Talk:Origin of Korean and Japanese

Merger
"Origin of Korean and Japanese" should be the title. Not "Korean and Japanese states". We don't know what the definition of Korean or Japanese are. Is it race, nation, ethinicity or state. We should not prejudice the debate from the outset. FWBOarticle

I will make different section to describe each point of dispute. FWBOarticle 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How should we describe the immigrants

 * Japanese position of "Tungustic people" on the ground that those immigrants were "ethinically" or "lingustically" tungustic.


 * Korean position of "Korean" on the ground that They were "Korean". It would be helpful if what the justification for this definition. Is it geography or ethnicity?

I have look at the English reference provided by the advocate of "Korean" definition. . The description used in the first reference are "a group of peoples from the Korean peninsula". "the wave of immigrations from the Korean peninsula". The description used in the second reference are "The earliest of these people, who are thought to have migrated from Korea".

I guess the best NPOV would be like


 * Korean side define them as "Korean" in the context of ethnicity (or geography). Japanese define them as Tungustic immigrants from Korean peninsula.  Western scholars who are aware of the controversy often use "immigrants from Korea or Korean penninsula" or simply "Korean" which are defined in term of geography rather than explicit ethinic link to modern Korea which are advocated by Korean. FWBOarticle

Linguistic
Obviously, I'm supporting my version of edit here. However, I believe that my version is superior because it give more detailed explanation of Altaic language controversy in term of convergence/divergence theory. Japanese/Korean being language isolate doesn't seem to be disputed as well.

Geo politics
I don't have problem with merging this section. Most of my edit of geopolitics are pulled from wikipedia anyway. It also appear that mainly Korean or Korean american contributed to these article. But when I say merging, I don't mean version 1 being replaced by version 2. I mean the content of version 1 and version 2 being put together. FWBOarticle 11:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Greater Korea" theory which is take convergence view of history and "Small Korea" theory which take Sillian expansion view of history is a must attribution/disambituation of Chinese, Japanese and Korean position. FWBOarticle

Intro section
Intro section about how much Japan/Korea being similar and the extent of immigration part. I believe Yayoi immigration from Korean penninsula isn't that disputed. Dispute is more about who they are. Jomon immigration to Korea from Japan certainly won't be popular in Korea. I make better attribution to it. I believe better wording, attribution and we will get through. FWBOarticle 19:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A few things to consider...
I cleaned up a bit of the spelling without really going into rewriting for grammar yet. For the most part, I would urge using Version 2 as a base and then adding parts of Version 1 to it, if only because the grammar in Version 2 is much better, and won't require a complete rewrite to really be readible.

I would also question the need to bring China into the article much at all, since references to China's claim to the Koguryo/Balhae historical properties in Manchuria don't really shed much light on the dispute between Korea and Japan, which seems to be more what this article is about.

Sources would be very nice. It is always easier to cite sources as you go than to need to go back and re-research your sources at the end of an article. It might also be useful from a NPOV point of view to separate out each side of the argument from the other - either by putting each in its own section, or at least by putting different sides to each issue in their own paragraph.

-Zonath 04:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 2 has better English while version 1, IMO, is more NPOV in the sence that it correctly identify the source of dispute as well as having better attribution of different POV. FWBOarticle


 * The best way to clearly show that either version is NPOV is to give citations. Otherwise all we have to go on is the say-so of the writer(s) of this article, which is not enough.  We need verifiable external sources, ideally sources that have a reputation for solid, NPOV academic work.


 * Another request for FWBOarticle in particular, and this is a more minor issue -- I know you characterize your language abilities as Engrish over on your user page, but I would deeply appreciate it if you would make an effort at improving your spelling. (^^);  One easy option would be to compose your writing in a word processor that includes a spell-check function.  Speaking frankly, reading through your posts and stumbling over not-quite-words like "Tungustic" (should be "Tungusic") makes my head hurt.  I suppose it might be a bit like you reading something in Japanese, where Japan was always misspelled as 目木 instead of 日本, or listening to someone speaking Japanese with a horrible accent: ワテシヱニーフンガオウハネッシメスー (私は日本語を話します).  Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

do we still need this article?
it seems this article was basically created by one very motivated user, with other editors just trying to clean up after him a bit. there is not a single citation. the essential facts are, i think, already in the respective topic articles, this is just a rambling blog entry. i think we can safely redirect, perhaps to the kofun article, without losing much or any verifiable relevant unbiased facts. perhaps someone else can find nuggets of wisdom to salvage. Appleby 07:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There hasn't been much progress on this article at all, and it isn't at all well-sourced oe well-written. --Zonath 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This article was just a place-holder for FWBOarticle's edits. Deiaemeth 09:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)