This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Old Joseon. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
There was a suggestion that Go-Joseon be renamed and moved to Gojoseon, Former Joseon or Old Joseon, but no debate.
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)
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 discription in the History section looks somewhat ambiguous.
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,
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."
This sentence can make readers misunderstand, since it can sound as if the eastern "barbarians" founded an organized state.
In a later paragraph,
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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
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.
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.
Part of Liaoxi was also Gojoseom territory. The border between Gojoseon and Han was Pei river, based on earlier Chinese records, it was located at Hebei today Traineek ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
I agree Jangdan ( talk) 06:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So there's a couple things I wanted to talk about here. Statements about mythical foundings belong to Korean mythology and not to areas of fact. In fact, scholars do provide dates for the founding of the state, and we should use this information, not the magical date of 2333 BCE.
Dates I found rapidly using Google books:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), page 415{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), page 29{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), p. 22.Just because it is religiously important due to colonialism and politics does not, in fact, justify the use of false history. Additionally, the traditional histories don't even agree on the specific date of 2333. In the discussion you linked me to on ANI, this was the information you used as RS:
- 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
How can we, in good faith, write a founding date at odds with RS just because it aligns with particular political platforms? Like, great, it's a national holiday in the Koreas. This is not relevant to an article on the historical state of Gojoseon except perhaps as a passing comment along the lines of "Gojoseon is lauded as the origin of modern Korea and its mythical founding is celebrated as a national holiday in both Koreas." Ogress smash! 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The source I added was from an academic conference on the subject of Gojoseon's founding year, hosted by Institute for Traditional Korean Cultural Studies. There are also many other secondary sources that set 2333BC as Gojoseon's founding date. Doing a google books search on "Korea 2333" ought to bring out plenty of sources that stipulates 2333BC as the founding of Gojoseon. Also, please note again that the article on Xia Dynasty, which doesn't even have a question mark despite its mythical status like Gojoseon.
In any case, there was an extensive debate over this as well at the Korean talk page. It ended up with 2333 along with a question mark. The proposed years were 2333 and 700. 700 is based on a Chinese source that mentions Joseon for the first time. However, as the archaeological basis of Gojoseon goes as far back as 1500BC(some suggest 2000BC), 700 is not a definitive year either. My suggestion is that, if possible, still insert 2333 but with (legendary), and insert 700 with an appropriate side note(can't think of one right now). In the infobox below, 700 can also be added along with the appropriate side note, and 194 as the founding year of Wiman Joseon. The year of Gojoseon-Han war should be discarded since it's irrelevant. Founding years can be included in the lead, first 2333 and then 700.
As for the significance of the founding date of 2333, I think it's a good idea, except that it's not a national holiday North Korea. Cydevil38 ( talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Troy, founded in 3000 BC. Xia Dynasty founded in 2070 BC. Goguryeo founded in 37 BC. Baekje founded in 18 BC. Silla founded in 57 BC. These are all mythical legendary dates, unless you consider the least advanced state among the Three Kingdoms of Korea to be the most advanced(Silla). This article is about a legendarily founded tribal confederation and/or/later kingdom. Like the history of Japan, it is clearly indicated that this polity is legendary. In none of the previously mentioned polities are they defined with a question mark. Despise this pattern of defining founding years, I suggest a compromise out of good will, to defining the traditional founding date as "legendary", instead of a question mark or even the lack of it. Are you going to deny this compromise or not? Cydevil38 ( talk) 09:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The arguments over historicity and the alternate dates estimated should be also added to the article. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around. Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology project is a controversial government project that even has ties to the [[[Northeast Project]], which infuriated Koreans. But that aside, I'd like you people's opinion on this infobox [25]. For the dates and events, I have used Gina L. Barne's State Formation of Korea. I have clearly marked two significant eras, 2333BC and 1000BC as legendary and tribal, respectively. Later developments and events have also been added. Any input is welcome. 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.161.79.71 ( talk)
@ Cydevil38 and Zanhe: Propose reverting latest IP edit Aside from our own rather rough patch, we all agree (as I understand it) that the IP edit warrior's edits about Wiman etc. is against consensus. I propose to revert the latest IP edit if the two of you also agree this is acceptable behavior. I also had the page temporarily and partially edit protected, so it should give us a brief cushion. Consider this my "yes" vote in case one of you decides to do it. Ogress smash! 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Cydevil38 ( talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. And I see that the page has already been semi-protected. - Zanhe ( talk) 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have said earlier, I have made an infobox that clearly indicates 2333BC as a legendary founding date, along with significant events based on Gina L. Barne's State formation of Korea. If there is no objection in four days, I'll replace the infobox in the article. Cydevil3800 ( talk) 05:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Gojoseon 고조선 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2333BC(mythological) 400BC(X) –108BC | |||||||||||
Capital | Wanggeom | ||||||||||
Common languages | Proto-Korean | ||||||||||
Religion | Korean shamanism | ||||||||||
Government | Monarchy | ||||||||||
King | |||||||||||
• ? - 194 BC | King Jun | ||||||||||
• 194 BC - ? | Wi Man | ||||||||||
• ? - 108 BC | King Ugeo | ||||||||||
Historical era | Ancient, mythological | ||||||||||
• Foundation | 2333BC(mythological) 400BC(X) | ||||||||||
• legendarily founded | 2333BC | ||||||||||
• X | 400BC | ||||||||||
• Gojosen-Yan War | late 4th century BC | ||||||||||
• Gojoseon-Han War | 109BC | ||||||||||
• Fall of Gojoseon | 108BC | ||||||||||
• Fall of
Wanggeom | 108BC | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Today part of |
North Korea South Korea China |
Here are the relevant quotes from State formation of Korea for the additional information I have added.
The article talks about Liaoning "and" Manchuria, as if they are separate places, as does the Dangan article, but according to the Manchuria, Liaoning is in Manchuria.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Liaoning is part of historical Manchuria and not exactly the same. Manchuria also includes part of the modern Russian Far East. Historicalchild ( talk) 10:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Gojoseon was founded by a Chinese Prince. So why is it seen as a Proto-Korean state?
Historicalchild ( talk) 10:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
First, this link doesn't work for me http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/04/eak/ht04eak.htm
Second, it sources the following sentence
"During its early phase, the capital of Gojoseon was located in
Liaoning; around 400 BC, and was moved to
Pyongyang, while in the south of the peninsula, the
Jin state arose by the 3rd century BC."
I'm mildly rewriting it, feel free to revisit it yourself.
Third,
"In the past, the earliest surviving Chinese record,
Records of the Three Kingdoms, admitted Gija Joseon"
Is "admitted" the right word choice? Can you admit a person in this sense? Maybe, admit his existence? Or recognize him?--
Adûnâi (
talk) 23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Kariangyoji/90.146.213.80 has for a long time trying to discredit the Korean foundation myth of Dangun while trying to portray another myth, the Gija myth, one that is rejected by most scholars today, as being a historical one. I'm trying to put this in a neutral, sensible light, that the Korean foundation myth of Dangun is indeed a myth, and that the Gija myth is also a myth that is rejected by most scholars. The Dangun myth is indeed a myth, but there are no archaeological or historical evidence against it. On the other hand, there are archaeological and historical evidence that are inconsistent with the Gija myth. In fact, the Gija myth is attributed to an entirely different polity in the Liaoxi region, backed by archaeological evidence. I'm reverting your edit, and I welcome any criticisms or doubts that you may have on my talk page. Koraskadi ( talk) 09:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Koraskadi has for a long time trying to discredit the Korean foundation myth of Gija while trying to portray another myth, the Dangun myth, one that is rejected by most scholars today, as being a historical one. I'm trying to put this in a neutral, sensible light, that the Korean foundation myth of Gija is indeed a myth, and that the Dangun myth is also a myth that is rejected by most scholars. The Gija myth is indeed a myth, but there are no archaeological or historical evidence against it. On the other hand, there are archaeological and historical evidence that are inconsistent with the Dangun myth. In fact, the Dangun myth is attributed to an entirely different polity in the Liaoxi region, backed by archaeological evidence. I'm reverting your edit, and I welcome any criticisms or doubts that you may have on my talk page. -- Kariangyoji ( talk) 17:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Why'd you say "its existence"? Are you talking about Dangun or Gojoseon. You need to be more specific because the quotes talk about Dangun and only 'him'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.167.165 ( talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Also mythological gets the message across well enough. That's why you don't see verbiage like "deny its existence" on Zeus, Poseidon, Huangdi. Because people know what mythological means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.167.165 ( talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I find it peculiar that there's a strong need to use the Samguk Yusa as a main source for this article; a work that is written over a millennia after the timeline and is filled with fanciful descriptions (e.g. being born from a she-bear). Even though this primary source is so directly cited in this wikipedia article, the actual information here often appears to be uncited WP:OR commentary of wikipedia contributors on the work instead. How about letting credible secondary sources do the commentary thereof, instead of adding WP:OR statements under the veil of citing the primary work?
Btw, some of the short form citations point to nothing. Maybe it can be found in the Wikipedia article history or just check Google books? -- Cold Season ( talk) 14:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-first=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-first=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Shahanshah5 ( talk · contribs), why do say there was no Korean ethnic group back then? The article seems to indicate the contrary. And it doesn't seem clear that the kingdom was on the peninsula if it included Liaoning.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I changed what I felt was appropriate, as prior versions of this section used NPOV language and seemed to be less about academic perspectives on the state/political entity of Gojoseon and more about nationalist (particularly Korean and Chinese) criticisms/claims about the existence of various founding myths. The last two (very large) paragraphs were effectively criticisms of various Korean nationalist (i.e. not necessarily academic) positions/theories related to the founding of Gojoseon, rather than a discussion of academic/research perspectives on the various myths surrounding the poorly-attested founding of Gojoseon. I did eliminate the most severe NPOV language, but even so, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to re-organize the content (some of which is relevant) into something more neutral. Maybe they should have their own subsection, such as "controversies"? Ecthelion83 ( talk) 01:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. (
closed by non-admin page mover) –
Hilst
[talk]
12:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Gojoseon → Old Joseon – For WP consistency (e.g., Unified Silla, Later Baekje, Former Yan, Later Yan, Early Lý dynasty, Early Lê dynasty). According to WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Unlike "Wiman" ( Wiman Joseon) or "Gija" ( Gija Joseon), "Go" is not a name. It means "old". It should be translated. "Old Joseon" is used by the National Institute of Korean History. [26] Bamnamu ( talk) 07:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The topic is a bit confusing.
"In 109 BCE, Emperor Wu of Han invaded near the Liao River. A conflict would erupt in 109 BCE, when Wi Man's grandson King Ugeo (우거왕, Hanja: 右渠王) refused to let Jin's ambassadors through his territory in order to reach the Han dynasty. King Ugeo refused and had his son, Prince Wi Jang (長降) escort the ambassador back home. However, when they got close to Han's borders, the ambassador assassinated Wi Jang (長降) and claimed to Emperor Wu that he had defeated Joseon in battle. Emperor Wu, unaware of this deception, made him the military commander of the Commandery of Liaodong. The outraged King Ugeo made a raid on Liaodong and killed She He. Scholars also hypothesize that the initiation of war may also have been because the Han Dynasty was concerned that Gojoseon would ally with the Xiongnu against the Han.
In response, Emperor Wu commissioned a two-pronged attack, one by land and one by sea, against Gojoseon. The two forces attacking Gojoseon were unable to coordinate well with each other and suffered large losses. Eventually, the commands were merged, and Wanggeom fell in 108 BCE. Han took over the Gojoseon lands and established Four Commanderies of Han in the western part of former Gojoseon."
So, the ambassador FROM Jin escorted back to Jin and when they got close to Han's border... What? They escorted from where to where? How they could reach the Han border if they travelled to the opposite direction? Ugeo refused and HAD his son. (??) So he had a son. And? Maybe commissioned to, or charged to. And who was She He? Why Ugeo killed him/her? And which scholars hypothesised the motive behind the war? So, the war began, and the Han army suffered great losses and won and Wanggeom fell. Who? What? And again no sources.
So, all of these need to either delete or rewrite.
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Old Joseon. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
There was a suggestion that Go-Joseon be renamed and moved to Gojoseon, Former Joseon or Old Joseon, but no debate.
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)
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 discription in the History section looks somewhat ambiguous.
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,
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."
This sentence can make readers misunderstand, since it can sound as if the eastern "barbarians" founded an organized state.
In a later paragraph,
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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
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.
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.
Part of Liaoxi was also Gojoseom territory. The border between Gojoseon and Han was Pei river, based on earlier Chinese records, it was located at Hebei today Traineek ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
I agree Jangdan ( talk) 06:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So there's a couple things I wanted to talk about here. Statements about mythical foundings belong to Korean mythology and not to areas of fact. In fact, scholars do provide dates for the founding of the state, and we should use this information, not the magical date of 2333 BCE.
Dates I found rapidly using Google books:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), page 415{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), page 29{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), p. 22.Just because it is religiously important due to colonialism and politics does not, in fact, justify the use of false history. Additionally, the traditional histories don't even agree on the specific date of 2333. In the discussion you linked me to on ANI, this was the information you used as RS:
- 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
How can we, in good faith, write a founding date at odds with RS just because it aligns with particular political platforms? Like, great, it's a national holiday in the Koreas. This is not relevant to an article on the historical state of Gojoseon except perhaps as a passing comment along the lines of "Gojoseon is lauded as the origin of modern Korea and its mythical founding is celebrated as a national holiday in both Koreas." Ogress smash! 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The source I added was from an academic conference on the subject of Gojoseon's founding year, hosted by Institute for Traditional Korean Cultural Studies. There are also many other secondary sources that set 2333BC as Gojoseon's founding date. Doing a google books search on "Korea 2333" ought to bring out plenty of sources that stipulates 2333BC as the founding of Gojoseon. Also, please note again that the article on Xia Dynasty, which doesn't even have a question mark despite its mythical status like Gojoseon.
In any case, there was an extensive debate over this as well at the Korean talk page. It ended up with 2333 along with a question mark. The proposed years were 2333 and 700. 700 is based on a Chinese source that mentions Joseon for the first time. However, as the archaeological basis of Gojoseon goes as far back as 1500BC(some suggest 2000BC), 700 is not a definitive year either. My suggestion is that, if possible, still insert 2333 but with (legendary), and insert 700 with an appropriate side note(can't think of one right now). In the infobox below, 700 can also be added along with the appropriate side note, and 194 as the founding year of Wiman Joseon. The year of Gojoseon-Han war should be discarded since it's irrelevant. Founding years can be included in the lead, first 2333 and then 700.
As for the significance of the founding date of 2333, I think it's a good idea, except that it's not a national holiday North Korea. Cydevil38 ( talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Troy, founded in 3000 BC. Xia Dynasty founded in 2070 BC. Goguryeo founded in 37 BC. Baekje founded in 18 BC. Silla founded in 57 BC. These are all mythical legendary dates, unless you consider the least advanced state among the Three Kingdoms of Korea to be the most advanced(Silla). This article is about a legendarily founded tribal confederation and/or/later kingdom. Like the history of Japan, it is clearly indicated that this polity is legendary. In none of the previously mentioned polities are they defined with a question mark. Despise this pattern of defining founding years, I suggest a compromise out of good will, to defining the traditional founding date as "legendary", instead of a question mark or even the lack of it. Are you going to deny this compromise or not? Cydevil38 ( talk) 09:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The arguments over historicity and the alternate dates estimated should be also added to the article. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around. Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology project is a controversial government project that even has ties to the [[[Northeast Project]], which infuriated Koreans. But that aside, I'd like you people's opinion on this infobox [25]. For the dates and events, I have used Gina L. Barne's State Formation of Korea. I have clearly marked two significant eras, 2333BC and 1000BC as legendary and tribal, respectively. Later developments and events have also been added. Any input is welcome. 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.161.79.71 ( talk)
@ Cydevil38 and Zanhe: Propose reverting latest IP edit Aside from our own rather rough patch, we all agree (as I understand it) that the IP edit warrior's edits about Wiman etc. is against consensus. I propose to revert the latest IP edit if the two of you also agree this is acceptable behavior. I also had the page temporarily and partially edit protected, so it should give us a brief cushion. Consider this my "yes" vote in case one of you decides to do it. Ogress smash! 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Cydevil38 ( talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. And I see that the page has already been semi-protected. - Zanhe ( talk) 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have said earlier, I have made an infobox that clearly indicates 2333BC as a legendary founding date, along with significant events based on Gina L. Barne's State formation of Korea. If there is no objection in four days, I'll replace the infobox in the article. Cydevil3800 ( talk) 05:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Gojoseon 고조선 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2333BC(mythological) 400BC(X) –108BC | |||||||||||
Capital | Wanggeom | ||||||||||
Common languages | Proto-Korean | ||||||||||
Religion | Korean shamanism | ||||||||||
Government | Monarchy | ||||||||||
King | |||||||||||
• ? - 194 BC | King Jun | ||||||||||
• 194 BC - ? | Wi Man | ||||||||||
• ? - 108 BC | King Ugeo | ||||||||||
Historical era | Ancient, mythological | ||||||||||
• Foundation | 2333BC(mythological) 400BC(X) | ||||||||||
• legendarily founded | 2333BC | ||||||||||
• X | 400BC | ||||||||||
• Gojosen-Yan War | late 4th century BC | ||||||||||
• Gojoseon-Han War | 109BC | ||||||||||
• Fall of Gojoseon | 108BC | ||||||||||
• Fall of
Wanggeom | 108BC | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Today part of |
North Korea South Korea China |
Here are the relevant quotes from State formation of Korea for the additional information I have added.
The article talks about Liaoning "and" Manchuria, as if they are separate places, as does the Dangan article, but according to the Manchuria, Liaoning is in Manchuria.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Liaoning is part of historical Manchuria and not exactly the same. Manchuria also includes part of the modern Russian Far East. Historicalchild ( talk) 10:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Gojoseon was founded by a Chinese Prince. So why is it seen as a Proto-Korean state?
Historicalchild ( talk) 10:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
First, this link doesn't work for me http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/04/eak/ht04eak.htm
Second, it sources the following sentence
"During its early phase, the capital of Gojoseon was located in
Liaoning; around 400 BC, and was moved to
Pyongyang, while in the south of the peninsula, the
Jin state arose by the 3rd century BC."
I'm mildly rewriting it, feel free to revisit it yourself.
Third,
"In the past, the earliest surviving Chinese record,
Records of the Three Kingdoms, admitted Gija Joseon"
Is "admitted" the right word choice? Can you admit a person in this sense? Maybe, admit his existence? Or recognize him?--
Adûnâi (
talk) 23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Kariangyoji/90.146.213.80 has for a long time trying to discredit the Korean foundation myth of Dangun while trying to portray another myth, the Gija myth, one that is rejected by most scholars today, as being a historical one. I'm trying to put this in a neutral, sensible light, that the Korean foundation myth of Dangun is indeed a myth, and that the Gija myth is also a myth that is rejected by most scholars. The Dangun myth is indeed a myth, but there are no archaeological or historical evidence against it. On the other hand, there are archaeological and historical evidence that are inconsistent with the Gija myth. In fact, the Gija myth is attributed to an entirely different polity in the Liaoxi region, backed by archaeological evidence. I'm reverting your edit, and I welcome any criticisms or doubts that you may have on my talk page. Koraskadi ( talk) 09:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Koraskadi has for a long time trying to discredit the Korean foundation myth of Gija while trying to portray another myth, the Dangun myth, one that is rejected by most scholars today, as being a historical one. I'm trying to put this in a neutral, sensible light, that the Korean foundation myth of Gija is indeed a myth, and that the Dangun myth is also a myth that is rejected by most scholars. The Gija myth is indeed a myth, but there are no archaeological or historical evidence against it. On the other hand, there are archaeological and historical evidence that are inconsistent with the Dangun myth. In fact, the Dangun myth is attributed to an entirely different polity in the Liaoxi region, backed by archaeological evidence. I'm reverting your edit, and I welcome any criticisms or doubts that you may have on my talk page. -- Kariangyoji ( talk) 17:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Why'd you say "its existence"? Are you talking about Dangun or Gojoseon. You need to be more specific because the quotes talk about Dangun and only 'him'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.167.165 ( talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Also mythological gets the message across well enough. That's why you don't see verbiage like "deny its existence" on Zeus, Poseidon, Huangdi. Because people know what mythological means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.167.165 ( talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I find it peculiar that there's a strong need to use the Samguk Yusa as a main source for this article; a work that is written over a millennia after the timeline and is filled with fanciful descriptions (e.g. being born from a she-bear). Even though this primary source is so directly cited in this wikipedia article, the actual information here often appears to be uncited WP:OR commentary of wikipedia contributors on the work instead. How about letting credible secondary sources do the commentary thereof, instead of adding WP:OR statements under the veil of citing the primary work?
Btw, some of the short form citations point to nothing. Maybe it can be found in the Wikipedia article history or just check Google books? -- Cold Season ( talk) 14:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-first=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-first=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Shahanshah5 ( talk · contribs), why do say there was no Korean ethnic group back then? The article seems to indicate the contrary. And it doesn't seem clear that the kingdom was on the peninsula if it included Liaoning.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I changed what I felt was appropriate, as prior versions of this section used NPOV language and seemed to be less about academic perspectives on the state/political entity of Gojoseon and more about nationalist (particularly Korean and Chinese) criticisms/claims about the existence of various founding myths. The last two (very large) paragraphs were effectively criticisms of various Korean nationalist (i.e. not necessarily academic) positions/theories related to the founding of Gojoseon, rather than a discussion of academic/research perspectives on the various myths surrounding the poorly-attested founding of Gojoseon. I did eliminate the most severe NPOV language, but even so, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to re-organize the content (some of which is relevant) into something more neutral. Maybe they should have their own subsection, such as "controversies"? Ecthelion83 ( talk) 01:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. (
closed by non-admin page mover) –
Hilst
[talk]
12:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Gojoseon → Old Joseon – For WP consistency (e.g., Unified Silla, Later Baekje, Former Yan, Later Yan, Early Lý dynasty, Early Lê dynasty). According to WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Unlike "Wiman" ( Wiman Joseon) or "Gija" ( Gija Joseon), "Go" is not a name. It means "old". It should be translated. "Old Joseon" is used by the National Institute of Korean History. [26] Bamnamu ( talk) 07:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The topic is a bit confusing.
"In 109 BCE, Emperor Wu of Han invaded near the Liao River. A conflict would erupt in 109 BCE, when Wi Man's grandson King Ugeo (우거왕, Hanja: 右渠王) refused to let Jin's ambassadors through his territory in order to reach the Han dynasty. King Ugeo refused and had his son, Prince Wi Jang (長降) escort the ambassador back home. However, when they got close to Han's borders, the ambassador assassinated Wi Jang (長降) and claimed to Emperor Wu that he had defeated Joseon in battle. Emperor Wu, unaware of this deception, made him the military commander of the Commandery of Liaodong. The outraged King Ugeo made a raid on Liaodong and killed She He. Scholars also hypothesize that the initiation of war may also have been because the Han Dynasty was concerned that Gojoseon would ally with the Xiongnu against the Han.
In response, Emperor Wu commissioned a two-pronged attack, one by land and one by sea, against Gojoseon. The two forces attacking Gojoseon were unable to coordinate well with each other and suffered large losses. Eventually, the commands were merged, and Wanggeom fell in 108 BCE. Han took over the Gojoseon lands and established Four Commanderies of Han in the western part of former Gojoseon."
So, the ambassador FROM Jin escorted back to Jin and when they got close to Han's border... What? They escorted from where to where? How they could reach the Han border if they travelled to the opposite direction? Ugeo refused and HAD his son. (??) So he had a son. And? Maybe commissioned to, or charged to. And who was She He? Why Ugeo killed him/her? And which scholars hypothesised the motive behind the war? So, the war began, and the Han army suffered great losses and won and Wanggeom fell. Who? What? And again no sources.
So, all of these need to either delete or rewrite.