The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As already thoroughly demonstrated on the talk page, the article is a WP:POVFORK of a whole bunch of better articles on Japanese culture that may or may not mention hypothetical Korean connections for the topics mentioned. It has stitched together a bunch of sources that either (1) present Korean connection as one (the less likely?) of several possible theories of a cultural artifact's origins, (2) are written by Korean nationalists with no training in Japanese culture, or (3) don't mention "Korean influence" at all, but refer to a Japanese-born and Japanese-raised originator, whose remote ancestors might have immigrated from the Korean Peninsula. The topics Chinese influence on Japanese culture, European influence on Japanese culture and United States influence on Japanese culture are almost certainly more notable, but we don't have articles on those topics -- or, for that matter, any other articles with titles in the form "<Country Y> influence on the culture of <Country X>" -- because such articles by definition would violate WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles are comparable, since they are not in the form "<Modern nation-state that didn't exist yet during the relevant time period> influence on the culture of <Other modern nation-state that didn't exist yet during the relevant time period>". The more accurate name for 90% of this material would be "Baekje influence on late-Yayoi culture". Many of your examples don't include the relevant word "culture", as well, and please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As to the book: have you read it? It's author has no visible credentials in Japanese studies, the publisher is a specialist in English-language travel guides on South Korea, the book almost certainly fails WP:RS, and a lot of it is downright offensive to boot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, books with "hidden history" in their subtitle tend to be WP:FRINGE, and WP:SPAs who cite such books -- including the article's creator and several later contributors -- tend to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source seems fine and, in any case, is not the only one out there. I browse a little and soon find this — an account of the influence of the Paekche of Korea on Japan. This work is published by a university press and so demonstrates and further confirms the notability and the scholarly nature of the topic. Our corresponding article references the page in question in its section Baekje#Relations_with_Japan, giving it as a main article. This demonstrates that the page in question is interwoven with our other content and is not some fringe fork as you seem to suppose. As for righting great wrongs, you seem to be the one on a mission here as your sandbox indicates you've been grinding this axe for months now. Andrew (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not whether any of the content on this page is true, sourced, or whatever. It's about balance: the "topic" is notionally as vast as my example below of France and England, and there is thus no coherence between bits about the Baekje arts and bits about writers whose ancestors were or might have been from Korea, and even less relevance of the bit about Jindai moji. Never mind "influence", why not have an article of "American superiority over the British" -- it could list all sorts of things (wasn't there a yacht race with rather one-side results), a few battles, and everything could be true, referenced, and even in native level English. But it would not be a good article. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Andrew Davidson: I'm sorry, but where did Jinwung Kim (the author of the second book you cite) gain his knowledge of Japanese history? I ask, because the paragraph you link to appears to be loaded with errors: (1) if any legit scholars think the Soga clan were immigrants from Baekje, I have yet to read their work (WP:FRINGE) -- the Soga were in fact active in Japan long before the great Baekje immigration of 660; (2) "Soga Noumako" is not a possible name-reconstruction -- his given name was "Umako"; (3) no one says "Asuka-ji"; (4) what's with the scare quotes around "Emperor" Kanmu? Also, the equation of the extinct Baekje civilization (whose educated populace by and fled to Japan) with modern-day Korea is extremely problematic, since they had their own (likely unrelated) language, etc. It seems pretty obvious that this is a WP:TERTIARY source reliant on other, better sources that do not support your claims.
Also, nice personal attack on my sandbox speculation about the obvious sockpuppetry on the part of Korean-nationalist SPAs (sockpuppetry that has been observed by others such as User:Canterbury Tail on ANI last Christmas Eve). I'm just trying to analyze as much of the information as is available to me to work through what's clearky a massive violation of WP:SOCK that has been going on for years. How about instead of rooting around in my user space you actually read the commentary I provided on the article's talk page clearly demonstrating the disastrous abuse of sources in the article.
Jinwung Kim is a Professor of History and seems to be a reputable academic. As for sockpuppets, notice that, when you posted your commentary on the article's talk page, nobody, but nobody, responded. Andrew (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Professor of History" doesn't help much. It's like saying someone who is a "Professor of Science" is automatically a reliable source on the vertebrate eye, when their qualifications are in fact all in nuclear physics. However, Googling his name and the phrase you provided I was able to find his "Author Bio" on the publisher's website. I'm guessing that's what you read, too: what it actually says is "Jinwung Kim is Professor of History at Kyungpook National University in Taegu, South Korea. He has published widely on South Korean–U.S. relations, with a particular focus on South Korean perceptions of the United States." You cleverly chose to omit the area of history he specializes in, since the area under discussion in the article -- and the area in which he made the somewhat embarrassing mistakes I already pointed out -- concerns a different country, over 1,000 years before either South Korea or the United States even existed! Anyway, being published by a university press doesn't necessarily mean the book is an even-handed, scholarly source. I read through most of the GBooks preview: there were no inline citations, and scant notes (I couldn't read the notes since they were not on the same page). This implies that it is meant for a general audience, like most of Bart Ehrman's books (all of which come from Oxford University Press). Nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't easily track his sources and find out why he thinks that "the Soga clan were immigrants from Baekje" is not only an obscure theory he ascribes to but an established fact. It also makes the polemical, somewhat anti-Japanese nature of every part of the book that might be relevant to this discussion (again, what's with the scare-quotes??) problematic for its use as a source anywhere on Wikipedia, especially as a source to demonstrate that we can rewrite this article to not be as polemical and anti-Japanese as it already is. Also "seems to be a reputable academic" -- what are you basing that on? That he holds a teaching position in an unrelated field in a Korean university? That an American university's publishing department published a general-audience book by him in that same unrelated field?
And besides, you have not yet touched on the main argument for deletion. The page is a POVFORK, and will never be anything more. Neither I nor anyone else has proposed a GNG rationale for deletion, so your digging up obscure, semi-reliable sources will not help.
As for sockpuppetry: How does the lack of a response to my detailed talk page analysis affect that? They don't usually use talk pages, and are more accustomed to edit-warring. Plus, a lot of those accounts seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, so maybe, at the time, they thought of me as an "ally" who did them a "favour" by getting their "opponent" blocked? (Note that this user actually got himself blocked, but still...) And if in fact all of the dozens and dozens of single-purpose accounts all editing in the same area were actually different people independently patrolling the area, don't you think at least one of them would have seen my post and responded? If anything (I don't actually believe this, though) the lack of a response is an argument for sockpuppetry having taken place.
If I may interject Hijiri, but I think your interpretation of the article title is a tad faulty. You've mentioned a number of times above that most of these influences come from Baekje and affected Yayoi Japan, and that they have nothing to do with "modern nation states". I read the title more as "influence of Korean people on Japanese people's culture", nothing about countries. That's all I see wrong with your argument. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No preference, but Japanese culture might be a better location for some of this. The current article has grammar issues throughout, and does seem to have a severe slant toward presenting Korean culture as influencing practically everything in Japan without presenting dissenting academic opinions and research. If this article is not deleted, it will definitely need a serious overhaul, and shepherding from editors willing to work together and put any nationalism aside in that effort. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is of no real value to English-speaking readers. Most importantly, there is no need for generic articles "Influence of France on English culture" (to give an example closer to (my) home), because such influence is general, all-pervasive, and obvious. In this specific case, of course, both Korea and Japan went through many centuries under the influence of Chinese civilisation, and Korea is geographically in the middle, so obviously it is possible to make a hodge-podge list of "connections", but this does not an encyclopaedia article make. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more than enough scholarship on this subject to make an article. Even the Kyoto Cultural Museum noted that "In seeking the source of Japan’s ancient culture many will look to China, but the quest will finally lead to Korea, where China’s advanced culture was accepted and assimilated. In actuality, the people who crossed the sea were the people of the Korea Peninsula and their culture was the Korean culture." What is very glaring about the nominator's source criticism is that he seems to admit that he's hasn't actually read the scholarship he is criticizing. He writes at length about why sources like Covell, Mitchell, and Farris should not be included in the article, but doesn't acknowledge he has ever actually read the books. This is just quibbling with sources and not a legitimate reason to delete the article. Farris' book, for instance, notes that "Together South Korean and Japanese archaeologists have been able to show that from the late fourth through the late seventh centuries Korean-borne continental ideas, technologies, and materials streamed into the archipelago. Influence from the peninsula hit peaks in the mid-fifth, mid-sixth, and late seventh centuries and played a crucial role in population growth, economic and cultural development, and the rise of a centralized Yamato state." The nominator says that "there is no Chinese influence on Japanese culture and there never will be, because Chinese nationalists are apparently not insecure enough that they need to go onto English Wikipedia and denigrate another country's culture". Statements like this show how wrong-headed an attempt to delete this article would be. First of all, someone should write an article about Chinese influence on Japanese culture because that is also an important subject, but secondly, there is no historian today who doesn't acknowledge the massive influence people from the Korean peninsula had on Japan and that has nothing to do with appeasing the so-called "insecurities" of the Korean people. William Wayne Farris, the Kyoto Cultural Museum, and all the other scholars who have written extensively on this subject are of course not inspired by Korean nationalism, they're just acknowledging the fact that Korea has played a tremendous role in shaping Japanese politics, culture, and society, something definitely noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Curtis, I'm noticing a pattern here. So far, you and I have interacted four times on Wikipedia (including this time). On all four occasions, I stated that an article violated WP:SYNTH, and on all four occasions you opposed me on that point. On all three previous occasions, consensus worked out on my side in the discussion. Because I was right. Last time, you were told by more than one user that if you were actively trying to violate WP:NOR or just couldn't tell that you were engaging in OR, you would probably need to be either banned or blocked. You managed to avoid this result last time, but I find it hard to believe you would come here and defend the same type of OR as you did there, given the potential consequences for you. Both User:Nishidani and I have pointed this out to you, and if I recall correctly User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Curly Turkey basically agreed. Now, given that in 100% of your four separate interactions with me you have engaged in SYNTH (in three cases in the service of a modern political agenda), what are the odds that 100% of your other edits have been disruptive in this manner?
(2) Regarding the scholars you name: the authors of the article also clearly have not read most of the sources, since they clearly contradict each other, contradict the material in the article, or are on completely unrelated topics and do not mention Korea at all! Clearly you did not read my long post with enough care: Covell is not a scholar, and you have not demonstrated that he had any qualifications in Japanese studies. You have not read Mitchell either, and so you cannot be right in your assertion that my argument that, given how he is cited in the article, he probably does not back up the text to which he is attached. (I've grown accustomed to this kind of argument from you.) You have not read Farris, either, but the more important point is that the statement to which Farris is attached in the article has nothing to do with "Japanese culture" (it is about metal-working techniques used in the Yayoi state 2,000 years ago). Also, given that the statement violates WP:WEASEL with the word "essentially", we cannot assume Farris actually backs it up; if "essentially" is actually his word and not an "interpretation" by Wikipedians, then does he mean "probably" (60~80%)? If so, then the material should be added to the relevant article, and given the proper context; its being stated as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, with no in-line reference to Farris, violates WP:POVFORK.
(3)Regarding the rest of your post: per WP:V, naming institutions and scholars who have written a large volume of work, even providing quotes, without actually giving page numbers, links, publication titles, etc. is pretty useless. And even all the sources in the world won't help this article, since neither my deletion rationale nor those of the other contributors is based on WP:GNG. This article is a WP:POVFORK, and trying to place the WP:BURDEN on me to create the hundreds of other articles (Irish influence on British culture, anyone? Mexican influence on American culture? North Sudanese influence on South Sudanese culture!?) necessary to provide balance is ridiculous. All of those other articles would need to rely just as much on the OR/SYNTH that you know and love so well, Curtis, as this one. Or maybe you don't sincerely believe those hundreds of articles should be made, and are just trying to goad others into violating WP:POINT. Please stop this kind of disruptive behaviour, or you will be blocked. And on that point...
(4) I notice that in all but the first of my four interactions with you, you have shown up at an article you have never edited before, and opposed me with an extremely weak rationale. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you edit an article on ancient Japanese history, except when you showed up to revert me. I'm beginning to think that you have been following my edits, and showing up to revert me when I edit an area of which you have some knowledge and it seems to you that my position is weak. Per WP:AGF, I'll give you until your fifth infraction on this point, but your constant violations of WP:NOR will probably get you in trouble before that. I would also like to politely ask you to withdraw the above no-rationale, bad-faith oppose !vote per WP:REVENGE and WP:POINT.
User: Sturmgewehr88 warned you previously about threatening to ban people for disagreeing with you, and yet you're still doing it. Regarding the matter at hand, I have read Covell and Farris, and Farris makes clear that Korea played the defining role in shaping Japan's state and society, as indicated by the quote above. You could argue that Korea and Japan were quite different entities in ancient times, but ultimately we ought to basically stick to the wording of reliable sources, which seems to be the main thing you always object to in my line of thinking. The fact is that Farris and other sources like him define the ancient peoples living in the Korean peninsulas as being, broadly defined, "Koreans", and the ancient peoples living on the Japanese island as being "Japanese". There is nothing wrong with sticking to the wording of our sources. I read Farris when looking into the subject of the Relations between Kaya and ancient Japan and, incidentally, he does note that the Soga Clan, like many major Japanese clans, most likely had Korean roots. Korean migration to Japan began well in advance of 660. It takes no original research to see that the society and culture imported to Japan from Korea constitutes "Korean influence on Japan". If this article is really based primarily off Korean nationalism, then explain how Korean nationalists managed to infiltrate the Kyoto Cultural Museum.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You, and certainly the editors of the page, have not used Farris, a very important source used only generically without page citation so far on the page. From your remarks above, it is reasonable to assume you haven't read Farris's important book. Where does he define the people on the Korean peninsular as being 'broadly defined "Koreans"'? The peninsular peoples were as much Kulturträger of Indian, Chinese civilization as contributors of their own distinctive styles (a distinction that must be observed. Immigrant peninsular assistancee in drafting the 律令 does not mean that code was of 'Korean' provenance: it means immigrants from the Korean peninsular sufficiently sinified to be masters of Chinese law and Confucianism, played a role in its drafting). His most frequent term for the priod is 'peninsular peoples'. Evrything hinges on such distinctions. He does not say the Soga clan had 'Korean roots'. He says that clan had 'intimate ties' with immigrants from Korea (p.111). The problem is not documenting the obvious: i.e., that ancient Japanese society had profound links in its formative state period with peoples and kingdoms in Korea, and that technology, art, religion and writing came over together with peninsular immigrants, to make a seminal impact on the shape the Yamato state took. The problem is to find editors capable of documenting the obvious without sounding like illiterate juveniles, incapable of keeping the text clean of nationalistic nuancing, retrospective discourse on 'Koreans' and 'Japanese' etc. In your remarks, and in your editing elsewhere, you show no ability to make use of scholarly sources in an acceptable encyclopedic fashion.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Farris, "The Soga were probably of Korean ancestry". He does use the word "Korean" and "Japanese" to describe those relevant regions. For instance, "The repeated convulsions in Korea are the context in which historians should place the archaeological evidence of the influx of Korean-borne technologies and material culture. Again, Korean immigration to Japan was undoubtedly responsible for much of the influx..." Or "Korean immigrants served on the committees that drew up the law codes. Of the nineteen members of the committee that drafted the Taihō Code, eight were from Korean immigrant families. There were no Chinese. If one excludes the high aristocrats such as Fujiwara no Fubito and Prince Osakabe, who probably did little of the actual writing, then about half of the authors of Japan's most comprehensive set of Chinese laws were from Korea." You yourself may not believe that the aspects of Japanese culture which were imported from the Korean peninsula constitute "Korean" provenance, but Farris clearly does and what I was advocating is that we stick to the reliable sources rather than personal opinions.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The Soga were probably of Korean ancestry'. Good example of your method. You assert that you have read Farris, and the book the page we are discussing cites Farris's 1998 monograph on this topic. You assert that Farris says the Soga had Korean roots. I checked the work by Farris we cite on the page, and he says no such thing. You come back citing his general history of Japan from its beginnings to 1600 (without naming it) for the view. Of course, Farris says that 2009:35, but no one will know that. You hide the source I guess because it means that you weren't reading Farris 1998, which is what we are discussing, but found the statement you need in a later book by Farris never cited in this article. Either you are being disingenuous or, I suspect, you just enjoy wasting people's time. As for Koreans. You are wrong. The term 'peninsular peoples' is used from memory 35 times in the 1998 monograph and is the default term in that book for contexts where we are speaking about the impact of Korea-born culture and technology on the Yamato state. Again, this is another reason why it is impossible to edit with you. Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Just read the quotes above. They are all direct quotes from Farris' works. He does use the words "Korean" and "Japanese" very often, even more so than "peninsular peoples". He does say that the Soga were of "Korean ancestry". These facts speak for themselves.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the proof
I stated earlier
In your remarks, and in your editing elsewhere, you show no ability to make use of scholarly sources in an acceptable encyclopedic fashion.
And you now confirm.
I don't understand what you mean.
I also looked at the sourcing, much of it is false. Didn't you note that?Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an actual source that speculates the Soga were of Korean ancestry. However, that theory should be included in the Soga clan article, and mentioned as one of the theories, not claimed as a widely-accepted fact, unless (as on Yamanoue no Okura) it can be demonstrated that a broad plurality of scholars agree, and it is the most widely-covered in reliable encyclopedia articles. We should NOT uncritically include it in a list of "Korean influences on Japanese culture". Also Curtis, I did not "threaten to ban you". I don't have that power. I threatened to bring your constant OR (or support thereof) to the attention of the community, and warned you of the likelihood of repercussions. If User:Sturmgewehr88 actually does think that you have been engaged in anything less than WP:SYNTH on all four of the occasions you and I have interacted, or that you are constantly engaged in SYNTH but repercussions are not warranted, I'd like to hear it from him: despite your claim, your diff above shows that last time, he was talking about my threatening to bring you to ANI for your personal attacks, not about OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Andrew Davidson and Curtis Naito raised a book written by Covell as an evidence of the legitimacy of this article. However the book is a Self-published source and two book reviewers concluded the book is hardly academic.
The publisher "Hollym International Corp" is a private company with only three employees.[2] Its office is a small house located in a residential area.[3] So the book never be a "peer-reviewed publication".
WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." However Alan Carter Covell's only qualifications are that "having spent many years in Texas, [he] knows horses and their capacities as well as their weaknesses. (Dust jacket)" (Guth)
2. There are two book reviews regarding Covell's book.
Guth, Christine (June 1986). "Book reviews: Korean Impact on Japanese Culture". Numen. 33 (1). BRILL: 178–179. ISSN1568-5276. JSTOR3270133.
Best, Jonathan W. (Summer 1990). "Horserider Returns: Two Recent Studies of Early Korean-Japanese Relations". Journal of Japanese Studies. 16 (2). The Society for Japanese Studies: 437–442. ISSN1549-4721. JSTOR132691.
These reviews criticize harshly (or with sarcasm). Some of the examples are as follows:
"In this slender volume of one―hundred pages, the authors describe the Korean impact on Japanese Culture from the Prehistoric through the modern era. Such a task presupposes an understanding of and ability to synthesize a vast body of confusing and often conflicting historical, political, and artistic evidence. This subject, more than any other in Japanese and Korean studies, requires objectivity and well-rounded scholarship. All are lacking in this book intended, according to the dust jacket, "for Popular consumption rather than the specialist's tedious reading."" (Guth)
... "Covell's presentation of this provocative thesis is sloppy and full of factual errors. Furthermore, his text suffers from a lack of editing." .... (Guth)
"Whereas Part I attempts a broad characterization of early Japan through sometimes questionable interpretation of historical sources such as the eighth century Kojiki and Nihonshoki,..." (Guth)
"... Dr. Covell deliberately presents a distorted picture of the state of Japanese scholarship in the field of Buddhist sculpture.... This statement is both unnecessary inflammatory and historically inaccurate." (Guth)
"There is a need for a publication aimed at a general audience that explains the close relationship that has traditionally existed between Japan and Korea. This book, however, does not fill that need." (Guth)
"A close scholarly critiquing of the volume would prove even more tedious for all concerned." (Best)
" Approximately four‐fifths of the book's hundred pages are devoted to Korean inpact on Japan prior to the eighth century, It is this section that is the most plagued by the Covelis' propensity to take uncritically a single entry from a historical source.... and to elaborate it exponentially in a fashion to suit their particular historical notions and sensationalizing literary style." (Best)
"... Where does one begin to critique such a presentation? It is basically the stuff of historical novels, not of history." (Best)
"... but the potential value of its message is seriously impaired both by the numerous historical inaccuracies that appear on its pages and by the historically unsupportable elaboration of minimal evidence in which its authors repeatedly indulge." (Best)
(EDIT CONFLICT) Phoenix, I should thank you for tracking down those scholarly reviews. As I pointed out on the talk page, I had only been able to locate some guy's blog. How on earth did you get them?
Anyway, I should point out that roughly 30% of the article as it stands now is a slightly-reworded form of the SPA User:Globalscene's original one-editor article, which, including in-line citations I had previously missed, cited Covell 7/10 times. The article was originally based entirely on (and essentially named after) Covell's book, and later expanded on by mostly other POV-pushing SPAs and IPs, using stitched-together sources that don't actually draw the same conclusions our article does. (Notice, to give one of dozens of possible examples, how it cites Mark Schumacher when it sees fit, clearly considering him a reliable source, but neglects to mention him when claiming that the Guze Kannon shows Korean influence? That's because he contradicts that claim...)
No, the fons et origo of this page may be seen in the first edit which created it. This was an article by Jared Diamond about the origin of the Japanese. This is an interesting account which states, inter alia, "A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that the Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with rice-paddy agriculture around 400 b.c. ... These are not just academic questions. For instance, there is much archeological evidence that people and material objects passed between Japan and Korea in the period a.d. 300 to 700. Japanese interpret this to mean that Japan conquered Korea and brought Korean slaves and artisans to Japan; Koreans believe instead that Korea conquered Japan and that the founders of the Japanese imperial family were Korean." So this is clearly the sort of topic which attracts nationalist partisans and we seem to have some here now. But if someone of the stature of Jared Diamond is able to discuss this in a balanced and educational way, we should aspire to match this. This is our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... the first edit was followed by about a dozen other edits over a period of two weeks, all by the same person (the other users didn't alter the content at all). So we can take the original author's original version as being the one immediately before the article was first edited by someone else. Anyway, Jared Diamond is not a Japanologist, and unless you can name some of the western archaeologists he mentioned in his non-academic popular articles, he is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. And I would ask you, once again, to kindly retract your assumption of bad faith on my part ("we seem to have some here now"). I have said it to you twice already, but please examine my edit history in this area rather than trolling around my userspace for evidence of "bias" and "nationalistic partisanship" on my part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hollym seems to be a respectable and specialist publisher and distributor of books about Korea. It is based in NJ while the Covells were based in Korea. That's not self-publishing. In any case, the page in question is not dedicated to the Covells' book which is just one of many sources. The reviews of the work demonstrate the notability of the actual topic by showing that there is academic discussion and debate. If we don't care for the Covells' work then we can instead use the work of one of their critics such as Jonathan W. Best. For example, here's a review of his work which states, "The impact of the Korean kingdoms on the early development of Japanese culture is widely recognised today, even in Japan...". Or another review which states, "...Paekche's role in the introduction of Buddhism into Japan, a widely acknowledged fact. Best's contribution lies in providing several new perspectives for this well-discussed topic. ... In particular, Best has judiciously taken into account the role played by the material culture of Buddhism (especially temple architecture) in the process of this complex religious transplantation, which was to prove one of the two greatest transformations of Japanese culture..." Q.E.D. Andrew (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using the word "seems" -- whether Hollym is a vanity press or just a non-academic niche publisher is pretty irrelevant. The book in question has a subtitle that, if you were an objective, critical editor, would be sending up red flags. (And while were on the subject of objectivity, kindly take your previous ad hominem WP:AXE comment back. I'm not the one with an axe, here. If that was my mentality, then why would I have "helped" the Korean POV-pushers by spending more time arguing with their opponents than with them?) Anyway, the quotation you provide above proves nothing relevant to the current dispute. If you want to be WP:BOLD and move the page to Baekje influence on the early development of Japanese culture, go right ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrew Davidson, are you familiar with the expression "rearranging chairs on the Titanic"? You keep beating around the bush and arguing against straw-man "this topic is not notable" claims that neither Imaginatorium, nor Phoenix7777, nor myself have made. This article is a POV fork and there is nothing comparable anywhere else on Wikipedia, or in any other general reference encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kongō-gumi, Tōdai-ji, Shitennō-ji, Asuka-dera, Jindai moji, Buddhism in Japan, Yayoi period, Asuka period, Kofun period, Nara period, Nara Daibutsu, Soga clan, Ernest Fenollosa, Nara, Yamanoue no Okura, Baekje, Korea-Japan relations, Buddhist art in Japan etc., etc. You will notice that at present virtually none of these articles discuss Korean influence in that much depth at the moment. Forking all of these topics into a single article that presents near-consensus statements (Yamanoue no Okura was likely a first- or second-generation immigrant from Baekje, and so on) and remote fringe theories (Man'yōgana was imported from Korea, and so on) equally as "facts" is most definitely a violation of WP:POVFORK. In the main articles we can provide discussion of the various theories (and, in several cases, the fact that no one takes the claims of people like Kim that the Soga clan were of Korean descent seriously). This fork article exists so Korean-nationalist POV-pushing SPAs (90% of the page's contributors) can add WP:FRINGE material without having to get it by the editorial standards of good-faith Wikipedians like me who have those other pages on our watchlists. It also presents one theoretical picture of 7th-century Japan, and refers to it as "Japanese culture" as though Japan has remained static and wholly-Korean for the past 1,400 years. A title-change and massive content overhaul might solve this last problem, but how do you propose we deal with this? So far all either you or CurtisNaito have offered is "this topic is covered in books, and books are full of thinking". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the people who wish to have this article here some months to rework it up to a minimum respect for scholarship. The article takes a serious and fascinating topic, which has been the subject of intense scholarly focus in oriental linguistics, ancient history, the history of art, and, using poor sources, itsy bitsy dabs of factoids and tabloid talk points, makes a caricature of the subject. The importance of academic scholarship for any article of this type is ineludible in order to avoid the pitfalls of competing traditions of nationalism, Japanese and Korean. There was stictly speaking no Korea or Japan (unified states with a common national culture, but 'secondary states' both drawing on Sinocentric conceptions. See Gina Barnes,State Formation in Korea: Emerging Elites, Curzon 2011 passim) for that matter, at this point in time. Korea was riven between the claims of three kingdoms, Silla,Goguryeo, Baekje with distinct linguistic (Suksin-speaking Mulgil, Umnu, Malgals; Puyo-related speakers, Sinic Mahan, Chinhan and Pyonhan groups) and ethnic makeups, each with its own national history (Ki-Moon Lee, S. Robert Ramsey, A History of the Korean Language, Cambridge University Press 2011 p.37) just as Japan had similar territorial complexities. Korea was a conduit also for many things, craftsmen, Buddhist priests, Chinese scholars bringing in continental civilization in succeessive waves. Japanese elites' Korean-peninsular connections, and reverse immigration, also complicate the picture. What happens in the newspaperoid and subacademic popular literature is a retrospective interpretation in which Korea's experience of modern Japanese colonization, and the subsequent establishment of a southern Korean state, was accompanied by Korean assertions their ancestors were responsible for much of ancient Japanese culture, and Japanese repudiations of such claims. This is a popular obsession: scholarship alone, in Japan, Korea and foreign oriental studies, has risen above the nationalistic POVs, and the picture we get is in no way reflected in the childish simplifications of this article. We have wonderful monographs on all this, not least most recently, H. Mack Horton', Traversing the Frontier: The Man'yōshū Account of a Japanese Mission to Silla in 736–737, Harvard University Press, Harvard East Asian Monographs 330, 2012.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia aspired to encyclopedic status which means it should not be dabbed up by patches from miscellaneous sources of fair to mediocre popular impress, of the kind, once more, we get in this absolutely bone-shakingly tedious article.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis: you write:'There's more than enough scholarship on this subject to make an article.' Well, against your own practice, which I have had occasion to laboriously document elsewhere, you never use it, or if someone does, you look past it, apparently incapable of understanding it.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - While I think this subject is of encyclopedic value, and I'm an Inclusionist, I do see problems with the article itself and the sources. I won't give a ye or nay now, but I think other editors should try to fix it up before it's deleted, or at least salvageable sections moved to other articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, slightly leaning delete. I don't buy the arguments that it should be deleted just because Chinese influence on Japanese culture or Influence of France on English culture (or that those articles should not be created), and I don't think an article about the Korean influence on Japanese culture is in the least out of place. However, the article as-is is far too imbalanced—obviously POV-pushing in a very contentious area. Unless someone is willing to step up and give the article the balance it needs (which I don't equate to adding refutations to all the claims), then the article would better be deleted. Of course, the best solution is to rewrite the article in a balanced, comprehensive, NPOV way on the real and significant contributions of Korean culture to Japanese culture, with balanced, due-weight discussion of disputed areas. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What does one do when, point by point throughout the article, you discover this kind of fraud?
(a)Uehara Kazu's article on the 玉虫厨子 is said to associate it with the Northern Qi. But on the Tamamushi Shrine page, which appears to be sourced conscientiously, his 玉虫厨子: 飛鳥・白鳳美術様式史論 p.1f. is cited for a date round ca.650, over 80 years later than the end of the Northern Qi.
(b) Fenollosa's Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: An Outline History of East Asiatic Design, p.49 is cited in support. He associates certain motifs there (th Buddhist deities on the door), not with the Northern Qi but with the style of the Northern Wei, which is even earlier.
(c) C.J. Ryan,Art in China and Japan, New Century Corp., 1914. Note there is no page numeration. Ryan's work is just a review of Fenollosa, a mere article published in The Theosophical Path, 7, no. 1 (July 1914): 5—12. Theosophy?
In short a complete sourcing fuck-up. I fail to see why with this incredibly bad mess of sourcing, th article should be retained. Retaining it, means retaining crap, known to be such, and giving serious or competent editors a burden to fix what the original editor created. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^C.J. Ryan. Art in China and Japan. New Century Corp., 1914
^Fenollosa, Ernest F (1912). Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: An Outline History of East Asiatic Design. Heinemann. p. 49.
This is a deletion discussion not an FA review and so such nitpicking is inappropriate. Moreover, it is our explicit policy that articles may be imperfect: "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress." It is easy to find fault with any article — one merely has to look. For example, if one looks at the first article listed as Nishidani's creation on his user page — Barasana — one immediately finds a sourcing issue in the first line. An alternate name of Taiwano is listed with a citation of The Palm and the Pleiades but when one consults this work, one finds that the Taiwano are another group - similar but different. The article goes on to say something of this but it needs improvement to present the matter more clearly. The page in question needs improvement too, no doubt, but so it goes. This is not a reason to delete. Andrew (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spurious. The classification of the tribes can be by descent or by language. By language the Taiwano are virtually identical to the Barasana, save for 'minute dialectical variation' (P&P p.23-4;FtMR p.12). Lack of clarity in a minute issue on an article which has been written with close attention to many academic sources is one thing: unpaginated or irrelevant or misleading sourcing throughout a contentious page from top to bottom, reeking of both authorial incompetence and insouciance to the relevant scholarship is another.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Andrew Davidson: I'm the biggest advocate of WP:IMPERFECT rationales you will ever find, but in this case the article is fundamentally imperfect and can never be improved except by (1) renaming the page, (2) removing virtually all the current content, and (3) replacing it with better content that is neutrally-worded and properly-sourced. In other words, the only way to improve the article is to delete it and start over. Also, virtually all the contributors to the current one would be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE if they hadn't abandoned their previous accounts already, so preserving their "contributions" is of questionable value. You have not addressed any of these concerns yet. You asked me for a list of the articles of which this one is a WP:POVFORK, and when I provided you with a scant eighteen examples, you just pretended I hadn't responded. So far the only user other than you who is arguing to keep the current page is Curtis, who has a significantly longer history of following me to discussions of this type and opposing me just because he "lost" the last debate than of good-faith contributions to AFD discussions or working on articles in this general area. So it looks like it's entirely up to you to figure out why this page should not be deleted and (possibly) started-over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that, anyon who actually wishes to make a page along these lines, has a vry simple but cogent source guide to draw on: Farris 1998:68-9 (from memory). By using those headings and sub-headings, it would be the work of a few days to get a good article sketched out on a solid academic basis. I haven't the time nor interest to do that. But the schema there is more informative than the sprawling magpie hodge-podge we have here.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Farris' Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures: Issues in the Historical Archaeology of Ancient Japan? This has a substantial chapter Ancient Japan's Korean Connection. This is about 70 pages long and seems to be a development of his paper of 1996, Ancient Japan's Korean Connection. These look fine to me and tend to confirm what Diamond was saying at the outset. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Andrew (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but neither Farris nor Diamond (!) are valid sources for the claim "most western scholars believe the Japanese are descended from Korean (horse-riders?) who left the peninsula for the archipelago 2,000+/-400 years ago. The only evidence I can find of this from a specialist is Donald Keene having aid Ledyard gave an excellent description of the situation in Asia at the time; he didn't say he agreed with Ledyard's conclusions, much less that most western scholars do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrew Davidson is wrong about both the original article being based on Diamond's 1998 Discover article and said 1998 article being relevant to this discussion and here's why:
Despite Andrew's claims, Diamond is not the right source for this.
I haven't read Diamond's 6,000+ word article, but I should point out that as far as I'm concerned an article in a popular magazine like Discover, with no footnotes, inline citations, or any sources to speak of, is only a reliable source on the opinion of the author in question. If the author in question is a respected scholar in the relevant field, and his/her claim is that the majority of other scholars in the field agree, then until someone else contradicts that claim we must take it as accurate. In this case the author is, according to his institution's faculty page, a "with research interests in Biogeography, Geography and Human Society" who "teaches classes in world regions and past societies".
User:Andrew Davidson cleverly chose to omit the preceding part of the relevant quotation. Diamond actually stated: Archeologists have proposed four conflicting theories. Most popular in Japan is the view that the Japanese gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long before 20,000 b.c. Also widespread in Japan is a theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century, but who were themselves—emphatically—not Koreans. A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that the Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with rice-paddy agriculture around 400 b.c. Finally, the fourth theory holds that the peoples named in the other three theories could have mixed to form the modern Japanese.
Let's look at this quote a bit more closely. :(1) Diamond states that the most popular archeological theory in Japan regarding Japanese origins is that they gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long before 20,000 BC. This is interesting in a number of ways. First, "long before 20,000 BC" date is a new one, since as far as I can tell the earliest period in which Japanese archeologists can establish human activity on the islands is the Jomon period, whose beginning is as far as I can tell rarely dated before 1,1000 BC (1,3000 BP). This is actually a minor error, if it is an error, though. The real problem is that he essentially admits that the most popular theory among archeologists overall, regardless of nationality, is that the Japanese gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long ago. It seems pretty unreasonable to think that there are more archeologists specializing in Japan outside Japan than within, and until a source can be found that actually indicates otherwise, we can't assume that the Japanese themselves comprise a minority of specialists in this area. :(2) Diamond states that the theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century is also "widespread" among Japanese archeologists. What this essentially means is that the theory has appeared in popular literature, but per 20the%20Horseriders%20-% 20Looking%20for%20the% 20Founders%20of%20Japan.pdf Ledyard 1975 (who actually accepted the theory) this theory has little archeological support, and at least one reliable source has compared it to the Ancient Astronauts theory in terms of plausibility. If Diamond's sources indicate that the situation changed between 1975 and 1998, I would be interested to see, but as far as I can tell as of 2014 things are pretty stable in terms of the general consensus on this all-but-fringe theory. I would wonder where Diamond got the idea that this is a popular theory among Japanese archeologists, since as far as I can tell he does not speak Japanese, and it doesn't appear on first glance that he mentions in the article making a research trip to Japan accompanied by an interpreter. :(3) "but who were themselves—emphatically—not Koreans": This is, as far as I can tell from Ledyard, not a part of Egami Namio's kiba minzoku-setsu as described above. Opinions between advocates appear to vary between Buyeo and Baekje, with Eguchi favouring the former and Ledyard, who essentially introduced the theory to the English-speaking world, taking the latter. (The Covells, for what it's worth, appear to have borrowed Ledyard's Baekje theory but not credited him, according to Best's review cited by Phoenix7777 above.) :(4) "A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan" -- this is interesting as well. What does "many" mean? Is it a majority? Even it was, as pointed out above, a "western majority" is still almost certainly a minority among scholarship overall. Also, grammatically speaking, the implication is that some western scholars, but the majority of Korean people regardless of background, like this theory. Why would that be? And why should we take into account the opinions of non-specialists, just because they happen to have been born in Korea? We are not taking into account the opinions of Japanese laymen. For that matter, why would we reject the majority consensus just because the majority happen to be Japanese? Discrimination much?
Additionally, it should be pointed out that the original article misquoted Diamond as saying the latter was the theory favoured by western archeologists, and neglected to mention that it is also popular in Korea.
With all of this, I think basing an argument to keep this article on the work of Diamond is extremely weak.
Also, genetic connections between the Japanese and Korean "races" and philological links between has nothing to do with "Korean influence on Japanese culture" anyway, since genetics are irrelevant and whether or not the languages are related is not a question of one "influencing" the other. That appears to go against the whole thrust of Diamond's closing argument that the Japanese and Koreans are like siblings and should stop antagonizing each other by, for instance, claiming that the other has never in their history accomplished anything without reliance on them.
Comment This discussion page is now 50% bigger than the page in question and still growing. I could respond in similar detail to all the points which are being raised but am mindful of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR. The essential question here is whether we have a notable topic which merits further development rather than deletion. The fact that we are able to discuss it and its sources in such extensive and minute detail indicates that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous excuse for an argument. "You think this article misquotes its sources, and went into detail explaining it, therefore the article is fine and shouldn't be deleted"? I think we've identified a new candidate for WP:ATA! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew. I'm not trying to bludgeon anyone. I am simply looking at the page from a technical point of view. The subject matter deserves an article, yet this page is a POV/sourcing disaster. I could have written more extensively, but I haven't. I'm all for eager editors jumping on board to contribute: I am also worried that failure to insist they master and apply the quite elementary procedures for article development only flatters a superficial approach to editing, and leaves the burden of improvement on others, while leaving our global readership none-the-wiser about the quality of what they are taking on trust. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying to you both after an edit conflict. Firstly, the procedural issues are reasonably well covered already in WP:ATA in the section Surmountable problems. This indicates a difference of wiki-philosophy where I suppose we must agree to disagree. Then, from a technical point of view, there seem to be plenty of alternatives to deletion which have not yet been fully explored. These include:
Knocking the page down to a stub or summary. Hijiri88 will be familiar with what was done recently at Historicity of Jesus, for example — a less is more approach in which a broad outline of the issues is presented without getting bogged down in detail.
Renaming the page by moving it so that the focus is on the ancient period which seems to be the focus of sources such as Farris.
Tagging the page with cleanup/disputed tags so that readers are made aware of the issues and invited to help resolve them.
Your proposal is quite different from the Historicity of Jesus article, since with that one the exact same words appeared on other pages, where they belonged. The problem with the historicity article involves the words of the Wikipedia articles being forked being taken out of context in a manner that appears to support a fringe POV. In the present article's case, the very words of the sources are being taken out of context, and it appears none of it is salvageable. If you can find one single paragraph that doesn't abuse a source or cite a questionable source, I will take this statement back. But the fact is that as you pointed out earlier the very first sentence written for this article was based on Diamond 1998, and as I pointed out a bit later that first sentence was a complete misrepresentation of Diamond's point. The article has gone down from there. I actually agree with ... everyone else, that this subject is theoretically notable and deserves an article, but I also agree with everyone else except you that the current article contains absolutely nothing of value that would need to be salvaged. Userfy the current page yourself right now if you like; I'll help you fix it, and we'll share the credit when the at-least half-decent article on the subject eventually gets put back in the mainspace. Or, are you not yourself willing or capable of rewriting the article? Because you know, neither Nishidani nor myself are obliged to rewrite the entire article ourselves in advance of a deletion discussion. If you think the article can "in theory" be saved in some version of its current form, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate such. Otherwise, this seems like a classic case of WP:TNT. (I'd compare it to the ending of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I don't wanna risk spoiling it in case you haven't seen it. :P ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, please don't say that I have a "history of following [you] to discussions". Over the past two years I've only bumped into you editing from your undisguised account two times, an average of one per year. Regarding the matter we are actually supposed to be talking about, Diamond's article is not the basis for the article, but it would be worth including in the future. He makes a very solid case based off anatomical and genetic evidence that "immigrants from Korea really did make a big contribution to the modern Japanese, though we cannot yet say whether that was because of massive immigration or else modest immigration amplified by a high rate of population increase." Still though, Diamond only deals with one issue rather than the larger trend of Korean influence on Japan noted by Farris. Farris says
"A chronological list of Korean contributions includes iron, iron goods, and the ferrous industries, which really matured in the fifth century although known earlier. Horse use and equipment gave rise to mounted warfare. Ditch- and pond-digging technology gave peasants access to more fertile, higher grounds for the first time. Ovens became available for households, and Japan's initial wheel-thrown, kiln-fired gray stoneware was used by the aristocracy. Techniques for stone corridor and chamber tombs, more sophisticated stone fitting, and decorated grave walls entered the archipelago from Korea, as well as gold and silver jewelry. New silk-weaving methods; writing and mathematics ; more advanced methods of bureaucratic elaboration such as the surname, title, and eventually ranking; a system to supply the court with services and craft goods; Buddhism and its architecture; Chinese-style law; mountain fortifications and the crossbow—these were other peninsular contributions."
I don't think either Farris or this article are saying that all Japanese culture originated in Korea, but such a long list of contributions requires acknowledgement. Probably the main problem with the article is the lack of page-specific citations, without which it is unlikely to reach good article status. It's not a bad article as it is though, and very few of its facts are particularly controversial among scholars. Deleting the whole thing would be a big loss. I concur with Andrew that this article is a work in progress with some issues that can be resolved without deletion. Furthermore all the sources I've checked so far appear to be accurate albeit without the page number. For example Elisseeff says "The fact that Silla and Paekche as well as Kugoryo influence the ancient music of Japan is well known in the field of Korean and Japanese historical musicology. That is why more weight should be given to the term 'acceptance' rather than 'influence' in an account of the ancient history of Korean music and its relationship with foreign music." Cooper says, "Like many other developments in the history of Japanese ceramics, the origins of porcelain are largely attributable to Korean influence." Perkins says, "The ancient Japanese learned shipbuilding techniques from the Korean kingdom of Silla." The Needham sources says, "From 1592 to 1595 the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Korea and among the booty he brought back was equipment for movable-type printing; it was used until about 1650, being popular among the court, individuals, and the temples." Batten says, "The individuals credited by Chronicles of Japan for building the fortresses all bear Korean names and were, in fact, former subjects of Paekche who had fled to Japan after the war." And I could keep on going on, but suffice to say that while the writers of this article may have made a few minor errors, I don't know where anyone got the idea that the sources were systematically misrepresented.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:CurtisNaito: You are misrepresenting the timeline. I have seen you do this in the article space, where it violates WP:NOR; when you do it in places like here it's not technically a violation of WP:NPA, but it's close. "Over the past two years" I have only been active for about eight months; you yourself have not gone a month without editing, but you make fewer edits overall. You have made 939 edits overall; your second favourite page is Talk:Emperor Jimmu with some 44 edits; of your top 12 favourite pages (including talk) 3 are ones you followed me to. In my eight months active on Wikipedia since first interacting with you (and nominating one of your POV/OR-infested articles for deletion), you have followed me to three articles you had never edited before. In all three instances (as in the first) you were either objecting to my removal of ridiculous OR or threatening to add new ridiculous OR.[4][5][6] Say what you want about how you "didn't know the IP that edited the Jinmu page was me"; but the fact is that at the time you did that the talk page looked like this (with my signature on it 30 times as a result of a recent RM I started) and my user page looked like this (with a clear identifier of the IP as me on my phone); you came along two months after my edit, during which time numerous others edited the page. You went through the history of the page and made an active decision to undo my edit. Of all three of these articles, you had never edited a one; you have to date never edited either of the first two for anything other than reverting me, and you have even now not touched the article currently under discussion. Not only User:Andrew Davidson, but both of the "neutrals" and the "neutral leaning delete" have agreed that the current article has significant problems that can probably be fixed. Curly Turkey speculates they probably won't be; I asked Andrew Davidson if he wanted to do it and he ignored the question. The only one here who thinks there isn't a problem with the current article is you. I can work with folks like Andrew Davidson, Curly Turkey and Sturmgewehr on improving problem articles like this. I agree that the topic is notable (hence my never once citing GNG in this debate), but I think the article needs both a title change and a complete rewrite of nearly every single word. You claim there is no problematic material in the article, as you have openly defended the worst of it. You have a history of edit-warring with me and claiming your own personal opinion is "consensus" even when no one agrees with you. If this page is not deleted as a result of this discussion, I now have every reason to believe you will revert me and anyone else who attempts to improve the article. When are you going to stop getting in my way whenever I try to remove POV/OR? I would take you to ANI and ask for a topic-ban, but on what topic would such a ban be? ALL Wikipedia editors are permanently banned from "original research" to begin with. Is it a block you want? Because that might actually be the only solution for behaviour like yours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't engage in any original research. I think you need to explain better how directly quoting from leading scholars constitutes original research. My point is that, while the footnotes would benefit from page numbers, very few of the facts presented in the article are at all disputed among scholars who have studied Korea's impact on Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, please calm down. While Curtis synthesized at Jinmu, and I'm unfamiliar with your prior confrontation, he hasn't even edited Korean influence on Japanese culture, so I don't see why're you're so agitated. Curtis, I suggest you cast your AFD !vote and discontinue debating with Hijiri, as you're not going to get very far. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sturmgewehr88: I'm perfectly calm. :-) Whether this article gets deleted or moved and rewritten, I'm not going to go into a hole and cry one way or the other. Unlike the article's creators, for me Wikipedia is just a hobby, and I'm not that interested in promoting my particular worldview (despite what Curtis has implied and Andrew has directly accused, my own personal opinions don't really matter to my proposal that this article be deleted; the only time I have even brought them up is in saying that the Covells' book is offensive, which is almost an objective fact at this point). I provided the links, so you can go and check Talk:Soga-Mononobe conflict and the early versions of the Taminato Incident article (as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato): every single time Curtis and I have interacted, he has shown a complete and utter lack of understanding of the meaning of WP:OR. In this case, the problem is not that he has violated NOR in the article, but that he has promised to engage me in another revert war like on Emperor Jimmu if I try to remove the OR that is already in the article. Every time he has posted on this AFD, he has insisted that the only thing wrong with the article is the lack of page numbers, but that none of the sources have been abused. Let alone that the authors of the article clearly have limited English, so their ability to understand what was written in the few legitimate scholarly works they cite is questionable, Nishidani and I have already thoroughly demonstrated that virtually all of it is questionable. We're currently 4.5-ish vs. 2 in favour of deletion, so the odds of Curtis' edit war actually coming to pass are slim, but it's still annoying that he has threatened to start another edit war like the last one.
@User:CurtisNaito: No, you have never in my interactions with you "directly quoted from leading scholars": on the Taminato article you SYNTHesized the far-right ramblings of known right-wing agitators cum historians like Watanabe Shoichi with other material about the "background" and "aftermath" of the event from sources that didn't actually mention the event. On the so-called "Battle of Shigisan" article you found a whole bunch of mutually contradictory sources that said barely anything about the event and SYNTHesized them together into an entirely original narrative supported by none of them individually, and you also threatened to "expand" the article by claiming (without any sources) that since this battle (which you had essentially invented) marked the beginning of the rise of the Soga clan, it was the main factor in the later establishment of Buddhism as the major religion in Japan (a claim you are now contradicting by claiming this article is correct in attributing this entirely to Korean immigrants). In the Emperor Jimmu article you insisted that about half of the article-text and two-thirds of the images should be centered around World War II, even though you were unable to find a single source on Emperor Jimmu that even mentioned World War II; you were WP:SYNTHesizing various sources that either didn't mention Jimmu at all or only included piecemeal reference to him. (By the way, I've since read Bix, along a few scholarly reviews of his book: in placing the full blame for the war on the Emperor he is essentially on the WP:FRINGE and should only be used with caution as a source for our article on that emperor; you can't use him as a source for any of the latter's remote ancestors.)
Now, given that the last time I argued with you on an AFD your side wound up winning by default even though (excluding a bad-faith !vote from that guy) it was 7/3 in favour of deletion, I'm actually kinda worried this currently 4.5-ish vs. 2 AFD will close as no-consensus and, when I try to clean up the article, Curtis will once again start edit-warring with me claiming his personal opinion as "consensus". He has all but promised to do so, given his constant refrain of "the only thing wrong with the article is the lack of page numbers" -- the 10 citations to a fringe book that is considered by top-scholars to be on the level of historical fiction apparently notwithstanding. I essentially cut the two sections on areas in which I have expertise and know were full of crap, so I assume that all the rest that appear to be equally full of crap probably are; Curtis insists they aren't; I'm interested in knowing what he thinks of the already deleted "Okura was a Korean poet" and "the Koreans invented Man'yougana in the 9th and 10th centuries"? Are my edits from months ago now going to be reverted?
Oh dear. I'll just take the last example to show what's going on here. To make an analogy:The first American printing press came from England, and therefore the printing press is part of the English impact on American civilization (forget Germany).
Andrew. I'll address you becausee you have the professional competence as a librarian to assess things like this. This last example is one of many examples of fraudulent composition.
The evidence is as follows:
text. Though the Jesuits operated a Western movable type printing-press in Nagasaki, Japan, printing equipment[76] with many Korean technicians and their fonts brought back by Toyotomi Hideyoshi's army in 1593 from Korea to Japan was starting of its own movable-type printing.[77]
source:Joseph Needham,Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin,Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Cambridge University Press, 1985
Note (a) the sentence is ungrammatical, and uncorrected by those who cite it.(b) No pagination is supplied, so the text can't be verified by the general reader or editor. We are directed to Needham vol.5 pt.1. I have a copy of that.
In that volume, Needham and Tsien write:-
'From 1592 to 1595 the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Korea, and among the booty he brought back was equipment for movable-type printing . . .During the same period that movable type was introduced from Korea, the Jesuits brought a printing press from Europe to Japan. The press reached Japan in 1590 (before Hideyoshi's booty, Nishidani), accompanied by two Japanese brothers who had been trained in type-casting and printing in Portugal.' (Needham & Tsien vol.5 pt.1 (1985) pp341-2. No mention of Korean technicans.
I.e. the source is Needham, but Needham never mentions Korean technicians. How did that get into the text? It either got into the text via another, unacknowledged (the real) source, or that source incautiously copied this wikipdia article, and messed up his own academic paper:
'From 1592 to 1595 the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Korea, and among the war booty he took back to Japan was the equipment for movable-type printing, many fonts and technicians. Hye Ok Park, The History of Pre-Gutenberg Woodblock and Movable Type Printing in Korea, in International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 4, No. 9(1) July 2014 p.12
As one can see, in that paper Park plagiarizes verbatim, without paraphrase, Needham's words.
In that paper Park cites Needham 1954 p.341. Well, that is no help because Needham 1954, the first volume of that magnificent encyclopedia, doesn't contain more than 319 pages. What happened was that he confused vol.1 of Needham (1954) with vol.5 pt.1 (1985), which indeed contains this statement. However, there is no mention of many Korean technicians and their fonts in Needham.
Either Park lifted this false statemeent from wikipedia or Park added this, and some editor (perhaps Park? IF so WP:COI)pretends he is citing Neeedham, but in fact his language (and lack of pagination) shows that he is paraphrasing Park, who in turn pretends that Needham mentioned many fonts and (Korean) technicians. The fact that the earliest use of movable type in Japan came from Europe is suppressed (the date of 1590) also indicates the editor is driving a POV.
This, caught by chance because I happen to have a private copy of Needham's encyclopedia, and know the volume on the history of printing well, surely indicates that whoever worked up that article wasn't immune to fraudulent use of sources (pretending his source was Needham, though actually accessing a Korean scholar who tampered with Needham). The subject is fine, but nothing in the article can be taken on trust. Trust that an editor has consulted his source and faithfully paraphrased it is fundamental to wikipedia. There is no trace of that here. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Park paper was published in 2014 and so that's irrelevant as the section in the page in question was added in 2012. It's not difficult to find a work which talks of the fonts and technicians, e.g. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (1978), "Korea was invaded by Hideyoshi Toyotomi ... during which time a large number of type fonts and Korean technicians were taken to Japan." It's not quite clear how Needham got into the mix and so maybe there's another unstated intermediate source but the result seems reasonably good faith. In particular, the section in question starts out by talking of the "Western movable type printing-press" and so there is reasonable balance and context. The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science is more effusive about the Korean technology in its account, "The genius of Korean moveable type printing ... this was a distinctly Korean invention ... The influence of Korean moveable type printing on the printing of China and Japan cannot be overlooked ... early Japanese moveable type editions seem to have been influenced far more greatly by Korean typography than by the work of the Jesuits ... it is not surprising that Japanese printed books of this period resemble Korean books even down to the smallest details of typographical style." Andrew (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the diff shows that the original editor made the error, and it has remained for two years uncorrected. The genius of Korean moveable type printing ... this was a distinctly Korean invention ... The influence of Korean moveable type printing on the printing of China and Japan cannot be overlooked. Well, Needham doesn't say that because it is incorrect. 'Moveable type printing ...' was not a distinctly Korean invention. It was invented in China five centuries earlier, developed from clay to ceramic movable type and then developed into bronze copper-tin alloy movable type printing press. Korean developments of this technology were magnificent, of course. I just object to any form of nationalist spinning, Chinese (who underestimate Korean creativity, Japanese (who tended to ignore its importance) but also Koreans who overestimate and oversimplify things.
Cf in that same diff another example-
'The Koreans were indeed among the first to adapt Chinese characters for phonetic purposes, producing Idu, Gugyeol, and Hyangchal, who deviced probably the model of the Japanese Man'yōgana syllabaries.[100] '
Ungrammatical, WP:OR, distortion of source (Earl Miner:'It seems quite possible that it was Koreans rather than Chinese who devised the model of Man'yōgana.' p.9). The Chinese developed their characters for phonetics to describe foreign languages. This was adopted by the Koreans who managed to create a far more efficient system than the Japanese. Note that when the source mentions a distinct possibility, for that kind of POV-pushing editor it means strong probability, as nuance is collapsed towards likelihood.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take some of the content but rewrite it. Delete in that version. Basically the book covers a longstanding controversy as Japan culture - see Nihonjinron has been claimed as being unique and Korea having never any influence on them. The book tries to counter that. Its a part of the Koko ga Hen da yo Nihonjin narrative. A possible title would be as Challenges to Nihonjinron. Serten (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Korean culture has clearly influenced Japanese culture and there are clearly reliable sources on that influence. Having said that, the current article clearly needs a sever trim. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussion above. The subject is basically notable, but the current article is rotten to the core, with every single sentence consisting of some sort of OR or SYNTH or misrepresentation of a source or complete fiction. If you can find anything of value worth saving, please cite it specifically; otherwise, there is no point in not simply deleting the article and starting over. If we take what appears to be your position that the article is basically good and can be improved, and rewrite it (as I've said above, if you think the article can be improved, the WP:BURDEN is on you to implement the improvement) we're almost certain to inadvertently save some piece of SYNTH or the like in the "improved article". And, as Andrew and I proved above, this article has been contained more SYNTH than fact since its very first edit, so it's very difficult to see what you would want to save. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content can no doubt be improved, but it does not strike me even now as a random collection of data or disconnected factoids; it's an attempt to cover the subject in a systematic way. The proper course for those who think a better article is needed is to work on improving it. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These votes, with their neglect of examination of details as to how this was decitfully patched up, are getting weirder by the day
Our text
'Ernest Fenollosa, American scholar of Asian cultures, describes the Kudara Kannon as “the supreme master piece of Corean creation”.
source. 'Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art'. (no page given)
The source actually writes no such thing of the Kudara Kannon, since Fenollosa simply remarks of the Kudara Kannon that the 'close fitting of the drapery is essentially Corean,but that phase of it which may be Sassanian is native' (p.48) What Fenollosa considered the greatest perfect monument of Corean Art that has come down to us ..is the great standing Buddha, or possibly Bodhisattwa. of the Yumedono pavilion at Horiuji' (p.50) “the supreme master piece of Corean creation” for Fenollosa was not the Kudara Kannon but the Yumedono (Guze) Kannon, as it is of this other masterpiece that he then goes on to hail as 'the supreme master piece of Corean creation'.The editor confused the two GUZE KannonKudara Kannon. The sourcing for the whole fucking article is like this, fa Chrissake and that even editors of considerable experience and generally fair judgment are not embarrassed by this massive fudging is, well,..surprising. Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Stuartyeates. I understand the current state of the article could hurt some Japanese editors and readers, but this one appears to be a notable topic and deletion is not cleanup. Cavarrone 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only Japanese editor who has cast a delete !vote is Oda Mari. Yes, Andrew's above implied assertion (or false attribution to Jared Diamond) that the Japanese are incapable of researching their own early history and it's the responsibility of "western archeologists and Koreans" to establish a scholarly consensus on early Japan is of course offensive to me, but if it wasn't offensive to me I don't need to tell you what that would make me. Per WP:BURDEN, you have a reaponsibility to show that something in the article is worth preserving. It is not possible to balance the current article without creating a whole bunch of other articles on similar topics such as Japanese influence on Korean culture (which the present article's creators would certainly oppose), not to mention moving the page and either cutting or radically altering every single piece of information in the article. Also per BURDEN, even if this AFD fell through we would be justified in cutting the page down to a single sentence and demanding verification before anything else is added. Therefore, if you plan on cleaning this article yourself, you will need to take it out of the page history anyway, so why not just WP:USERFY it yourself right now, or !vote that way? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to balance the current article without creating a whole bunch of other articles on similar topics such as Japanese influence on Korean culture: there's nothing in policy to support such a statement, and I don't buy it in the least. Both articles could certainly be created by editors armed with reliable sources—but there's no reason why the editors of one should be held accountable for the creation or content of the other. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I get it. The effort made to clarify technically what is irremediably fucked up here is breezily ignored as wikipedians assess comments like mine 'psychologically' or ethnically. I'm not a Japanese editor, if that is how the several contributions to this discussion I've made are being read. The toxic relations between all three countries are such that you get denialism and blind assertivenss on all of these topics, and that is incompatible with wikipedia. The whol subject is confused by Chinese, Korean and Japanese popular and scholarly retroactive nationalism (reading the past in the light of recent concepts of their modern identity), and the article as fudged up boosts the middle term, as I have shown in three separate examples.
There is not the slightest doubt that the cultures of ancient Korea (three distinct political, probably ethnic and cultural and linguistically differentiated entities:Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla) deeply inflected the formation of early Japanese civilisation: that cultural mosaic was a mixture of Southern and North Chinese trends, commerging principles of Chinese statecraft, techology, and Indian-Buddhist art and religion. 'Korea' was a creative transit point for the complex interactions of Indian/Chinese civilizations, and the only way to write of this is to sidestep the nationalistic bickering and edit in instead, in each instance, the precise scholarly state of each argument. Sources like Fenollosa, which reflect that early nationalist rhetoric, are not reliable. 'Korea' everywhere should be peninsular Korea, as 'China' should specify which area (southern/northern) etc. There is a very simple methodological reason for this. Korea was an extremely complex knit or mosaic of distinct cultures and language groups, and the identification of who belonged to what tribe, group etc is based on linguistics, which has absolutely no consensus. Let me illustrate:
Literary scholars such as Susumu Nakanishi have speculated that Yamanoue no Okura, a well-regarded Man'yōshū poet, may have been an immigrant from the kingdom of Baekje.
Untrue (Susumu Nakanishi, Man'yō no utabitotachi (Poets of the Man'yō ), Kadokawa Sensho, Tokyo 1980 Vol.2 pp.115ff.) This means nothing since in Baekje two different languages existed at that time, neither 'Korean' in the modern acceptance of that word. It's a small point but Nakanishi Susumu states that as the wars raged in the Korea peninsula, with a joint-T'ang-Silla military confederation attacking Baekje, Yamanoue no Okura's father, a court physician, brought him to Japan when he was 4 years old. Since the poet's father was a court doctor, he would have spoken the dialect of the court which appears to have been affiliated to Goguryeo. That however was distinct from the Silla-Korean language of the under class. Further in Baekje Wa, i., proto-Japanese tribal groups are attested (Christopher I. Beckwith, Koguryo, BRILL 2007 p.38). That Yamanoue no Okura's father was resident in Baikje tells us nothing about his putative 'Korean' roots. To the contrary, asserting from geographical location of birth that he was 'Korean' is, for that period, meaninglss at best, nationalistically misleading at worst. There is nothing 'Korean' in that great poet's work. His culture is intensely sinocentric, while his language is old Japanese, much as Li Bai or 薩都剌 (Sà Dōulà) are Chinese poets, though theories are endlessly spun about their possible Turkic or Mongol origins respectively. Do any of you have the slightest idea of the nationalistic context afflicting this from all sides? Is serene editorial neutrality (cursing all houses in such pulling and shoving, claiming and denying) a dying species? Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT (@DGG in particular) So would you insist that, by way of example, "Since World War II, there have been numerous Zainichi Korean writers of Japanese." is not a "disconnected factoid"? And presumably insist that the topic of "Korean influence on Japanese culture" is exemplified by people whose grandparents were born somewhere else? Or is it somehow the combination with Yamanoue no Okura, who might have been born in Korea, which gives coherency to this particular section of this rambling shopping list? Actually it reminds me of reading (the coffee table version) of Joseph Needham's stuff which I have: titled "The Genius of China" it is full of frankly absurd claims. I just opened it at random, and read that the Chinese anticipated modern[sic] biochemistry by 2200 years. Right. Of course there are facts listed, many of them no doubt true, but the whole effect is a distortion. I have the sort-of advantage over many of the people here that my knowledge of the early history of Japan and the Korean peninsula is almost zero. So I can't point to *anything* which I know is factually untrue; yet I can tell that the article is not balanced, and not encyclopedic. Just another example: the factoidal description of "Satsuma ware" is not telling us anything, it's arguing a corner. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Needham was both a biochemist and an acclaimed expert in the history of Chinese science whereas you seem to be telling us that you are ignorant of these matters. It seems quite presumptuous for you to be deciding that this material is so absurd that it should be deleted. Andrew (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coffee table version is not Needham and his multivolume work is on of the greatest works of history ever written, thoroughly reliable. I should add in case this rotten article is retained that the ref to Hidyoshi and the printing press unpaginated, refers to two distinct passeges in Joseph Needham,Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin,Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Cambridge University Press, 1985 pp.327, 341. But I'm not going to waste weeks fixing this shit. Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc., as pointed out by the nominator, Nishidani and others. Overall, the opponents of the deletion have not provided effective counterarguments. De 4 de 171 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
