Talk:Yamato period

Older thread
This is so POV it gives me a headache?? Whats the so called Paekche culture? What differed from Chinese one?

If truth gives all of you headache then learn to accept the truth. The major difference between Paekche and Chinese culture is two different country and two different kingdoms. Paekche was located in southern most of Korean peninsula. Paekche culture had " Korean cultural essence" its like saying whats the difference between China and Taiwan culture. If your Taiwanese all of you would clearly mention the difference between Taiwan and China culture right? Its same with Paekche and Chinese culture. Paekche was individual kingdom that had own unique civilization that distinguish themselves between Paekche culture with Chinese culture. You cannot hide the truth. Truth will always previal. Thats history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Paeckje is translated Kudara in Japanese. First and formost. Paeckje was Korean kingdom not Chinese. Second, Paeckje culture and civilization was different from Chinese because Manchuria and Korean peninsula didn't belong to China. Thirdly, Manchuria was part of Korean kingdom of Korguryo. Fourthly, it was Kudara ( the land of 100 followers) that populated and civliized island people in which we call Japan today. You cannot argue with Geographical and Historical facts.

This is so POV it gives me a headache. Visviva 07:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here again, 218.48.35.155 is talking about modern Korean fantasies, not what historical sources say.
 * It is also due to these records that we now know of the significance of the Paekche culture passed on to Japan. It was also during this period that ties between Paekche and Japan were strengthened.

What's the so-called Paekche culture? What differed from Chinese one?
 * Hence, the next period in Japanese history, the Nara Period, was centered around the city of Nara, which got its name from the Korean word for "nation"(Nara).

218.48.35.155 introduced a folk etymology modern Koreans cooked up. We cannot find such a theory in ancient records.

The etymologies of Japanese place names are usually unknown. Taking advantage of this situation, Koreans currently invent various folk etymologies. But they don't know how to trace the origin of a place name. They only compare modern Japanese with modern Korean (How unreliable!). So sometimes we can find a contradiction by checking the older form of a word, and Nara is the case! See --Nanshu 07:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nanshu: Where can you prove these slanders of yours?


 * You have: no sources, no dates, no quotes, and yet you're so confidently implying that all Korean claims are "unreliable?"


 * I wonder what makes your claim any more ridiculously "reliable."


 * I can understand if you feel such a deep love for your country that you feel you have to patronize everyone else living around you, but please: try to be respectful.


 * You're not "donating" anything when you refuse to be open to other people and ideas. —This unsigned comment was added by Mikhailkoh (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC).


 * After looking at the link Nanshu provides, I feel the need to comment that blog entries are not regarded as sufficient source material for citations on Wikipedia. Looking elsewhere on that site, the page author's bias is painfully clear as anti-Korean.  I am cognizant that some parties in Korea have been trying to find ways of being culturally "superior" to folks in Japan, and likewise people in Japan have been doing the same about Korea.  Neither is acceptable in any academic discussion.  What Wikipedia is striving for (as I understand it) is a NPOV, logical, and empirical discussion of reality.  One-upmanship does not enter into this equation.


 * Incidentally, this same blog has been linked to elsewhere by at least one other editor. Might I suggest that it does not aid in any attempt to make a point about the purported etymology of the word Nara, not least because, in addition to the bias, the page's logic is flawed when it comes to how sounds change over time.  Add the complete lack of any citations, and the argument made on the page amounts to little more than schoolyard braggadocio.  The page neither proves nor disproves anything about Nara.


 * Again, blogs are not acceptable citation sources. If you would like to cite a respectable source that will add weight and substance to a discussion, please choose an academic and NPOV printed publication.  Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In this page, the focus is not well oriented. It would be nice if it is focused on Yamato period itself. Korean's arguments and the discussion would be better to form another article. -- Ryuch 04:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for your tirade against supposed Korean "unreliable" theories, the etomology of the Korean word "Nara" comes from "Narat" or "Naras." Furthermore, the site you mentioned is known to be anti-Korean --thus, anti-rationalism-- biased. --zippie

Excuse me, gentlemen, but as the person who wrote the two sentences above, I'd like to make my meaning a little clearer. First of all, I'd like to inform you of the fact that I am a fifteen-year old whose father is a reporter for the Chosun Ilbo, which is the largest Korean newspaper in terms of circulation. During his trip to Japan in 2002 to attend a peace conference on global terrorism, he visited various historical sites within Japan, such as Nara, Kyoto, and Tokyo. During his three-day stay at Nara, he held discussions with Japanese historians and experts, trying to complete a special review of Japan that was to appear after he returned to Korea. During one discussion, his counterpart noted that the Korean word for "country" is "Nara"- which is rooted, as mentioned above, in the term "Narat" or "Naras". Therefore, there is a high possibility that the name of Nara was tranliterated directly in ancient times from the original Korean term (much like the word "geisha", which is theorized to have been taken from the Korean word "giseing") However, this should not be suprising; two of Nara's greatest architectural treasures, the Great Buddha and Horyuji, were both designed by Baekje arcitects (Horyuji was built in 607 upon the request of Emperor Yomei, while the Great Buddha was completed in 749; for further reference, check the "Samguk Sagi" and "Introducing Japan" by Donald Richie). Therefore, it is plausible that the two are related to Nara's seemingly Korean name.--Leonhart

Interesting. It is also worth noting that "Narat" (&#45208;&#46999;) or "Naras" (&#45208;&#46991;) has been in use since the three kingdoms time periods to all unknown to this fact. It is plausible that the Japanese transcribed it as "nara," since the "t" in "narat" is a heavily aspirated ending indicated by the "&#12622;", and not a "t" sound. Therefore, it is plausible. --Zippie


 * Unfortunate that Nanshu was taken in by that site; it's bias practically drips off the page.


 * Be that as it may, one minor etymological quibble with Leonhart regards the word geisha. The Japanese word at least is clearly based on the on-yomi or Chinese-based reading of the characters 芸者, "technique / art + person".  Any word based on Chinese will sound somewhat similar in Korean -- take 計量器 or "scale" (device to measure weight), pronounced keiryōki in Japanese and kyeoryanggi in Korean.  So while geisha and giseing might be the "same" word, the clearly Chinese roots of the component syllables make it difficult to tell which language used it "first".  :)  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Eirikr, you never cease to amaze me. I hope you've read my responses to your pet theories as posted on the talk page at Korean language.


 * On the matter of the Korean word gisaeng and the Japanese word geisha, I have to give you a split evaluation, though. You are correct in saying that the Japanese word geisha is derived from the on-yomi of the Chinese characters 芸者 ("art-ist"), which places this term squarely in the realm of Sino-Japanese vocabulary. The Korean word gisaeng, however, despite its rather similar semantics and phonological form, is a Sino-Korean term derived from different Sinitic roots: namely, 妓生 ("courtesan-person," "courtesan-being"), which is morphologically parallel to such Mandarin Chinese words as 男生 nánsheng ("man-person," "man-being" = a man, a male person).


 * Thus, Korean gisaeng and Japanese geisha have absolutely nothing in common linguistically except for their origin in Sinitic loan-morphemes. Ebizur 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in the text
The text describes that Prince Shotoku proscribed an new Constitution, which means he fobid it.

Reffered to the article of Prince Shotoku, he has promulgated the constitution, which means he proclaimed it.

Is one of the two Articles wrong?

Regarding my edits
Sorry! I accidentally blanketed the article when playing around with the History of Japan template; wanted to compare it to History of Korea template. I apologize Deiaemeth 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wondered! That didn't look like something you'd normally do, and I was afraid someone had hijacked your account.  Glad to hear it was only a goof.  :)  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

merged Korean arguments on Yamato period per discussion there, now we have to get to work cleaning up pov & the he-said-she-said writing. Appleby 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC) at this point, i think much of the blatantly argumentative wording is gone, but the article is too loaded with korea-related info. afaict, the info is not incorrect & so should not be deleted, except for repetitions, but the korea-related stuff should be better organized, & much more info unrelated to korea needs to be added. Appleby 02:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing mass deletions
Kamosuke: Thank you for citing sources this time because your last edit had none. Although, English sources are preferred if possible. Every statement that you claim is to "praise Koreans" is cited by reputable English sources, so please don't delete them. Also, they aren't Korean sources but western histories. Can you clarify what you mean by "Klan" name and "law name". Please don't delet things wholesale. If you want to add information, please cite like you have done. If you want to delete please get consensus here. Thanks! Tortfeasor 05:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Kamosuke: Depending on the source, Kofun period can refer to the tomb period only or to a period from circa 300-700 CE.  http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0824821564&id=eTFMPO5NdKgC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=kofun+era&sig=4jqhqZGHh5W5VILAboqQ7FIv3Ms  Tortfeasor 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Kamosuke's recent edits of 15:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC) and 09:03, 20 April 2006 look very problematic. These include substantal blanking, combined with a major rewrite / mangling of other portions, with the resulting text of dubious quality as there are zero English citations provided.  Some citations are in Japanese, which I can read, and some are in Korean, which I cannot.  Aside from the Japanese Wikipedia and what looks like an amateur website by someone who might be a university professor, or might not ( is cited, belonging to this  home page), the links include:
 * a page on what appears to be a personal website, providing a translation into Japanese of a Song dynasty text about the kingdom of Wa (i.e. Japan),
 * pictures of the actual text itself in Chinese,
 * what might be a newspaper article, all in Korean with no pictures,
 * an article from a different Korean media web site, with pictures apparently showing a kofun site somewhere in Japan ("이번에..."),
 * a very short blurb of some sort in Korean, also apparently from a media site.


 * I would like to reiterate that English-language citations are much more highly regarded here on the English-language Wikipedia.  Non-English text is mostly to be avoided in the main body of articles, especially when it comes to outright quoting.  Furthermore, the Japanese-language Wikipedia does not qualify as a citation source.  I am tempted to simply revert, but there might be something useful in there, so I refrain for the time being.  If I see no move to fix the page in a few days, I'll do what I can.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey all: I tried to fix the article but I think it's only going to be a temporary fix.  Also, while some of what Kamosuke has written might be okay I'm not sure how to differentiate from the simply Japanese point of view theories to extreme Kokugaku-school theories.  Thanks!Tortfeasor 20:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I start to believe that whatever we do, these articles will remain editing battlegrounds where a plentitude of detailed arguments about relations between Koreans and Japanese are faithfully reiterated, totally dwarfing everything else. I believe that influences between Japan and Korea, as real and important they were, have not been as paramount in Yamato periods as a reader now may think. I have a notion of this article being just a summary, sort of big picture, whereas the articles Kofun period and Asuka period being more suitable places for details. After all, it is not a useful goal to repeat everything in all possible articles. As I believe deeply that this article should be a summary, pruned of almost all details, and rather short, I will continue to edit (these recurring small argumentative pesky) details away from here - I strongly recommend editors to add such only to those two articles, not here. If any of my edits seems not nice, please first consider whether the piece would better be at Kofun period and/or at Asuka period. Shilkanni 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful example how sometimes happens here in Wikipedia :) see User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur. This reminds me what could happen when someone keeps an opinionated opinion (about whatever, be it possibly about interaction between Koreans and Japanese over 15 centuries ago) Shilkanni 20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

why is this summary article full of details?
This should be a summary article of its two element articles, Kofun period and Asuka period. Therefore, this article should include just summary information, and all or most details should be inside those two articles. It however seems almost a contrary! Please take care that all details you intend to provide here, are first added to relevant article of the two constituent periods. Then, only if the information has some summary value, it could be inserted here, and even in that case, in concise form. Shilkanni 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Be Bold! and make the corrections. Wikipedia is all about working together, so please work with us and fix any errors or inconsistencies you've found. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a simple edit is refused by the Korean.
 * I received the Korean's strong criticism though I thought that I had to refer to the Yamato age of Wikipedia of Japan.
 * The reason is that Wikipedia of Japan doesn't meet the Korean's demand. Korean's importance degree is not high in Wikipedia of Japan.


 * merged Korean arguments on Yamato period per discussion there, now we have to get to work cleaning up pov & the he-said-she-said writing. Appleby 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC) at this point, i think much of the blatantly argumentative wording is gone, but the article is too loaded with korea-related info. afaict, the info is not incorrect & so should not be deleted, except for repetitions, but the korea-related stuff should be better organized, & much more info unrelated to korea needs to be added. Appleby 02:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)　　--Kamosuke 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Korean's Edit Problem
The South Korean described it.


 * "Japan of the Kofun Period was very positive towards the introduction of Korean culture". For example, Yamato links to the mainland and the Liu Sung Dynasty in 425 and 478 were facilitated by the maritime knowledge and diplomatic connections of Baekje. . Iron working technology was introduced into Japan from Korea around 300.

However, there are neither Korea nor Baekje in the site linking ahead.


 * The Japanese Experience is an authoritative history of Japan from the sixth century to the present day. Only a writer of W.G. Beasley's stature could render Japan's complicated past so concisely and elegantly. This is the history of a society and a culture with a distinct sense of itself, one of the few nations never conquered by a foreign power in historic times (until the twentieth century) and the home of the longest-reigning imperial dynasty that still survives. The Japanese have always occupied part or all of the same territory, its borders defined by the sea. They have spoken and written a common language, (once it had taken firm shape in about the tenth century) and their population has been largely homogeneous, little touched by immigration except in very early periods. Yet Japanese society and culture have changed more through time than these statements seem to imply. Developments within Japan have been greatly influenced by ideas and institutions, art and literature, imported from elsewhere. In this work Beasley, a leading authority on Japan and the author of a number of acclaimed works on Japanese history, examines the changing society and culture of Japan and considers what, apart from the land and the people, is specifically Japanese about the history of Japan.
 * The arrival of Buddhism in the sixth century brought a substantially Chinese-style society to Japan, not only in religion but in political institutions, writing system, and the lifestyle of the ruling class. By the eleventh century the Chinese element was waning and the country was entering a long and essentially "Japanese" feudal period--with two rulers, an emperor and a Shogun--which was to last until the nineteenth century. Under the Togukawa shogunate (1600-1868), Chinese culture enjoyed something of a renaissance, though popular culture owed more to Japanese urban taste and urban wealth.
 * In 1868 the Meiji Restoration brought to power rulers dedicated to the pursuit of national wealth and strength, and Japan became a world power. Although a bid for empire ended in disaster, the years after 1945 saw an economic miracle that brought spectacular wealth to Japan and the Japanese people, as well as the westernization of much of Japanese life.

I think that I should accurately describe the content of the source. --Kamosuke 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Korean's Edit Attitude
I think the method which South Korean's source looks for to be strange. South Korean's retrieval key word is "kofun tumuli korea" "history of japan and korea". (There is no "China". )I feel the possibility that the South Korean is not bearing a neutral edit in mind.

The Google account is necessary to see South Korean's source. The person who doesn't have the account cannot see the source.  I think that I should present the open to the public source. --Kamosuke 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Google service is accesible to anyone with a G-mail account. Also, google books are just scanned forms of ACTUAL books. So, if you want to, you may go look for those books in libraries/amazon.com, etc. It is perfectly in attunment with Wikipedia's source citing policy. Deiaemeth 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason why it cannot introduce the page of substitution is that the South Korean's insistence is not general?　--Kamosuke 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tumuli
The mounds as tumuli are native Korean practices of burrying the dead. That's why China is not referenced.

I also don't see anything about Baekje's prince being the one who established Yamato-- that should definately be in there.

Immigration
It should also be stated that prior to the formation of Yamato that immigration was very large; a huge number of Koreans from Baekje as well as a smaller number from other kingdoms, migrated to Japan. It should also be more heavily emphasized, the substantial Chinese migration to Japan following the establishment of Yamato, that is. The Baekje people learned of Japan through the Gaya confederation, and then China from the Kingdom of Baekje.

Anonymous IP vandalism
Please stop deleting cited information that is breaking the neutral point of view policy. If you have an issue with what is written please discuss it here. Tortfeasor 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it vandalism to hear the name of the priest in Korea?　You are sure also to understand in reality. There was no missionary of the Korean.
 * You cannot say Korean monk name. This action not logical is based on the nationalism of Korea.

Kamosuke: You are deleting information that doesn't have to do with your request. And I added specific names, which I don't think are really relevant, to the Asuka period article. Please don't delete information that is cited. Tortfeasor 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Taiho Code
The following is a quote from the "Early immigrants in Japan" section:

Acording to Shoku Nihongi, Emperor Temmu requested the introduction of a strict political system, Ritsuryo, based on that of T'ang dynasty China. Two of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were Chinese priests while none were from Korea.

However, Korean influence on Japanese laws is seen in the placement of Korean immigrants on committees that drew up other legal codes. Though it is not written in the history record of Japan, eight of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were from Korean immigrant families while none were from China proper. Further, the system of local administrative districts and the tribute tax were both based on Korean models.

I can certainly imagine that proper scholarship disagrees on this point. But I do not think we can contradict ourselves in an encyclopedia article like this. Historically, one of these two statements must be true, the other false, though we might not know which is which. Some kind of reconciliation needs to be achieved here. LordAmeth 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That whole section is badly written and the Korean influence on Yamato is very much downplayed. The POV thing to do here shouldn't be to limit the Korean perspective on the origins of Yamato, but to present it and then provide constrasting perspectives from scholars that disagree. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. While I don't know which side is right, I hate to see only the Korean-friendly POV restored and the conflicting one kept commented out at the same time – well, at least it hasn't been deleted. I'm sick of Koreans' (or Japanese's) pushing their POV in WP articles, which tend to inform you not about a subject itself but on the alleged Korean influence on it, while displaying the Korean people as a perpetual victim in other articles. Wikipeditor 13:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

translation of 大和王権
in Japan,大和朝廷 is an old idea and 大和王権 is a main current. I rewrote "yamato imperial court" in "yamato dynasty" but Will the translation of "大和王権" be yamato Dynasty?

In what on I wanted to insist, a (大和王権 yamato dynasty ?) was not an unitary state at all. It is said that (大和王権 yamato dynasty ?) was only an alliance of a local powerful clan in 2 century. The look of a single nation is not shown if not going back until the 5 century. Is the state of this country good when expressing it like any?--Forestfarmer 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know the details of whether or not the "Yamato nation" was united in this period; but in any case, "dynasty" is not a proper substitute for "court" or "state". The Yamato Dynasty, which hypothetically continues today, does not fairly describe the political situation of the Yamato period; to speak of the Yamato state developing from a tribal set of clans into an established government is more appropriate. LordAmeth 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yamato period = Nara area?
I don't know why I never noticed it before, but the introduction to this article claims "The Yamato period is the period of Japanese history when the Japanese Imperial court ruled from modern-day Nara Prefecture, then known as Yamato Province." So the Yamato period didn't even begin until the various clans and tribes made their way up from Kyushu and settled in "Yamato"? What about the earlier period, when the Yamato people were in Kyushu and southern Honshu? The Yamato people are not the same people as the Yayoi natives, right? So, should it not be more pertinent and accurate to say that the Yamato period began once the clans in Kyushu/Honshu, having come over from Korea, formed up into an organized "nation"? LordAmeth 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * early yamato kingship(大和王権 This expression comes most harmoniously me.) is not known.The theory that Wa became Yamato kingship is doubtful. There were kofun in Kyushu, the Chugoku region, and nara region at the kofun period, and a lot the capital was put on asuka in Nara in the Asuka period.The Yayoi people might be a race who came from a mainland China. However, division of people of the Yayoi people and Jomon people did not have this distinction in this age beause the word made modern ages. Division named Emishi(may be ainu lived in hokuriku) and Kumaso(lived in kyusyu) was done in these age.--Forestfarmer 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Malayo-Polynesian BS
Please quit trying to associate the Jomon cultures, Ainu, or Japanese with Malayo-Polynesian languages, cultures, or people. There is absolutely no basis for making such a ridiculous claim, and I'm tired of seeing ignorant fools perpetuate such nonsense. Ebizur 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

archaeological records
archaeological records indicate that Japanese military was moderately strong.
 * Then, What is the 'archaeological records'? Samguk Sagi? text book record is not a archaeological records. also It is not says, Japan military were strong.
 * There is no china and korea record that Wa 'militray' were strong. Baekje used soldiers of "wa". but It was a some kind of mercenary.Masonfamily (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits are poorly written and unsourced. Why should we accept your version over another? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What? i just removed this sentence. is it poory written? Masonfamily (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter that there are no Chinese or Korean records that you know of? Since when were they the definitive history of everything? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * do you know what is the "archaeological" records mean? then, what is the archaeological records that wa miltary were strong. you must proved first before change.
 * You don't know what is the "archaeological" records mean?

"archaeological :The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence "In your edit, what is the archaeological records? huh? sorry there is no archaeological" records that wa military were strong. Masonfamily (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what it means, but how do you know that there are no records? If you want to claim that there are no records then you yourself must provide a credible source that says that. Otherwise it is original research. Just leave it alone and we can get on to finding sources. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. please then find

archaeological records indicate that Japanese military was moderately strong?, and find its evidence. it is your duty.

Again, " archaeological records indicate that Japanese military was moderately strong? is purely original research.


 * 1. Samguk sagi text book is not a archaeological records. and That shource is not says, Japan military were strong.
 * 2. It is not a archaeological records. so, there is nothing strang that we remove this "original research". Masonfamily (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, so change it to "historical texts" or "The Japanese military has regarded as being moderately strong". John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * even Samguk sagi text book is not says, Japan military were strong. Baekje used soldiers of "wa". but It was a some kind of mercenary.Masonfamily (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've reverted for the fourth time and have been reported accordingly. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

amenohiboko
I added amenohiboko's description.but user:John Smith's revert it. please explain why.--Forestfarmer (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the grammar was poor and in places it repeated itself. Don't just cut-and-paste - read the whole article and edit it that way. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing
-- that translation was definitely wrong and POV forking. Japanese wikipedia user depict as "Japan was Great than Korea". but, it was a definitely wrong. Check full text,
 * Chinese History Record Book of Sui, Vol. 81, Liezhuan 46 : 隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來 "Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a great country, with many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, and regularly send embassies there."


 * "安帝时，又遣使朝贡，谓之倭奴国. "
 * On Emperor An of Han period, They sent envoy to han China, and tribute to Han China, Japan called as "Slave state" [by China].


 * "无文字，唯刻木结绳. 敬佛法，于百济求得佛经，始有文字. "
 * Japanese learned characters and buddhism from baekje, this is the origin of characters in Japan


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


 * 敬仰(jìng yǎng) highly esteemed

'Japan land' have some treasure things, so, Silla and Baekje want their treasure things. [Silla and Baekje] highly esteemed treasure things. This is not mean, Japan is stronger or great country than Korea. Previous edit was definitely wrong translation.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed this quote from the Book of Sui. For now, I've written a neutral sentence as a placekeeper until a English translation source can be found. I see it is not the first time there's been an argument over the translation from Chinese.  The previous translation was probably not neutral, but I don't think the current one from Cherry Blossom OK is either.  It doesn't specifically say why they hold Wa in high regard, and 大国 could still mean large in size, or grand and majestic.  In either case, no one on Wikipedia is proven qualified to translate classical Chinese.  Therefore, the correct thing to do here is to find a published English translation of the Book of Sui, and quote directly from there.  As to who is "stronger" or "greater" than whom, that's really a minor issue at best.  AMorozov (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

--- OK. I removed 'book of sui'. that is the dubious source and it is cleary wrong transltaion.
 * Chinese Book of Sui mentions that the Korean kingdoms of Silla and Baekje saw Japan as a large or great country with precious and valuable stones

I appreciate your(AMorozov) neutral manner, However, your translation is also not good translation. '大国' is always not mean super power or great country. for exmaple, South Africa is a 'Diamond 大国(Great country of diamond source)'.
 * Check the Book of Sui, Wa (Japan) never recorded as a great country. Read full source of Japan part from Book of sui, Japan was named as "Slave state" by China, They recorded like "uncivilized and babaric". even no characters(written language symbol) in Japan until baekje teached them.
 * Cleary, 'Book of Sui' quote is a POV and mistranslation.
 * It is a sentence POV forking, Only fork some sentence, but if you read full sentence, it record as "treasure source".


 * They ignore the fact that it mentioned treasure and rare thing. It is not mean japan was a great country.
 * (They ignore this part) 有如意宝珠(Japan have treasure things)，其色青(color is blue)，大如鸡卵(size as egg)，夜则有光(bright at night)，云鱼眼精也. (it called as 'fish-eye crystal')
 * (They only show this part) 新罗、百济皆以倭为大国，多珍物，并敬仰之，恆通使往来
 * This is a cleary POV forking and Original research.
 * (Here is the whole part) "有如意宝珠，其色青，大如鸡卵，夜则有光，云鱼眼精也. 新罗、百济皆以倭为大国，多珍物，并敬仰之，恆通使往来. 故大业三年，其王多利思北孤遣使朝贡. "

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your comments. I agree that 大国 does not necessary mean "powerful" country, but I think we both know that it could mean either "large" or "powerful". However, your analysis based on the context of that passage could very well be accurate. Without a real source though, removing the entire quote was probably the right thing to do for now. AMorozov (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

大国 means "large country" or "powerful country". in Book of Sui, their is no describe Japan as "regarded country as Mineral/Ornament 大国 by Baekje/Silla" but discribe as "regarded country as 大国 by baekje and Silla."(maybe that is your original research) and both Baekje and Silla sent royal hostages to Japan and competed for build-up relationship with Japan. Japan already give significant militarical influence to Southern Korea(Silla affected by Japanese invasion since 1st century.) and that was enough for recognized as 大国 by Silla or Baekje. whether China doesn't think Japan as 大国, that's not matter for this article. Ancient Chinese view of Japan don't assembly to Silla or Baekje's view of Japan. 61.99.38.219 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Japan mentioned in Book of Han's A.D 57 record and that saying Japan already learned Hanzi and exchanged/diplomated with China in that period, when Baekje has no knowledge of Japan. 61.99.38.219 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think few scholars in or out of Japan would describe the Korean princes as "hostages". It may appear that way on the surface, but this is generally considered a diplomatic strategy of the time, and did not necessarily imply superiority or inferiority.  Sources tend to agree that there was probably some (albeit undocumented) military contact, both friendly and hostile during the Yayoi-Kofun periods, but again few if any scholars accept the Nihon Shoki's description about full scale invasions.  As for the Book of Han, having recorded Japan first doesn't necessarily mean Baekje wasn't aware of Japan, it just means they haven't written it down yet.  In fact, Han travelers depended on Korean accounts in order to learn about Japan, there is even considerable doubt about whether the section on Wa is really a firsthand account, or just a description given by Koreans.


 * Regardless, the sentence in question is obviously very contentious for people to dispute the translation of a single word so frequently. Under normal circumstances I think the previous sentence would've been fine - even unsourced translations like that are probably all over Wikipedia.  In the end it's not terribly important to this article (although it might be at Japan-Korea relations), and I still think we can do without it.  I have removed it for now, but you have my word as soon as I come across any mention of that passage in my books, I will insert it in the article with the appropriate citations.  AMorozov (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you have a main account, please use that one to avoid confusion, thanks. AMorozov (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Popeyeatucb's edit
Popeyeatucb added a description "However, it is clear that what is now known as Japan was formed by Koreans in the fourth century AD most likely by the kingdom of Paekche." with two books as references. However one book states it is a fiction, "This work of historic fiction is an epic tale of intrigue, sabotage, espionage, lust, betrayal, and war between Korea and China against Japan come to life." Another book titled "Fighting ships of the Far East: Japan and Korea AD 612-1639" writes nothing about the history of the fourth century in Japan. So please provide the corresponding page numbers and direct quotes per WP:V. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just about every historian views the origins of Japan as still debatable, with many different theories (although Korean and Chinese influences are undeniable.) But whether the "Japanese" came up through the southern route via the islands or across from mainland Asia is not definitely known. "It is clear ..." would set off alarm bells at any (non-nationalist) university. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)