Talk:History of Korea

History is history it is not something you can glorify and alter

In order for the author to save the energy of writing the length of this amateur article, you may as well to say that most of the eastern Asian cultures were originated from Koran. Why is it so hard for some Korean people to differentiate the ‘facts’ and the comic books (including commercial TV programs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrmj (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh-Oh-Oh. I'm very offended. So what?Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While parts of this article are very good, a fair chunk of it is unadulterated nationalist horseshit. It reads as if a bunch of uber-patriotic 15-year-old wankers wrote a fairy-tale history piece for "We Worship Our Country" day. I'm surprised the prehistory section doesn't claim that Koreans were descended from supernatural bears. This has to be one of the more embarrassing articles on Wikipedia.

Samguk Yusa, written in 13th century by a monk, was a collection of legends, fair tales and other unorthodox history. Even people in 15th century call it a absurd book to justify Buddhism. It can't be treated seriously. Some authors try to use such book to prove other hundreds of history book(dated from 5th century B.C) wrong. Even the quotation from this book was altered to justify some purpose of those Korean nationalists. I really feel sad about those poor guys. At least they should learn some basic history before altering it. I can't help laughing when they dated their history to 2333B.C. while even pupils from elementary schools in China know they can only precisely wrote their history back to 841B.C. Is Korea the first country had invented time machine? LOL What a great country!!! Another funny thing is beside the narrative of "Archeology evidence of entering bronze age at 2500 B.C and Iron age at 1200B.C.", there is an evidence of STONE DAGGER from 6-7th century B.C. Does that mean early Koreans are environmentalists who are against iron and bronze tools because they may think coal is not regenerative energy resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesconfuser (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It is just truly sad to see modern Korean revisionist, nationalistically filtered "history" to be taken as "actual history" by so many millions of seemingly intelligent Koreans. It is the joke of history academia that Korea (and China and Japan included) simply do not care about verification of their erroneous claims of "origins" with any evidence that can be unequivocally proven with evidence. Korean history can IN NO WAY be shown with evidence to extend to the time of Tangun, a mere mythology of origins. No modern people in the world look to their mythical legends as history except for Koreans. Very sad. Why? Because the world needs Korea, and yet it cannot trust Korea to be objective and fair because of its twisted nationalism to Again: very sad. But I will be back here soon to insert some highly credible academic sources that dispute the claims of this article. It's just really bad that this exists in Wikipedia. We would expect that from highly emotional, nationalist Korean sites that proclaim Korean history that way, but it is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you feel the same way, please do the same, and I will join you in what will surely be contested fiercely by the Korean nationalist, revisionist authors of this article. Again: Wikipedia is NOT a korean product, and it should therefore represent a broad non-nationalistic-Korean view of the history of Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.35.14 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Length of article

Why does this propaganda page start with an unreferenced mention of prehistoric 'Korean' pottery. What does the term Korea mean in 8000BC? It means absolutely squat. Moreover, this should not be included in both history and prehistory of Korea. Someone change this nonesense. The entire 'History of Korea' is lacking in credibility when it starts in this fashion.

This is crazy. This is too long. Someone make this make sense! --Pupster21 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Also, make a summary.--Pupster21 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Article. --Pupster21 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Also archive the talk page. --Pupster21 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A summary is a good idea. But I am unsure if you mean that the article is too long or that the talk page is too long. Anyway, I just perused History of Croatia and History of Canada articles, and they are more or less the same length as the History of Korea article.

Mumun 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, you are quite right that there should be a summary. I have added the summary from Korea#History, adapted slightly; it could still use some work. I agree that this article should be trimmed; at 47K it is half again as long as a Wikipedia article should be. Details should be shuffled off into their respective articles. That's a rather tiresome chore, however, and a rather thankless one given the relentless insistence of people on dumping excessive detail here (and in Korea). -- Visviva 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was right after I added details of prehistory in the article that someone raised the issue of the article's length. I agree now. I am willing to have the prehistoric content expunged completely or drastically cut back in favour of a new separate article called Prehistory of Korea. In fact, if the prehistory section is erased from here it would accurately reflect the current unfortunate state of affairs in Korean History and Korean Studies -- very little reliable historical depth or knowledge about the deep past. I wish I could use stronger words but I won't. However, if the expunging of anything is done, I would hope that the excessive detail in some other sections in this article would be substantially trimmed (Japanese colonization of Korea, for instance) and we need to trust the reader to click on the main article. Mumun 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to the last point. However, although creating a Prehistory of Korea article is a great idea, I don't know that we need to get rid of the prehistory here entirely... it's very informative, and if it's removed it will just eventually be replaced by the sort of uninformed silliness that was there before. ;-) Ideally, we would have about a screenful summarizing what is known and theorized about Korean prehistory, including both archeological and historiographic studies, giving the reader an accurate and informed perspective on the current state of scholarship (however inconclusive that scholarship may be). Unfortunately I'm not the best one to write that section... :-)

By the way, do you consider Byeon to be a particularly unreliable source for the Paleolithic dates? Can you recommend another? Cheers, -- Visviva 10:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Byeon and the rest are great, but it would be good to support those important date statements using more specialized publications...unfortunately I couldn't identify any sources that say 700,000 bp, but there are others such as:

• Nelson, Sarah. The Archaeology of Korea. Cambridge UNiversity Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp-26-57.

Nelson's chapter on the Palaeolithic deals with the earliest evidence of Hominind (presum. Homo Sapiens sapiens) settlement in Korea in a careful and thoughtful way. She takes a less critical approach and tries to be objective, I think. For example, "The evidence for early paleolithic in Korea is sparse but..." (pg. 30) and she goes on until pg. 42 presenting evidence that is claimed by others such as Prof. Son Bogi etc to say that there were Lower Paleolithic occupations. However, she makes it clear that the dates of the earliest occupation of Korea are an open question. In the end she seems to settle on 500,000 bp., but it seems it could be much later, c. 200,000 bp.

• Bae, Kidong. Radiocarbon Dates from Palaeolithic Sites in Korea, Radiocarbon 44(2):473-476, 2002.

Professor Bae (Hanyang U.) lists all of the absolute scientific dates available at the time. He explains in this paper that the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Palaeolithic indicate the antiquity of occupation on the Korean peninsula is between 40,000 and 30,000 B.P. However, he argues for the possibility of a more ancient occupation.

• Yi, Seon-bok and G.A. Clark. Observations on the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 24(2):181-202, 1983.

Professor Yi (SNU) appears to reject the claims that Hominids occupied the Korean Peninsula in the Lower Palaeolithic (c. 2.5 million - 120,000 bp) in the above paper.

I haven't seen the Byeon book, and I wouldn't want to dismiss general history books out of hand. Perhaps he quotes some research that I do not know. Anyway, I will start a prehistory article soon. I really don't mind to cut back the prehistory section in the History of Korea, either. :-) By the way, I think the way that the text and references appear now shouldn't be changed in respect to the Prehistory section of the History of Korea article. For example, North Korean research is presented as a 'claim', which is a flag for all reasonable people to differentiate it from a 'fact'. So some kind of critical perspective is offered, which is always good. If there is a way to be more concise elsewhere in the article, we could actually add a single sentence to the material on the palaeolithic in this article that summarizes what I said above. A little more detail would presumably be presented in Prehistory of Korea. Mumun 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No one believe Korea history written, they just cheat themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.133.150 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

宮田 節子 [Miyata, Setsuko]. "創氏改名" [Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names]

The article states : "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names.[20] "

I checked the citation 20(and 25). The book by Setsuko Miyata's "Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names", turned out that it does not support the argument. She states "創氏改名 was voluntary, however it was unnatural that 80% of people voluntarily created surnames in 6 month. So, she concludes, somehow, "there must be some peer puressure among people". http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~korea-su/korea-su/jkorea/nikkan/0311.html

There is a picture of the flyer(with Hangul and Japanese) saying "Aug, 10th is the last CHANCE you can register names! If you want here is the procedure" .. etc. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/tokurei.JPG For more detail: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/seminarmizuno.htm

And Korean language never been officialy banned either. Hangul had been taught in schools throught out Korea, even Japanese kids had to learn. There is nothing like banning Korean language or Hangul, although freedom of speech was not there during the war. I did some research and found a picture of a Korean newspaper "Chosun Ilbo" (March 10th, 1940). I definitely see Hangul there. http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932683.gif

So, "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names" are not only too strong words but also misleading. I'd say it is wrong and should be fixed.

Oh, I forgot to mention there were volunteer Japanese soldiers who kept Korean name and became a major, such as 金錫源 and 洪思翊.

How do you explain that.

Actually, 洪思翊 was a general, and was later executed as a war criminal. --TokyoJapan (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The term of period of unified silla

It is changed as "the period of south and north states" based on the high school history book written by 국사편찬위원회[1]. So, the template of "history of korea" must be changed. But, I do not know how to change it. please can somebody fix it ? --Hairwizard91 15:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that. For one thing, a high-school textbook isn't really an authoritative source by itself, although it certainly deserves some consideration. For another, the template uses "Unified Silla" and "Balhae" together, just as this article now does. Now, I think you were correct to move "Unified Silla" to a third-level heading (parallel with Balhae) in this article. However, both here and in the template, we still need to use the term "Unified Silla" in order to distinguish Three Kingdoms Silla from post-Three-Kingdoms Silla. The term 통일신라/Unified Silla seems to be widely used in both Korean and English scholarship -- considerably *more* widely than 남북국(시대)/Northern and Southern states. To wit:

• • Searching the Korean-language scholarly search engine DBPia.co.kr, we get 17 hits for 남북국 (Northern and Southern States) but 75 hits for 통일신라 (Unified Silla) ... further, several of the former results are actually papers arguing for the use of the term "Northern and Southern states," which is evidence in itself that the term is not well-established. (This surprised me a little)
  • Searching Google Scholar, we get 113 hits for "Unified Silla" (plus another 25 for "Unified Shilla"); all of these, of course, are talking about Korean history. We do get a few hits for "northern and southern states" +korea (69) or "north and south states" +korea (6), but *none* of these seem to be talking about Korean history; they just happen to use the term in referring to either US or global division, and mention the word "Korea" somewhere in the text.

From this it seems clear that the term "Northern and Southern States" is in only sparing use even in Korean-language scholarship, and is still almost never used in English-language scholarship, to refer to the Unified Silla-Balhae period. I think we can and should use this term on Wikipedia, but only when we need a superordinate term to cover both Unified Silla and Balhae. We don't need such a term in the template (there isn't even room for it), but we do need such a term in this article. -- Visviva 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use the 1st heading for grouping Balhae and Unified Silla whatever the name is. Using the 1st headings for each Balhae and Unified Silla does not reflect on the current research of history.--Hairwizard91 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

prehistory

I have added some details in the prehistory section and eventually I hope everyone will be pleased. Let's edit any changes together. 선사 부분의 편집 할 것을 시원하게 열심히 함게 합시다. 여러분의 많은 참여를 바랍니다. 한국 고고학 萬歲! Mumun 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very good to see the update article. But, I want to say something. Korean history viewpoint is based on the people's movement(I dont know the correct english term, but 속인屬人). Korean history viewpoint is not the current territory of Korean peninsula(Do you understand what I am saying. It is too hard to explain two terms). So, the Koreans had lived in north area such as Manchuria in the very very ancient period because Korean is a sort of a nomad in ancient time. I have found that Mumun is only focused on the Korean peninsula. Is there any reason ? Perhaps no Mumum potter might have been found in North of Korean peninsula. --Hairwizard91 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hairwizard91! Indeed, you are talking about 'layman' (屬人) I guess. Mumun Pottery Period culture has been defined first and foremost according to the long-term pottery traditions in the Korean Peninsula, but both archaeologists and laymen think of the term Mumun Pottery Period as a socio-technic period that has unique cultural developments along subsistence, settlement, social, and ideational components.

There is a common explanation of the origin of Mumun culture that, even though North Korean archaeologists would prefer different terminology and points of reference, a parallel explanation for the origin of Mumun culture. Long long ago, the current political, cultural, and ethnic borders did not exist as they do today. People between living around the Yellow Sea interacted intensively at various points in prehistory and protohistory. The Yellow Sea is shallow and smaller than we think. For example, through complex processes of diffusion the Jeulmun pottery-using people of Korea adopted millet cultivation from their Yellow Sea interactions some time around 3500 B.C. or before. Millet is the default crop of Northern Chinese prehistoric agriculture. Cultivation of rice was introduced to southern Korea subsequently. People living in Korea interacted more intensively with Neolithic cultures in Northern China and Shandong between 2000 and 1000. Some time before 1500 B.C. the first northern-style megalithic burials (dolmen 지석묘) were constructed in Liaodong and North Korea. Also -- stone-cist burials in the tradition of those used in southern Korea are found first in Liaodong and North Korea. Finally, the origin of manufacture and use of jade (greenstone) ornaments in southern Korea after 900 or 850 B.C. is likely North Korea.

The pottery traditions of Liaoning, northern Korea, and southern Korea have many similarities. Professor Ahn Jae-ho of Dongguk University, a highly respected archaeologist, is among many who think that pottery-making traditions diffused from Liaoning to North Korean river valleys (Cheongcheon and Taedong Rivers are frequently mentioned) 1500 or a little before to 850 B.C. Many Early Mumun Period settlements were excavated 1953-1970 by North Korean archaeologists -- villages with similar architectural features (i.e. pit-houses with rectangular plan-shapes and interior hearths) range over a large geographical area from Liaodong Peninsula to southeastern Korea.

Most archaeologists in both Koreas and China think that the Liaoning and North Korean people migrated into southern Korea along the Yellow Sea coast in successive waves between 1500 and approximately 850 B.C. In sum, pottery styles that are included under the Mumun pottery definition are made first in Northeast China and North Korea, and this pottery-making tradition slowly was adopted by/entered into the southern Korean peninsula along with many other cultural traits of Liaodong and North Korea including architectural and mortuary features. The general trend is that many aspects of Mumun culture were introduced to southern Korea from Liaoning and North Korea. 하루 잘 보내세요, 여러분! Mumun 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that I have correctly understood. So, the Mumum potter is also found in Liaoning and North Korea areas. Right? If the Mumum potter is found in the area except south Korean peninsula, I think that the article about Mumun pottery in Liaoning and North Korean is also included in the current article. But, the article seems to be explain only about Mumun in the south korea peninsula. Because Korean historians consider that the history by Korean, wherever they had lived, must be included to the history of Korean(which is firstly mentioned as 속인屬人 (not laymen俗人)). This concept of viewpoint about history in Korea is different from those in China and USA. The context of Prehistory seems to be confined to only the Peninsula of Korea. But, it should be extended to the area where ancient Korean had lived such as Liaoning and south Manchuria, even Hebei. Do I say it clearly?--Hairwizard91 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes thank you for pointing out my mistake about 屬人, Hairwizard91. I realize now, I hope, about what you were originally musing. It think it might be fruitful to investigate a little about how this concept of 屬人主義 is characterized across time and space. In general:

• Does 屬人主義 for Korean history change according to circumstances of time and space? For example, is 屬人主義적 interpretation appropriate for the origins of the Mumun Pottery Period?
• You mention that 'Korean historians' use this concept, but I wonder how many would consider this an operable concept in their own research? After all, Korean historians who teach at Korean public and private universities are not educated in an academic vacuum: they are exposed to international historical theories, methods, and ways of thinking about the world.
• I am not sure, and admit my ignorance in this matter, but it seems to me that the most important period relating to the formation of the Korean ethnicity took place some time after the period currently in discussion. Thus, I humbly ask of what utility is 屬人主義적 interpretation during a period of time when the majority of scholars do not yet recognize that the Korean ethnicity has formed?
• To what extent can any ancient texts be used as reliable evidence to interpret life in Liaoning, North Korea, or South Korea circa 2000-1000 B.C.? I humbly ask if it is possible? We need to look at these invaluable texts as the fallible and biased records that they are. We cannot forget that we are involved in an encyclopaedia project -- at the minumum we need to concentrate on reflect the status quo, and at the max it would be nice to help the average reader by taking advantage of cutting edge academic research that is accepted by the majority of the academy.

I neglected to mention on this talk page, but people were already present on the Korean peninsula at the time when people who practiced Mumun period lifeways started to migrate into the Imjin, Han, Anseong, and Geum River drainages. This complicates the origins of the Mumun, as it raises the question of external versus internal influences. For example, both the indigenous people (Jeulmun pottery-using groups) and the Mumun people apparently had the ability to plant, tend, and harvest agricultural crops, albeit at different levels/scales. Full-blown agriculture in Korea developed between 1500-850 B.C., but to what extent was this development attributable to native Jeulmun cultivation? By the same token, to what extent was full-blown agriculture related to the Early Mumun traditions? Unless I continue to misunderstand the 屬人主義 concept, this might make interpretation along 屬人主義적인 lines somewhat difficult in regard to the time and place in question. Archaeological data have limits -- the state of the art in archaeology cannot tell us if external or internal inluences were more important in this case (yet). As such, using 屬人主義적 concepts to envelope prehistoric peoples living in Liaoning into a nationalistic idea of Korean history might not help the average reader to understand the origins of Korean civilization. Not to mention the current addition on prehistory in this article -- does it make sense for the average reader? This also needs to be addressed.

Please forgive me, Hairwizard91 et al, if I have once again misunderstood you. Hope this may help.-- Mumun 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"butt slapping", etc.

While reading the article, I was surprised to come across a reference to "butt slapping" under the Joseon heading, linked to a non-existent article on that topic, under the subheading "Consolidation of the Joseon government". I looked through the history to see if this was a case of recent vandalism, but this language did not appear to be recent. This reference was part of a passage with several grammatical errors, so I edited it. The expression "butt slapping" is really inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The word "butt" is slang, with a slightly comical feel. It makes the entire article sound adolescent and questionable. The more standard term would be "spanking". Looking at other references online, I found some support for a historical practice of caning (e.g. on the buttocks) as a form of corporal punishment in Korea (whereas spanking or slapping would normally be by hand). So I have changed the reference to "caning". If someone wants to revert, please explain why, and please respond to my concerns about inappropriate tone. Thanks. Marco polo 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

cool, nice edit there. I didn't see that, but I do know that they got spanked in Korea during the Chosun Dynasty. =) Good friend100 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Military History

What Happened to the Military History of Korea Article? Easternknight 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

nvm someone just took it out from the Temp box. Easternknight

Law

Defering to Marco's question, we should create a section on ancient Korean law and types of punishments. "Butt Spanking" should definitely be included. Many Korean dramas depicting Josun often depict people lashed on horizontal crucifixes, getting the life spanked off their butts by boards for whatever crime they committed. There are many branches to this, and I am surprised to have not thought of this earlier. Oyo321 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Documented History

Previously I noted that somebody claimed that Korea has a documented history of over 4000 years. If so, would somebody please tell me, in what language and on what material where the documents written on?--Tbearzhang 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably traditional Chinese. Good friend100 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. Even China does not have a documented history of 4000 years. No written documents from the legendary Xia dynasty (which, according to the Chinese, ruled China from about 2200 BC to 1600 BC) has yet been found. The earliest recognized form of written Chinese is found on turtle shells and animal bones, dating back to the Shang dynasty, which was established after 1600 BC. Many tribes to the north of China either did not use Chinese or did not even have language. If the Koreans (who did not even exist 4000 years ago) were using traditional Chinese over 4000 years ago, some 400 years before the Chinese, then how come the language we refer to as "Chinese" is not called "Korean"?--Tbearzhang 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume when you say "tribes to the north" had no language you meant they had no written language. Angry bee (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The written Korean language was invented in 1443A.D.. It usually used by peasants and women. Chinese were still the official written language until the invasion of Japanese in last century. The chinese was totally abandoned as official language in 1949 in North Korea, 1968 in South Korea. Meanwhile Changbai Chaoxianzu autonomous county in China start use Korean as written language in 1953. Mosesconfuser (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mosesconfuser, this is plainly wrong. King Sejong invented the Korean language, and it was the official language of Korea after that. Yes, many scholars at that time objected, yet Korean was the main language. Also, China and Korea both does have history over 4000 years old, almost 5000 years. Do some research, figure out the math, search on some non-Chinese sites (oh, right. Your country's restricted on Internet access. LOL. Must be poor).--The Hegemarch (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

significant changes in historical periodisation terminology in article text

Please attempt to consult and gain consensus with fellow editors before making unilateral changes such as "Unified Silla" to "Later Silla". We are required to reflect the current and or conventional state of historical and archaeological research. This includes periodisation terminology: last time I checked the period after AD 668 is called Unified Silla in English and 통일 신라 in Korean. Unless there has been some kind of overnight blanket change in both the Korean and English literature, the text of this article should refect a recognizable standard of historical terminology and 'Unified Silla' is clearly the recognised standard. Mumun 無文 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Kprideboi's edits again, and I think they are okay but were simply placed in the wrong section. I can see how that might happen because the topic of the first sentence of Unified Silla subsection appears to address the demise of Unified Silla more than anything else. Seems a confusing way to begin description of Unified Silla, especially for unfamiliar editors or readers. Other than being placed in the wrong section, I think Kprideboi's edits are not objectionable and could be placed in the Later Three Kingdoms section.Mumun 無文 15:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious material and false claims in the first two part undermind the value of the whole article

Actually I can't even finish the first two parts. There are two many junks there. For the last 3 days, I read hundreds of pages of materials and try to correct some mistakes or add some content to make some claim full or looks legitimate. Unfortunately all my efforts were simply reverted by some author. Since I was blocked for 24 hours by 'editing war', I feels tired and frustrate to fight with zealot of inventing history. To avert any unnecessary guess, first I admit I am a Chinese. As a Chinese I really don't care about how Korean write their own history. But as a serious armature historian, I can't tolerate false claim showing on this site. Especially most reader of this website is someone without any background on this topic. My conscience can't let it go, so I pick some of those absurd statements on this discussion board, let the readers judge it.

1."Gojoseon was founded in 2333B.C."

China's dated history is back to 841B.C. How can someone get this 2333 from Chinese history text?

2.'Dangun was the first king of Gojoseon.'

The story of Dangun is first recorded in samguk yusa. The book itself was collected by a Buddhist monk Iryeon. Since it is a collection of legends and folktales and even claim Dangun’s grandfater is some Buddha, the book was never be treated like a serious history source. Even someone assume the legends maybe are true. But why didn't the first official book Samguk Sagi record such an important fact, especially in the time of royal people like to emphasis that their thrones were granted by God. Further more in the book of samguk yusa, it says '魏书云。乃往二千载有坛君王俭' which translate as 'according Book of Wei, Dangun was existed in 2000 years ago.' The fact is no existing version of Book of Wei has such statement.

3.'Bronze age in korean peninsula dated back to 2500B.C.'

Our friends say 'archaeological evidence suggests it might have started as far back as 2500 BCE'. But my research show the logic behind this statement is that since they find some kind of potteries dated back to 2500B.C and those pottery was commonly used in other bronze societies in the ancient world, no matter whether we excavate any bronze relics we are in bronze age anyway. LOL. There is another article in wiki clearly states [[Three-age system] is not suitable to Korean Peninsula. Since this subject is so misleading and so controversial, why the hell some author is so scant to use the word like 'may' 'might' 'maybe' or 'probable'. Aren those words deleted from elementary or middle school text book?

4.'"Goryeo" is a short form of "Goguryeo"'

I highly suspect this statement. "玄菟、乐浪，（汉）[[武帝时置，皆（朝鲜)、秽貂、句丽(Guryeo) 蛮夷(barbarians)", here it does not only state Joseon and Guryeo are different people also give some clue how the word Go-guryeo was constructed. Go(高）is the family name of the Goguryeo's kings which mean 'high'. To punish his victory over Guryeo, Wang Mang change the name of 'king of Gogeryeo' to 'Marquis of Xia-Geryeo', which means lower Geryeo. The same reference also stated Goryeo people belong to Mohe. So Goryeo never be the short term of Goguryeo, it's not the custom of chinese using short term. In some book, it states the short term of Geoyeo is Yeo. According the custom, the short term of Goryeo should be Wang-yeo, since the king's last name is Wang.

Altering history can't make a nation great but make its people jokers. The behavior of putting those false facts into text book for elementary school is the crime against humanity. Since I am Chinese, people may accuse me of be bias or are from Chinese prospect. [The the truth is all of those history document are written in Classical Chinese, even the fist preserved Korean history book Samguk Sagi . (I happened to be good at reading them.) So please don't argue with me if you can't read the original historical book. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in history articles, but you and Kubie, the other contender were very conspicuous for the continued edit warring initiated by you. You've clearly ignored the rules here and especially the above section is your original research by the information that you're not an authoritative figure from academic fields. Well, even many academics are very known for their altering history such as Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Don't you look biased and write from Chinese point of view? Yes, you do. "Don't argue with you?" Hmm.. you might've forgotten that Wikipedia is not owned by you. Your custom does not go by the same to Korean history. Plus, please refrain from pouring insulting comments. That does not make you feel good.--Appletrees (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've long given up trying to reason with Chinese internet nationalists. They do not present credible sources with the arguments they make, only amature interpretations of nebulous texts. Sorry wannabe scholars, you guys can muck around with your own history page but don't try to pervert Korean history to fit with your own fantasies. --Kuebie (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, your talk show your ignorance of the content and history facts. Serious discussion about history is always welcome. I want to see more facts. I am willingly to admit I am wrong if I am convinced. However, as an administrator if you don't have interest in history, is it necessary to write your 'opinion' here? I already apologized for my violation of rules and thank for your neglecting my work after "if" in my sentence. I think a normal understanding of my word is I don't want to argue with people who don't have such knowledge and who don't put much effort on it. Once again, Chinese point of view is the 'only' point of view because all the historical articles about Korean Peninsula are written in Chinese before 13th century. The only way to eliminate 'bias' is to shorten Korean history to 13th century. So before that time, it should be called 'prehistory'. By the way how much you know about Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences? Do you know the opinions of each party? Watch your mouth. Your comment is insulting and slanderous. There are too many political subjects there. But the research itself is always needed to solve real argument. That discussion are mostly between scholars. Also it's clearly a country's sovereignty to research the history on its land. I feel shame when I heard the scientific was interrupted under political reason. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Book of later Han fragments the the people by kingdom and during that time Korea was not united. I don't see what your trying to prove.

Wang Man naming of Koguryo as Ha(low)guryo is merely Sino-centric self-satifaction. Man enlisted Goguryeo forces to engage the Hsienpei (12 AD) Goguryeo had a change of heart and warred with the Chinese armies instead. Aahaha you claim to be historian yet you don't even understand the concept of terminological degradtion in chinese texts.

Wang-yeo, what the hell is that? My god, the Go house consolidated power during the reign of Taejo of Goguryeo. Power was exchanged from the Hae (Sono) to the Go (Kyeru). It is the Go house that conquered its neigbors, subjugated the Malgals, created the stele, and warred with China. It has absolutely nothing to do with your overly thought out and (quite laughable) useless naming theory which either way doesn't prove jacksquat. If your still unsure of about the usage and history of the name(s) of Goguryeo, feel free to ask Historiographer. --Kuebie (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really not sure about the usage of the name of Goguryeo from your side of story. What I want to say from Wang Man's story is the structure of word of "GoGuryeo". It prove the assertion of ""Goryeo" is a short form of "Goguryeo"" is wrong. Your argument seems not leave this argument too far. My conclusion is that assertion is a commonly believed but wrong statement. Can you give out any fact that prove I am wrong? I will appreciate your time on this research. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you keep insulting people who object to your strong point of view and attitude, I'm telling you, you're going to face another problem for yourself. Watch your mouth., your ignorance and "neglecting" are all horrendous personal attacks. You started mocking Koreans here at this talk page and are treating Koreans full of idiots. You don't show any sign of cooperating with others. Administrators do not involve in content disputes except obvious vandalism or a request for WP:DR process filed by editors here.

Sadly, Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has been heavily criticized by people for their manipulations on histories which is a widely known fact. That really suits a crime and offensive a movement. So your lecturing sounds nothing but your emotion. Given Chinese government's political propagandas, the project does not surprise the world. The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in the PRC. In 2006, a senior scholar from Peking University affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections.[10] The project cause a controversy even in the country.

You self-claim that you're absolutely right and others are wrong. However, how could others be convinced that your belief and edit is legitimate and right? You've showed no good history but edit warrings and your problematic attitudes. The person who really watch his/her mouth is YOU. Everything you're doing here is complied and judged, so you would better refrain yourself. I'm so sure that there is none who want to discuss anything with rude people.--Appletrees (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had never said I am absolutely right. But Appletree you only show your opinions but none of the evidence. It is not me but you make yourself looks like an idiot. This is my last attempt to teach you how to view the history. (it's like explain physics to the people believe god create the world) History is a scientific discipline which need diligent work and plenty of knowledge. It is NOT something you prefer to believe. Not like religion, it needs evidences not the faith. I admit I don't all agree the research result of Northeast project but I know what I don't agree and why. Is it ridiculous if I say "I don't agree it because it's not written in such way in my elementary school text or because I love my country."? And please spend 2 minutes on the original reference of the talk of a professor [2] from PKU. Compare your quotation and the words in original paper carefully. By the way, Prof. Song don't agree Korea's history can be dated back to 2333B.C. neither and he also describe the origin of Korean nationalist historian[3]. Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesconfuser (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Teach? Again, you don't realize your illogical and extremely uncivil behaviors. It is NOT something you prefer to believe. This is a hilarious contradiction. Hmmm.. as for idiot, who is a real idiot in this situation? :D Regardless of several warnings by several people, you dared to ignore all the rule and then blocked for the consequence and you don't learn any lesson form the experience at all. Besides, the section 4 is nothing but your original research not approved by general academics. As you said, you're no relation with them. Everybody can become an amateur historian or even become a professor, on Web. So why don't you refrain yourself really. Your link is either broken and written by a Chinese reporter, so I would not wast my time talking to you. Good luck for your world. --Appletrees (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing History: Korean on Korean Slavery

For some reason I usually find very little on this topic but slavery has been a part of Korea for a very long time. Consensus records show a tally of "slaves" and "missing slaves". I thought i'd point this fact out because it seems as if both sides of the slavery topic want it silenced. By both sides I mean the Korean government and the Japanese government. Historically most slaves who ran away ran off to Japan ran off to Tsushima. 142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically Slavery existed on every nations; however, there are no real written documentation about slavery in Korea. I'm pretty sure there was some slavery in the past, but this generally don't considered to be part of history. If you do have valid information, you can create new article on this.--Korsentry 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

The nature of the Chinese propagandists

Another point I'd thought i'd mention is where the Chinese are coming from. Many Chinese folks especially from China have been adulterated with massive amounts of false history and propaganda. Much of this propaganda supports and upholds the collectivist nature of China in that the main ideology of China today is the cultural superiority of China and the fact that all Asian culture is Chinese. Now this might not mean much on the surface but when it comes to other cultures they get extremely offended by anything that doesn't put China in a superior light. My point is not to censor the Chinese but to bring awareness of the potential, many inadvertent bias they bring when commenting on history.

I'm not sure if Europeans are aware of the nature of the Confucian collectivist society but there is very little personal and/or explicit self esteem in these types of societies. There is only implicit/group self esteem allowed as any explicit self esteem will and does encourage jealousy. This although racist and arguable this is why there is a profoundly strong Asian male stereotype among most of the global community.

My point is simple the Chinese derive self-esteem much like Europeans derive self-esteem from personal achievements, from history and the idea of "China", meaning the greater the glorification of Chinese history the more self-esteem they garner. 142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of Korean culture

I'd like to point out that Korea is currently divided where the North is completely isolated even from the South. That said, there have been historically 3 types of cultures in Korea. Baekche, who are very neo-confucian, Silla who are a mix of confucian believers and non-confucian believers and Koryo who are anti-Confucian. What this means today is that with the country split in half, Silla and Baekche culture is the dominant culture, where many believe Korea is Confucian. This is completely false and although they do not consist of the majority they are indeed a powerful factor in defining what is Korean today. This is what I mean by misrepresentation of Korean culture.

That said, Confucian culture is and always has been about being a collectivist, unity and harmony through filial piety. In Korea we have a structure which resembles filial piety which alot of people try to attribute this to Confucian however this is false. Korean culture is militaristic due to the influences of the Koryo kingdom with its culture of war.

That said, it is absolutely impossible to say that Korean culture is Confucian in ideology when the fact is there was Korean-on-Korean slavery. This goes completely against the notion of being a collectivist society and in modern day south Korea, there are plenty of social norms that prevent the idea of being a collectivist from spreading, for example asking for help is looked down upon heavily. This is where the influence of migrants from the North during the war are seen.

Historically, Korea has not been Buddhist or Confucianist and there is plenty of documented evidence of the persecution of both. Most confucian believers were from Baekche however in an undivided nation non-Confucian believers have always dominated the land. These confucian believers are usually the ones who become slaves and it is also the reason why Japan is a neo-Confucian country. It is well documented that the origins of the Japanese imperial line are from Baekche, and many famous artists who ran from persecution were from Baekche.142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuebie's repeated reverting

A user named Kuebie has been trying to remove this information on the section "Japanese entry".

As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

He doesn't want to admit that Korea was under the strong influence of China. However, this is what the Treaty of Shimonoseki says. "Article 1: China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, that are in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future." China had had a strong influence on Korea and Japan had to cut the link between the two country in order to hold control of Korea. This was the aim of the war.

Maybe Kuebie does not know what the Independence Gate in Seoul was made for. The article says "The gate was built following the first Sino-Japanese war to inspire a spirit of independence away from previous Korean arrangement as a Chinese protectorate. Its construction began on November 21, 1896, and finished November 20, 1897."

There had been a gate named Yeongeunmun before the Independence Gate was built. It says "In 1896, the gate was demolished along with Mohwagwan one year after the First Sino-Japanese War ended, which was a war between China and Japan primarily for the control over Korea. The Korean independence activist Seo Jae-pil (known as Philip Jaisohn) built the Independence Gate on the site with the desire towards inspiring the spirit of independence in Korea."

Korean people may think that Korea had been independent since its birth, but the Chinese don't think so and there is no doubt that China's recognition of the "full and complete independence and autonomy" of Joseon was due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Koreans at that time admitted it as you can see from the fact that they built a gate named "Independence Gate" right after the treaty. No one cannot deny this fact.

Kuebie repeatedly says that Korea was never a part of Qing. He is right. Joseon was never a part of China or a colony of China. But it is true that Joseon was under strong influence of Qing and it became "independent" from China due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki as you can see the fact that there is a gate named the "Independent Gate" in Seoul.

I don't think there is any reasons to remove this sentence. As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea..--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The clause was just to repudiate China's claim to suzerainty. China never had control of Korea's domestic affairs, which is why it's ludicrous to exert the clause as something more than it really is. Akkies (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your claim does not make any sense. There is no doubt that China definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea due to the result of the Sino-Japanese war. It is worth mentioning here because it was the first step for Japan to control Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then let me make this simple; what does the treaty have to do with Korea? Whether or not China recognized Korea's independence means nothing. Akkies (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You really make no sense. I've been saying that this treaty was the first step for Japan to hold the control of Korea. China had had a very strong infuence on Korea. Korea was not a part of China, indeed. But Korea was under strong influence of China. Korea was a part of the tribute system of China. See List of tributaries of Imperial China#Qing Dynasty.

Japan needed to cut The tributary relationship between the two countries before holding control of Korea. and that was the aim of the first Sino-Japanese war. The article Korea says "Japan began to force Korea out of the Manchu Qing Dynasty's traditional sphere of influence into its own. As a result of the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the Qing Dynasty had to give up such a position according to Article 1 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which was concluded between China and Japan in 1895." It is only you who won't admit this fact.

The tributary relationship between China and Korea came to an end due to the Treaty. The Treaty has a lot to do with Korea. Whether or not China recognized Kore's indepedence means "a lot". If this treaty has nothing to do with Korea, how would you explain the reason for the existence of the Independence Gate? But for this Treaty, the tributary relationship would have continued Joseon could not have built the Korean Empire. Moreover, Japan would never have been able to hold the control of Korea. This Treaty has a lot to do with the history of Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What 'fact'? You're trying to push this idea that Korea was part of the "" by using the first clause of a treaty of an uninvolved war. Do I have to reiterate that Joseon operated as a fully independent country (no matter what China considered it to be)? Akkies (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Korea is one of the oldest and yet, perhaps, the least known nation—once a nation—in the world. She had preserved her distinct national identity during the four thousand years of her history until Japan established the protectorate over her at the point of the sword in 1905, and subsequently annexed her to the Japanese Empire in 1910.

The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China, China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895. Yet, Korea had made her treaties with the leading Western Powers before this date, as an independent nation. In the Kang-hua treaty of February 26, 1876, between Korea and Japan, the first article reads: "Chosen being an independent state enjoys the same sovereign rights as does Japan." In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." Again, in 1882, the King of Korea wrote to the President of the United States saying: "Now as the Governments of the United States and Korea are about to enter into treaty relations, the intercourse between the two nations shall be carried on in every respect on terms of equality and courtesy, and the King of Korea clearly assents that all of the Articles of the Treaty shall be acknowledged and carried into effect according to the laws of independent states."

The true relation between Korea and China has been that of "big nation" and "small nation," as the Korean used to say. Westerners were told that though Korea was "a tributary state of China, it was entirely independent as far as her government, religion, and intercourse with foreign states were concerned, a condition of things hardly compatible with our ideas of either absolute dependence or complete independence," as has been stated by one Western observer. Indeed, W. W. RockiiiLi,, the great American scholar of Eastern history and politics admirably summarizes the historical relationship between Korea and China as follows :

"Korean traditions point to Ki-tzu, or Viscount of Ki, a noble of China during the reign of Chou-hsin of the Whang Dynasty (B. C. 1154-1122), as the founder of the present civilization of Korea in B. C. 1122, and through him Korea claims relationship to China, to which country Koreans say they stand in the same relation of subjection as a younger brother does to an elder one and head of the family. This peculiar form of subservience, based as it is on Confucian theories, which have shaped all Chinese and Korean society and made the people of those countries what they are, must never be lost sight of in studying Korea's relations with and to China."

The present Japanese régime in Korea is doing everything in its power to suppress Korean nationality. The Government not only forbade the study of Korean language and history in schools, but went so far as to make a systematic collection of all works of Korean history and literature in public archives and private homes and burned them.

Such records as the treaties contained in this volume, are extremely difficult to find in Korea. The present writer's wishes will be highly gratified if this volume serves as a contribution, even in a small way, toward preserving the nationality among the Koreans and aiding students of Oriental history in their search for the past records of the Korean Nation.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PP15&dq=Korea&ei=jedPSu-vEI2WzgTz_-jyAg&client=firefox-a&id=BwMMAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text

Yes, Japanese has a lot to do with the history of Korea. The Goguryeo language and Baekje language are Japanese. After the fall of Goguryeo and Baekje the Koreans became pro-Chinese, see Sadaejuui. Nationalism is from the West. The culture of Korean dynasties is Confucianism. Kings are servants (臣) of the Chinese sovereign emperor and have to be recongized (冊封) by them. Such records as the Korean kings called themselves servants are not difficult to find. The Koreans followed the Chinese emperor regnal year (奉正朔) and state funeral. Some Ming Dynasty emperors even sent edicts ordered Korean kings on chosing women and attacking the Qing.

Nah, What is a joke?--Aocduio (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sammyy85's claim is absurd, of course, but so is Kuebie's. He does not even understand what he is saying. When it comes to history of Korea or relationship between Korea and Japan, he always lose his head, I must say. Somehow he repeatedly says I'm trying to say that Korea was a part of Chinese Empire, but I never said such a thing. I've been saying Korea was a tribute of China and this relationship came to and end due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

The book he quoted says "The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China." I never said anything about "vassalage", but I have been saying that there was a tributary relationship between the two countries. Joseon was one of the tributaries of Qing Dynasty and nobody cannot deny this fact. The book also says "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China". Korea was "wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered," but she was indeed "a country subordinate to China". Korea was not a part of China. She was not a colony of China, either. But she was "a country subordinate to China" and this is what the book Kuebie quoted says. It also says "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895." This is just what I am trying to add to this article. What Kuebie says does not make any sense at all.

You should also read that article of Donghak Peasant Revolution, which was the catalyst for the First Sino-Japanese War. It says "Joseon Korea had been an autonomous tributary state of Qing China since the 1637 Second Manchu invasion of Korea." The fact that China sent sent troops into Korea when the Donghak Peasant Revolution broke out shows that China had a strong influence on Korea and regarded her as "a country subordinate to China".

The article, Second Manchu invasion of Korea, also says "Until 1894, Korea remained a protectorate of Qing China, even though the influence of Manchus decreased from late 18th Century as the Joseon Dynasty began to prosper once again. Japan forced Qing China after the First Sino-Japanese War to acknowledge the end of the tributary relationship with Korea, in an attempt to implement their plan to exploit and eventually invade Korea in the 20th century."

Kuebie still hasn't explained the reason for the existence of the "Independence Gate" in Korea. The gate shows that Koreans at that time regarded the end of the tributary relationship, which is a result of the first Sino-Japanese War, as "independence". If not so, why would there be a gate named the "Independence" Gate in Korea?

As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

Nobody cannot deny this fact. China regarded Korea as a country subordinate to China and this relationship came to an end because of the War. There is no reason for removing this sentence.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Everybody is subordinate to the emperor according to Confucianism. See Princely state of British India and French Indochina also.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I've already explained to you that your initial edit was 'needless chest thumping' rubbish. The reasoning behind adding such an insignificant tidbit from a treaty that Korea had no part of you've never explained. Other than that a treaty says Korea wasn't independent (in your words "independent from Chinese Empire" - never a part of to begin with) until after the war (a statement I've absolutely obliterated just above my stalker-fan Sammyy85). I've already presented my point supported by a source, while yours in the other hand is a synthesis of various wikipedia articles (which is WP:OR) trying tie it to whatever you're trying to say. Long story short, Joseon was a fully independent country no matter what a Japanese treaty says. By the way, vassal = tributary. If you didn't know that, then we have a problem. Akkies (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note, Qing Dynasty wasn't Chinese Dynasty and Korea declared Empire prior to illegal Japanese treaties. Therefore Japanese version of Sino-Japanese war and other facts are fully fabricated by Japanese imperialists, therefore Sammyy85 edit is not valid.--Korsentry 02:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems waste of time to talk with Kubie because he is absolutely lacking of the ability to judge coolly when it comes to relationships of Japan and Korea. His claim really is nonsense. When you talk about Japanese entry and the first Sino-Japanese war, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the treaty. Everybody easily understand my claim as long as one has an ordinary brain. Just read the sentence that is written in the article for now.

"By 1876, a rapidly modernizing Japan forced Korea to open its ports and successfully challenged the Qing Empire in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)."

This sentence tells us that the first Sino-Japanese war enabled Japan to force Korea to open its ports. However, it does not tell the reason what the war exactly has to do with the relationship between Korea and Japan.

The sentence says "Japan successfully challenged the Qing Empire". It means that Japan had to kick Qing out of Korea in order to force Korea to open its ports. Why? This is because Joseon was a tribute of Qing and Japan had to put an end to this relationship. Without mentioning the Teaty of Shimonoseki, readers would not understand what the sentence above is trying to say.

Kuebie says "I've already presented my point supported by a source." But I already said that his source actually is on my side. It clearly says "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China" and that "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895." Your source says exactly the same thing as I've been saying. Your source does not support your idea. The source clearly shows that the Treaty of Shimonoseki has a lot to do with Korea by stating that "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895". In order to make it easy to understand the article the sentence below has to be put there.

As a result of this war, China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, which was the first step for Japan to control Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, declaring emperor is a nine exterminations offence. The power of a Korean king is similar to other Chinese kings and Indian princes. States during the Spring and Autumn Period even declared their regnal year. Korean kings declared their regnal year after the war.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain what Sammyy85 wants to say. May be he is referring to the fact that only the Chinese sovereign was allowed to be called the "emperor". The rulers of other countries were not allowed to be addressed as an emperor and they were called "kings" instead. Gojong proclaimed the Korean Empire in 1897 in order to justify its independence from tributary status of China[4][5]. This fact clearly shows the close relationship between history of Korea and the Treaty of Shimonoseki. But for the treaty, Gojong would never have renamed its state Korean "Empire". Therefore, the Treaty must be mentioned here.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. My source explicitly states that Korea was a fully independent country despite a mis-applied designation of vassal state from "those who has superficial knowledge (you) of the historical relation between Korea and China". Kick Qing out of Korea? Since when has Qing ever occupied Korea? If you're talking about the 3000 Chinese soldiers in Asan bay, they were requested by Korea to assist them with suppressing the Tonghak rebellion. Interesting fact, the after Japanese sent 7000 and 7 warships of their own to "protect their citizens", China proposed a joint withdrawal as the Tonghak rebellion was no longer in Chonju. The Japanese of course rejected this, instead counter-proposed to jointly reform the Korean administration. China rejected on grounds that such a move would be interfering in the internal affairs of another nation. And there you have the events leading up to the Sino-Japanese war. Akkies (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is you who have superficial knowledge of your own country. You really don't understand your own source and my claim. I never said Qing occupied Korea. What are you talking about? Don't make up your own story.

I've been saying Korea was an independent country. I don't say Korea was a vassal state of China. However, although it was an independent country, Korea was a tributary of China. You have to make clear the difference between "vassel state" and "tributary". Read this source[6]. It says "Korea was an independent tributary of Qing China". An independent country can be a tributary. For example, Japan was never occupied by China. However, it was once a tributary of China during Muromachi Period.

You've been just misunderstanding. You think I am saying Korea was a part of China or that Korea was a vassel state of China. But I never said so. You are just making up a story. I've been saying Korea was a tributary of China.

You also misunderstand your own source. You own source say

In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered."

This clearly shows that China regarded Korea as an independent tributary of China. Yes. Korea was an independent country. But it was a tributary of China. You cannot deny this fact because your own source says so.

Since China regarded Korea as its sobordinate country, Japan had to cut the relationship between Korea and China. This aim wa complished by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China finally recognized "definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea". Therefore people in Korea built the Independence Gate in Seoul.

JoongAng Daily, which is one of Korea's most influential newspapers, clearly states

"During the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910), Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese."

The site had been the location of Yeongeunmun, a gate where Korean royals once greeted Chinese envoys. But after the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), fought between China and Japan for control over Korea, and Japan’s resulting victory, Yeongeunmun nearly lost its function, as did Mohwagwan, a nearby royal pavilion. Koreans demolished Yeongeunmun, leaving just its foundation stones, and erected Dongnimmun to the north. Mohwagwan was renamed Independence Hall and became the Independence Club’s headquarters."Joong-Ang Ilbo

China finally recognized "definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea" due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki. This fact made it possible for the King of Korea to call his own country "Empire" rather than "Kingdom" because the title "Emperor" was allowed to be used only by the emperor of China and "the status of empire meant independence from China[7]".

Although Korea was an independent country, it is completely impossible to deny the fact that "Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese(Joong-Ang Ilbo) during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910)" and that the Sino-Japanese war put an end to this relationship. In this sense, the Sino-Japanese war has a lot to do with history of Korea. Without this war, Japan would never have been able to annex Korea because China would never have allowed Japan to do so because it regarded Korea as one of the countries "subordinate to China".

I have enough sources including Joong-Ang Ilbo and your own source supports my claim, too. There is no denying the fact that "as a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea" and that this Treaty has a lot to do with history of Korea and worth mentioning here.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going summarize that wall of text. You're arguing that Korea was a part of the Chinese Empire by using an uninvolved war treaty that says China must recognize Korea's independence (which implies Korea wasn't independent before the war). I've sufficiently provided an explanation that on the contrary, Joseon was every bit a sovereign nation as its neighbors. And "kick Qing out of Korea" implies China held military hegemony over the country. Akkies (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that economicexpert.com is a mirror site of wikipedia. I suspect Seven-Year Child must have just googled various keywords. Akkies (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that you still do not understand. Did you really read what I said? How many times do I have to explain it? I NEVER SAID THAT KOREA WAS A PART OF THE CHINESE EMPIRE! It's your imagination. I said Korea was an independent country but it was a tributary of China. The "full and complete independence" meant that Korea was no longer a tributary. What you say really makes no sense because you don't even read what I've been saying.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the Second Manchu invasion of Korea, but Korea surrendered to the Manchus and agreed to submit to Qing and pay tribute to the Qing dynasty emperors. Joong-Ang Ilbo states that "Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese".

What do you need more? You've been misunderstanding what I say. I cannot believe you still think I'm arguing that Korea was a part of the Chinese Empire although I've said several times that I never said so. I said "kick Qing out of Korea" but it means Japan tried to stop the tributary relationship. "China held military hegemony over Korea"? I never said so. Don't make up a story. It's your imagination. You've been making up my claims. Read them once more. You will find out that you've been altering my claims.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"-independent from Chinese Empire" literally means Korea was a part of China, hence not independent. As I've stated again and again, Korea was an independent nation despite a mis-applied designation of vassal state from "those who has superficial knowledge (you) of the historical relation between Korea and China". Akkies (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot read your source?! Your source says that "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." This means a country can be subordinate to China while it is an independent country. Therefore, the Treaty of Shimonoseki established "FULL and COMPLETE" independence of Korea from China.

My idea:

Althought Korea was an independent country, she had been largely under the influence of the Chinese and a tributary of China for centuries(Joong-Ang Ilbo). However, as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war, China, which regarded Korea independent, but as one of its subordinate country[8], was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

--Seven-Year Child (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Refer to my initial post of the explanation of Korea's mis-applied designation of a vassal state. Korea was a wholly independent country before the Sino-Japanese war, despite what a treaty says. Akkies (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And me just add that claims of suzerainty while the "vassal state" fully operates and even considers itself to be independent, is down right ludicrous and unfit for an encyclopedia. Akkies (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You really don't read your own source... The term "vassal state" may be misapplied. However, your source does not deny the fact that Korea was a country subordinate to China. If not, why was there a gate named Yeongeunmun which was built only for the guests from China[9]? Why is there a gate named the Independence Gate in Seoul?

You cannot deny at all the sentence I wrote above. Althought Korea was an independent country, she had been largely under the influence of the Chinese and a tributary of China for centuries(Joong-Ang Ilbo). However, as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war, China, which regarded Korea independent, but as one of its subordinate country[10], was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

Whatever you say, what is written in the Treaty is worth mentioning because it has a lot to do with history of Korea in the sence that it put an end to the tributary relationship between China and Korea which had lasted for centuries.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It actually goes into detail as to why Korea is considered an independent country despite China's claim of suzerainty. Akkies (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Joseon kings and their officials were very loyal to the emperors even before Japanese and Manchu invasion. They chose women for the emperors and planned to restore fallen dynasties, see 李朝實録. Koreans were granted similar rights as other Japanese during Japan rule. Many Koreans migrated to Japan and the Manchuria.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL inhabitated for 700,000 years … Humans only started to leave the African continent about 40-50 thousand years ago. Humans have only beena round for 200,000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.44.185 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A portion of the above comment was removed to excise the more grossly uncivil content while preserving the discussion point raised. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting was justified considering edit was done by Chinese/Japanese trolls.--Korsentry 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

==On the bogus "history" of Korea by Korean nationalists==

It is just truly sad to see modern Korean revisionist, nationalistically filtered "history" to be taken as actual history by so many millions of Koreans. It is the joke of history academia that Korea (and China and Japan included) simply do not care about verification of their erroneous claims of "origins" with any evidence that can be unequivocally proven with evidence. Korean history can IN NO WAY be shown with evidence to extend to the time of Tangun, a mere mythology of origins. No modern people in the world look to their mythical legends as history except for Koreans. Very sad. Why? Because the world needs Korea, and yet it cannot trust Korea to be objective and fair because of its twisted nationalism to Again: very sad. But I will be back here soon to insert some highly credible academic sources that dispute the claims of this article. It's just really bad that this exists in Wikipedia. We would expect that from highly emotional, nationalist Korean sites that proclaim Korean history that way, but it is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you feel the same way, please do the same, and I will join you in what will surely be contested fiercely by the Korean nationalist, revisionist authors of this article. Again: Wikipedia is NOT a korean product, and it should therefore represent a broad non-nationalistic-Korean view of the history of Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.35.14 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have another Chinese nationalist expressing his frustration at here. Both Chinese and Japanese are allowed to keep their founding legends as "proper" history while Koreans can't? What a pathetic logic is that?--KSentry(talk) 05:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a non-biased edit?

Hello all.

There seems to be a lot of tensions in this article and a lot of nationalist in-fighting. I'm not a Korea specialist - I'm a professional academic working on Thailand (and so know very little about Northeast Asia), but I can tell with a quick read-through that the entry as exists right now is written with a Korean nationalist point of view. There are a number of loaded terms - "involved in the murder of princess..." etc., lurking around that makes this read like a patriotic history where the Koreans beat back all the various foreign invaders only to fall at the hands of the despotic Japanese. I wouldn't allow my students to write like this and Wikipedia deserves better.

Can we get someone who knows something about Korean history to rewrite this in a non-biased form? I don't even want to get into all of the Korean-Chinese bickering on this site, just someone to write a decent Korean history? It's such an important entry for Wikipedia to have and such a shoddy site in proportion to its importance.