't get you anywhere. Hermeneus (user/talk) 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The conflicting information I was talking about were about Yayoi, how the citations and references state Korea as the main source, and is mentioned in the above paragraph, then in the summary only China is mentioned with Yayoi. Yet the citations and references mainly state Korea & (China to a lesser extent.) The DNA information is not conclusive other than Northeast Asians may have similar ancestors and would mainly be relevent to rice cultivation, the other technologies would not be relevent cause South Asia didn't have these technologies at that time and other people have pointed out that rice cultivation was a Southeast Asia region idea which included what is today South China but South China was not part of China back then. If we try to write all this in the sentence, structure of the sentence would get all weird and you would have run on sentences, so if we just write Korea and China and write a link for articles on bronze technology, shamanism, burial rituals, rice cultivation, pottery in NE Asia, it would be concise and the presented information would match the noted citations. --Tyler 13:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Conflicting information" only exists in your head. Like I said earlier be spesific and discuss each topic individually first before talking about summary. Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well how much more specific do we need to get, we are discussing each topic individually, look at all these references below from multiple sources, not just one source from one nation.


 * 1. Many people from Korea emigrated to Japan. Those people brought rice cultivation and metal work to Japan during the Late Jomon Period. Jomon people started to learn and practice those new things. The cultural effect from Korea was reflected in the shape of earthenware vessels, tools, technology and society in Yayoi period. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html


 * 2. According to one estimate, Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html


 * 3. The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2131.html


 * 4. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/PacificRimReadings/JapaneseRoots.html


 * 5. In this sense, a very great part of Japan's origins, both culturally and ethnically, can be traced back to Korea. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ getarticle.pl5?nn20020312b6.htm


 * Etc, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.23.83.100 (talk • contribs).


 * An assembly of sketchy secondary sources of unknown credibility don't mean much. Either they have no info on the authors or the auhors are not academic historians who could represent the mainstream opinion of the field of Japanese history. On the other hand the authority of Encyclopaedia Britannica is well established, and it states that most of the cultures that came from Korea to Japan in ancient times were originally from China (or continental Asia).  The Britannica article is not so much "conflicting" with the sources that you cited above but is only more spesific, accurate, and credible. Hermeneus (user/talk) 11:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your looking at two different points in time. The Yayoi period is thought to have started at 300 BC (migration around 400 BC). The point in time Britannica is talking about 108 BC. We are looking at a 200 year difference. The Japanese references that I brought above are actually more specific and is letting you know more in detail of what happened in the prior 200 years and the migration & technology transfer at that time of 300 BC. If you believe Japanese sources are sketchy I don't know what to tell you other than there are more sources from studies done by PBS, American, British and Korean. Please read the archive citations from months ago above. And actually if you look at the sources they are from academic historians of mainstream opinion, please re-read all the citations and references even the ones in the archive sections. No one is denying that rice cultivation was of Southeast Asian origin (What is today South China), but your looking at 200 to 300 years in difference. Trying to confuse people by writing about two different points in time as if they were the same is not right, Please be honest. --4.23.83.100 12:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, a bunch of sketchy secondary sources of unknown or unacademic authorship don't amount to anything. State what name scholar, with what credentials, argues what culture came from Korea to Japan when and in what manner, based on what primary sources. Otherwise there is no argument and Britannica stays. Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please be honest, do not try to confuse people by talking about two different points in time as if they are the same. Please read more than one book :)--Tyler 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ther is no confusion. The bottom line is that your biased selection of sources have very limited credibility whatever time period they may be about and so don't merit reference at all, whereas the Britanica article is legit and should stay. Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are a Chinese character and the Buddhism the cultures that arose in Korea?　The original of the Buddhism is India. And, the root of the Buddhism sect in most Japan is China. Who has succeeded to the Buddhism of Korea?　--HaradaSanosuke 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But Japan based their root on Chinese buddhism cause Korea was based on Chinese buddhism. The people from Korea brought it to Japan initially and you can't just bypass that cause you have the names of the men who brought it and the king who commissioned it. You can't compare Japanese buddhism to Chinese buddhism without mentioning Korean buddhism cause then you can see the transition in practices and the differences which appear from Japanese to Chinese make since when you study the Korean practices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.96.104 (talk • contribs).


 * Please write the Korean's name. --HaradaSanosuke 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look below the names are written. King Seong of Baekje, King Widok of Baekje and Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese), please also read the referenced material below and the books on Buddhism in East Asia.


 * The problem is, many editors believe that Korea was only a "gateway" for Chinese culture to Japan. That is not true. Korea passed a lot of Korean culture as well as Chinese culture. The Buddhism we are talking about is general. Although Buddhism is different thouroughout each country, that doesn't mean Buddhism never came from Korea just because "Japanese Buddhism is different". Good friend100 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please write the Korean's name. (For instance, Ganjin,Ingen etc)


 * If you look below the names are written. King Seong of Baekje, King Widok of Baekje and Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese), please also read the referenced material below and the books on Buddhism in East Asia.

Is that a joke or something? Your links are names of Chinese people. Are you saying that Korean and Chinese names are the same? Also what do you mean by write the Korean's name? Good friend100 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe he want to know who brought Buddhism to Japan. Please teach him the name of Korean who brought Buddhism to Japan. >Goodfriend 100 Gegesongs 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, here are the names:


 * See Korea - A Religious History by: James Huntley Grayson p. 33
 * Buddhism went from Northern Wei (China) to Goguryeo/Baekje (Korea) to Yamato (Japan).
 * 372 Buddhism is introduced to Korea and Goguryeo (see Korean Buddhism for this)
 * 384 Buddhism is introduced to Baekje (see Korean Buddhism for this)
 * 538 - 552 Buddhism is introduced to Japan, as King Song of Baekje sends Buddhist statues and scriptures to Japan, which is under Emperor Kimmei and Soga clan
 * 560 Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese) goes to Japan
 * 554 - 587 King Widok of Baekje sends more sutras, statues, monks, nuns, teachers, and artisans to Japan
 * 607 Empress Suiko of Japan sends an envoy to Sui Dynasty of China to copy Sutra (see Buddhism in Japan)
 * --Endroit 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats like asking somebody who invented fire. Or asking who brought Buddhism to Korea. Buddhism went to Japan by means of Korean Buddhist monks, traders, missionaries, etc. There is no specific person. >Gegesongs, Harada Sanosuke Good friend100 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" vs. "Imjin War"
Please join discussions at Talk:Imjin Wars. I think the correct title of that article needs to be Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea. This is based on my Google Books count, which represent citations of scholarly materials....
 * 204 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of Korea"
 * 76 instances of "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" OR "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"
 * 37 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of China"
 * 22 instances of "Imjin War" OR "Imjin Wars"
 * 6 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "seven year war"


 * Note: The last page of the search was used, as that appears to show the actual number of links.  (Google searching has its peculiarities.)  When viewing details within the above links, click "PREVIOUS" repeatedly to see the rest of the material.

Invasion of Korea comes out on top, while Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is 2nd place. However, because Invasion of Korea is used in the context of "Hideyoshi" anyways, Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is a more appropriate name.

Also invasion of Korea outnumbers Imjin War(s) by a factor of 9 to 1. Hideyoshi's Invasion(s) of Korea outnumbers Imjin War(s) by a factor of 3 to 1. Also, Imjin War(s) is usually never used in the Japanese context, as most instances have the word "Korea" prominently in the book title, topic, chapter title, etc., proving that it is used mostly in the Korean context, and not in the general context.

Finally, all mention of "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" in this (and all Japan-related articles) should use "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" rather than "Imjin War".--Endroit 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Japan. However, I have not heard the fight of the Imugen river. Wikipedia of Japan is named "Bunroku-Keicho-NO-Eki"文禄・慶長の役. --HaradaSanosuke 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In Japanese it may be "Bunroku-Keicho-no-Eki", but in English--in the Japanese context--it is commonly called "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" or simply "Invasion of Korea". "Imjin War" is almost never used by other scholarly references in any Japanese context, English or Japanese.--Endroit 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As the original request said, please join the discusstion at Talk:Imjin Wars. Discussion here at Talk:Japan is likely not to be read or taken into account when a decision is made about Imjin Wars. Fg2 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert only the part of your concern
Dear reverters, please be careful and do not cancel contributions that are not of your concern. --LittleTree 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Heisei era
What were written in the subsection 'Heisei era' of 'Modern era' were about post-war period of Showa era. Nothing to do with Heisei era. So I made a subsubsection in the previous subsection 'Meiji, Taisho and Showa eras' to put the sentences in. Then, there is nothing in 'Heisei era'. Looking back in the history, some descriptions about Heisei era were removed by the edit of '06:06, 14 July 2006'. At that time, the subsection was named 'Modern Japan'. Then the subsection was renamed to 'Heisei period' at 04:05, 21 July 2006. So I temporarily restored what were removed before. Any comment?--LittleTree 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Literature
I have completely rewritten this section, which was written in SHAMEFULLY HORRIBLE ENGLISH. As I have stated elsewhere, these additions are very hard to read, and are confusing information, often strongly biased as well. It was not the case here, though. However, some sentences were thrown completely randomly... and without references, it goes without saying. I have taken out Higuchi Ichiyō of the list of "representative" Japanese writers. And changed "typical" to "representative", if there is such a thing. "Typical" is a terrible adjective. Essentialist, and completely ignorant of the diversity of modern Japanese literature. I have replaced her by Tanizaki, arguably a more central writer in the literaty canon. Shogo Kawada 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors speaking English as a second language should either post their information on the talk page for others to edit and then insert into the article. Good friend100 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Korea Problem
Accoding to Encyclopædia Britannica
 * In 108 BC the armies of the emperor Wu Ti occupied Manchuria and the northern part of the Korean peninsula, where they established Lo-lang and three other colonies. These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan.
 * The dead were buried in either large clay urns or heavy stone coffins. Both were common in northern Kyushu and neighbouring areas; similar urns and coffins also are found on the Korean peninsula, where they probably originated. The graves were usually marked by mounds of earth or circles of stones, but a special type employed a dolmen (a large slab of stone supported over the grave by a number of smaller stones). Since the erection of dolmens was widely practiced in Manchuria and Korea, these, too, are believed to be a sign of an influx of continental culture.
 * While these new cultural elements represent a migration to Japan from the Korean peninsula or China, the migration was not of a magnitude to change the character of the people who had inhabited the islands from Jomon times.

Please make it to an easy sentence.


 * "Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years." http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html


 * Well, alot of the discussions above are about Yayoi in 300 BC, which is 200 years before 108 BC and if you read the Korea section of wikipedia there is an article on Lolang (the other 3 posts were destroyed immediately) and it's ramifications on Korea. Then you have to relate this to 4th, 5th and 6th century AD Baekje, by which time Lolang was destroyed and alot of Chinese culture was modified or additional indigenious culture was incorporated, in addition to indigenious culture of the peninsula to begin with. Every one is aware of the flow of information. From China to Korea then to Japan. Being chronologically sensical is important.


 * If you read the paragraphs above (Not sure who put the paragraphs there) but you can see indigenious culture being incorporated. "Both were common in northern Kyushu and neighbouring areas; similar urns and coffins also are found on the Korean peninsula, where they probably originated" Also, lets remember the time points considered to be important in relation to the Korea Problem which was the influx of Yayoi in 300 BC and introduction of Chinese writing system and Buddhism on a mass scale around 538 AD.--Tyler 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please consider these facts when making an easy sentence.


 * Sir Edger, Baekje is not being written in the source at all. And, the source is not writing the relation between Japan and China at all. Can the source be trusted?


 * ??Sir Edgar?? Is their a discussion going on here in private, I didn't know Sir Edgar posted anything yet. I only brought one reference but their are another half dozen above and more than a dozen in the archive section up top. The Baekje references are also above you and in the archive section. I was only mentioning Baekje cause it is part of the Japan article with references that keeps getting deleted or modified. The point in time the above paragraph are about 108 BC Quote- "While these new cultural elements represent a migration to Japan from the Korean peninsula or China, the migration was not of a magnitude to change the character of the people who had inhabited the islands from Jomon times." I wanted to point out that the discussions "Korea problem" was not about 108 BC but about 300 BC Yayoi information and 4th thru 6th AD Baekje information. --Tyler 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. You are not speaking the topic of Baekje. The topic of Baekje is reserved. By the way, did Japan import a Korean culture?　Did Japan import the Chinese culture?

It wasn't a result of imports. The Baekje court retreated to Japan after being conquered and passed Korean and Chinese culture to Japan. Good friend100 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Country size
"At over 377,873 square kilometers". I find this clause confusing. If we have information on the country's size down to the exact kilometer, why use the word "over"? MarkBuckles 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this means the country is not exactly 377,873 square kilometers but something like 377,873.6 square kilometers. SIGURD42 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New template
Hope u all appreciate the new template i created for the "misc. topics" section.WoodElf 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sixe of this article
This article is 66kb long, which is more than double the recommended size... someone, anyone, a wikiwizard, PLEASE help reduce the size of the history and economy sections. WoodElf 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)