Talk:Gaya confederacy

message: Is the gayageum named for the Gaya confederacy? Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it is. It was supposedly invented by a king of Gaya. Odst (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, not. It was supposedly invented by a subordinate of the king that had orders from him. Kfc18645 talk 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gayageum]] 

message: it is a generally held view.
Please submit the source of this　your remark. AND READ WP:SUBSTANTIATE--Propastop (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  to [[User:Kuebie]] 

message: edit of koreans
Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
Weasel words help to obscure the meaning of biased expressions and are therefore dishonest. For example, an editor might preface the statement "Montreal is the best city in the world" with a disclaimer: "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world". This is true: some people do say that Montreal is the best city in the world. The problem is that the reverse is true as well (some people say Montreal is not the best city in the world, and some go further and say that it is the worst), and thus it is easy to mislead the reader and to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda, which is contrary to the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia (see WP:V and WP:NPOV).
If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement. If there is a genuine opinion, make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where, and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is "some"? If you consider the different answers these questions might have, you can see how meaningless the "some people say" qualification is. To assist users in deciding how to attribute ideas more precisely, the Wikipedia verifiability policy provides specific criteria for the support a statement must have for it to remain in an article unchallenged. This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles, and it is this policy that weasel words undermine.
There are different variations on weasel wording, with the general principle of introducing some proposition without attributing it to any concrete source. "Most scientists believe that..." fails to provide any evidence that this is indeed the case, or to clarify just where between 50% and 100% "most" is, for that matter. The case is similar with things that are apparently true "according to some studies" or "contrary to popular opinion". "It has been proven that" allusion to proof does not constitute proof, "Science says" that science is an abstract concept which in actuality is not capable of speech, and "it could be argued" that the no original research policy is there for a reason. The word "seemingly" inserted into a statement raises the question of to whom the proposition seems thus, and on what evidentiary basis.  And so on.
It is, of course, acceptable to introduce some fact or opinion and attribute it in an inline citation. e.g. "Research by Wong et al, 1996, has shown that rabies can be cured by acupuncture".
And at the bottom of the page:
*''
KOREANS, OK?
--Propastop (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes? And how is that related to the article in question? Novidmarana (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And your opinion on this matter to us? Does your personal opinion is greater than opinions from expertises? --Korsentry 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit of koreans

message: A line on the page was changed by someone to:
The individual polities that made up the Gaya confederacy have been characterized as small city-states. [2].
The source used for this is Barnes 2001. Please show me where in Barnes 2001 that he says that Gaya polities were city states. Barnes never says this. Please check the book; there is no such statement in Barnes 2001. Barnes states that archaeological evidence strongly suggests that these polities correspond to complex chiefdoms. The original line in the Gaya confederacy used the term "complex chiefdom". I would be very surprised if someone could find a reliable authoriative source that says Gaya was a city state. Would somebody please change it back. I don't edit the Wiki but sometimes I consult some articles. I wish somebody will correct this error. Wikipedia users often comlain about the mistakes. Please correct it. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.149.163 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  city states? that's not what Barnes said 

message: The last point in the "Politics sub category" with the statement:
A joint study group of South Korean and Japanese historians sponsored by the two governments came to the conclusion that there was no Japanese foothold in that era.[16]
This statement cannot be validated and should be removed as the source no longer exists. 
Stacs13 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Stacs13, 11 June 2010 

message: I believe that this section:
"Political and trade relations with Japan have been a source of nationalist controversy in both Korea and Japan. Japanese publicists during the twentieth century looked to the controversial Nihonshoki, which claims that Gaya (named "Mimana" also "Kara" in Japanese) was a military outpost of Japan during the Yamato period (300-710). While there is absolutely no evidence to support this widely rejected contention, the claim has nonetheless been advocated at various times by Japanese imperialists, nationalists and press to justify the Japanese invasion of Korea (1910–1945)"
needs to be rewritten, it is in no ways objective. Also I don't agree with the citing Wontack Hong's book on the origins of Yamato Wa, which while interesting is extremely bias. I would prefer to use the more neutral Western Jonathan Best, although he focuses primarily on Baekje, he does discuss Korean-Japanese politics of the 4th-7th century. 
Furthermore there is nothing on the Japanese side, aside from the argument that Mimana was used for 20th century propaganda. And the quote that there is no evidence that a state in Japan could have invaded Korea, ignores the Korean sources such as the Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa, not to mention the Gwanggaeto stele. The Yamato state was quite powerful during this time, having the ability to demand hostages of Silla and Baekje, and receiving recognition from Chinese dynasties of some degree of sovereignty or influence over Korea. There is no mention of the 5 kings of Wa which are linked to this debate as well. If possible I would like to do some editing to the page, bringing a bit more balance to the subject, or at the least give some advice on what could be added and what words should be edited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekishiotaku (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit obvious Korean nationalist POV 

message: "Japanese invasion of Korea (1910–1945)" needs to be corrected to read "Japanese annexation of Korea (1910–1945)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Correction 

message: Please remove the last two sections of the "Politics" text. They are biased beyond reckoning. The author of that part of the article is picking out the pieces of info that suites his arguements. I here quote (p.308-309) of the same source [footnote 14]
"Whether a colony, a tributary state, or an ally, however, the Kaya league had the closest relationship to Japan of all the Korean states. Kaya provided a foothold on the peninsula for the Japanese until the middle of the sixth century, when the small states
were absorbed by Silla."
It is impossible for a professional historian to even consider such a stretched interpretation of Kenneth B. Lee's text. Please remove the rubbish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.138.39 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Correction 2 

message: Why is the language on the sidebar listed as Old Korean with no further comment? There is already a separate article on the Gaya language, and according to that the status of the language is unknown, and what little evidence there is seems to point to it being a Japonic language. In any case it is by no means certain whether it was a dialect of Old Korean or not. I think it's clear that the language in the sidebar should be corrected to link to the NPOV Gaya language page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.8.67 (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language? 

message: No need to remove the list of rulers from the infobox. Info is not available elsewhere. El_C 06:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Rulers

message: Why does this article say both that the Gaya confederacy came to an end in 532 and 562, with no explanation of this discrepancy? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  532 or 562 disestablishment?