Talk:Gwanggaeto Stele

Untitled

"The Book of Song [sic] mentions Wa presence in Korea." No citation given for this claim. ~entenman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entenman (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent revision

This article was modified so much after 27 October 2007. Please check each revisions, especially regarding the translation of the part "The Inscription", including the format of the article. -- Eurodollers 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Damaging of Stele Issues

Do not revert the phrase that Chinese and Japanese generally rejects Lee's theory. So far Lee's theory fails to be dominant on academy, as there are no further discovery supports his theory while there are several discoveries which deny it. Currently, Lee's theory is no established one, and it should be introduced with other alternative theories.

Mahal Aly 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Then add a link to the source, as I did, since to my knowledge on the subject the Gwanggaeto Stele was buried for sveral centuries before being discovered and being copied first by Sako. Korean and Japanese history books and sources all cite that Sako was the first to copy the stele.--Jh.daniell 23:16, 28 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

P.S. There was discovery in 1981 after Lee's research that was based on a thorough analysis of the controversial Sinmyo passage; this included several factors such as the chemical composition of the stele's surface and suspicious grammar and Chinese character style used in the passage. So obviously, there were further discoveries to support Lee's claim. Do not try to deny that by saying his theory stands alone. This evidence has already been presented in the article in an NPOV fashion.

No. You are probably not getting up-to-date sources.

The recent researches by Chinese scholars revealed there were a couple of copies older than that of Sako, which showed no significant diffrerence between Sako's copy. As the stele was re-discovered by Chinese people and they were selling rubbed copies, it is natural that there were copies prior to the one bought by Sako. Thus, the Lee's theory is generally rejected in Japan and China.

However, even though Lee's theory is rejected, it is not that Japanese scholars entirely think that Japan did took control of Southern part of Korea in 391. See my addition of Takeda's theory added in later chapter. He didn't say that Japan really conquered Baekje and Silla. It is an interpretation that many of the Japanese scholars agree.

Mahal Aly 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it was the chinese scholar Jianxin Xu at The Institute of World History CASS (徐建新 - 中国社会科学院世界历史研究所徐建新研究员) found the oldest copies in 2005.

By the way, Chinese scholars have their own view of the Gwangaetto Stele; it has something to do with their new conception of China as a multi-ethnic state. As such, your phrase "most Chinese scholars" will have to go. I'll add in the Chinese theory of the Gwangaetto Stele soon.--User:Jh.daniell:Jh.daniell 10:56, 30 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

How damaging theory treated by Korean scholars ?

Let me know, if damaging theory were widely believed in Korea, such as 不貢因破 was changed into 來渡海破,

• who are making the interpretation of Simmyo passage based on 來渡海破 instead of 不貢因破, as seen in simmyo debates section ? Since theories that the passage has little to do with Wa even though it is decoded to 來渡海破 do exist, there must be those who made such theories and consequently denied Lee's stele-damaging theory. (At least they are ignoring Lee to some or more extent).
• are those people the majority of Korean scholars or not ? how are they treated ?
• how those supporting 來渡海破 decoding versus those supporting 不貢因破 are arguing each other ?

As I am not accessible to Hangul, I'd love to see Korean scholars' viewing of this point. Adding such arguments to this article may be quite helpful. Thank you. Mahal Aly 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

i think for the reasons you mentioned, the tampered text theory has largely been discredited in korean academia, as i remember from reading several online korean encyclopedia articles on this issue a while back. there is still some debate about the translation, but of course, the japanese conquest theory is universally rejected, in light of contextual, comparative historical & archeological evidence. Appleby 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So, it might be rather appropriate to correct the last sentence of the redisovery section to follows.

Today, most Japanese scholars, and even some Korean scholars, either reject or discredit the intentionally damaged stele story based on the study of the stele itself and the pre–Sakō rubbed copy. The arguments of the interpretation are generally based on the decoding of passage as it was on the rubbed copies, not on the estimated alternative decoding that Lee suggested.

(Addition in italic)

It would be better to make Simmyo debates section more comprehensive.

Mahal Aly 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You two have been so fully brainwashed with Japanese propaganda I can't even begin to start fixing the errors in your arguments. Here are some of the questions I'd like to answer:

1.The damaged stele theory is generally supported by the majority of Korean scholars (however much Appleby wishes they did not).

2.The 不貢因破-來渡海破 argument is based on the chemical irregularities on the stone surface of the sinmyo passage ompared to other sections of the stele, as well as the use of a grammatical and Chinese engraving style that does not correspond with the rest of of the stele.

3.The Japanese conquest theory is not universally accepted; if anybody said it was, then they need to find the other half of their brain and look around and realize that Chinese and Korean scholars have been pressing their own arguments concerning the stele. Simply stating that the Japanese theory has been universally accepted does not necessarily make such an opinion true.

4.I haven't yet found a renowned or well-informed Korean scholar that says the stele was not intentionally damaged; if you want to make such unfounded claims on Wikipedia, I suggest you find a reputable source that says so and add a link to it(good luck hunting).

5.Mahal Aly, you seriously need to use correct grammar when editing this article. Fixing your edits so that they work with the rest of the context and don't interrupt the entire article with their broken phrases takes quite a lot of time, you know (as well as trying to comprehend what you're trying to say). Grammar aside, you also need to stick to a NPOV or at the very least factual view by adding citation to your claim that "even some Korean scholars, either reject or discredit the intentionally damaged stele story based on the study of the stele itself and the pre–Sakō rubbed copy,""The arguments of the interpretation are generally based on the decoding of passage as it was on the rubbed copies, not on the estimated alternative decoding that Lee suggested."

6.Appeleby, it's not up to you to unilaterally assume what people outside of Japan think about a certain stele passage. As far as I'm concerned, your argument that Korean academics generally reject/have rejected the damged stele theory has totally misled Mahal Aly into believing his farfetched wish that even some Koreans believe in the Japanese argument. If you want to support your claim, add citation.--Jh.daniell 13:42, 31 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

i freely admit i'm no expert on this issue, i just remember doing some reading a while back for this article. these are the sources i read (the top general encyclopedias in korean):

• http://enc.daum.net/dic100//viewContents.do?articleID=b02g1230b
• http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=18492
• http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/search/enc/result.html?pk=11014100&p=%B1%A4%B0%B3%C5%E4%BF%D5%BA%F1%20&field=id&type=enc

hope it helps. Appleby 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather lost; those encyclopedia articles support the tampered text theory, instead of rejecting them, as you said.--Jh.daniell 18:39, 2 June 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

references

The first two links were 404. I rather prefer literatures including the names of authors, manuscript titles, journal names, publishers, and published years than links to Korean webpages. I think some of references in other sources are old and there should be well-referenced literatures containing those old references. Considering recent progress of the field including excavation of Japanese-style mounds in southern Baekje region, references older than 1980 are too old to describe Trikingdom era.

By the way, it is the record of Wa, Jh.daniell, hopefully and maybe not Japan.User:Jjok

Sorry

In my muddled attempt to reorganize this page I messed up the part on interpretations so that the links to the notes no longer work. Basically, I felt logically the interpretations section should come first before discussions of conspiracies behind those interpretations. Someone more adept at wikiwork I hope can fix the links. 19:06, 8 January 2007 Straitgate 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Straitgate

Cumbersome

Is it me or is this article getting a little top heavy? Excess of detail beyond the purported subject of the article. What are photos of Japanese relics in Japan doing here?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Straitgate (talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You should add signature at the end of your post. Unearthed historical objects can be the exact proof of cetain era of the history. This site is not heavy. If we need to decrease some images, we should talk first. You deleted only images of Japanese unearthed objects. So weired and not fair play. -Eurodollers 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Images were put by ClientJo on October 27. It's not exactly an "old" addition. A better question would be; why a sudden surge of Japanese related pictures in the article? It seems pretty random to me. By the way, those objects were not discovered near the Korean peninsula. Irrelevant, justifiable for deletion. Kuebie 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

to User:Kuebie

Why do you edit this？[1]　

Book of Sui;隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來

" Silla and Baekje take Wa (Japan) to be a big country, many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, regularly send emissary there."

"並" is also[2]. "敬仰" is respect and look up. "敬" is respect[3]. "仰 " is look up[4].

your translation[5].Sui Dynasty says that Japan provided military support to Baekje and Silla. Where of the source is YOUR translation written? Please Teach.--Propastop (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

to User:JS-40LAC

your edit. it is more accurate. 之 is not refert to them[6]

Give me the source of your remark.

"之" is her, him, it.[7]

by the way ,Whose sock are you?--Propastop (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing

• • Chinese History Record [[Book of Sui]], Vol. 81, ''Liezhuan'' 46 : 隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來 "Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a great country, with many rare and precious things; also [Silla and Baekje] respect and look up to them, and regularly send embassies there." [http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/suisu/sui_081.htm][http://www.chinakyl.com/rbbook/big5/25/suishu/suis81.html]

---

that translation was definitely wrong and POV forking. Japanese wikipedia user depict as "Japan was Great than Korea". but, it was a definitely wrong. Check full text[8],

• "安帝时，又遣使朝贡，谓之倭奴国。"

On Emperor An of Han period, They sent envoy to han China, and tribute to Han China, Japan called as "Slave state" [by China].

• "无文字，唯刻木结绳。敬佛法，于百济求得佛经，始有文字。"

Japanese learned characters and buddhism from baekje, this is the origin of characters in Japan

• "有如意宝珠，其色青，大如鸡卵，夜则有光，云鱼眼精也。新罗、百济皆以倭为大国，多珍物，并敬仰之，恆通使往来。故大业三年，其王多利思北孤遣使朝贡。"

有如意宝珠(Japan have treasure things)，其色青(color is blue)，大如鸡卵(size as egg)，夜则有光(bright at night)，云鱼眼精也。(it called as 鱼眼精) 新罗、百济皆以倭为大国，多珍物，并敬仰之，恆通使往来 (Silla and Baekje both take Wa to be a big country of treasure source, with many rare and precious things in Japan; also [Silla and Baekje] highly esteemed it(many rare and precious things), and regularly send their person there." 故大业三年，其王多利思北孤遣使朝贡。(On 大业三年 period, Japan's King tributed to China)

敬仰(jìng yǎng) highly esteemed[9]

'Japan land' have some treasure things, so, Silla and Baekje want their treasure things. [Silla and Baekje] highly esteemed treasure things. This is not mean, Japan is stronger or great country than Korea. Previous edit was definitely wrong translation.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your translation of Chinese history record is ridiculously wrong.

Kim Tae-sik's source

Kim Tae-sik's source wrongly quoted. from this document, I can't find such theory. On the contrary, Kim Tae-sik heavily denied Japan's theory (dominated south korea peninsula and so on). Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Military History Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed as Start-class for lack of references, and for deficiencies in tone and style. Much of the text does not carry an encyclopedic tone, and at times approaches violations in expressing POV. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Full Armor

Interestring that you bring these up. If you actually check out the articles below, my findings are supported. So Baekche area has ONE armor discovered to date, per first article from 2007 below. The Nonsan museum selos is very misleading. If you go to their armor page, there are about ten examples displayed, but if you drill down, you will see that they were all found in Gaya region, which is the Mimana region. Of course you will find armor outside of Wa / Gaya area, as trades happened, but the fact remains, there are more armor and swords found in Gaya than on the rest of the peninsula combined. -Krusader6 (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone claimed in the article that full iron plate armor was only known in Japan and Gaya Confederacy, but the same type of armor was in fact the typichal armour of Baekje and later Silla military. Moreover the armour type of Baekje, Gaya and Yamato were definitely the same and the earliest archaeological evidences of the usage of this kind of armour is from Baekje territories. Hence, the claim that there was no any advanced civilization in Baekje and Silla regions is empty...

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/11/23/2007112361017.html http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=lsseol&logNo=30163023489 http://yokeru.egloos.com/1035149 http://museum.nonsan.go.kr/museum.do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.227.244.75 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle record redundancy

The Gwanggaeto Stele#The Inscription section containes an excerpted translation of the stele's text. And beyond the first paragraph it overlaps heavily with the content of Gwanggaeto Stele#Chronology of Gwanggaeto Wars section. These need to be merged.

We should probably stick to revised romanization (as used by title "Gwanggaeto "), but give alternate spellings ("Kwanggaet'o") parenthetically or in explanatory notes.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to proceed with merge. I'm going to make #Chronology of Gwanggaeto Wars a subsection of #The Inscription, then absorb redundant content into it.

I will bring the lengthily translated text below (since someone took the pains to translate it or find a translation and adapt it): Not just redundant, but I'm discovering that the translation beginning "It came to pass in the fifth year of.. " was a wholesale copy and paste job from the cited source, Peter H Lee., Yongho Choe, Hugh H.W. Kang (2013) 《Sources of Korean Tradition》, Vol. 1: pp.24-26 [10] so it needs to be removed on copyright infringement grounds. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Foundation myth

The Foundation Myth still needs to be replaced by a paraphrase, because this too is a copy&paste copyviol of an existing published translation by Lee & de Bary (1997)[11] --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sinmyo passage

The sinmyo year (Year 391) passage being controversial, it would not be neutral to nonchalantly embed a Korean-viewpoint translation into the chronology as has been attempted.

A reference to Peter H. Lee et al.'s ("Paekchan [Paekche] and Silla had long been our [Goguryeo's] subject peoples") can be restored, but belongs in the controversy section, in the proper context of its bias.

Currently I've had to remove Lee et al's translations which were wholesale copy & pasted in flagrant WP:copyviol--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gwanggaeto Stele. 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/20081030200733/http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/1/1-02-kimtaesik_k.pdf to http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/1/1-02-kimtaesik_k.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030200803/http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/1/1-01-hamada_j.pdf to http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/1/1-01-hamada_j.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306170154/http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?BACKFLAG=Y&VOLUMENO=17&BOOKNUM=8&PAPERNUM=6&SEASON=Aug&YEAR=1977 to http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?BACKFLAG=Y&VOLUMENO=17&BOOKNUM=8&PAPERNUM=6&SEASON=Aug&YEAR=1977

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwanggaeto Stele. 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/20071115000433/http://www.encyber.com/search_w/ctdetail.php?gs=ws&gd=&cd=&q=&p=&masterno=18492&contentno=18492 to http://www.encyber.com/search_w/ctdetail.php?gs=ws&gd=&cd=&q=&p=&masterno=18492&contentno=18492

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)