Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 4 June 2016

Korean influence on Japanese culture was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 8, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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 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: 07:22, January 11, 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 article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Template:Find sources notice

Don 't quote 'stuff' because it backs a prejudice (confirmation bias). Understand the subject first.

TH1980 you added this nonsense: "Japan's present exuberant publishing industry can be traced back to the Edo period when Korean influence was instrumental to its flourishing It is reliably printed but I removed this telling you to ‘Learn to paraphrase the text correctly’.

By that I meant that if you reread the text (a) you would realize it was stupid (b) and by citing it you are indicating you know nothing of the topic since even if construed correctly to intuit the author’s intent, it happens to be silly.

The text as it stands implies that Korean influence from 1590s ‘was instrumental’ for a few decades accounts for the 'flourishing of (its=) Japan’s present exuberant publishing industry’. First of all that is plain dumb, and secondly false. Woodblock printing was far more important for the rise in Edo literacy and book consumption.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I know what I am talking about. Etsuko Kang is hardly alone in understanding the role of Korean printing in Japanese publishing. I noticed also that historian Ha Woobong wrote an entire essay about the huge influence of Korean printing on Japanese printing during the Edo period. I will agree to include Machi Senjuro's opinion, but ultimately we should just begin by saying "According to Machi Senjuro", not "In fact", at the start of the sentence. Etsuko Kang and Ha Woobong represent the dominant point of view, and we should not put the words "in fact" in front of the minority point of view from an essay that only mentions Korean influence incidentally on one or two pages.TH1980 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a long history of getting most edits wrong on several articles. What you can't perceive is that this subject is not supposed to be a rehash of the petty, ridiculous, fatuous rewriting of history by nationalists, Korean or Japanese. I only added Machi to show how silly Kang's remark on that was (her book is generally very informative, she wrote a sentence that is ridiculous in its implications which you use, not understanding how dumb it is). I'm minded to remove both Kang and Machi, but have no hurry. That you can read nonsense and take it seriously indicates that you know nothing of the topic. Moveable metal type once introduced quickly revealed its inadequacies for large scale publishing to cater for the merchant class and growing urban world of Edo Japan. It only worked with short print runs, and it was for that reason that the Japanese publishing industry reverted to woodblock printing as the dominant technology right down to the end of the Tokugawa period. Since you don't know that, you allow yourself to be convinced by a stray sentence or a silly nationalist. The Japanese book industry flourished because of woodblocks, not moveable type (until Western technology led to innovations in late Tokugawa early Meiji times) The dominant point of view is that of Peter Kornicki and numerous other serious scholars of the subject.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to add a mistaken opinion by a non-specialist on an issue like the impact of Korean movable type?

In my view, Etsuko Kang, though RS, is making a patently misleading indeed demonstrably incorrect assertion when she is quoted as saying what we have below. I glossed it with a more accurate account for a while, but obviously the piece is there because it backs a nationalist misperception, not because it is relevant to the historical facts. If anyone disagrees please discuss here.

Etsuko Kang claims that, "Japan's present exuberant publishing industry can be traced back to the Edo period when Korean influence was instrumental to its flourishing."In fact, the qualitative upsurge in Japanese reading, dated to around 1630 onwards, was related to the spread of woodblock printing, which, as opposed to metal-type printing of books in both Korea and Vietnamese, allowed for stable texts accessible to many because reading marks were added, that enabled Chinese style texts to be read as though they were Japanese.Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Etsuko Hae-Jin Kang, Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century (1997) Springer reprint 2016 Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, (1997) Springer reprint 2016 p.108.
2. Machi Senjurō, 'The Evolution of ‘Learning’ in Early Modern Japanese Medicine,’ in ,Matthias Hayek, Annick Horiuchi (eds.) Listen, Copy, Read: Popular Learning in Early Modern Japan, Rev.ed. BRILL, 2014 pp.163-203 pp.189ff p.191.

The text quoted above amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. A better solution would be to drop the disputed text. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Only the part cited to Machi Senjuro was synthesis. The part about Korean influence on Japanese printing has been the subject of whole essays. Ha Woobong has contributed a number of peer reviewed studies on this very subject, and he's no nationalist either. The particular essay that I am citing came from a previous version of the article, but it's just one example of the same information.TH1980 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this nonsense (scholastic!!!! oh really!) as well, the author clearly knows nothing of the history of printing in Japan.

According to the historian Ha Woobong, "the metal and wooden printing types taken from Korea laid the basis for the printing technology of the Edo Period in Japan and the development of scholastic learning."(Ha Woobong, "The Japanese Invasion of Korea in the 1592-1598 Period and the Exchange of Culture and Civilization Between the Two Countries," in The Foreseen and the Unforeseen in Historical Relations Between Korea and Japan, eds. Northeast Asian History Foundation (Seoul: Northeast Asian History Foundation, 2009), 228-229.)Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well drop a note to Ha Woobong and tell him movable metal printing was dropped as too expensive after a few decades in Japan, and the book industry thereafter used woodblocks, as had Buddhist monasteries since the 9th century in Japan, a technology developed under the Sui in China.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha Woobong wrote the following in his book "The East Asian War 1592-1598" (edited by James B. Lewis): "Metal and wood moveable types looted from Choson became catalysts for the development of printing technology and scholarship in the Edo period." This book was produced from a conference of academics at Oxford, so it's unlikely that such a great number of leading scholars would be wrong.TH1980 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Fa fuck's sake, I could give you several specialist sources -indeed I've already supplied some - showing the uselessness of Ha Woobong's remark. You are unfamiliar with academic conferences. A paper written by someone for a scholarly conference, which is then edited into a book on the papers delivered at a conference, does not ipso facto mean that it has been endorsed by all or even any of the academics present at that conference. That is really hilarious. Just ask around. Any scholar will tell you your inference is right off the rails. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I should add that James B. Lewis says that Ha Woo Bong "has led modern research on Choson-era relations with Japan through his own work." Ha Woo Bong is pretty much the leading expert on this subject. I'll add also that you made yet another mistake in your edits, stating that Hyeja was from Baekje when he was actually from the Korean kingdom of Goguryo.TH1980 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Re Hyeja, it was about time, after correcting dozens of your mistakes, that I too slipped up. Indignaris quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. As to Lewis's opinion. Who cares? Ha Woo Bong is not a specialist in print technology, fucks up obviously in dealing with that specific issue, since what he says is contradicted by historians, with no nationalist drum to beat, specializing in that area. So he's as useless here as tits on a bull.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the comment telling TH1980 to "drop a note to Ha Woobong" is not sensible here. It shouldn't be up to TH1980 to change the consensus of the leading scholars. Misplaced Pages editors just report the consensus of scholars, rather than calling academics to get them to change their minds. I think the best source to use for this is the essay written by Ha Woo Bong from the book edited by James Lewis, rather than Robert Tarbell Oliver's older work.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that the real problem is that Nishidani has been using generic works about the history of technology, whereas specialist works specifically dealing with Korea-Japan relations, like Etsuko Kang and Ha Woo Bong, all refer to the great influence of Korean printing on Japan. Nishidani could rebut these scholars without resorting to original research if he could find a source specifically stating that Ha Woo Bong and Etsuko Kang are wrong about this.TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no problem with using non-specialist sources in some cases, but I guess here the specialist sources you have been citing are ideal. Ha Woobong's viewpoint does appear to represent the mainstream views of historians, so it certainly should be included, but personally I have no problem with adding in a rebuttal as well. It might be okay to use non-specialist sources for the rebuttal. If necessary, we could always try a request for comment in order to seek more opinions on how to include the information and/or rebuttal.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

TH1980 . Again, read the source and construe it correctly in historical context. You are wasting my time by your carelessness

User:TH1980. If as you always do, you go about looking in indexes to googled books for ‘Korea’+Japan and cherrypick something while you have absolutely zero knowledge of the period, its complexities, and context, then you almost certainly will produ ce edits that are reverted for their POV-pushing incompetence.

You write:

According to Mikiso Hane, immigrants from the Three Kingdoms of Korea also played a role in implementing the Taika Reform of 645.(Source: Mikiso Hane, Louis Perez, Premodern Japan: A Historical Survey, Westview Press, 2015 p.15)

That phrasing to any normal reader, would suggest Koreans were behind the Taika Reform at that specific date, 645 and thereabouts, whereas they took several decades to ‘implement’, and what Mikiso Hane is referring to is not 645 but a long period from 670-720s. More importantly, you contaminate the sense of the original, to push your ‘Korea’- is-behind –everything--Japan POV. Mikiso Hane wrote:

‘In the middle of the seventh century, Silla allied itself with Tang China and put an end to the kingdoms of Paekche and Koguryo (in 660 and 668, respectively). Many people from these kingdoms fled to Japan. Some became influential figures in the Japanese court and played significant roles in implementing reforms, known as the Taika Reforms, in the late seventh and early eighth centuries.’

What you wrote is a falsification of the source, that might look trivial, but since you do it so consistently, and your misrepresentations arise from the POV that spins a thesis, this habit is getting to be noxious.

• The wording, and hence the meaning, of the original source is ambiguous

You want the text to refer to the ‘Three Kingdoms of Korea’, meaning this is a united Korean influence. these kingdoms of course just possibly might also refer to Silla, Paekche and Koguryo. However, the commonsensical reading of MH’s passage would take the ‘Many people from these kingdoms (who) fled to Japan,’ to refer only to the latter two, the grammatical antecedents, for the simple reason that the people of Silla were victorious, and having them flee from their own victory together with the defeated enemies of that kingdom sounds, to put it kindly, weird.

As always, scholars who go outside their field (Mikiso Hane’s was Tokugawa Japan and peasant revolts) to give a broadbrush synthesis often write clumsily when synthesizing what their reading of secondary sources of other periods say, and this is a good example.No edits about this period can be done unless you have a precise understanding of the details of that age, details which are interpreted differently by different scholars and often in the respective national scholarly traditions. If you take Beckwith’s approach for example, the context of what Mikiso wrote would be as follows:

The Goguryeo (Koguryo) state, dominated by the Puyo people spoke as its official language Koguryo, related to old Japanese (so far about 140 lexemes have what look like close OJ cognates). Speakers of old Korean, a different language,had a growing minority presence within that state, and they spoke a language whose dialect spread over Korea only when the Silla-Tang alliance MH alludes to, destroyed that country's several regional power centers.

In fleeing to Japan, in this theory, the people of Goguryeo were fleeing a Chinese-led invasion, backed by Silla, to join a people they were at least linguistically affiliated to. This would not therefore be a ‘Korean’ efflux to Japan, with the impact it carried: Korea as we understand it as a unified political entity emerged after Silla unified the kingdoms. Earlier to 668, Korea was constituted by a congeries of ethnic-linguistically distinct tribal groups (like Japan) that did not share a unified ‘Korean’ identity. Scholars used the word ‘Korean’ in that period geographically, in the sense of ‘peninsular Korean’, where the word ‘Korea’ is geographical, and not cultural. Beckwith for one argues that the traditional Korean scholarly treatment of Koguryo language as part of the ‘Korean’ language group (taken to be allied to Tungusic/Altaic) is deeply flawed (See Beckwith Koguryo, 2007 pp.3-5) In his view, it would follow, at least the Koguryo component in the ‘(peninsular) Korean refugees’ to Japan who with their descendents helped implement the Taika reform program over the next two generations can been see as ethnic Puyo. The distinct Koguryo population of the Korean peninsula was extinct within a few hundred years, as unification under Silla was implemented. (Christopher I. Beckwith Koguryo, BRILL, 2007 pp.48-49 (‘by the end of the millenium the Koguryo people and language had ceased to exist.’)

So too the Paekche ruling class, some of whose remnant fled also to Japan after it was defeated in 662 (later than the beginning of the Taika reform) was also Puyo. If you prefer, of course, James Unger, Alexander Vovin et al.,'s interpretation of these same materials, you will get a more unified Korean perspective, but that too is just an hypothesis, not a fact, and the implications I sketched above remain valid, because a specific pan-'Korean' identity was formed later than this period (so too in Japan: and literacy in Japan at that period was held by uji like the Aya and Hata clans, all descended from sino-peninsula immigrants over the preceding centuries, and maintaining their links with the continent, while intermarrying with locals). Don’t look at the wiki links to all of these subjects: those pages are as useless as tits on a bull as to the respective states of scholarship on these topics. All one can say in a neutral manner of that source would be:

When a military alliance between Silla and the Tang dynasty destroyed the peninsular kingdoms of Goguryeo and its southern ally Paekche - an ally of Japan which had sent a fleet with military contingents in its defense - many from these kingdoms fled to Japan and, according to Mikiso Hane, later contributed significantly to the implementation of the Taika Reforms and the Taihō Code, which imitated the Tang dynasty model of administrative centralization.

1. Mikiso Hane, Louis Perez, Premodern Japan: A Historical Survey, Westview Press, 2015 pp.15f.

I'll put that in, with reserve, because I don't think this has anything to do with the topic of this article, namely with a specifically 'Korean' impact on Japanese culture. To be a culture-bearer, often of Chinese civilization, doesn't mean the messenger is making an impact in terms of his anachronistically imposed 'nationality'. All MH is saying is that Sinicized peninsular Korean of varying ethnicity, escaping from their peninsular Korean enemy, help the Yamato court impose Chinese reforms, so what?

What you are doing, to use an analogy that is simpler that the details given above, is similar to arguing that that the Welsh, Scots and Huguenots played an important part in writing and implementing the American constitution because James Wilson, John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison all hailed from those backgrounds. The various continental/peninsular tribal groups shifting to Japan over 3 centuries did not have a ‘national identity’, neither did Japan. Japan itself, reflecting these partial origins, did a blowback, as these ancestral clan linkages turned policy into sending armies back to peninsular Korea to support one or more of the several dominant warrior groups there. All of this is lost on nationalists wanting to make ethnic capital out of history, like yourself. Stop wasting other people's time, by taking a few months actually to study these subjects in depth, rather than just jumping in with your ethnic hammer when you spot a tidbit or two that fits your naïve preconceptions.

I'll be fucked if I know why one has to waste an hour every other edit cleaning up the mess you make in here simply because you are a lazy and inattentive POV pusher who refuses to pull up her socks.-Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And I'll be damned if I knew why you are so hostile and intolerant towards attempts by me and other users to introduce multiple perspectives into this article. You are behaving way out of bounds here in your behavior, but the fact you can abuse other Wikipedians while hiding behind your keyboard keeps encouraging you to act like a spoiled brat.TH1980 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at the history of your edits here. Almost all of them have had to be fixed, tweaked, or erased, as far as I can remember. I good editor is one who takes sufficient care to craft his edits so that she will find them accepted generally. Most experienced editors don't have that high ratio of contested edits, and it's not because I'm a shithead. You cause others needless extra work because you don't appear to be interested in developing a knowledge of the topic in all of its historic intricacies, and thing poorly sourced clichés a substitute for scholarly quality.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I replied out of frustration over your poor use of sources. I never said Korea was behind everything, but Mikiso Hane did say that Koreans played important roles in implementing the Taika reforms. That what's the reliable sources say, so there's no reason that it shouldn't be in the article. You initially reverted me by saying that Korea's role did not constitute "influence", but Hane explicitly described it as "cultural influence of Korea"! If you just read the sources I cited, you'll see that I know what I'm talking about. I'm the one who has actually been taking the time to do the necessary research to find sources that are about the subject at hand, Korean influence on Japanese culture. Too often you revert my edits and replace them with arbitrary facts from a scattering of sources that barely have anything to do with the topic at hand. For instance, with Tamching, you deleted my source which explicitly dealt with the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and replaced it with the primary source Nihon Shoki and two sources by Joseph Needham which are not at all about the subject of Korean or Japanese culture. What's more, now the article says that Mikiso Hane believes that Koreans played a role in implementing the Taika Reform and the Taiho Code, but Hane only discusses the Taika reform. How can you criticize me like this when you don't even read the sources yourself? I agree that this article needs to be carefully researched, so I hope in the future you'll take the time needed to find good sources and read them, rather than filling the article with sources and information that are irrelevant and incorrectly cited.TH1980 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. Give one example of my incorrect citation of sources. (ps. I gave the Nihon Shoki original to allow any curious reader to validate what the several new secondary sources I added were saying. You're grasping at straws.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean influence on Japanese culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aad.berkeley.edu/uga/osl/mcnair/94BerkeleyMcNairJournal/07_Yoo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korean influence on Japanese culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/11/090643.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/08/eaj/ht08eaj.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Rhee, Aikens, Choi, and Ro

This source should probably be removed. I've added some 'alert readers' intro section giving several sources which describe the intense cultural nationalism infusing these Korean debates, a mirror image of one used to get in Japan, and this source shows a totally uncritical approach to the results of Japanese scholarship. Suffice it to compare how Farris reports the same data: he is used, talks of 'assuming', and does not cite uncritically reports in primary sources as though we owed them credence. The error made throughout is, for example, to note similarities between a peninsula hoe, or pottery in some region of ancient Korea and those in Japan, and then introduce it as 'immigrant peoples' exported. Well, not all cultural diffusion comes by one way 'immigration', and until the status of late Yayoi/Kofun relations with peninsular tribal aggregations is clarified, we just don't know who did what, whether things were imported, or immigrants introduced them, or whether old ethno-tribal links were maintained between constituent groups in Yamato and the Korean peninsular and lie behind these transfers.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This article was published in a peer reviewed academic journal and was written by a team of qualified scholars. If you are going to reject it entirely, you are going to need a very reliable source clearly stating that this article is "nationalist". There are two ways to solve this. Either we can just put "according to Rhee, Aikens, Choi, and Ro" in front of anything you dispute, or better yet we can just go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get a definitive ruling. However, you need to be careful to not engage in original research. If a peer reviewed academic journal says something, it needs to be refuted by a reliable source, not just your own hunch.

I get the impression you just really don't like the word "Korean". You seem to think that Farris is a better source, but you strangely deleted the part about "Korean ovens" even though Farris says, "The discovery that Japan's first ovens in northern Kyushu and the Kinai are associated with early stoneware also lends support to the idea of Korean origin. In the eighth and ninth centuries, these appliances were so closely associated with southern Korea that the Japanese called them Korean ovens." Using the word "Korean" is in accordance with all the reliable sources cited, including Farris. You added in Totman here, but he says "in cooler regions of the northeast" open-hearth arrangements prevailed, not "the Japanese continued to prefer employing open-hearth ovens". How did you get "The Japanese" from "cooler regions of the northeast"?TH1980 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like nationalists, period, esp. when that infantile form of thinking drifts into scholarship. It's not limited to these articles either. Farris on this is nuanced, whereas your source isn't: it translates everything in Japanese sources discussing peninsular similarities into the form 'Korean immigrants', which proves that the authors are pushing a nationalist POV. The impression one gets from their spin is that a poor underdeveloped Japan suddenly started to spurt into growth and civilization when 'Korean' immigrants arrived. The modern consensus is that from 200 CE onwards, local Kinai-Kyushu chieftains had extensive links with southern peninsular peoples, they were perhaps linked tribally, that they were allied for some centuries in their interests with peninsular groups in Gaya and Baekje against Goguryeo and Silla, that they were sufficiently strong to dispatch several military expeditions to reinforce their peninsular tribal allies in the south, and successive defeats eventually drove refugees from those kingdoms to sanctuary in Japan/Yamato.

I took out "Korean ovens" because that is a misleading translation of karakamado (韓竈). It's easily to be mislead by 韓, which became one of the terms for 'Korea' as a whole. Karakamado at a glance appear to be a rare term, attested in the Engishiki centuries later, where 'kara' (韓) in Old Japanese almost certainly referred to the southern peninsular area controlled by the Gaya confederacy (Kaya/Kara:伽耶/加羅), and where a different language from those used in the north of the Korean peninsula, and one related to Japonic, (Gaya language) may have been spoken. That is what Farris is alluding to Kara (southern peninsula). To speak of 'Korean' at this time as a unified cultural, ethnic, national reality is, as Hyung Il Pai's very good recent book argues, an anachronism, and that is why 'peninsular (Korean)' must be the default term, since it means we are talking of a geographic locus, not a unified nation-state (and I would add that a more objective approach would be to replace 'Japanese' with Kinai/Kyushu/Yamato likewise, as the context suggests, since a unified Japanese state wasn't achieved that early either). The anachronism, with all of its nationalist flavor, survives in Rhee, Aikens, Choi, and Ro. How that got past peer-review is a mystery. You are correct that it was thus published, but, I stick by my point, that everything we use it for should be cross-confirmed by more scholarly sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No doubt some Chinese nationalist or two will start playing with Korean articles and showing that 99% of the 'Korean' culture which makes up, for Korean nationalists, Japanese culture, actually came to Korea from China,a and we will then have to erase this and retitle it Chinese influence on the Korean and Japanese Cultures. I.e. what you are doing here, can be done with equal force on Korean culture, since ultimately, China invented virtually all of the material, artistic, literary, architectural basis for civilization in the Far East, and for a millennium, the periphery tinkered.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is that we stick to the information and topics of reliable sources. An article on "Chinese influence on the Korean and Japanese Cultures" maybe could be written, but it would require sources about that subject. This article exists because there are reliable sources like "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection" by Farris, or "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", as well as sections of books by Mikiso Hane and Chai-Shin Yu expressly titled "Korean influence on Japanese culture". These sources deal with Korean influence on Japanese culture specifically, not "Chinese influence on the Korean and Japanese Cultures", which is a different subject.

We are supposed to be avoiding original research. Farris says that "Korean oven" is the most suitable translation of kamado. Perhaps you personally prefer a different translation, but on Misplaced Pages we should stick with Farris' translation. If you prefer, we can put "according to Farris" in front of the translation. You may not personally agree that, "a poor underdeveloped Japan suddenly started to spurt into growth and civilization when Korean immigrants arrived." (And that's not really what the source says anyway...) But it doesn't matter, because when a team of scholars produces a peer-reviewed study saying something, we should just report on that, not find out if your own research produces a different conclusion.

Also, the background section is really poorly cited. The first three sentences have no citations at all and since none of the information from the first three sentences are contained in the section's first citation, it looks like all the information in the whole section is cited to the batch of sources stuck onto the section's final sentence. Moreover, the books cited have little or nothing to do with Korean influence on Japanese culture. Henry Em, for instance, doesn't seem to mention even one single historical influence Korea had on Japan anywhere in his book about modern Korean historiography. I don't see why we should fill the article with so many sources that have nothing to do with the actual subject of the article.TH1980 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You're the last person on Misplaced Pages to be claiming work done by others is 'really poorly cited'. Citation of mediocre sources is the hallmark of your editing here, and if you look at the article's development, what has happened is that you have constantly dumped in material that other editors have had to review and source correctly. In fact my working hypothesis is that your lazy tossing in of 'stuff' you google up without understanding what its status is in Japanese studies, is meant by now as a prod to get serious editors who actually know the subject professionally, to fix it, and thereby, since you can't write a GA article, get them to do so by fixing your errors with technical precision.

The first three sentences all come directly from the main works cited at the end of the article. All of the works deal with the competing nationalisms of Japan and Korea over how to interpret the connections between the Korean peninsula cultures and ancient Japan. Once you actually start reading those sources, you will grasp their pertinence, i.e., that the whole argument of cultural 'debt' emerges out of clashing nationalisms. As I said, by the same token, anyone could write an article showing that 95% of the culture of Korea came from China, and all of that in turn went to Japan. To erase the Chinese source, and then push the idea that 'Korean' culture made the germinal, pervasive impact on 'Japanese' culture is to promote the middle man and not the producer as artificer of genius for what then the end 'consumer' is said to have appropriated illegitimately as the product of his autochthonous genius. Even the language is borrowed, so when Korean scholars talk of danil minjok (a unitary race (of pure blood lines)) they are just using a native calque on the Japanese coinage 単一民族, tan'itsu minzoku. Chinese Han sources speak constantly of the 'immigration' of large fluxes of 'Chinese' into Korea in much of the latter's formative early period: one of the functions of the commandaries at Lelang, Xuantu and elsewhere (cf.Four Commanderies of Han) was to Sinicize the area with immigrants from Yan and Qi. To show that no one is immune to this nonsense, the same game the Korean POV pushing uses with Japan in your source is deployed by Chinese cultural nationalists against Korea, and Japan. Examine Cho-yun Hsu's recent China: A New Cultural History, Columbia University Press, 2012 p.248. That is WP:RS, it is reliably published, passed peer-review, and yet is tainted with silly stuff, just like your source, highlighting China's key ethnic contribution to the rise of Japan by selective use of material without a command of the relevant scholarly literature on that material.

During Japan's Yayoi period (ca.500 BCE-300CE), many Chinese immigrated to Japan, primarily settling in the Kyushu area. According to a Japanese legend, a descendant of Qin Shihuangdi (秦始皇), Gong Yujun, led a group of Chinese across Korea to settle in Japan. They were known as "people of Qin" (Qinren). Another son of the Han emperor Lingdi, Azhi Shizhy, is also said to have led some Han Chinese to settle in Japan. They were known as the "new Han people" (xin Hanren). To this day, some Japanese still have the surnames Qin and Wu and call themselves Qinren and Wuren. Significantly, Kyushu was the starting point for many Japanese missions to China, and the emissaries were for the most part from Kyushu. Thus it is likely that Chinese immigration to Kyushu was a spur to Japanese visits to China. Politically, China's relations with all of these East Asian nations came under the investiture system, while culturally, it was a case of them imitating Chinese ways. The same was true of the industrial arts, though each country developed its own special characteristics. For example, the Koreans excelled in weaving cotton and the Japanese in metallurgy.'

There you have it, that is how an American emeritus Chinese scholar, when writing for a Chinese audience, writes up the immigration story. He appears to be referring to the Hata (秦氏):Old Jap. Pata clan's ostensible ancestor 弓月君 Old Jap:Yutukï nö kimi, which, the translators, all experts, fucked up in their transliteration, since that should be Gong Yuejun, not Gong Yujun (shades of Farris!). So how do our Korean nationalists in the paper you want to use spin the mentions of the Hata/Pata immigrant group which the Chinese scholar argues came from China (a 815 CE source in Japanese the Shinsen Shō(sei)jiroku:新撰姓氏録) records the legend that the Hata claimed descent from the Chinese emperor Qin Shihuangdi, and there are several theories about this Hata clan. For Cho-yun Hsu the Hata are one of numerous Chinese tribes which immigrated and spurred the growth of Japan. For Rhee, Aikens, Choi, and Ro they were all Korean and spurred the growth of early Japan.

In the meantime, the Hata clan, a powerful elite class from the Uljin area of ancient Shilla (sic), settled in the Kyoto area around A.D. 450 after Shilla came under Koguryo control. Soon, as part of the Yamato ruling elite, the Hata family organized Korean immigrant communities, particularly those of Kaya, for industrial production needed by the Yamato court

Pure nationalism, and the selective use of one Japanese source. They have completely screwed up, if they ever actually looked at it, the Japanese original source, which says that in the year 283

是歳。弓月君自百濟來歸。因以奏之曰。臣領己國之人夫百廿縣而歸化。然因新羅人之拒。皆留加羅國爰遣葛城襲津彦。而召弓月之人夫於加羅。然經三年而襲津彦不來焉 (Iwanami ed.vol.1 p.361)

I.e. your guys hazard the guess that the 283 date is 'around 450', that Yutukï nö kimi came from Silla when the source says he was from Baekje, and even give the modern Korean district name, how they pinned that down we don't know. Paekje was Silla's enemy, and the text states that Yutukï nö kimi's potential immigrants were stranded in the Gaya confederacy (Kara:加羅) (Note again 'kara' as in karakamado), and blocked by Silla. The Japanese text has them offering their allegiance to the Emperor, and asking the Japanese to get their stranded countrymen over to Japan, with 3 years passing and the emissary failing to get them over until a Japanese military force confronted Silla and secured Yutukï nö kimi's people passage, making out the Japanese organized the immigration of Paekje peoples from Kara to Yamato. Korean scholars have them organizing this immigration on their own. The 'industrial production needed by the Yamato court turns out in the source to be a gift of silkwares the Hata chieftain offered to the court of Emperor Yuryaku (471 CE in the old chronology) after they fell out of favour. (NS vol.1 p.493)..etc.etc.etc.

The Hata like other immigrant clans are extensively analysed with numerous theories about their origins, in Japanese scholarship. They ignore these different views, and focus only on the way they might spin one specific interpretation (by Suzuki) to Korea's credit. What the Korean nationalists you cite are doing is ignoring the whole intricate differentiations of tribal groups in the Korean peninsula, including extensive numbers of settled Han-Chinese groups, who were allied to, or enemies of, the Yamato kingdom, some of whom had deep family links with Yamato clans going back centuries, and calling them all 'Koreans' in a period in which they were engaged in destroying one another, and often as not, calling on help from Yamato, or, if defeated, fleeing there as refugees.

This ideological table-turning (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, whatever) is methodologically jejune, infantile, and the irony is that imperial Japan's ideological manias about themselves being the creative 'elder brothers' for Korea's development is just reversed in Korea's post-colonial world. The prejudice remains intact, only it the seminal locus of civilization is switched to Korea, imagined falsely to be a united cultural 'race'. Much of the article Korean ethnic nationalism could be translated, with suitable historical adjustments, into Japanese to describe prewar Japanese ethnic nationalism, and its long aftermath down to recent times. And it is all utterly tedious, whatever nation spouts this master race crap to vindicate its superiority over its neighbours.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone needs evidence your knowledge of Japanese is next to zero, take this edit of yours, writing:

Farris states that the word kamado can be translated into English as "Korean oven".'

He doesn't say that (p.87) and couldn't say that, since the word kamado cannot be translated as "Korean oven". kamado etymologically means 'cooking place'. Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the above seems more like soapboxing than commenting on article content. If you want, you can say in the article that the Hata clan might have been of Chinese descent, but I don't think that Cho-yun Hsu should be used as a source here. Cho just says, "According to a Japanese legend", and he doesn't mention the pertinent details about the Hata clan being known for their skill at silk weaving or the date that the migration occurred. The addition you made to the article on sewing only cites the Nihon Shoki, which is a primary source and should not be used here. As for the date that the Hata clan came to Japan, there are lots of sources that agree with the article by Rhee and others which state that the clan came around 450 (and were Korean). For instance, "Kyoto: A Cultural and Literary History" says the clan arrived in Japan "in the fifth century". That is what the secondary sources say. On Misplaced Pages, you can't try to refute secondary sources using your own interpretation of a primary source like the Nihon Shoki. And yes, I should have written "kara kamado", rather than abbreviating it. The kamado used in Japan were known as "Korean ovens".TH1980 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. You haven't understood anything. You don't know the subject, and therefore you can't evaluate what you are reading. You like your source, and the fact I have provided details which show it spins just one story of many, makes no impression on you. The Japanese chronicle of ancestries of 815 CE says the Hata were of Chinese origin? Crap! You have a Korean source that says they were 'Korean', and indeed were from Silla, and you want that in even in the face of the primary Japanese source, the Nihobnshoki, which says they came from Baekje! In other words, you are a one-eyed POV pushing editor who ignores everything in primary or secondary sources that contradicts what your Korean nationalist source declares. You shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages.

You've just given another proof you can't evaluate if what you read is tenable, obviously because you don't know anything about Asian, Korean or Japanese history. Before the date the Hata founder Yutukï nö kimi came to Japan, - you're dead certain it was 450 CE asd your Korean source affirms. They were skilled in silk weaving, fine. But the 三國志's section on Japan (倭人傳) predates the supposed date for the Hata by 2 centuries, and describes the Japanese as capable of weaving and spinning 'fine linen and silk fabrics'. The Chinese source in 250CE says the Japanese were skilled weavers of silk. The later source say the Hata also were skilled weavers of silk, and came 2 centuries later. And some idiot then wrote on the page:'Silk weaving took off in Japan from the fifth century onward as a result of new technology brought from Korea.' without asking themselves how 'silk weaving' took off in Japan in the fifth century with the Hata, when the Chinese voyagers report Japanese were making fine silk 2 and a half centuries earlier.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I advise that we just cite it as being Farris' opinion. I think we agree that Farris is a reliable source, and he says unequivocally that the Hata were "peninsular". Farris then mentions, "Japan's foremost expert on ancient cloth believes that the production of fine-figured silk twill increased markedly after the fifth century. He links this growth with the other technological improvements that came from Korea at the same time."CurtisNaito (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As it is, I don't think very much evidence had been presented of the unreliability of the Asian Perspectives article. Just because it uses the phrase "Korean immigrants" to describe some of the toraijin, just like almost all reliable sources do, does not mean that a peer reviewed article like this one is somehow biased. If it is necessary though, I would support bringing the article to the reliable sources noticeboard to get confirmation.

Incidentally, I recent read the New History Textbook, which is generally regarded as being a Japanese nationalist work. However, it did pass inspection by the Ministry of Education, so it couldn't have any major errors. At any rate, this textbook says on page 51 that the Hata clan were of Korean origin and came to Japan in the fifth century. It just goes to show that in Japan even those of nationalist leaning, plus Japan's own government, acknowledge that the Hata clan were likely of Korean descent.

Th1980 is right that the books in the background section don't really deal with Korean influence on Japanese culture, but I guess the books do at least deal with Korea and Japan. The citations do need work because you can't cite so many sentences at the beginning of a paragraph to a citation only mentioned at the end of the paragraph placed after several other unrelated citations. However, there is one line in the background section ("the role of Korean peninsular peoples in the transmission of Sinic culture was underplayed") which is repeated at the end of the article. Maybe the whole "background" section should be moved into a section dealing with historiography in general.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Whaddya mean? The New History textbook passed inspection by the Ministry of Eudcation and therefore couldn't have any major errors. It's rife with errors, and the Ministry of Education in Japan virtually waged war on Ienaga Saburō and wrecked his scholarly career - a fucking magnificent editor of the Nihon Shoki, because they disliked his historical textbooks. The New History textbook 'was approved by the Ministry of Education in 2001, and caused a huge controversy in Japan, China and Korea. A large number of Japanese historians and educators protested against the content of New History Textbook and its treatment of Japanese wartime activities.' That sort of shit can never be cited in any responsible article for facts, because what is factual is always spun for a political effect. If you can't see that, you're way out of your depth here.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Textbook examinations in Japan screen out factual errors, but are not as good with correcting omissions. The edition of the New History Textbook I was using was passed by the Ministry of Education just last year, but not before many corrections were made. We can just cite Farris' opinion as evidence that the Hata were of Korean origin. My only point was that, in Japan at least, even staunch nationalists admit that the Hata were Korean.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Population

Compare:

During this new period of Japanese history, the Yayoi period, the forms of intensive agriculture and animal husbandry practiced in Korea were adopted in Japan, first in Kyushu which is closest to the Korean peninsula and soon all across Japan. The result was a major explosion in the Japanese population from 75,000 people in 400 BC to over five million by 250 AD. blockquote>

1. Rhee, Aikens, Choi, and Ro, pp. 404, 416–419.
2. Rhee, Aikens, Choi, and Ro, pp. 420–422.

with

We cited population estimates for 800 BCE of about 76,000 people and for O CE of some 595,000, nearly an eightfold increase in 800 years with the bulk of that growth occurring from the Kinai vicinity westward. During the next 700 years, as agriculture spread, the human population would grow even faster, expanding some ninefold to an estimated 5,400,000 people in 700 CE. Increase at such a rapid rate surely reflected the increased fecundity that a more reliable food supply permitted, but it also reflected the long-sustained in-migration of mainlanders.' Totman p.61

Totman says from 800BCE to O CE there was an eightfold growth 800 years. In the next 700 years there is a ninefold increase. Where Totman has Japan with 5,400,000 in 700 CE, the Korean source is trumpeting virtually that same figure in 250 CE (over 5,000,000), 4 and a half centuries earlier, meaning that Japanese population must have stagnated for that long period of massive agricultural growth. This is plainly crazy. The figures simply jar with one another. And when you have such a massive discrepancy in sources, you can't pick one you like, and push it as a fact on Misplaced Pages.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This can be re-added. I see where the problem is. The article actually says that the population increased to 5,400,000 "during the Kofun period". Since the Kofun period started around 250 AD, I guess at some point the article came to say that instead, but the figure of five million+ was referring to events that took place at some point in time before the end of the period.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I get this population problem with POV pushers on articles ranging from the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the population of Judea,etc. to the Ashkenazi population of Europe in 1500, to articles like this. The ranges in competent literature are significantly vast to disallow anyone from using one source and claiming it is true. In history, you only have theories, you rarely have facts. As to the point you made, I can cite other estimates which make those c onflicting figures even more rubbery. We don't fucking know. All we can do is respect the variety of interpretations in sources, which ] systematically refuses to do, in pushing everything in a borderline and distinctly nationist source as though it were the real McCoitus for his orgasmic Korean origins of everything in Japan POV.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We can deal with potential bias by sticking to the views of reliable sources. In general we can discuss which sources to include and which to exclude, but I think peer reviewed academic articles like the one cited here should get an automatic pass unless you know of a reliable source explicitly refuting the article itself.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No. The Chinese book got a peer-reviewed pass, and it fucked up. I showed with just one of dozens of examples, above, where the four authors fucked up comprehensively, and even in peer-reviewed papers, if you fuck up, that means the process broke down, as often happens, and one can't knowingly quote material than is skewed as that bit about the Hata is. Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, do you think we should take the article to the reliable sources noticeboard then? How do you really know when a peer reviewed source by a group of distinguished scholars messes up? The same information was in other sources too, so a lot of scholars must have messed up. In cases of disputes between scholars, Wikipedians shouldn't really take sides. Rather than guessing which peer reviewed sources messed up, and which got it right, I think personally that we're better off including both perspectives in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing sentence sourced to Hyung Il Pai

"For Hyung Il Pai, there was no clear Korean and Japanese national distinction as for the period around the 4th century CE., and that archaeological and material similarities between the two cannot be explained in terms of domination or conquest."

This sentence should be removed. Firstly, because it says that "there was no clear Korean and Japanese national distinction as for the period around the 4th century CE", which is a strange thing to say at the beginning of a section on the Jomon-Yayoi transition. This transition took place possibly around 300 BC, many hundreds of years before the 4th century. Granted, the Jomon-Yayoi transition did ultimately narrow the ethnic distinction people Japanese and Korean peoples, but that was a gradual process. I don't think that we should mention events so far after the transition at the very beginning of the section. Secondly, it says "archaeological and material similarities between the two cannot be explained in terms of domination or conquest." However, what Pai actually says is, "similarities in the later Korean Kobun and the Japanese Kofun can no longer be explained solely by theories focusing on domination or conquest." This refers to events of the Kofun Period, which was also after the Jomon-Yayoi transition. The fact that neither Korea nor Japan conquered one another during the Kofun period is not relevant to the Jomon-Yayoi transition. Some other information on the Kofun period has also been added to this section, which fits better in subsequent sections.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is one source is not the reliable source. Everything I've checked makes the raw assertions of the Korean authors highly slanted nationalistically. They systematically exclude every counter thesis. So unless the editor or editors start trying to respect WP:NPOV, by studying the elements of ancient Japanese and Korean history in all of their complexity, we are going to get nonsense, nationalistic cant, and it is rather pointless asking that people like myself and a few others stand by and rush it to fix the POV biasing day in day out till the great ambition of getting a GA credit emerges.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That is simply fixed by pushing it down the page, which I have done, and you reverted.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You also deleted other parts without explanation in the same edit. Also, I'm not so sure about the part reading, "archaeological and material similarities between the two cannot be explained in terms of domination or conquest". Pai is only referring to the kofun in that sentence, and I don't know if we should assume that he's referring to all archaeological and material similarities.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the other editor is, is for me, notoriously incompetent and is deploying a source that simplifies very complex issues by saying every innovation in Japan is 'Korean', I'd expect other editors to exercise judgement and care and work out things on the talk page because nationalist spinning on these subjects is a minefield. Take the armory section. Well, there are good arguments that some types of arms uncovered in the Korean peninsular were of Yamato design. How you take this depends on the way you read the presence of Yamato forces in Korean battles for 2 centuries. Read just to cite one example this tidbit on one such controversy in Gina Barnes's recent book, State Formation in Korea: Emerging Elites, Routledge, 2013 pp-77ff., for example, and compare it to the spin of our article.Unless there is some sophisticated understanding that every item is controversial, and surrounded by contending claims, you will yet sheer POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I understand, but we can resolve this simply by adding in new sources explaining other perspectives. Takehiko Matsugi, a professor of archeology at Okayama University, said in an article in the Yomiuri Shimbun that the Japanese armor uncovered in the Korean peninsula was the armor of Japanese soldiers sent by their government to fight on the side of a state in Korea. Maybe it's not mentioned in this Misplaced Pages article because it's a issue of general Korea-Japan relations and not specifically Korean influence on Japan. However, you can try adding this information into the article if you think it belongs. Basically, we're all in this together and we have to edit together.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In scholarship, you don't start with bad sources, and then add good sources. You review the dozen or two relevant sources, weigh what they are saying of the topic, see how the various arguments shape up in peer-reviews, if there is a consensus remark or two, and write up the synthesis of the state of the art. You do not proceed as this fellow is, plunking in 'stuff' and waiting for it to be fine-tuned. Well, fuck it. This place has always been a circus, and I'll be buggered if I'm going to clown round wasting my time. I let it run to seed for some months, in the meantime hoping the POV push is noticed and sanctioned, and fix it with anyone else willing to roll up their sleeves and actually apply the state of the art histories of these three entities (Gina Barnes is a good point to start from) to the article. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Rhee et al. do claim to be synthesizing the scholarly consensus in some areas. They note near the start of the article, "We have found considerable scholarly consensus among Korean and Japanese archaeologists and historians on many significant points..." However, in areas of disagreement over reliability of sources, I see two options. Firstly, take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. Secondly, find a disputed line of text and send it to request for comment. Do you want to try one of those, and if so, which one? Concerning sentences cited to the Asian Perspectives article of Rhee et al., I think we could send some of them to request for comment to gain consensus. What about that?CurtisNaito (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sewing

For the section on sewing, is there another source for this than the Nihon Shoki? I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source, but given its age I would ideally use a newer source if possible.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You can get it in Aston's translation, but if you need a secondary source, then Pageant of Japanese Art: Textiles and lacquer, Tokyo Kokutitsu Hakubutsukan, Tōto Bunka Co. Tokyo 1952 p.3 Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• 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