Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture

GA Review

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 [immigrant] 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.

[Handel 2019, p. 183]

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.

[Whitman 2011, p. 18]

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 Wikipedia 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

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)

Neutrality of this article

A huge amount of the sources cited are extremely old, unreliable, and biased. Especially the source cited at the bottom, "New York Times, The. 1901-07-07". How would anyone take that obscure random piece of writing as something one can trust? The bias of this article is evident. M tartessos (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@M tartessos what do you mean by neutrality? Like what pov is this biased towards? You just said it had bad sources. Also that was not actually a cited source, just an external links article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@ImmanuelleThis article has as contributors Koreans who think "their" culture (which derives 99,9% from Chinese culture) had an impact on Japanese culture bigger than it actually was. For instance, it is mentioned that the Magatama jewels were one of the three "Korean treasures" transmitted into Japan. While in reality, Magatama were produced in Japan during the Jomon period, that is, before any continental influence. Similarly, the pseudo fact that the Japanese syllabary katakana derived from Gugyeol is suggested by the fellas who wrote this abysmal article. This is also wishful thinking, since katakana was derived directly from Chinese hanzi. With articles like this, no wonder Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source in schools and universities. M tartessos (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@M tartessos The kana part is demonstrably false do you should remove it from the article if you see it. But the Jomon period was by no means free from foreign influence, see pottery as an example.

I’d try to avoid removing things unless you have a source debunking them. What you removed from the article earlier was not badly sourced, it just had an older citation style. I somewhat updated the citation.

But if anything is citation needed feel free to remove it or put in sourced counter arguments to claims. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Fine then. I will add counter arguments (always with trustworthy sources) so as to fix this mess of an article, whenever I have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M tartessos (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

China claimed the origin of kimchi On the other hand, what about South Korea?

I'm using a translator. I am Japanese of Okinawan descent. I have a relatively neutral view of Japan-Korea relations, but this article is terrible. Was it written by a Korean nationalist? There are too many corrections to keep up with, so I will pick up only the representative ones.

1 Japanese swords are not of Korean origin

Japan acquired iron-making technology through China and Korea, but Japanese swords are a product of Japan's unique culture and Japanese sensibility. It is not of Chinese or Korean origin. Not made by immigrants. If a Frenchman writes a book with a pen he bought in China, does the book come from China?

2 Magatama is not of Korean origin.

In Japan, it has been excavated from the Sannai-Maruyama site and the Kamegaoka site in Aomori Prefecture, the Chojagahara site in Itoigawa in Niigata Prefecture, and the Hanareyama site in Nagano Prefecture. The Japanese have been making magatama since the mid-Jomon period (5000 BC). In addition, as a result of investigating the chemical composition of the magatama excavated from the Korean Peninsula, it was found that it had the same composition as the magatama discovered at the Itoigawa area ruins (Japan). In the first place, the production areas of jade used for magatama are mostly limited to Japan and Myanmar in Asia.

3 Japan's politics and legal system is a unique refinement of what was learned from China. I'm not a liar, so I can't say without the influence of Korea, but I can assure you that it would be wrong to say that without Korea the Japanese would have turned into monkeys.

I'm not a Japanese nationalist, so I won't correct it directly (because I can't use English in the first place) So let the writer write the article.

Finally, China recently claimed the origin of kimchi. I think Koreans are hurt. I respect Korean culture, so I consider kimchi to be a Korean product. I would like people who respect Japanese culture to raise their voices in the same way. Iwao24 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iwao24 I see this. I tend to agree with your perspective that at the very least there's too much emphasis on ancient things. I think on the other side there is not enough discussion of things which are more easily provable such as Yakiniku or other korean stuff in Japan right now.

btw do you have any ideas of things to add to this draft article I am working on Draft:Japanese influence on Chinese culture Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yakiniku is a Korean dish. Kimchi is from Korea. Ramen is Chinese food. I think that Japanese yakiniku and ramen are just as delicious as the authentic ones, but they are Korean and Chinese dishes made by Japanese people. I have no intention of arguing that it is a Japanese product.

I have respect for Korean and Chinese culture. I have no intention of denying the sins of the Empire of Japan. As a citizen of Okinawa, I understand the pain of minorities. This article is just wrong.

At least I want you to correct the Japanese sword, magatama, politics, law, and katakana.

I am using a translator. I can't even use simple English. I hope that someone with good intentions will fix the article. 2400:4152:9242:6900:F876:C9BF:98A1:D283 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

fix

1 Japanese swords were not brought in by immigrants 2 Japanese politics and law are modeled after China's Sui and Tang dynasties 3 Katakana is directly derived from Kanji 4 Magatama was born in Japan. As a result of the inspection, it turned out that the magatama found in South Korea was made in Japan. The Japanese have been making magatama since primitive people in 5000 BC. 5 Kofun is a culture unique to Japan. More than 5,000 burial mounds have been excavated in Japan, but only a few dozen have been found in South Korea. 6 The 50th emperor's mother is of Baekje descent, but that doesn't mean the imperial family started in Korea. The Joseon dynasty also had a Japanese spouse, so does that mean the first Joseon king will be Japanese?

Finally, as a Japanese, I do not intend to deny the crimes committed against Koreans. We must apologize repeatedly for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans in Japan. However, Japanese culture and history are not Korean.

Thank you for your understanding 2400:4152:9242:6900:D454:4704:3FCF:2D45 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are we monkeys

Unsubstantiated claims, too many "probably", editor's wishes When I deleted it, I was told to "discuss" and the article was revived Who am I supposed to argue with on this empty board? This is the claim of the person who wrote this article. Wikipedia, editors are we monkeys

Poor Japanese' distortion of history will only make their funatic and nasty nationalism known to the world.

"The role of ancient Korean states in the transmission of continental civilization has long been neglected, and is increasingly the object of academic study. However, Korean and Japanese nationalisms have complicated the interpretation of these influences."

Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that.

No matter how much money you use for distorting the history in Wikipedia, the fact that you undeveloped Japanese once learnt leading culture from Koreans will not change.

Furthermore, people don't believe what Wikipedia says regarding any issues. Any attempt to distorting the histoy in wikipedia will only make people to know the true history.

Also, Google and Wikipidea will be kicked out of South Korea if they are being used for the distortion of the true history.

Google have to explain the reason why this article is being protected. For what reason this article is being protected?

This is the answer. Japanese monkeys gave some money to Google, and make them protect this article that has distorted history produced by Japanese monkeys. Poor Japanese....

Their nasty characteristics make them not to able to accept the fact they learnt leading culture from Koreans. They don't have ability to accept the truth. Iwao24 (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)