Template talk:History of Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Korea (Rated Template-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Korean history working group.

Wiman Joseon and Chinese commanderies[edit]

This template is excellent! Thanks for making it. I wonder if it might be a good idea to include two more periods between Gojoseon and Three Kingdoms, namely:

  1. Wiman Joseon and Jin
  2. Chinese commanderies and Samhan

(I'm still working on the latter two articles. Feel free to create them.)

Thoughts? -- Visviva 11:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


In general, in the school textbook Wiman Josen and Jin(A Dynastiy of China) are not included as a historical period. And Wiman Joseon is one of controvercies, some people regard it as a period of Gojoseon.
Chinese commanderies was a temporal occupation, and they should be included in Chinese history, not in Korean history even though they placed in Korean peninsula. And at that times Goguryeo was developing, so we could see it is included in Three Kingdoms period. Samhan, too. What about linking those articles to Gojoseon and Three Kingdoms? -- Ryuch 12:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, this does get pretty complicated. By Jin I was referring to Jin (Korean history), the shadowy state controlling the area south of the Han River during Wiman Joseon times. If Wiman Joseon is part of Gojoseon, then what do we do with Jin? Maybe nothing -- it isn't really very important. ... It seems a little problematic to consider Samhan as part of the Three Kingdoms period, although certainly the Three Kingdoms (especially Goguryeo) were beginning to develop during that time. The unique characteristics of the Three Kingdoms, such as rapid cultural advances and three-way power struggles, don't really emerge until the fourth century. The Daegu museum site refers to Samhan as the "Proto-Three-Kingdoms period" for that reason. [1] The Naver Encyclopedia, interestingly, also distinguishes Samhan from the Three Kingdoms, but treats Samhan as part of Korean prehistory. [2] ... I don't really understand why we should consider the Chinese commanderies to be purely Chinese history, any more than we would treat the Japanese occupation of Korea as purely Japanese history. Although Chinese-ruled, the commanderies were located on what is now indisputably Korean soil and were mostly populated by the same Korean people who had made up Gojoseon.
But as far as the template goes, I think you're right. For now, it's probably best to let it be. The template should be reserved for fairly clear-cut historical periods, making an exception for Gojoseon due to its exceptional notability. Given the complex and disputed nature of the earliest Korean history, the other pre-Three Kingdoms periods should be linked from articles, but not from the template. --Visviva 03:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for good comments. I did not major the history of Korea, but an amateur I am. I thought that the template would be better simple and clear. We could include other many short periods as well as the periods you mentioned. For example, Korean Empire. But I found that I think it's an extension of Joseon. But as you mentioned many other references sometimes include Samhan as a period. And Chinese commanderies are described under the period. Now I think it could be possible to add Samhan period between Gojoseon and Three Kingdoms. About Jin I was misunderstood, I thought it for Jin Danasty of China. I think we have two options one is Samhan, the other is pre-three kingdoms. The former would be good, because it includes specific names, but it also excludes the Chinese commanderies.
You asked if the 4 Chinese commandaries is not Korean History. I think it is. But for the period, we'd better put it to Chinese history template if they want. And Now I think Samhan period could be the priod to desribe those commanderies. -- Ryuch 14:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'from the Korean point of view' deleted[edit]

It's not so nice to write the comment about the template on itself. You'd better talk about in this discussion page. What's is Korean's view and what is the NPOV? --Ryuch 10:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Japanese occupation (1900-1950) period[edit]

Years instenad of the name of the period, it's strange. It's a shame for Korean, but we usually call it 일제시대(일정시대), which means Japanese occupation period. I revert. -- Cheol 7 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't realize that was you, good Mr Cheol... Feel free to re-revert me. However, if we're going to keep "Japanese occupation" as the name in this template, we should also change the name of the relevant article, which currently is History of Korea (1900-1950). I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or not... -- Visviva 7 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

.[edit]


History of Korea
File:Logo-19.jpg
Ancient Korea
Gojoseon Jin
Dangun Joseon
Gija Joseon
Wiman Joseon
Proto‑Three Kingdoms Period
Buyeo Samhan
Three Kingdoms Period
Goguryeo Baekje Silla
North‑South States Period
Balhae Unified Silla
Later Three Kingdoms
Goryeo
Joseon
Korean Empire
Japanese occupation
Modern Korea
Divided Korea
South Korea North Korea

I don't think Dangun Joseon, Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon belongs in the timeline as separate entries. Dangun Joseon just goes to Gojoseon, and Gija and Wiman are covered as controversies in the Gojoseon article. The three separate ideas are not widely accepted by modern scholars in Korea or the west. There is a lot of uncertainty about Gojoseon, and not enough agreement on the details to put it so prominently. PlacidoQ 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning on creating a seperate article for Dangun Joseon. The term is used by history scholars, even Korean history scholars. And the fact that Gija Joseon and Wiman Josean are controversial does not mean they don't belong on the navigational menu. There is certainly no concensus on the two - otherwise they would not be controversial. And really, the fact that they are controversial, to me, is just more of an argument to include them on the menu because the articles contain useful information. Also, I want to add, the Korean version of this template has those three periods listed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already an article on Dangun. I don't know why you would need different articles on Dangun, Dangun Joseon, and Gojoseon.

If being controversial is the reason, you should also include Hwanguk and Baedalguk, which are even more controversial. But then the list would not be a general guide to basic Korean history articles, but a collection of all kinds of speculations and theories.

The Korean Wikipedia is very undeveloped, because of the popularity of a similar types of services at Korean portal sites. It should not be taken as a guide to the popular or scholarly consensus. Many basic articles haven't even been created. Just take a look at their History of Korea article. PlacidoQ 06:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research online and there might not be enough sources to an article on Dangun Joseon itself, and I do see that it's often used as just another name for Gojoseon. So I'll probably not try to create an article specifically on Dangun Joseon.
The fact that the Korean WP is very undeveloped yet it still has Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon on their version of the template just means that the English WP, being more developed, should have the two listed on the menu. And I'm perfectly OK with listing Hwanguk and Baedalguk as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

+ Jeulmun and Mumun Periods[edit]

Excuse me, but I added Jeulmun Pottery Period and Mumun Pottery Period. Please be reminded that both of these periods are classified as proper nouns and so should remain capitalised. Mumun 無文 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

rationale for bolded and non-bolded text[edit]

Hi, I was wondering about why some periods/ages are bolded and some are not. It looks to me that long, long periods of time are bolded, no? If so, both Jeulmun and Mumun fit the criteria for bolding. However, doesn't anyone think that the bolding of Jeulmun and Mumun makes the template appear 'top heavy' and thus look slightly undesirable? Would it not be better to have these two links, and possibly Go Joseon, without bolding? Comments? Mumun 無文 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The "BETA" Version of the New History of Korea Template[edit]

History of Korea History of Korea
Jeulmun Period
Mumun Period
Gojoseon
Jin
Proto-Three Kingdoms
Buyeo Okjeo
Dongye Mahan
Byeonhan Jinhan
Three Kingdoms
Goguryeo Baekje
Silla Gaya
North and South States
Silla
676-936 AD
Balhae
698-926 AD
Later Three Kingdoms
Goryeo
Khitan Wars
Mongol Invasions
Joseon
Japanese Invasions
Manchu Invasions
Korean Empire
Japanese Occupation
Provisional Government
Division of Korea
Korean War
North Korea South Korea

Timeline
List of monarchs
Military history
Naval history

Korea Portal
"Copyright" 2007 User:Amphitere (and some credits to User:Korea history)

Please leave comments on ways to improve this new template.

I made some changes - removed unnecessary styles; smaller image; larger font size; no need to bold everything; put North Korea and South Korea side by side; centered misc. section and put Timeline first.
I didn't change the background colours, but I think we need to change them.
Looks good. But I doubt this template can be copyrighted by anyone. It is long: could we shorten it by doubling up some of the specific Proto-Three Kingdoms so that they appear on on line? For example, Buyeo and Okjeo, Dongye and Mahan, Byeon and Jin? Mumun 無文 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks better now...it uses space more effectively...Mumun 無文 12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this template better than the one being used now, that ones too big. Was there a discussion on this before? Because I seemed to have missed a chunk of it. Good friend100 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some other place people are discussing the major change to this template? I liked the older slimmer version, it was more complete, visually simpler and easier to navigate. I wouldn't mind some color, but I would like to keep the list as before. Esroh 23:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some way to get the template to float under an infobox?. Articles like Later Three Kingdoms look terrible. PC78 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there seems to be a problem with how the template is placed in almost every single article related to KorHist. 70.53.129.40 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed back to the old version (last edited by Kusonose) for now, because Kfc1864's change was too drastic. It lost too many links, has too many colors, and was too wide, among other technical problems. The one on the right is incorrect or misleading in a few areas. I would like to see the old version improved with subtle 2- or 3-tone coloring, and reduced in size a little bit without losing information. Just my own opinion. Esroh 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I still like this template, the one used right now is too big and too similiar to the chinese one and also confusing. Good friend100 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
'kay. I'll fix it.Kfc1864 talk my edits 06:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with the existing template, but could we please have some discussion before a new IP address completely replaces it? Some of the problems I see with 221.138.73.61's design are: the inclusion of Hwanin/Hwanung myth, inclusion of state and person(Dangun/Gojoseon), inconsistent use of collective names (Samhan and individual Hans, but not Three Kingdoms), Provisional Gov't listed before Japanese rule, and so on. As stated before, I also think it's too garish and too wide, but that's my subjective view. Esroh 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very good at Wiki markup, but here are some ideas and questions to improve the existing version:

  • Only major periods should be bolded. I think the major periods are Gojoseon, 3K, N-S States, Goryeo, Joseon, and N-S Korea, but others may have different ideas.
  • Events (invasions, wars) should be italicized, to distinguish them from states/periods.
  • Add two or three shades tastefully, without turning it into some pastel rainbow.
  • Some links may be made even smaller, but I don't know how to do it (such as the Ma/Byeon/Jin, Taebong/Hubaekje, various invasions, Division of Korea, Military/Naval history links)
  • Is Korean Empire a continuation of Joseon, or a new state/period?
  • Is Japanese rule a new state/period, or an event, like Mongol rule of Goryeo?
  • Is the Provisional Government a successor to Joseon/Korean Empire? I think only South Korea thinks so, is that enough?
  • Should Division of Korea be in the template?
  • Should Korean War be placed after N-S Koreas?
  • Do we need a link to Naval History? Or even Military History?

Let's discuss these things, before just completely replacing the existing one. Esroh 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Joseon covers the period of Korean empire, Jap.'s occupation, and provisional gov. --Cheol (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaya...[edit]

The infobox looks like Gaya was a subordinate of Silla. It wasn't for many years, it was for short years. I'll change it, any discrepancies here. feel free to revert. Kfc18645 talk 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

People's Republic of Korea was not recognized as a government[edit]

Generally Korean do not think it's a goverment which represents entire Koreans. --Cheol (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a government, but it's so called provisional government, same as article Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. 207.233.69.239 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

middle age of Korea[edit]

Please refer to [3]. --Cheol (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's really no need to refer to "middle age" because the actual years are already in the table. Yes, some sources use "middle age" terminology, but many historians consider it to be a European historic label that loses relevance or confuses meaning when applied to other regions. I thought the earlier form of the table was much easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.50.161 (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that middle age is the European Middle age. Scholars of Korean history divide the period into some ages, one of them is 'middle age'. Please refer this page also --Cheol (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt read the page you said but it but anyone with a basic knoledge of history recognizes the middle ages as an european concept that only applies to europe. Besides in earlier versions of the template there wasnt no medieval reference.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Already it has found evidence. Please, Don't deny it alone.--Historiographer (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
One page?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, most other non-European history templates. "Middle Ages" may be sometimes used, but it is disfavored and completely unnecessary here. It doesn't add any information. 203.247.145.21 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare pretty much any non-European history template. Ancient, Middles Ages, etc. label do not add any info, and are generally disfavored by modern historians. Of course you can Google to find some examples, but it's not the general consensus. I don't mind efforts to make the template prettier, but the addition of these section labels are distracting. 203.247.145.21 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Historiographer said that "Already, many other history template are used this style. Don't compared with China and Japan. It is in a totally unrelated field.", I absolutely agree with him. Also, You mentioned Cheol's evidence is just One page. However, you are probably not know about East Asian History Foundation (동북아역사재단, 東北亞歷史財團). It is a government organization under Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. Please refer to [4]. This organization have public confidence than your insists.--Aocduio (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I said there is Korean middle age, but now I do not insist to use that term in this template. As I wrote when this discussion page just started, we'd better make it simple as it could be possible. In this template 'Middle ages' just covers Korea dynasty and some scholars argue a period of Chosun dynasty also belongs to the age. So it is not so useful and clear. I like current template which does not have 'Middle ages'. Thank you for you attention and discussions. --Cheol (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the simple style more, but the dispute is about more than just "style." Content change, like the misleading Middle Age and other unnecessary era labels, should be discussed more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.176.245.15 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the proposed new template is not the style, but the inconsistency of headings. If there is a heading called Ancient, Proto-Three Kingdoms era should surely be under that, as well as probably some part of Three Kingdoms. Proto-Three Kingdoms or Later Three Kingdoms is not at the same categorical level as "Ancient" and "Modern History." What is the definition of Middle Ages? Later Three Kingdoms, or even late Silla, could be "Middle Ages." There is no academic consensus for calling early Joseon "Middle Ages" or "Modern" or "Early Modern."

While "Modern" and "Contemporary" may be relevant labels for European art movements, they do not add anything to this template for Korean history. Why aren't there articles under Ancient Korea or Middle Ages of Korea? Because they would be unnecessary and inappropriate article topics, since there already are articles for the major periods of Korean history. All of these "ancient" or "modern" labels are unnecessary, inaccurate, misleading, and redundant, because each major era already has actual years listed in the template.

Also, "Later Goguryeo" and "Republic of Korea" are wrong labels, because Wikipedia's policy is to use common names, which is why the titles of the articles are "Taebong" and "South Korea," and the template should use the same name as the article title.

I wish people would discuss these substantive issues before just insisting on a change. Thank you. 203.247.145.21 (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

During transition to new template, middle ages and early modern period are added without consensus. I'm not sure I could fix correctly, so I hesitate to revert. But I want to point out current version is not correct one. --Cheol (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

see ancient history and middle ages. these labels are generally considered specific to european history, and do not fit every culture. this has been discussed before. please discuss and get knowledgeable consensus before change. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.176.245.15 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Historiographer, please don't revert people for the fun of it. You re-introduced errors, such as the beginning date of Unified Silla and the alphabetical order of North and South Korea. Korean war is a historical event, just like Japanese occupation, so should appear chronologically, not in the "by topic" section. I'm not sure independent movement should be a separate line, given the scale of this template (5 centuries of Joseon Dynasty is just a single line), although other people should comment on this. 99.88.103.225 (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Under Contemporary history[edit]

Currently South Korea is referred to by its official name, while the North Korea is just listed as North Korea. It looks kind of disjointed. So should we use the official names for the two Koreas? Akkies (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it into 'South Korea'. --Cheol (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit warring[edit]

As there has been a ongoing edit warring, I have reverted controversial parts to the stable version, based on a version by Caspian blue as of 6 September 2009 while retaining some of Historiographer's edits, as per WP:REVERT If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. My changes and rationales are as follows. Please stop further edit warring and discuss issues for changes here. --Kusunose 04:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Slash before Jin
I see no point inserting a slash before Jin and the stable version did not have it, I removed it.
Goguryeo in the Proto Three-Kingdoms section
Retained Historiographer's edit. I see no specific objections from the reverting editors to this change so I retained it although it did not appear in the stable version.
Unified Silla in the North-South States section
Reverted to the stable version, given the repeated objections to the edit. Unified Silla is a historical period of Silla more specific to North-South States Period so it makes sense to use the period instead of the state.
Japanese occupation/Japanese rule
Reverted to the stable version. Use of "rule" is in line with the article title and better in terms of WP:NPOV. Not the subject of current edit warring
Link to Division of Korea#After World War II instead of Division of Korea
Retained Historiographer's edit. More specific to years given (1945–1948)
Placement of Korean War
Reverted to the stable version, given the repeated objections to the edit. Putting historical periods and events together makes sense as it gives chronological perspective and combining historical events and broader topics seems categorically wrong.

Recent edit warring (July 2013)[edit]

Please discuss the problem here instead of reverting back and forth. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The reasons of reverting were that. Contentious Gija Joseon is denied by modern Korea unlike pre-modern Korea, which was fascinated Sadaejuui (Serving-the-Great[i.e. China and their contents]-ism). However, opponents only claimed their old-fashioned concept against those modern historical research result. The historical continuity of Chinese commandaries was neither nor Korean history and Chinese history.--Historiographer (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Your personal opinion regarding the commanderies contradicts the fact that they are presented in just about every English language book on Korean history. Excluding a period from Korean history simply because it violates your own sensibilities is irresponsible and violates NPOV. The history of a country has never been restricted to exactly those that it perceives compatible with its present political continuity; otherwise, why is the Japanese colonial period - which no Korean state perceives to be within the Korean continuity - included in the History of Korea? Lathdrinor (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"their old-fashioned concept"? Historiographer, when you want to claim a point, the proof is necessary. Now show me that the current major korea history textbooks don't talk about Chinese commandaries, otherwise your point is worthless. Here let me simply list some of many college textbooks that do discuss the Chinese commandaries as the part of Korea history:
Kyung Moon hwang, "A History of Korea, An Episodic Narrative" 2010,
Carter J. Eckert, el., "Korea, Old and New: History" 1990,
Michael J. Seth, "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present" 2010,
Charles Roger Tennant, "A History of Korea" 1996,
Mark Peterson, "A Brief History Of Korea" 2009.
Based on all above CURRENT research, the Chinese commandary is a must to be listed in the template. Regarding the Gija Joseon, as said by the Prof. Hwang in his book, "Nationalist sentiment in the modern era has diminished Gija's place today to the point of near extinction". I believe for the sake of neutrality, we should contain Gija in the template also. Isitall (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Han commanderies are globally confirmed and only refused by Korean nationalist.--Collision787 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did you cited Carter J. Eckert? Is it same person of Sockpuppet?--Historiographer (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I cited every English textbook listed on the History of Korea page. It seems that you would take anyone who cited Carter Eckert's book into the suspect of a sockpuppet and I hope this is not because you are unable to refute what's in book. Anyway, Historiographer, regarding the Chinese commandaries you still have not provided any evidence to support yourself here. Wish you can do better next time. Isitall (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gija Joseon is widely rejected by historians, due to contradicting archaeological evidence and historical anachronism. It is also suggested that Gija Joseon was fabricated during the times of Han Dynasty to justify its conquests of Gojoseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And by all means, where are the references to support your opinion that "Gija is widely rejected by historians" and is even "fabricated"? Isitall (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The proof of burden is on you. You, and some anon IP, are the ones insisting on making these biased changes on Gija Joseon. No serious works of Korean history, including the ones you cited, considers Gija Joseon seriously. They are sometimes mentioned, only to be contradicted. In many cases, such as in The Rise of Civilization in East Asia by Gina Barnes, it's not even mentioned. Take a look at this article[5] which concerns the Gija Joseon controversy. Unless you provide some significant proof that Gija Joseon is a widely accepted part of Korean history, I suggest you refrain from making edits that contradict scholarly consensus. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gija Joseon is largely rejected by archaeologists and historians, yet it still fulfills WP:N in being a topic of sufficient importance. While I have not read Barnes' The Rise of Civilization in East Asia, I have read her later work, State Formation in Korea, where Gija - Qizi, following her Romanization - and the myths surrounding him are given a full treatment. To be sure, Barnes does not embrace the view that Qizi Choson was a historical entity. However, her description of the narrative gives off the impression that the controversy surrounding Qizi is indispensable to understanding the disparity between traditional Korean historiography and contemporary Korean historiography. A few lines describing the traditional view and its flaws, with a link to Gija Joseon, ought to be sufficient and is preferable to blanking Gija from History of Korea. I do not support including Gija Joseon in the template, however, because it is not an accepted stage in modern Korean history. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
First, Cydevil38, you should understand the definition of "edit warring" before you use it as an excuse to revert wiki pages. Secondly, I would agree with Lathdrinor and you that Gija peroid has not been considered as a historical entity in the western academic society. On this English wiki page, I suggest we can delete it from the template but left some descriptions in the context. However, Han commanderies, as the major western textbooks do, has to be included in the Korea-history related wiki pages. Isitall (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Then, how do you explain the fact that all of regional history of Korea including Tamna and Usan that is not regarded as formal flow of history. They cannot recognized to formal flow of history, even less external administrative district. Isn't it?--Historiographer (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The explanation is that the histories of outlying islands are not normally included in the template, while the histories of states - even minor states - within the main continental body are, which is why Gaya, for example, is in the template. But WP is not a place for disputing methodologies. The rationale for their inclusion is that the Four Commanderies are included in mainstream English textbooks on Korean history - and you have yet to provide a single source supporting your own flow. Till you provide WP:N sources, your revisions constitute WP:OR. For the sake of not violating WP:NOR and in observance of the various sources provided by others, don't revise without providing equally valid WP:N sources supporting your flow. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Mainstream English textbooks on Korean history? Most important thing is the academia of directly involved country, not the others textbooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.64.169.131 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
First, English sources are preferred because sources from the involved country, in this case, are not in English and therefore difficult to verify. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Second, even setting aside the preference for English sources, no sources of equal weight to the existing sources were presented for the opposing view. Third, even were such sources presented, under Wikipedia:NPOV they do not allow for the removal/censorship of existing sourced content. At best they allow for a controversy section to be added for whether the commanderies belong to Korean history. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
121.64.169.131, English sources are important things in English Wikipedia I agree. Lathdrinor, however, his words are persuasive opinions that you need to acception I think. Any history template is not on recorded subsidiary information. The western rule over Hong Kong and Macau is not on the Template:History of China. Isn't it?--Historiographer (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hong Kong and Macau are not a good analogy, as they are tiny bits of Chinese territory. Template:History of China does include Liao, Western Xia, and Jin Dynasty, when large swathes of Chinese territory were occupied by foreign invaders (and of course Yuan and Qing, which conquered all of China). These are more comparable to the Han commanderies, IMHO. -Zanhe (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Territorial extent are not point, and the foreign invaders founded their dynasty and sinicize. However Korean colonial administration by Chinese was not that as a part.--Historiographer (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
By that logic, the Japanese colonial period ought to be removed from Template:History of Korea. I think you misunderstand the purpose of this template. Political independence/continuity with the current government are not the main criteria for inclusion. Template:History of India, for example, includes British colonial India. Template:History of Vietnam includes the French colonial period and the Chinese occupation periods. Template:History of Taiwan includes periods of Japanese and Dutch rule. Template:History of Korea is not special in this regard. Lathdrinor (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And I've just protected due to edit warring again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference between the legends of Dangun and Gija[edit]

It should be noted that whereas Dangun is a widely accepted founding myth of Koreans, therefore a legendary starting point of Korean history, the legend of Gija is widely rejected. What that means is that the very narrative and possibility of the Gija legend is rejected. On the other hand, Dangun is accepted as a founding myth that has been shared by the collective consciousness of Koreans since at least Koryo period, and there are also scholars who claim that Dangun may have historical veracity as a political position rather than a singular personality. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dangun is a mythical figure who did not appear in writing until the 13th century, whereas Gija was a semi-legendary figure first recorded about 2000 years earlier. Dangun is a widely accepted myth in Korea, but is a myth nonetheless. See historian Kim Jinwung's recent book, and many other books. I think we should leave out both Dangun and Gija as neither is fully historical. To have Dangun without Gija is simply POV. -Zanhe (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between "Dangun Joseon" and "Gija Joseon". The contention with Gija is not about the person, but the state that he supposedly founded. Both historical and archaeological evidence contradicts existence of such a state. On the other hand, "Dangun Joseon" is widely accepted by the Academia. Dangun is interpreted as a political position of the tribal period of Gojoseon. The VERY BOOK you have cited reflects this point of view. Plus, the Xia Dynasty of China is also a mythological polity founded by a mythical ruler, yet it is included in the template of Chinese history. This template that includes Dangun Joseon and excludes Gija Joseon reflects academic consensus, and also the corresponding template in the Korean wikipedia. Cydevil38 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the book I cited (and virtually all other scholarly books) recites the story of Dangun as a legend, and treats Dangun and Gijia as equivalent myths. There is no "academic consensus" that says Dangun is a more credible myth than Gija. They should be both excluded from the template. China's Xia dynasty is a poor comparison, as Xia is mentioned in numerous ancient texts, and traditional accounts match closely with the archaeological findings at Erlitou. According to a survey done by sinologist Edward L. Shaughnessy, a majority of scholars consider Xia as historical. A better analogy here is Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, which I removed from Template:History of China after discussion. In fact, the Samguk Yusa explicit says Dangun lived in the time of Emperor Yao, one of the indisputably mythical Chinese emperors. See this book. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Kim Jinwung's book treats Gija Joseon as an actual historical entity of equal standing to Dangun Joseon, and treats the migration of Shang nobles to Korea and their subsequent becoming the ruling class there as fact. In doing so, however, it also takes the rather fringe view that the Shang Dynasty was not a Chinese state but a Dongyi state, that the Dongyi were proto-Koreans, and therefore Gija was not a Chinese but a proto-Korean. This view is in concept similar to that of (Ch'on Kwan-u 1983) described in "Constructing Korean Origins" (Hyung Il Pai 2000). It fits within the same historical framework of accepting tradition while revising it to fit Korean nationalist needs. Given these and other fundamentally nationalist views reflected in his book, it is in no way capable of being a NPOV source for this discussion. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I was simply pointing out Zanhe's failure to understand what Dangun Joseon is. Zanhe understands it as the mythological figure, while Dangun Joseon is a descriptive entity of the tribal-state period of Gojoseon. I agree that Kim Jinwung's understanding of Gija Joseon is a fringe view. As I've said, Gija Joseon is rejected in its entirety, its existence denied, due to contradicting archaeological records. Kim Jinwung tries to compensate for the archaeological contradictions by connecting Gija Joseon with the iron age of Korea, which does have Chinese influence. However, iron age of Korea is seen as influenced by the state of Yan, not some Gija entity. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe he was using the book just to argue that Dangun Joseon was legendary. Even still, I wanted to lay out why the book's indulgence in fringe speculation makes it not a great source for resolving the problem of Gija Joseon's standing vis-a-vis Dangun Joseon. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The Shang-Dongyi-Korean connection is not a fringe view. The Shang-Dongyi connection is well established, and many historians, including Chinese and Western, believe that some Shang/Dongyi people migrated to Liaodong and Korea after the demise of the Shang dynasty, which may be the source of the Gija legend. The author only describes the influential legends of Dangun and Gija, but does not endorse them as history. That is a key difference. -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There looks to a lapse in understanding. Yes, the Shang-Dongyi connection was/is accepted by a large segment of the academic community insofar as archaeological cultures in eastern China are important sources of Shang culture and are anachronistically called Dongyi by Chinese scholars. Yes, there are many Chinese - but importantly, not Western - scholars who believe, according to tradition, that Korean culture was laid down by Shang refugees. Both of these ideas are, taken in and of themselves, not without WP:Notability. But that's not what your book is arguing. Rather, what your book is arguing is that Shang was a proto-Korean state - ie that it was not Chinese, and that therefore when Shang migrated to Korea, they were just returning home, which is a very different idea from both of the other two ideas and is what makes it fringe. You fail to comprehend this distinction when you try to bring that book into this discussion as a respectable source on the subject. To this end, I refer you to Anders Karlsson's review of the book available here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9184872&fileId=S0021911813002192, in which he criticizes the book's lack of academic stringency in its treatment of early history and specifically the Shang-Korean angle. I hope it also settles the issue of whether the book's view on the subject is fringe, because few/no mainstream scholars believe that Shang was a proto-Korean state.
As to the argument for which you are trying to use the book, I think you need to read the book carefully, because it doesn't support the idea that Dangun and Gija are 'equally false.' Rather, it is trying to give historical validity to those figures by 'massaging' the details - which is ~ opposite of what you are trying to use it for. All in all, I think the sources you're provided for the idea that Dangun and Gija are equally rejected by mainstream academia have been rather poor; don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that Dangun Joseon was a historical entity, but its inclusion/exclusion has to be contingent on reliable sources. Lathdrinor (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like for Zanhe to present evidence that Shang Dynasty, what he refers to as the Dongyi, is linked archaeologically with the Julmun pottery culture, Mummun pottery culture and most importantly, Liaoning bronze dagger culture. Also, I would like Zanhe to refute the now dominant theory that the Gija legend was anachronistically fabricated during Han Dynasty to justify its conquests of Gojoseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. I've never said the Gija legend is veritable history, and don't support adding Gija to the template. You're the one who insists on adding Dangun while removing Gija, even though the Dangun myth was fabricated much later than Gija. -Zanhe (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, you fail to understand what Dangun Joseon is, and why it is considered a part of Korean history by mainstream academia. Read the third paragraph in this section. "Shang-Dongyi-Korean connection" IS a fringe view, which you in vain tried to use against academic consensus. I'd like to emphasize once again that the Xia Dynasty of China is also included in the History of China template, despite Xia Dynasty being a mythical polity. Also, try taking a look at the Korean counterpart of the tesmplate([6]).Cydevil38 (talk)
My own opinion on the matter is that Xia, Gija Joseon, and Dangun Joseon all ought to be removed/demarcated. Other history templates, for example History_of_India and History_of_Iran, either do not include mythical states, else they make it obvious that these are, in fact, mythical states. The Chinese and Korean templates do not, and that is problematic when even the pages to which these states link to say that they are mythical/not proven, yet they are placed in the templates as though they are fact. I do not think English Wikipedia necessarily has to abide by Chinese and Korean Wikipedia when it comes to template construction; the priority is to be informative and not 'politically correct' to those countries' POVs. A safe change is to create a mythical states section for both templates and to place the contested entities under them. Lathdrinor (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Then I agree with Lathdrinor. I suggest Zanhe first deal with the Chinese template if he is to gain any legitimacy to his claims. Deal with Xia Dynasty from the Chinese template first, and then lets start talking about Dangun Joseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. If you agree with Lathdrinor, why keep adding Dangun? And the fact that you keep adding the purely mythical Dangun while removing the semi-legendary Gija betrays your real intention of nationalistic POV-pushing. As I mentioned before, I removed the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, which the Dangun myth is based on, from Template:History of China, for the same reason I'm removing Dangun here. The Xia dynasty is a completely different story. Even The Cambridge History of Ancient China considers it likely to be historical (see book review), and new archaeological discoveries further bolster that view, see the recently published history Early China and Sinologist Edward Shaughnessy's summary of the issue. But we're getting off topic. If you want to remove Xia dynasty from the History of China template, initiate a discussion there. As far as this template is concerned, the consensus is to not include the mythical Dangun. -Zanhe (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You're simply showing double standards. I'm in agreement with Lathrinor, but I think you should act on Xia Dynasty first, which mentions its controversial nature on the article itself, if you want to keep meddling in a subject matter you don't have much understanding of. An example of this is your comparison of Dangun Joseon to five sovereigns of China. Dangun Joseon is based on an archaeological complex that existed in southern Manchuria and northern Korea. This template has no mention of Hwanwin, Shinsi or Asadal. Also, Dangun Joseon was added as a compromise to end the incessant edit war over Gojoseon's founding date, and also to better reflect the academic consensus and its counterpart in the Korean Wikipedia. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors from Template:History of China and Dangun from this template, whereas you keep adding Dangun while removing Gija. Now who's showing double standard? Practically all scholarly books on Korean history, including the ones quoted above, agree that Dangun is a mythical figure. And you yourself said not long ago that it's the Korean founding myth. Where's the "academic consensus" you're talking about? -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This template didn't have such pure mythical figures to start with. You keep obsessing about "adding Dangun while moving Gija". Gija is archaeologically contradicted, and it is known to be a propaganda fabricated by the Han Dynasty to justify its conquest of Gojoseon. You have quoted only one book on Korean history, which ultimately contradicted your own view that Dangun Joseon is purely myth, that it represents an archaeological complex. Now, lets see authoritative sources on Dangun Joseon and what it is defined as.

  • First, from Dictionary of Korean History[7]: (Dangun Joseon) is the first state of Korea, based on bronze age culture..
  • Encyclopedia of Korean People and Culture[8]: (Dangun Joseon) is the first Korean state founded by Dangun. ... Dangun Joseon can be considered in a variety of aspects, but relating its historical characteristic to archaeological periods shows that it is related to the Korean neolithic and bronze age. Therefore, the nature of Dangun Joseon's society is not directly related to state formation, but has its meaningfulness as the first historical entity of Korea.
Are you serious? Your idea of academic consensus is two anonymous Korean web pages on naver.com? What grade are you in school? I'm travelling and don't have time to deal with you right now. I'll show you what academic consensus means when I return from my travels. -Zanhe (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What's with all this slandering? These two sources are akin to official handbooks on a subject matter, such as Oxford Handbook on X. The dictionaries/encyclopedias go through a lot of scrutiny by the academia before it is published. Whatever there pretty much represents academic consensus. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)