Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 4 February 2015

Template:Find sources notice

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: Culture / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:39, January 10, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Culture task force. This article is supported by the History task force. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korean influence on Japanese culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

From speculation to verification

In order to partially restore prior versions of the article, I eagerly tried to insert page numbers for each reference and corrected some substantial mistakes. Jagello (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've undone your edits. Please be more carfeul with the way you do it next time, and don't restore garbage like "it is inevitable and well-documented that at various times". I didn't even bother reading what else you restored—it was clear that your restorations were far too reckless. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but on AFD about a dozen users commented on the problems in this articles, with only one claiming that the only significant problem was page numbers. For material that was removed according to consensus, you need consensus to re-add it, and you will never get consensus to add material that takes the opinions of a minority of scholars and states it in Misplaced Pages's voice as "fact", or that places fringe theories on the same level as scholarly consensus. I am open to a move of this page to Korean influence on early Japanese civilization, but unless the title is change you can't claim that the various technologies previously discussed here qualify as "culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. What I know is that some users agreed in the necessity of improvement for this article rather then the deletion of the page. But there has been definitely no consensus over the massive blanking of the page. Maybe you thought fringe theories must be deleted immediately based on Misplaced Pages policy. But much of the cited sources in the deleted sections I restored, came from prominent university presses like Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Stanford press and Museums like Metropolitan, British Museum, Nara National Museum or publishers like McMillan, Kodansha, the Brill publishers, Thames & Hudson and much more. I simply cannot imagine that they would let to distribute fringe theories. Cited reliable sources in the deleted paragraphs, I once restored came from renowned and mainstream Japanologists like Edwin O. Reischauer, George Bailey Sansom, Donald Keene, Lane Richards, Ernest Fenollosa, Louis Frédéric, Peter Kornicki and much more. It is hardly to believe that they would insist on fringe theories or views, which are generally rejected by most of the scholars. My suggestion would be to report this problem to the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. So it is better to restore the past version for the better proof of this.

As for the definition of culture, following is a paragraph you removed from the page, because you are the opinion that technique does not belong to the category of culture:

Various metal-working techniques such as iron-working, the cuirass, the oven, bronze bells used in Yayoi period Japan essentially originated in Korea. During the Kofun period, in the fifth century, large groups of craftspeople, who became the specialist gold workers, saddlers, weaver weavers, and others arrived in Yamato Japan from the Baekje kingdom of Korea.

1. Farris, William Wayne. Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures: Issues in the Historical Archaeology of Ancient Japan. University of Hawaii Press, 1998, p. 69
2. Brian M. Fagan. The Oxford companion to archaeology. Oxford University Press, 1996, p.362
3. Japan. Bunkachō, Japan Society (New York, N.Y.), IBM Gallery of Science and Art. The Rise of a great tradition: Japanese archaeological ceramics of the Jōmon through Heian periods (10,500 BC-AD 1185). Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, 1990, p.56

The following passage is the original source cited to the paragraph. This is written by Bunkachō or Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan.

In the fifth century, readers of Chinese classics and masters of various crafts including pottery, saddle making, brocade weaving, and painting arrived in Japan from the Paekche kingdom of Korea. According to your logic, Kagakugijutsuchō or Science and Technology Agency of Japan as you might imagine, should have written the above passage. Jagello (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your most recent revert cited the Covells ten times. This is evidence enough that you are not interested in fixing the problems of this article, but are instead rooting out yet more sources that don't say what you attribute to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, regardless of one's definition of "culture", you keep referring to metalworking techniques from 1,500 years ago as "Japanese culture", as though the Japanese and their culture do not exist anymore. Nothing scholars refer to as "Japanese culture" has anything whatsoever to do with ancient Kudaran metallurgy! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean citations from the renowned Japanologists like Reischauer and others do not support the section I restored? Ok, let's examine, whether these citations were misused. Your assumption or speculation merely by checking the titles of sources is weak and invalid as an argument for saying the source is misquoted. The contents in the article must be verified by checking sources. The source text should be given and made comparison with the relevant footnoted content on this page. May be this can be one reason, why you failed to get any consensus for massive removing the contents on this article.

Following is the lower part of a section you deleted without any consensus. This is cited from ‘Ennin's travels in Tʻang China'. Ronald Press Company (1955) written by E. O. Reischauer:

The article says:

… at the time when the men of Silla were the master of the seas achieving Korean maritime dominance in eastern Asia.

Original source:

… , but in Ennin’s time the men of Silla were still the masters of the seas in their part of the world.

The article says:

The monk Ennin’s crossing to China on Japanese vessels and the whole catastrophic maritime record of the mission contrast sharply with the speed and efficiency with which Sillan ships quickly brought him back home to Japan.

Original source:

Ennin’s crossing to China and his subsequent voyage up the south coast of Shantung on Japanese ships as well as the whole catastrophic maritime record of the mission contrast sharply with the speed and efficiency with which Korean vessels whisked him up and down the Shantung coast and finally back home to Japan.

The article says:

Another indication of the gap in navigation skill between the Sillans and Japanese at this time was the employment by the Japanese embassy of 60 Korean helmsmen and sailors to help get the main party safely home.

Original source:

Another indication of the discrepancy in navigational skill between the Koreans and Japanese at this time was the employment by the Japanese embassy of 60 Korean helmsmen and sailors to help get the main party safely home.

My conclusion: The editor(s) who contributed this section actually footnoted multiple sources, but the sources from Reischauer alone support exactly each relevant sentences in this section. So that there was no place to make any misinterpretation or synthesis of the sources, which is against the Misplaced Pages's policy.

By the way, you are reluctant to specify, what various theories or views on the page are ‘fringe’ or ‘nonsense’, whatever you call them, so that these can be reported to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. And regardless of your personal perception on culture, ancient Japanese culture like iron working techniques are supposed to be called culture: 鉄器文化(culture of iron in Japanese). Jagello (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I already specified a fringe theory: the Soga were of Baekje descent. As for "nonsense", most of the English you added was extremely poor. Please stop mentioning "renowned and mainstream Japanologists" -- I have seen enough evidence from this article already that such quotes are being taken out of context, and none of the quotes you have provided above have addressed the root problem that virtually everything that has ever been discussed in this article is some aspect of ancient Japanese civilization, from a time when Japan really did take a lot in from the Korean Peninsula, but virtually none of it has anything to do with contemporary Japanese culture. The sources you quote above specifically state at this time, referring to the 6th to 8th centuries!

Plus, I might ask you -- who are you? You have never edited this article before, but you appeared immediately after the AFD closed (without commenting on the AFD itself) and reinserted material that had been removed almost a year ago. You had clearly been following not only the AFD, but my edits to the page in February. Not only that, but you haven't edited any other page since March 2013! Which of the other accounts/IPs that edited this page in the past is yours? Would you care to be a bit more transparent about your editing habits? Sooner or later either myself or someone else is going to find a smoking gun somewhere in this mess, open an SPI, and CU will catch all or most of the sockpuppets editing in this area, but you can probably save yourself by owning up now.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, you are aware that changing a word or two of a sentence-long quotation and including it in the article without marking it as a quotation is a potential WP:COPYVIO, aren't you? You are just adding to our case against this material! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether Soga clan was pure Japanese or not, because there is no such a statement on the page I restored saying or indicating the Soga clan was of Baekje origin or descent. Your argument like ´quotes are being taken out of context` is just an assumption or speculation as long as it is not examined by checking source texts. Again, merely by checking the titles of sources is weak and invalid as an argument for saying the source is misused.

I already get to know during my examination of the sources, there have been copyright problems. That is why I did not restore, during my last edit, the original stable contents, even though your massive blanking done without any consensus.

Although I was aware of the last AFD, because of your argument without substance in vague manner motivated me check reversely the last AFD on this matter and your past edits. Do you think I participated in contributing this article before and was active at AFD? Nope, I mainly searched the original source to get the page numbers for a month. But good idea! You should start an SPI right now and let CU detect all the sockpuppets. Jagello (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jagello: Reading through this section, your English progressively worse to the point that I don't think you're a native speaker. The two main problems of this article are 1) most of the material doesn't apply to modern Japan or Korea 2) most of the article is poorly written. Hijiri88 is against the restoration of this material for these two reasons, plus he believes the sources are misrepresented. If you would like to resolve these problems and avoid an edit war, I would suggest copying the article and pasting it into your sandbox, where you can freely edit it to perfection. Alternatively, you could add something more contemorary to the article, like the influence of K pop. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with the latter option is that you'd be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that says K-pop has "influenced Japanese culture". K-pop (and K-dramas!) is popular in Japan, but to include a discussion of that in this article under its current title would give the (false? I'm not an expert either way...) that Japanese pop music, TV dramas, etc. bear Korean influence. I wouldn't be against moving this page to, for instance, Japan-Korea mutual cultural influence or some such, though... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Thank you for your comment. 1) Please take a look at this article Culture of Japan. This page has full of descriptions on medieval or even ancient Japanese culture. This article doesn’t restrict the definition of culture to the contemporary culture. 2) Multiple sources that the editors footnoted their contributions on this page are relatively truthfully represented in this article without synthesis or exaggerations. I inserted page numbers for each reference not only on the purpose of a better verifiability of the text on this page, but also I tried to check every single citation in the text on this article. For instance, I was initially skeptical that Silla gave some meaningful influence on Hakuho and Tenpyo Japan. But after checking the source, I had to admit that there were significant cultural influences from Silla on the Japanese Hakuho and Tenpyo culture. Shotoku: Ethnicity, Ritual, and Violence in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition written by Michael Como, Professor of the Columbia University. In this book, there are detailed information regarding the Silla influence on Hakuho Japan.--Jagello (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reason for this article?

Has anybody put forth a rational, NPOV argument for why this article's contents are incapable of being integrated into other articles about Japanese history and culture? We don't have articles for the Greek influence on Italian culture, the Chinese influence on Korean culture, the Indian influence on Chinese culture, the Arab influence on Persian culture, the Turkic influence on Anatolian culture, Japanese & American influence on modern Korean culture, etc. despite the fact that all of these influences were significant and frequently cited in academic literature - so why exactly is there a page for specifically ancient "Korean" influence on "Japanese" culture? I agree with the editors who state that the presence of such an article encourages tit-for-tat nationalism and it's as plain as day that such edit wars have already begun. Allowing this article to exist encourages future articles of the same sort and equally heated edit wars.

I suggest moving the article's contents into other articles relevant to the subjects cited. For example, the section about "Koreans" being on the committee that drafted the Taiho Code can be placed under Taiho Code, where it belongs in the first place. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Threre are already some articles of this kind like History of Indian influence on Southeast Asia, Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures, Spanish influence on Filipino culture, Islamic influences on Western art.Jagello (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

These articles are open to the same criticism, but in the case of Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures and Islamic influences on Western art, the topics themselves are sub-topics of larger macro-theories about Mesoamerican culture and Western art, respectively, and are expansions of the "Beyond the heartland" section of Olmec and the "Arts" section of Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe. This article is, however, virtually an orphan but for a "See Also" link placed under Culture of Korea and its inclusion in a few WP:Categories. To begin with, an article about the Korean influence on Japanese culture is ultimately a sub-topic of Japanese history/culture, and therefore ought to be a sub-topic within a Japanese historical/cultural context. Yet, History of Japan and Culture of Japan have no such sub-topics. The expansion of a sub-topic into its own article occurs when the sub-topic becomes too large to be included in the main article, but this sub-topic has no main article reference in the first place. It exists solely to serve as a laundry list, abiding by no general theme and context, and has no purpose beyond being a laundry list. In that case, there is no need whatsoever for a separate article. It's the equivalent of taking out all the myriad of Greek influences on Western art, philosophy, science, technology, etc. from articles about those items, and putting them in a single article called Greek influences on European civilization as a laundry list. What purpose does that serve? What purpose does this serve? Lathdrinor (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This article exists because it reflects the scholarship which has been written on the subject. William Wayne Farris wrote a lengthy chapter of his book "Sacred Texts and Burried Treasures" on "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection", with no quotations marks around the words Japan or Korea. The historians Song-Nai Rhee, C. Melvin Aikens, Sung-Rak Choi, and Hyuk-Jin Ro contributed a extensive article to the peer-reviewed journal Asian Perspectives on "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". Historian Hyoun-jong Lee has written a series of articles on "Korean Influence On Japanese Culture", and so on. None of these scholars are known to be extreme nationalists of any sort. With so many scholars devoting so many books and lengthy articles to the precise topic of Korean influence on Japan, it makes sense that Misplaced Pages should follow their lead and also have such an article. Objecting to the existence of an article about Korean influence on Japan is not really an objection to anything Misplaced Pages says, it's an objection to what most of the world's leading scholars say. Stating that it encourages "tit-for-tat nationalism" is like saying that Misplaced Pages should not have an article on the My Lai Massacre for fear that it might encourage tit-for-tat anti-Americanism. Facts are just facts, and don't need to offend anyone.

Furthermore, with the current state of scholarship, it would be impossible for this article to be renamed as "Japan-Korea mutual cultural influence". The fact is that not much has been written about Japan's influence on Korea, except for the colonial period. There are some works dealing with Japan's influence on Korea during the 1895 to 1945 period, but apart from that I don't know of any books or academic articles dealing with Japan's influence on Korean culture. One of the few sources I've read discussing Japanese influence on Korea pre-1895 is an Asahi Shimbun article printed in the evening edition of March 19 2010, but even though its author interviewed many prominent researchers, he only came up with a list of three things: bronze tools, keyhole shaped burial mounds, and a possible theory about some types of pottery. So even an article like that explicitly intending to discuss Japan's influence on Korea could only scrap up a sparse list of three things which look rather insignificant by comparison to the lengthy academic papers devoted to the subject of Korea's influence on Japanese culture. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan influenced early Korea in more ways than that, but scholars just haven't written about it yet and for the time being any attempt to include reverse influence in this article would be nothing more than a tacked-on footnote, except for the 1895 to 1945 period.

So ultimately the reason why this article exists is because Misplaced Pages tends to reflect the opinion of the scholarly community. It's true of course that this article could benefit from more page numbers attached to the sources, but denying the validity of the article itself and its title is just turning a blind eye to everything scholars have written about this subject in the last fifty years. I'm certain this article will never be deleted entirely.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The scholarly community writes all sorts of articles about inter-cultural influences. Between any two cultures with historical interactions, there are papers, chapters, and books about the nature of that interaction and the influences derived thereof. But we don't see an article for every pair of interacting cultures on Misplaced Pages, do we? In fact, we barely see such articles at all. The reason being that it is a lot cleaner, and a lot less polemicist, to describe these influences within their appropriate contexts than to WP:SYNTH them into a single laundry list article. Every sub-section of this article is capable of being placed elsewhere, where it'd be surrounded by proper context. Taking them out of the larger topics in which they belong and listing them here is an act of emphasis and synthesis. For what agenda? Lathdrinor (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, creating such a "laundry list article" has already been done in numerous scholarly publications, so you're only objecting to the transposition of the views of the scholarly community onto Misplaced Pages. It's true that not every subject written about in academic journals has its own article, but that's something that will change as the encyclopedia expands. I'm not sure why it matters what agenda scholars have in writing about this subject. Agenda or not, most informed opinion deems the topic to be valid.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the "views of the scholarly community" when it comes to creating a laundry list article on Misplaced Pages? That is a red herring, as the scholarly community does not and has never dictated how Misplaced Pages is organized. Do not confuse my objection with ignorance of academic scholarship. I am fully aware of the influences. But I do not believe it belongs in a laundry list article, just as I do not believe creating a Japanese influence on modern Korean culture article to list all the myriad of influences found in a hundred separate articles. Such articles are virulently WP:SYNTH and invariably become nationalist battlegrounds. What is the purpose of their existence? How do they advance the cause of Misplaced Pages? Saying that they 'represent the scholarly community' is an invalid argument: the scholarly community is capable of being represented in a variety of different ways; the choice to do so in this way or that is a product of Wikipedian editors. Lathdrinor (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that scholars have devoted many articles to specifically this subject, so there's no reason why Misplaced Pages shouldn't also have its own article devoted to the subject. This article advances the cause of Misplaced Pages by giving those with an Internet connection a free summary of the viewpoint of the scholarly community on the significance of Korea's influence on Japanese culture. The scholarly community hasn't been afraid to address this topic directly and Misplaced Pages shouldn't be either.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't provide a "free summary of the viewpoint of the scholarly community on the significance of Korea's influence on Japanese culture." It provides a list of "influences" divorced from their proper contexts, that at times *directly contradict* the contents of actual Misplaced Pages articles on those subjects. The article on Taiho Code, for example, mentions *no* Korean influences whatsoever, but has a section on Chinese influences. Tamamushi Shrine contains nothing about the shrine being a "magnificent example of Korean art." How is having contradicting information on Misplaced Pages a positive development? Just because the editors working on *this* article are not willing to integrate their sources and arguments into their proper places does not justify the existence of the article. A List is capable of being made for Korean influences on Japan, with cross-refs to the actual articles, but that is not what this article is. This article is a separate authority, adhering to a different POV than the main articles, that doesn't even try to integrate its information with the sources in those articles. The proliferation of such separate authorities in no way benefit Misplaced Pages: it results in internal inconsistency and confusion, and draws nationalist edit battles as moths to a flame. Lathdrinor (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The information about Korean influence on the Taiho Code can be sourced to an excellent recent scholarly work by William Wayne Farris, whereas by contrast the article on the Taiho Code itself contains no secondary sources dating before the year 1903. This article is superior in its sourcing compared with that one, so we shouldn't be criticizing well-sourced articles like this one for not corresponding perfectly with poorly-sourced article like the one on the Taiho Code itself. Farris' works have been very well-received in academic journals, and even if this scholarship about Korean influence on Japan disturbs some nationalists, it doesn't make the topic any less noteworthy.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You've dodged the argument entirely. There is no justification whatsoever for having separate and different articles on the same subject on Misplaced Pages. New sources about the Taiho Code ought to be merged with Taiho Code, not kept in a virtually orphaned article maintained by an independent set of editors. The existence of this article negatively affects the internal consistency of Misplaced Pages and is also WP:SYNTH. This argument has little to do with censoring scholarship on the subject. In fact, scholarship on the subject ought to be cited *in the actual articles* that they deal directly with. For lists, such as a list of Korean influence son Japanese culture, tertiary sources need to be cited, because they properly evaluate what Wikipedians are not qualified to do. But that's secondary. The primary problem with this article is that it represents a separate source of authority on various subjects from the main articles on those subjects, thereby violating WP:POVFORK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Lathdrinor (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture ought to be directly dealt with in this article, the article on Korean influence on Japanese culture. You say that "scholarship on the subject ought to be cited *in the actual articles* that they deal directly with", but Farris' work was called "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection". Korean influence on Japan was what it directly dealt with. This is treated by many scholars as a special subject of study and there's no reason why Misplaced Pages can't do the same. You say that the article is a separate source of authority, but on the matter you brought up it's also a superior source of authority. Whatever inconsistencies do exist can be ironed out with time. This article ought to summarize the scholarly literature on this subject and need not be a fork of anything.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Scholars treat virtually any topic they're researching as a special subject of study. From an organizational stance, your logic here is tantamount to saying that we must have Chinese influence on Japanese culture, Indian influence on Japanese culture, American influence on Japanese culture, German influence on Japanese culture, Taiwanese influence on Japanese culture, and of course all the reverse wherever appropriate. I don't see how that is even remotely a great idea when it comes to maintaining internal consistency, NPOV, and an efficiently structured Misplaced Pages. But it's obvious that you don't agree. Regardless, I leave this comment here as a reference for the future. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That this article is inept is obvious. The subject however can be retrieved by

• (a) checking all sources sequentially, and placing tags if they do not corroborate the text. Many of these sources are not worth a nob of goat shit, which, however, does not mean the elements they document do not deserve study and verification
• (b) Get a coherent time line, beginning with
  • (I)linguistic theories of possible Korean-Japanese common roots
  • (2)Theories of population flow
• Only then should one move topically to
  • (3)Institutional impacts, namely (a) religion (b)writing system (c)institutional borrowings (d)Confucianism etc.
  • and art, dance, design, technologies etc.

Finally. This ethnic rivalry or assertion of autochthony characteristic of edit-warring is puerile. It can be surmounted by denationalizing the focus. The Korean peoples of antiquity are no more 'Korean' in the modern sense than the 'Japanese' peoples of antiquity are 'Japanese'. Both benefited immensely from Chinese and Indian civilizations, as is natural in the dialectic of centre and periphery. Much of what Japan got from or via Korea came to Korea via China and India etc., and by noting, as the case may be, the full story (China/India to Korea/Japan, and the modulations affected on the former as cultural flow went east, solves the bickering issue of national dignities vexing this subject.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant, unexplained re-addition of material that has been explicitly demonstrated to be inaccurate, unsourced, or downright racist

Would the users who keep blankly reverting any attempts to clean up this article please take a breather and actually address the specific points given in favour of our removals/editions/cleanups? The Covells wrote a work of historical fiction, not scholarship; the National Geographic never mentioned "foreign" archaeologists; the kudaragoto originated in Assyria and got its name because it came to Japan through Baekje (and not in the 5th century); jindai-moji is barely an aspect of "Japanese culture" by the broadest possible stretch of the phrase; etc., etc., etc.

These concerns have to be individually addressed, and consensus established, for any of them to be reverted. Users who continue to ignore this will have yet another reason cited in favour of their being indefinitely blocked (in addition to this, this, this and this).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yamanoue no Okura

Yamanoue no Okura was a famous poet in eighth-century Japan, who immigrated from Korean Baekje. Influenced by the Madhyamika School of Buddhism growing out of his former Baekje cultural heritage, he addressed social concerns through his poem, unlike other Japanese poets of the time, who spoke for the ethos of land, love, death and devine monarchy. He later became a tutor to the crown prince and Governor of a province in Japan. The reputation of Yamanoue no Okura has sharply risen in the twentieth century, “he became, in the general consensus of sub-sequent centuries of Japanese literary scholarship, one of the most memorable, most influential, and today most often cited poets of the Old Japanese period.”

I think Yamanoue no Okura should be included, but not in this way. In the first place, (a) the text is wrong, since he did not immigrate from Korea. He was brought over to Japan by his father. (b) whoever wrote this confuses Miller's personal interpretation with facts: Miller's excellent paper is not a summation of a scholarly consensus, but an interpretation of the poems, and his take on the scholarly research (c) the fact that he addressed social concerns has nothing to do with the article's theme (d) sources are quoted to write about the poet which do not mention the 'Korean' origin-hypothesis (WP:SYNTH). (e)There are excellent sources not yet used to explain the hypothesis, and these should be harvested for writing the section, together with other Man'yoshu poets who might have continental connections.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Miller, Roy. Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth-Century Japan, 1984. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (4): pp.703–726.
2. Takashi Kojima. Written on water: five hundred poems from the Manýōshū. Tuttle, 1995, p.131
3. Mary Ellen Snodgrass. Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire. Infobase Publishing, 2010, p.323
4. Karen Thornber. Harvard University Traveling Home: The Poetry of Yamanoue no Okura, 1999. Abstracts of the 1999. AAS Annual Meeting March 11–14, Boston, MA
5. Edwin A, Cranston. A Waka Anthology: Volume One: The Gem-Glistening Cup, 1993, p.344
6. Barbara Stoler Miller. Masterworks of Asian Literature in Comparative Perspective: A Guide for Teaching. M.E. Sharpe, 1994, p.368

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Korea-related articles
• Mid-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Start-Class Japan-related articles
• Low-importance Japan-related articles
• Japan articles needing attention
• WikiProject Japan articles