User talk:CastilloX

Hello
I'm just leaving this note for you cause I'm tired of the revert wars and would like more input from other people to prevent revert wars.


 * Would you please look at this:

This version is the only one allowed to stand in the Japan Kofun period and Kofun section, but if you actually read the references this is not exactly accurate. I'm so tired of the lop-sided POV. If you read the actual reference some of the people misinterperted it and if you look at additional references you can see counter arguements, but that keeps getting deleted:


 * Japanese Archaeology: Kofun Culture

This reference which is used in the Kofun sit definately states that Koreans think Gaya influenced Japan in the Keyhole tombs. Someone keeps deleteing that sentence if I put it in, even though the reference they provided is the source of that statement.


 * Current version of kofun:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan.


 * My modifications which keep getting reverted for POV, I think it is more neutral or at least summarizes the actual reference better:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat or flow of culture from Gaya to Japan is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan. Similarly Japan dislikes adding more cultural inflow from Korea to Japan's ancient history. This lead to Japan refusing to open the tombs after a couple of the tombs they opened had definate Korean artifacts in them. Horse shaped artifacts and Korean style pottery were initially excuvated, then the Imperial family stated the tombs will not be disturbed because they are sacred to our people. No further excuvation has been done on these tombs leading many to speculate and both sides insist on their version of theory.

Here is another weird interpertation, and if I bring in counter arguements with references it is deleted. Look at this counter arguement reference, why do people keep deleteing it.


 * From Paekche to Origin of Yamato


 * Here is the current version in the kofun period section

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy. According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan. According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.

You can see this current verion is definately biased There are reasons why you can't find certain Japanese references in english cause most historians have nullified or discredited those references for lack of evidence or confusion in interpertation. But someone keeps using these Japanese references and will delete other references that counter their arguements.


 * Here is my version, I thought this was more neutral than the current one:

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy. According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan. According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402. Baekje's influence on Japanese culture has been a contentious issue in contemporary relations between South Korea and Japan. The exact nature of the relationship is always investigated. The above interpretations are not exactly accurate because ancient Chinese writing are difficult to deciper. People do not know when a sentence ends and where the puncutation such as commas are suppose to be. Even more confusing is one character can have multiple meaning depending on the context. The same sentence in the Book of Song can be translated to Yamato being an colony of Baekje's expansion efforts. Then if this sentence structure is followed, the Book of Sui would show that Koreans were already the rulers of Yamato. Another point of arguement for contemporary historians is whether the Silla and Baekje princes were hostages or guest teacher who came to transmit culture. In addition, the Korean rulers were always put ahead of Japanese rulers, but below the Chinese rulers in all the text, leading people to see this order as the confucian rank. This situation has lead to both nations to further investigate the situation.

I'm not as jumpy on reverts on these theories as I am with the definate misrepresentation reverts in the Japanese War Crime section and WWII/Korea section. Most of my info are from the East Asian studies courses I took and I try not to be POV. I'm only trying to correct the current POV. Any ways I hope you can provide more input.4.23.83.100 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)