Talk:History of Japan/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Recent addition by Judayxlo

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

Link under Muromachi Period section

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

See also: Christianity in Japan

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

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

Block-evading Sockpuppeter User:Azukimonaka's complaints

Since the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has kept evading his block sanction with sock IPs and sock accounts such as Pkakita (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Windybluesea (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) (which are all confirmed by checkuser), this header and box are added to differentiate other discussions from his comments.--Caspian blue 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

powerful clan in ancient Japan

The Korean user Caspian blue wrote. "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan seem to be of Korean descent."　[5][6] However, this is a theory only of South Korea. (He is using not the source of Japan but the source of South Korea.[[7]]) According to the history book on legitimate Japan, Rulers of Japan is not a descendant of Korean. It is Chinese's descendant or Japanese.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.245.112 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04T07:00:55 (UTC)

powerful clans

Mononobe clan:descendants of Ninigi-haya-no-Mikoto (Japanese) [8]
Hata clan:descendants of Qin Shi Huang (Chinese) [9]
Soga clan:descendants of Takenouchi no Sukune (Japanese) [10]
Takamuko no Kuromaro(Takamuko clan):descendant of Cao Cao.(Chinese) [11]
Kasuga clan:descendants of Takefuru kuma no mikoto (Japanese) [12]
Sakagami Clan:descendants of Emperor Ling of Han(Chinese) [13]
Ōtomo clan:descendants of Michi no omi mikoto(Japanese) [14]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.245.112 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04T07:00:55 (UTC)

Same old stuff and same writing style. Why are afraid of logging in your current account? (I already figure out who you're though)[15]. Read the cited sources. Whether you do not like the content or not, those are properly cited "academic sources" unlike your insertion of mere primary sources. One is even from National Geography, which is clearly not a South Korean source. In the article, a professor at a Japanese university claimed so as mentioning Akihito's own admission. Moreover, you must present "academic source", not your original research nor interpretation since you're not obviously an academic.--Caspian blue 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I don't understand the relevance of the comment. The preceding sentence says that military aid was sent to Japan - how does the belief that Japanese rulers were of Korean origin counter this? Furthermore this seems to be a fringe/controversial view. If it is to be fitted in it needs to be done much more carefully in a relevant section, specifically detailing the exact theory, etc. John Smith's (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your playing such double standard. You have let the primary source stayed without following reputable academic sources which mislead the content and history. You're rather supporting the fringe theory of Japan's imaginary rule over some art of Korea in ancient time. The deleted sources by you are not a fringe theory. If you think those are as such, present your source to back u your claim. --Caspian blue 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are misusing the source, national geographic [[16]]. They say only that "prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea—or that some tombs hold no royal remains". This is a rumor, and futher, they never say that "the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent.", because this source give suggestions that the rulers of Korea could be of Japanese descent (written in prior) either. And so the writing in this point can not be countercharge of prior context.Windybluesea (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

“

But the agency has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea—or that some tombs hold no royal remains at all.

Korean Bones

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

But Walter Edwards, professor of Japanese studies at Tenri University in Nara, argues that the "Korean bones" issue is a red herring.

"Blood links between Korea and the Japanese imperial family are documented from the eighth century," he said.

"Even the current emperor [Akihito] has said that he has Korean ancestry." Edwards suggests that the agency's attitude has more to do with trying to maintain the imperial family's dignity.

”

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

First, who are "the rulers of Japan"? It is a meaningless statement. Second, my earlier point has not been answered. How does this disputed topic contradict the statement that "The Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) recorded Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Wa to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[15] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son in 402.[16]"? John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the content was not originally inserted by me. However, I have assumed the editor who inserted it is a non-native English speaker, so "the ruler of Japan" would be a wrong grammar of "rulers of Japan". When we refer to rulers of a kingdom in general, if king's name is not specified, we say "the king of the state". Second, everything has two sided stories, but you deleted it for just one side being kept. That is not hardly a NPOV. The primary sources strongly insinuate that Japan ruled some part of Korea in ancient time. the fringe theory was coined by Japanese scholars during the Meiji period, and is rejected by general scholars. It has been suggested that Korea and Wa had a "special kinship", so the kingdoms of Korea sent their prince, not as simply as mere hostages to a stronger state. Now, your turn, you have not answered to any of my question. Also why you're playing such dual standard? --Caspian blue 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding you as English is not your first language. It doesn't matter whether it's singular or plural - "ruler/rulers" is vague and not specific enough. For the second point I'm only removing what seems immediately bad to me. If you want to make a case for removing other text then please make the case - I don't know everything about every disputed part of Japanese history so I can't immediately say whether you are right or wrong on any point you raise.

For the primary sources, they're primary sources and difficult to dismiss unless you can give some reason to show they're a forgery. We already have text saying "claiming there is no evidence of Japanese rule in Gaya or any other part of Korea" so why are you claiming only one side of the story is represented? If it needs tweaking, fine but please stop reinserting badly worded text because you're not happy with the current content. John Smith's (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sockpuppeter from 2channel

Note for future visitors

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

Caspian blue's Proposal

Note This section is related to the above thread and was proposed by another IP user with a different Japanese ISP, 210.175.255.217 (talk · contribs)[17]--Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Affirmative Constructive Speech

He presented the source of his grounds.

"PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN" [18] First published 1994 by Kudara International (The address is Kangnam-ku, Seoul, in KOREA)

National Geographic News (April 28, 2008) "Japanese Royal Tomb Opened to Scholars for First Time" [19]

But the agency has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea—or that some tombs hold no royal remains at all.Other experts have suggested that the hesitation is because courtiers and conservatives fear excavation will uncover blood ties between the supposedly pure Japanese imperial line and the Asian mainland, specifically Korea.But Walter Edwards, professor of Japanese studies at Tenri University in Nara, argues that the "Korean bones" issue is a red herring. "Even the current emperor Akihito has said that he has Korean ancestry." Edwards suggests that the agency's attitude has more to do with trying to maintain the imperial family's dignity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T11:55:10 (UTC)

His insistence is as follows.

Korean Bones

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

But Walter Edwards, professor of Japanese studies at Tenri University in Nara, argues that the "Korean bones" issue is a red herring.

"Blood links between Korea and the Japanese imperial family are documented from the eighth century," he said.

"Even the current emperor [Akihito] has said that he has Korean ancestry." Edwards suggests that the agency's attitude has more to do with trying to maintain the imperial family's dignity.}}

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

Notes

Note-1:National Geographic News (April 28, 2008) "Japanese Royal Tomb Opened to Scholars for First Time" [20]
The event marked the first time that scholars had been allowed inside a royal tomb outside of an official excavation led by Japan's Imperial Household Agency. Archaeologists have been requesting access to Gosashi tomb and other imperial sites since 1976, in part because the tombs date to the founding of a central Japanese state under imperial rule. But the agency has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea—or that some tombs hold no royal remains at all. Although the team's visit didn't lay any of those issues to rest, experts celebrated it as a first step toward expanded access to the mysterious tombs. "The main achievement of the occasion was that for the first time we could enter to do [our own] research," said Koji Takahashi, a Toyama University archaeologist and spokesperson for the group.

Note-2:Press Conference on the Occasion of His Majesty's Birthday (Date: 18 December 2001) [21]
Question
Next year Japan and the Republic of Korea will co-host the global event, the 2002 FIFA World Cup. As the tournament draws ever nearer, exchange on a person-to-person level between the two countries is intensifying. Could Your Majesty tell us of any interests or thoughts you have concerning the Republic of Korea, which both historically and geographically is Japan's close neighbor?
Answer
That the people of Korea and Japan have from ages past had deep interchange is recorded in detail in the Nihon Shoki(Chronicles of Japan,compiled in 720), among other historical records. Those who immigrated or were invited to come to Japan from Korea introduced culture and technology. Of the musicians in the Music Department of the Imperial Household Agency, some are direct descendants of musicians who came over to Japan from Korea at that time, and have inherited the music for generations and still perform the Gagaku (Imperial Court Music) on various occasions. It was truly fortunate that such culture and technology was brought to Japan through the enthusiasm of Japanese people and the friendly attitude of the Korean people. I also believe that it contributed greatly to Japan's subsequent development. I, on my part, feel a certain kinship with Korea, given the fact that it is recorded in the Shoku Nihongi (Chronicles of Japan, compiled in 797), that the mother of Emperor Kammu (reign 781～806) was of the line of King Muryong (reign 501～523) of the Kingdom of Paekche*. King Muryong had strong relations with Japan, and it was from his time that masters of the Five Chinese Classics (books compiling the teaching of Confucianism) were invited to Japan one after another to teach Confucianism. King Song Myong(reign 523～554), son of King Muryong, is recognized as the one who introduced Buddhism to Japan.

Cross Examination

His proposal received the cross-examination.

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

Reference

Explanation by Britannica
[22]

Thus, by the end of the 4th century, Yamato was a kingdom well settled on the Nara plain with considerable control over the peoples of the archipelago. It was in contact with Chinese rulers, exchanged diplomatic envoys with several of the kingdoms on the Korean peninsula, and was even strong enough to have sent an army against the powerful state of Koguryo, which then dominated the peninsula. Yamato was most closely associated with the southeastern kingdom of Paekche, whence came the "seven-pronged sword." Contact with the mainland, although involving conflict, also encouraged a marked rise in standards of living in the archipelago, as many of the fruits of advanced Chinese civilization reached Japan via people from the peninsula. Weavers, smiths, and irrigation experts migrated to Japan, and the Chinese ideographic script also was introduced at that time, together with Confucian works written in this script. Claims by historians prior to World War II that Paekche paid "tribute" to Japan, and that Japan conquered the southern tip of the peninsula where it established a "colony" called Mimana have since been largely discounted by historians in both Japan and Korea.

If the 5th century represents an expansion of power throughout the archipelago, it also was a time of involvement in Korean affairs, as the struggle for peninsular hegemony intensified. At the time of Yamato's expedition against Koguryo in the late 4th century, Paekche and Yamato found themselves allied against Silla or Koguryo (or both); while the latter looked to northern Chinese kingdoms for support and legitimation, Yamato and Paekche usually turned to southern China. In fact, Yamato dispatched some 10 embassies to the Southern Sung between 421 and 478.
Paekche was frequently attacked by Koguryo during the century, prompting continued requests for assistance from Yamato; it is recorded that Paekche even sent a crown prince to Yamato as a hostage on one occasion and the mother of the king on another. Yet, probably because of internal dissension, Yamato did not dispatch any troops to the peninsula, although a lengthy memorial sent with the embassy of 478 and presented to the Southern Sung emperor requested that the Yamato king Yuryaku be appointed commander of a large army being raised for dispatch against Koguryo.
Yamato's interest in Korea was apparently a desire for access to improved continental technology and resources, especially iron, which was especially plentiful near the lower reaches of the Naktong River in the south. Yamato apparently gained a modicum of power in this region, controlled by the league of the Kaya (Japanese: Mimana) states between Paekche and Silla, though the exact relationship--whether ally or tributary--is unclear. But in the 6th century, Silla became militarily powerful, and Yamato faced several reversals in the area, ultimately being driven entirely from the peninsula when Silla annexed the Kaya league in 562.
The 6th century, in fact, represented a decline of Yamato power both at home and abroad. It was also marked by another shift of the court, this time back to the old region around Mount Miwa sometime late in the reign of Keitai (507-c. 531). From Keitai's reign there was a marked reduction in royal power. A large force assembled to be sent against Silla, for example, had to be detoured to Kyushu in 527 to put down the rebellion of a local chieftain named Iwai, who had apparently refused to raise soldiers and supplies for the continental campaign. That campaign on the continent also ended in defeat, signaling the decline of Yamato power. The rest of the 6th century can be characterized by the growing accumulation of power by regional clan leaders and a weakening of royal power, as well as the rise of new clans, mostly of recent continental origin, who managed technical service groups.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06T11:55:10 (UTC)

issue

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

Affirmative Rebuttal Speech

This section was initiated by long term sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · block log) and his offspring including dear Windybluesea　- Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[23]
This section is related to the above thread and was proposed by another IP user with a different Japanese ISP.　- Caspian blue 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Note:Caspian blue is Korean　
--210.175.255.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative Rebuttal Speech

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

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

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

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

Please write your opinion

About this unisgned comment

From your Akihito's citations :

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

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

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

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

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

- The 7th or 8th cent Korean line to Japan's Imperial family isn't really disputed. The reason why the older tombs are kept in secrect and not open to international study is what is in question. Many people and national geographics believe that this is because the Korean lineage issue may be even older all the way back to Japan first emperor. The Kinship statement is included in the military support part because we don't know the exact nature of the relationship. Is it a hostage or a friendly Kinship visitor who takes command of the Japanese navy. Without the "Paekche Korea to origin of yamato Japan" info and national geographic info, the article seems to lean towards the old invalidated theory of a Japan that controlled the southern part of Korea. If we leave it like this we need to start talking about the movement of artifacts from NE China to North Korea by Japan to justify Japan's theory. We are going to get in to how it doesn't make since that a nation without iron weapons/horse/advanced tech is able to make any trouble in a nation with already has these items. I think we need to leave in the sentence about Japan's rulers being of Korean descent to make it neutral and not leaning toward the old invalidated Japanese theory. You can see it split like this the Koreans look at read the statement in the Nihongi about how emperor jingu is a descendant of Korea (Silla) and Japan keeps looking at the possible hostage statement. It just seems to go back and forth from that --4.23.83.100 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is no Korean blood amongst the emperors after 8th century (or whatever it is). The issue is whether this particular statement is relevant where it is in the article. I.e. I believe it needs to be moved somewhere else or the whole section re-worded to make it relevant. Saying "Japanese rulers are of Korean descent" has no relevance to the comment that hostages were sent. My issue is about relevance, not inclusion anywhere under any circumstance. I find it hard to understand why no one is addressing this point. John Smith's (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Then you know the hostage idea would be complicated, it could be just a cousin or brother coming to visit. Why is it complicated? Hostages have been used in the same "ethnic groups" across history in many countries. If the captor is from ethnic group A and the hostages from A or B doesn't matter. John Smith's (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, only the Japanese "fill in stuff"? John Smith's (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summary

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

Caspian blue's proposal is WP:AWW - Caspian blue kept disregarding question "Who is the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent？"
Caspian blue's proposal is not "is clear". - "Japanese rulers are of Korean descent" has no relevance to the comment that hostages were sent.
Caspian blue's proposal is WP:OR - He insists "This interpretation is complicated by the claim that the rulers of Japan could be of Korean descent". However, "This interpretation is complicated" is based on his unique historical view. A universal source such as Britannica doesn't touch his worry at all.
Caspian blue's source is WP:V - Please look at his source[24]. We will not be able to discover grounds of his insistence.

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

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

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

I have made a point several times about relevance, as well as others, that you really should address. That the editor has not registered does not matter as he has been editing since 2004. John Smith's (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you strongly urge me to input more on this, I would make separate threads; That would be about Emperor Ōjin and relationship between Wa and Korean kingdoms at that time. The anon to whom I referred is not 4.23.83.100, but the ip user from an internet cafe who began participated in editing Wiki just one weeks ago. More sources would be discussed. --Caspian blue 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

On the matter of the Book of Song, etc, I have no problem with the section being written to say that "according to the Book....blaablaa...., but so-and-so says/this has been criticised as being problematic because......".

On the matter of the "hostages", if you're saying that there are sources that counter that then fine we can just lift the entire passage as being disputed (and not necessarily important either). John Smith's (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

To IP user from a Manga & Internet cafe

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

WTF Caspian? I have no idea what nasty things were said to you, but you might want to ignore the fact that someone is from Japan, is using an internet cafe or what time they are editing - I am starting to get pissed off with the constant "reverted edit by Japanese IP" style comments from you. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor - if you think it is a sockpuppet, then address those concerns elsewhere. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, your typical WTF attack. If you're a little careful, the anon constantly has emphasized my ethnicity as Korean and attacked me for that. The only reason that he dislike and denounces Korean academic sources is just because those are written by Koreans and not favored his fringe theory. I've been here to build u articles not to be harassed by sockpuppeters for my ethnicity. Of course, You've been already pissed off with your constant blocks as the results of your reverting, wikistalking and harassment against me. I would appreciate you if you really practice the last comment by yourself. --Caspian blue 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done, you defend yourself against an attack based on your nationality, with an attack on someone's nationality. Nice one. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you to be careful when you make an accusion just like the last your failed attempt (by the way, I did not intentionally input my thought from good faith again not to prolong the AN report that you're afraid). I did not say the anon is a Japanese. You're being so "colorful" in my wiki life.--Caspian blue 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange I would have thought the link to the Japanese organisation would imply that they were Japanese. I found the accusations of gaming to be laughable, considering you just reported me for 3RR for edits I had already been blocked for. Pot/Kettle/Black カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're responsible for your own misinterpretaton. I thought my note with the diffs clearly speaks out just like what the admin, Aitias properly understood. I did not demanded you to be "reblocked" at all for your 3RR violation at the same article for which you were blocked. Those are rather for clarification for your own sake since you strongly feel yourself having treated unfairly by the admin. I did not see any composure in you at that time like here: you seemed to freak out over the admin's idea.--Caspian blue 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To Korea User Caspian blue

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

Page protected

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

Response to the IP user who turns out to be Azukimonaka

Japanese rulers of Korean descendants

Hello, 219.105.45.141 (talk · contribs), another Ip user. You seem to have the same writing style as that of the above Ip as well as Kamosuke (talk · contribs), Princesunta (talk · contribs) or Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) (geez, all indef.blocked for sockpupetry and harassment, what a coincidence!). Could you provide diffs that I insisted that "Ancient Japan was being ruled by Korean."? Many scholars claim as such though. I think I restored your blanking of "rulers of Japan seems to be Korean descendants". Anyway, don't worry. I'm preparing something to please for you. Well, here is just for a quick preview.

Emperor Ojin, 15th ruler, Korean prince of Baekje according to 百済から渡来した応神天皇―騎馬民族王朝の成立 by Ishiwatari Shin'ichiro (石渡信一郎) and 日本古代の國家形成 (講談社: 1978)by Yū Mizuno (水野祐), professor at Waseda University Emperor Nintoku, 16th ruler, a descendant of Baekje according to 天皇家の秘密 (山手書房: 1977/06) by Yū Mizuno (水野祐), professor at Waseda University Emperor Bidatsu, 30th ruler, a Korean descendant of Baekje royalty according to Shinsen Shōjiroku, and 日本の神話を考える" (ISBN 409460065) written by Ueda Masaaki (上田正昭), professor of University of Kyoto. Ohohara Nomahito (大原眞人), a man from one of the most powerful 30 royal clans of Yamato Japan was a grandson of the founder, Emperor Bidatsu who was of Baekje royalty according to Shinsen Shōjiroku. Emperor Kammu (737–806) - 50th ruler whose mother Takano no Niigasa was a descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje according to Shoku Nihongi and Akihito. Ōuchi family - The Ōuchi family's descendants, beginning with Hiromichi (dates unknown), allegedly the son of a king of Paekche, reserved the element* hiro in eight upper and four lower positions[1] Ōuchi Yoshihiro claimed to King Jeongjong of Joseon that he is a descendant of King Onjo of Baekje according to Annals of the Joseon Dynasty[2][3] Soga clan, Korean descendants according to 日本古代の国家形成 : 征服王朝と天皇家 written by Yū Mizuno and Nara prefecture website [25] Reference Herbe E. Plutschow (October 26, 1995). Japan's Name Culture: The Significance of Names in a Religious, Political & Social Context. RoutledgeCurzon. p. 58. ISBN 1873410425. "백제의 후손으로 일본 좌경대부 육주목인 의홍에게 본관과 토전을 주는 일에 대한 의논". National Institute of Korean History. 日本國六州牧左京大夫義弘 , 本百濟始祖溫祚王高氏之後, 其先避難, 徙於日本 , 世世相承, 至于六州牧, 尤爲貴顯。 Hong Wontack. "CONTINUED INFLOWS FROM PAEKCHE IN THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES: The Movement of Culture and Technology from Paekche to Wa" (PDF). p. 118.

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

Background

I adapt the IP user's format.--Caspian blue 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why had such the edit war occurred over the section of Kofun period for months (or a year)?
Because the period is considered very obscure to define the relationship between southern part of Korean peninsular and Japanese archipelago. Not only scarce are existing documents but also those are contradictory between them.
What policies have the editors who has unilaterally insert the primary sources in support for the "controversial theory" to here along with other related articles? Prof. William Wayne Farris and other scholars pointed out that the theory is based on Colonialism, Imperialism and Nationalism to justify Japanese superiority over Korea. Since 1960s, the titled theory has widely been rejected in both Korea and Japan according to Britaenica, and book sources such as Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures.
WP:NPOV, the deliberate exclusion of the other side is POV itself.

WP:Primary source, misuse of primary sources without providing any secondary academic sources is dangerous.

WP:Own, the article also dealing with Korean history is not owned by Japanese.

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

Similar disputes

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

Please write your opinion, the IP user or others

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

Sockpuppeter Azukimonaka's another complaints

Since the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has kept evading his block sanction with sock IPs and sock accounts such as Pkakita (talk · contribs · block log) and Windybluesea (talk · contribs · block log) (which are all confirmed by checkuser), this header and box are added to differentiate other discussions from his comments.--Caspian blue 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue's Proposal (the second)

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

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

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