![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
one ref map from textbook. Evawen ( talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No comment from myself on the merits of the image but please quit the slow edit war; if it continues I will protect the article till you take time to figure it out. Consider discussing the various merits here please -- Errant ( chat!) 16:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Four commanderies are located in northern Korean Peninsula and part of the Liaodong Peninsula. Supporting evidence:
1. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Korea.html
Han Chinese built four commanderies, or local military units, to rule the peninsula as far south as the Han River, with a core area at Lolang (Nangnang in Korean), near present-day P'yongyang. It is illustrative of the relentlessly different historiography practiced in North Korea and South Korea, as well as the projection backward of Korean nationalism practiced by both sides, that North Korean historians deny that the Lolang Commandery was centered in Korea. They place it northwest of the peninsula, possibly near Beijing, in order to de-emphasize China's influence on ancient Korean history.
2. the book "Korea, Old and New":
pp 13: The territorial extent of the Four Chinese Commanderies seems to have been limited to the area north of the Han River.
pp 14: As its administrative center, the Chinese built what was inessence a Chinese city where the governor, officials, merchants, and Chinese colonists lived. Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. ... The Chinese administration had considerable impact on the life of the native population and ultimatedly the very fabric of Gojoseon society became eroded.
pp 16: map of "Korea in the confederated Kingdoms period (ca. 1st-3rd centuries A.D)"
3. the book "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present":
pp 18: For the next four centuries a northwestern part of the Korean peninsula was directly incorporated in to the Chinese Empire.... The Taedong River basin, the area where the modern city of P'yongyang is located, became the center of the Lelang commandery.
Any one who want to "move" its location to purely Liaodong Peninsula, show your evidence. EJcarter ( talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yoon, Nae-Hyun. "True Understanding of Old Choson." Korea Journal 27:12 (December 1987): 23-40 says that the commanderies aren't even in Korean peninsula with no archeleogical evidence to prove such claim. North Koreans and other archeleogists found some Han dynasty artifacts that date from Former Han (200 AD), not the Later Han (200 BCE), around the time Gojoseon was invaded by Han. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.126.217 ( talk) 23:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It is really interesting to examine this blue map supposed to illustrate the "Four Commanderies of Han".
First and foremost, the four Commanderies have to be FOUR, not three. The red topmost/leftmost thing, 汉四郡, is not a Commandery, but a legend, stating the topic of the map. Therefore, two Commanderies are missing. Namely:
One cannot argue that these commanderies have disappeared in the +0003 year after the erroneous date chosen by Bede the Venerable, since the
only appeared 200 years later.
Moreover, the reason why the
Commandery has been renamed into 遼東郡, i.e. Liaodong Commandery is not clear either.
Finally, what are these a), b), c), d) tags ?
Pldx1 ( talk) 11:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Four Commanderies of Han. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@ HanKim20: Hello, i understand that it is universally accepted by the majority scholars that the Lelang commandery was somewhere in Today's Pyongyang. However, it is also worth noting that the the location of Lelang has been controversial throughout history. It is not revisionism initiated by North Korea recently. I am not going to edit or remove any of other editor's content, I am just going to add the history background of the controversy on the location of Lelang as below. Feel free to give your opinion and which part do you think is not appropriate and how should I rephrase it in your opinion MarcofuUSA ( talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history. According to Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. However, the Taedong River in Pyongyang flows westward into the sea. The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan (466 AD ~ 527 AD), revised the course of the Pei river recorded in original the Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. He claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo people he met in China. [1]. Initially, there were four Commanderies of Han. In the case of Lintun and Zhenfan County, they were abolished not long after they were installed as these two counties were relocated to the Liaodong. Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries is mainly over the Lelang county. Majority scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon period considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi which was based on Chinese records on many aspects. But there were also scholars who disagree with the reinterpretation of Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), who had conducted field research during his visit to China in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary. Lee Ji Rin,A prestigious North Korean historian who obtained his Ph.D in Peking University, in his Research on Ancient Korea also claims that the Han Commanderies were in Liaodong Peninsula. [2] MarcofuUSA ( talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@ 331dot: No response from @ HanKim20: who undo my edit by erasing my contribution claiming there is no disagreement at all. MarcofuUSA ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC) MarcofuUSA ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Qiushufang:
1.you say undue weight, but you restored without my inclusion of failed verification - Below is direct quote from my source [3]. Ri jirin argued that the center of old Choson was in Liaodong.
Based upon differences in the bronze relics and graves discovered in the Liaodong area from those found in the central plains of China, Ri Jirin argued that the center of Old Choson was in the Liaodong region. (See Map 1, The Territory of Old Choson.) He believed that Old Choson territory extended across Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, and at its peak reached the Daling River, which is west of the Liao River. However, Ri's book, Kojoson yongu (Studies in Old Choson History), which was published in 1963, does not urge the recovery of the ancient territory of Old Choson in the Liaodong region.
2. due to multiple missing sources of information that could not be found in the citation given - Which sources of information could not be found in the citation given? please specify.
3. as well as the fact that large portions of content cite non-English primary sources that have not been translated - below content cited non-English primary sources have not been translated as well. should it be removed from the page?
-- GoldenTaurus ( talk) 08:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Qiushufang:
Based upon differences in the bronze relics and graves discovered in the Liaodong area from those found in the central plains of China, Ri Jirin argued that the center of Old Choson was in the Liaodong region. (See Map 1, The Territory of Old Choson.) He believed that Old Choson territory extended across Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, and at its peak reached the Daling River, which is west of the Liao River. However, Ri's book, Kojoson yongu (Studies in Old Choson History), which was published in 1963, does not urge the recovery of the ancient territory of Old Choson in the Liaodong region.
Lintun Commandery (臨屯郡, 임둔군, BC 107 ~ BC 82) Zhenfan Commandery (眞番郡, 진번군, BC 107 ~ BC 82)
Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county. - Again this is a historical fact. Chinese Philosopher Li daoyuan, Korean Silhak scholar Bak Jiwon (born 1737) in ancient times all had differences on the location of Lelang country.
In the North Korean academic community and some parts of the South Korean academic community, the Han dynasty's annexation of the Korean peninsula have been denied. Proponents of this revisionist theory claim that the Han Commanderies actually existed outside of the Korean peninsula, and place them somewhere in Liaodong Commandery, China, instead.[13][14][15] GoldenTaurus ( talk)
""""@ Qiushufang: The controversies over the exact location of the Han commanderies has been debated throughout history is seen from the original water classic composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD) which says Pei river flows eastward into the sea and was challenged and revised by the reinterpretation of the Pei river in Lelang by Chinese historian Li Daoyuan 300 hundred years later in his commentary on water classic claiming that the Pei river in Lelang flows westward into the sea. And his claim is based on his conversation with Goguryeo missionaries. "The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records." This has also been addressed in the commentary on water classic by Li Daoyuan, which says, 若浿水东流,无渡浿之理,其地今高句丽之国治,余访番使,言城在浿水之阳。其水西流迳故乐浪朝鲜县,即乐浪郡治,汉武帝置,而西北流。 故《地理志》曰:浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴,以朝鲜为远,循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古,于事差谬,盖《经》误证也。Please do not ignore the sources i already provided over and over which i believe you saw and understand. and if you need more examples of Chinese texts contradicting itself on the location of Lelang, i can include more such examples if necessary. for instance, According to the Chinese geography text 太康地理志 wrote 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起. All these places 遂城. 碣石山, 長城所起 still exist today and indicating the Lelang is in Liaoxi. But since i am not making a new claim on the location of Lelang county, I left them out and my focus is on providing a fair and balance view on the issue to show that the debate did not surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea in the name of nationalism. North Korea does not own time machine to travel to ancient times to have left those historical records. "Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county." In fact the very beginning of the page has also pointed this out, Three of the commanderies fell or retreated westward within a few decades, but the Lelang commandery remained as a center of cultural and economic exchange with successive Chinese dynasties for four centuries. Li Daoyuan, Bak Jiwon, Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, they all debate over the location of Lelang county, not other counties. therefore this is a general knowledge statement, not a new claim You said my sources are not verified, I beg to differ. my source is original ancient text written in Classical Chinese and they are all verifiable by any Chinese speaking persons. I'm not using those sources to make any form of conclusion on the location of Lelang county, but just to provide a factual historical overview of the issue, mainly how the debate started As of primary sources, according to WP:NOR primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Below is base on historical facts. not my personal claim. 1. Chinese philosopher Li Daoyuan refuting earlier original water classic on Location of Lelang. verified in source below. 浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴,以朝鲜为远,循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古,于事差谬,盖《经》误证也。 2. Korean Silhak scholar Bak Jiwon refuting the location of Lelang in Pyongyang in his Jehol Diary a fact. not my personal claim. 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance overview of historical facts. GoldenTaurus ( talk)
""""@ Qiushufang:According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance overview of historical facts. i dont know how the two reverts have anything to do with our discussion, since you raised the issue, just for your record One user asked me politely to have it discuss in talk page before posting which is what i did, another use with Korean sounding ID HanKim, going around editing Korean histories pushing Sinocentric historical views who did not respond to my discussion, i assume he had no interst in discussion and just trying to silence contents dont fit his narrative. Again i dont know why you bring this up and i dont think it cant be your justification removing my content which is inline of WP:NOR GoldenTaurus ( talk)
1. Li daoyuan revised the location of Lelang by changing watercourse of the Pei river from original water classic composed by another Chinese geographer Sangqin. This is historical fact. Source provided and verified.
2. Majority Korea scholars from Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the Lelang somewhere in Today's Pyongyang. This is a fact, unless you think otherwise, i can remove this part. Up to you.
3. There were also shcolars like Bak Jiwon who claimed the Lelang county was in Liaodong. Source provided and verified.
4. North Korean history professor Ri Jirin who got PH.D in Peking university in his work also claim the Lelang county in Liaodong instead if Pyongyong. Source provided and verified.
5. South Korean history professor Yoon hae hyun also in his understanding of old choson, claim the lelang county not in pyongyang. Source provided and verified.
All above paragraphs are facts. Again as i have emohasized many times, my content is not a claim or ultimate final conclusion on the location of Lelang county, but a historical overview explaining the debate over location of Lelang is not a new issue initiated by North Korea in recent years, but has been on-going issue as early as 500AD by Chinese historians. Please do not misinterprate my content as a new claim or any form of conclusion, it is just historical facts with verifiable sources.
According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance view based on facts. GoldenTaurus ( talk)
@ Qiushufang:Source provided above. Please check. First, you reasoned your revert claiming non-English source is not allowed in Eglish page and got debunked. Then you cherrypicked the paragraphs in WP:NOR claiming only secondary source is allowed and also got debunked. Now you are engaging in unreasonably never ending trolling against my well-sourced content, thus i have reason to doubt you are interested in engaging healthy discussion but merely pushing your WP:NPOV dispute. There was 0 counter argument from you on my content.
According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance view based on facts. GoldenTaurus ( talk)
@ Qiushufang:Read Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page GoldenTaurus ( talk)
Modified version. Some unrelated descriptions removed. The original description on the revisionism section lacked balanced perspective from North Korea, making it look as if there was no dispute on the location of Han commandaries in history and North Korea's claim is driven merely by nationalism which only surfaced in recent years. The object is to give a balanced historical overview and background, mainly how it started, the added content is neither conclusive on the location of Lelang county nor to discredit any other claims.
The debate over the exact location of the Han commandries is not a new issue that surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea, but has been on-going historical debate started as early as 500AD. According to earliest Chinese geography text Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. The Taedong River in Pyongyang North Korea, which believed to be the Pei river flows westward and enters the sea in the west. The watercourse of Pei river in Lelang is opposite to the direction of Taedong river in Pyongyang today. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan (466 AD~527 AD), challenged and revised the watercourse of the Pei river recorded in the original Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. Li claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo missionaries he spoke to in China. [10] Most Korean scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi. There were also scholars who believe that the Lelang county was in Liaodong, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), a Silhak scholar who had conducted field research in Manchuria during his visit to Qing dynasty in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were actually in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary. [11] Ri Ji Rin (Lee Ji Rin),A prestigious North Korea historian who obtained his Ph.D in history from China's top university in 1961, Peking University, in his published Research on Ancient Korea suggests that based on the initial records of Chinese texts and archaeological findings in Liaodong area, the Han Commanderies were located in Liaodong Peninsula. [12] Another reknown historian from South Korea, Yoon Nae-Hyun also published a similar research in 1987, suggesting the Han commanderies were not in Korean peninsula. [13] However, this theory is not recognized by the mainstream academia GoldenTaurus ( talk)
References
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
one ref map from textbook. Evawen ( talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No comment from myself on the merits of the image but please quit the slow edit war; if it continues I will protect the article till you take time to figure it out. Consider discussing the various merits here please -- Errant ( chat!) 16:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Four commanderies are located in northern Korean Peninsula and part of the Liaodong Peninsula. Supporting evidence:
1. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Korea.html
Han Chinese built four commanderies, or local military units, to rule the peninsula as far south as the Han River, with a core area at Lolang (Nangnang in Korean), near present-day P'yongyang. It is illustrative of the relentlessly different historiography practiced in North Korea and South Korea, as well as the projection backward of Korean nationalism practiced by both sides, that North Korean historians deny that the Lolang Commandery was centered in Korea. They place it northwest of the peninsula, possibly near Beijing, in order to de-emphasize China's influence on ancient Korean history.
2. the book "Korea, Old and New":
pp 13: The territorial extent of the Four Chinese Commanderies seems to have been limited to the area north of the Han River.
pp 14: As its administrative center, the Chinese built what was inessence a Chinese city where the governor, officials, merchants, and Chinese colonists lived. Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. ... The Chinese administration had considerable impact on the life of the native population and ultimatedly the very fabric of Gojoseon society became eroded.
pp 16: map of "Korea in the confederated Kingdoms period (ca. 1st-3rd centuries A.D)"
3. the book "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present":
pp 18: For the next four centuries a northwestern part of the Korean peninsula was directly incorporated in to the Chinese Empire.... The Taedong River basin, the area where the modern city of P'yongyang is located, became the center of the Lelang commandery.
Any one who want to "move" its location to purely Liaodong Peninsula, show your evidence. EJcarter ( talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yoon, Nae-Hyun. "True Understanding of Old Choson." Korea Journal 27:12 (December 1987): 23-40 says that the commanderies aren't even in Korean peninsula with no archeleogical evidence to prove such claim. North Koreans and other archeleogists found some Han dynasty artifacts that date from Former Han (200 AD), not the Later Han (200 BCE), around the time Gojoseon was invaded by Han. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.126.217 ( talk) 23:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It is really interesting to examine this blue map supposed to illustrate the "Four Commanderies of Han".
First and foremost, the four Commanderies have to be FOUR, not three. The red topmost/leftmost thing, 汉四郡, is not a Commandery, but a legend, stating the topic of the map. Therefore, two Commanderies are missing. Namely:
One cannot argue that these commanderies have disappeared in the +0003 year after the erroneous date chosen by Bede the Venerable, since the
only appeared 200 years later.
Moreover, the reason why the
Commandery has been renamed into 遼東郡, i.e. Liaodong Commandery is not clear either.
Finally, what are these a), b), c), d) tags ?
Pldx1 ( talk) 11:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Four Commanderies of Han. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@ HanKim20: Hello, i understand that it is universally accepted by the majority scholars that the Lelang commandery was somewhere in Today's Pyongyang. However, it is also worth noting that the the location of Lelang has been controversial throughout history. It is not revisionism initiated by North Korea recently. I am not going to edit or remove any of other editor's content, I am just going to add the history background of the controversy on the location of Lelang as below. Feel free to give your opinion and which part do you think is not appropriate and how should I rephrase it in your opinion MarcofuUSA ( talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history. According to Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. However, the Taedong River in Pyongyang flows westward into the sea. The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan (466 AD ~ 527 AD), revised the course of the Pei river recorded in original the Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. He claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo people he met in China. [1]. Initially, there were four Commanderies of Han. In the case of Lintun and Zhenfan County, they were abolished not long after they were installed as these two counties were relocated to the Liaodong. Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries is mainly over the Lelang county. Majority scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon period considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi which was based on Chinese records on many aspects. But there were also scholars who disagree with the reinterpretation of Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), who had conducted field research during his visit to China in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary. Lee Ji Rin,A prestigious North Korean historian who obtained his Ph.D in Peking University, in his Research on Ancient Korea also claims that the Han Commanderies were in Liaodong Peninsula. [2] MarcofuUSA ( talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@ 331dot: No response from @ HanKim20: who undo my edit by erasing my contribution claiming there is no disagreement at all. MarcofuUSA ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC) MarcofuUSA ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Qiushufang:
1.you say undue weight, but you restored without my inclusion of failed verification - Below is direct quote from my source [3]. Ri jirin argued that the center of old Choson was in Liaodong.
Based upon differences in the bronze relics and graves discovered in the Liaodong area from those found in the central plains of China, Ri Jirin argued that the center of Old Choson was in the Liaodong region. (See Map 1, The Territory of Old Choson.) He believed that Old Choson territory extended across Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, and at its peak reached the Daling River, which is west of the Liao River. However, Ri's book, Kojoson yongu (Studies in Old Choson History), which was published in 1963, does not urge the recovery of the ancient territory of Old Choson in the Liaodong region.
2. due to multiple missing sources of information that could not be found in the citation given - Which sources of information could not be found in the citation given? please specify.
3. as well as the fact that large portions of content cite non-English primary sources that have not been translated - below content cited non-English primary sources have not been translated as well. should it be removed from the page?
-- GoldenTaurus ( talk) 08:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Qiushufang:
Based upon differences in the bronze relics and graves discovered in the Liaodong area from those found in the central plains of China, Ri Jirin argued that the center of Old Choson was in the Liaodong region. (See Map 1, The Territory of Old Choson.) He believed that Old Choson territory extended across Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, and at its peak reached the Daling River, which is west of the Liao River. However, Ri's book, Kojoson yongu (Studies in Old Choson History), which was published in 1963, does not urge the recovery of the ancient territory of Old Choson in the Liaodong region.
Lintun Commandery (臨屯郡, 임둔군, BC 107 ~ BC 82) Zhenfan Commandery (眞番郡, 진번군, BC 107 ~ BC 82)
Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county. - Again this is a historical fact. Chinese Philosopher Li daoyuan, Korean Silhak scholar Bak Jiwon (born 1737) in ancient times all had differences on the location of Lelang country.
In the North Korean academic community and some parts of the South Korean academic community, the Han dynasty's annexation of the Korean peninsula have been denied. Proponents of this revisionist theory claim that the Han Commanderies actually existed outside of the Korean peninsula, and place them somewhere in Liaodong Commandery, China, instead.[13][14][15] GoldenTaurus ( talk)
""""@ Qiushufang: The controversies over the exact location of the Han commanderies has been debated throughout history is seen from the original water classic composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD) which says Pei river flows eastward into the sea and was challenged and revised by the reinterpretation of the Pei river in Lelang by Chinese historian Li Daoyuan 300 hundred years later in his commentary on water classic claiming that the Pei river in Lelang flows westward into the sea. And his claim is based on his conversation with Goguryeo missionaries. "The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records." This has also been addressed in the commentary on water classic by Li Daoyuan, which says, 若浿水东流,无渡浿之理,其地今高句丽之国治,余访番使,言城在浿水之阳。其水西流迳故乐浪朝鲜县,即乐浪郡治,汉武帝置,而西北流。 故《地理志》曰:浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴,以朝鲜为远,循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古,于事差谬,盖《经》误证也。Please do not ignore the sources i already provided over and over which i believe you saw and understand. and if you need more examples of Chinese texts contradicting itself on the location of Lelang, i can include more such examples if necessary. for instance, According to the Chinese geography text 太康地理志 wrote 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起. All these places 遂城. 碣石山, 長城所起 still exist today and indicating the Lelang is in Liaoxi. But since i am not making a new claim on the location of Lelang county, I left them out and my focus is on providing a fair and balance view on the issue to show that the debate did not surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea in the name of nationalism. North Korea does not own time machine to travel to ancient times to have left those historical records. "Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county." In fact the very beginning of the page has also pointed this out, Three of the commanderies fell or retreated westward within a few decades, but the Lelang commandery remained as a center of cultural and economic exchange with successive Chinese dynasties for four centuries. Li Daoyuan, Bak Jiwon, Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, they all debate over the location of Lelang county, not other counties. therefore this is a general knowledge statement, not a new claim You said my sources are not verified, I beg to differ. my source is original ancient text written in Classical Chinese and they are all verifiable by any Chinese speaking persons. I'm not using those sources to make any form of conclusion on the location of Lelang county, but just to provide a factual historical overview of the issue, mainly how the debate started As of primary sources, according to WP:NOR primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Below is base on historical facts. not my personal claim. 1. Chinese philosopher Li Daoyuan refuting earlier original water classic on Location of Lelang. verified in source below. 浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴,以朝鲜为远,循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古,于事差谬,盖《经》误证也。 2. Korean Silhak scholar Bak Jiwon refuting the location of Lelang in Pyongyang in his Jehol Diary a fact. not my personal claim. 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance overview of historical facts. GoldenTaurus ( talk)
""""@ Qiushufang:According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance overview of historical facts. i dont know how the two reverts have anything to do with our discussion, since you raised the issue, just for your record One user asked me politely to have it discuss in talk page before posting which is what i did, another use with Korean sounding ID HanKim, going around editing Korean histories pushing Sinocentric historical views who did not respond to my discussion, i assume he had no interst in discussion and just trying to silence contents dont fit his narrative. Again i dont know why you bring this up and i dont think it cant be your justification removing my content which is inline of WP:NOR GoldenTaurus ( talk)
1. Li daoyuan revised the location of Lelang by changing watercourse of the Pei river from original water classic composed by another Chinese geographer Sangqin. This is historical fact. Source provided and verified.
2. Majority Korea scholars from Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the Lelang somewhere in Today's Pyongyang. This is a fact, unless you think otherwise, i can remove this part. Up to you.
3. There were also shcolars like Bak Jiwon who claimed the Lelang county was in Liaodong. Source provided and verified.
4. North Korean history professor Ri Jirin who got PH.D in Peking university in his work also claim the Lelang county in Liaodong instead if Pyongyong. Source provided and verified.
5. South Korean history professor Yoon hae hyun also in his understanding of old choson, claim the lelang county not in pyongyang. Source provided and verified.
All above paragraphs are facts. Again as i have emohasized many times, my content is not a claim or ultimate final conclusion on the location of Lelang county, but a historical overview explaining the debate over location of Lelang is not a new issue initiated by North Korea in recent years, but has been on-going issue as early as 500AD by Chinese historians. Please do not misinterprate my content as a new claim or any form of conclusion, it is just historical facts with verifiable sources.
According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance view based on facts. GoldenTaurus ( talk)
@ Qiushufang:Source provided above. Please check. First, you reasoned your revert claiming non-English source is not allowed in Eglish page and got debunked. Then you cherrypicked the paragraphs in WP:NOR claiming only secondary source is allowed and also got debunked. Now you are engaging in unreasonably never ending trolling against my well-sourced content, thus i have reason to doubt you are interested in engaging healthy discussion but merely pushing your WP:NPOV dispute. There was 0 counter argument from you on my content.
According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance view based on facts. GoldenTaurus ( talk)
@ Qiushufang:Read Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page GoldenTaurus ( talk)
Modified version. Some unrelated descriptions removed. The original description on the revisionism section lacked balanced perspective from North Korea, making it look as if there was no dispute on the location of Han commandaries in history and North Korea's claim is driven merely by nationalism which only surfaced in recent years. The object is to give a balanced historical overview and background, mainly how it started, the added content is neither conclusive on the location of Lelang county nor to discredit any other claims.
The debate over the exact location of the Han commandries is not a new issue that surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea, but has been on-going historical debate started as early as 500AD. According to earliest Chinese geography text Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. The Taedong River in Pyongyang North Korea, which believed to be the Pei river flows westward and enters the sea in the west. The watercourse of Pei river in Lelang is opposite to the direction of Taedong river in Pyongyang today. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan (466 AD~527 AD), challenged and revised the watercourse of the Pei river recorded in the original Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. Li claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo missionaries he spoke to in China. [10] Most Korean scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi. There were also scholars who believe that the Lelang county was in Liaodong, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), a Silhak scholar who had conducted field research in Manchuria during his visit to Qing dynasty in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were actually in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary. [11] Ri Ji Rin (Lee Ji Rin),A prestigious North Korea historian who obtained his Ph.D in history from China's top university in 1961, Peking University, in his published Research on Ancient Korea suggests that based on the initial records of Chinese texts and archaeological findings in Liaodong area, the Han Commanderies were located in Liaodong Peninsula. [12] Another reknown historian from South Korea, Yoon Nae-Hyun also published a similar research in 1987, suggesting the Han commanderies were not in Korean peninsula. [13] However, this theory is not recognized by the mainstream academia GoldenTaurus ( talk)
References