Talk:Baekje/Archive 1

message: I renamed from Baekje to Paekche, since Google suggest Paekche is more common. Let me know if there is a reason to favor Baekje instead. -- Taku 02:00, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for a pointer. So do you think Baekje is correct than Paekche? -- Taku 02:09, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: 백제 is spelled Baekje in the new South Korean romanization (Revised Romanization of Korea) and Paekche in the McCune-Reischauer romanization. I think we reached consensus on using the former except on North Korea-related articles. --Nanshu 02:17, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanization

message: I learned Shandong belonged to Baekje for a while. Is it true, or a Korean Nationalist's argument? I wanted know Chinese people's view. Ryuch 06:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never read anything to suggest that this was in dispute.  However, I'm not very hip to Chinese history, and am ready to be corrected.  I note that Jonathan W. Best, among the foremost Anglophone scholars of Baekje, avoids making an assertion one way or the other in his writings. -- Visviva 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: According to my professor, all claims of "Korean" realms stretching westward into what is now China actually boil down to trade relations or are speculative at best. – Wikipeditor 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have only heard third-hand accounts of such claims. The similarity of artefacts found on both sides of the sea alledgedly caused some nationalists to leap to conclusions. – Wikipeditor 21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shandong

message: What is appropriate for this section?  I notice that the info about Baekje's contemporary symbolic significance in the local symbolism of Chungnam and Jeolla has been moved, as has the material on the contemporary symbolism of Japanese-Baekje relations.  To me that content should be included in an encyclopedic treatment of Baekje, but should properly be restricted to the Legacy section.  --Visviva 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: :The boundaries of Baekje control shifted substantially through the centuries.  According to Chinese chronicles, Baekje rule during the time of King Geunchogo extended to the Shandong peninsula in present-day China, but it's not clear.  At this time Baekje controlled almost the entire coastline of the West Sea (or Yellow Sea).  However, the area under Baekje control soon contracted under pressure from Goguryeo and Silla.
This demonstrates how Koreans treat history. They have an a priori conclusion. And they pick materials that are favorable for them. If they fail to find sufficient "evidences", they do not hesitate in interpretative distortion. They ignore things that conflict with their argument and they do not care about overall consistency.
This is the case! If you examine historical sources by yourself, you will certainly be surprised at the unsubstantiality of the Korean argument.--User:Nanshu actually the signature inserted by User:Mikhailkoh 12:06, March 28, 2006 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER NOTICE
That is obviously a very inflammatory and biased argument. I don't know why you're so derogative towards Korean culture and history in general, but it seems to be that you are being pretty vague about your sources.
The "chinese chronichles" seems a little vague for citation, doesn't it?
Can i ask you if you're an expert on the subject of ancient Korean history?
Each side has an argument. The important thing is to not go patronizing.
-Sgt. Mikhailkoh 12:10, March 28, 2006 (UTC)
===Liaoxi===
This article does not mention to an argument about Liaoxi, but I explain this in passing.
Quote from 宋書 列傳 夷蠻 東夷 百濟:
:百濟國，本與高驪俱在遼東之東千餘里，其後高驪略有遼東，百濟略有遼西．百濟所治，謂之晉平郡晉平縣．
Quote from 梁書 列傳 諸夷 東夷 百濟:
:其國本與句驪在遼東之東，晉世句驪既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣，自置百濟郡．
Quote from 南史 列傳 夷貊 東夷 百濟:
:其國本與句麗俱在遼東之東千餘里，晉世句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣， 自置百濟郡．
Quote from 通典 邊防 東夷 百濟:
:晉時句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡．今柳城、北平之間． 
These are virtually all about what "Chinese chronicles" say. Curiously Liang Zhigongtu, which is considered the source of the above-mentioned passage of Liangshu, says, "Lelang [NB: not Baekje] was at Jinbing prefecture of Liaoxi too." Maybe they are sufficient ground for those who have something decided from the beginning, but certainly not for sensible people. We need corroborative evidences but there is no such thing.
On the contrary, there are some grounds against this theory. The above-mentioned sources are of Southern Dynasties, which did not control Northern China, and so were unable to contact Liaoxi. If Baekje had controlled Liaoxi, it should have been recorded in Northern Dynasty records. But the Xianbei Murong clan, who actually ruled the land west of the Liao river, left no such description. So the majority of historians do not support this theory.
It may be worth nothing that some scholars search through possible explanations about the historical error. One claims that Baekje deceived Southern Dynasties, who were ignorant about the north, to seek support from them. Based on Liang Zhiqongtu, one argues that Baekje was confused with Lelang. Actually the Murong clan nominally maintained Lelang commandery in its domain after it disappeared from the Korean Peninsula around 313. One thinks that Baekje was confused with the Fuyu because Baekje's royal family was surnamed Fuyu and had some other Fuyu connections. Anyway, none of them has good grounds.--Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 牟大又表曰：「臣所遣行建威將軍、廣陽太守、兼長史臣高達，行建威將軍、朝鮮太守、兼司馬臣楊茂，行宣威將軍、兼參軍臣會邁等三人，志行清亮，忠款夙著．往泰始中，比使宋朝，今任臣使，冒涉波險，尋其至險，宜在進爵，謹依先例，各假行職．且玄澤靈休，萬里所企，況親趾天庭，乃不蒙賴．伏願天監特愍除正．達邊?夙著，勤勞公務，今假行龍驤將軍、帶方太守．茂志行清壹，公務不廢，今假行建威將軍、廣陵太守．邁執志周密，屢致勤?，今假行廣武將軍、清河太守．」 
This is the request of 490 from the king of Baekje to Emperor Wu of the Southern Qi. The king asked the emperor to bestow titles on his vassals. The request and the result are summarized as follows:
officials with requested titles	given titles
行建威將軍・廣陽太守 長史 高達               	行龍驤將軍・帶方太守
行建威將軍・朝鮮太守 司馬 楊茂               	行建威將軍・広陵太守
行宣威將軍・參軍 會邁                    	行廣武將軍・清河太守
Let's examine the above-mentioned place names first. Guangyang had been a commandery located at modern-day Daxing Country, Hebei. Taifang had been a commandery located in midwestern Korea. There were and had been no such thing as governor of Choaxian as Chaoxian had been a prefecture of Lelang commandery. Guangling was Jiangdu, Jiangsu, or Wenan, Hebei. Qinghe was a commandery located around Wanbing, Hebei.
So we get into the main question. Weren't these titles nominal? Certainly yes. They were given by a Southern Dynasty (again!). It couldn't rule or influence the area in question.
You are hopeless idiots if you believe Chinese were all substantial. For example, the Kingdom of Bohai was named after Bohai commandery because Bohai kings were given the title of the ruler of Bohai commandery by Tang Emperors. But where had Bohai commandery been? It had been located in Hebei, which the kingdom never dominated. Another example is King Bu of Wa. In 478 he was given by the Liang the following title 都督 倭 新羅 任那 加羅 秦韓 慕韓六國諸軍事 安東大將軍 Do supporters of the coastal area theory accept Japan's control over these regions on the same basis? --Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. Chinese dyansties were quite accustomed to granting Korean monarchs ceremonial titles to reward them for their loyalty/convince them to continue to be loyal. These titles, though "real" and also held by Chinese, were completely symbolic and ceremonial as far as the Korean monarchs. The examples from Goguryeo and Silla as well are too numerous to cite but they included naming them "Commander-in-chief" of elite guard units charged with protecting the imperial capital, "Supreme Pillar of State" etc. Tellingly, the Korean monarchs were at the same time usually "granted" the title of King of Goguryeo, King of Silla, etc. by the Chinese emperor at the beginning of their reign. Would this indicate that China controlled Korea and that the Korean king was a mere puppet? Not at all. It was a symbiotic relationship that I don't think we should attempt to judge merely from modern Western standards of colonizer/colonized. More substantial evidence is required than the possession of titles. Straitgate 17:33, March 28, 2006 (UTC)
===Shandong===
The Korean theory that Baekje ruled Shandong is based on the title (yet again!) 都督東青州諸軍事・東青州刺史, which was given to the king of Baekje by the Northern Qi in 571. In this case, the title giver was not a Southern Dynasty but actually controlled Shandong. But where was 東青州 in the first place? In 468 the Song Dynasty separated Dongqingzhou from Qingzhou (modern-day Shandong), but we cannot confirm that the Northern Qi had a political entity named Dongqingzhou. So it is also plausible that it was Baekje itself that was referred to as Dongqingzhou because Baekje was located to the east of Shandong! So the supporter of that theory have to prove not only the substantiality of this title but also the existence of the political entity, but they don't. --Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Is Nanshu even Japanese? His user page suggests that he might be a Mongol or a Manchu. Ebizur 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oversea territories?

message: This article does not mention to an argument about Liaoxi, but I explain this in passing.
Quote from 宋書 列傳 夷蠻 東夷 百濟:
:百濟國，本與高驪俱在遼東之東千餘里，其後高驪略有遼東，百濟略有遼西．百濟所治，謂之晉平郡晉平縣．
Quote from 梁書 列傳 諸夷 東夷 百濟:
:其國本與句驪在遼東之東，晉世句驪既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣，自置百濟郡．
Quote from 南史 列傳 夷貊 東夷 百濟:
:其國本與句麗俱在遼東之東千餘里，晉世句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣， 自置百濟郡．
Quote from 通典 邊防 東夷 百濟:
:晉時句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡．今柳城、北平之間． 
These are virtually all about what "Chinese chronicles" say. Curiously Liang Zhigongtu, which is considered the source of the above-mentioned passage of Liangshu, says, "Lelang [NB: not Baekje] was at Jinbing prefecture of Liaoxi too." Maybe they are sufficient ground for those who have something decided from the beginning, but certainly not for sensible people. We need corroborative evidences but there is no such thing.
On the contrary, there are some grounds against this theory. The above-mentioned sources are of Southern Dynasties, which did not control Northern China, and so were unable to contact Liaoxi. If Baekje had controlled Liaoxi, it should have been recorded in Northern Dynasty records. But the Xianbei Murong clan, who actually ruled the land west of the Liao river, left no such description. So the majority of historians do not support this theory.
It may be worth nothing that some scholars search through possible explanations about the historical error. One claims that Baekje deceived Southern Dynasties, who were ignorant about the north, to seek support from them. Based on Liang Zhiqongtu, one argues that Baekje was confused with Lelang. Actually the Murong clan nominally maintained Lelang commandery in its domain after it disappeared from the Korean Peninsula around 313. One thinks that Baekje was confused with the Fuyu because Baekje's royal family was surnamed Fuyu and had some other Fuyu connections. Anyway, none of them has good grounds.--Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liaoxi

message: The Korean theory that Baekje ruled Shandong is based on the title (yet again!) 都督東青州諸軍事・東青州刺史, which was given to the king of Baekje by the Northern Qi in 571. In this case, the title giver was not a Southern Dynasty but actually controlled Shandong. But where was 東青州 in the first place? In 468 the Song Dynasty separated Dongqingzhou from Qingzhou (modern-day Shandong), but we cannot confirm that the Northern Qi had a political entity named Dongqingzhou. So it is also plausible that it was Baekje itself that was referred to as Dongqingzhou because Baekje was located to the east of Shandong! So the supporter of that theory have to prove not only the substantiality of this title but also the existence of the political entity, but they don't. --Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Nanshu even Japanese? His user page suggests that he might be a Mongol or a Manchu. Ebizur 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shandong

message: :However, the close bonds between the two nations are not in dispute. The current emperor, Akihito, has acknowledged that he is descended from Emperor Kammu, whose mother was a direct descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje.
Actually, we cannot substantiate "the close bonds between the two nations" with Takano no Niigasa. Koreans' incredible ignorance caused a fuss about His Majesty's statement.
I burst out laughing when I read George Wehrfritz and Hideko Takayama's article at Newsweek that started with:
:She was a daughter of Korea's Paekche kingdom, a foreign princess betrothed in a political marriage to a Japanese prince. ...
Terribly enough, it looks like this is their average perception. They didn't even know that Baekje was overthrown about 70 years before she became a concubine of Prince Shirakabe.
To make things straight, I have to talk about Takano no Niigasa. In short, she was a Cinderella, who achieved success by good fortune, not with "noble origin". She became a concubine of Prince Shirakabe around 730s and gave birth to Prince Yamabe (Emperor Kammu) in 737. At that time his husband Prince Shirakabe had almost no chance to assume the throne because he was a grandson of Emperor Tenji and was deprived of hegemony by Emperor Temmu's descendants. As of 737 he only had the rank of 従四位下. What was worse for her was that he got married with Princess Inoe, the daughter of Emperor Shomu, around 747. When Empress Shotoku died in 769, Prince Shirakabe was installed as Emperor Konin by the northern branch of the Fujiwara clan. But it was, of course, Prince Inoe who became Empress, and her son Prince Osabe became Crown Prince. At that time Takano no Niigata's son was almost impossible to succeed the throne. But it brought her luck again. Empress Inoe and Crown Prince Osabe was entrapped into deposition by another Fujiwara branch in 772. Then Prince Yamabe became Crown Prince in the next year, but his mother wasn't given the title of empress because of her humble origin. It was after Prince Yamabe's succession (as Emperor Kammu) that she was given imperial titles.
Now we learn that she was far from a "princess" at marriage. Next, let's examine her clan. She was from the Yamato clan (the surname Takano was given during Emperor Konin's reign). According to Shoku Nihongi, her clan originated in Prince Junda, the son of King Muryeong. The Meiji-era genealogist Suzuki Matoshi 鈴木真年 offered the following genealogy of the Yamato clan.
#武寧王
#斯我君 (武烈7年遣倭国, 純陀?)
#法師君
#雄蘇利紀君
#宇奈羅 (賜姓和氏)
#粟勝
#浄足
#武助
#弟嗣 (乙継)
#新笠姫 (賜姓高野朝臣, 母大枝朝臣真妹)
Its accuracy is questionable, but that doesn't really matter here. You need only be aware of the wide gap in time between King Muryeong and Takano no Niigasa. According to Nihonshoki, Prince Junda died (in Japan) in 513. It was more than 200 years before Takano no Niigasa was born, and she was the ninth generation resident of Japan. How can you demonstrate "the close bonds between the two nations" with her?
Lastly, we discuss the Emperor's statement. The Emperor did not "acknowledge" but just referred to Shoku Nihongi. Koreans treat it as if it had been hidden. The fact is that Koreans are hopelessly ignorant. Everyone can access to Shoku Nihongi and almost everyone who has basic knowledge on Japanese history knows that.
Curiously, the Emperor has made similar "kinship" references. When referring to Okinawa, the Emperor mentioned that the Emperor's grandmother was from the Shimazu clan, who had controlled Okinawa.  The imperial family has a history long enough for its members to feel kinship with the people whenever necessary. --Nanshu 14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Takano no Niigasa

message: Paekche: Means " Kingdom of 100 followers". The Japanese word Kudara means same as Korean meaning. --Teacherjjlee 11:01, February 22, 2007 (UTC)
I always thought that the term was very friendly.  Baek means 100 and Che means Economics, so I thought that it was all about a person who got a 100 in economics, or in other words, someone who didn't dominate the conversation.  Getting a 100 in economics is like being Jimbo Wales or Bill Gates or Conan O'Brien and finding oneself in the center of a very big burgeoning development, as its manager or guiding light, as it just keeps getting better and better.  
Baekche has always been my favorite of the 3 big dynasties.  Silla always seemed so arbitrary and good, like The Late Show on CBS or Spy Magazine, and Choson is a very nice name, like good produce or good restaurant food, but getting a 100 in economics is what appeals to me most of the three.  These values are the strength and content of these big geo entities. Cymaerg, Deutscheland and Xhosa are big names that capture the best of a huge group of people.  As I really know the Hanja values involved here I believe the article should be written for those who don't.  Its more of a wiki that way.hanzomon5--64.12.116.196 12:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What Does Paekche or Baekche Mean?

message: This article lack ethnic issue.
Wher is Fuyu?
--210.230.7.103 06:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it feel better now? – Wikipeditor 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fuyu]]

message: Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon 08:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The English is still odd in places; when I get a chance I'll copy-edit it (unless someone gets there first). --Mel Etitis  ((Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Remove Article from "Need Copy-Editing" category 

message: When copy-editing an article, two things are important: first, improving it, and secondly, not making it worse.  I'm afraid that Mr Tan/PM Poon fails in both respects. --Mel Etitis  ((Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing 

message: The entire section on "Baekje's presence on the continent" appears to be in glaring violation of Wikipedia:No original research, which is a core principle of Wikipedia.  If this section is to remain in the article, it needs to be backed up with reputable secondary or tertiary sources.  Those secondary sources could in turn be supported with excerpts from the primary source(s), but as things stand this section has no acceptable references at all.  I would provide citations of my own, but have yet to find a single reputable source that takes these claims seriously.  -- Visviva 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not original research. There are some books about this history. I will show them.--Hairwizard91 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and avoid misrepresenting the polemical and speculative nature of these fringe texts.  Baekje wangjo sillok?  That's either the worst choice of title ever, or a book that was never meant to be taken seriously as history.  -- Visviva 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I could not understand exactly what  you are going to say. Do you mean the books I have mentioned do not deal with history seriously?? I dont think so. Wangjo silok is just title of the book. The last two books that I have menetioned are for common people, and the first one is for expertise. But, they all explain the Baekje in Liaoing and Liaodong. The first book that I mention is written more scientifically, I think... If you want the last two reference among the three can be removed.--Hairwizard91 12:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I am guilty of "judging a book by its cover" in this case, since I don't have the actual books at hand (I will try to find copies of them shortly).  I would assume that a book titled Baekje Wangjo Sillok would resemble the better-known work titled Goryeo Wangjo Sillok -- that is, a speculative reconstruction of history rather than a serious work of scholarship.  Also, I find that in both Korea and the West, sober works of scholarship are almost never titled with strong declarative sentences.  I would never cite The Big Bang Never Happened as a source on astrophysics, I would never cite 태백산맥 as a source on Korean geography, and I very much doubt whether a book titled 고구려 신라 백제가 중국 대륙을 지배했다 should be cited here.  -- Visviva 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I should removed the last two references based on Visviva comments.--Hairwizard91 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The cited reference is changed. One of them is a book, another is peer reviewed journal article, and the last is thesis of Seoul National University.--Hairwizard91 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 'Baekje's presence on the continent' needs to be contextualized just a little bit more so that the general public are not confused. As Visviva deftly shows in the above exchange, the idea that Baekje had a presence in the places mentioned above is a fringe argument that is far removed from mainstream academia in Korea, Japan, China, and elsewhere. There are few adherents to this argument. I propose that this argument is being advanced as a personal crusade based on a twisted sense of primieval nationalism or tribalism. The editor who constructed the subsection is well-meaning, but the section needs a little more work. The very first sentence of the section on Overseas Baekje sets a good tone (e.g. word such as 'controversial'), and I encourage other editors to continue and try and massage our Hairwizard91's contribution along those lines in a collegial manner. Wikipedia is a post-modern construct and as such can accomodate many viewpoints as long as the less mainstream ones are properly contextualized. 백제사 군들 파이팅!! Mumun 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a little more tweaking

message: The founding and origin of Baekje is not consistent.
*In the introduction, it is explained that " It began as a chiefdom in the Mahan confederacy during the Samhan period."
*However, in the section of founding it is explained that "Baekje was founded in 18 BC by King Onjo, who led a group of people from Goguryeo to the Han River region of Korea, near present-day Seoul."
As everybody knows, Mahan is conquered by King Jun from the Gija Joseon when he fled again Wiman at 195BCE. But, the founding years of Baekje is 18BCE. The central area of Mahan is Jeolla, and the first capital city of Baekje is current Seoul by the son of Jumong even someone insists that the first capital city of Baekje started from Liaodong. 
Thus, the sentence about the origina of Baekje from Mahan should be removed based on the true Korean history. --Hairwizard91 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned there are two contradicted theories definately. -Cheol 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self contradicted document of Baekje's founding

message: According to Jonathan W. Best ("Tales of Three Paekche Monks who Traveled Afar in Search of the Law," Harvard J. of Asiatic Studies 51(1): 13-9197;  1991), Chinese records indicate that "the royal stae of Paeckshe" likely "did not come into existence until the fourth centry" (p. 139).  Considering Best's standing, I think this should be mentioned (I couldn't find it reading the text as it now is).  Best, would be some-one with access to A history of the early Korean kingdom of Paekche together with an annotated translation of the Paekche annals of the Samguk sagi /Jonathan W. Best., Cambridge, Mass. :Harvard University Asia Center :Distributed by Harvard University Press,2006. Best, Jonathan W. seeing what he now has to say. Kdammers 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, could you provide the actual words within the literature that might "indicate"? This could be WP:OR. (Wikimachine 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/Founding 

message: Kujiki is a false document in popular lore. See Kujiki.Neomoon 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kujiki 

message: I suggest to separate Relations to Japan section into another article such as 'Baekje and ancient Japan'. It has enough interested editors to pay attentions and the section is little longer than other section in this article. Cheol 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate 'Relations to Japan' section