Talk:Gaya confederacy

From a Bill Gates interview re: localised versions of Encarta... (http://www.btimes.co.za/97/0406/tech/tech6.htm)

"And in another edition we made the factual mistake of saying that a small state in southern Korea, known as Kaya to the Koreans and Mimana to the Japanese, had been "dominated" by Japan in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Before corrected, this error provoked outrage in South Korea with one newspaper calling for a boycott of all Microsoft products."

Might want to mention that in the politics section somewhere (I'm too lazy to add it :) )

That's not much of a correction. The "Japaneseness" isn't the factual correction he's refering to. All he's saying is that it can't be said that it was "dominated." It still could be a colony or minor Japanese state.

--Watchreader 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's most likely untrue. First of all, the only supporting "evidence" are two references, as far as I am aware.

• According to the Gwanggeto stele (I've seen it before), Goguryeo had dominance over the northern portion of the Korean peninsula. This brought rise to the claim that there might have been a Japanese Settlement or colony, which was much dismissed as bias by Japanese scholars until Japan had need for a justification to colonize Korea from 1910 - 1945.
• According to the Nihon Shoki, which was (and is) much criticized by many scholars for its factual inaccuracy, claims that empress consort Jingu, while she was Pregnant with Hachiman, conquered Gaya and made Baekje, Shilla, and Goguryeo a vassal of Wa, all in 3 years. However, this partially conflicts with the Gwanggeto stele, and also severely conflicts with Chinese and Korean records. In the Goguryeo Bon-gi, there is a record that Wa sent an emissary to Goguryeo during the Goguryeo-Sui wars to pledge allegiance to the king of Goguryeo.

Second, are you saying that I descend from Japan? I descend directly from the Royal throne of Gaya. I am the Thirty-Fourth direct descendant of King Suro of Gaya, and Japanese records have no mention whatsoever about the history of Gaya. Odst 01:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok buddy, calm down a second. First and foremost, I'm not a scholar of this issue. I'm merely a student. I also never claimed one way or the other that one theory of the Japanese colony was more likely than the other. I was merely pointing out that the "correction" is ambiguous. Gate's wasn't saying that Mimana didn't exist, only that Japanese culture didn't "dominate" the region. Indeed, the correction could have merely been that Mimana, the Japanese colony, was separate from the Gaya kingdom (traditionally the colony is referred to as "Inma" in Korean). I don't know though, since the English version of this issue (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BB%BB%E9%82%A3) doesn't exist. Perhaps you, being the decedent of royalty to Gaya, can translate from the Korean version (http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9E%84%EB%82%98%EC%9D%BC%EB%B3%B8%EB%B6%80).

Second of all, most theories I've heard never claim that Mimana (Inma) conquered the Silla, Baekje, or Goguryeo. In fact most of them claim they were taken over by Korean forces. They also say that mostly the Japanese forces gave military support and tribute to Baekje. It's also not clear how powerful the Kingdom of Wa is at this point, since there are few records (Japanese or Chinese) that go in depth on this issue. The Kingdom of Wa could refer to several Japanese states, one of which could have lent support to Goguryeo.

Third, what the hell are you talking about with this descendant stuff? Am I supposed to be impressed by your bloodline or something? And I suppose that since part of your bloodline going back thousands of years to the Gaya royalty, it's absolutely impossible that you have descended from people who were Japanese speaking (which I've never claimed one way or the other)? Your mentioning of lineage is both irrelevant and arrogant.

Lastly, of course no Japanese records talk about the kingdom of Gaya! Why would they? The Nihon Shoki is the one of the first forms of Japanese historical documentation EVER, and that was written several decades AFTER the unification of Korea. And as you've pointed out, it's not really a historical document as much as a compilation of origin myths with some historical perspective. It doesn't even go too deeply or accurately into Japanese history, so why on earth would you expect Japanese records to talk about Gaya?

--Watchreader 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess Korea don't hold historical proof for this article. Samguk Sagi is their oldest extant Korean historical document. We need more citations or other documents. If not, this article would be just a "hear-say" statement. -- Brionies 08:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Groundless theory, archaeological evidences shows Gaya artifacts are older than Japanese artifacts which resembled identical designs and Gaya was No.1 iron smith & trader at that time, there is no such evidence of Japanese iron smith before Gaya times, later iron smiths came from Gaya and passed onto Japan.--Korsentry 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gayageum

Is the gayageum named for the Gaya confederacy? Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is. It was supposedly invented by a king of Gaya. Odst (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, not. It was supposedly invented by a subordinate of the king that had orders from him. Kfc18645 talk 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean POV

Deletion of the source.AND The claim is not a fact.[1]--Bentecbye (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well, you're edit warring with Kubie up to 3 time reverts, not me (I only reverted yours once). You also altered the previous wording. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You base the findings of sculpted jade and tumuluses (both of which is not exclusive to Japanese societies) on the Korean peniusula as the definitive proof that Gaya may have been a Japanese colony. It makes more sense that those findings were transported to Japan via Gaya. Kuebie (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is not necessary.You should write the description with the source.--Bentecbye (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The technology of Gaya was much more advanced than the Japanese dynasties[2]. this is POV(WP:ASF).

Some scholars claim that The technology of Gaya was much more advanced than the Japanese dynasties. this is NPOV.

--Bentecbye (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, if you can find counter-evidence that states that somehow Japan's bronze/iron culture was indigenous to the island and was acquired before the kingdoms on the mainland then sure. Other than that, it is what it is. Kuebie (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers (Talk | contribs) (9,690 bytes) (sorry, no source.) (undo) [3]

Cannot he watch a source?He is Vandalism.--Bentecbye (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

please prove it, it is a "some scohlar" claim. Manacpowers (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

and this is a history of korea. basially, 'history of korea' based on korean pov. Manacpowers (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

'history of korea' based on korean pov ????? Read WP:NPOV--Bentecbye (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

no, it is not mean, history of korea' must based on korean pov. history of korea most researched by Korean. so it made by korea scholar. anyway, please prove it, it is a "some scohlar" claim. Manacpowers (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV.--Bentecbye (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what is the WP:NPOV, more than You. please prove it, it is a "some scohlar" claim. i poin out that it is a major point of view. it is not a minor point of view. Manacpowers (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The technology of Gaya was much more advanced than the Japanese dynasties

• Kenneth B. Lee who is korean scohlar claim this theory is widely rejected even in Japan as there was no Japanese dynasty at the time which had a strong enough military power to conquer Gaya or any other part of Korea. This is description OF NPOV.

ok?--Bentecbye (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

and DO NOT DELATE THE FACT. In recent years,many typical Japanese tumulus Kofun and jades was found in this area.

• Findings of typical Japanese tumulus Kofun in Korea (韓国全羅道地方の前方後円墳調査)
• Nihon no tanjō|isbn=4004305101
• Zenpo koenfun to kodai niccho kankei--Bentecbye (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

well, even that do not mentioned it. also your source is Japanese favored POV pushing source. it's not NPOV. Manacpowers (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

your source is Japanese favored POV pushing source. --Bentecbye (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1st of all, your source do not say so.

2nd, most of korean scholar do not claim like that.

3rd, it is easy to POV edit by Wikipeida content forking. Manacpowers (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

anyway, did you really read this (韓国全羅道地方の前方後円墳調査)? this is not mean "In recent years,many typical Japanese tumulus Kofun and jades was found in this area." no sentence like your claim. are you make hoax?Manacpowers (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Japan is little known for jade production, it's highly likely these jades were imported to Japan by Gaya people. Do not insert hoax Japanese claims as most Kofun items in Japan are known to be stolen from Korean.--Korsentry 05:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

---

Korean POV EDIT

this theory is widely rejected even in Japan as there was no Japanese dynasty at the time which had a strong enough military power to conquer Gaya or any other part of Korea.

The technology of Gaya was much more advanced than the Japanese dynasties.

THIS IS NO FACT.THIS IS OPINION OF Kenneth B. Lee.

• WP:SUBSTANTIATE

Write the opinion as an opinion.Do not write an opinion as a fact.The opinion is different from fact.

Kenneth B. Lee says The technology of Gaya was much more advanced than the Japanese dynasties.

this is NPOV.--Bentecbye (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the recent archaeological findings does back this up, the Japanese iron smiths wasn't developed as Gaya, all the identical artifacts discovered from Gaya regions were much older than these of Japanese, also Gaya was main iron smithing and trading state; this made Gaya very rich state (you can see it from their golden jeweleries and crowns). You won't find such splendid golden crowns from Japan. This proves Gaya was much more developed and advanced enough to hassle Silla. Btw all the DNA studies proves Gaya people were same line as Silla people, proving they weren't Japanese at all. Just because Japanese kofun period shows identical artifacts that discovered from Gaya, it doesn't mean Japan was advanced, if Japan was advanced than Gaya, then why all the discoveries in Gaya are much older than Japan? And why Gaya people weren't Japanese? There is no evidence that Japanese language survived in Korean peninsula. Kenneth B. Lee is using archaeological evidence as his opinion which is fair judgment from scholastic POV.--Korsentry 02:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Please add fact tags to portion of text that you think needs citations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

to User:Kuebie

it is a generally held view[4].

Please submit the source of this　your remark. AND READ WP:SUBSTANTIATE--Propastop (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

to User:Novidmarana

we usually do not mention the name of the author of a source, except when it is just a personal opinion[5]

Is this Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines?? or An your original opinion? Please READ WP:SUBSTANTIATE--Propastop (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

edit of koreans

edit of koreans[6]

Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

Weasel words help to obscure the meaning of biased expressions and are therefore dishonest. For example, an editor might preface the statement "Montreal is the best city in the world" with a disclaimer: "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world". This is true: some people do say that Montreal is the best city in the world. The problem is that the reverse is true as well (some people say Montreal is not the best city in the world, and some go further and say that it is the worst), and thus it is easy to mislead the reader and to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda, which is contrary to the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia (see WP:V and WP:NPOV).

If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement. If there is a genuine opinion, make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where, and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is "some"? If you consider the different answers these questions might have, you can see how meaningless the "some people say" qualification is. To assist users in deciding how to attribute ideas more precisely, the Wikipedia verifiability policy provides specific criteria for the support a statement must have for it to remain in an article unchallenged. This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles, and it is this policy that weasel words undermine.

There are different variations on weasel wording, with the general principle of introducing some proposition without attributing it to any concrete source. "Most scientists believe that..." fails to provide any evidence that this is indeed the case, or to clarify just where between 50% and 100% "most" is, for that matter. The case is similar with things that are apparently true "according to some studies" or "contrary to popular opinion". "It has been proven that" allusion to proof does not constitute proof, "Science says" that science is an abstract concept which in actuality is not capable of speech, and "it could be argued" that the no original research policy is there for a reason. The word "seemingly" inserted into a statement raises the question of to whom the proposition seems thus, and on what evidentiary basis. And so on.

It is, of course, acceptable to introduce some fact or opinion and attribute it in an inline citation. e.g. "Research by Wong et al, 1996, has shown that rabies can be cured by acupuncture".

And at the bottom of the page:

• W.F. Wong, A.M. Johnson and R. Goodrich (1996). "Acupuncture: An effective cure for rabies". J. Rabid Med. 345: 33–67.

KOREANS, OK?

--Propastop (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes? And how is that related to the article in question? Novidmarana (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cannot you understand the difference between opinion and fact? If you cannot understand it,You must not edit wikipedia.--Propastop (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And your opinion on this matter to us? Does your personal opinion is greater than opinions from expertises? --Korsentry 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Good grief. Please learn to just give us the link instead of pasting the entire text. That's what hyperlinks are for.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL@ n00bish racism. "Koreans"? "Japanese"? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

city states? that's not what Barnes said

A line on the page was changed by someone to:

The individual polities that made up the Gaya confederacy have been characterized as small city-states. [2].

The source used for this is Barnes 2001. Please show me where in Barnes 2001 that he says that Gaya polities were city states. Barnes never says this. Please check the book; there is no such statement in Barnes 2001. Barnes states that archaeological evidence strongly suggests that these polities correspond to complex chiefdoms. The original line in the Gaya confederacy used the term "complex chiefdom". I would be very surprised if someone could find a reliable authoriative source that says Gaya was a city state. Would somebody please change it back. I don't edit the Wiki but sometimes I consult some articles. I wish somebody will correct this error. Wikipedia users often comlain about the mistakes. Please correct it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.149.163 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with source?

According to Christopher Beckwith, "The spelling Kaya is the modern Korean reading of the characters used to write the name; the pronunciation /kara/ (transcriptionally *kala) is certain."[5].

However, the full quote goes...

It became known as Kara, or Mimana, and never achieved political equality with the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. Little is known about Kara, but it was under heavy Japanese influence and at times it was a Japanese tributary state, if not an outright colony.

This is problematic on two fronts. 1. He's siding with the idea that Japanese were there. 2. His reference is actually referencing himself on another paper he wrote...

"It is possible that the name Kara is an exonym, suggesting that the "native" name was Mimana. The spelling Kaya is a modern Korean reading of the characters used to write the name; the pronunciation /kara/ (transcriptionally *kala) is certain) (Beckwith 2007a: 40 n. 27)"

Considering these two things and the fact he's siding with Japanese and the book said that later historians dispute his claims, doesn't this kind of make the reference either outdated or at least confusing? Clearing this part up is a good idea and making it clear that he's basing it on previous Japanese assumptions rather than from a contemporary or at least Korean linguistic-based view of the name. i.e. that his opinion carries outdated biases.

Edit request from Stacs13, 11 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The last point in the "Politics sub category" with the statement:

A joint study group of South Korean and Japanese historians sponsored by the two governments came to the conclusion that there was no Japanese foothold in that era.[16]

This statement cannot be validated and should be removed as the source no longer exists.

Stacs13 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done SpigotMap 12:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit obvious Korean nationalist POV

I believe that this section: "Political and trade relations with Japan have been a source of nationalist controversy in both Korea and Japan. Japanese publicists during the twentieth century looked to the controversial Nihonshoki, which claims that Gaya (named "Mimana" also "Kara" in Japanese) was a military outpost of Japan during the Yamato period (300-710). While there is absolutely no evidence to support this widely rejected contention, the claim has nonetheless been advocated at various times by Japanese imperialists, nationalists and press to justify the Japanese invasion of Korea (1910–1945)" needs to be rewritten, it is in no ways objective. Also I don't agree with the citing Wontack Hong's book on the origins of Yamato Wa, which while interesting is extremely bias. I would prefer to use the more neutral Western Jonathan Best, although he focuses primarily on Baekje, he does discuss Korean-Japanese politics of the 4th-7th century. Furthermore there is nothing on the Japanese side, aside from the argument that Mimana was used for 20th century propaganda. And the quote that there is no evidence that a state in Japan could have invaded Korea, ignores the Korean sources such as the Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa, not to mention the Gwanggaeto stele. The Yamato state was quite powerful during this time, having the ability to demand hostages of Silla and Baekje, and receiving recognition from Chinese dynasties of some degree of sovereignty or influence over Korea. There is no mention of the 5 kings of Wa which are linked to this debate as well. If possible I would like to do some editing to the page, bringing a bit more balance to the subject, or at the least give some advice on what could be added and what words should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekishiotaku (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that Beckwith's Japanese-Koguryoic language hypothesis is far from widely accepted. Linguists attempt to reconstruct place names based on texts using ancient Chinese characters. This makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to accurately reconstruct the phonology of the words that were actually used by the people that inhabited the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago.

I think it is dangerous for historians, archaeologists, and linguists to attempt to assign modern concepts of ethnicity and nationality to peoples of the distant past. We can only imagine how the people who occupied the Gaya polities viewed themselves culturally and ethnically. Trying to stuff them into boxes that fit modern concepts of nationalities will not do--there really can be no conclusion to such an argument. Many nationalist perspectives suggest that ancient inhabitants of the Korean peninsula "dominated" ancient inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago, and vice versa. Although this may have happened many times throughout history, I'm sure the relationships between these peoples were much more complex than one side simply dominating another. I'm sure a similar complexity would characterize relationships among the ancient peoples of Europe as well. The concept of nation simply didn't exist back then as it does today. Therefore, people would not have any notion of nationality as we do today.

Request Correction

"Japanese invasion of Korea (1910–1945)" needs to be corrected to read "Japanese annexation of Korea (1910–1945)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request Correction 2

Please remove the last two sections of the "Politics" text. They are biased beyond reckoning. The author of that part of the article is picking out the pieces of info that suites his arguements. I here quote (p.308-309) of the same source [footnote 14]

"Whether a colony, a tributary state, or an ally, however, the Kaya league had the closest relationship to Japan of all the Korean states. Kaya provided a foothold on the peninsula for the Japanese until the middle of the sixth century, when the small states were absorbed by Silla."

It is impossible for a professional historian to even consider such a stretched interpretation of Kenneth B. Lee's text. Please remove the rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.138.39 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mimana controversy and NPOV

Reading comments above, and a neutral Polish book on Korean history with a section on Mimana, I do have to agree that the current treatment of this topic here does not seem neutral, and suggests a Korean nationalistic POV ("there is absolutely no evidence to support this widely rejected contention"... " Theory of a Japanese outpost is widely rejected even in Japan"... "The technology of Gaya was much more advanced than that of the Japanese dynasties of the time"). Two out of five cited sources don't give page ranges; for the other three I would like to see quotes supporting their assertions. Till then I am tagging this with NPOV template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One source didn't mention it at all, so I took it out, the other source did, so I added the two page numbers. However, the claim that Gaya was an outpost of Japan, was retracted by Japan, since the whole thing came from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwanggaeto_Stele, which was severely damaged and it was apparently a misunderstanding of the damaged Stele. (If you read the Nihonshiki article). The attached Empress Consort to this event is now termed by Japan officially as not existing and has mythological status. The Nihonshiki was written way after the fact.

Both Japanese and Korean archaeologists in Japan have theorized due to Island theory (i.e. people more generally move to islands from land masses rather than reverse) and also evidence by differences between Ainu and Japanese Architecture from the Yayoi that Japan was most likely formed from a movement of Korean peoples to Japan. There are Japanese nationalists that disagree and think that Japan magically appeared with the people and/or that it was 100% a movement from China and/or Japan's language came from near the Philippines, etc but most worldwide scholars disagree on the plausibility of that. (Not to mention it ignores the Out of Africa Theory) It's more likely that Japan was formed by having Ainu first, and then a large influx of Korean and probably Chinese from the southern tip. Those are outliers, such as the Moon landing didn't happen, or stuff such as the American Civil War wasn't over slavery, etc.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Language?

Why is the language on the sidebar listed as Old Korean with no further comment? There is already a separate article on the Gaya language, and according to that the status of the language is unknown, and what little evidence there is seems to point to it being a Japonic language. In any case it is by no means certain whether it was a dialect of Old Korean or not. I think it's clear that the language in the sidebar should be corrected to link to the NPOV Gaya language page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.8.67 (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Rulers

No need to remove the list of rulers from the infobox. Info is not available elsewhere. El_C 06:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

532 or 562 disestablishment?

Why does this article say both that the Gaya confederacy came to an end in 532 and 562, with no explanation of this discrepancy? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)