Talk:Nara period

message: 172.199.54.24 seems to lack basic knowledge of Japanese history. Search 遣隋使 and 遣唐使 in Google. --Nanshu
The rise of the military class is not appropriate in the description of the Nara Period. I will move this topic to the Heian period.Trek011 01:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 218.48.35.155 is talking about modern Korean fantasies, not what historical sources say.
:while Silla argued that Japan had received significant Korean influence and was therefore subject to Silla's superiority.
Can you back up this segment with Samguk Sagi, Shokunihongi or other sources? --Nanshu 07:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean influence

message: :Eight of the nineteen members of the committee drafting the Taihō Code were from Korean immigrant families residing in Japan. There were no Chinese. 
Compilers of Taiho code includes Satsu Kokaku(薩弘恪). This person was a native Chinese who also assigned to Koe no Hakase (音博士:Phonetic Doctor), and was in charge of teaching Chinese as a speaking language. At least, "There were no Chinese" is obviously wrong. Also, viewing all the members' clans referring Shinsen Shojiroku, there are couple of members whose ancestors were claimed to be Chinese, among six immigrant clans' Taiho compilers(see Talk on Kofun Period).
:Even the system by which farmers divided arable land into uniform parcels (jōri sei) used the Korean foot (koma jaku) as its basic unit of measurement.
In ancient Japan Jōri unit, one unit is a square of 360 jakus. Current remaining Jōri unit farms in Nara consist of squares of 109 meters, so one jaku is approximately 30cm under metric systems. Although there are multiple units of measurement at this age, 30cm is rather close to Chinese unit Kara(i.e. Tang) Jaku(29.6cm) than Koma Jaku(35.6cm). Although there are arguments that Koma Jaku might be used somewhere in Jōri unit farms of this age, they are not archeologically evident and generally rejected. Moreover, Jōri units are generally popularized at mid-Nara period (in earlier period, it was technically difficult to measure with enough accuracy), while Koma Jaku was abolished early in Nara period.
To me, this source seems scarcely reliable, with two errors in just one page (although the source itself was just cited info from other sources). Maybe we need to search for the better ones. Above all, the chapter itself is a duplication of Asuka period, with most informations more relevant to Asuka, I think this chapter is not necessary in Nara period article.
Mahal Aly 13:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved that section to Taiho Code. I will edit it there to remove "there were no Chinese". Let's continue the debate there Tensaibuta 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of Cited Source

message: I'm surprised this wasn't project assessed already. I'm giving it B-class for length and detail. And I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised to see how stable it's been lately. But as soon as we start to see edit wars again over whether or not Korea/Baekje was involved and to what extent, I'm removing it and putting an attention tag up. LordAmeth 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Assessment

message: Regarding the etymology of Nara:
* This cite is given as a reference. However, it does not say anything about Nara, so is irrelevant to the topic. 
* The historical reference is a little deceptive. It selectively quotes one section, but ignores the immediate relevant section following it which shows historical evidence for other places with many Korean residents and concludes that one can not deny the claim of foreign etymology, but solid proof is still needed: 『和名抄』にみえる百済(くだら)(河内・摂津)、新羅(しらぎ)(陸奥)、高麗(こま)(山城・武蔵)、村主(すぐり)(伊勢)などの郷名については、『日本書紀』などから渡来系の人びとが多く居住していたことが裏付けられており、外来語に起因する地名を否定するものではないが、それを認めさせるには確かな根拠が必要であろう。 This section needs to be rewritten to reflect the reference or removed.
* The exact same Nihon Shoki passage is fully cited twice. I have six other copies of the text which could be cited, but all of them would be just as irrelevant. Should remove to one.
Regards, Bendono (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One more: an editor keeps changing "modern theories" to "Korean theories". There are four modern non-Korean linguistic references given for this. Please explain change. Bendono (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Done. --Malachite Green (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The name Nara period was named after the place name Nara, so its etymology should be explained in Nara, Nara, not here. --Malachite Green (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Malachite Green (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move Etymology section to Nara, Nara 

message: The article says "By the late eleventh century, the city was popularly called Kyoto (capital city), the name it has had ever since." Was it indeed called Kyoto so early or just Kyo? Wakablogger (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Wakablogger, Although the text you ask about is in the article Nara period, I'd like to suggest repeating the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan to reach more people. Fg2 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that advice, Fg2. I checked the Japanese page for Kyoto and found it agreed with this statement, so I withdraw my question. Wakablogger (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto or Kyo? 

message: Why is the Asuka period (which preceded the Nara period) included in the box at the bottom, but mentioned nowhere in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Asuka period]]