| Revision as of 06:42, 16 February 2010 editNihonjoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Template editors124,583 edits →Where to go from here?: comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:45, 16 February 2010 edit undoNihonjoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Template editors124,583 edits →Where to go from here?: formattingNext edit → | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| -- ] (]) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | -- ] (]) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for your well-thought-out post. My main thoughts are as follows (my numbers do not necessarily correspond to yours, Joren, but are rather used for emphasis): | |||
| :Thank you for your well-thought-out post. My main thoughts are as follows: due to the very controversial nature of this topic, with extremely inflamed and passionate positions on both sides of the issue, if something can not be positively attributed to a very reliable source, it should be removed (unless it is a blatantly obvious fact about which there is no controversy at all). If there is plagiarism, it should be immediately excised. If a source is claimed to say something, but it can not be proven the source says that (or it is proven the source does not actually state that), it should be removed. As it states below every edit box on the site, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Misplaced Pages's ] before you submit it." We need to take very careful care in articles such as this that the information presented is completely ] and backed by completely ]. If someone's feelings are hurt because of it, that is unfortunate, but we can't let that stand in the way of presenting solid information. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :#Due to the very controversial nature of this topic, with extremely inflamed and passionate positions on both sides of the issue, if something can not be positively attributed to a very reliable source, it should be removed (unless it is a blatantly obvious fact about which there is no controversy at all). | |||
| :#If there is plagiarism, it should be immediately excised. | |||
| :#If a source is claimed to say something, but it can not be proven the source says that (or it is proven the source does not actually state that), it should be removed. | |||
| :As it states below every edit box on the site: | |||
| :<blockquote>"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Misplaced Pages's ] before you submit it."</blockquote> | |||
| :We need to take very careful care in articles such as this that the information presented is completely ] and backed by completely ]. If someone's feelings are hurt because of it, that is unfortunate, but we can't let that stand in the way of presenting solid information. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:45, 16 February 2010
 | Korea Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Japan Start‑class Mid‑importance  | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (June 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Title
The title should be Out of Korea theory or hypothesis. Reading other articles in Chinese and Japanese, this story is not about the Korean influence on Japanese Culture, but Korean's Out of Korea theory which insist Korea has influence on all over the world. Current article is a bit worthless since the citations are from one book only. - 219.98.208.195 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to help...
feel free, but please only add sourced information or discuss it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalscene (talk • contribs)
1) Tomb Culture
2) Toraijin ( Korean immigrants to Japan).
3) Yayoi People: Come from Korea
4) Hata clan
5) Kudara Kingdom
6) Korean and kansai connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1historian (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
7) Oichi Clan: Founder and Powerful Ruler ( Yamaguchi Province). This clan is from Kudara ( Paekje) Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1civilization (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Protected
This article has been protected from editing due to a content dispute. Please come to consensus here and than ask an admin for assistance (you can even ask me if you wish) with unprotecting the page. ···日本穣 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Mistaken Link
"ja:韓国起源説" is different from "Korean influence on Japanese culture". "ja:韓国起源説" is the article about the list of wrong insistances from some Korean about historical origin of various things. "ja:韓国起源説" is not the article about the history of common. Editors have corrected the wrong insistances byof some Korean. For example, some Korean insists the origin of Samurai is Korea, not Japan. Besides some Korean insists the origin of Chinese character is Korea. (I don't know the truth of these story. Maybe some Korean just enjoy some jokes.) These some Korean's insistances make angry some Japanese and Chinese. "ja:韓国起源説" is the article about the culutural argument between Korea and ohter nations(Japan & China). So, the interlink (ja:韓国起源説-Korean influence on Japanese culture)is not within reason. "ja:韓国起源説" is deadly different from "Korean influence on Japanese culture". I will cut the mistaken link.I think it is better to cut the mistaken interlink.122.26.95.13 (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)-122.26.95.13 (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)---122.26.95.13 (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is recognized that it is ja:ja:韓国起源説 and this article is all another articles. And, It is recognized also that it is a related article. ja:韓国起源説 is pointing out that there are a lot of lies compared with the ｔheory "South Korea influenced Japan". It is this exactly article. I cannot be thought that the link to ja:韓国起源説 is a mistaken Link.--Kigyousensi (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you read Japanese Language? "Korean influence on Japanese culture" is the aricle about historical truth. Otherwise, "ja:韓国起源説" is not the aricle about the correct history. It is simular to Geocentric model. "Korean influence on Japanese culture is not equal" to "ja:韓国起源説". If I translate "Korean influence on Japanese culture", it will not be "韓国起源説", but "朝鮮半島の諸王朝が日本の文化へ及ぼした影響". It is similar to ja:日朝関係史. It is very different from ja:韓国起源説.122.26.95.13 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
ja:韓国起源説 is a completely made up story. Its article made by Japanese nationalists. It is a originally koreaphobia and racist article. ja:韓国起源説 based on numerous unclear things. Most of its article is based on "hoax" and "fake". There is no single (trusted) academic source and korea encyclopedia source provided it. for example, if some korean chairman of soy sauce company said, "Japanese soy sauce derived from Korea", then japanese wikipedia users pick up this sentence, and desribed in japanese wikipedia as "All Korean claim that All world soy sauce invented in Korea". Example 2, Some Korean says, Maybe British and Korean share same ancestor, in his personal homepage(not academic document), then Japanese pick up this sentence from his personal homepage, then says, "Korea goverment and every single scholars officially claim that ancestor of british was Korean." Example 3, some korea said, "mongolian and korean share same ancetor. (Root of Korea was Mongol)" then Japanese pick up this sentence from his newspaper interview, and described in japanese wikipeida as "All Korean claim that mongolian hero Ghenghis-Khan was a actually Korean". Can you understand ? wikipedia can edit by everyone. japanese wikipedia can't be a qualified source. That article is sorta Xenopobia article. if Japanese claim that "Korean origin theory" in ja:韓国起源説, it must verificated by Korean, Why? Because, Even Korean did not know it. Think about it, if some american writed in his personal blog "I am a first person who invented fire in history..." then it is a "American origin theory"? think about it... even american did not know that theory.. same thing. Please don't be kidding. They only show that they hate Korean so much.... it is a originally 'hate korea article'. We world people call it as "grunge". it only show that "we hate korea so much...". anyway, i agree that this article in not match with ja:韓国起源説, but, it is a Japanese wikipedia problem, because it a hoax article. Leave ja:韓国起源説 alone as orphan article.
See. Manga Kenkanryu
- "Lacking confidence, they need a story of healing," Mr. Yoshida said. "Even if we say that story is different from facts, it doesn't mean anything to them." Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Cherry Blossom OK, would you like to explain an issue on "Duanwu Festival"? Korea registered it in "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity", maintained by UNESCO, as their own culture originating from "Korea". I do not know where it derives from; no one knows whether it originates in Korea. I at least have never seen those who believe Korea began Duanwu Festival, although the Chinese-origin theory is often heard. Do Korean people have clear and clean proof? Anyway, this case indicates that the Korean government and/or some Korean public organizations, actually a large number of Korean people, asserted the origin. Do you think this affair is also plotted by Japanese people?
- See Duanwu Festival and Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity --82.83.234.134 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
move
I move this edit to Japan–Korea disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherry Blossom OK (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Jon Carter Covell is a Joke
http://koreasparkling.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/jon-carter-covell-is-a-joke/
I searched her name in data site of the following authoritative archeology.
- The Archaeology Data Service (ADS)
- The National Archeological Database NADB
result： 0
I searched her writing in Google Scholar. "Korean impact on Japanese culture"
result：The quoted article was only three cases.Therefore, she is not a historian.
I enumerate below her writings.
- 1982，Korea's cultural roots．Moth House，Salt Lake City, Utah
- 1983，Korea's cultural roots (6th-)．Hollym International,Elizabeth, N.J.
- 1984，Korean impact on Japanese culture : Japan's hidden history
- 1985, Korea's colorful heritage ，Dae-Won-Sa，Honolulu, Hawaii
- 1986，The World of Korean Ceramics，Si Sa Yong O Sa Pub
As for these writing, most were published by Hollym International. Hollym International is such a publishing company. http://www.hollym.com/
I say a conclusion. she was the quack scholar who wrote the made-up story whom Korean demand. Korean, you should stop letting you lose trust of wikipedia in an irresponsible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutism (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is venomous. Korean, stop poisoning wikipedia and stop losing your trust.--Arstriker (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Where to go from here?
Ok, recently I've been trying to clean up the grammar and citations in a way that I hope has not caused anyone problems, and I am happy to have helped. However, in doing so, I believe I have noticed some basic structural issues that need to be addressed, but am afraid to do so since this is a controversial topic. If there is a mandate to improve this article I'm glad to help... so I'm posting here to ask for help and to see who else is out there interested in really improving this article in a way that is respectful, neutral, and worthy of an encyclopedia.
1.) First of all, I discovered a case of possible plagiarism/misattribution. The quote in the final "Royal Family" section is taken from the book "Korean Impact on Japanese Culture", and (prior to my edit) reads as follows:
- This part of Japans history is very interesting for many westerners, one researchers states "However, the Japanese Imperial Household refuses requests to do so. "According to Professor Ryusaku Tsunoda, a former Japanese history professor of Columbia University: 'There was an opportunity, while repairs were being made, to look inside. people were amazed to see how many objects of continental craftsmanship it contained. The ruler...lived in the fourth century. The buried treasures were evidences of his relationship with the kingdoms of the Korean peninsula.'" Until the Japanese are willing to acknowledge this history, it will remain as Japan's hidden history."
Now see here: Seoul Selection and Han Books.
I was having trouble deciding which part was the quote and which part was outside the quote, so I tried Googling the phrase to see what else I found. Indeed, I found that this quote apparently is from the book's promotional materials, and not from inside the book itself. Now the promo DOES appear to be quoting the book when it says "According to... kingdoms of the Korean peninsula." However, everything outside of that is almost certainly not written by the authors of the book, and we have no idea who wrote it (I'm guessing not a "researcher").
2.) Another issue is that one third of the citations and maybe half of the article is based on this one book, "Korean Impact on Japanese Culture", which I do not have access to but which seems to be somewhat sensationalized and perhaps not oriented towards an academic audience. It's not healthy for an article to rely so much on one source... there needs to be more citations for many of these claims. While there are some other sources in the article (especially in the starting paragraph, good stuff!), some of them have issues... why are we quoting an article in the New York Times written in 1901? I'm sure we have more current information than that. And do we have to use blogs? (well-written though they may be) There has got to be immense journal-quality research out there on this topic... I just got done reading the bulk of a textbook about Japanese history that was discussing Korea as a conduit for Japanese culture. So... maybe I can help? :) but some of the more sensational claims may simply have to go, and I'm afraid of what that will do to people's feelings.
3.) Finally, I am concerned that some of the conclusions in the article do not match (or go beyond) the original source material. For example, in the aforementioned NYT 1901 article, here's the source quote:
- "Even at the present day Korean influence can be traced in many a Japanese palace and temple. At the Shiba Temples in the capital one of the most perfect bronze gates is the handiwork of Korean artificers. The visitor to Kyoto may see some of the best and earliest specimens of wooden statuary in Japan at the Temple of Koryujl."
Right now, our article on Misplaced Pages is using this as citation for the following:
- Regardless of the number, it is undisputed that at least some Korean potters were forcibly taken to Japan from Korea during the invasions, and that it is the descendants of these potters who produced Satsuma ware.
At the very best, this would be original research/synthesis. At worst it's simply not what the source says at all... this is a conclusion that (while a historically valid assertion, and one that I believe is correct) is not presented in the original source.
When I see stuff like this, the verifiability Nazi in me just screams "delete! delete!" but I know that doing so will simply make people think I'm POV, which is why I posted here. I may be able to use my resources to support some of the more accepted claims, but as for the other stuff? Now that I have spent so much time optimizing the article, I fear that substantial chunks of it simply don't belong here and some difficult choices will have to be made. What to do?
-- Joren (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your well-thought-out post. My main thoughts are as follows (my numbers do not necessarily correspond to yours, Joren, but are rather used for emphasis):
- Due to the very controversial nature of this topic, with extremely inflamed and passionate positions on both sides of the issue, if something can not be positively attributed to a very reliable source, it should be removed (unless it is a blatantly obvious fact about which there is no controversy at all).
- If there is plagiarism, it should be immediately excised.
- If a source is claimed to say something, but it can not be proven the source says that (or it is proven the source does not actually state that), it should be removed.
- As it states below every edit box on the site:
"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use before you submit it."
- We need to take very careful care in articles such as this that the information presented is completely verifiable and backed by completely reliable sources. If someone's feelings are hurt because of it, that is unfortunate, but we can't let that stand in the way of presenting solid information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)