Talk:History of Korea

This page doesn't explain exactly how it was that korea ceased to have any sort of monarchy. Could someone fix that?

I have move the stuff from the Korea article here and summarized the history there. Kokiri 21:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, currently this article is overrun with ungrammatical edits by revisionist defenders of Japanese colonial actions, continuing Japanese imperialist propaganda that should have been obsolete decades ago. You wonder what the reaction would be if apologists for Nazi actions during WWII would make similar edits on Wikipedia pages. This is not merely silly, it's deeply offensive. I've tried in my edits to include various viewpoints about controversial periods, but if people keep putting in extreme POV material as well as outright falsehoods, I can't keep up anymore. I just don't have time to get involved in this, but if this continues, I'm resorting to arbitration. --Iceager 09:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

-I'm sorry to edit without discussion. Numerous number of editing comes from my my limited ability to write English. I should note as minor edit. I'm Japanese, and I understand your saying. Your writing was relatively much fair than Korean official TextBook, I agree. But from japanese POV, there were still some strange writings. For Korean historians fame, I've never touched the writings before Japanese annexation. And I also didn't try to write to "Japanese Colonial Period", before doing discussion. Could you point out which seems imperialist propaganda, and show the reference to read? I can fix it. To tell the truth, I dislike the Japanese system of emperor, militalism, and imperialism of Japan in the past. But I also dislike one-sided description about Japanese ancestors. Do you really want to compare Nazi action and Japanese annexation?--Poo-T 19 May, 2004

I've written my saying at Japanese Colonial Period "Discuss this page". Could you read the page and reply to my comments? --Poo-T 21 May, 2004

NPOV

Irrespective of any disagreements about previous versions, the current entry for the Japanese Colonial Period is blatant POV: e.g.

• "During Japanese colonial rule (1910-1945), Koreans could spend the happiest time by Japanese investment."
• "However, the Korean did not appreciate the Japanese commitment to the peninsula,derived from peculiar pride that Korea was greater than Japan without a doubt."

Hence I am marking this section NPOV dispute. (There are separate issues regarding accuracy discussed in Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). --Udzu 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-I agree with your marking as NPOV dispute. I think (with my POV), no one wants to write as "happiest time". But japanese are bored with false accusation (ex. 'expense of Korean people'). So I wrote some conflicting points in Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). I think, honest criticism against japanese ruling with objective data should be described. Then, I have not received an objection about Talk:Japanese Colonial Period (Korea)). Is there any rule about waiting time to rewrite a Wiki page? --Poo-T 4 Jun 2004

When it comes to NPOV,the article on "Japanese Occupation" is out of balance.The article seems to be the Koreans' propaganda. --Trilozengy 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's not at all POV. What is written here is just a microscopic fragment of what really happened. After I am done with Woo Jang-Choon article, I promise all Wikipedians to improve all articles concerning the Japanese Coloniasm to the point of concerning every incidents and cases.

After reading all those, you will understand why Koreans feel that way. (Wikimachine 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a place to present the Koreans' impressions on what Japan did in the peninsula.To be correct and neutral,it is essential to accept the diversity of opinion or viewpoint.But the Koreans will not accept that on,especially,Japan-Korean related topics.Even worse,the Koreans will describe here out of delusion.A patronising attitude on the earlier history of Japan,but the Koreans will not describe Japan's contribution to Korea during 1910-1945, the rapid economic growth since 1960s owing to the soft loan from Japan as three times as the annual national budget,or the IMF crisis in 1990s.....The Japanese has started to state strongly against the Korean.(You may already recongnised that from the responses these days.)--Trilozengy 12:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sinocentric View of Korea's Origins?

The writer of the article, it must be disclosed, provides a Sino-centric view of Korea's origins. It is undisputed that Korea, in its myriad of ethno-political forms, borrowed considerably from China both culturally and politically. But to somehow assert that Korea may have somehow originated with the migration and settlement of a Chinese family on the Peninsula is not only unsubstantiated, it should be viewed as a deliberate attempt to undermine Korea's own history as well as the abundance of anthropological evidence which documents the presence of an indigenous peoples on the Peninsula long before the existence of a formal Chinese state. One need only look at the revisionist sinocentric histories of Tibet and Formosa (Taiwan) that were promulgated by China to "evidence" its "ancient" claims to the lands. China is, and always has been, a hegemony that has grown in size over many centuries. This growth has been patient and steady. But it has relied on a long series of small falsehoods and on occasion, outright aggression. Tibet is the clearest demonstration of this. Military troops invaded, murdered, and pillaged. The historical documents were destroyed. And China engaged in a policy of seizing Tibetan land and redistributing it to resettled "Han Chinese". China, it is suspected, is supporting the Maoist "rebels" in neighboring Nepal; these well-funded terrorists have succeeded in murdering the royal family and creating political and economic chaos. Maybe in time, it too will be overtaken by China. Not surprisingly, border disputes have been common; China and Mongolia, China and Vietnam, China and India (they actually fought in a short-lived war), China and Japan, China and Russia, China and the Philippines (Spratley Islands), etc. And now, China is at it again, attempting to revise Korean history (and its geography) with the recent controversial decision (official state policy) to downplay and discount the Korean origin of the Kogoryo Kingdom (one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea), which claimed territory on the northern parts of the Peninsula as well as parts of what was then Manchuria. Any astute observer of Chinese history will see this move for what it is, another small lie in a long chain of lies that will lead, possibly, to "historical claims" to Korea.

---I am not sure whether the article is Sinocentric biased, however, i am sure the person who rasied the issue about Sinocentric above is biased and maybe contains somekind of racist or maybe more accurate nationalist right-winged. In the issue about how "evil" of the Chinese expansion is or other, i suggest the issue rasier to do deeper reaserchs about human history. Since i cannot see any civilisation in any human history in the world is not expansionist. In respond to the critics about the Tibet issue, Taiwan issue... i would rather ask how about the unifications of any nations in the world, including the Korea and its ancient states (How come there is a Korea? how the Koreans expaned from none before the history till now there is a large group of people who call themslves Korean? and how come there were three independent states in the Korean Three kingdoms period but now there is only one call Korea or maybe two Koreas? Most importantly, plsease tell me why and how a nation is formed and why a group of people so call themselves a nation can claim some lands that exist before human and belong to no one their territory? etc.) Then, i think i cannot see any point of the above writer's get any valid standpoints, other than maybe some kind of Chauvinism. PS. the contents of above paragraph does not hold any valid standpoints, simply because lack of any evidence and more subjective to the writer's personal view rather than any objective supports. (I agree with you, that person who hates China is so paranoid. we should calm he or her down. tell he or she to relax.)

I agree. China is spending billions of dollars right now researching to prove that Balhae is part of Chinese history/culture. I'll take a look at it. (Wikimachine 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I understand the viewpoint of China on Balhae.Because any dynasty on the Korean penisula could not exercise the full sovereignty.--Trilozengy 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese commanderies

There are many delicate issues at hand in this article, but I think the entire section "Chinese commanderies", particularly the last two sentences quoted below, could use some clarification. I do not wish to add to a debate about sinocentricity, so I submit this as a new section.

"Without the commanderies, the influence of Chinese culture on Korea would not have been so strong (note the Korean's Confucian tradition!). Sadly, many nationalist Korean historians try to dispute these facts."

The exclamation mark, and perhaps the entire content within the brackets seems unncessary. The word "sadly" is not NPOV. I think it would help to furnish some more evidence of the facts being disputed, along with evidence that they are being disputed at all.

A minor grammar point, IMHO "Korean's" should be replaced with "Koreans'" or "Korean people's". Lxrhee 08:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

korean invasion of china

no mention of koreans successfully invading china under the kim/jin regime, why is this?

What do you mean by Kim/Jin regime? If you haven't learned by now, Korean dynasties are not referred to after the royal houses' surname. Please clarify which dynasties you are talking about.

Mongol invasion of Korea

can someone write a more detailed article on the Mongol invasion of Korea? --Dangerous-Boy

major editing

i'm trying to do a major clean-up of korean history articles. i'm doing a lot of googling, but not re-writing from scratch, i will generally try to keep the content, but clean up the language, & most importantly, make the various articles consistent. all the details should be in the most specific articles, e.g. mahan > samhan > history of korea > korea, the last of which should have a very brief summary in the history subsection.

it's a big project, i'd welcome some help (especially wikifying links & dates) or comments, but if you do make any changes, please be sure they're consistent throughout the various articles. Appleby 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

also, any thoughts on possibly deleting Founding myth of Korea? it's completely covered by Dangun, other countries don't have such articles. i'm not exactly a wiki-veteran, so would appreciate if someone could arrange for a vote on this, after any discussion. Appleby 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, If you have access to historical sources, I commend you to read the Chapter on Gojoseon from Samguk Yusa, noting especially the part on Gija, so that you can understand that Gojoseon of Dangun and Gija Joseon coexisted. As for my argument that Gija Joseon did not pay tribute to Zhou Dynasty of China, I recommend Book of Song Shijia of Shi Ji by Sima Qian, which quite explicitly say that Gija was not a subject of Zhou.

The reason I do not provide English citation is that I cannot find English translation of these sources at present; all I have are Chinese or Korean versions. But just because there is no easily accessible English translation, doesn't mean the source is unreliable or useless.

By the way, as you might have gathered from my user name, I am an Australian, and am quite sure that my English is by no means too inferior to so-called translators. If you believe my translation of source itself is biased, in opposition to my historical viewpoint (which indeed is possibly biased in favour of one view), please explain which part of translation you think is biased. Sydneyphoenix 00:45, 11 March 2006

from WP:NOR: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published", reputable publications being "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house ..., general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications, ..."

from WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."

you and i both know that all your hard work will soon be for naught, simply reverted by other editors. the only way to defend your work and have some impact on the usefulness of wikipedia is for you to leave a record of reputable english references that other editors can verify. if you do that, i will personally do whatever i can to preserve your work. otherwise, it's just a pointless waste of time. Appleby 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

700,000 years human presence in Korea

Isn't there something obiviously wrong with asserting that archological evidence points to a 700,000 year human presence in Korea. Haven't homo sapien sapien been around for only around 160,000 to 200,000 years?

Judging by what is currently written at Human evolution, the humans in question here are not H.s.s. but Homo erectus... however, I'm not at all sure about that.

I have added a reference for the 700,000 claim, with some clarification -- Byeon (1999), the only source I have handy, doesn't seem to put a great deal of stock in this date, preferring 500-600,000.

I'd be grateful if someone can find an English-language source. There has been at least one book published on the Korean Paleolithic, and no doubt quite a few journal articles as well...-- Visviva 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

sydneyphoenix's edits

i'm not sure what exactly you're objecting to, but i've consulted these references for the consensus views: the encyclopedias available through Daum, Naver, Empas, 야후, and KoreanDB, Lib of Congress Met Museum, & other sources depending on the topic. please provide sources for what you want to add, or ask about specific problems you see, so we can discuss the references. thanks. Appleby 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A million years?

Sez who? Not the source currently given in the footnote. -- Visviva 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

gija edits

according to WP:NPOV, the majority view should be referenced to "commonly accepted reference texts." i can't find any english reference texts that discuss this detail, but the most reputable korean-language encyclopedias clearly show the korean scholarship consensus. [1] [2] [3] the theory that gija joseon was a separate entity adjacent gojoseon is described, if at all, as a minority view. [4] describes in detail that the consensus today is that gija was likely a real figure in chinese history, but his connection to ancient joseon was a later embellishment. given treatments like [5], it seems to me we need less on gija joseon in this summary article, and more on the details of various current theories in the gija joseon article. of course, if there are english sources that indicate that the current scholarly consensus is something else, i'd love to see them. Appleby 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

the Korean Watching

The Koreans are EAGER to find the comments which are not suitable for themselves to delete them. Do or can the Korean accept the diversity of viewpoints? And do not fabricate your history to aggitate the world.

I really want to know why the Korean have such strong eagarness to fix comments or articles lacking accuracy in the net, not only in Wikipedia. It seems they suffer from an inferiority complex against other contries.However they try to aggitate the world or, accurately saying, to delude themselves ,the world has already recongised them accurately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.159.231.103 (talk • contribs)

Okay, an anon from Japan Network Information Center. Read Protocols of the Elders of Seoul for more information on international Korean conspiracies. Deiaemeth 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

the title "Japanese occupation " is not neutral

The title "Japanese occupation " gives readers impression that the Japanese rule itself was illegal or what Japan did for the Korean penisula was all wrong. The treaty in 1910 was valid until Japan abandoned the penisula.And Japan improved the quality of the Koreans life.The title gives an implication of disgracing Japan.The title should be changed into "the period under the Japanese sovereignty" or something like that. Needless to say, the description of the article itself is not. Trilozengy

Japanese did mistreat the Koreans. "Japanese Occupation" is a neutral term. And I WILL make sure to put all the cruelties by the Japanese in this article, or make a separate article about Japanese cruelties during WWII in a moment (after I'm done with Woo Jangchoon article -please feel free to take a look at it and improve it). (Wikimachine 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)) PS: Please take a look at Kim Okgyun article as well -I nominiated Kim Okgyun and Jang Yeongsil articles to the selected biography section for the Korean Portal. (Wikimachine 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

To make a title or an article neutral,it is necessary to acknowledge diversity of interpretation or opinion.But the Koreans will not have the ability.Just repeat imposing what they believe or are trying to believe on the Japanese or the world. Reflect the Japanese views on the title or the article.The Japanese did mistreat the Koreans? If education to the Koreans,building roads,the establishment of currency system, the improvement of the public health or many things led to double the population on the penisula were included in the Japanese mistreatment for the Koreans, what in the world is the conception of mistreatment ??? What the Koreans have to learn is that the improvement of the quality of life on the penisula was at the cost of the lives in Tohhoku Province.Was there a nation other than Japan to educate all the poor and begger out of the mainland's pocket? Metaphorically saying, should the ordinary have treated the poor and begger as the aristocracy? The description on any Korea-related topic here in Wikipedia is egocentric and ,at the same time, gives bad impression on the neibouring nation or people to the world. --Trilozengy 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)