Talk:Yamato People
Get Talk:Yamato People essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:Yamato People discussion. Add Talk:Yamato People to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Talk:Yamato People

On Kofun coming from Korea

Kofun culture did come from Korea. Yamato Theory what is Japanese Yamato theory The origin of Japanese people: Genetic Evidence: DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. The Y-DNA ( Paternal line) of the modern Japanese is composed of 50 percent of haplogrop O, of Sino-Korean origins. More specifically, subgroup O3 is of Chinese origin, which O2b is Korean. The rarer subgroup O1 and O2a are of southern Chinese or southeast asian origin. DNA analysis of the Japanese people: Frequency in Japan: ( This is Yamato Theory): 03 Chinese origin: 21 percent, 02b Korean origin: 32 percent, Southern chinese origin: 1 percent, southeast asian origin: 0.1 percent. Yamato tribe is Korean origin ( 02b Korean origin DNA 32 percent). --Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanDNA (talk o contribs) 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The old Kofun culture did come from Korean Peninsula as well Korean race ( Jomon and Yayoi). --Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk o contribs) 00:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yamato and Kofun comming from Korea discussion. Actually there isn't any discussion History and Culture is developed from Geographical location. For example, if Koreans or Korean peninsula didn't exist would Japanese( Yamato) or Japan exist today If you use common sense the answer would be No. Right?

Korea or Korean Peninsula had three kingdoms Koguryo ( Koma Jpn), Paekje ( Kudara Jpn), Shilla ( Shiragi Jpn), Kaya Confederacy (Shilla Kingdom) ( Minama Jpn). Koguryo, Kudara, and Kaya had long history interacting with Japan. When Shilla Kingdom unified Korean peninsula Kings and Queens from Koguryo, Paekje, Kaya ( followers) settled in Japan. The geographical distance closest to Korea and Japan is ( Kansai/Kinai) region. Kofun culture was born in Japan.

Lets think clearly without Japanese or Korean nationalism. If Koreans or Korean peninsula didn't exist today. Japanese or Yamato race exist modern world today The answer would be NO. Japanese are mixed between Korean and Ainu. Kofun culture reflects cultural interaction that forms Japanese race today that we call Yamato race. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreakoreawatch (talk o contribs) 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for the claim that Kohun came from Korea. In fact the opposite seems to be the case: Kofun was made earlier in Japan and later introduced to Korea. See for example. Claims on "the military mentality" and the rest also are utterly unfounded.

The entire history subsections should be moved to either Kohun or Yamato period. "Yamato" (?) is the name of the dominant ethnic group in Japan today. The name is not limited to the ancient people. -- 04:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The countrys of South of Korea peninsula in those days, Paekche,Imna and Silla are distinguished from Kogury the ancestors of Korean people because of their racial constituent. Bright888

korean influence on japanese early culture is widely acknowledged by western scholars. transmission of buddhism, confucianism, & chinese script from korea to japan is not seriously disputed. baekje, silla, & goguryeo are not considered separate races by western scholars. Appleby 22:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm questionig the fact that Kogury the ancestors of Korean people and three nations Paekche,Imna and Silla had same racial constituent. So it's better to say the three nations instead of Korea.Bright888

you may question it, but you would be in the very small minority. encarta says "Kogury?, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc."[1], & columbia encyclopedia says "Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom" [2]

Encarta also says: "The pottery of the Yayoi culture (300? bc-ad 250?), made by a Mongol people who came from Korea to Ky?sh?, has been found throughout Japan." "Chinese culture spread from Korea to the island kingdom of Japan, ruled by the Yamato clan" "Records exist of Korean Paekche monks traveling to Japan to build temples and forge large bronze images of the Buddha.... As a result of this early contact, however, Buddhism made significant inroads in Japan, Chinese characters were adopted for writing, and other Chinese influences affected Japanese culture." columbia encyclopedia also says: "Contacts with Korea were close, and bronze and iron implements were probably introduced by invaders from Korea around the 1st cent." Appleby 18:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

At least to say that in jomon era jomon people's lived in south korean peninsula and "wajin" lived in there in yayoi era (see chnese history "Gishi-Wajin-den").So it bettet to say the their racial constituents of Korea and three nations were diffrent. It is well-known fact.Bright888

please provide citations to reputable english publications at least as authoritative as encarta & columbia encyclopedia. there are many ancient chinese, japanese, & korean records that are conflicting & with varying credibility, which is why we need reputable, scholarly sources for the general consensus view. i've provided authoritative citations to the buddhism & chinese writing, korean invasion & general korean influence. please do not revert unless you can provide citations to back up your edits. Appleby 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

if you can provide credible, authoritative sources for what you want to change, we can discuss the details & try to come up with different wording, but please do not simply revert without providing reputable sources.Appleby 18:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i think to think the three nations of south Korean nations in thoose days to be same krean nation is Korean ethnocentrism. Racial diversity in those days must not to be ignored. So it bettet to use three nations name.Bright888

and the three nations were under Japanese influence too.Bright888

please provide citations to reputable publications so we can discuss them instead of our personal opinions. Appleby 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Baekje is not equal to Korea. It better to write "Baekje broke down in the later 6th century."Bright888

please provide citations. Appleby 15:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

you must read "Gish Wajin-den".It is impossible to discuss about the age of around 5th century in east asia without reading chinese history.Bright888

there are many chinese, korean, & japanese records, & we are not supposed to do original research from ancient source material in foreign languages. see Resource: No original research. resource is a collection of consensus facts from reputable publications, like other encyclopedias. see Resource: Verifiability. Please explain your reverts after you read the resource policies. Appleby 19:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

i think you suggesting that Baekje esnicsity is equal to Korea in 21 century. But at laest two langege were used in south Korea in 5th century in south Korea so the esnicsity is not clear. and ofcause you must read chinese history in those days too, if there were not the english translations.Bright888

i already changed "korea" to "korean peninsula" or "baekje." i'm not saying anything about ethnicity. i don't have to read chinese history original texts, we have to find reputable publications like other encyclopedias. that's resource policy, please read. Appleby 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't have to read chinese history original texts, we have to find reputable publications like other encyclopedias.
Why? Why? Why? Those encyclopedias you count on are second or third source materials, and you say we should ignore first materials? When searching Korean and Japanese histories, we DO need Chinese materials and it's almost impossible to discuss anything about ancient East Asian history without them. I can't believe you don't use Chinese histories though you understand classical Chinese. I understand Koreans have to stress Korean influence on Japan, but neglecting important sources is not good. What we should read are, for example, Hou Han Shu, San Guo Zhi (Dong Yi Zhuan) and so on...and many of them are available online. I have thought it's requisite to read them, but someone hasn't read them and wrote something about ancient Asian history at Wikipedia...unbelievable. 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i think you want to confuse the esnisity name Korea and the place name korea. they are ofcause different things. you must prove the esnisity of korea is equal to Baekje by your sugesting publications. Bright888

Samguk Sagi(?)a korean history in 12c says that in Baekje it was diffrent the langage of the governing class and the langage of the people.Bright888



Yamato People is history. In reality Yamato people did not exist. If you want to discuss about history ( facts and figures) Yamato people consist Koreans and Ainu blood mixed thats ( Yamato people). Before Koreans and Ainu ( Yamato people) did not exist. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk o contribs) 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baekje esnicsity constituent is not clear refer to Samguk Sagi. At least it is not equal to Korea because of langeges. And Refet to Nihonshoki,Yamato's government extended to Imna(). And Baekje and Yamato had alliance to fight allied forces of Silla and Tang Dynasty of China(Hakusukinoe no Tatakai,(also known as Battle of Hakusonkou). So at least to say that Korean ethnicity today and that of Baekje and Imna were not correctly equal. This variousity of ethnicity were ordinarily thing like Ainu in Japan. So to think Baekje was Korean ethnicity is one of unnutral thinking.

Please write correctly.

please cite to reputable publications for your contentions. wikipedians do not do original research with ancient foreign language source materials, we collect consensus facts from well-known encyclopedias, media & scholarly works. please, read the resource policy: Resource: Verifiability Resource: No original research Resource: 3RR. Appleby 19:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
please cite to reputable publications for your contentions. that Korean nation of today and Baekje are equal.if you cant you'd better to use Baekje in return for Korea.Bright888
The goal of resource is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.And Samguk Sagi and Nihonshoki are reliable and easily verfied ofcause.Bright888

every sentence in the korea section is cited. every time "korea" is used is cited to the source. samguk sagi & nihonshoki are not reputable publications, which go through professional fact-checking & layers of editors. they are original historical source material that are difficult to interpret without special historical expertise, and many parts are contradictory or mythical & interpretations are very much disputed. they are not credible sources of facts by themselves. Appleby 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

you think easily to be Korea in today and "Baekje" in those days are equal ethnisity but it is unusual and it must be proofed.please cite to reputable publications for your contentions. that Korean nation of today and Baekje are equal.if you cant you'd better to use Baekje in return for Korea.Bright888

I want to see most famous Korean and Japanese historys. If you cant you don't have reliance to write.Bright888

you have been reported for 3 revert rule violation. you tried to take out references to korean influence, despite my providing you with citations. after your reverts, i changed some wording, from "korea" to "baekje" or "korean peninsula," but you continued to revert & deleting everything. i decided to create a new subsection about korean influence, with citations to encyclopedias & even japan-pov websites, but you just continue to delete everything. this is not acceptable. the 3 kingdoms of korea are described in all reputable publications as "korean," this is not a serious dispute [3], & you haven't provided any citations, except your personal interpretations of ancient disputed source material. Appleby 21:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Korean has two means. One of it is place name and another is ethnic name.Yore argument is alwasy confusig of two of them. I think your thougt is one of ethnocentrism.It isn't acceptable.Bright888

i am not making any claims about ethinicity. you are trying to make some point that's hard to understand, especially without any references that english wikipedian readers can see. if you can provide some sources to what you want to add, i think the wording can be improved, but because of your constant reverts, for now, i have accurately summarized (keeping the use of "korea" or "baekje" the same as the source) & linked to the sources for every sentence. Appleby 22:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yamato people are an ethnic group, not a history

Yamato people is history. If you want to discuss history ( facts and figures). Yamato people or race consist Korean and Ainu blood mixing thats Yamato people. Before Koreans or Ainu arrival ( Yamato people) did not exist. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk o contribs) 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Yamato people," or the Yamato minzoku (?), is a name of the dominant ethnic group of Japan today (see ja:?). It's not a name for some ancient people or for the people of the Yamato court (?). It's a term coined in the late 19th century by modern Japanese anthologists. If you want to describe the ancient history of Japan, go to Kohun or Yamato period or some other appropriate articles instead. -- 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yamato is dominant group are you sure your all Yamato The origin of Japanese people: Genetic Evidence: DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. The Y-DNA ( Paternal line) of the modern Japanese is composed of 50 percent of haplogroup 0, of Korean-Sino origin. More specifically, subgroup 03 is of Chinese origin, while 02b is Korean. The rarer subgroup 01 and 02a are of southern chinese or southeast asian origin. DNA analysis of the Japanese people: Frequency in Japan: ( 03 Chinese origin: 21 percent, 02b Korean origin: 32 percent, 01 southern chinese origin: 1 percent, 02a southeast asian: 0.1 percent) so Yamato tribal origins are Korean origin 02b ( Korean origin DNA 32 percent of Japanese DNA). Don't give us Yamato theory bullshit alright. --Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanDNA (talk o contribs) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yamato people or Yamato nation?

Yamato people or Yamato nation

Yamato people: Koreans and Ainu ( mixed) Yamato grammar: Korean language. Yamato 80 percent writing characters: Chinese. ( unlike Koreans Japanese depends on Chinese characters for daily life usage). Yamato historical birth: Korea and Kyushu/ Kansai plain. Yamato blood line: Koreans. For example, Emperor lineage comes from Korean Kingdom " Paekje/ Kudara in Japanese. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk o contribs) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can help me about Japanese name for Yamato People I know in Chinese means nation, and Chinese scholars use this word for all ethnic minorities. But I'm not sure its Japanese meaning. Is it same with Chinese?--CenkX (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DNA analysis of the Japanese people: Frequency in Japan: ( 03 chinese origin:21 percent, 01 south chinese origin: 1 percent, southeast asian: 0.1 percent, O2B Korean origin: 32 percent). Yamato origin is Korean origin 32 percent DNA 02b. --Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanDNA (talk o contribs) 07:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do the Yamato people get to be considered an ethnicity?

But not the French people? For some reason it's racist to even speak of a French ethnicity. (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who ever said French wasn't an ethnicity, and what does that have to with this page? If, you want complain about reverse racism or how everything is anti-white or whatever there already exists pages on resource that would be better for that. Don't bring your agenda where it doesn't belong. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

BC or AD?

There should be clarification on whether the dates are in BC or AD. The Yamato started to kick out the Jomon in the 300s BC, and so when I'm seeing stuff about the Yomato Court in x century, I don't know whether it's from AD or BC. A casual reader who came upong this page would have no idea either in all likelyhood. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Tevet 5774 17:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryukyuans Unrelated

The whole section lacks credible sources and needs to be redone. I specifically have a problem with the assertion that the Yamato and Ryukyuans being related is a discredited ideological claim. From a purely linguistic standpoint the Yamato and Ryukyuans share a linguistic heritage, meaning that they are indeed related groups. The debate is whether they are Yamato or not, not if the two groups are related. Canodae (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reworded it a bit. It is now more neutral/correct.--AsadalEditor (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes