User talk:Eyesacker

Vandalism Warning[edit]

Hello, I'm Kolossoni. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.

Kolossoni (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stop pretending you're reverting random vandalism. I reverted your POV edits. Your edits have nationalist POV and this is a content dispute on the neutrality of your edits.Eyesacker (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim someone as a "nationalist" as I am neither Japanese, Chinese or Korean. The claims I have provided bring with fully sourced evidence that come from multiple reputable sources from authors, cities' historical website to journals. If you wish to add perspectives or statements, provide a solid argument that alludes to valid sources. If not, it is considered vandalism which you have been warned once. Kolossoni (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's plenty of content I removed that didn't have a citation, and you misrepresent the original sources like Nihon Shoki. All the original Japanese primary sources say these clans migrated from China to Japan via Baekje or Silla, after fleeing from China to Baekje. They don't present it as contradictory for them to be of Chinese origin and from Baekje.You deliberately omitted that when mentioning those sources and falsely present it as an either or argument (they either are of Chinese origin, or they came from Baekje and are Koreans) in order to cast doubt on Chinese origins. As I linked in the edit summary, there are tons of Korean clans of Chinese origin.Eyesacker (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources I have provided in the respective articles you have tackled. If you have problems reading Japanese, I suggest you use a translator.

The sources speak otherwise and modern Japanes scholars criticise the Nihon Shoki, Kojiki, Shoku Nihongi and etc. Kolossoni (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also provided stances that include theories of Chinese origin, therefore, I find it difficult to believe I could be a so-called "nationalist" when I provide all sides of the argument. The claims that mention "China" or "Chinese Imperial line" has no evidence from all historical records in the country itself. Yuzuki no Kimi, Achi no omi and Wani are considered fictional people which the descendants created to create a sense of legitimacy within the Japanese political climate at the time. Kolossoni (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there was no writing or books in Japan at all before the 6th century, there were no records saying they were Koreans either from the time they were claimed to have arrived. The fact is that Hata were said to have migrated from China to Korea and then to Japan in the primary source and it wasn't presented as contradictory for them to come from Korea and be of Chinese origin. Japanese were not arguing with each other by saying they came from Baekje so they must be Korean when writing those texts. Eyesacker (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to go over the sources with you if you were to have a mature, civil approach to the evidence I'm about to provide you with. Kolossoni (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hata clan - It is indeed true that there is a mentioning of Yuzuki no Kimi being of Emperor Qin's descent. However, that is found in the Shinsen Shojiroku. Yuzuki no Kimi and the Hata clan were mentioned first in the Nihon Shoki where Qin nor any mentions of China are found. Nihon shoki being the older book clearly shows that the concept of Yuzuki no Kimi being of Chinese Imperial line was either deliberately dismissed or was added later on. To crossreference this claim, Silla or should I say, Jinhan was mistaken as a nation built by Qin dynasty refugees and is theorized that this false rumor carried over to Japan during Emperor Kanmu's reign which ultimately gave an opportunity for the Hata clan descendants to falsely claim ancestry from Qin Shi Huang. But the issue is, "Qin" is not Qin Shi Huang's real name. It was Yíng Zheng and he followed the Yíng Family. Which means, the Hata clan descendatns were clinging on to a single character that was in fact historically inaccurate according to Chinese records. This claim holds water since true descendants of Qin Shi Huang would not have mistaken their almighty ancestor as such. To add further information, Yuzuki no Kimi's pronunciation is closer to "Kungdala" in Old Korean, which if you have studied the Japanese language, it aligns closely with the name "Kudara" which meant Baekje. Now it is uncertain why the Japanese historians first claimed that Yuzuki no Kimi and Hata clan were from Baekje when they were in fact from Silla, and the reason is speculated to be because Japan during the end of the Nara period deemed Silla (and Tang dynasty) as a threat. Read the unification of Silla article for more context. Which is why the ancient people wanted to make Silla look bad. The fact of the matter is, Hata clan's etymology is believed to be "Pada" which means "sea" in Korean as they have crossed the seas to reach Japan. In fact, they also used a completely separate name with the exact same pronunciation called "Hata" before they incorporated the Qin character which further discredits the Qin-origin theory. So the consensus is that neither Baekje, Qin or Gaya are the origins of the Hata clan, but it was in truth, Silla. On top of that, Yuzuki no Kimi was a fictional founder who made Baekje look good by having a name that sounds similar to Kudara and made Silla look bad, as the original source, Nihon Shoki claims that he was persecuted by Silla. Kolossoni (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I could find for now. If you have any questions, I would gladly try to help. Kolossoni (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsen Shōjiroku - Not much is there to say about this book. It was first compiled during Emperor Kanmu's reign and was finished when his son, Emperor Saga was in power. The BIGGEST problem with Shisen Shojiroku is that it's FILLED with non-verifiable claims that each clan members made up. To give you further context, the whole reason why this book was made in the first place (the ORIGINAL book is lost btw) is because too many nobles were asking for power and wealth from the emperor, and to make them go away, Emperor Kanmu made them into mini "clans". Now these "clans" were fighting each other to gain the emperor's favor/power, so in order to stand out, they started to claim non-sensical ownerships such as them being descendants of Japanes Kamis, Chinese Imperial line, etc. Now, because it was very difficult to verify this in the past, the writers went along with it and it's been like that ever since. Modern Japanese historians are baffled at such claims made by their ancestors and like the Hata clan, started to analyze and deduce origins of many clans that were considered "foreign", with many of them discovering that they were of Korean origin. It is not surprising as Emperor Kanmu (being half-Korean descent) was very accepting of Korean immigrants and it happened very naturally in the past too especially during Emperor Ōjin's era. Kolossoni (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least, Achi no omi - He is much like Yuzuki no Kimi, a fictional character made by his descendants to create a sense of legitimacy in Japan. He was also first mentioned as coming from Baekje, then in the Shinsen Shōjiroku, his 'descendants' claimed falsely that he was the descendant of Emperor Ling of China... you get the story now. The truth is, him (if he was real) and his clan are truly from Baekje it seems like. A: Kawachinoaya clan, another clan from Baekje also founded by Wani was ethnically close to them and B: the Soga clan, a clan that has MAJOR ties with Baekje hired Yamatonoaya clan (Achi no omi's clan) for protection. So it is deduced that these people were indeed of Baekje origin. Kolossoni (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So as you can see, I have done my research. I'm not a "nationalist" or some propaganda machine working for Koreans. No, I study the languages, etymologies, historical texts, modern analysis and most recent consensus of the field.

I know this information is relatively new and that these people/clans were considered "Chinese" for a very long time, but new research and academia are projecting that this is not the case and the attitudes in Japan are changing rapidly. I'm only here to translate those findings into English and provide the information on Wikipedia.

I hope this cleared the misunderstanding you had of my work and if you have ANY questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

-Kolossoni- Kolossoni (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Church of the East in China, you may be blocked from editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie man, I didn't add my own commentary or personal analysis. How is this my own personal analysis? It's one thing for you to disagree about it not belonging on the article but you're giving a false reason for the warningEyesacker (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Milktaco per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milktaco. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]