Talk:Gojoseon

How can books written so much later be quoted as sources of authority?

Donyi: Means Eastern Tribal People. NOT EASTERN BABARIANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthcom (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at all the historians for continuing to quote from the Samguk Yusa as if it was Gospel Truth. A book written in 13th Century CE with political justification in mind would be suspect by any criteria. However, Korean national pride has prevented an unbiased assessment of the past. Although all the East Asian states are guilty of such biase, it appears the Koreans are much more rigidly so.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When only a few references remain such as Samguk Yusa because most historical documents have been purposefully destroyed or stolen by the Japanese, what you should be amazed at is the strength of the Korean culture to somehow still preserve at least some of its history, not the Korean national pride which is the sole reason why Korea still stands as a country after numerous number of invasions from China, Japan and Mongolia. No wait, be amazed at both, just positively. You have absolutely no right to to call Koreans biased, and Wikipedia is definitely not a place for you to do so. Wookie919 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wayne Leigh. Ancient Chinese records would be a better source than something like the Samguk Yusa. Writing didn't even exist in Korean states until probably after 1 AD. And the article here makes it sound like it is entirely legit. Just as the Japanese Kojiki is pretty much fiction when describing pre-300 AD events, I think the same can be said for Samguk Yusa concerning these early pre-AD events. Angry bee (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And I also agree with Wayne Lee and Angry Bee. It is simply amazing how Koreans like Wookie919 nonchalantly dismiss very reasoned and critical engagement with Korean nationalist historiographies. We "have no right to call Koreans biased?" Um. Yes we do. And many continue to call you biased. You are the last remaining non-autocratic nation that wholesale still believes absolute myths about your origins, and then tries to force that mythology into the academic mold of what, outside of Korea, is know as history. But Korea historians are dismissed summarily in the halls of Asia Studies in the greatest universities of the world. Korean historians are almost completely dismissed. At least they are viewed with trememdous skepticism. And this is not because there is anything wrong with Koreans themselves, it is because koreans cannot move away from the 1895 dangun/minjok complex posited by Shin Chae Ho and his band of journalistic politicos who were trying to decenter China and displace the influence of Japan. But that was then, and this is 2011, and contemporary Korea cannot seem to let go of this late 19th century mythology about itself. In anycase, none of it belongs in wikipedia. None of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.163.250 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe how people just call Koreans biased. Yes, I am another Korean, and yes, I do not agree with Wayne Lee and Angry Bee. For some reason, people just think myths from how a country was born was just a myth for the whole country's history. If Gojoseon was not existing, then there wouldn't be any Koreans in the current, because after Gojoseon has been taken over by the Han Dynasty in China, they have all moved to separate countries like the Buyeo Kingdom, in the 2nd century BC, Okjeo, Dongye, and Samhan. Buyeo was the northern part state, which takes the northern land of North Korea and the southern part of Manchuria. The eastern was Okjeo and Dongye which were small countries lying by the East sea (or the Sea of Japan even though I strongly disagree to this name). Samhan are the three hans which were located at the land of later Baekje and Silla. If you can prove why had the population of these 5 countries had increased tremendously and exponentially for a short period at the early 100 BCs other than the existence of Goguryeo, then I will disprove all the Korean's idea. And for the comment above my paragraph, I cannot believe why Koreans are viewed with skepticism. I understand your idea of how China was decentered other than with our own power. But you should understand, as with another example of this, putting the Chinese power during the Imjinwaeran (the Korean-Japanese war in 1592-98)because the attack of the Japanese were so unexpected by the time even though there were people who noticed it, and there were many severe warnings from nature as well, but the people ignored it as much as the warnings were severe. Now, I am not saying it was because the Japanese invasion in the 19th century was unexpected, but Japan was already opening ports to the Western World like Europe and the US, which was forced to any Eastern country without being colonized, like the Opium War in China. But China was less affected by the Western World than Japan, which had already been impacting themselves by importing stuff from the Western World, and that is the reason why Japan is considered as the most developed country in Asia along with China, which had many people to work on themselves to improve their economical status. Well, at that time, the most trustable frenemy for Joseon was either China or Russia because there were already people who turned their sides to Japan, which were called Chinilpa, which simply means 'friends of Japan.' I strongly disagree to the ideas of you guys and if you want to know more that Gojoseon is not biased and it is real, you should go to the Korean elementary school, 5th grade, which explains a lot with photos and stuff of sings that Gojoseon people have left behind.

Citations needed to support claims of Gojoseon as a Great Power

You need to cite the ancient contemporaneous sources which mentioned the existing of this polity called Gojoseon, especially in the highly dramatic descriptions of war with the state of Yan. Without these, it is difficult to put forward claims that Gojoseon is a power and highly organized state rather than a loose confederation under a chieftain.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Leigh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 

Gojoseon Equals Liaoning Bronze Dagger Culture

The Liaoning bronze dagger culture is an archeological complex of the late Bronze Age in Northeast Asia. Artifacts from the culture are found primarily in the Liaoning area of Manchuria and in the Korean peninsula. Various other bronze artifacts, including ornaments and weapons, are associated with the culture, but the daggers are viewed as the most characteristic.

Lee (1996) considers that the culture is properly divided into five phases: Phases I and II typified by violin-shaped daggers, Phases IV and V by slender daggers, and Phase III by the transition between the two. Of these, remains from Phases I, II and III can be found in some amounts in both the Korean peninsula and Manchuria, but remains from Phases IV and V are found almost exclusively in Korea.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A Founding Myth is Not Historically Accurate

The founding myth of Old Gojoseon should not be used as an actual historical civlization. Old Gojoseon should be considered a semi-mythical dynasty, with the mythical founding date of 2333 BCE.

Old Gojoseon has no archeology evidence, there is minimal textual evidence, and the story of Old Gojoseon was first mentioned after the 14th century.

Intranetusa 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Article move

There was a suggestion that Go-Joseon be renamed and moved to Gojoseon, Former Joseon or Old Joseon, but no debate.

Founding myth of Korea

anyone want to take up maybe deleting Founding myth of Korea? doesn't seem to add anything, other countries don't have analogous entries. there's already a separate article on Dangun. just trying to organize things logically. Appleby 17:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Credibility of Gyuwon Sahwa

Article states:

Gyuwon Sahwa is a credible historical record written in 1675 which is based on earlier records that are now lost.

However, I believe that its credibility as a historical document is disputed. The current official history textbooks in use in South Korea do not consider it credible, and do not have this list of danguns (whereas all the other kings/emperors/etc. are listed). [I live in South Korea.] Furthermore, many historians consider the work to be disputed (see [1]).

To conform to the NPOV policy, I propose that this section be marked disputed.

It looks like while HDGG is widely considered a forgery (it was not written when it says it was written, even though the contents are based on some earlier "alternative history" texts), it's more complicated for GWSH. Apparently the "original" GWSH is in the Korean national history museum, and many people consider it authentic (although some think it too is a forgery). Just because the book is authentically old, doesn't mean the content is accurate, of course. The content was not intended by the author to be a mainstream scholarly history, but a collection of the more nationalistic legends and alternative histories. I think it'd be good to briefly explain this in the article.

The "History" Section

The discription in the History section looks somewhat ambiguous.

The people of Gojoseon are called in Chinese records Dong-i, "eastern bowmen,"

Dong-i or Dong Yi (東夷) in Chinese can be hardly interpreted as "eastern bowmen", but rather "eastern barbarians." The term Dong Yi is paralleled with "北狄 (Bei Di)", "西戎 (Xi Rong)", and "南蛮 (Nan Man)", which mean "northern barbarians", "western barbarians", and "southern barbarians" respectively. The interpretation "bowmen" seems to be just the build-up of the character ("弓" the bow and "人" man). And,

...Dong-i, "eastern bowmen," belonging to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic.

Each of eastern/northern/western/southern barbarians is not a single race, but these terms referred to a group of peoples who lived east, north, west and south to the center of the Chinese civilization. And the languages of "eastern barbarians" peoples are not documented, so there is no concluding "belonging to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic."

Gojoseon eventually consolidated in Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula...

This sentence can make readers misunderstand, since it can sound as if the eastern "barbarians" founded an organized state.

In a later paragraph,

Gija, a subject of the Yin state, entered Gojoseon and introduced the culture of Yin around the 11th century BC Gojoseon clashed with the Zhou during China's Warring States Period (475-221 BC),

This can mean that Gojoseon directly fought against the Zhou Dynasty. Adjacent to Manchuria were Yan or Wei and the tribes/peoples in Manchuria may have fought against these neighboring states, but it's suspicious if Gojoseon fought with Zhou which was far from Manchuria and had much stronger states between Manchuria and Zhongyuan area.-222.15.81.187 13:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1. is it possible that 夷 was used to indicate a relationship with bowmen? why did they use diff't characters for "barbarian": 夷 狄 戎 蛮? i'm asking cuz i honestly don't know, though i'll try to research this further myself.
2. i think the little evidence there is does indicate that gojoseon's language was altaic, see Fuyu languages, although i agree it should clarify gojoseon does not equal all of "dong yi" & the altaic connection is not certain.
3. i think "consolidate" is a good compromise, as there is little evidence of a formal kingdom until later, but there is enough written & archeological evidence that gojoseon can be identified as organized within a geographic location.
4. i don't know where this came from either, i'll look into this more, can you provide some sources we can look at, too? Appleby 15:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, 夷 狄 戎 蛮 were generic terms to refer eastern, northern western and southren people, respectively. Because of sinocentrism, they became to mean barbarians. For example, 後漢書 (Hou Hanshu) has 東夷列傳 (the records of the eastern barbarians) and it records people of 夫餘 (Buyeo), 挹婁, 高句驪 (Goguryeo), 東沃沮 ((East Okjeo), 濊 (Ye), 三韓(Samhan) and 倭 (Wa)[2]. Notice Chenese consider not only Korean but Japanese 東夷. --Kusunose 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Chinese people in eastern Shandong and Jiangsu provinces are also called 東夷 (still called that sometimes), and they were historically bowmen (archaelogical evidence). The term was later extended to refer to all eastern peoples (including the Japanese), and became a geographic term. There is no clear Altaic connection though. Many Northern Chinese have Altaic connections anyway (descendents of steppe peoples). Naus 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact or fiction?

I think it is a trifle unreasonable to omit doubts about the historicity of Gojoseon from this article. The historical and archeological bases adduced for this extremely ancient state are more than a little shaky. -- Visviva 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

it's my understanding that there isn't any doubt about gojoseon's existence in this area, bordering yan/yen to the west, i think referred to in various chinese records much before goryeo records (guk by 4th century bc). there are some doubts as to its exact location, with the consensus being pyongyang (or beginning in manchuria & later moving to pyongyang). during corresponding times in this region, there are walled cities & evidence of a fairly distinctive culture. i understand the debate is the degree of its political organization, whether a loose federation of walled cities (cummings, lee k.b.) or a kingdom. i think by the time of wiman, it may have been a kingdom, but not before. i think "state" is often, but not always, used by even non-korean scholars, although any one term is problematic because of the length of the claimed history. this is all from memory of googling at the time i worked on the article, so correct me if i'm wrong. Appleby 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When was Gojoseon established?

This article states that According to legend, it was founded in 2333 BC by Dangun, however I found several sources suggesting different timing - the the 30th century BC. Here are some links: [3], [4], Mausoleum of Dangun,[5].

Which is the more widely accepted date? Lejean2000 09:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, all three of those websites are blocked from where I sit in South Korea. If the Mausoleum of Dangun article is to be trusted, however, this is a purely North Korean claim based solely on their own "archeological" findings. In fact, when I'm next among my books, I think I can find some scholars who consider the Gojoseon period to have probably begun some thousand-or-so years later than the 24th century BCE. -- Visviva 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For instance, Cumings (1997, p. 25) only indicates that Gojoseon was among the small peninsular states which emerged "by the fourth century BC." Lee (1984, p. 13) also only mentions Gojoseon as having emerged in the Liao and Taedong valleys by the 4th century. Some, like Kim (1997) do regard "Dangun Joseon" as having possibly existed during the Neolithic period, i.e. before the 13th century BCE; however, by the same token they reject the possibility that Gojoseon can be regarded as a "state" or even "tribal confederation" in the modern sense.

Of course, there is ultimately no satisfactory answer to the question, since no satisfactory historical record exists; but any date prior to 500 BC must be considered speculative and/or legendary. -- Visviva 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of a re-organization

I have reshaped part of the article a bit. I have moved the historical parts ("Kingdom".. and a very short paragraph whose title I forgot) to the newly named "Founding legend and historical foundation of Gojoseon", which seems to make more sense, as the legends have historical significance and is relevant to the somewhat obscure history of the old kingdom, and added my own content based on the reading of Lee Ki-Baik's "Hanguksa Sillon", among other things. I have not subtracted anything but slightly rewritten some sentences. They can probably be improved even more. The "iron culture" section could be expanded a lot more, I'm sure. A bibliography section should also be added...

Bronze Culture + Iron Culture

Very very important sections, I think. I corrected some the (horrible) grammar of the bronze culture paragraph. I don't have time to do the rest now, but can someone please, rephrase this section? There's also a problem of content. No real comparison with Chinese bronze culture of the time, and of course, no references. Iron culture deserves a lot more content as well... Shogo Kawada 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I've done it, anyway. Shogo Kawada 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding the map of Gojoseon's territory

File:Gojoseon4.png

I have added the map of Gojoseon's territory. But, it is removed by someone. I think that this map is reasonable.
This map is the results of Professor Yoon in Dankuk univ. as everybody knows it. I want to discuss about the map.

I see two major problems with the map:

1) it appears to be either from a copyrighted book, or a copyrighted blog; in either case, it is subject to deletion as a copyvio.

2) It represents one person's research; this may or may not reflect general consensus among scholars of early Korean history.

If the map can be used at all, it should be clearly labeled as one person's theory. Most of the texts I have indicate that Gojoseon probably occupied some area of northern Korea or Manchuria, but do not suggest anything near the scope indicated by this map. -- Visviva 06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is fair that all theories or major a few theories about the gojoseon territory should be described according to the opinion of Visviva

I think I should find another map or draw by myself based on the theory.--Hairwizard91 04:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding a new section about the territory of Gojoseon

It is better adding a new section of gojoseon's territory because there are several different thoeries about it. Maybe, it can be categorized into three things.
1. Based on the Prof Yoon, the territory covers sourth manchuria, some of Liaoning, Liaodong, and north Korean
2. The territory covers only Liaoning.
3. The territory covers only Pyongyang.

Anybody can comment about these three territory theory.

Can someone give the source of the foundation years of Gojoseon?

• BC 2622 by whom ?
  
• BC 2786 by whom ?
  
• BC 2800 by whom ?
  
• BC 2337 by whom ?
  

There are so many theories about the foundation years. Can anyone give the sources of them ? ??? I thought Wikipedia said that Japan was under Gojoseon's rule... What about that information?? I want to know... Did Gojoseon occupy Japan or no??? PLz someone answer me.. I have a project due on Japan.

No, it didn't. Check any book you want on Japanese history. Or Korean history for that matter. -- Visviva 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are three opinions

1. BC2357

Book_of_Wei(魏書), Jewang_ungi(제왕운기), Dangunsegi(단군세기), Sesongillok Jiriji(세종실록지리지) as the first year of 堯.

2. BC2333

(Donguk tonggam)동국통감, Haedong ijeok(해동이적), Dongguk Yeokdae Chongmok(동국역대총목) as the 25th year of 堯

3. BC2308

Gogi(古記) cited by Samguk Yusa as the 50th year of 堯

Chinese records of 四庫全書 says B.C. 2333. Korean just use this records of 四庫全書 --Drpepper000 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the year B.C.2333 was not on Samguk Yusa. Then, the text on the article is wrong. Jtm71 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Where in 四庫全書 does it say 2333 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry bee (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Li

I have made the link to "li" direct rather than through a disambiguation page. But looking at the article on li, I noticed that it ONLY talks of the li as a unit of distance, not of area. This means that the Gojoseon text is unclear/meaningless. Even when that gets cleared up, I think a parentetical comment on about the size of the area in km^ or mi^ would be in order to facilitate reading - rather than paging back and forth in Wik, crashing and simply giving up. Kdammers 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the way of representing the area in East Asia. 2000 Li just is directly quoting the history books. Yan and Gojoseon was located throught west and east, 2000Li may the horizontal distance. Korean still uses 3000Li in spoken language (not in written language) when referring to the area of current Korean territory. --Hairwizard91 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Koreans I asked do NOT use li for area (They use either km^2 or pyoung. Li is a unit of length / distance that they use (see my comments at Li / talk. In any case, what-ever it meant at the time of the loss of territory, simply translating it to "kilometers" or explaining it as "kilometers" does not give understandable information. Is it actually square km or is it pushing back the entire frontier that number of km. There's a huge difference. Kdammers 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you said. But, 2000Li is just quotation from primary source, and this is interpreted as the 2000li length from the west to the east. So, it can be used as the approximation of the area from the horizotal length. --Hairwizard91 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gojoseon as a kingdom

Was Gojoseon a kingdom? I mean are there any namings of Gojoseon as "王国" (kingdom") in historical records of 2 th.-100 BC? If not, would it be better to change the definition of Gojoseon in the head of the article from "kingdom" to more accurate wordings like "cultural and political entity" or just "state"? --133.41.84.100 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder also,it seems the Gojoseon maybe the longest-existing kingdom in the human history.--Ksyrie 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question, Gojoseon is just another title to describe many Kingdoms or states that existed during Gojoseon era.--Korsentry 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Jewang yeondaeryeok 제왕연대력 ...

Jewang yeondaeryeok, the historical chronology does not exists. It is mysterious to refer a document which was disappeared. Jtm71 09:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Recommend a good source?

What is a good source of information that discusses the archaeological verifiability of the Dangun legend dating to 2333BC?

Also, how come there isn't a left menu on this Talk page? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The subject of Gojoseon has been taken up several times indirectly in the publications of the archaeologist Choi Mong-lyong (please see his article for one example). He wrote several articles dealing with Wiman Joseon. Kim Jung-bae refers to Gojoseon as well in his English works, but he does so in passing. If one looks through the index of articles of Korea Journal and other names pop up (e.g. Yun Nae-hyeon, etc). However, they can write and write and write 'till the cows come home: there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that Gojoseon existed -- mapping the distribution of bronze daggers does not imply the presence of an archaeologically verifiable state-level society. A Sarah Milledge Nelson paper from 1995 (see her article for ref) discusses the political motivations for why there are still some trained academics who willingly choose to stake their entire professional careers on the existence of this Gojoseon. Mumun 無文 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of Gojoseon

I've been researching this time period left and right and the map that was included was simply pointless. The map was only a topographic view of the Korean penninsula and part of Manchuria with "Gojoseon" written in bold across it. It showed no delineation of the territory or any other information. I removed the map, as there was no reason for it to be included at all.

Why did you removed the map without the approvals & signature?--Korsentry 01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Temporary (1 week) example

My edit using a user space template is a temporary (1 week) demo case for a requested change to the protected template {{Infobox Former Country}}. I will delete the modification as soon as the proposal process is over. Unless there is some damage to Gojoseon, I ask that this edit be allowed to remain for a week while they check over the code change. For further info on the template change request, see discussion on the template page. This particular article was selected because it has a BC date. If this article is a bad choice for some reason, I would be happy to move to a suggested alternate article using this infobox. Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit left the page emitting metadata stating that the country existed from 2333 AD until 107 AD. I've reverted. Please do you testing in a sandbox page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mythical founding at Baekdu or Taebaek?

The text says that the mythical founder descended from heaven to Taebaek, but the link goes to Baekdu. Unless there are other mountains by the same name, these two are really far apart. Something needs to be clarified or corrected. 70.127.243.9 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth cannot be counted as history

The oldest existing record of this founding myth appears in the Samguk Yusa, a 13th-century collection of legends and stories. I'm not going to calculate the time difference since the Samguk Yusa was written, to the time in history that it claims to have authority. Hahaha... If we think about this, it means every person of european descent can now write there own opinion of ancient Alexanderian history without any knowledge of it... hilarious.

History recorded after a space of about 45 centuries (until 13c.) can only be believed in any sense by the idiotic or the religious. I always ask guys who say that "korea has 5000 year old history..", "great, please tell me about your history for the first 2000 years until 3000 b.c". Hahaha, even university professors. Please try it everyone. There is no history. Just claim of date and that is not history.

During the Korean war and after the South Korean government has had to foster nationalism to make poeple believe in its country, to separate those who supported the Japanese and those who supported and fought with the Soviet Union against the Japanese (don't forget that the Soviet Union only declared war, against the Japanese, in the last few months of the second world war).

1) There was never any serious resistance to Japanese rule over Korea.

2) There were over 150 senior war criminals in the Japanese army who were Korean nationals these were all sentenced by the allies in the Tokyo war trials.

3) The American president at the time said something like "korea is not in any position to defend itself against any foreign power".

4) From the whole period around the Russio-Japanese war it is clear that if Japan did not involve itself then

Korea would be completely Russian orientated and probably would have become part of the soviet union.

Well as far as I know, the Russians didn't try to eradicate entire major populations of their language, culture, and ethnic identity. Maybe it would have been better as an autonomous province of Russia than a colony of Japan. And concerning point 1, there was no serious resistance because at the time Korea could not defend itself from anyone including Japan; and we know how the Japanese dealt with dissenters. Anyway, this is not the place for this. Angry bee (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these point belong on another page- I'm waiting for dispute - all of this is on wikipedia already.

Don't confuse the Dangun legend with the state of Gojoseon itself. Just because the Dangun story is allegorical or mythical, like most nation-founding legends, that does not mean Gojoseon itself did not exist. There are contemporaneous records of "Joseon" in Chinese records as old as around 7th century BC, and plenty more about the Wiman period, as well as archeological records.

고조선이 처음 역사서에 등장한 시기는 기원전 7세기 초이다. 이 무렵에 저술된 《관자(管子)》에 ‘발조선(發朝鮮)’이 제(齊)나라와 교역한 사실이 기록되어 있다. 또 《산해경(山海經)》에는 조선이 보하이만[渤海灣] 북쪽에 있던 것으로 나타난다. --http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=14543 http://www.encyber.com/search_w/ctdetail.php?masterno=14543&contentno=14543

이에 대한 사료로는 단군신화를 묘사한 《삼국유사》와 《제왕운기》 등의 기록과 춘추전국 시대 이래 고조선이 국가로 성장해 중국과 관계한 내용을 기록한 《관자》, 《산해경》 등 선진 시대의 문헌이 있다. 그리고 진한 교체기 중국과의 본격적인 대결 속에 전개된 위만조선 관련 기록인 《사기》, 《한서》와 《삼국지》가 인용한 《위략》 기록 등에서 장기간에 걸친 역사로 표현되어 있다. http://www.yes24.com/24/goods/2366891

≪산해경≫의 해내북경(海內北經)에서 조선의 위치에 관해 “조선은 열양 동에 있고 바다 북쪽 산의 남쪽에 있다. 열양은 연에 속한다(朝鮮在列陽東 海北山南 列陽屬燕).”라 기록하였다. ... 그런데 ≪산해경≫은 고대 중국의 지리서로서, 춘추시대에서 전한대에, 즉 서기전 8세기에서 서기전 1세기에 걸쳐 여러 지역에서 쓰여진 것들을 모은 것이다. 따라서 여기에서 말하는 조선이 어느 때의 상황인지에 대해서 알 수가 없다. 그리고 ≪관자〉의 경우, 경중갑편(輕重甲篇)과 규도편(揆度篇)에서 춘추시대의 제(齊)와 조선간의 교역에 관해 언급하고 있다. ≪관자≫는 서기전 7세기 제의 재상인 관중(管仲)의 저술이라지만, 실제 주된 내용은 전국시대(서기전 402∼서기전 221)의 제나라인들의 저술로서, 이를 관중의 이름에 가탁한 것이다. 따라서 ≪관중≫에서 언급한 제와 조선과의 교역에 관한 언급은 기원전 5세기 이전부터의 어떤 전승에 의거했을 수도 있으나, 구체적으로 어느 시기의 것인지는 알 수 없다. 이에 의거해 조선이 언제부터 제나라 사람들에게 알려졌는지를, 바꾸어 말하자면 조선이란 실체가 언제 역사상에 등장했는지를 추정하기는 어렵다. 조선에 관해 좀더 구체적으로 언급한 기록은 ≪사기≫와 ≪전국책 戰國策≫ 등 한(漢) 초의 사서이다. ≪사기≫ 소진전(蘇秦傳)에 의하면, 소진이 연(燕)의 문후(文侯 : 서기전 361∼서기전 333)에게 당시 연의 주변 상황을 말하면서 “연의 동방에는 조선 요동이 있고, 북쪽에는 임호·누번이 있으며.”라고 하였다. http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=268865&v=44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.247.145.8 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

-Are you saying Kim Jwa Jin, our national hero who lead the Koreans to fight the Japanese during the occupation a joke? Are you seriously Chinese? You insult us without knowing much history. The Manchurians grouped with Koreans fought hard, i don't remember any Chinese fighting against the Japanese. And do not tell me Manchurians are Chinese just because it's in China, the Chinese never considered them Chinese until communism took over. Jin Dynasty(earliest Jurchens) was founded by Korean royal family Kim of Shilla. By the way for everyone here, please go to google and type "Oldest Rice Cultivation," The oldest rice cultivation and grain isn't in China as the Chinese claim, it is found in South Korea, written in the articles of Discovery Channel and UK history. By radioactive dating it appears to be 15000BCE, that's 3000 years older than what China claims to have rice being originated from them. Please update yourselves with new findings and evidence and do not rely on old resources.76.15.191.112 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I *seriously* doubt that the Manchurians who were the rulers of China at the time would send only ethnic Manchurians to help Korea. First, it would be completely irrational. By this time Manchurians could barely speak Manchu and were highly assimilated with the Han Chinese. Secondly I remember reading that when the Manchurians took over China, Korea believed Korea to be the only Confucian state left; this seems to imply that the Koreans and Manchurians did not share a special cultural bond that you seem to imply.

This "oldest rice cultivation" points to an article from 2003 about claims by Korean scientists; it makes no mention of their paper being published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The Wikipedia article on rice includes an article from 2008 in an international peer-reviewed journal that state rice cultivation originated in the Yangtze River valley. Please do not rely on hyper-nationalism. Angry bee (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mandarin originated from the Manchus and was introduced to the southern Han chinese. What are you talking about? The Han Chinese spoke Cantonese. Manchuria was never called Manchuria until later. I'm talking about the Jin Dynasty (ancestors of Manchurians), the founder is written in Chinese records specifically (IN BEIJING LIBRARY), "Jin Dynasty is found by descendants of Shilla Royal Kim Family." (After Goryeo overthrew Shilla to reunify Korea). This fact is on Wikipedia as well. Manchurians have different culture from Koreans? Jin Dynasty, even after much power was gained, never attacked Goryeo and there are records of letters the Jin Dynasty King had sent to Goryeo King, considering Goryeo as a "PARENT NATION." You're saying I rely on hyper-nationalism? That statements applies to communist Chinese that deny and distort history. Do you think this happens with Korea only? They distort Mongolian, Turk and Japanese history as well. All the facts I had said about Jin Dynasty and their relation with Goryeo is in Beijing Library. Before the Chinese Communist Party can distort more evidence through the "NORTH EAST PROJECT", Korean historians took full photos and pictures of the ancient writings still stored from there. Also, it is only right rice cultivation is oldest in Korea, check the new DNA testing of Asia. The Altay people did not migrate from West to East, they came from South of Asia moving up to the North way before any other Asian groups. Stem Cell research is #1 in Korea and it is written in many American articles, admitted by the world. If you want links, email me KRNxHwaranG32@hotmail.com. Unbelieveable... a demoratic free country lies? and you're telling me a communist country tells the truth about history? Right.

Acutally, here you go, Enjoy and feast. Manchurians were one with Korea from Gojoseon to Buyeo to Goguryeo and also Jin Dynasty-Goryeo times. Here are the three wikipedia links and tell me who's lying? Your communist government or my knowledge. JIN means "GOLD" and the only Eastern Asian people that carry that name 金 are Koreans, "KIM = GOLD." Aishin could possibly mean, love shilla. Have fun reading the three links below. I WIN, HAHAHA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Dynasty_(1115%E2%80%931234) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanpu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisin_Gioro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.191.112 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't know anything about the Chinese language. Cantonese is called Cantonese because it is centered in Canton which is the very south of China. Cantonese preserved some Middle Chinese features such as consonant endings p,t,k. The Koreans borrowed words from Middle Chinese not Cantonese! Both Mandarin and Cantonese descended from Middle Chinese. The Manchurians speak an Tungusic language (which still exists today): not even in the same language tree as Chinese! And BTW, the surname 金 is also a Chinese surname used in southern China. You need to read more books and articles NOT written by Koreans. Angry bee (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The "Former Country" infobox is intended for historical states, not for semi-legendary kingdoms of prehistory. Seriously, it is more bother than it is worth in this case. Why have an infobox if it contributes literally nothing? --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, See below category, if you put it that way, the below category is crushed. I also notice already mentioned term "legendary". See Shang Dynasty, This articles also point to specific years exactly, Do you think this years was possible? It's not gonna remove or edit in all of these cases.--Historiographer (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope to resolve some issues once and for all

Here are the several issues in this page:

1. Dangun is only a myth. Its non-existence is clear. It is not part of the history. supporting ref: "no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth" from "The Korea, A global studies handbook".

2. Korean Bronze Age starts from around 800 BC. supporting ref: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/1000bce_ko.htm

3. Gija section: we need to hear voices from two sides. both Chinese records and Korean records have Gija records, we need to present them. Korean believed Gija for more than one thousand years before they started questioning it, then we need to tell what role it played for that period. archaeological discoveries also talk for both sides and we can not simply ignore one side.

Historiographer, the discussion on "History of Korea" page answered your concern on Shang Dynasty. EJcarter (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

More Info

http://byeongjupark.wordpress.com/article/gojoseon-2zvfgrgyend5c-5/ excellent source for more information to add to this topic revealing what happened in greater detail (Armorbeast (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, but that's a terrible source written with an obvious nationalist agenda and practically no reliable sources. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Gojoseon is a real former Empire

According to Professor. Yi Deokil, Gojoseon is a real Empire. Also according to a Russian historian, iem putin, Gojoseon really existed with the vast land, but the problem is that Koreans do not accept it as real. Korean peninsula's bronze age starts from 5000BC based on archaeological evidences. And if we only see now's South Korea, it is 3000BC to 4000BC. If we include Wooharyang in Manchuria, where many Korean styled tombs were found, bronze age of Korean history starts from 6000BC. In addition, not regarding these kinds of early dates of bronze, existence of Gojoseon can be proven, since Inca and Mya started their civilizations in stone age. Interestingly, some early built pyramids were shown recently that they were built with bronze-made tools, which show that Egyptian civilization possibly began in new stone age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World historia (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you ought to be able to provide reliable English sources stating so. Where no such sources exist, and even 'Koreans do not accept it as real,' then the only conclusion is that it's a fringe of the fringe theory. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Korean sources are fine, through keep WP:UNDUE in mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a map with larger Gojoseon.

Gojoseon had a land almost similar as Goguryeo. It was a confederated Empire of small kingdoms. The map is too small. Somebody, please put a map! A better map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.93 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent major changes

Recent major changes to this article gives undue weight to a fringe theory, Gija Joseon. This is a widely rejected theory, where as Dangun and Wiman are widely accepted legendary and historical figures per mainstream sources. The Gija legend is already addressed in the subsection Gija controversy, which puts it in appropriate context. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to Cold Season who finally added some content sourced from an academic publication. The book he cited was written by a respected scholar (Professor Gina Barnes of the SOAS, University of London), yet you called it "fringe view from North Korea". That's beyond ridiculous. Please do not remove scholarly content and replace it with unsourced stuff, which you did twice already. -Zanhe (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the cited sources was North Korean. Cold Season's edits puts Gija legend out of context. It is even mentioned in Barne's book that Gija legend is a Chinese fabrication. Whatever details with regards to Gija can be added to Gija controversy, which puts it in proper context. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, my source was a secondary source from a reputable author who dealt with the information and analyzed it, and not a "North Korean" source. Also, Dangun with its bear-mother and heavenly father is as much rejected as any founding myth (and this is cited). I could as well make a Dangun controversy section in the near future, same scope. The only founding story that had some scholarly credence is the Weiman story. This section deals with the founding myths of Gojoseon and not which founding myth sounds most favorable to whomever to be propped up. --Cold Season (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not Barnes' work that is at fault, but its interpretation in this article. You used a singular source to explain a refuted theory in detail as if it was accepted by scholarly consensus. Gija controversy definitely is not. It is a fringe theory, a "Chinese fabrication" you might say, and further elaborations should be put into that context. And stop reverting before you've made consensus. Oh, and you DID use a North Korean source. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no interpretation; the info is blunt and reflects what the source states. And I even explicitly stated which scholar made what conclusion. And if you still want to argue it, then I would suggest you to open a RFC, or I will, since this isn't going anywhere. Also, provide me with the EXACT DIFF and quote of me directly using a North Korean source, because I know that I only cited the information as reflected directly how Barnes presented it (that is, I only cited Barnes). --Cold Season (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is, by completely ignoring the structure of this article and ignoring the previous consensus there - that Gija legend is controversial. And this is also dealt as a subsection of state-formation, which is what the book by Gina Barnes is about. The appropriate structure is already there, but you completely ignored it and went into unnecessary detail about Gija, as well as other "legends". As explained in the book by Barnes, Gija is a later fabrication and it has nothing to do with Gojoseon. Therefore, current structure it is under should be kept, and whatever details you want to add, you can add to the already existing subsection about Gija. You can take it up to RFC, but please stop making reverts before some consensus can be established. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gija and Dangun are both legends about the founding of Gojoseon, and are both discussed in pretty much every history book about ancient Korea. Cold Season's addition was based on unassailable scholarly source, yet you keep removing the content claiming it was a "North Korean source". Could you please enlighten us by pointing out which source Cold Season used was North Korean? -Zanhe (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The current structure AND the old structure is that of the sub-heading which states "Founding legend", both Dangun and Gija is a founding legend. And both have the same validity of historical accuracy, i.e. little to none at all as both have been rejected by various scholars. Let me make this clearer, the Dangun legend is a later fabrication as well. Also, you want to give the only weight to the Dangun legend while giving none to the others (POV), while literature does not. The current consensus is at equal treatment of the various legends at the moment, while you alone are against it; consensus is also against the sole treatment of only the Dangun legend as shown throughout this talkpage's history. I will make a RFC, depending on when I tire from your unilateral opposition. --Cold Season (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at this in detail because I love history. Events almost 2000 years ago are naturally a little fuzzy, but we can go on what the research says. The claim of North Korean propaganda has been substantiated and I generally agree with the points made by Zanhe and Cold Season here. Edit warring this is not going to help. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC on founding legends

Two questions regarding the founding legends. (1) Should the founding legends section include all founding legends and its secondary analysis or solely focus on the Dangun legend? (2) User Cydevil38 claims that the current version comprising all legends [6] is an undue POV as shown above and the article history edit summaries, preferring the sole focus on the Dangun legend like the version [7]. Is it? I note: the source is freely available on Google Books if you desire more information. --Cold Season (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• According to Archaeology of Asia and numerous other scholarly sources (see Template talk:History of Korea#Academic consensus for more examples), Gija/Kija is a semi-historical figure, but the ancient legend of his migration to Korea is not archaeologically proven. Dangun/Tangun, on the other hand, is entirely mythical. Cold Season's version fairly analyzes all legends based on a respected academic source (by Prof. Gina Barnes of University of London), yet Cydevil38 has repeatedly tried to suppress any mention of Gija from the founding legend. This is consistent with his disruptive behaviour on Template:History of Korea, where he's edit-warred against multiple editors to erase Gija while adding Dangun, espousing the fringe view that Dangun was a historical figure. This is fundamentally a single disruptive editor pushing a discredited POV against both academic and Wikipedia consensus, and I believe that ANI would be a better venue to resolve the issue. -Zanhe (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Prior to Cold Season's rewrite, this article was structured like this: Found Myth(Dangun), State formation, a short mention of Gija Joseon and its controversy, Wiman Joseon, then its cultural foundation. Cold Season's cited literature is seriously misrepresented[8], and gives undue weight to Gija, a fringe theory. I will compare the literature and Cold Season's interpretations.

Cold season's interpretation of the Dangun myth:

"The origin of this myth is unknown."

There is just one line as to its evaluation. The literature cites multiple sources, and is described and evaluated as:

Kang & Macmillan (1980) "this myth appears to be a native product"

Kim C. (1948-49) "two stone slabs in the Han Dynasty tomb of the Wu Liang family in Shandong depict in bas relief the essence of the Tangun story, thus forming the 'Chinese version of, and probably the Chinese prototype for, the Tan'Gun legend of Korea"

Sohn et al. (1970) "implying that the Tan'gun myuth belongs to the Dong-i ancesters of the modern Koreans, not the Han Chinese."; "accept that Tan'gun story is only a founding myth"

Kim J. B. (1980) "dissociates the Tan'gun myth from Choson altogether and instead attributes it to the Neolithic inhabitants of the Korean peninsula."; "pushes Tan'gun back into the Neolithic period, thus disassociating him from state formation altogether."

Kim C. W. (1966) "dismisses Tan'gun and Kija as legendary"

Hatada (1969) ignores Dangun(and Wiman for that matter).

Han W. K. (1970) "ascribes only legendary status to Tan'gun as the founder of Choson, but then he reifies the legend by stating that the dominant clan of Choson was the 'bear totem family.'"

Lee K. B. (1984) "links the early polity(Gojoseon) to the Tan'gun myth by proposing that 'Tangun-wanggom' was a title borne by successive leaders of Choson."

Cold season gives a full paragraph on the evaluation of Gija. The literature describes and evaluates Gija/Kija/Jizi/Qiji as:

Gardiner (1969) "founding of Choson by Qiji (K. Kija) must have been a later conflation."

Henderson (1959) "has nothing to do with the founding of Choson"

McCune (1962) "has nothing to do with the founding of Choson"

Hatada (1969) "subsrcibes exclusively to the Qizi story"

Han W. K. (1970) "does not deal with Qiji in their accounts of Choson origins"

Choi M. L. (1983, 1984, 1985, 1992) "does not deal with Qiji in their accounts of Choson origins"

Henthorn (1970) "does not deal with Qiji in their accounts of Choson origins"

Sohn et al. (1970) "Qizi story is only a fabrication."

With the exception of Hatada (1969), who descrbies Gojoseon as a Chinese entity, all cited authors reject Gija's relation to Gojoseon or doesn't even mention Gija. Dangun is a widely accepted founding myth for Gojoseon, and his birthday is public holiday in South Korea[9]. Meanwhile, Gija's relation to Gojoseon is rejected by mainstream scholars as a later Chinese fabrication. This article used to simply describe Dangun as a founding myth, and gives an account of Gija and its controversial nature. Wiman's story is treated as history. Please take a look at the cited literature, pages 10-14[10]. As for Zanhe's accusation that I espouse a fringe view of accepting Dangun myth as history, I don't; I espoused that mainstream scholars use the name to describe a period of Gojoseon, which is "Dangun Joseon", as opposed to its later iron age counterpart, "Wiman Joseon". I have given him proof that such is the scholarly consensus, and also explained the difference between the Dangun myth and Dangun Joseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The sub-header has stated "Founding legend" (before and now) and not—and I quote you—"Found Myth(Dangun)". The Dangun/Tangun myth and Jizi/Kijia/Gijia myth are both founding legends. From what you just wrote, the only thing that I can take from it is that the Jizi/Kijia/Gijia myth IS DEALT WITH in the sources as a founding myth (just like the Dangun myth). You say that the Dangun/Tangun myth is widely accepted as the founding myth for Gojoseon.... by who? Scholars or Gojoseon literature? Or you? Both myths are legends, both myths are fabrications, and both myths have been rejected as historically invalid, so the claim of fabrication to support any of your statements is bogus. And I find it strange that you only call Jizi/Kijia/Gijia myth a fabrication (well, duuhhh...), but are so readily willing to not apply it to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Gojoseon's founder is the offsping from a deity-like prince and a bear-woman). The situation is... Are all these founding legends? Yes. Are all these dealt with in sources? Yes. --Cold Season (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Non-content comment. Rather than WP:CANVASSing on Wikiproject Korea, you could at least show some effort to equally notify the other involved Wikiprojects, Cydevil38. I've just notified the rest. --Cold Season (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Since when did this article come under the purview of WP:China? Cydevil38 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Since 2008 actually, even though a certain user (who's banned for behavior that's... uhh...) kept removing the WP template [11][12][13][14][15] in the past. Whatever may be, the template was present when you canvassed (and I'm sure you're not unfamiliar with the faux pas, since you have been taken to ANI over it before). Neither did you notify the other Wikiprojects, only Wikiproject Korea... --Cold Season (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The general article structure stated "Founding legend" as the sub-header (this can be seen in the article history), the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth, Weiman/Wiman myth, and the Tangun/Dangun myth are all founding legends. Rather hypocritically, Cydevil38 just changed the article structure to give precedence to the Tangun/Dangun myth in a centric POV. Also seen is is that Cydevil38 erased or downplayed all the other myths, while trying to prop up the Dangun/Tangun myth. In fact, the user even removed the cited info stating that there were three founding myths [16] while falsely claiming that he/she was just "merging" the info. I see that Cydevil38 also decided to go ahead and insert his/her Korea-centric views and removing the material that is discussed in this RFC, disregarding the ongoing RFC. I find it quite astounding how Cydevil38 calls the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth as a fabrication, but seems to be unwilling to apply the same to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Dangun was the offspring of a bear and a deity), even falsely and Korean-centrically calling it "widely accepted" [17]. Actually, even I wrote that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth had been rejected [18] into the article, so what are you arguing about? Probably the fact that scholars also rejects the Dangun/Tangun myth [19], but Cydevil38 does not seem to like that as he/she views it as "widely accepted". Scholarly sources state that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth and Dangun/Tangun myth are historically invalid; they are legends. Cydevil38 refuse to grasp that with this Korea-centric tunnel vision. --Cold Season (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Gija Joseon was traditionally treated as the successor to Dangun Joseon. I do not see why there needs to be a choice, given that the two founding legends - and other variants thereof - existed simultaneously in the historical record. At a factual level, Gija Joseon is widely rejected today due to lack of archaeological evidence for the penetration of Shang culture into Korea. By contrast, it is not as easy to reject Dangun Joseon because of the state's relative lack of Falsifiability, besides the fact that its ruler was not born of a bear, obviously. Regardless, when talking about founding legends, factual basis is less relevant than perception. At a historical level, Dangun and Gija were both important in traditional Korea and therefore both have to be mentioned. In modern perception, however, it is my understanding that mainstream Korean thought rejects Gija Joseon while tracing Gojoseon exclusively to Dangun Joseon. Obviously Korean perception is not all that matters, but in an article about a Korean legend, I think it is fine for the Korean perception to take precedence, as long as it is not to the exclusion of relevant historical views and is not presented as factual truth. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the myths are all considered as historically invalid indeed, an argument for giving stronger weight on one myth over the other is weak. Korean perception takes completely no precedence (unlike what you claim); on what guideline are you basing that? That would be a nationalistic-based POV. Even if we go by this "Korean perception," their so-called mainstream perception... or their popular recognition was at the Jizi/Gija/Kija myth up till about the 18th century. In short, only (secondary) sources take precedence AND they deal with all the legends. This is giving due weight as reflected in sources, and not prop up one's centric preferences in founding myth. --Cold Season (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To the degree that we agree Dangun Joseon and Gija Joseon are both myths, this is a debate over Korean mythology, not Korean history. Per Mythology: "Mythology [refer] to [a people's] body of stories which they tell to explain nature, history, and customs." It is necessarily subjective. When dealing with Korean mythology, the Korean view takes precedence because it is their version of the story that we want to describe. This is very different from an article about historical facts, which has to maintain NPOV with respect to all parties, difficult though that frequently is. But here, we are dealing with the traditional stories Koreans told to explain their world. There is no 'objective' version of such stories. Instead of trying to give equal weight to every version, the goal instead ought to be to describe how the stories evolved through the course of history, and how they arrived in their present form, which de-emphasizes/removes Gija. One of the issues in play here is obviously the changing nature of how Koreans perceive myth vs. history, and the lingering desire to "historicize" the Dangun myth over the archaeologically debunked Gija myth. I encourage elucidating these issues over trying to argue which myth ought to be given greater weight in the article. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The only view that takes precedence is scholarly sources, not Korean view (which as I have shown above is heavily involved with Jizi/Gija/Kija myth regardless). This is in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. You are suggesting a nationalistic-based POV, which is not in accordance. --Cold Season (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you distort the secondary source you have cited. This was my main point all along. The source cites eight other secondary sources. Only one of them subscribes to the Gija theory, then again that same source makes no mention of Dangun nor Wiman. Two of them say it's a fabrication. Two of them say it has nothing to do with Gojoseon. Three of them do not even mention Gija. That's what the cited secondary source says. You have given severe undue weight in the sense that you have not dealt at all with the previous structure were both Gija and Wiman were dealt with. It's just that they were in different subsections as different periods of history. This was properly dealt with when I merged the Gija subsection, remove repetitive material, and provide a simple summary of what the cited secondary says. On a second note, Gija legend wasn't unilaterially "mainstream" prior to the 18th century, nor did it have precedence over the Dangun legend. Both legend became popular during Goryeo dynasty among different strata of Korean society. And with regards to your derogation of the Dangun myth because of its connections to the bear, this is a serious work by a respected expert that deals with the bear aspect in various myths in the region[20]. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Your so-called "main point" is rejected by three users, but only you unilaterally claim it. It also seems to change frequently as indicated by re-reading the section above and this RFC. That's because these fickle main points (plural) of yours are all weak, but... use anything to POV push your unilateral view, I guess. (2) You state that "both legend became popular" (you stated it). Oh? Your desire to give precedence of one myth over the other is purposefully inconsistent with this. But frankly, what you think is irrelevant and contradictory to sources, such as one given in my previous statement. Only sources are relevant and sources deal with ALL the legends. (3) There's no derogation, unless you think it's historically valid that an offspring of a bear is the founder of whatever state. These are legends and myths, which is also reflective in your cited "serious work by a respected expert" about bear myths (so that was a meager statement with no real point). --Cold Season (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your continued denial of the given evidence is not very helpful. I ask in good faith that you reconsider on what the cited source says, based on the evidence. Both legends did become popular prior to the 19th century, during Goryeo dynasty and especially during Joseon Dynasty. Primary sources from Joseon Dynasty often refer to Dangun as the "founder of the nation" and Gija as "bearer of civilization". However, one of them, the Gija Myth, died out along with its patrons and its ideological basis, the Confucian elites and Sinocentricism of Goryeo and Joseon dynasties. Contradictory historical and archaeological evidence that became widely recognized in the 20th century and onward became the death-knell to this myth, and now Gija Joseon is rejected by the mainstream thought of historians. I can this cite from "Theory of Gija Derivation" on the Encyclopedia of Ancient and Medieval Korean History and Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Cydevil38 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Your "evidence" of distortion has been rejected by several people here and here. Actually, you are the one who's continually denying treatment of the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth into this article, while sources do not. You are distorting the facts and giving undue greater weight to the Tangun/Dangun myth over all other myths. Heck, you even removed cited information about the other myths to prop up the Tangun/Dangun myth. (2) These are all myths, so what are you talking about the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth being rejected (well duh... again...) and the Dangun/Tangun myth being "widely accepted" as shown above. Your argument is of little worth as there's no historical validity to both these myths. And the scholarly body of literature does not present them as historical facts. (3) It is, however, significant that ALL THESE MYTHS ARE DEALT WITH IN SOURCES and the weight given into the article should be reflective of sources. (4) You can cite as many sources that rejects the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth as historically invalid as you want (you're just proving that the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth is dealt with in sources). I'm not even arguing it (strawman), since that's what I also literally had written into the article. But you refuse to apply the same with the Dangun/Tangun myth, but rather attempt to prop it up as the one "true" myth in a nationalistic-based POV, contradictory to sources (few of them as shown in the section by User:Zanhe below and the cited information that you removed from the article). --Cold Season (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What scholars say about Dangun/Tangun and Gija/Kija

• Seth, Michael J. (2010). A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-7425-6717-7.

"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."

• Stark, Miriam T. (2008). Archaeology of Asia. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4051-5303-4.

"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."

• Schmid, Andre (2013). Korea Between Empires. Columbia University Press. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-231-50630-4.

"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."

• Peterson, Mark (2009). Brief History of Korea. Infobase Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4381-2738-5.

"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."

• Hulbert, H. B. (2014). The History of Korea. Routledge. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-317-84941-4.

"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."

First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

About Gojoseon-Yan War

There is really limited amount of information about this war, and almost all the sources are the studies of modern Korean historians. Korea claims that Gojoseon existed and today's Liaoning province of China was part of it, but there is no record to prove this statement. Also, in the History of Manchuria template, Gojoseon is placed as one of the earliest owners of that region, which is clearly baseless. I hope someone can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.4.4 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Cydevil38

Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「Exclusion of sub-periods of Gojoseon came as a result of a long-standing debate as well as a compromise in good faith. Reinclusion any sub-period of Gojoseon only undermine such effeorts, and does not help understanding of Gojoseon at all.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「There are other mythical polities where mythical dates are given.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Cydevil is removing fully historical Wiman [21], while writing the 100% mythological 2333 BC date[22].And, Cydevil is removing Wiman of sub-periods[23], while writing 2333 BC date　(Dangun giwon) of sub-periods[24]. Thanks.--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)