| Revision as of 13:05, 23 April 2016 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,544 edits →TH1980 . Again, read the source and construe it correctly in historical context. You are wasting my time by your carelessness: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:50, 1 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,091 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/Archive 4) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| (522 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{FailedGA|00:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)|topic=World history|page=1}} | |||
| {{Article history | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| | action1=GAN | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Korea |
||
| | action1date=8 june 2015 | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| | action1link=Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA1 | |||
| | action1result=failed | |||
| | action2=GAN | |||
| | action2date=7 July 2020 | |||
| | action2link=Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA3 | |||
| | action2result=listed | |||
| | action3=GAR | |||
| | action3date=28 July 2020 | |||
| | action3link=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=969745711&oldid=969741415 | |||
| | action3result=delisted | |||
| | currentstatus=DGA | |||
| | topic=Society | |||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | {{Old AfD multi | date = 4 October 2014 | result = '''No consensus''' | page = Korean influence on Japanese culture}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Korea|importance=Low|history=yes}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Japan|importance=Mid|attention=yes|history=yes|culture=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Culture|importance=}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 4 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 35: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Old AfD multi | date = 4 October 2014 | result = '''No consensus''' | page = Korean influence on Japanese culture}} | ||
| {{find sources notice|korean influence|japan}} | |||
| == Don 't quote 'stuff' because it backs a prejudice (confirmation bias). Understand the subject first. == | |||
| ] you added this nonsense: | |||
| It is reliably printed '''but''' | |||
| I | |||
| 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] and numerous other serious scholars of the subject.] (]) 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. | |||
| <blockquote> 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."<ref>Etsuko Hae-Jin Kang, (1997) Springer reprint 2016 p.108.</ref>In fact, the qualitative upsurge in Japanese reading, dated to around 1630 onwards, was related to the spread of ], which, as opposed to metal-type printing of books in both Korea and Vietnamese, allowed for stable texts accessible to many because ] were added, that enabled Chinese style texts to be read as though they were Japanese.<ref>Machi Senjurō, 'The Evolution of ‘Learning’ in Early Modern Japanese Medicine,’ in ,Matthias Hayek, Annick Horiuchi (eds.) Rev.ed. BRILL, 2014 pp.163-203 pp.189ff p.191.</ref>] (]) 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| {{Reflist}} | |||
| : The text quoted above amounts to ]. A better solution would be to drop the disputed text. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 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.] (]) 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. | |||
| :<blockquote>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.)] (]) 19:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| ::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.] (]) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == TH1980 . Again, read the source and construe it correctly in historical context. You are wasting my time by your carelessness == | |||
| ]. 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: | |||
| <blockquote>According to Mikiso Hane, immigrants from the '''Three Kingdoms''' of Korea also played a role in implementing the ] of 645.(Source: Mikiso Hane, Louis Perez, Westview Press, 2015 p.15)</blockquote> | |||
| 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: | |||
| <blockquote> ‘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.’</blockquote> | |||
| 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 ] spoke as its official language Koguryo related 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 state. | |||
| 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 ebe 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 distinct ethnic-linguistic congeries of tribal groups 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. ] 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 Koguyro 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 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, ], ] 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. 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: | |||
| <blockquote>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 ] and the ], which imitated the Tang dynasty model of administrative centralization.<ref> Mikiso Hane, Louis Perez, Westview Press, 2015 pp.15f.</ref></blockquote> | |||
| 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? | |||
| {{Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA2}} | |||
| 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 ], ], ], ] and ] 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. | |||
| {{Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA3}} | |||
| 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.-] (]) 13:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:50, 1 June 2024
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Korean influence on Japanese culture was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Karaeng Matoaya (talk · contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this, though I might request a second opinion from someone better-versed in the archaeology. Disclaimers:
- This is my first time doing a GA review, which is why I might ask for a second opinion
- I am Korean and was educated in the country (as you can tell from my recent edits), but I will do my best to be as neutral as possible
- I was unaware of the apparently intense edit warring that has previously taken place on the article until today
- I gave a barnstar to a user involved in the article's controversies a few hours ago, but this was out of genuine appreciation for their waka-related pages and is unconnected to this article's history
Cheers, Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The simple things:
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Y - Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y
The article is fairly long and I've only looked at two sections in-depth, but unfortunately I've found a few issues in both. Apologies in advance if I'm a bit stringent—but I'd like to be as careful as I possibly can with controversial topics like these.
"Writing" section
1) "Some of these scholars from Baekje wrote and edited much of the Nihon Shoki, one of Japan's earliest works of history."
While Ch'on 1974 seems not to be available online, this claim is not made in Taro Sakamoto's 1970 The Six National Histories of Japan (translated in 1991), where it is said:
As for the people who did the actual work of compilation, I have mentioned Ki Kiyondo and Miyake Fujimaro... Ota's investigation indicates a possible connection between O Yasumaro and Nihon Shoki. Further research is needed on these points... None of the other compilers is named... All that is clearly recorded are the names of the twelve people commanded by Emperor Tenmu in 681 to set in order the Imperial Chronicles and the Fundamental Dicta. They organized the original materials of Nihon Shoki Of these twelve people, two were imperial princes, four were princes and six were ministers of state... From the point of view of lineage, two were Imperial clans (Kamitsukeno and Heguri), three were Divine clans (Azumi, Imbe, and Nakatomi), and one was a Sundry clan (Naniwa).
This seems to belie the article's claim that significant parts of the Nihon Shoki was written not just by people descended from Baekje migrants, but "scholars from Baekje."
2) "The pronunciation of Chinese characters at this period thus may well reflect that current in the Baekje kingdom."
This contradicts the cited source. "May well" means "likely", but the source actually says:
Owing to a paucity of evidence, little is known about Sino-Paekche and other varieties of Sino-Korean... Hence it is impossible to determine whether the early Japanese were learning Sino-Paekche readings, authentic Chinese readings, or readings which were somewhere in between.
The source admits that the only evidence of Sino-Baekje readings being adopted in Japan is circumstantial, and if the sentence is kept it should be marked as such.
3) Kana and gugyeol
The relationship between kana and gugyeol is not nearly as clear-cut as the article suggests. While the influence of Korean sinography on the Japanese man'yogana tradition is undeniable, whether Japanese borrowed a significant number of actual gugyeol glyphs is disputable. While Frellesvig supports a direct borrowing, there are actually strong arguments against the notion, as both Zev Handel (2019, Sinography: The Borrowing and Adaption of the Chinese Script, pp. 183, 200-202) and John Whitman (2011, "The Ubiquity of the Gloss," available here) notes:
A comparison of Japanese katakana with Korean kugyŏl shows strikingly obvious similarities in the technique of isolation and the resulting letter shapes. But it also makes clear that although the technique of phonological glossing of Literary Sinitic texts using PAPs may have been borrowed from Korea into Japan, the actual practice diverged very early, possibly from the beginning. The PAP sets used in each tradition were different, the specific graphs used to represent syllables (even syllables pronounced essentially identically in both languages, like /ni/), and the end result of abbreviation (even of the same graphs) differed in most cases. Table 5.10 gives four examples of kugyŏl graphs and kana graphs with identical forms, but which derive in each tradition from different sinograms with different phonographic values, followed by two examples where the graphic origins are identical.
However, of the 147 source characters for Koryŏ period kugyŏl graphs listed by Paek (2005: 23-27), only 20 show this match in form and function (Note that both scripts used multiple alternate phonographs for the same syllable.) All 20 are commonly used phonograms not just in Korea and Japan but in the entire Sinosphere. In the case of other phonograms, for example kugyŏl /ni/ and katakana 尓, 仁 /ni/, the two scripts make different choices for the same syllable, even though 尼 is a fairly widely attested ongana (Sino-Japanese) phonogram in Japanese 8th century materials as well. If kugyŏl graphs were directly borrowed to form the basis for katakana, we would expect to find exact matches in every case where Japanese and Korean had homophonous syllables, but we do not. The set of phonograms used in Japan in the 8th century formed a well established syllabary (Case 2000). Katakana were selected from this syllabary. Here again, focusing on the direct borrowing of graphs is an example of graphic fixation. It is possible that the technique of abbreviated phonogram glossing in Japan was influenced by models from Silla, without it being the case that each individual gloss was borrowed.
In my opinion, "Japanese katakana share many symbols with Korean Gugyeol, for example, suggesting the former arose in part at least from scribal practices in Korea" should not be presented as simple fact, with the mildly stated "though the historical connections between the two systems are obscure" being the only caveat.
"Shipbuilding" section
1) "Technicians sent from the Korean kingdom of Silla introduced advanced shipbuilding techniques to Japan for the first time."
One of the sources (Kim 2012) is probably too general to be used to support such a specific statement, and I simply can't find Lee Hyoun-jun's articles anywhere outside Misplaced Pages mirrors. Could you give me their Hangul name? I can't find archaeological support for the statement in Miyashita 2006, which, although only a master's thesis, is cited in The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Miyashita says only:
Points of similarity between Korea and Japan have been confirmed in iconographic evidence, showing that there is a strong cultural linkage... It is interesting that the example found in Korea had an inrotsugi and kannuki technique and iron nails for the fastening which were the same as examples from Japan, although its date is in more recent years. It is feasible that these techniques of composite logboats derived from the continent and were brought to Japan along with wet-rice cultivation and metal-working technology.
And does not mention any Silla influence, although connections to Korea are covered explicitly.
2) "In the first half of the ninth century, the private fleet of the Silla merchant Jang Bogo dominated the Yellow Sea and maritime trade between China and Japan. As ambassador to China, Fujiwara no Tsunetsugu chartered Korean vessels for his embassy to the mainland in 838, as they were more seaworthy. A Japanese court edict issued in 839 ordered that Kyūshū construct a "Silla ship" to cope with stormy weather."
Most of this material is not germane to the stated article topic because it does not explain how Korean shipbuilding influenced Japan, only that it was superior to Japan's.
Final notes
I'm withdrawing the GA review per the GA submitter's request, but I do hope the issues with these two sections are addressed.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: StoryKai (talk · contribs) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I will examine the quality of this article within one week.StoryKai (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@TH1980:Thanks for all your hard work on this. I don't have too much to criticize. I recommend the following changes...
--"the building of gigantic tomb"="Tomb" should be pluralized.
--"Yamato kingdom has sent military expeditions"=Delete "has".
--"Kingdom of Baekje in 538 AD"=Most of the article uses CE, and this should too.
--The paragraph starting with "According to the historian Beatrix von" cites the same source three times, though one citation would suffice.
However, the biggest problem is the inconsistency of the citations. Some of the Farris citations are in brackets for some reason. Some citations have google view over the pages numbers and others don't. Also, the titles of many books in the bibliography aren't italicized. StoryKai (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I've begun making the changes you've recommended.TH1980 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have finished implementing your recomended changes. Many thanks for your input.TH1980 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- Low-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- C-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- Japan articles needing attention
- WikiProject Japan articles
- C-Class culture articles
- Unknown-importance culture articles
- WikiProject Culture articles