Talk:Asuka period

message: Kamosuke -- As stated over at Talk:Kofun era#Mass blanking not appropriate, I reiterate here: Please do not unilaterally remove chunks of content from a page, unless that chunk is obvious vandalism.  I just reverted your recent blanking of a substantial portion of this page.  Please do not do this again without first getting concensus here on the Talk page.  You have already been asked not to do this on 18 April over at Talk:Yamato period#Recent mass deletions.  Continued blanking will be viewed as vandalism.  Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful example how sometimes happens here in Wikipedia :) see Astronomer and Amateur. This reminds me what could happen when someone keeps an opinionated opinion (about whatever, be it possibly about interaction between Koreans and Japanese over a millennium ago) Shilkanni 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass blanking not appropriate 

message: The " cradle" of Japanese civilization came from Korea. If Korea didn't exist. Japan would not exist either. Even though some lower rank Japanese deny the historical reality but they need to accept the historical reality. China really in my honest opinion never transmitted " Continent Culture" to Japanese Island. It was Koreans. Korean genes, Korean swords, Korean tomb, Korean agriculture, Korean King ( Current Emperor of Japan is Korean descent), Korean Temples in Nara, Asuka Culture etc. Korean blood runs deep in Japan. Thats true history. Because Japanese write Chinese character it doesn't mean that China transmitted those culture to Japan. It was Koreans. Just accept the reality.
[1]
Korean missionaries actively developed the Buddhist tradition in Japan for 150 years after its introduction. Baekje monks trained and proseletyized Japanese converts and provided the distinctive Baekje version of the Norther Wei style Buddhist art. Monks from the Three Kingdoms of Korea were welcome guests in Japan, and some were called to tutor the crown princes of royal families. Japanese converts also began to travel to Baekje and China for further Buddhist studies.
Korean missionaries actively developed the Buddhist tradition in Japan for 150 years after its introduction.  
：What is the reason why missionary's name is not being written?　Simply, It is because there is no record of the active South Korean missionary. The meaning of 150 years is also indefinite. 
Baekje monks trained and proseletyized Japanese converts and provided the distinctive Baekje version of the Norther Wei style Buddhist art.
：ChineseKuratsukuri Tori spread Northern Wei style.Baekje is not related at all. 
Monks from the Three Kingdoms of Korea were welcome guests in Japan, and some were called to tutor the crown princes of royal families.
：There is no name of a missionary. That is, they were not important persons.
Japanese converts also began to travel to Baekje and China for further Buddhist studies.
：There is no record. Can the source be submitted?
: Read the cited sources, available in forms of google books and such. Deiaemeth 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koreans' hypothesis and its mistake　

message: I found the later half of this chapter dealing with imperial embassies(Kenzuishi) a bit confusing, so let me have some modification as follows.
:--From Here--
:Numerous official missions of envoys, priests, and students were sent to China in the seventh century. Some remained twenty years or more; many of those who returned became prominent reformers. Sending such scholars for learning Chinese political systems was a significal differences with envoys in Kofun period (Five kings of Wa), which kings sent envoys for titles approving their domains.
:Another difference with Five kings of 5th century was the title Yamato state of Asuka period claimed to China. In a move greatly resented by the Chinese, Shotoku sought equality with the Chinese emperor by sending official correspondence addressed "From the Son of Heaven in the Land of the Rising Sun to the Son of Heaven of the Land of the Setting Sun." Some would argue that Shotoku's bold step set a precedent: Japan never again accepted a subordinate status in its relations with China. However, the historical record contains other relevant facts which dispute the claim (see Sinocentrism). As a result, Japan at this period was a state which received no title from Chinese dynaties while they did send tributes (有貢無封). It means from Chinese point of view that the class of Japan was demoted from previous centuries in which the kings received titles. On the other hand, Japan loosened political relationships with China and consequently established extraordinaly relationships similar to teacher-to-pupil.
:--To Here--
Mahal Aly 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenzuishi related paragraph on Soga/Shotoku chapter

message: This is getting ridiculous. I cannot believe we are having an edit war over such a thing. Well, I hope you don't mind me stepping in, but I am an Admin, and even if I weren't, I think it's time that someone makes another attempt to resolve this editwar.
(1) Just because a source isn't available to the general public, that does not mean that it is any less valid a source. In fact, since most academic journals are hard to come by, I would argue that some of the most valid sources are the hardest to come by.
(2) While GoogleBooks (or whichever other online services) may not have the full text of certain books, it does not mean that the actual physical book itself, in the public library or wherever, is not "accessible to the public."
I think you are being awfully harsh on someone who is citing his sources and doing all he can (and more than he should need to) to prove that the information he is posting comes from a reputable source. LordAmeth 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Sources 

message: Minor, but under Events it says 'Baekche' in the first line.  Should that be 'Baekje' like the rest?  I see that there are other uses of 'Baekche' in other articles.  Should there be a redirect for that spelling? Shenme 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baekche ? 

message: 弥生時代から飛鳥時代まで、ApplebyとKoreansがやりたい放題にやった後始末をしなければならないと思うんだけど、どこから手をつけていきましょうか？　いまのところIPユーザー --211.3.123.212 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: とりあえず朝鮮伝道師はどう考えても歴史書の記載でないんでデリの方向で。--Forestfarmer 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 日本人ユーザーいますか？

message: by history of Japan,Introduction of Buddhism is less popular than any other event in history.I think It more eventful by history of art.Thus I move Introduction of Buddhism.--Forestfarmer 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the move.  The introduction of Buddhism is one of the most pivotal events of Japanese history.  Tortfeasor 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moving announce

message: about opening of in Introduction of Buddhism section,where is source ? Iwould delete if there is no source.--Forestfarmer 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: where is source?

message: Please please please, if you are going to change "Korea" to "Korean peninsula", you must put "the Korean peninsula." This has been going on for a very long time, back and forth between the two terms, and inevitably the article (the) is lost. Personally, I prefer "Korea" to "Korean peninsula" anyway, but we really need to try to keep the article grammatically correct and stylistically organized while we argue over such petty things. Please. LordAmeth 15:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea vs Korean peninsula 

message: "Tori" (止利) was a be (部) name, akin to a guild, in the Nara & Heian periods, of sculptors devoted to the creation of Buddhist sculptures. I couldn't find anything on the Japanese Wikipedia, but JAANUS, as usual, was quite helpful. Also, see our own article on Tori Busshi. Please, do with this what you will, in order to cleanup that section of the article and to resolve (hopefully) to some extent the questions of the origins of that statement - "Artistically, the term Tori style is often used to describe arts of the Asuka period..." LordAmeth 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tori style 

message: I believe quite a number of the last edits have been changing "the Korean peninsula" to 'Korea' and back again, and again, etc.  Could someone give me an idea which motives are which edits?  Out of the last 24 edits by 12 editors, only one wasn't about this, so there seems to be a real problem here.  Is this a case of viewing ancient history through the glasses of only modern controversies?  Shenme 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a ridiculous controversy that erupts every now and then, because Korea was technically several separate kingdoms at the time, and not a unified polity. However, although the use of "Korea" is technically an anachronism, it is quite common to use modern terms to refer to ancient territories out of convenience. The history of Japan, for example, doesn't become the history of something else just because you are discussing a time before the term "Japan" (or more properly, the Japanese term from which the English word "Japan" is derived) was coined, or before it consisted of exactly the same geographic territory it does today (which wasn't until the nineteenth century). People really need to find something better to do with their time. Referring to "Korea", "Japan", "China", etc. throughout all periods of history is quite acceptable...-Jefu 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea vs Korean peninsula (2) 

message: I think that this article includes many kanji (Chinese character) than Edo period. 
* Necessity?
* What kind of standard is it made if it reduces?
Please give your comments. Nightshadow28 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many kanji 

message: From the art point of view, this period is generally further divided into two periods, the Asuka culture period (upto 645 or 646 Taika Reform) and Hakuho culture period. The tori style is of course one of the important elements of the Asuka culture period, but it is relative only to sculpture.
The lead-in at top and Art sections will be modified to elaborate on these two cultural periods, with citations found in due course.
To kick-start, here are some references to support the two cultural period divisions:  
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0534640958&id=ZQu1kqNjLuwC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&ots=DgckPDOAov&dq=Japan+Art+Hakuho+Asuka+culture&sig=_eWDMrvuviXbKNCLAdGvfc-9Kqg
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1740591623&id=3fqYGB4mxLgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&ots=ZwNxr5YaIU&dq=Japan+Art+Hakuho+Asuka+culture&sig=7aw0qHCnkxU6YmfvFyOcUPH6TJo
--OhMyDeer 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art in Asuka Period 

message: I will start clean up some of the body text too, starting from the lead intro; it appears to be redundant by mentioning twice the duration of the period, and the location. --OhMyDeer 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further cleaning up will be done, first starting from citing intact text, sentences or paragraphes, or portions of them, from the FRD original so as to dinstinguish them from the rest, either already added text, or future additions. --OhMyDeer 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup process 

message: SHINSEN-SHOJIROKU ( NOBLE FAMILY IMMIGRANT): KOREAN NOBLES FAMILY (154) KORGURYO KINGDOM ( JAPANESE KOMA), BEAKJE KINGDOM ( JAPANESE KUDARA), SHILLA KINGDOM ( JAPANESE SHIRA),
KAYA KINGDOM ( JAPANESE MINAMA). CHINA NOBLE FAMILY IS 64. MAJORITY OF NOBLE FAMILY IN JAPAN WERE KOREANS NOT CHINESE. GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT PLEASE!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Perhaps you are used to typing with an IME, but please refrain from typing in all capitals in English. 2) Your edit regarding the count in Shinsen Shōjiroku was reverted. There are 163 families listed as being from China, not 64. If you include Silla, Baekje, Goguryeo, and Gaya in the total for Korea, then they both come to 163. Thus equal and no majority. Feel free to check the data yourself here. Bendono (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The online text of Shinsen Shojiroku reads that 335 out of 1182 clans are imperial, 404 divine (both are from Japan), 163 are Aya (漢) from China via southern Korea, 104 are from Baekche, 41 clans are from Koguryeo, 9 from Silla, another 9 from Nimana (the southern region of Korea), and 117 with unknown origins. Thus the clans with obvious Korean origin amount to 9, with Silla being the direct ancestors of the Korean people, and Baekche and Koguryeo not being Korean. Perhaps some clans from Nimana (or Kaya in Korean) and Aya may be Korean. --222.13.83.74 (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shinsen Shōjiroku

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Asuka period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919070814/http://www.japanology.cn:80/paper/ch/14gao_mingshi.html to http://www.japanology.cn/paper/ch/14gao_mingshi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111084211/http://applepig.idv.tw:80/kuon/furu/text/syokki/syokki01.htm to http://applepig.idv.tw/kuon/furu/text/syokki/syokki01.htm#skk01_06
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Asuka period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206230116/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/asuka/asuka-period.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/asuka/asuka-period.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I found a source (p. 157) for the speculation that Tennō may have come from Tenkō Taitei. However, it seems more dubious that Tenkō Taitei is the "supreme God of Taoism." I thought about removing the sentence, since the connection of Tennō to Taoism is so tenuous (and it's had the citation needed template for over a decade!), but I decided to put it out here first, to see if any other editors have any insights on the meaning of Tenkō Taitei. Fyndegil (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to remove the sentence now, because there's been no evidence presented yet that Tenkō Taitei is related to Taoism. Fyndegil (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennō from Tenkō Taitei?