Talk:Nihon Shoki

message: Nihonshoki fabricated or exaggerated a considerable amount of its contacts with Korea and China - this is a proven fact. There is a list of examples with claims that Gaya (Minama) being a Japanese colony , the Korean kingdom of Baekje paying tribute to the Yamato court being prime cases.--Jh.daniell 00:42, 25 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)
:Proven by Mr. Choe Yong-shik? Who the heck is he anyway? --Saintjust 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proven by Sokichi Tsuda, Namio Egami, Hong Won-tack, Taro Sakamoto, and W.G. Aston. Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabricated Foreign Relations in Chronicles of Japan 

message: While it may be a logical and/or literal translation, I cannot imagine that anyone would find "Chronicles of Japan" to be more recognizable than "Nihonshoki". I looked at the title of this article and I assumed that it concerned either (a) some fictional series called Chronicles of Japan, like a novel series or an anime, or (b) an umbrella article encompassing Nihonshoki, Nihongi, Kojiki, Heike Monogatari, Heiji Monogatari, Taiheiki and a whole bunch of others. I propose moving this to Nihonshoki, the far more common and more recognizable name of this document. LordAmeth 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move, obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronicles? 

message: As I have commented above, Nihon Shoki is more common than Nihonshoki; about 41,600 hits vs about 30,300 hits on Google Web Search, 2520 pages vs 525 pages on Google Books, about 626 vs about 206 on Google Scholar. Also note that when you search "nihonshoki", Google says "Did you mean: nihon shoki". I propose moving this page to Nihon Shoki per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Kusunose 07:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I myself have edited "Nihon Shoki" to "Nihonshoki", I can agree with your point. "Nihon Shoki" appears to be the more common usage. Even though I have always known it as "Nihonshoki" that doesn't make it right. In addition, there is the common use of "Samguk Sagi", not "Samguksagi". In reality, "Nihon" and "Shoki" are two kanji words, but placed together. But then again "Nihonjin" is not "Nihon Jin", is it? And what about "Nihonjinron"? I would say it should remain at "Nihonshoki" until conclusive evidence shows it should be moved.--Sir Edgar 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on the evidence presented by Kusunose, I support moving this article to Nihon Shoki. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you put a notice for this proposed move? It must follow proper procedures. The article was just moved to "Nihonshoki". There must be good reasoning for another move to "Nihon Shoki".--Sir Edgar 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have formally requested this move. --Kusunose 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Nihon Shoki'' 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support (above discussion) Tensaibuta 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Did the starter of this poll inform everyone that there was a deadline for voting? No. I resent the fact that there was all this uproar about no time period given for the poll in Talk:Dokdo and yet nobody is screaming foul here. Personally, I thought we were still looking at the list of credible sources using "Nihonshoki" and "Nihon Shoki". I was waiting to see conclusive results prior to casting my vote. Five votes (two of which were placed in an improper fashion) hardly forms a "consensus", in my opinion.--Sir Edgar 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there any notice given to time period of this poll? 

message: I find this part completely unnecessary:  "This does not necessarily imply that the persons referred to did not exist, merely that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they existed or can be assigned to a particular period of history. It is much more likely that they were chieftains, or local kings, and that the polities they ruled would not have encompassed all, or even most, of Japan."  Huh?  Not only are there no evidence but to believe that someone lived 100+ years and was born from a Sun goddess doesn't seem credible to me.  It is not even likely they were chieftains that ruled all or even most or even remotely most or even more than a household. It is like saying "even though there is absolutely no evidence for King Arthur, he probably existed but was more like a regional ruler than a king". Complete garbage. 66.171.76.237 04:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would love to know who keeps placing this junk everywhere. Angry bee (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothingness 

message: In the Korean Samguk Sagi, there is very little mention of Goguryeo or Baekje. This is because the author, Kim Bu-sik wrote the record as that of the successor state to Silla, a traditional rival of both Goguryeo and Baekje. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that some bias has taken place in the Samguk Sagi with regards to the two other nations, and this is an example of bias in historical documents, and it is not the only bias.
The veracity of the Book of Song is disputed because of its missing sections and the tone with which it is written, as well as its treatment of surrounding nations and ethnic groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Song In addition, at the time when the record was written, the Liu Song dynasty was on friendly terms with Baekje only; when it established ties with Yamato Japan, the nations listed (except for Baekje) are diplomatically unknown entities. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf
Namio Egami (I will use the first name, last name format for all names) notes in 1964 that it may look very strange that the names of six or seven
states listed in the self-claimed titles included Chin-han and Ma-han which had
preceded, respectively, the states of Silla and Paekche. Perhaps the King of Wa had included the names of six or seven south Korean states in his title merely to boast of the extent of his rule. But Wa Kings could not have included the names of nonexistent
states. One may then conclude that the remnants of Chin-han or Ma-han
existed as other members of the Kaya Federation by the time Wa Kings sent their embassies to China in the fifth century, because according to the Samguk Sagi, Silla established the first contact with the Southern Chinese Dynasties in A.D. 521 by sending an envoy to the Court of Liang along with the Paekche envoy. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf
In Nihongi book 1, page 263, in the 16th year of Ojin's reign, King Ahwa (same as King Asin) died. King Ahwa reigned in Baekje from AD 392-405 (i.e. he was in his 14th year when he died), so this means Ojin's reign begins in AD 390 (two years before King Ahwa of Baekje, although because of Nihongi's time system Ojin's reign is listed as starting in AD 270, exactly 120 years, or two 60-year cycles, before it actually began). In that record, Emperor Ojin sends Baekje Prince Työnchi (Cheonji) back to Baekje, saying to effect: "return to your country and continue the royal line." Then Ojin granted the prince the territory of the Eastern Han. This record indicates that Ojin formally renounced all claims to Baekje territory. This record also shows that Yamato Japan and Baekje were very close.
Aston says about Nihongi: "Even so late as the beginning of the 5th century the chronology can be shown to be wrong in several cases by no less an interval than 120 years.... The first date in the Nihongi which is corroborated by external evidence is A.D. 461, but the chronology is a little vague for some time longer. Perhaps if we take A.D. 500 as the time when the correctness of the Nihongi dates begins to be trustworthy, we shall not be very far wrong." http://books.google.com/books?id=1IJrNAKBpycC&dq=aston+nihongi&pg=PP1&ots=MHQwccyV_A&sig=R1mo5I2d7VSgLrkEcrJNxdkEejQ&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Aston+nihongi&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1
In addition, Sokichi Tsuda wrote that when writing of matters related to Paekche, Silla and Kara, they (referring to the authors of the Japanese histories, in this case Nihongi and Kojiki)
applied the writing method of uplifting the current authority in the fashion of Chinese and Confucian ideologies. Tsuda states that those were the authors’ ideologies, and had nothing to do with realities.http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html It is possible that they were written in this way because of the tensions between Silla and Yamato at the time they were written.http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html
All of this shows that historical texts and what they say must be considered carefully and what they say, especially in the print versions (as they were all written by one or a limited number of individuals) cannot all be taken as literal truth.
# "Book of Song." Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Song
# "Five Kings of Wa." Baekche of Korea and the Origins of Yamato Wa of Japan. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf p.255
# "Five Kings of Wa." Baekche of Korea and the Origins of Yamato Wa of Japan. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf p.256
# Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697, translated from the original Chinese and Japanese. W.G. Aston. http://books.google.com/books?id=1IJrNAKBpycC&dq=aston+nihongi&pg=PP1&ots=MHQwccyV_A&sig=R1mo5I2d7VSgLrkEcrJNxdkEejQ&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Aston+nihongi&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1 p.xvii-xviii
# "History Texts." ML (Machine-Learning) Shopping. http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html
# "History Texts." ML (Machine-Learning) Shopping. http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html
Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the in-line citation and bibliographic notes for improved clarity.  I'm interested in the translator's work in historiography; and therefore, I'm interested in a discussion of issues related to Rikkokushi, which he translated.  --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounds for Caution Notes on Mythological Characters and All Historical Records 

message: Records written in Baekje may have been the basis for the quotes in the Nihongi but textual criticism shows that scholars fleeing the destruction of the Baekje Kingdom to Yamato wrote these histories and the authors of the Nihongi heavily relied upon those sources. [See  Sakamoto, Tarō. (1991). The Six National Histories of Japan,  p. 40.]  
This, in and of itself, is a perfect reason why Nihongi and other old (not just Japanese either, but Korean and Chinese too) records must not be assumed to always be the literal truth. It is clearly a conflict of interest for Yamato, later a rival of Silla, to rely upon the historical records of Baekje, a vanquished rival of Silla, as the major source for a history of northeast Asia. --Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the in-line citation and bibliographic notes for improved clarity.  I'm interested in the translator's work in historiography; and therefore, I'm interested in a discussion of issues related to Rikkokushi, which he translated.  --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More justification, if you care to read it

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nihon Shoki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050903011203/http://kodaishi-db.hp.infoseek.co.jp:80/ to http://kodaishi-db.hp.infoseek.co.jp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If the book is Classical Chinese, shouldn't the Classical Chinese title and transliteration be in the lead?
Or is the title a modern invention?
The same about the chapter titles, why are they in Japanese instead of Classical Chinese?
--Error (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See Kanbun. Thibaut (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Chinese