Talk:Kofun period

message: I tidied up some superficial issues, wording, names, etc. I might revisit the article again over the next few days and consider further clean-up. I am new to editing Wiki articles so I am taking it slowly. The three intro paragraphs seem a touch long... Frostedfields (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up

message: I noticed that there has been no new information regarding the "keyhole" tombs since 2008. Also this article states that one implied reason they are closed is the IHA fears links to Korea would emerge, but the article that quote is sourced from also says this: 
But Walter Edwards, professor of Japanese studies at Tenri University in Nara, argues that the "Korean bones" issue is a red herring. "Blood links between Korea and the Japanese imperial family are documented from the eighth century," he said. "Even the current emperor [Akihito] has said that he has Korean ancestry." 
So if we are going to include one quote from the article should we not include both? What has happened since? Are the tombs still closed or are they opening up? I will try to find some info but I could use some help on that.
Also this page has some POV and Clean-up tags that need dealing with. I know there are Nationalist attitudes involved and it has been hard to reach consensus. But there is also a lot of good research out there that can be relied upon. If there are other reliable sources that disagree we can put that in too. In other-words it should not matter which "side" of any debate you are on, we can still cover the debate neutrally.
I hope to tackle some of these issues, but I ask anyone who feels strongly about this article to remember I am making all my edits in good faith for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to revisit this? 

message: 50.46.243.60, you removed a large amount of description, moved "Keyhole kofun" section and changed a context of the description from Korean tomb to Japanese tomb without explanation. There are two opposing views on the subject of this article, Japanese view and Korean view. Therefore if someone overwrite other view with their own view, the edit will be reverted and edit war continues. So please keep the following principles of editing this article.
*Do not remove or overwrite other view with an opposing view without consensus. Instead, add an opposing view with an attribution. i.e. ""A Korean scholar claims ..."
Also your addition to section "Relations between the Yamato court and the Korean kingdoms" is inappropriate to this article. It should be written in Japan–Korea disputes. Moreover the description "Japan's interpretation of the 4th century was incorrect" is not appropriate. Both agreed the name "Imna Japanese Headquarters" is incorrect. A Korean scholar proposed to call it "Anna Japanese minister office". However a Japanese scholar still claimed the Japanese independent activity in Anna was existed.
I reverted your edit. Please explain the rationale of your edit without reverting again. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor reverted a part of IP's edit. I further revert the problematic edit indicated above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The agreement was not the naming of the office, it was that Japan did not have a colony in Korea. It doesn't matter what another Japanese scholar claimed after the experts from both counties in a 3 year study concluded that there was no colony. That was the whole point, no colony, then the weird quotes from partial books who did not have official contact with Shilla in the 4th century and the impossibility of time travel by Japan, makes all the quotes incorrect. Will add back since all the quotes should technically go under Korea Japan disputed article as well, but only the Korea section gets put under disputed, and the Japanese POV keeps getting added back. By the way, most Universities in the US do not use this Japanese theory either. We state that it is disputed. Korea and Japan experts believe that there was no colony in Korea during the kofun period like Japan believes. We even state that we are not sure why Japan still use's quotes which have been proven to be incorrect in early Japanese history class's for kids and move on. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalist Japanese POV. You guys have to stop trying to insinuate that Japan some how ruled Korea during the Kofun period. This was concluded as false by western historians and recently concluded again as false by top expert historians from Japan after a 3 year study. I realize that some Nationalists might feel tough by stating we had hostages, when they seem to be family. The hostages From the Southern part of Korea going to Koguryeo did not take command of Korguryeos Navy when they went in to battle. They did not set up schools like these family member/hostages did in Japan. And stop taking quotes that make no sense trying to insinuate that Japan ruled something in Southern Korea. The kingdoms named in the quotes did not exist at the same time that the Japanese leader is supposed to have lived and the Kingdoms mentions are the previous Kingdoms to Shilla. That would make the Japanese time travelers or they lived for more than 300 years. No matter what that would be controversial and will be moved. Kanji edits by Japan of missing text books from Song/Sui cannot be used as being legitimate as well. We need the original ancient Chinese. Stop using Kanji translations of translations as direct quotes (who knows if the original Japanese translator correctly translated the text), becuase the translation can be wrong and make it controversial. Please stop making insinuations or misleading statements out of context to make the reader of the article believe something a 3 year study by a panel of experts from both Japan and Korea concluded was incorrect.--4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe the translation of ancient Chinese text or not. It is a barbarous act to remove the vast text with source. If you want to claim those interpretation has controversy, you need source of opposite POV and add them. Removal by POV is not recommanded.--118.110.171.75 (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove it, I moved it to the same area that others moved the opposite POV referenced with sources. I didn't claim the interpretation as controversy, the Joint history project in a 3 year study by experts from Japan and Korea stated there was no Japanese rule in Korea at this time. It is very misleading to take quotes out of context to insinuate something that has been proven to be incorrect by the top experts from both countries after a 3 year study. As long as we are not misleading with odd insinuations, or show both POV as fact instead of moving the opposite POV as controversial while leaving the Japanese POV as fact. This is really odd since the top experts historians in Japan are stating this is not a fact.--4.23.83.100 (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained removal of content by 50.46.243.60 

message: The text under "Controversy" needs to be rewritten. It is currently a huge rambling wall of text full of grammatical errors and highly POV. I started editing it, but then I found that the sources were also a mess: many of them do not say what the wikipedia paragraph implies: for example, the very first paragraph talks about results from 2008, following it up with a quote about how Japan refused to include the findings... and the source is from 2007. Furthermore, the title of the first source is "Japan office never existed in 4th century, but historian group can’t find much else to agree upon", which is a far cry from "Japan's interpretation of the 4th century is incorrect" (regardless of whether or not it is). The rest of the text has similar issues. I modified the first paragraph to reflect the sources, but someone with more background in the subject will have to comb through the rest. 79.116.154.233 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controversy section needs a heavy rewrite 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kofun period. 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 https://web.archive.org/20110226121349/http://www.mnsu.edu:80/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kofun 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/20091029194413/http://jp.encarta.msn.com/media_262538992_761577854_-1_1/content.html to http://jp.encarta.msn.com/media_262538992_761577854_-1_1/content.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5kwsLzC3W
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919042244/http://www.asiasocietymuseum.com/ to http://www.asiasocietymuseum.com/
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) 10:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Kofun 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/20041221184200/http://www.chinakyl.com/rbbook/big5/25/suishu/suis81.html to http://www.chinakyl.com/rbbook/big5/25/suishu/suis81.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512000405/http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_250_2001365.htm to http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_250_2001365.htm
*Added  tag to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2918261
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612074636/http://www.tenri-u.ac.jp/lifelng/dv457k0000007gvr.html to http://www.tenri-u.ac.jp/lifelng/dv457k0000007gvr.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jp.encarta.msn.com/media_262538992_761577854_-1_1/content.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226023335/http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/035th_issue/98032502.htm to http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/035th_issue/98032502.htm
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) 22:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Deletes the source of incorrect information.
The Japanese side has released the full text of the Japan-Korea Joint Study Group on the Kofun Period. In this document and the Japanese press report, the Japanese side only said that "Since the name Mimana Nihon-fu was not used at that time, it is better not to use the term." and insisted that "At that time, there was an independent Japanese people in the southern part of Korea that did not obey Korea.". In response, the ROK side insisted that "Japanese in the southern part of Korea were submissive to Korea" and Japan and the ROK failed to reach an agreement on the most important part. The only thing they agreed on was not to use the term "Mimana Nihon-fu". In the first place, this joint research was purely research, not a meeting to decide what to put in the textbook. The South Korean report that "Japanese historians admit mistakes in their claims" "The Japanese Government Refuses to Publish Research Results in Textbooks" is a misleading one. Therefore, the description is deleted. I'll give you the source.
--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from p.480 of the Japan-Korea Joint Historical Research, Japanese and Korean historians have not reached an agreement on the Japanese people of the southern part of Korea at that time. The only thing that has been agreed is that there was no country named "Mimana Nihon-fu" (任那日本府). If you really want to write about the controversy, you should write from the source of this joint study that Japanese and South Korean historians agree that there was no nation named "Mimana Nihon-fu" but they are divided on the position of the Japanese (安羅倭臣) who were in southern Korea at the time. Even if you write about how Korea influenced Japan's culture with biased sources, you cannot get close to the essence of the controversy. If you write it, you should write the result of the actual discussion between Japanese and Korean scholars.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have improved the inaccurate citations of sources and the synthesis of citations in previous editions, and described only objective facts.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletes the source of incorrect information.

message: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448447/
User Kolossoni posted the following paragraph under genetics:
"These indigenous people had their own unique lifestyle and culture within Japan for thousands of years. The analyses found that the Jomon maintained a small effective population size of around 1,000 over several millennia, the Jōmon lineage split from modern East Asians between 15,000BC and 20,000BC, but after the divergence of Ancestral Native Americans about ~25,000BC, and became largely isolated from outside populations, but received geneflow from a population related to the Upper-Paleolithic Yana RHS sample from Northern Siberia, a deeply European-related population, also known as Ancient North Eurasians, and widespread in North Eurasia before the Last Glacial Maximum along a North to South cline. Niall Cooke, one of the researchers explained that these results strongly suggest a prolonged period of isolation from the rest of the continent until the introduction of new immigrants associated with wet-rice farming during the Yayoi period of Japanese history. The second cluster was a population of Northeast Asian origins, associated with the Yayoi period migration. This group is thought to have marked the arrival of paddy field rice cultivation which led to an agricultural revolution in the archipelago until the following period."
Consensus needed: Should this information should be removed and relocated to Jōmon people or Jomon Period, or kept in this article. some of this information is already included in Jōmon people article.
Reason for removal and relocation: This article is about the Kofun period. Undue weight given to information about Jomon people. The information above about the Jomon people is available in Jomon Period and Jōmon people. 
"The first was Japan's indigenous culture of hunter-gatherers called the Jomon. These indigenous people had their own unique lifestyle and culture within Japan for thousands of years." should be sufficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight on information related to Jomon People from the Jomon Period - Looking for Consensus on whether to keep or delete and relocate information.