Talk:Baekje/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

translation

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

• translation

Book of Sui"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."

User:Kuebie　Do not describe false translation.[1]　--Bentecbye (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

to User:Kuebie

Why do you edit this？[2]　

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[3]. "敬仰" is respect and look up. "敬" is respect[4]. "仰 " is look up[5].

your translation[6]." Sui Dynasty says that Japan provided military support to Baekje and Silla" . Where of the source is YOUR translation written? Please Teach.--Propastop (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts

Hata Clan is Korean clan from Baekje Kingdom. Not Chinese or Jewish. The logic does not make sense Hata Clan migrated from BaekJe/ Kudara Kingdom but the clan came from far far away from China or Isreal????? Its says Hata clan came from Korean Kingdom Baekje Kingdom. Hata clan is Korean clan from Baekje Kingdom.

Some historical "facts" are apparently fake, would someone with a better understanding in history correct them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.77.145 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What "facts" are you referring to? --Korsentry 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

facts are you referring to?? Referring to historical logic.

If Nihon Shoki ( Oldest Japanese script) refers Hata clan origin is from Baekje Kingdom. Korean Prince brought thousand of his followers. How can Korean Kingdom Baekje Kingdom and Korean Price brought thousand of his followers be translated into Hata clan being Chinese???? Historical Logic does not flow. It cleary says Hata clan is being Korean from Korean Kingdom Baekje Kingdom. Not Chinese or Jewish.

B. in "China"

The section starts with "Although controversial, some Chinese and Korean records indicate that Baekje territory included parts of present-day China, across the Yellow Sea," but then goes on, as far as I can tell, to only give examples that support the claim. so, what is the reason for saying that it is controversial? 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because Chinese Wiki members complaint.Korsentry 03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Paekje Kingdom covered from Korean Peninsula, Kyushu, Kansai, Shikoku Japan, land surrouding Korea and China. Please check out wikipedia china geography site. Go down the page and you will see China cultural map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit

"Most likely the origin of Japan as a state lies in Korea. "Peakche of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan" is the standard most historians follow." This is not true. It is true that there are some historians who claim such a thing, but it is not true that "most historians follow" that claim. Who are the "most historians"? I removed these sentences because of that. This is an original research.

I find no reason to hide the information on Chinese and Japanese study on Gwanggaeto Stele. Although there are scholars who controvert the Conspiracy theories, stating only the information on Korean study on the stele is not fair.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you add edited versions of Gwanggaeto Stele from China & Japan? Who study Gwanggaeto Stele the most? Koreans/Chinese/Japanese? Koreans of course. Also, There are little information to support that Yamato Japan ruled parts of Korea, why would Yamato royals served Shaman gods? Why all the Yamato archaeological evidence connects with Baekje and Gaya confederacy and Silla which is much more older than Yamato?--Korsentry 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

edited？ where is proof？ and that's fact Peakche and Silla sent royal hostages to Wa. advanced culture can't explain superiority on power. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

maps

We have two, as far as i can see identical, maps of Baekje at its height. It would be more helpful to replace the one in the running text with a map showing Baekje before its major expansion. Kdammers (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim Tae-sik's source

This source wrongly quoted.[7] 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) 09:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it. This source first inserted by Bentecbye [8] who is a abusive sock and vandalism editor[9]. This source wrongly quoted, maybe vandalism editor wrongly inserted source by his own POV. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wa's Invasion/related to Invasion records in Samguk Sagi

삼국사기 신라편(Samguk Sagi - Silla Chronicle)

• A.D 73(Talhae Isageum 17) : 왜인이 목출도를 침범해왔다. 각간 우오를 보내 물리치게 했으나 이기지 못하고, 우오는 전사했다.(Wa peoples invade Mok-chul island. king sent gak-gan Uoh for defeat them, but can't win and Uoh had been died in war.)
• A.D 123 봄 3월, 왜국과 강화했다. (in march, Silla make peace with Wa.)
• A.D 208 여름 4월, 왜적이 국경을 침범하므로 이벌찬 이음에게 군사를 주어 적을 막게 했다.(King give command of military to Ibeolchan I-eum for defend Wa army's invade to Silla's border.)
• A.D 232 여름 4월, 왜인이 갑자기 쳐들어와 금성을 포위했다.(in April, Wa suddenly invade to Silla and seige Kyongju)
• A.D 249 여름 4월, 왜인이 서불한 우로를 죽였다. (in April, Wa killed Seobulhan Uro.)
• A.D 292 여름, 왜병이 쳐들어와 사도성이 함락되었다. (in Summer, Wa army occupy Sado Castle)

• • • A.D 295 봄, 왕이 신하들에게 물었다. "왜인이 자주 우리 성읍을 침범하여 백성들이 편히 살 수 없다. 백제와 모의하여 함께 바다를 건너 왜국을 치고자 하는데 어떻겠는가" 서불한 홍권이 대답했다. "우리는 수전에 익숙지 못한데 위험을 무릅쓰고 원정하면 예측할 수 없는 위험이 있을 것이옵니다. 게다가 백제는 거짓이 많고 항상 우리 나라를 삼킬 생각을 가지고 있으니 함께 모의하기가 어려울 듯하옵니다. 왕이 옳게 여겼다.(in Summer, king said to subjects. "Wa oftenly invade our territory that cause the people's hardship. how about across sea and attack to Wa with Peakche？"Seobulhan Hong-gwon said, "we don't good at naval war and Peakche is deceitful also wants take our country, that makes allience with Peakche impossible." King concluded that opinion is right.)

it says Wa already good at naval war than Silla and Silla had a lots of invade from Wa Japan. in Samguk Sagi Silla Chronicle, their is more than 30 records about Wa's invasion.

so, I think this(↓) KPOV section is highly one-sided and even violate most believable Korean source.

[[Scholars believe that the "Nihon Shoki" gives the invasion date of Silla and Baekje as the late 4th century. However, by this time, Japan was a confederation of local tribes, while the Three Kingdoms of Korea were fully developed, centralized powers. It is very unlikely that a developing state such as Yamato had the capacity to cross the sea and engage in battles with Baekje and Silla.]]

in addition, I don't want discuss about who made this article's criterion of developing state and fully developed state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.99.38.227 (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would question the "Wa" origin, this is the time when height of Gaya and Shilla went war.--Korsentry 06:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

I knew you want to say this chronicle's Wa means Gaya. then, I also question to you, why Silla need to across sea for attack Gaya？ 61.99.38.227 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

thus, this chronicle mention Gaya and in Baekje chronicle of Samguk Sagi, it also mention Beakje allied with Wa and often attacked the Gaya. those facts doesn't mean this chronicle's Gaya is not Wa？ In my opinion, Wa is Wa. It is last question, you don't know Gaya was also confederation state？ why you think Gaya has capacity to attack Silla but same confederation state Yamato has no ability to attack Silla？ 61.99.38.227 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

'Wa's Invasion/related to Invasion records in Samguk Sagi?' That is the your own original research. Exactly When Japan won the battle? Japan really have enough technology of naval? Piarates level and Country war level are highly difference. according to your logic, japanese pirates invaded China numerous times, so, really wa or japan was strong country than china? Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not saying about Wa's superiority. but, I think this article and your POV of Wa is greatly one-sided, don't you think？ Samguk Sagi saying Wa has enough naval technology for invade coastal regions of Southern Korea and Wa wins several times over Silla. if you think it is false, bring the source. thus, Samguk Sagi is not my origial text. does you really seen a page of Samguk Sagi？ I can't show you my 'Samguk Sagi' book, but this Korean blog can show you record of A.D73's Wa invasion of Silla. http://blog.naver.com/junhoo10288?Redirect=Log&logNo=80052905216 61.99.38.214 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

thus, both Silla and Beakje sent royal hostages to Wa Japan. Silla started in 402(after fallen their capital by Wa and Allies.) for sent them. that shows Wa Japan sited in higher place than Beakje or Silla in Eastern Asian politics. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of Wa was Yamato, we can only assumed Wa is something do with Gaya because archaeological items discovered from Gaya regions and Kyushu are identical. Thus Gaya would have off shore colony in Kyushu regions that often referred to as Gaya. Btw, Nihon Sheoki is not accurate in everything, good example is errors in dating. Also meaning the original Nihon Sheoki have been edited.--Korsentry 03:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

As i previously said, both Wa and Gaya are mentioned in Samguk Sagi as different nations. Wikipedia is not place for accepting your Korea-Centric fabricated historical view. if their is source support your POV, bring that. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source

It seems many of the Korea-related pages and the Japan-related pages have information cited from a book named 'Paekche of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan', and this page is no exception. You might think it is properly cited, but do you think the source is worth trusting? It appears that the book even states that the Nihon Shoki refers the Koreans to be the progenitor of Yamato([[10]]). However, is that true? I would love to know which part of the Nihon Shoki claims such a thing. I never heard such a strange theory.

Many Koreans love to claim that Baekje was the origin of Japan. But I must say that most evidence they use is out of the question. For example, I know several books saying the Japanese word "kudaranai"(worthless) originally meant that "kudara-nai"(No Baekje) because the Japanese respected Baekje so much that they regarded anything that had not come from Baekje as worthless. This belief is, however, completely ignorant of the origin of the word or grammatical rules of the Japanese language. According to Japanese grammar, it is impossible to coin a adjective using a noun "kudara" and anegation "nai". Moreover, the word "kudaranai" first appeared about 1000 years after the extinction of Baekjo. There are, however, so many books written by Koreans that still claim this false ethymology.

I cannot help thinking that the book 'Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan' is one of those books that arouse their Korea-centrism and the sence of superiority to Japan, using so-called "evidence" which actually has no historical evidence.

I belive this book cannot be used as a reliable source. If you called this book reliable, you would have to call any book, even including textbooks by Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, reliable.

I suggest removing information using the book from wikipedia for being against [[11]].--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion has no backing source. While the book that you contest based on your WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been referenced in numerous academic sources[12][13][14], so please present "academic reviews" from academic sites by academics, scholars that the book is not reliable. Your own assessment is not a reliable source, or valuable. Please do not continue the blanking campaign for your agenda any more.--Caspian blue 09:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't but think the one who cited the book interpreted the source in a strange way. It is true that a Silla prince named Amenohiboko is mentioned in Kojiki and Nihon Shoki. Kojiki (not Nihon Shoki) does mention a connection between the prince and the Japanese emperor. However, it does not mean the Koreans are the progenitor of Yamato. It is impossible to come to such a conclusion from Kojiki or Nihon Shoki. No serious historians would have such an idea.

I don't know what the source really says. But I am pretty sure that the one who cited the source misinterpreted it. He could have reached the conclusion that the Koreans are the progenitor of Yamato only from the information that the Prince of Silla's connection to the Japanese Imperial Family. If it is not the wikipedia editor who misinterpreted the story of the Silla Prince, it may be the author of the source.

Anyway, we need to know what the book exactly says. Without the knowledge of it, it is impossible to finish this discussion.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't even bother to check what the book says and then just blanked out for your suspicion? The author claims that he implemented the theory presentd by Egami's horse rider theory and Leryard's one, so please "present" academic sources to counter the theory that you want to blank out.---Caspian blue 06:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

moved

Moved to "Baekje kingdom" by analogy to other kingdoms. Saw the article was move locked, but no discussion on why; I assumed it was a fight over romanization. I'll move it back if this name is inappropriate for some reason. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't prefer 'Baekje kingdom' rather than Baekje. I don't know what other kingdoms you mean. Two of Ancient 3 kingdoms are still Silla and Goguryeo. I urged to reconsider the renaming. --Cheol (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with him. If you put it that way, all of Korean kingdoms should be changed its names.--Historiographer (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy Between Facts

In the introduction part, it clearly says that at its height, Baekje controlled Chinese colonies and all of the western coast of Korea. And yet in the map, which the caption reads as, "Baekje at its height in 375 BC shows Baekje as only half of the western Korean coast. We should resolve this discrepancy. Any help??? Jonathansuh (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Baekje Founding

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of its legitimacy here, but it seems odd to cite the Samguk Sagi without at least explaining that it was compiled 1000 years after the Baekje founding. Shouldn't there be a caveat somewhere in the text, as in the Goguryeo page, which describes it as "a 12th century CE Goryeo text"? 222.109.146.73 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Relations with China

Please change "In 372, King Geunchogo paid tribute to the Jin Dynasty of China" to In 372, King Geunchogo established relations with the Jin Dynasty of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieodoiskorean (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

Dear Wikipedia, I am the editor of JapanVisitor.com; the link on the page to our site has been updated and is now http://www.japanvisitor.com/japanese-culture/culture-japan-history We would be happy if you could please update this, Yours, Philip Beech

Soccerphile (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I have removed this external link completely, as it does not verify any of the content of the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Baekje and Gwangetto

it is a unrelation info.[15] Gwangetto is a King fo Gogutyeo. not baekje. Manacpowers (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwanggaeto Stele

• 而 倭 以 辛 卯 年 來 渡 海 破 百 殘 X X [X斤 (新)] 羅 以 爲 臣 民

description about Baekje.Do not ignore the history document. --Bentecbye (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.Cleary, in Gwanggaeto Stele,百 殘 word exist. However, your edit is not relation with Baekje. if Chinese Stele mentioned Japan word, is it relation topic of Japan? Manacpowers (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The first Korean scholar's study was reported by Chang in 1955.(鄭寅普, 庸斎白楽濬博士還甲記念国学論叢, 1995) He supposed that the subjects of the sentence 渡海破 and 以爲臣民 are respectively Goguryeo and Baekje.

Korean scholar said Baekje.--Bentecbye (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

any reason that why unrelated material must be include? Manacpowers (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is not necessary.Korean scholar said Baekje. Jananese scholar said Baekje.Gwanggaeto Stele is necessary.--Bentecbye (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Gwangetto is a King fo Gogutyeo. not baekje. if Chinese Stele mentioned Japan word, is it relation topic of Japan? Manacpowers (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Gwangetto is reason why Baekje became part of Goguryeo-Baekje alliance partner; also Baekje founder came from Goguryeo as well. Both Kingdoms are result of Buyeo migration. When Baekje Kingdom is mentioned we can't ignore Goguryeo factor. Two Kingdoms shared blood, royal lines, similar language and once served same Gods.--Korsentry 01:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Absolutely necessary in view of the fact that Baekje left no historical document whatsoever. All of what we know about Baekje comes from Korean works written 500 years after its destruction Samguk Sagi, and another Korean work written 600 years after its destruction Samguk Yusa, and the Gwanggaeto Stele! Of course we need the Stele. Especially so since Koreans do not give any credence to the only two historical works written during the Three Kingdoms period, because they were written in Japan... Krusader6 (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki

KoreanSentry was written. " Also complicating the matter is that in the Nihongi a Korean named Amenohiboko is supposed to be the maternal predecessor of Empress Jingū. "

However, Nohon shoki(Nihongi) writes the lineage of Empress like this. (Nihon Shoki Vol.9)
"気長足姫尊。稚日本根子彦大日日天皇之曾孫。気長宿禰王之女也。母曰葛城高顙媛"
(Empress Jingu is Emperor Kaika's grandchild, and her mother is Katuragi clan. )

Moreover, Nohonshoki explains Amehikohoiko like this.
"天日槍對曰　僕新羅國主之子也　然聞日本國有聖皇　則以己國授弟知古而化歸之" (Nihon Shoki, Vol.6)
(Amehiboko was said. "I am a prince in Korea. I heard that there was saint's king in Japan. To become a vassal of the king in Japan, I transferred the country to younger brother. ")
"故天日槍娶但馬出嶋人　太耳女麻多烏　生但馬諸助也　諸助生但馬日楢杵　日楢杵生清彦　清彦生田道間守也"
He married the woman who lived in Tajima Province in Japan, he lived in Tajima Province. He was called Amenohiboko. His descendant is Tajima mori.

KoreanSentry, Where of this book is "Amenohiboko is supposed to be the maternal predecessor of Empress Jingū." written?　--青鬼よし (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I wantched all of 青鬼よし's POV pushing edits, His numerous edits are based on his own original Research and definitely POV Pushing.

• 1. Please prove any credible academic source. (not your own original research)
• 2. Your Nohonshoki translation was definitely fabrication.

Here is the original full text.

三年春三月新羅王子天日槍來歸焉將來物羽太玉一箇足高玉一箇鹿鹿赤石玉一箇出石小刀一口出石毛牟一枝日鏡一面熊神籬一具幷七物則藏于但馬國常爲神物也 一云初天日槍乘碇泊于播磨國在於肉束邑時天皇遣三輪君祖大友主與倭直祖長尾市於播磨而問天日槍曰汝也誰人且何國人也天日槍對曰僕新羅國主之子也然聞日本國有聖皇則以己國授弟知古而化歸之仍貢獻物葉細珠足高珠鹿鹿赤石珠出石刀子出石槍日鏡熊神籬膽狹淺大刀幷八物仍詔天日槍曰播磨國肉束邑淡路島出淺邑是二邑汝任意居之」日本書紀 垂仁天皇紀 三年條

When 垂仁天皇 period, silla prince 天日槍 came. Japanese' king said, "where are you from?" "I am prince of silla, I heard that there was saint's king in nippon.(maybe this sentence also ninhon shoki made fabrication. In that time(B.C 29 - A.D 70), there is no "nippon" country existed. 2nd, it was impossible that prince go to uncivilized and savage country. 3rd, there is no record that written in korea, china) I came to Japan with my younger brother.

I am a prince in Korea(X) = He said, He is a prince of silla.(not korea)

To become a vassal of the king in Japan(X) = this is 100% your own made fabricated translation.

• 3. Originally ninhon shoki was based on Japanese nationalism and not credible source. Because That source is very unmatch with old korean, old chinese sources. for exmaple, There is no 任那日本府 written in old korean, old chinese sources.

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@Blue Ghost, please provide citations, so that we can verify the edits in question. @Cherry, I'd doubt that there was any advanced notion of Japanese nationalism back in 720AD. A biased view may be in all historical documents from any side or country, but I'd doubt nationalism is the problem, given that most of Japan's nationalism formulated after the Meiji Restoration. I don't see how nationalism links with this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, meaning that personal interpretations of ancient texts are considered original research. Even if you are one of the few people that fully understand the form and language of these documents, there is no way to prove your credentials. Therefore, please cite sources where real scholars make the interpretations, and not your personal opinion or a blog piece. William George Aston has translated the Nihon Shoki into English, if that helps. Disputes between scholarly, published interpretations should be fully represented (with cites) on either side. If you approach Wikipedia with this in mind, you'll see that there is really no reason to bicker this way, as the sole aim becomes to archive relevant information regardless of personal opinion.

In that vein, the Cambridge's History of Japan has several references based on the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki about Ame-no-Hiboko, his Korean (Silla) ancestry, and how he traveled to Japan bearing gifts. I can provide inline citations for this if needed, but this is generally not in contention. I do not have references regarding his relationship with Empress Jingū. If you can provide a secondary source for this like I did above, please do.

Finally, the Nihon Shoki is not a comparatively "nationalistic" or unreliable source. I'm afraid this notion has been overblown by people seeking to unfairly undermine the document. It does display internal bias, self-aggrandizement, and there is a political purpose behind its composition. This however, is hardly uncommon amongst ancient texts in Asia or around the world. Furthermore, the inaccuracies are pointed out in virtually every publication within the last few decades; I have never read a book that bought the texts literally without at least a followup caveat sentence, if not a full refutation. Again, one must simply portray both sides of the argument instead of disputing over which one side is favourable. I hope this helps both parties involved here to achieve neutrality. AMorozov (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

beside the point

The discussion advanced the following steps.
1. KoreanSentry was written, 'Nohonshoki is written that Korean was her ancestor'.
2. The information is not written in Nohonshoki. Please teach the page to which the information is written.
3. Current status 　― Answer of KoreanSentry (panding)

The credibility of Nohonshoki is not a problem that we discuss. I feel that "Empress Jingū's ancestor is Korean" is his original research. Thus, I demand explanation from him.--青鬼よし (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's Nihon Shoki not Nohon, secondly even Nihon Shoki is based from collection of clan chronicles and native myths and it was heavily edited, the original draft copy is no longer existed anymore. So it's not historically accurate considering many dating is incorrect and logically does not provide citing. Therefore we can only make final conclusion with archaeological evidence to prove that some accounts from Nihon Shoki. Btw, This Empress Jingu story is based from c. AD 169 - 269 period, at this time, all major Kingdoms of Korea were well established and much older than so called Jingu. And this is the period of Gaya Kingdom of Korea was busy fighting with their neighbors like Shilla. Even from Japanese POV, the horse rider invasion theory of early Japan pointing to Korean peninsula. identical copies of Gaya, Shilla and Baekje artifacts are discovered from early Japan's tombs. Not too mention, all of Japan's kofuns were made accordingly very Korean style. Also, considering Japanese also have distorted many historical data, I can only assumed that Jingu theory goes back to chaotic periods of ancient Korea, not Japan. Mind you this Jingu origin is still being debated among Japanese/Korean and East Asian scholars because of inaccuracy of Japanese claims.--Korsentry 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

An unrelated speech to my question is unnecessary. Where is the '"Jingu is Korean's descendant' written on Nihon Shoki? --青鬼よし (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof from Japanese side that Jingu was Japanese, the term "Korean" is again modern term, archeologists believes Yamatai kingdom of early Japan were originated from early Korea when notion of "modern ethnicity" didn't existed back then. You still believe myths and legends of early Japan but putting down Korean claims? wow you're really biased person just like your right wing Japanese group.--KSentry(talk) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is illogical and unscientific to criticize Kojiki and Nihon shoki when there are ZERO history books from the same period from Korea. Korean nationalists continue to boast about the advanced state of their three kingdoms compared to Yamato Japan, but the oldest Korean history books are from Goryeo period. Silla surrendered peacefully to Goryeo, so don't try to state that "all our history books burned during our many wars.." Japan had as much Civil Wars in its history. Furthermore, Samguk Yusa and Samguk Sagi mention IMNA over a hundred times. And all of so called advanced iron plate armor and swords are entirely found in Gaya region. Not one piece of Plate armor is ever found in Goguryeo, Silla, or Baekje regions. These facts lend strong credence to Gaya having been the launch point and remnant of the continental horse riders who crossed over to Japan and subdued the Jomon people.Krusader6 (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Presence on the continent

I undo a deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baekje&action=historysubmit&diff=417028689&oldid=417022041 .

Although controversial, some Chinese and Korean records indicate that Baekje territory included parts of present-day China, across the Yellow Sea.'

I want to brief the reason. We could not describe a minor theory as the main stream theory. But as it clearly explains there is a theory and it's controversial, it's not inappropriate and a reasonable description. --Cheol (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This "theory" of continental Baekjae is held only by Koreans. There is no record bacing this up.Krusader6 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Founding date

All the modern, reliable, Japanese and western sources I have checked indicate that the founding of Baekje is dated to the early 4th century.

This article regurgitates the "traditional" (12th-century Samguk Sagi) date for the founding to 18 BCE. I'd like to see a modern source that meets WP:RS that supports this assertion. This article currently cites virtually no sources for anything except the Japan-connection section, which seems to be largely just a POV-overloaded copy-paste job of the currently-quite-likely-to-be-deleted Korean influence on Japanese culture article.

We need better sources for that section, and sources period for the rest.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Restricted access to imperial sites in Japan

The change introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baekje&diff=prev&oldid=355257465 contains a slightly incorrect reading of the cited article. It seems that Japan (or rather, the Imperial Household Agency) restricted access to these sites for ALL researchers regardless of their nationality. So if the word foreigner is used to mean non-Japanese, this is incorrect. Further, those who were allowed access in 2008 don't seem to be foreigners (non-Japanese) either. This editor repeated the same mistake in Gosashi tomb. Tomonacci (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Baekje → Paekche – Per MOS:KOREA#Romanization, and this is the most common spelling in English-language reliable sources. .edu search results give 2,640 hits for "Paekche" and 1,000 less for "Baekje". GBooks gives 45,100 hits for "Paekche" and 7,850 for "Baekje". Also see this one-sided nGram: since the "Baekje" spelling was invented it has grown in popularity, but is still much less likely to be familiar to our readers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY. For better or worse, Revised Romanization is the de facto house style for Korea-related articles Wikipedia (except for those relating to North Korea). Wikipedia uses Buyeo, not Puyŏ, Goguryeo, not Koguryŏ, Balhae not Parhae, &c. for similar entities despite similar ngram results.[16][17][18] This is like the adoption of Hanyu pinyin for China a generation before where pinyin spellings lagged for many years following its adoption as a house style by many quality sources. —  AjaxSmack  15:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @AjaxSmack: It's not consistent. Most of the better articles on pre-modern Korean history (such as Chinese influence on Korean culture) use MR, because that is the system used in external reliable sources. Most of the articles that use RR, including this one, are almost-unsourced POV/OR-fests. In fact, the recent RFC on MOS:KOREA indicated that the only users who like the current "de facto in-house style" are Korean nationalists with poor English who tend to make a big, poorly-written, POV mess of everything. We should be working on improving these articles, and a good first step would be to rename them to conform to English-language reliable sources. Correcting the spellings used throughout the rest of the article is a lot easier than renaming the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm an anti-Korean chauvinist who has a god-like command of English and I'm a bit partial toward RR too. I also want Wikipedia usage to conform to sources, but with various Romanisation schemes in sources, I like a fall-back style à la WP:PINYIN. —  AjaxSmack  22:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:KOREA says, "In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea." There is a common name exception in the guideline, but the example given is "Taekwondo." "Paekche" is obviously not the same league as far as commonness goes. Gulangyu (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gulangyu: Emphasis on "topics about South Korea". "South Korea" didn't exist until the 1940s, so your argument is anachronistic. I can assume you mean "the southern part of the Korean Peninsula", but this is not what "South Korea" usually refers to (i.e., the Republic of Korea), and clearly is not what MOS:KOREA is referring to. Also, as noted by Timmyshin below, several articles on pre-1948 topics related specifically to the northern part of the Korean Peninsula currently use RR, because MOS:KOREA until recently said to use RR for pre-division topics, but it now says to use MR for these topics, so your argument that we should follow the wording of MOS:KOREA because WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply (I agree with you that it doesn't) is actually an argument in favour of the proposed move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC) (Edited 11:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC))

I see what is going on. You changed the guideline just recently. If we accept the interpretation you are presenting here, then there is a lot of stuff that needs to be moved, including Goguryeo and Joseon. While we are going incrementally, it's "Goguryo and Paekche"? That would look weird. Anyway, let me do some pinging: Jack Upland, Pldx1, SMcCandlish, Curly Turkey, Piotrus Gulangyu (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Mild oppose Nominator has a point, but I agree with AjaxSmack and Gulangyu a little more. Historically Baekje/Paekche's territory falls almost entirely within modern South Korea (as did its 3 capitals), so RR should apply per MOS:KOREA. PS: if the move does go through, Later Baekje should be moved as well per consistency. Timmyshin (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Support I didn't realize, but MOS:KOREA now says "Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division." Per this guideline perhaps Buyeo, Balhae, Goryeo, Goguryeo etc. should all be moved? Timmyshin (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: All in good time, my friend. Several of them, as specifically noted in the recent RFC on MOS:KOREA, are obviously better known in English by their MR spellings. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe in following guidelines, as long as it's done consistently. We can't do this on a case-by-case basis, so if Baekje is moved to Paekche, Goryeo should be moved to Koryŏ, Buyeo to Puyŏ etc. (I can see potential problems in the 20th century, so those topics can perhaps be dealt with individually, but all of the Korean topics before the 20th century should ideally follow the same spelling, particularly if the former territory falls mostly within modern South Korea.) Timmyshin (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm an incrementalist, as I can see this causing problems in places. The fact that the proposal to amend the MOS to say that we should write it "Paekche" received almost no opposition, but now this RM is receiving significantly more opposition is pretty good evidence that there are a lot more people who don't care what the guidelines say and just want the articles to continue to use the "official" spelling that no one outside Korea cares about than people (like you and me) who want to compose the guideline carefully and then follow it with equal care. I said in the proposal that these RMs would need to be done gradually to avoid getting in massive fights,and I stand by that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just saw the RFC on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles and there were way too few participants. I get your rationale for approaching this gradually but have you thought about inconsistencies? Considering the relative scarcity of English-language sources on Korean history (which is quite shocking to me) — even more scarce if you dismiss those "South Korean nationalist" sources with poor English grammar — some undeniably notable articles have to be created from Korean/Chinese/Japanese sources, and applying a MOS guideline consistently will be of utmost importance. My suggestion is to redo the RFC with more participants? Anyway I have no fundamental problems with using MR for historical topics (even if MR required annoying characters like "ŏ"). Timmyshin (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to get as many participants as possible. With how inactive MOS:KOREA is (again, the project seems to be populated entirely by people who don't care about style guidelines) I probably could have inserted my proposal directly with no outside input (and maybe posted a note on the talk page about my doing so) and no one would have noticed or cared, but I didn't want to do that. So I opened an RFC with as brief and clear an explanation of my proposal as possible to get the broader community's opinion, and I posted a note on WikiProject Korea to get the relevant WikiProject's opinion. I honestly don't know how to get more participant's without posting on random users' talk pages...

Anyway, I did think about inconsistencies, and I think it would be reasonable to gradually sand them down over the coming weeks and months. Articles on Korean history already have significant inconsistency in this area, as articles written based on external sources without regard for MOS tend to use MR anyway. I'm not a fan of the ŏ myself either, but if necessary we could always amend the MOS again to say aomething like MOS:CHIJA about leaving the diacritics out of article titles, and it's not really relevant to this RM anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous comment is what really scares me about adopting MR. MR is a more accurate and clear system than RR but it only works with the ŏ, the ŭ and the apostrophes. Arbitrary or optional use of these immediately renders MR inferior to RR. (Similarly with Chinese, WG is more accurate than pinyin but the dropping of apostrophes makes it near worthless.) I also share User:Timmyshin's concerns about too few people sanctioning a major, far-reaching decision Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. —  AjaxSmack  04:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope everyone understands that when I say I'm not a fan I am speaking exclusively of it's awkwardness in inputting on Wikipedia. I am not saying I would support enshrining in the MOS a principle of leaving it out. It is however a point of debate whether leaving it out would be enough to make MR inferior to RR, as an English-speaker with no knowledge of Korean phonetics would do a much better job guessing at the pronunciation of Koguryo than Goguryeo (the last syllable of which is likely illegible to most of them). MR without diacritics is only inferior to RR for the (likely very small) subset of our readers who know Korean but can't read hangul. It's irrelevant to the current RM either way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. After the introduction of RR, it is getting consistent. Refer the festival which celebrates the Kingdom, http://www.baekje.org/html/en/ . --Cheol (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ryuch: Please provide convincing evidence that the majority of sources now spell it "Baekje" "consistently". The ngrams, etc. cited above indicate that even since the introduction of RR, English-language sources still prefer "Paekche". We could speculate that many of sources that for whatever reason are choosing to go against the current and spell it "Baekje" are unreliable sources (travel guides and the like) that use the "official" spelling because they don't know any better, but that is beside the point: the number of sources spelling it "Paekche" has actually increased since the introduction of RR and looks to be about twice that of sources spelling it "Baekje". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the source you linked to is written in barely-intelligible non-English, and therefore cannot be taken as a reliable English-language source. It is one South Korean government-sanctioned source that spells Korean words in English in the officially sanctioned romanization system, but clearly is not interested in communicating effectively with non-Koreans. I worked in a Japanese prefectural government office and "proof-read" (usually re-translated) stuff like this from time to time, but they only ever asked me to check a tiny portion of the English-language material they produced; the rest was produced as a formality but was never meant to actually be read by English-speakers. English Wikipedia has a different target audience. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also -- the festival itself appears somewhat questionable: Is the "2016 Baekje Cultural Festival" the same thing as the "62nd Baekje Cultural Festival"? Was it really "started in 1995"? If it is held three times a year, why is there one called the "2016 Baekje Cultural Festival"? We shouldn't be determining how we spell words in English based on cherry-picked, bad sources, unless we want to start spelling "korea" with a lower-case "k" like they do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly that "1995" was a typo for 1955. Timmyshin (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that just means that for most of it's history the festival used MR rather than RR. Or, rather, it would have, if anyone involved cared about communicating it to English-speakers until very recently, and they still don't care enough to hire someone to proofread the English version; the English version of that website was clearly just produced as a formality to impress a Korean-speaking audience and to attempt to communicate with Japanese, Chinese and South-East Asian ex-pat and diplomatic audiences who don't speak Korean but can (barely) speak English. Neither of these groups are in the target audience for English Wikipedia, so presuming that "Baekje" will be the more familiar spelling because this website uses it is absurd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think "bad English" is a valid reason to dismiss an official site, plus the English on the site isn't that terrible (for Asians—since you worked in Japan I'm sure you've seen much worse lol). I also don't think you can make the argument that "Japanese, Chinese and South-East Asian ex-pat and diplomatic audiences who don't speak Korean but can (barely) speak English" aren't in the target audience for en.wiki, especially when it relates to an Asian topic like this. In fact I think the reverse is true, it's the non-Korean Asians that don't speak a lot of English that are more likely to find Korean history interesting and visit this article on en.wiki, as well as the English version of the website as you mentioned. Of course it doesn't mean that the article should be written in Engrish, but I don't see how the English quality has any bearing on the preferred romanization system. Timmyshin (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that bad English is not a good reason to dismiss a source as unreliable for factual claims, but we shouldn't use such sites as sources for claims that hinge on passages where the English is barely intelligible and could be interpreted in different ways, and we shouldn't use sites that include a lot of misspellings as sources for non-factual questions like how we choose to spell words. I think you are wrong to call it an "official site", though; it is the official site of the Baekje Culture Festival (an event that apparently began in the ROK in the twentieth century), not of the kingdom of Paekche, which went extinct thirteen centuries before the internet was invented, and so does not have an official website. If we create an article on the festival, then we should use its current official name.

Look at it as a mirror version of our article on the Pusan International Film Festival which for many years was a modern South Korean topic whose official name used MR, and was moved after the name of the festival was changed; we had an article called Busan at the same time, and our article on the film didn't match our article on the city, but the "inconsistency" was only because the film festival had an official name that did not match our style guideline (which says to use RR for modern South Korean topics), but we did not choose to have our article on the city contravene our style guideline solely because of the film festival's official name. In this case we have a festival whose official name does not match our style guideline (which says to use MR for pre-1945 topics), but we shouldn't have our article on the ancient kingdom contravene our style guideline solely because of the modern festival's official name.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. For what it's worth, I have noticed that English-language Korean news sites usually use Revised Romanization. My custom search engine has 1,340 results for Baekje and 40 for Paekche. Random86 (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Random86: Yes, but that's why we use RR for topics related to modern South Korea. This article is about the earliest phase of recorded history in the peninsula, so South Korean news sites are not the kind of sources we should be using, nor the kind of sources in which people typically read about this topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has allready been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles... and the RfC was closed by a "template remove" when the time was elapsed, i.e. a snow closing. And now, we have an unilateral change in the manual of style, and a rehash of the whole thing... and some additional bilious comments. Let it snow, again (and move back the mos). Pldx1 (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-closure comments

• I think this sort of issue needs to be discussed at WT:MOSKOREA, not re-re-re-legislated at article after article. Some talking points:
  1. Do something consistent for South Korean topics; do something consistent for North Korean topics; do something consistent for topics relating to historical Korea before the SK/NK split.
  2. It would arguably be preferable for all three to be consistent with each other, but the reasons for using different systems for one or more of these topic ranges may be compelling. Arguably, they are, or the MOS:KOREA guideline would not have settled on them. But, of course, consensus can change, if the reasoning and facts convince enough of us that they should.
  3. Any source-attested style that is not obscure/obsolete (from the standpoint of modern, English-language reliable sources) should be permissible as the NK, SK and historical-Korea choices (or for all three, should they all be made cross-consistent). We simply should not make one up out of nowhere, or use one that has been rejected by the real world.
  4. WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy (cf. WP:COMMONSTYLE for details). It is not and never is the case that we must follow any particular style because it is the most common style. Otherwise, all of MoS could simply be replaced with the sentence "Wikipedia follows the Associated Press Stylebook", since that is numerically the most commonly used set of style recommendatiosn (and this would be a stupid and terrible idea, because WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine, and is not written in news style). The MoS (including its subpages like MOS:KOREA) are based on editorial consensus on what styles are best for WP's purposes and audience, informed by but not beholden to off-WP, paper style guides, especially academic and non-fiction book publishing ones, not those for other registers of usage, like journalism, business/marketing, blogging, fiction, topic-specific academic journals, etc. In short, MoS is general-audience, cross-national (to the extent possible), and semi-formal.
  5. However, this Baekje versus Paekche sort of case isn't entirely a style matter, but blends into what the most common name is in English-language sources, not just how it is styled. That is, an argument can be made that Baekje and Paekche are not really the same name for English-speakers' purposes. And counterarguments can be made against that position. Both sides can have a rational basis; people prioritize differently, not being robots. Ergo, no one should be a "hard-liner" about this matter in either direction.
  6. Conclusion: Let the WP:COMMONSENSE meta-policy guide us.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baekje. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5kwPni5fJ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fencarta.msn.com%2Fencyclopedia_761568150_4%2FPottery.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Language

The baekje language is not part of old korean, as stated on baekje language. This should be changed.212.95.7.203 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Baekje. 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/20160303233011/http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html to http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233011/http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html to http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
• 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/20110614110053/http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news/shellview.htm?articleid=2009041714570953401&linkid=42&newssetid=495 to http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news/shellview.htm?articleid=2009041714570953401&linkid=42&newssetid=495
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214055517/http://baekje.chungnam.net/english/index.jsp to http://baekje.chungnam.net/english/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160229220412/http://buyeo.museum.go.kr/ to http://buyeo.museum.go.kr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415003325/http://gongju.museum.go.kr/ to http://gongju.museum.go.kr/

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) 17:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

population

The number of Baekje people recorded in Samguk Yusa does not refer to Baekje population in the 7th century.

It is because the words "the time of the heyday" are added to the contents of the population number.

In my opinion, the Baekje population written in Samguk Yusa is probably referring to the population from the 4th to the 5th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.252 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baekje. 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/20160229220412/http://buyeo.museum.go.kr/ to http://buyeo.museum.go.kr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415003325/http://gongju.museum.go.kr/ to http://gongju.museum.go.kr/

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) 19:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)