This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from 史記 朝鮮列傳
-- Nanshu 01:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The existence of King Zhun is suspicious because The Records of the Grand Historian of the same age never referrs to him.
What's wrong with "Chinese direct rule over peninsula?" I don't say "Chinese direct rule over the whole peninsula". -- Nanshu 04:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I guess you should put 'part of' in front of that.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history. You try to push something more than what is deduced from historical sources. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we made room for modern interpretations, but further POV pushing is not tolerated. -- Nanshu 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop mixing up two different things:
You only talked about the former and started an all-or-nothing revert war.
The historical sources of Man are the Shiji (and Hanshu) and the Weile (and Sanguozhi). What is deduced from them has nothing to do with the modern Korean nation. As you know, Koreans narrate it as part of the history of Korea, but such an narrative cannot be put without proper attribution here in Wikipedia, where people with various backgrounds gather to make a new encyclopedia. If you disagree with the relativistic approach, why not create your own Korea-pedia and put your work there?
Various ideas can be included with proper attribution in Wikipedia. We are inclusive in this sense. But we have to select one default romanization system because adding multiple spellings every time is redundant. Which system is the best? Pinyin, I think, because he was from the Yan and recorded in Chinese sources. -- Nanshu 10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
So you gave up contending for the second point? If so, I'm glad.
For the first point, my question is: How can we secure fairness in the most-common-name policy? I think we can arbitrarily change the result by changing the scope of survey. In this case, you only referred to "history of Korea" things even though I stressed, "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history." If we compare the overall history of China and the overall history of Korea, the weight of Wei Man would be different because China was too large to discuss the situation of a "borderland" in detail. But if you focus on specific issues, say, the history of Yan and that of Pyongyang, we will get a different result. And checking "What links here" doesn't make too much sense because Wikipedia is incomplete. Whether an article exists or not depends on whether it interests active Wikipedians, not on its significance.
So what should we do? I think Man has similar nature to Lelang, Daifang, Gongsun Du, Kang and Yuan, the Chinese stuffs that had to do with the Korean peninsula.
For Gojoseon, you Koreans set up a grand fantasy, but the understanding outside Korea is completely different. I have no time for detailed discussion. In short, we assume the pre-Man situation as depicted in the Shiji:
-- Nanshu 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As Yuje said, Bohai and Man stuffs parallel each other. I guess you are unable to rebut. -- Nanshu 11:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Even though Wei Man came from China, Wiman Joseon is Korean history.-- Hairwizard91 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
State of Yan never was Chinese state, and we don't even have his real enthicity. --Korsentry 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
The result of the proposal was No consensus. This has been listed for 10 days, and has attracted no votes. The discussion below is not convincing either way. Duja 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wei Man → Wiman of Gojoseon — Wiman or Wei Man was a king of Gojoseon at about 195 BCE, which is ancient Korean kingdom. Wiman is Korean pronunciation, and Wei Man is Chinese pronunciation. So, the pronunciation of the king must follow the pronunication of Korean. -- Hairwizard91 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I'm completing move request started by Hairwizard91. -- Kusunose 09:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "completing"??? The pages are not changed. -- Hairwizard91 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
史記卷一百一十五 朝鮮列傳 第五十五
... 朝鮮王滿者故燕人也 .... 渡浿水居秦故空地上下稍役屬眞番朝鮮蠻夷及故燕齊亡命者王之都王險 ....-- Hairwizard91 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The naming convention of Korean history must follow Korean pronunication. Even though Wiman came from China, he became a king of Beonjoseon. Thus, Wei Man must be moved to Wiman The most authoritative history book, or Shiji has categroized the war between Han of China and Wiman Joseon into the Chapter of Joseon. See Shiji -- Hairwizard91 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The proposed title does appear to be correct, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (monarchs), which specifies "(Name) of (Kingdom)" ... Similarly we put the founder of the latest Joseon Dynasty at Taejo of Joseon, while Yi Seonggye is a redirect. What exactly is the argument in favor of "Wei Man"? -- Visviva 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I should say again the same thing. Wiman Joseon is Korean kingdom and Korean history though Weiman came from China. Thus, This page should be moved to Wiman of Gojoseon from Wei Man Joseon It is not right way if Chinese Qing dynasty has a wiki page named Cheong dynasty in Korean pronunciation, and the same rule must be applied to Wei Man Joseon. Thus, Wei Man Joseon must be moved to Winman of Gojoseon, and Wei Man can remain in the same page. Because Wei Man is chinese, and Wiman of Gojoseon is Korean history-- Hairwizard91 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There was some misunderstanding of mine because wiman --> wiman of gojoseon --> Wei man. So, I revised the redirection as follows.
Wiman ---> Wei man
Wiman of gojoseon --> Wiman Joseon
These redirection seems to be fair.-- Hairwizard91 08:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed edits by User:Hairwizard91 because they are hopelessly erroneous. Correcting all his errors requires much more human resource than rewritting the article from scratch. So I just point out his first several errors:
-- Nanshu 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In some previous revisions, I wrote without much care, "Wei Man was a Chinese general..." Now Ksyrie restored this sentence, but are there any sources explicitly stating that he was a general? -- Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the edit warring and discuss the content. It's disconcerting to see the editors spend their energy on edit warring over wording and Romanization rather than improving/expanding this article, as this article plainly deserves improvement in content.
For what it is worth, it is my view, with regard to the content under dispute:
Again, please discuss rather than edit warring without comment. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless wikipedia supports drastic deviation from the concensus, remove the Chinese History category and everything that relates to it. We use references, not "interpret" them.
Instead of stating "it is clear Wei Man is part of Chinese history," elaborate why you think so. It is not clear. Wiman even being considered being part of China's history is new to everyone, 'cept for this new wave of overseas-living chinese internet heroes who are writting Korean history to whatever supports their ongoing masturbation about Korea being one of their ilk. I still don't know the source of their obsession. Kuebie 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That may apply to deceased former countries but I hope you know Korea is, however divided, still present in northeast Asia. China incorporates extinct societies near it and call them fiefdoms because the said people are all dead. Ridiculous. Why don't we place Kyushu into Korean History? That's right, their successors are Japan.
Marco Polo wrote a book about China, I don't see the Italians rushing to claim Mongolian heritage.
The only thing being challenged by many contemporary scholars is the view that Wiman's kingdom was ruled by the Yen refugees, thus developing into a powerful state and having ties with the hsiung-nu, gave much trouble to its neighbor in the South. Bringing iron culture to a foreign society doesn't mean you hold dominion over them, especially when there is more proof of Wiman being ethnically a man of Joseon. Of course, we'll then have examine how "Chinese" the people of Yen were before their subjugation. Kuebie 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, since there appears to be no further discussion at this point, I am going to unprotect the article. Please, however, watch your behaviors. I do think that the appropriate thing to do here is to include both romanizations, but I'm not going to impose that on the article. Please also be aware that anybody who violates 3RR or the spirit thereof will be blocked. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether the page should use Chinese or Korean romanization or both; whether such wording as "barbarian" should be disavowed; and whether this article should be placed in Category:History of China or one of its subcategories or not. -- Nlu ( talk) 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article, cities, places and people using chinese romanization should be displaced with Korean ones and be kept that way. I don't how they interpreted "Joseon" as "barbarian." Exclusively Korean history as the people who view Wiman as chinese are an obscure minority. Kuebie 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiman of Gojoseon | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chinese name | |||||||||
Traditional Chinese | 衛滿 | ||||||||
Simplified Chinese | 卫满 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
Korean name | |||||||||
Hangul | 위만 | ||||||||
Hanja | 衛滿 | ||||||||
|
Hi --- saw the request at WT:KOREA. This guy came from an area corresponding to modern-day China, but became notable in an area corresponding to modern-day Korea, and so I feel it would make more sense to put the Korean name as the title. Hulbert makes a very similar argument at p21 of History of Korea (from Routledge) for example [7]. However, I still think the Chinese romanisation should remain in place, if nothing else for the reason that he came from a Chinese-speaking area and it provides additional information for the reader.
For the name infobox, I'd suggest the use of {{ Infobox East Asian}} instead of {{ Chinese}}, since the former allows one to sort the order in which the languages appear (using the parameter "sort=korean1", for example) while {{ Chinese}} does not. Example at right. Cheers, cab 06:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You should note that:
So,
As long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or anything related to modern Korea.
Do not avoid using "barbarian". That's what the Shiji says (蠻夷). A reasonable inference is that "barbarian cloth" was non-Chinese cloth.
But Yi Pyeongdo claimed "barbarian cloth" had been Korean cloth and that Wei Man had been of Korean descent. This re-interpretation suited the nationalist view of history (minjok sagwan) and was adopted in national history textbooks of South Korean education. All this stuff belongs to modern history, not ancient history. We should not exclude it because it is against our NPOV policy. But it should be carefully separated.
Note that historians use pinyin as a matter of convenience. If you discuss the linguistic aspect of proper names, use, say, reconstructed Old Chinese. -- Nanshu ( talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No move Rationale for closing after minimal discussion: the move proposer does not actually see the need for a move, but is simply trying to follow procedure on behalf of three editors who have been edit-warring in an attempt to move the article via copy-paste (an action that voids the GDFL and is thus prohibited). There have been no arguments provided by those attempting to move the article via copy-paste, and it seems doubtful whether any would materialize if the discussion was allowed to continue. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion now, and am also full-protecting the redirect at Wiman of Gojoseon to put a stop to the copy-pasting there. There should be no prejudice towards opening a new proposal if any of the three editors attempting to move the page so desired. If there are any questions/clarification needed, feel free to ask me. Parsecboy ( talk) 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Wei Man → Wiman of Gojoseon — This article has been a subject of repeated cut-and-paste move. As there was a page move edit war in the past, I'm requesting discussion for page move instead of hist-merge request. Please also see previous unsuccessful request. This is a procedural nomination. I have no preference over what name the article title should be. — Kusunose 08:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Comments moved here from the already closed discussion above Parsecboy ( talk) 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Comment Wait, since when did seniority play a role in deciding whether the article name is appropriate? Anyone care to explain how "Wei Man" is any more appropriate (avoid using arguments such as "this guy was from what is now China 2000 years ago-" you get the picture)? 2006 was two years ago. Wikipedia isn't a textbook; we can change it whenever. This article was written up by a Chinese user. It doesn't get any biased than that. Now I'm not sure if everyone here is familiar with current Chinese revisionism (go ahead check my contributions as to see how many crap I revert from Korean articles), so let me explain: These Chinese extremists like to assert that Wiman was a Han Chinese that had set up a colonial regime in Korea. Where they pulled this from I have no idea. The bare facts we have is that he was a refuge from the state of Yan (very diverse region), wore non-Chinese clothing and hairstyle, kept the name Chosun, and that many of men of Chosun occupied high positions. But you don't have to take my word it. Contemporary scholars such as Ki-baik Lee and Bruce Cummings point out that Wiman is likey to have been a man of Chosun rather than Chinese. Interestingly enough, I have yet to find any dissenting views. Kuebie ( talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The state of yan was a chinese state, originating from the CHINESE zhou dynasty. end of story. Ki-baik Lee is also a korean. end of story
--deleted being ignorant and racially motivated comments.
The result of the move request was moved. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The article titles for monarchs should use the format Name (the Great) of Kingdom. For example: Seondeok of Silla; Sejong the Great of Joseon; Gojong of Korea.
Wei Man →
Wiman — Since the closing admin has dismissed all of our comments (actually it seems I just missed it by a day), I'll be going for the common name argument. —
Kuebie (
talk)
22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Wiman | Wei Man | Note |
---|---|---|
|
|
If Wei Man is seemingly more associated with Korea than with China, it's not because Wei Man indeed belongs to the history of Korea, but because China has much more to say about history than Korea. You know, China is much larger than Korea. China has much longer history than Korea. The number of historic events occurred in China is far more than that of Korea. In other words, the relative importance of the historical man is smaller in China than Korea. And the same is true of all other events shared by China and Korea. We must counter systemic bias. -- CCD-Ring ( talk) 13:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopedias:
Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations
Britannica Online
[13]
The Columbia Encyclopedia
[14]
Encyclopedia of the Ancient World
The Encyclopedia Americana
Books:
East Asia by Arthyr Cotterell, Oxford University Press.
A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee, Harvard University Press.
The Genesis of East Asia by Charles Holcombe, University of Hawaii Press.
Koguryo, The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives by Christopher I. Beckwith, Brill Academic Publishers.
The Far East and Australasia by Europa Publications, Europa Publications.
An excerpt from the History of Korea by Homer B. Hulbert and Clarence Norwood Weems, Routledge:
"On the other hand, the "refugee" who came to Chosun shortly after 200 B.C. is called by his Korean name, Wiman, rather than the Chinese form, Wei-man, because he became a part of the Korean community. It seems no more necessary or appropriate to write his name Wei-man than to render the name of his grandson Ugo according to the Chinese sound of its characters."
Kuebie (
talk)
06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: no consensus Page has been listed for almost three weeks without a consensus being established, and has already been relisted once, and another relist would have the discussion lasting about a month, without the likelihood of producing a clear consensus. Per WP:RMCI a close of no consensus in this discussion defaults to the page not being moved since it has been stable since 2012. ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Wiman of Gojoseon → Wi Man of Gojoseon – It need to distinguishing his first and last name. Ph ( talk) 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it says: "Wi Man (...) established a kingdom in northwestern Korea in the 2nd century BC." The fact is Wi Man kicked off the previous king Jun. May I say the word 'took over Gojoseon' should be added in front of the word 'established'? Because the first paragraph of the article mentions 'Wi Man was the first ruler in the history of Korea(...)', this might mislead readers to think Wiman of Gojoseon was the first kingdom of the Korean peninsula, which is false, and moreover, Korean Dynasties started from Chinese runaway soldiers.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)he cane from an independent state leaving asthe New Chinese Empire asserted control. To try to put this in a modern emigration category seems a bit much. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
When there are record of him being from state Yan as chinese according Records of the Grand Historian and the Book of Han, which says 史记·卷一百一十五·朝鲜列传第五十五》:朝鲜王满者,故燕人也.自始全燕时尝略属真番,朝鲜,为置吏,筑鄣塞。秦灭燕,属辽东外徼. 汉书·卷九十五·西南夷两粤朝鲜传第六十五》:朝鲜王满,燕人。自始燕时,尝略属真番,朝鲜,为置吏筑障。秦灭燕,属辽东外徼. 燕人 which meaning him as Yan state. Is it better to translate it to the Chinese version at first , and then the Korean version. Or doe it matter in anyway 2001:14BB:CC:79E2:4511:23ED:84AD:860A ( talk) 21:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from 史記 朝鮮列傳
-- Nanshu 01:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The existence of King Zhun is suspicious because The Records of the Grand Historian of the same age never referrs to him.
What's wrong with "Chinese direct rule over peninsula?" I don't say "Chinese direct rule over the whole peninsula". -- Nanshu 04:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I guess you should put 'part of' in front of that.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history. You try to push something more than what is deduced from historical sources. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we made room for modern interpretations, but further POV pushing is not tolerated. -- Nanshu 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop mixing up two different things:
You only talked about the former and started an all-or-nothing revert war.
The historical sources of Man are the Shiji (and Hanshu) and the Weile (and Sanguozhi). What is deduced from them has nothing to do with the modern Korean nation. As you know, Koreans narrate it as part of the history of Korea, but such an narrative cannot be put without proper attribution here in Wikipedia, where people with various backgrounds gather to make a new encyclopedia. If you disagree with the relativistic approach, why not create your own Korea-pedia and put your work there?
Various ideas can be included with proper attribution in Wikipedia. We are inclusive in this sense. But we have to select one default romanization system because adding multiple spellings every time is redundant. Which system is the best? Pinyin, I think, because he was from the Yan and recorded in Chinese sources. -- Nanshu 10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
So you gave up contending for the second point? If so, I'm glad.
For the first point, my question is: How can we secure fairness in the most-common-name policy? I think we can arbitrarily change the result by changing the scope of survey. In this case, you only referred to "history of Korea" things even though I stressed, "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history." If we compare the overall history of China and the overall history of Korea, the weight of Wei Man would be different because China was too large to discuss the situation of a "borderland" in detail. But if you focus on specific issues, say, the history of Yan and that of Pyongyang, we will get a different result. And checking "What links here" doesn't make too much sense because Wikipedia is incomplete. Whether an article exists or not depends on whether it interests active Wikipedians, not on its significance.
So what should we do? I think Man has similar nature to Lelang, Daifang, Gongsun Du, Kang and Yuan, the Chinese stuffs that had to do with the Korean peninsula.
For Gojoseon, you Koreans set up a grand fantasy, but the understanding outside Korea is completely different. I have no time for detailed discussion. In short, we assume the pre-Man situation as depicted in the Shiji:
-- Nanshu 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As Yuje said, Bohai and Man stuffs parallel each other. I guess you are unable to rebut. -- Nanshu 11:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Even though Wei Man came from China, Wiman Joseon is Korean history.-- Hairwizard91 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
State of Yan never was Chinese state, and we don't even have his real enthicity. --Korsentry 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
The result of the proposal was No consensus. This has been listed for 10 days, and has attracted no votes. The discussion below is not convincing either way. Duja 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wei Man → Wiman of Gojoseon — Wiman or Wei Man was a king of Gojoseon at about 195 BCE, which is ancient Korean kingdom. Wiman is Korean pronunciation, and Wei Man is Chinese pronunciation. So, the pronunciation of the king must follow the pronunication of Korean. -- Hairwizard91 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I'm completing move request started by Hairwizard91. -- Kusunose 09:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "completing"??? The pages are not changed. -- Hairwizard91 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
史記卷一百一十五 朝鮮列傳 第五十五
... 朝鮮王滿者故燕人也 .... 渡浿水居秦故空地上下稍役屬眞番朝鮮蠻夷及故燕齊亡命者王之都王險 ....-- Hairwizard91 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The naming convention of Korean history must follow Korean pronunication. Even though Wiman came from China, he became a king of Beonjoseon. Thus, Wei Man must be moved to Wiman The most authoritative history book, or Shiji has categroized the war between Han of China and Wiman Joseon into the Chapter of Joseon. See Shiji -- Hairwizard91 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The proposed title does appear to be correct, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (monarchs), which specifies "(Name) of (Kingdom)" ... Similarly we put the founder of the latest Joseon Dynasty at Taejo of Joseon, while Yi Seonggye is a redirect. What exactly is the argument in favor of "Wei Man"? -- Visviva 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I should say again the same thing. Wiman Joseon is Korean kingdom and Korean history though Weiman came from China. Thus, This page should be moved to Wiman of Gojoseon from Wei Man Joseon It is not right way if Chinese Qing dynasty has a wiki page named Cheong dynasty in Korean pronunciation, and the same rule must be applied to Wei Man Joseon. Thus, Wei Man Joseon must be moved to Winman of Gojoseon, and Wei Man can remain in the same page. Because Wei Man is chinese, and Wiman of Gojoseon is Korean history-- Hairwizard91 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There was some misunderstanding of mine because wiman --> wiman of gojoseon --> Wei man. So, I revised the redirection as follows.
Wiman ---> Wei man
Wiman of gojoseon --> Wiman Joseon
These redirection seems to be fair.-- Hairwizard91 08:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed edits by User:Hairwizard91 because they are hopelessly erroneous. Correcting all his errors requires much more human resource than rewritting the article from scratch. So I just point out his first several errors:
-- Nanshu 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In some previous revisions, I wrote without much care, "Wei Man was a Chinese general..." Now Ksyrie restored this sentence, but are there any sources explicitly stating that he was a general? -- Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the edit warring and discuss the content. It's disconcerting to see the editors spend their energy on edit warring over wording and Romanization rather than improving/expanding this article, as this article plainly deserves improvement in content.
For what it is worth, it is my view, with regard to the content under dispute:
Again, please discuss rather than edit warring without comment. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless wikipedia supports drastic deviation from the concensus, remove the Chinese History category and everything that relates to it. We use references, not "interpret" them.
Instead of stating "it is clear Wei Man is part of Chinese history," elaborate why you think so. It is not clear. Wiman even being considered being part of China's history is new to everyone, 'cept for this new wave of overseas-living chinese internet heroes who are writting Korean history to whatever supports their ongoing masturbation about Korea being one of their ilk. I still don't know the source of their obsession. Kuebie 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That may apply to deceased former countries but I hope you know Korea is, however divided, still present in northeast Asia. China incorporates extinct societies near it and call them fiefdoms because the said people are all dead. Ridiculous. Why don't we place Kyushu into Korean History? That's right, their successors are Japan.
Marco Polo wrote a book about China, I don't see the Italians rushing to claim Mongolian heritage.
The only thing being challenged by many contemporary scholars is the view that Wiman's kingdom was ruled by the Yen refugees, thus developing into a powerful state and having ties with the hsiung-nu, gave much trouble to its neighbor in the South. Bringing iron culture to a foreign society doesn't mean you hold dominion over them, especially when there is more proof of Wiman being ethnically a man of Joseon. Of course, we'll then have examine how "Chinese" the people of Yen were before their subjugation. Kuebie 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, since there appears to be no further discussion at this point, I am going to unprotect the article. Please, however, watch your behaviors. I do think that the appropriate thing to do here is to include both romanizations, but I'm not going to impose that on the article. Please also be aware that anybody who violates 3RR or the spirit thereof will be blocked. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether the page should use Chinese or Korean romanization or both; whether such wording as "barbarian" should be disavowed; and whether this article should be placed in Category:History of China or one of its subcategories or not. -- Nlu ( talk) 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article, cities, places and people using chinese romanization should be displaced with Korean ones and be kept that way. I don't how they interpreted "Joseon" as "barbarian." Exclusively Korean history as the people who view Wiman as chinese are an obscure minority. Kuebie 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiman of Gojoseon | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chinese name | |||||||||
Traditional Chinese | 衛滿 | ||||||||
Simplified Chinese | 卫满 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
Korean name | |||||||||
Hangul | 위만 | ||||||||
Hanja | 衛滿 | ||||||||
|
Hi --- saw the request at WT:KOREA. This guy came from an area corresponding to modern-day China, but became notable in an area corresponding to modern-day Korea, and so I feel it would make more sense to put the Korean name as the title. Hulbert makes a very similar argument at p21 of History of Korea (from Routledge) for example [7]. However, I still think the Chinese romanisation should remain in place, if nothing else for the reason that he came from a Chinese-speaking area and it provides additional information for the reader.
For the name infobox, I'd suggest the use of {{ Infobox East Asian}} instead of {{ Chinese}}, since the former allows one to sort the order in which the languages appear (using the parameter "sort=korean1", for example) while {{ Chinese}} does not. Example at right. Cheers, cab 06:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You should note that:
So,
As long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or anything related to modern Korea.
Do not avoid using "barbarian". That's what the Shiji says (蠻夷). A reasonable inference is that "barbarian cloth" was non-Chinese cloth.
But Yi Pyeongdo claimed "barbarian cloth" had been Korean cloth and that Wei Man had been of Korean descent. This re-interpretation suited the nationalist view of history (minjok sagwan) and was adopted in national history textbooks of South Korean education. All this stuff belongs to modern history, not ancient history. We should not exclude it because it is against our NPOV policy. But it should be carefully separated.
Note that historians use pinyin as a matter of convenience. If you discuss the linguistic aspect of proper names, use, say, reconstructed Old Chinese. -- Nanshu ( talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No move Rationale for closing after minimal discussion: the move proposer does not actually see the need for a move, but is simply trying to follow procedure on behalf of three editors who have been edit-warring in an attempt to move the article via copy-paste (an action that voids the GDFL and is thus prohibited). There have been no arguments provided by those attempting to move the article via copy-paste, and it seems doubtful whether any would materialize if the discussion was allowed to continue. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion now, and am also full-protecting the redirect at Wiman of Gojoseon to put a stop to the copy-pasting there. There should be no prejudice towards opening a new proposal if any of the three editors attempting to move the page so desired. If there are any questions/clarification needed, feel free to ask me. Parsecboy ( talk) 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Wei Man → Wiman of Gojoseon — This article has been a subject of repeated cut-and-paste move. As there was a page move edit war in the past, I'm requesting discussion for page move instead of hist-merge request. Please also see previous unsuccessful request. This is a procedural nomination. I have no preference over what name the article title should be. — Kusunose 08:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Comments moved here from the already closed discussion above Parsecboy ( talk) 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Comment Wait, since when did seniority play a role in deciding whether the article name is appropriate? Anyone care to explain how "Wei Man" is any more appropriate (avoid using arguments such as "this guy was from what is now China 2000 years ago-" you get the picture)? 2006 was two years ago. Wikipedia isn't a textbook; we can change it whenever. This article was written up by a Chinese user. It doesn't get any biased than that. Now I'm not sure if everyone here is familiar with current Chinese revisionism (go ahead check my contributions as to see how many crap I revert from Korean articles), so let me explain: These Chinese extremists like to assert that Wiman was a Han Chinese that had set up a colonial regime in Korea. Where they pulled this from I have no idea. The bare facts we have is that he was a refuge from the state of Yan (very diverse region), wore non-Chinese clothing and hairstyle, kept the name Chosun, and that many of men of Chosun occupied high positions. But you don't have to take my word it. Contemporary scholars such as Ki-baik Lee and Bruce Cummings point out that Wiman is likey to have been a man of Chosun rather than Chinese. Interestingly enough, I have yet to find any dissenting views. Kuebie ( talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The state of yan was a chinese state, originating from the CHINESE zhou dynasty. end of story. Ki-baik Lee is also a korean. end of story
--deleted being ignorant and racially motivated comments.
The result of the move request was moved. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The article titles for monarchs should use the format Name (the Great) of Kingdom. For example: Seondeok of Silla; Sejong the Great of Joseon; Gojong of Korea.
Wei Man →
Wiman — Since the closing admin has dismissed all of our comments (actually it seems I just missed it by a day), I'll be going for the common name argument. —
Kuebie (
talk)
22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Wiman | Wei Man | Note |
---|---|---|
|
|
If Wei Man is seemingly more associated with Korea than with China, it's not because Wei Man indeed belongs to the history of Korea, but because China has much more to say about history than Korea. You know, China is much larger than Korea. China has much longer history than Korea. The number of historic events occurred in China is far more than that of Korea. In other words, the relative importance of the historical man is smaller in China than Korea. And the same is true of all other events shared by China and Korea. We must counter systemic bias. -- CCD-Ring ( talk) 13:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopedias:
Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations
Britannica Online
[13]
The Columbia Encyclopedia
[14]
Encyclopedia of the Ancient World
The Encyclopedia Americana
Books:
East Asia by Arthyr Cotterell, Oxford University Press.
A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee, Harvard University Press.
The Genesis of East Asia by Charles Holcombe, University of Hawaii Press.
Koguryo, The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives by Christopher I. Beckwith, Brill Academic Publishers.
The Far East and Australasia by Europa Publications, Europa Publications.
An excerpt from the History of Korea by Homer B. Hulbert and Clarence Norwood Weems, Routledge:
"On the other hand, the "refugee" who came to Chosun shortly after 200 B.C. is called by his Korean name, Wiman, rather than the Chinese form, Wei-man, because he became a part of the Korean community. It seems no more necessary or appropriate to write his name Wei-man than to render the name of his grandson Ugo according to the Chinese sound of its characters."
Kuebie (
talk)
06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: no consensus Page has been listed for almost three weeks without a consensus being established, and has already been relisted once, and another relist would have the discussion lasting about a month, without the likelihood of producing a clear consensus. Per WP:RMCI a close of no consensus in this discussion defaults to the page not being moved since it has been stable since 2012. ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Wiman of Gojoseon → Wi Man of Gojoseon – It need to distinguishing his first and last name. Ph ( talk) 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it says: "Wi Man (...) established a kingdom in northwestern Korea in the 2nd century BC." The fact is Wi Man kicked off the previous king Jun. May I say the word 'took over Gojoseon' should be added in front of the word 'established'? Because the first paragraph of the article mentions 'Wi Man was the first ruler in the history of Korea(...)', this might mislead readers to think Wiman of Gojoseon was the first kingdom of the Korean peninsula, which is false, and moreover, Korean Dynasties started from Chinese runaway soldiers.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)he cane from an independent state leaving asthe New Chinese Empire asserted control. To try to put this in a modern emigration category seems a bit much. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
When there are record of him being from state Yan as chinese according Records of the Grand Historian and the Book of Han, which says 史记·卷一百一十五·朝鲜列传第五十五》:朝鲜王满者,故燕人也.自始全燕时尝略属真番,朝鲜,为置吏,筑鄣塞。秦灭燕,属辽东外徼. 汉书·卷九十五·西南夷两粤朝鲜传第六十五》:朝鲜王满,燕人。自始燕时,尝略属真番,朝鲜,为置吏筑障。秦灭燕,属辽东外徼. 燕人 which meaning him as Yan state. Is it better to translate it to the Chinese version at first , and then the Korean version. Or doe it matter in anyway 2001:14BB:CC:79E2:4511:23ED:84AD:860A ( talk) 21:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)