Talk:Korean arguments on Yamato period

I believe that this should be merged into Yamato period, with its POV aspects removed. In general, Wikipedia does not welcome articles of the form "X views of Y," because these are essentially POV forks. There is a lot of useful information here, but it needs to be separated from the bile-spewing POV. I don't have the patience to perform the operation right now -- any takers? -- Visviva 10:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

support. collection of arguments, not encyclopedia article. Appleby 17:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Or it could be moved to Korean nationalism or Historical revisionism (Korea). Hermeneus (user/talk) 19:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

much of the previous version seems copy/pasted from http://www.jref.com/culture/yamato_period_era.shtml, or is that a mirror of wikipedia?? Appleby 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not even sure the title of the page is correct, at least regarding revision 40287082, as it reads less as specifically "Korean" views and more as the supporting and opposing argments given by people from both Korea and Japan. I agree with Visviva that there looks to be good content here if it can be reworked to have less obvious bias. I'll give it some thought today. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Almost entire information in this article is duplicate from "origin of Korean and Japanese" or "Yayoi" article. It just weasle attempt by Korean partisan to revive "Korean senior race to Japanese" argument. "English" Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform to this kind of identity politics. FWBOarticle

Please note, the history shows that this page was first created on 24 November 2004 by User:Ryuch, while the Origin of Korean and Japanese page was first created on 17 February 2006 by User:FWBOarticle. So it is impossible for this page to have been based on FWBOarticle's page, unless Ryuch is clairvoyant. Furthermore, at least as of the current revision 40287082, the content reads much less as a weasle attempt by Korean partisan to revive "Korean senior race to Japanese" argument [sic], and much more as an NPOV description of the two viewpoints.

FWBOarticle, please check your source material to avoid making baseless accusations. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hi all: I added more information. Everything I added was cited but you might need a google acount to access some of the links. Would be happy to share invites if you need them. Also, I find the title heavily tilted towards a certain point of view if you know what I mean. Whoever is suggesting that there are only Koreans arguing connections between Korea and Yamato can't be serious. All my cites are in English and written by people with English sounding names. Anyways I also think we should merge otherwise I think it is more information supression than any thing else. Tortfeasor 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is one side of the argument for a controversial subject. It sets a dangerous precedent for other controversial articles to be split off into seperate articles on just each side of the argument. Merge it. --Hong Qi Gong 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, o.k. but "Korean arguments" on Yamato period is by defintion POV forks of Yamato related topic and. So this article violate NPOV and have to go. FWBOarticle

Support. [oops, just realized i voted twice] there really needs to be more coordination if not consolidation among this and Origin of Korean and Japanese and Korean-Japanese disputes and other articles i don't even know about. seriously, how many readers will actually 1. find these articles and 2. learn something new, or are these mostly serving as obscure blogs? Appleby 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Origin of Korean and Japanese should probably be merged into the Yamato people article, because that's mostly what it's about. Actually I think Korean-Japanese disputes should be merged into Japanese-Korean relations, too. It's redundant. --Hong Qi Gong 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make a point, it's not KOREAN arguments on Yamato. The title is at least a misnomer and at most a deliberate obfuscation of the general consensus of scholarship in this time period. Arguments by various authors, as I have cited, include Japanese, Koreans, and westeners. Is there some kind of cite or reason as to why this is still incorrectly characterized "Korean" arguments only when reasearch says otherwise? Tortfeasor 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter whether or not it's the "Korean" arguments on Yamato? And does it really matter whether or not it's the general concensus? It still should be merged with either Yamato period or Yamato people. --Hong Qi Gong 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I definitely agree with you Hong. I just think that there might be people who will not want this merged because they will make a claim that it is not NPOV because it is quote Korean arguments on Yamato period unquote. i was really more replying to FWBOarticle. Tortfeasor 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles[edit]

Use of the title "Tennou" (Emperor) started after Japan imported Chinese convention in line of (Koutei) (Japanese pronounciation of Chinese word Emperor). So describing the head of state of Yamato as "King" is not a mistake. FWBOarticle

Hello FWBOarticle -- My change of Tortfeasor's edit to "King" was based on the actual page names for Emperor Ojin and Emperor Kimmei. If you'd like to take issue with those titles, feel free to do so on those respective Talk pages. If your goal here is simply to be as accurate as possible, that's fine too. If you (or anyone else) decide to change the links here on the Korean arguments on Yamato period page, please use the piped link style. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]