Talk:History of Korea/Archive 2

History is history it is not something you can glorify and alter
In order for the author to save the energy of writing the length of this amateur article, you may as well to say that most of the eastern Asian cultures were originated from Koran. Why is it so hard for some Korean people to differentiate the ‘facts’ and the comic books (including commercial TV programs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrmj (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * wikipedia site is for amateur and biased facts. It's not reliable source.


 * Oh-Oh-Oh. I'm very offended. So what? Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - here's an example of a pissy, arrogant Korean guy who exemplifies the very reason so many people just laugh at Korean scholarship! Keep up the good work, buddy, you're making a fool of your country better than anyone else in the world could ever pull off.... and by the way, "KOREA NUMBER ONE!!" Yep - at making fools of yourselves with this kind of "scholarship." LOL!

While parts of this article are very good, a fair chunk of it is unadulterated nationalist horseshit. It reads as if a bunch of uber-patriotic 15-year-old wankers wrote a fairy-tale history piece for "We Worship Our Country" day. I'm surprised the prehistory section doesn't claim that Koreans were descended from supernatural bears. This has to be one of the more embarrassing articles on Wikipedia.

Samguk Yusa, written in 13th century by a monk, was a collection of legends, fair tales and other unorthodox history. Even people in 15th century call it a absurd book to justify Buddhism. It can't be treated seriously. Some authors try to use such book to prove other hundreds of history book(dated from 5th century B.C) wrong. Even the quotation from this book was altered to justify some purpose of those Korean nationalists. I really feel sad about those poor guys. At least they should learn some basic history before altering it. I can't help laughing when they dated their history to 2333B.C. while even pupils from elementary schools in China know they can only precisely wrote their history back to 841B.C. Is Korea the first country had invented time machine? LOL What a great country!!! Another funny thing is beside the narrative of "Archeology evidence of entering bronze age at 2500 B.C and Iron age at 1200B.C.", there is an evidence of STONE DAGGER from 6-7th century B.C. Does that mean early Koreans are environmentalists who are against iron and bronze tools because they may think coal is not regenerative energy resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesconfuser (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It is just truly sad to see modern Korean revisionist, nationalistically filtered "history" to be taken as "actual history" by so many millions of seemingly intelligent Koreans. It is the joke of history academia that Korea (and China and Japan included) simply do not care about verification of their erroneous claims of "origins" with any evidence that can be unequivocally proven with evidence. Korean history can IN NO WAY be shown with evidence to extend to the time of Tangun, a mere mythology of origins. No modern people in the world look to their mythical legends as history except for Koreans. Very sad. Why? Because the world needs Korea, and yet it cannot trust Korea to be objective and fair because of its twisted nationalism to Again: very sad. But I will be back here soon to insert some highly credible academic sources that dispute the claims of this article. It's just really bad that this exists in Wikipedia. We would expect that from highly emotional, nationalist Korean sites that proclaim Korean history that way, but it is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you feel the same way, please do the same, and I will join you in what will surely be contested fiercely by the Korean nationalist, revisionist authors of this article. Again: Wikipedia is NOT a korean product, and it should therefore represent a broad non-nationalistic-Korean view of the history of Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.35.14 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Documented History
Previously I noted that somebody claimed that Korea has a documented history of over 4000 years. If so, would somebody please tell me, in what language and on what material where the documents written on?--Tbearzhang 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably traditional Chinese. Good friend100 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that. Even China does not have a documented history of 4000 years. No written documents from the legendary Xia dynasty (which, according to the Chinese, ruled China from about 2200 BC to 1600 BC) has yet been found. The earliest recognized form of written Chinese is found on turtle shells and animal bones, dating back to the Shang dynasty, which was established after 1600 BC. Many tribes to the north of China either did not use Chinese or did not even have language. If the Koreans (who did not even exist 4000 years ago) were using traditional Chinese over 4000 years ago, some 400 years before the Chinese, then how come the language we refer to as "Chinese" is not called "Korean"?--Tbearzhang 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume when you say "tribes to the north" had no language you meant they had no written language. Angry bee (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The written Korean language was invented in 1443A.D.. It usually used by peasants and women. Chinese were still the official written language until the invasion of Japanese in last century. The chinese was totally abandoned as official language in 1949 in North Korea, 1968 in South Korea. Meanwhile Changbai Chaoxianzu autonomous county in China start use Korean as written language in 1953. Mosesconfuser (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mosesconfuser, this is plainly wrong. King Sejong invented the Korean language, and it was the official language of Korea after that. Yes, many scholars at that time objected, yet Korean was the main language. Also, China and Korea both does have history over 4000 years old, almost 5000 years. Do some research, figure out the math, search on some non-Chinese sites (oh, right. Your country's restricted on Internet access. LOL. Must be poor).--The Hegemarch (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kuebie's repeated reverting
A user named Kuebie has been trying to remove this information on the section "Japanese entry".

As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

He doesn't want to admit that Korea was under the strong influence of China. However, this is what the Treaty of Shimonoseki says. "Article 1: China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, that are in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future." China had had a strong influence on Korea and Japan had to cut the link between the two country in order to hold control of Korea. This was the aim of the war.

Maybe Kuebie does not know what the Independence Gate in Seoul was made for. The article says "The gate was built following the first Sino-Japanese war to inspire a spirit of independence away from previous Korean arrangement as a Chinese protectorate. Its construction began on November 21, 1896, and finished November 20, 1897."

There had been a gate named Yeongeunmun before the Independence Gate was built. It says "In 1896, the gate was demolished along with Mohwagwan one year after the First Sino-Japanese War ended, which was a war between China and Japan primarily for the control over Korea. The Korean independence activist Seo Jae-pil (known as Philip Jaisohn) built the Independence Gate on the site with the desire towards inspiring the spirit of independence in Korea."

Korean people may think that Korea had been independent since its birth, but the Chinese don't think so and there is no doubt that China's recognition of the "full and complete independence and autonomy" of Joseon was due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Koreans at that time admitted it as you can see from the fact that they built a gate named "Independence Gate" right after the treaty. No one cannot deny this fact.

Kuebie repeatedly says that Korea was never a part of Qing. He is right. Joseon was never a part of China or a colony of China. But it is true that Joseon was under strong influence of Qing and it became "independent" from China due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki as you can see the fact that there is a gate named the "Independent Gate" in Seoul.

I don't think there is any reasons to remove this sentence. As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea..--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. The clause was just to repudiate China's claim to suzerainty. China never had control of Korea's domestic affairs, which is why it's ludicrous to exert the clause as something more than it really is. Akkies (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your claim does not make any sense. There is no doubt that China definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea due to the result of the Sino-Japanese war.  It is worth mentioning here because it was the first step for Japan to control Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then let me make this simple; what does the treaty have to do with Korea? Whether or not China recognized Korea's independence means nothing. Akkies (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You really make no sense. I've been saying that this treaty was the first step for Japan to hold the control of Korea.  China had had a very strong infuence on Korea.  Korea was not a part of China, indeed.  But Korea was under strong influence of China.  Korea was a part of the tribute system of China.  See List of tributaries of Imperial China.
 * Japan needed to cut The tributary relationship between the two countries before holding control of Korea. and that was the aim of the first Sino-Japanese war. The article Korea says "Japan began to force Korea out of the Manchu Qing Dynasty's traditional sphere of influence into its own. As a result of the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the Qing Dynasty had to give up such a position according to Article 1 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which was concluded between China and Japan in 1895."  It is only you who won't admit this fact.
 * The tributary relationship between China and Korea came to an end due to the Treaty. The Treaty has a lot to do with Korea.  Whether or not China recognized Kore's indepedence means "a lot".  If this treaty has nothing to do with Korea, how would you explain the reason for the existence of the Independence Gate?  But for this Treaty, the tributary relationship would have continued Joseon could not have built the Korean Empire.  Moreover, Japan would never have been able to hold the control of Korea.  This Treaty has a lot to do with the history of Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What 'fact'? You're trying to push this idea that Korea was part of the "" by using the first clause of a treaty of an uninvolved war. Do I have to reiterate that Joseon operated as a fully independent country (no matter what China considered it to be)? Akkies (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Korea is one of the oldest and yet, perhaps, the least known nation—once a nation—in the world. She had preserved her distinct national identity during the four thousand years of her history until Japan established the protectorate over her at the point of the sword in 1905, and subsequently annexed her to the Japanese Empire in 1910.

The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China, China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895. Yet, Korea had made her treaties with the leading Western Powers before this date, as an independent nation. In the Kang-hua treaty of February 26, 1876, between Korea and Japan, the first article reads: "Chosen being an independent state enjoys the same sovereign rights as does Japan." In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." Again, in 1882, the King of Korea wrote to the President of the United States saying: "Now as the Governments of the United States and Korea are about to enter into treaty relations, the intercourse between the two nations shall be carried on in every respect on terms of equality and courtesy, and the King of Korea clearly assents that all of the Articles of the Treaty shall be acknowledged and carried into effect according to the laws of independent states."

The true relation between Korea and China has been that of "big nation" and "small nation," as the Korean used to say. Westerners were told that though Korea was "a tributary state of China, it was entirely independent as far as her government, religion, and intercourse with foreign states were concerned, a condition of things hardly compatible with our ideas of either absolute dependence or complete independence," as has been stated by one Western observer. Indeed, W. W. RockiiiLi,, the great American scholar of Eastern history and politics admirably summarizes the historical relationship between Korea and China as follows :

"Korean traditions point to Ki-tzu, or Viscount of Ki, a noble of China during the reign of Chou-hsin of the Whang Dynasty (B. C. 1154-1122), as the founder of the present civilization of Korea in B. C. 1122, and through him Korea claims relationship to China, to which country Koreans say they stand in the same relation of subjection as a younger brother does to an elder one and head of the family. This peculiar form of subservience, based as it is on Confucian theories, which have shaped all Chinese and Korean society and made the people of those countries what they are, must never be lost sight of in studying Korea's relations with and to China."

The present Japanese régime in Korea is doing everything in its power to suppress Korean nationality. The Government not only forbade the study of Korean language and history in schools, but went so far as to make a systematic collection of all works of Korean history and literature in public archives and private homes and burned them.

Such records as the treaties contained in this volume, are extremely difficult to find in Korea. The present writer's wishes will be highly gratified if this volume serves as a contribution, even in a small way, toward preserving the nationality among the Koreans and aiding students of Oriental history in their search for the past records of the Korean Nation."

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PP15&dq=Korea&ei=jedPSu-vEI2WzgTz_-jyAg&client=firefox-a&id=BwMMAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text
 * Yes, Japanese has a lot to do with the history of Korea. The Goguryeo language and Baekje language are Japanese. After the fall of Goguryeo and Baekje the Koreans became pro-Chinese, see Sadaejuui. Nationalism is from the West. The culture of Korean dynasties is Confucianism. Kings are servants (臣) of the Chinese sovereign emperor and have to be recongized (冊封) by them. Such records as the Korean kings called themselves servants are not difficult to find. The Koreans followed the Chinese emperor regnal year (奉正朔) and state funeral. Some Ming Dynasty emperors even sent edicts ordered Korean kings on chosing women and attacking the Qing.
 * Nah, What is a joke?--Aocduio (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sammyy85's claim is absurd, of course, but so is Kuebie's. He does not even understand what he is saying.  When it comes to history of Korea or relationship between Korea and Japan, he always lose his head, I must say.  Somehow he repeatedly says I'm trying to say that Korea was a part of Chinese Empire, but I never said such a thing.  I've been saying Korea was a tribute of China and this relationship came to and end due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
 * The book he quoted says "The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China." I never said anything about "vassalage", but I have been saying that there was a tributary relationship between the two countries.  Joseon was one of the tributaries of Qing Dynasty and nobody cannot deny this fact.  The book also says "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China".  Korea was "wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered," but she was indeed "a country subordinate to China".  Korea was not a part of China.  She was not a colony of China, either.  But she was "a country subordinate to China" and this is what the book Kuebie quoted says.  It also says "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895."  This is just what I am trying to add to this article.  What Kuebie says does not make any sense at all.
 * You should also read that article of Donghak Peasant Revolution, which was the catalyst for the First Sino-Japanese War. It says "Joseon Korea had been an autonomous tributary state of Qing China since the 1637 Second Manchu invasion of Korea."  The fact that China sent sent troops into Korea when the Donghak Peasant Revolution broke out shows that China had a strong influence on Korea and regarded her as "a country subordinate to China".
 * The article, Second Manchu invasion of Korea, also says "Until 1894, Korea remained a protectorate of Qing China, even though the influence of Manchus decreased from late 18th Century as the Joseon Dynasty began to prosper once again. Japan forced Qing China after the First Sino-Japanese War to acknowledge the end of the tributary relationship with Korea, in an attempt to implement their plan to exploit and eventually invade Korea in the 20th century."
 * Kuebie still hasn't explained the reason for the existence of the "Independence Gate" in Korea. The gate shows that Koreans at that time regarded the end of the tributary relationship, which is a result of the first Sino-Japanese War, as "independence".  If not so, why would there be a gate named the "Independence" Gate in Korea?
 * As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.
 * Nobody cannot deny this fact. China regarded Korea as a country subordinate to China and this relationship came to an end because of the War.  There is no reason for removing this sentence.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Everybody is subordinate to the emperor according to Confucianism. See Princely state of British India and French Indochina also.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, I've already explained to you that your initial edit was 'needless chest thumping' rubbish. The reasoning behind adding such an insignificant tidbit from a treaty that Korea had no part of you've never explained. Other than that a treaty says Korea wasn't independent (in your words "independent from Chinese Empire" - never a part of to begin with) until after the war (a statement I've absolutely obliterated just above my stalker-fan Sammyy85). I've already presented my point supported by a source, while yours in the other hand is a synthesis of various wikipedia articles (which is WP:OR) trying tie it to whatever you're trying to say. Long story short, Joseon was a fully independent country no matter what a Japanese treaty says. By the way, vassal = tributary. If you didn't know that, then we have a problem. Akkies (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note, Qing Dynasty wasn't Chinese Dynasty and Korea declared Empire prior to illegal Japanese treaties. Therefore Japanese version of Sino-Japanese war and other facts are fully fabricated by Japanese imperialists, therefore Sammyy85 edit is not valid.--Korsentry 02:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems waste of time to talk with Kubie because he is absolutely lacking of the ability to judge coolly when it comes to relationships of Japan and Korea. His claim really is nonsense. When you talk about Japanese entry and the first Sino-Japanese war, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the treaty. Everybody easily understand my claim as long as one has an ordinary brain. Just read the sentence that is written in the article for now.

"By 1876, a rapidly modernizing Japan forced Korea to open its ports and successfully challenged the Qing Empire in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)."

This sentence tells us that the first Sino-Japanese war enabled Japan to force Korea to open its ports. However, it does not tell the reason what the war exactly has to do with the relationship between Korea and Japan.

The sentence says "Japan successfully challenged the Qing Empire". It means that Japan had to kick Qing out of Korea in order to force Korea to open its ports. Why? This is because Joseon was a tribute of Qing and Japan had to put an end to this relationship. Without mentioning the Teaty of Shimonoseki, readers would not understand what the sentence above is trying to say.

Kuebie says "I've already presented my point supported by a source." But I already said that his source actually is on my side. It clearly says "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China" and that "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895." Your source says exactly the same thing as I've been saying. Your source does not support your idea. The source clearly shows that the Treaty of Shimonoseki has a lot to do with Korea by stating that "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895". In order to make it easy to understand the article the sentence below has to be put there.

As a result of this war, China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, which was the first step for Japan to control Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Be careful, declaring emperor is a nine exterminations offence. The power of a Korean king is similar to other Chinese kings and Indian princes. States during the Spring and Autumn Period even declared their regnal year. Korean kings declared their regnal year after the war.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me explain what Sammyy85 wants to say. May be he is referring to the fact that only the Chinese sovereign was allowed to be called the "emperor". The rulers of other countries were not allowed to be addressed as an emperor and they were called "kings" instead.  Gojong proclaimed the Korean Empire in 1897 in order to justify its independence from tributary status of China.  This fact clearly shows the close relationship between history of Korea and the Treaty of Shimonoseki.  But for the treaty, Gojong would never have renamed its state Korean "Empire".  Therefore, the Treaty must be mentioned here.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. My source explicitly states that Korea was a fully independent country despite a mis-applied designation of vassal state from "those who has superficial knowledge (you) of the historical relation between Korea and China". Kick Qing out of Korea? Since when has Qing ever occupied Korea? If you're talking about the 3000 Chinese soldiers in Asan bay, they were requested by Korea to assist them with suppressing the Tonghak rebellion. Interesting fact, the after Japanese sent 7000 and 7 warships of their own to "protect their citizens", China proposed a joint withdrawal as the Tonghak rebellion was no longer in Chonju. The Japanese of course rejected this, instead counter-proposed to jointly reform the Korean administration. China rejected on grounds that such a move would be interfering in the internal affairs of another nation. And there you have the events leading up to the Sino-Japanese war. Akkies (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is you who have superficial knowledge of your own country. You really don't understand your own source and my claim.  I never said Qing occupied Korea.  What are you talking about?  Don't make up your own story.
 * I've been saying Korea was an independent country. I don't say Korea was a vassal state of China.  However, although it was an independent country, Korea was a tributary of China.  You have to make clear the difference between "vassel state" and "tributary".  Read this source.  It says "Korea was an independent tributary of Qing China".  An independent country can be a tributary.  For example, Japan was never occupied by China.  However, it was once a tributary of China during Muromachi Period.
 * You've been just misunderstanding. You think I am saying Korea was a part of China or that Korea was a vassel state of China.  But I never said so.  You are just making up a story.  I've been saying Korea was a tributary of China.
 * You also misunderstand your own source. You own source say
 * In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered."
 * This clearly shows that China regarded Korea as an independent tributary of China. Yes.  Korea was an independent country.  But it was a tributary of China.  You cannot deny this fact because your own source says so.
 * Since China regarded Korea as its sobordinate country, Japan had to cut the relationship between Korea and China. This aim wa complished by the Treaty of Shimonoseki.  China finally recognized "definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea".  Therefore people in Korea built the Independence Gate in Seoul.
 * JoongAng Daily, which is one of Korea's most influential newspapers, clearly states
 * "During the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910), Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese."
 * The site had been the location of Yeongeunmun, a gate where Korean royals once greeted Chinese envoys. But after the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), fought between China and Japan for control over Korea, and Japan’s resulting victory, Yeongeunmun nearly lost its function, as did Mohwagwan, a nearby royal pavilion.  Koreans demolished Yeongeunmun, leaving just its foundation stones, and erected Dongnimmun to the north. Mohwagwan was renamed Independence Hall and became the Independence Club’s headquarters."Joong-Ang Ilbo
 * China finally recognized "definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea" due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki. This fact made it possible for the King of Korea to call his own country "Empire" rather than "Kingdom" because the title "Emperor" was allowed to be used only by the emperor of China and "the status of empire meant independence from China".
 * Although Korea was an independent country, it is completely impossible to deny the fact that "Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese(Joong-Ang Ilbo) during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910)" and that the Sino-Japanese war put an end to this relationship. In this sense, the Sino-Japanese war has a lot to do with history of Korea.  Without this war, Japan would never have been able to annex Korea because China would never have allowed Japan to do so because it regarded Korea as one of the countries "subordinate to China".
 * I have enough sources including Joong-Ang Ilbo and your own source supports my claim, too. There is no denying the fact that "as a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea" and that this Treaty has a lot to do with history of Korea and worth mentioning here.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going summarize that wall of text. You're arguing that Korea was a part of the Chinese Empire by using an uninvolved war treaty that says China must recognize Korea's independence (which implies Korea wasn't independent before the war). I've sufficiently provided an explanation that on the contrary, Joseon was every bit a sovereign nation as its neighbors. And "kick Qing out of Korea" implies China held military hegemony over the country. Akkies (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that economicexpert.com is a mirror site of wikipedia. I suspect Seven-Year Child must have just googled various keywords. Akkies (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very surprised that you still do not understand. Did you really read what I said?  How many times do I have to explain it?  I NEVER SAID THAT KOREA WAS A PART OF THE CHINESE EMPIRE!  It's your imagination.  I said Korea was an independent country but it was a tributary of China.  The "full and complete independence" meant that Korea was no longer a tributary.  What you say really makes no sense because you don't even read what I've been saying.
 * I don't know if you have ever heard of the Second Manchu invasion of Korea, but Korea surrendered to the Manchus and agreed to submit to Qing and pay tribute to the Qing dynasty emperors . Joong-Ang Ilbo states that "Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese".
 * What do you need more? You've been misunderstanding what I say.  I cannot believe you still think I'm arguing that Korea was a part of the Chinese Empire although I've said several times that I never said so.  I said "kick Qing out of Korea" but it means Japan tried to stop the tributary relationship.  "China held military hegemony over Korea"?  I never said so.  Don't make up a story.  It's your imagination.  You've been making up my claims.  Read them once more.  You will find out that you've been altering my claims.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "-independent from Chinese Empire" literally means Korea was a part of China, hence not independent. As I've stated again and again, Korea was an independent nation despite a mis-applied designation of vassal state from "those who has superficial knowledge (you) of the historical relation between Korea and China". Akkies (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot read your source?! Your source says that "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered."  This means a country can be subordinate to China while it is an independent country.  Therefore, the Treaty of Shimonoseki established "FULL and COMPLETE" independence of Korea from China.
 * My idea:
 * Althought Korea was an independent country, she had been largely under the influence of the Chinese and a tributary of China for centuries(Joong-Ang Ilbo). However, as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war, China, which regarded Korea independent, but as one of its subordinate country, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.
 * --Seven-Year Child (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Refer to my initial post of the explanation of Korea's mis-applied designation of a vassal state. Korea was a wholly independent country before the Sino-Japanese war, despite what a treaty says. Akkies (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And me just add that claims of suzerainty while the "vassal state" fully operates and even considers itself to be independent, is down right ludicrous and unfit for an encyclopedia. Akkies (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You really don't read your own source... The term "vassal state" may be misapplied. However, your source does not deny the fact that Korea was a country subordinate to China.  If not, why was there a gate named Yeongeunmun which was built only for the guests from China?  Why is there a gate named the Independence Gate in Seoul?
 * You cannot deny at all the sentence I wrote above. Althought Korea was an independent country, she had been largely under the influence of the Chinese and a tributary of China for centuries(Joong-Ang Ilbo).  However, as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war, China, which regarded Korea independent, but as one of its subordinate country, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.
 * Whatever you say, what is written in the Treaty is worth mentioning because it has a lot to do with history of Korea in the sence that it put an end to the tributary relationship between China and Korea which had lasted for centuries.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It actually goes into detail as to why Korea is considered an independent country despite China's claim of suzerainty. Akkies (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Joseon kings and their officials were very loyal to the emperors even before Japanese and Manchu invasion. They chose women for the emperors and planned to restore fallen dynasties, see 李朝實録. Koreans were granted similar rights as other Japanese during Japan rule. Many Koreans migrated to Japan and the Manchuria.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL inhabitated for 700,000 years … Humans only started to leave the African continent about 40-50 thousand years ago. Humans have only beena round for 200,000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.44.185 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A portion of the above comment was removed to excise the more grossly uncivil content while preserving the discussion point raised. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverting was justified considering edit was done by Chinese/Japanese trolls.--Korsentry 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Says the troll who resembles the pot calling the kettle black. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the bogus "history" of Korea by Korean nationalists
It is just truly sad to see modern Korean revisionist, nationalistically filtered "history" to be taken as actual history by so many millions of Koreans. It is the joke of history academia that Korea (and China and Japan included) simply do not care about verification of their erroneous claims of "origins" with any evidence that can be unequivocally proven with evidence. Korean history can IN NO WAY be shown with evidence to extend to the time of Tangun, a mere mythology of origins. No modern people in the world look to their mythical legends as history except for Koreans. Very sad. Why? Because the world needs Korea, and yet it cannot trust Korea to be objective and fair because of its twisted nationalism to Again: very sad. But I will be back here soon to insert some highly credible academic sources that dispute the claims of this article. It's just really bad that this exists in Wikipedia. We would expect that from highly emotional, nationalist Korean sites that proclaim Korean history that way, but it is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you feel the same way, please do the same, and I will join you in what will surely be contested fiercely by the Korean nationalist, revisionist authors of this article. Again: Wikipedia is NOT a korean product, and it should therefore represent a broad non-nationalistic-Korean view of the history of Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.35.14 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have another Chinese nationalist expressing his frustration at here. Both Chinese and Japanese are allowed to keep their founding legends as "proper" history while Koreans can't? What a pathetic logic is that?--KSentry(talk) 05:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a non-biased edit?
Hello all.

There seems to be a lot of tensions in this article and a lot of nationalist in-fighting. I'm not a Korea specialist - I'm a professional academic working on Thailand (and so know very little about Northeast Asia), but I can tell with a quick read-through that the entry as exists right now is written with a Korean nationalist point of view. There are a number of loaded terms - "involved in the murder of princess..." etc., lurking around that makes this read like a patriotic history where the Koreans beat back all the various foreign invaders only to fall at the hands of the despotic Japanese. I wouldn't allow my students to write like this and Wikipedia deserves better.

Can we get someone who knows something about Korean history to rewrite this in a non-biased form? I don't even want to get into all of the Korean-Chinese bickering on this site, just someone to write a decent Korean history? It's such an important entry for Wikipedia to have and such a shoddy site in proportion to its importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huanohk (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gold Buckle is not Korean
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3249422

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OC0OzE0PSPMJ:www.dongacc.com/life/travel/051026.htm+%EA%B5%AD%EB%B3%B4+%EC%A0%9C89%ED%98%B8+%ED%95%9C%EB%82%98%EB%9D%BC&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Please refer to both sources above.

to quote from the first source, written by a Korean: "(out of the whole exibition) Only one item is not Korean. This is the Gold Buckle from the Lolang Tomb (no. 9) of Sukkamni near Pyongyang. This famous Han piece discovered in Korea was included to reveal the standard of Chinese culture during a time that provided a cultural stimulus of the highest order to Koreans"

The 2nd Korean source states the same: 한나라가 고조선을 멸망시키고 설치한 낙랑의 유물이 전시된 ‘낙랑유적출토품실’과 전남 신안군 앞바다에 가라앉은 중국 무역선에서 건져 올린 ‘신안해저문화재실’도 있다. 외국 유물로는 드물게 국보로 지정된 ‘허리띠 고리’(국보 89호·사진)는 평양 석암리 9호분에서 출토된 낙랑시대 유물이다. the highlighted part translates to "the belt buckle (national treasure #89), a rare instance of a foreign artifact being assigned national treasure status." The rest of the quote talks about it belonging to the Lelang commandery of China's Han dynasty and the history associated with it. Feel free to browse through both sources and research.

Conclusion: The buckle is a Chinese artifact from Han Dynasty's Lelang commandery, situated in modern day North Korea.

Suggested removal from History of Korea page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidness69 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dating of Korean Bronze Age from 2500BC
The traditional view to my knowledge is around 700 BC. To push it towards the range of 900BC would require citing clay molds as evidence rather than actual bronze artifacts (The Archeology of Korea, Cambridge). The sole reference the article cites for this claim is from an online art exhibit, not an academic paper. Yet still, the figure of 2500BC is nowhere to be found in said reference.

A casual search in the literature would reveal 900BC to be a rather generous estimate.

Take the following 2007 paper with an obvious nationalistic bent: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-167307157.html

In seeking to claim Korean contributions to Japanese civilization in areas rather bluntly categorized as agriculture, technology and state formation, the paper nevertheless states that "Bronze artifacts first appeared in Korea between 800 and 700 B.C., during the Early Mumun period (National Museum of Korea and Gwangju National Museum 1992:126-132)."

Unless groundbreaking new evidence has surfaced since 2007, the figure of 2500BC should be reverted back to "between 800 and 700 B.C". Wikidness69 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrible article
I don't want to know fictions. Can anyone fix this article?--Lightdrive (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My deceased history professor for Asian studies would be brought to tears by this almost total-nonsense article. It's stuff like this that keeps the use of Wikipedia on grade-school papers an automatic failure (aka "F"). I hope some objective editors can come in and rewrite this mess, and a lock put on it to prevent vandalism or fantasy-nationalists from destroying it again. My ... God! At the very least, can an Admin put a 'The text of this article is disputed' header on it, so that the innocent who blunder onto it can be protected? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan


 * SO TRUE, Hammer fan. Listen, this is the reason Korean nationalist historians are the JOKES of all credible Asian Studies departments in the world!! Let them keep going. They just make Korea look silly and ignorant. Too bad it has to be on Wikipedia, and though I appreciate the Wiki open information vision, this just makes very clear the weakness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.80.168 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese rule should be change to Colonial Korea
Annexation of Korea by imperial Japanese court doesn't mean it's direct Japanese rule, Korea still have King and their ruling government separated from Japan, annexation dissolved ruling power of Joseon king.--KSentry(talk) 11:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? "Annexed" means to "incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state" and Korean king was mediatized (incorporated to Japanese imperial family) without dethroned. The common English describing the period is "Japanese rule" instead of "Colonial Korea". Are you related to a blocked sockpuppet User:Winchester91?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Either term should be fine although Ksentry makes a convincing argument. This is also the reason why Japan tried to legitimize their invasion by forcing Korean royalty to intermarry with Japanese royalty.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Colonial rule"? That's a pretty very vague heading. Colony of what, may I ask? the Empire of Papua New Guinea? And doesn't colonial status imply rule by another country in the first place? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Melonbarmonster2, I am impressed your edit summary "Gain consensus before these edits please." The title "Japanese rule" has been there for almost three years and the main article is Korea under Japanese rule. You have the burden of proof that "Colonial Korea" is superior to "Japanese rule" and to gain consensus. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Historiographer repeatedly changed the name without participating in this ongoing discussion. If the user continues such an action, the user will be blocked for editing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Japanese rule is just a translation word toward Japanese position, not both sides. I think thet the Korean position as "Japanese forced occupation" or "Japanese Imperial Period" is also unsuitable expression. However, "Japanese colonial rule" is more proper name for both sides relatively. Phoenix7777, if you want to criticize on the other user, you must like this, not your ways such as a block threaten, okay?--Historiographer (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of nomencluature ("rule", "occupation", "colonization", "imperial", etc), either way the section should clearly describe that the occupants were Japanese, and no one else. Otherwise there is an obvious ambiguity; I'm sure that there has been more than just one occupant of Korea throughout time (e.g. Lelang Commandery, Mongol invasions depending on interpretations, etc), and naming the period of Japanese rule something really vague doesn't really work out. I'm fine with anything as long as it clearly describes who the occupants where. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you know Korea actually had head of their state as "King" even when Japan annexed Korea? Lelang commandery is also very vague history because there's aren't any proof that lelang was existed in Korean peninsula. Original Pyongyang city was actually located in Liaodong, Japanese archeologist fabricated lelang existence by hiding fake Chinese artifacts.--KSentry(talk) 01:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dearest sir, it appears to me that you are moving the goal posts. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I reported User:Melonbarmonster2, User:KaraKamilia and User:Historiographer at WP:ANI. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that "Japanese rule" is a common description in reliable sources, as demonstrated in the past pagemove discussion for Korea under Japanese rule, I think the current title is approrpriate. --Kusunose 09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 14 May 2011
After the following three sentences: In 698, Dae Jo-yeong established Kingdom of Balhae, which led to the North South States Period (698-926). and Joseon experienced a nearly 200-year period of peace. there are trailing whitespaces that need to be removed. Also in the lead section,. However, should be converted to ; however,

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 21:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Distance from Yalu River to Beijing is less than distance from Han River to Mexico
Can we take for certain the fact that 'distance from Yalu River to Beijing is less than distance from Han River to Mexico' ? One can argue that this exact sentence cannot be found in a referred research paper, and therefore is nothing but 'original research'. Moreover this sentence can be tagged as 'rather vague' since distance from a town to a river whose main direction is towards the town is not a clear concept. Are we speaking about the distance of the town to the source or the distance of the town to the mouth ?

Nevertheless, this sentence should obtain consensus, since whatever meaning you give to X=d(Yalu, Beijing) and Y=d(Han, Mexico), you surely have X<<Y.

Now, using the former sentence as a model, we can examine why sentence The history of Pre-Modern Korea was largely developed within the Chinese sphere of influence is the object of yet another edit-warring. It seems that our warriors aren't focused about explaining why Koreans have never used Maya calendar. It seems they are not discussing about the mutual influences exerted by neighbor countries. It even seems that they are not discussing at all: nothing in the talk page since May, with nevertheless something like 60 reversions. More than having ulterior motives, these warriors appear as having fever buttons. Better have fewer buttons.

In the same vein, the sentence The first kingdom of Gojoseon recorded by the historians is Gija Joseon, which was founded in 12th century BCE by Chinese Shang dynasty descendants named Gija and ended in 195 BC. Although this has been recorded in Records of the Grand Historian in 91 BC, Book of Han in AD 111, Book of the Later Han in 5th century and Records of Three Kingdoms in 3rd century, Gija Joseon is denied by current Korean scholars since early 20th century and its subsequent warring-reversions are a model of what should not happen.

On the one hand,
 * 'Records of the Grand Historian' are 130 volumes written from 109 BC to 91 BC by Sima Qian. Which page of which translation ?
 * 'Book of Han' are 100 volumes written from circa 30 to 111 by Ban Biao, Ban Gu, and Ban Zhao. Which page of which translation ?
 * 'Records of Three Kingdoms' are 65 volumes written circa 265-297 by Chen Shou, thereafter expanded (factor 3) by Pei Songzhi circa 410-430. Which page of which translation of which version ?
 * 'is denied by current Korean scholars since early 20th century' implies someone circa 1920, someone today and someone to attest continuity.
 * In other words: please work harder, leading to a better world.

On the other hand,
 * emitting a polite request for better foundations would have been useful
 * starting a neutral and factual section presenting how "early Korea" is dealt within the Early Four Historiographies 前四史 would be great. One can guess that romance (random variations) and bias (oriented variations) can be found, the point being to what extent.
 * In other words: please work harder, leading to a better world.

Pldx1 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agreed to be specific on evidence. I did not list the records from Four Historiographies only because that will be too much considering this article is already too long. But I would like to list some records (not all) from them below in Chinese (I prefer showing records originally) and hope you and other editors could help integrating them into the article concisely.

I deleted the last part about the denial of current Korean scholars for now. But everyone must be aware of the following facts: As the earliest survived Korean historical record, "History of the Three Kingdoms" admits the existence of Gija Joseon. Starting from then, Gija Joseon can be found in vast number of historical records written by Korean. As latest as I know, in the first volume of the Korean historical record "Tongsa Kangmok" (東史綱目) in 1778 AD it not only admits Gija Joseon's existence also describes Gija's activities and contributions in Gojoseon in details. On the other hand, I believe I don't need to introduce what is the attitude of current Korean scholars on Gija Joseon. After admitting Gija Joseon for hundreds of years, it becomes a theory instead of history and is replaced by the Danjun legend. One may notice that all the refs which reject the Gija Joseon are written within 100 years. Actually I am very eager to see anyone can show me a historical record which is written by Korean before 1850 and denies Gija's existence. Wlkr999 (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In "Records of the Grand Historian", vol. of "House of Song Weizi": 于是武王乃封箕子于朝鲜而不臣也
 * In "Book of Han", vol. of "Treatise on Geography": 殷道衰，箕子去之朝鲜，教其民以礼义，田蚕织作
 * In "Book of Later Han", vol. of "Biographies of the Dongyi": 昔箕子违衰殷之运，避地朝鲜. 始其国俗未有闻也，及施八条之约，使人知禁，遂乃邑无淫盗，门不夜扃，回顽薄之俗，就宽略之法，行数百千年，故东夷通以柔谨为风，异乎三方者也
 * In "Records of Three Kingdoms", vol. of "Biographies of the Wuhuan, Xianbei, and Dongyi" by Chen Shou himself: 昔箕子既适朝鲜，作八条之教以教之，无门户之闭而民不为盗

Resolve the revision issues one by one, especially for Historiographer
I am following the admin's suggestion to open a new section and discuss every single revision I made. Historiographer, you are the one who undid all my revisions without any supporting facts and evidence and therefore you should involve in this discussion. Below are the major revisions I made. I may not be able to list all by one edit and I will leave "to be continued..." in the end if more to come.

0. Before the list, I need to say something about the refs I am using: "Korea, Old and New" and "The Korea, A global studies handbook" are western academic publications (third party press, with Korean authors) and are the standard text-books in US universities on Korea study. The outer links I included are all from .edu sites and with specific authors who are responsible to. "Korea, Old and New", is considered to be "most reliable and useful" by journal of Korean Study (vol.16,pp 118). Anyone can use google scholar to search this book and can find out it has the most citations among the pubs on Korea history. Anyone who wants to question my refs, please provide the proof of your credentials. Also please do not only use Korean refs as evidence. If an opinion is widely accepted, there must be some English refs to show it.

1. Archeological evidence indicates that the presence of modern humans in northeast Asia dates to 39,000 years ago. Before my revision, it said 700,000 history of inhabitation, which is totally wrong. The sentence I added is quoted from the website of ohio state university by Pro. Mark Bender.

2. The starting year of Bronze Age is 900 BC-800 BC. This is confirmed by both of my ref books. Anyone can read this statement at page 9 on both books. 1500 BC starting year may be written in some Korean books but never accepted outside Korean.

3. Danjun is nothing but a myth. "no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth". This is the exact sentence from the US standard text book "The Korea, A global studies handbook". Historiographer deleted this sentence without any reason. The first historical record which mentioned Danjun story also admits that it is a legend. The statement "its existence is unclear" is wrong, since it is clear that it does not exist at all.

4. Han's invasion. Han invaded Gojoseon at 108 BC which was in 2nd century BC, not 1st one. 1st century BC starts from 100BC to 1BC. Historiographer, I hope you know this very basic concept.

5. Gija Joseon. Gija is the first kingdom of Gojoseon in the historical records. If some one wants to deny this, find another earlier kingdom from the historical records (not from myth,plz). As what has been discussed above in this talk page, the historical records on Gija can be found in Four Historiographies, History of the Three Kingdoms and Tongsa Kangmok. This proves what Wlkr999 revised is correct and accurate. One may argue Gija is in controversy now. Then adding a relative statement is enough. Deleting them without any reason is illogical.

to be continued... Quendearn (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, all of your claims aren't entirely wrong, and even some contents such as founding Homo erectus in Korean peninsula are vaild I agree too. However, many kind of your historical sentences are troubled.


 * First. Although the presence of modern humans in northeast Asia dates to 39,000 years ago you said, your attitude seems to wish to diminish the importance of Paleolithic of Korea. Can you explain why did you removed the Paleolithic in introduction?


 * Second, many newly archeological evidence expressed stating date was 1500-1000 BC. Though original sources were written by Koreans, informations are more accurate due to that is an encyclopedia, which many people reads, than books written in long time ago. Isn't it? You must not say that in English Wikipedia is only valid the English language sources.


 * Third, Dangun (Do not say Danjun anymore, please?) is controversy person I know. But, it emphasizes for view of Dangun on Koreans in their history, not Dangun's existence. Contrary to this, Gija is more controversy person, and that reasons were described in original version. In addition, there are many discrepancies in detail on your insistences that some meterial are bring from archaeology evidence, while other meterial are bring from old books. How do you explain about this discordance? --Historiographer (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. First, do you confirm the correctness of my statement? Secondly, Paleolithic period is important, which approximately starts from 400,000 BC - 500,000 BC. You should not use the maximum number to present longer time period. Also it is better not use the word of "inhabit" for Paleolithic period since that commonly implies the activities of modern human.


 * 2. Please be logical. The accuracy of the refs can not be proved by either its name of encyclopedia or the number of people reading it. Only the facts and evidence can prove it. The book "The Korea, A global studies handbook" is published in 2002, which is not old at all. You must know that any single archaeological discovery is important. Even if it is new, it can be found in the global pubs within one year after it is first reported in Korean academic publications. Therefore here, you need to answer the following: your saying, "many newly archaeological evidence", then how new? When and where it is discovered? What page of which pubs reports this discovery? Please work harder and provide proofs in the discussion. If you are curious, after you have answered above questions, I can show you some other refs which are published in 2009 and 2010 and state 800-900 BC Bronze age starting date.


 * 3. In western academia, the standard word for Dangun is Tan'jun. Again, Dangun is NOT in controversy because it has been concluded that Dangun does not exist. If you are really going to say that it exists, then show me proofs since till now you have not show any evidence on Dangun at all. Because Dangun is not part of the history, on this "History of Korea" page, any information (such as the year 2333 BC) from the Dangun myth either can not be used or has to be clearly stated that it is only a legend.


 * 4. I see, on the forth issue you were not able to say I was wrong and then you just ignored it without any confirmation. I hope this was not done intentionally.


 * 5. I never said that there was no controversy on Gija. That is why I said above we can add the description of "in controversy". But you should not delete the info of Gija. As long as the statement "Gija is the first kingdom of Gojoseon in the historical records" is true, no matter it is in arguments or not, this is a very important information and must be presented here. Historiographer, if you want to discuss or even persuade someone, you need to show the proofs. What is the archaeology evidence you mentioned which is discrepant with other historical records? What is the acceptance of this evidence?


 * Since Historiographer thinks it is incorrect and inaccurate to say 1600 BCE as the starting time of Shang dynasty, I did a little bit search online and hope the following could enlighten Historiographer on how to find English refs and what those refs would say:
 * I got three websites: Shang dynasty from Cambridge University (http://histories.cambridge.org/uid=1609/extract?id=chol9780521470308_CHOL9780521470308A006), the description of Shang/Zhou dynasty from Princeton University (http://etcweb.princeton.edu/asianart/timeperiod_china.jsp?ctry=China&pd=Shang|Zhou) and the timeline of Chinese history from Columbia University (http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/timelines/china_timeline.htm). The one of Cambridge University states 1570 BCE starting year and the later two both confirm 1600 BCE date, which are exactly what is written in the Wiki page of Shang. Since all three famous university have such an agreement, I am convinced that now the western academia has no problem to conclude the accurate starting year of Shang Dynasty to be around 1600 BCE. Moreover, there is another very interesting website I would like Historiographer to take a look: the timeline of Korean history from Columbia University (http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/timelines/korea_timeline.htm). On this web page, the scholars from Columbia University point out that the Gojoseon ("Old Choson" on the page) starts from ca. 300 BCE and the first kingdom of Korea appears after the conquest by Han Dynasty. Remember, this website is designed to educate the students at all level and reflects the current view of western academia on Korea history. After reading through all above, I hope Historiographer can not only rationalize his opinion but also start discussing all the revisions in the discussion way: full of solid evidence and logical proofs.


 * In summary, Historiographer, your problem is always saying things without evidence. I would like to believe you have, but you need to present it here to support yourself. Moreover, I suggest you to check webs from some leading universities and read some English books from your local school's libraries. It could be very weird for me to see someone who can speak English seldom uses English refs on the English Wiki. Quendearn (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Historiographer, what is your response for above issues? EJcarter (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits during early January 2012
I've made a series of edits during last few days that ended up being quite substantial. Firstly I corrected some of many grammatical errors that riddle the introduction and "ancient history" sections of the article. Many of the statements and assertions are poorly worded in terms of grammar as well as in terms of content that this particular aspect of edit has been necessary. I moved one or two paragraphs around (e.g. Jin state discussed with Gojoseon in the default of its own section rather than metallurgy). Given how there's hardly any information about "Han Commanderies", it would be a better structure-wise to incorporate it into an appropriate section and add relevant details.

I also tried to reconcile several inconsistencies between the body and introduction of the article (e.g. before my edits the introduction of the article gave the earliest inhabitation as 400000-500000 years ago without a citation while the relevant section of the body give it as 500000 years with a citation, so with lack of argument for 400000 figure, I synchronised the two section to both show 500000 years). Similar example can be found for dating the Bronze Age as well (900-800 BCE should render as "by 800 BCE rather than as "around 800 BCE", especially with alternative viewpoints that date it before 900 BCE).

Given several aspects of the ancient history are debatable (e.g. beginning of stone, bronze and iron ages, existence and nature of Gija, period around the fall of Gojoseon), I tried to streamline and/or add information about differing viewpoints where I could find. For example, given the existence of Gija itself is questioned, it would be unwise to STATE that "Gija Joseon was founded..." and I adjusted it to reflect that it has been said that Gija Joseon was founded, etc. In the relevant section of the body of the article, the article originally stated that Gija Joseon was the first kingdom (I guess better term is dynasty, or lineage) of Gojoseon was Gija Joseon, without discussion about Gija's existence and the nature of any kingdom he may have founded. Given the mention of this in the introductory section, I believe certain amount of discussion on the matter is merited. Also, to portray Gija Joseon as being the first kingdom in historical existence is misleading; while Samguk Yusa may have been written AFTER the Chinese records pertaining to Gija Joseon, that does not mean there's no historical record of Dangun Joseon from 2333 BCE. While Samguk Yusa is not a contemporary record, same goes for Chinese records mentioned in the article pertaining to Gija Joseon. There are certainly mythological aspects in Samguk Yusa, but that in itself does not invalidate the core substance of the any historical information in the records.

As for the wording about the foundation of Gojoseon according to Samguk Yusa, I referred to the wording in the latest Korean history textbook for high school students that I could find, which writes to the effect of: "According to Samguk Yusa, Gojoseon was founded in 2333". We should give some credit to the history textbooks published for school students in Korea. The reference supposedly supporting the argument that the historical existence of Gojoseon PROBABLY rose around the 8th century BCE says no such thing, but simply that the kingdom simply was first recorded in a historical record in early 7th century BCE. Thus the statement regarding the veracity of claims about the 8th century BCE should be made with care.

Given the continuing debate about the location of Gojoseon and especially its capital, I am not sure about the wisdom of definitively writing the present day Pyongyang as the capital of Gojoseon, though the discussion about the possible link between the Pyongyang of Gojoseon and today seem to be viable.

The metallurgy section of the article before my edit read "The Bronze Age is often held to have begun around 900-800 BC in Korea" indicating there are alternative viewpoints, which the article failed to provide. I was able to find the English abstract of an article that argues for different date on the subject of Korean Bronze Age. Given the pre-existing wording indicating the existence of other viewpoints, I believe this addition to the metallurgy section, especially with the supporting documentation is justifiable.

I think I discussed majority of edits I made in past few days. I certainly do not expect everyone to agree with me and welcome any constructive criticism on any substantive changes I made. But the wholesale reverts because there are parts you don't like is hardly sporting, especially given there are several grammatical and structural changes I've made that this article simply need. Bear in mind that I did not delete the assertions with relevant references simply because I disagreed with them, but provided alternative views alongside the views already introduced in the article or reworded it so it will make more sense when you take the article as a whole. Therefore I suggest that you make whatever changes you produce on a case-by-case without reverting the whole edits, especially given there are non-controversial, wholly beneficial edits in terms of structuring and grammar. I look forward to comments from any editors and their continuous work on this article. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would like to thank you for your work and effort to improve this article, and also appreciate that you came to this page unlike other editors who refused to discuss. Before discussing your revision, we all need to understand that all info on Wiki should not be original and must be from verifiable and reliable resources. This means that even if there are some alternative viewpoints, they can only be added when they are from verifiable and reliable references. Then here is my comments:


 * 1. "400000-500000 years" is the direct quotation of "Korea, Old and New: History". You need to know that when back-dating the archaeological evidence it always comes with uncertainties. Therefore only using the either max or min is not accurate at all. The later statement "half million years" is no more than a rough saying and in the reference book it only intends to give reader some sense instead of some accurate date.


 * 2. About Danjun. IT IS A MYTH. Samguk Yusa is not a historical record, but instead it is a collection of folk stories and fairy-tales. Secondly please be logical: even all the text-books in Korea says Danjun is true, this can not prove its existence. Its existence can only be approved by both archaeological discoveries and historical written records. However, in fact outside Korea, the academia has already made a global agreement that Danjun is nothing but a myth. There are many discussion made on Danjun even on this single talk page, you'd better read it. If you still want to argue on this, please provide references: any references which are recognized academic pubs and can be verified by the editors on English Wiki.


 * 3. About Gija. It is on controversy. But you should not deny it is the first kingdom (not dynasty, since this word has its own definition and can not be used in this case) in historical records, unless you can find any historical record stating any early kingdom. The saying of Gija "became a controversy today" is also a direct quotation of the ref. In the book "A History of Korea, An Episodic Narrative" it clearly states that before 19th century Gija is well accepted by Korean and "Nationalist sentiment in the modern era has diminished Gija's place today to the point of near extinction". As a proof, Gija is not only recorded by Chinese records, also by huge amount of Korean records, the most famous of which is ""History of the Three Kingdoms". Considering whether saying its capital is the capital of modern North Korea, your argument is valid in certain view and since it would not make much difference for the general readers, I would wait other editors' comments.


 * 4. Bronze Age date. "800-900 BC" starting date of Bronze age already includes all the alternative opinions in the global academia. Remember, the date of Bronze age is mainly based on the carbon dates of the relevant archaeological evidence unearthed. The book "Art and archaeology of ancient Korea" happens to list all the bronze sites of Korea and none of them is before 800 BC. Your ref which saying 2400 BC is for the bronze date of southern Manchuria, not for Korea peninsula. Again, you may check the previous discussion on Bronze age in this page before you made your revision.


 * 5. Others: "one of the oldest countries in the world" is the direct quotation, and "nation" is very different from "country". "However, no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth" is the direct quotation, do not twist it in your preferred way. EJcarter (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your considerate and informed response. I appreciate that you took care to preserve the structural changes I've made and limited yourself to making changes where you had the doubt in the matter of substance. While it may be there are matters we currently disagree on, I hope to improve the Wikipedia article with considered discussions.


 * Regarding the matter of 400000-500000 years for the beginning of Palaeolithic era in Korea, I was not as interested in whether the inclusion of the information on 400000 years is appropriate as in synchronising the information on the introductory and body paragraphs. If anything, given the introductory paragraphs is meant to be an overview of the rest of the article, one may argue that the more general date should be given in the introduction with the discussions on the different dates on the body, but that's rather a point of structure. In any case, I found a reference regarding the dates on the Palaeolithic era, hope you enjoy it. Don't just disregard it because it's not published in an English-language international peer-reviewed journal; this is an English language Wikipedia page, not an English Wikipedia, a distinction too many people forget. Thus while the records in English languages should be boldly added when appropriate, they should not have primacy over the sources in Korean or Chinese simply because it's written in English. Bear in mind that all historical sources and archaeological evidences on the matter come from Korea and China, and they have more active researches going on in the matter.


 * Regarding Samguk Yusa, I already said that there are certain mythological aspects in the records in the book. However, if you read the section of the book on Dangun, there are obvious historical information. Specifically, while the early portion detailing the stories about the son of the Heaven descending from the heaven or about a bear turning into a women that are difficult to comprehend in terms of science, the latter portion about Dangun founding Gojoseon during the time of Emperor Yao, moving the capital several times, that Gija moved in about 1500 years later and that the nation lasted 1908 years is a historical record of Gojoseon with no superstitious assertion (if one can accept the turning of Dangun into a mountain god at the age of 1908 as that of the closure of the kingdom). Whether the historical record is consistent with the truth is a matter for study by the archaeologists and historians. What I am saying in a nutshell is that just because there are certain mythological and superstitious aspect about a historical book, does not mean that plausible historical record within the book should be discarded. Given this, I (and I presume vast majority of historians in Korea and China) maintain that it's a historical record about a kingdom before Gija's time. As to the assertion about no archaeological evidence about Dangun Joseon whatsoever, I will just say for now that the bronze artefacts found in Northern Korea and Manchuria are quite distinctly different from those of China. While it may be that those belong to Gija Joseon that I will discuss later, it may be argued that Dangun Joseon that had moved after the time of Gija may be responsible for some of them. I hope to be able to discuss this matter about archaeological evidence on Gojoseon in more detail later.


 * Regarding this matter, you say that the global academia outside Korea has already agreed that Dangun is a myth. Please care to tell me who exactly, to explain whether you are suggesting that international scholars have more access to the up-to-date written and archaeological evidences on ancient Korean history including the matter of Gojoseon than the Korean and Chinese scholars, many of whom have access to the original copies of the records and the archaeological sites at the tip of their fingers. And I would say it's not a role of the international scholars to dictate what sources are admissible and credible while what are not. The study of Gojoseon is primarily a matter for Korean scholars as well as their Chinese counterparts and while the contributions from the scholars from other countries are always welcome, the latter shouldn't unilaterally dictate the terms of reference. Since when did (for example) the scholars of French history in India dictate the terms of reference for French history or scholars of South African history in Italy dictate the terms for South African history?


 * About Gija, I wonder what your definitions of kingdom and dynasty is; my understanding is that Kingdom is a country ruled by a monarch bearing the title of a King while dynasty is a family who for generation has ruled a country as a monarch bearing titles such as kings. Unless you are insinuating that Gija Joseon was ruled by Gija himself for a thousand years before the time of Wiman or that Gija was succeeded by someone other than his family (while certainly possible, there's no evidence on the matter one way or other as far as I know), Gija Joseon would certainly qualify as a dynasty. Personally I myself accept the existence of Gija and that he played certain role in ancient Korean history, though unsure about the exact role he played; there are still debates on this, which I tried to detail in the article. However those who deny the existence of Gija or at least that he played any significant role in Korean history argue that there are no archaeological evidence definitively pointing to Gija's presence in Korea or Manchuria. While there are several roof tiles bearing the inscription Gi/Ji (箕) found in Western Manchuria, they may not be relevant evidence given that present Chinese characters were codified in the time of Qin Shi Huang. They also argue that the archaeological evidence show Gojoseon (whoever may have been in charge) and Shang/Zhou Chinese cultures were distinctly different. Given this, one may argue (not my view here) that the archaeological evidence about Gija Joseon is quite scanty, and by your criteria about proving a kingdom's existence (archaeological and written evidences), Gija Joseon might not qualify either. Thus while I do not necessary agree with this view, there may be some merits in the argument against Gija's importance in Korean history. About the fact that Gija's existence was widely accepted until a hundred years or so, I cannot give definitive answer (given I never lived in that era!!) but can suggest that there was no concept of modern scientific archaeology in Korea in those days and people simply believed what they were taught. Also you should remember that most Koreans had a soft spot for Chinese culture, and just as blind rejection of Gija simply because of his Chinese origin is not healthy (though I doubt that's what this is all about), blind acceptance of him without critical analysis of evidence because of his origin from a culture perceived to be more sophiscated as Koreans of past centuries may have done, might not be the right way to go about it.


 * About determining the beginning of bronze age in Korea, your argument still leaves unanswered the matter of wording of the section before my edits that wrote that it is ''often held to have begun around 900-800 BCE"" suggesting there are alternative views. If you are so strong about your belief on the date, I wonder why you did not change it. You may say that Wikipedia page was simply wrong, and that Bronze Age artefacts from 2400 BC were from Southern Manchuria. Perhaps so, but you forget that the whole premise of Gojoseon was that it occupied Northern parts of Korea AND southern Manchuria, that they shared same culture in those days. The cultural boundaries of those days do not necessarily correspond to those of today. In any case, I believe there are several Bronze Age sites found WITHIN Korea from much before 900-800 BCE and I will add references to the article as soon as I locate them online (or I will refer to the book in front of me).


 * Now to the matter of me supposedly distorting the wordings of the references, we must remember that the direct quote (if that's what you call it), may be considered plagiarism. Also even the definitive statement about a subject is really limited by the author's knowledge, research and the timeframe. What I mean to say is that there are always a good chance an important source that are available are not used by the author for whatever reason, and that the reference begin to be outdated as soon as the author finishes writing it. Given Prof. Eckert's book that you quoted are from 1990, it does not reflect more than 20 years worth of archaeological findings and the researches on interpreting historical records. While Mary Connor's book is not as outdated, it still is does not reflect latest few years' research and archaeological findings. Given country has geo-political connotation, I wonder if the employment of terms such as nation or civilisation may be more suitable, though I have no particular objection to the term country. Given there are evidence in historical record about Gojoseon in Samguk Yusa (even if you like to label it a myth given certain mythological aspects, the myth and the historical information that should be further verified are two distinct entities), I would be more cautious about the wording on lack of evidence regarding Gojoseon of 2333 BCE. At the least, calling it an account rather than myth given there are many who believe the authenticity of the account at least to an extent (including academic historians) appear to be justified


 * I appreciate your edit regarding Four Commanderies of Han. However, I do not believe the assertion that they controlled Northern Korea for 400 years are justified, especially given the existence of many warring states after the fall of Gojoseon that developed into proto-three Kingdoms. In any case, all but one of these commanderies (Lelang) were dissolved within a century of establishment. Leaving aside the matter of the location of Wiman Joseon, the wording of that section should be changed, given the existence of warring states, dis-establishment of three of four commanderies within a century and a peculiar matter about the Kingdom of Nakryang (yes, same Chinese character as Lelang) ruled by Choi family, whose relationships with the Lelang commandery are yet to be ascertained.


 * While you seem to be more interested in ancient history, you also seem to disagree with my edits on the fall of Balhae. Perhaps that's because at the time I did not provide appropriate referencing. I will now re-edit the part on it with a decent reference (this time straight out of the best source we have on the matter,’ The History of Goryeo'' written during Joseon dynasty. Given that the foundation of Balhae was mentioned, the account of its fall should also be mentioned.


 * Well, that's it from me for now. I look forward to comments from you and others. Remember, the responsibility for furthering study of Korean ancient history is primarily a job for Korean scholars as well as their Chinese counterparts, and no one should dictate the terms of reference. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring it to your attention, EJcarter, that the sentence about the 39000 years' inhabitation of Northeast Asia by modern human has been deleted for copyright violation, though I am not responsible for doing so. As you appear to be the one responsible for incorporation of that sentence into the article and as I do not have substantial knowledge on the topic, I commend you to decide what to do about the sentence. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your timely response and your passion is very impressive. You said many stuff and they are too many to discuss, so I will limit my comments only on the revisions. Regarding the qualities of the reference, I would say the most reliable ones for this "English Language" Wiki are the international peer-reviewed academic pubs. When opinions conflicts, the one from such refs should be adapted. "400,000-700,00" is from your ref "A Brief history of Korea" which is the English translation of a Korean book and mainly recognized within the Korean community instead of western community as it looks like. Since I don't have the book in hand, I would leave it here for now. About Danjun and Gija. Well, you really argued a lot and I do believe your comments hit many facts. But when you are on Wiki, we follow the Wiki's rules: no original research, all with reliable and verifiable resources. You may claim you have better knowledge than the authors but here as long as you don't have the supporting refs, your revision can not be accepted by other editors. From your long comments, no refs are provided and I am going to revert the relevant revisions. The founding legend of Danjun may contain some info, but this will not change its nature of myth. Remember, this myth first appeared more than 2000 years after its telling and it could be simply a made-up. I would force myself to stop my comments on the Danjun and Gija, but I am always stick to the Wiki rules. Regarding the Bronze age date, since your ref is in Korean, I will revert it back for now until you link it to some refs which are reliable and can be verified by the editors on this page. Last, on the fall of Balhae, can you tell me what sentence in which volume of The History of Goryeo your revision is based on. Since I happen to be able to read some Chinese, I would like to verify this. EJcarter (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are arguing over the wording of changes I made, and it seems you think any deviation from direct wording of a reference is unacceptable. For example, I am of the view that the paragraph on Gojoseon in the introductory paragraph should be According to Samguk Yusa, Gojoseon was founded... while you argue that it should be In the legend, Gojoseon was founded.... Thus I made a compromise to read According to Samguk Yusa, considered by many to be legendary, Gojoseon was founded..., to reflect the source from which the account came from and that it is considered by many to be a legend. I already discussed in detail how there are aspects of the account that are historical records (e.g. the foundation of Gojoseon and the emigration of Gija 1500 years later) while there are mythological aspects as well (e.g. a bear turning into a woman). If you still think the account is WHOLLY fiction and that there’s no historical information to be extracted from it, I guess we have a different definitions about historical information.


 * In any case, given the lack of other indigenous sources on the era and given that Samguk Yusa is accepted as a historical source by the people whom the matter concern the most (congruence of the historical information within the account with the truth is a different matter!!), calling it wholly mythical seem unjustified. In any case, I note that of the two references attached to the sentence about Gojoseon in the introductory paragraph, one is another Wikipedia page that I can simply change with relevant reference should I feel it's justified (hardly what I would call an international peer-reviewed publication you seem to favour), and the other reference is broken. I doubt many would call them convincing peer-reviewed evidences.


 * Another issue with the wording is that of Gija. I already repeatedly discussed that there are elements of historical record in Samguk Yusa alongside mythical aspects and thus changed the wording of the introduction of the paragraph on Gija Joseon appropriately. I also discussed another problem with calling Gija Joseon the first kingdom when the criteria that there should be both recorded and archaeological evidence are applied. You may again use the argument that there should be reputable, verifiable references; but there's no reference attached to that particular sentence at all! About the controversy surrounding Gija, whatever your source may say about the origin of revision about Gija's role does not invalidate the edit of changing "...became a controversy today" into "...are controversial today". I would suggest that "are controversial today" are better in terms of NPOV policy, as "...became a controversy today" may give the impression that it's a modern nationalist fiction with no evidence whatsoever, when I already discussed several aspects of their argument regarding the scarcity and/or irrelevance of the archaeological evidence. Also, as the introduction mentioned the controversy surrounding Gija (in whatever wording), it is only proper that some expansion over the topic should be given in the body of the article. I say this despite the fact that I personally believe at present that Gija existed and played some important role in Korean history.


 * About the quality of references I provided, I am not aware of any rule or convention that states English-language international peer-reviewed publications are most authoritative sources when the matter of the article is about a non-English speaking civilisation. Remember this is the English Language version of Wikipedia and not the English Wikipedia solely for, by, or of the English-speaking population. In fact, I believe significant portion (if not a majority) of references at the end of the article are written by Koreans, and there's no evidence to suggest they were published in international journals. But the article will be much poorer without these references. Given that English is not the official language in Korea and most Korean and Chinese scholars would publish their works in their own language, to apply the criterion that are widely used in natural sciences in the matter of the history of non-English speaking countries are not tenable. And as I said earlier, the frame of references on Korean history are and should be formed and evolved by the scholars in Korea and China that have access to best written records, research and archaeological evidences. Unless you can somehow prove that the references are somehow fraudulent or plain wrong, you shouldn't just exclude them for the lack of ability to be able to read different languages. After all, I would say it is common sense that the most amounts of researches on a country's history is done by the scholars of that countries and those of her neighbours. I would not imagine the editors for the Saudi Arabian history in Hungarian/Magyar Wikipedia would presume to reject the references written in Arabic on the grounds that it is not published in international peer-reviewed journal and that they can't understand the language.


 * About the criticism about my lack of reference, it seems I did not supply as much referencing for my arguments on talk page as you would have liked. However, bulk of my comments here are about discussing edits I made on the article for much of which I did supply the matching references. Not that it seemed to satisfy you in the matters such as that of determining the beginning of the Bronze Age or the last days of Balhae. I suppose that's again due to them being published in Korea rather than in some English-language journals, though that does not justify you taking out the statement supported by a direct reference from arguably the best record on the era (similar to the position that the Records of the Grand Historian enjoys in the study of Wiman Joseon) despite the citation containing the date and the reign the citation is referring to. I will try to find what book of Goryeosa the references is from; given it was in the time of Taejo, the founder of Goryeo, it will be in the first few books. In any case, you should be able to track it with the date the reference is referring to (July 934, 17th year of the reign of Taejo). There are several other entries during the reign of Taejo that narrate the emigration of Balhae refugees (twice in September 925, March 927, June 929, September 929, December 934, shortly after Crown Prince Dae Gwang-hyeon).


 * Hope this does get my points across a bit better. I will put a couple more references to the edits I’ve made. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that the argument between us are on Danjun's founding story, Gija, Bronze age date, and quality of refs. You argued that the refs in Korean should be well accepted as English refs because Western scholars may have less knowledge than the Korean and Chinese scholars working on their own history. Well, let's look at Wiki page of History of China. It has 39 refs, 37 are in English, 1 dead link and only 1 in Chinese. Wiki page of China has 357 refs and more than 340 are in English. It would be very weird and suspicious that all your supporting refs are Korean pubs (the refs you added in your last revision are in Korean, although they have English titles). When I said "international peer-reviewed pubs are most reliable", I was actually making your revision easier: Wiki is based on the agreement of most editors. If your refs can not be verified and tested by majority of editors on this page, they will not be accepted at last. Therefore, here you need to show English refs supporting 2333BC founding date as history (if this is ever regarded as fact, it must at least can be found in some English pubs, right?) to claim it is not definitely a myth. The same on Gija and Bronze age date. Also, "became" and "is" have different implications; what is the "internal" evidence when you use "with external evidences". EJcarter (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are the outstanding matters between us. You raise a fair point with the proportion of international sources against domestic sources on the History of China page; I am aware of the situation there. However, it seems it hasn't occurred to you that there simply are not as many English-language sources available on Korean history as much as on Chinese history. While I do not have statistics on number of academics from the International scenes that have majored in Korean history or in Chinese history or the number of publications on the matter, I will give you a rough idea as to the amount of information available in English. Google search with the term "History of Korea" yield 1,410,000 hits while search of "History of China" gives you 2,500,000 hits. Not as much gap as you thought? We have more interesting numbers if we go into the publication location of this information. Sadly, google.com does not allow you to specify searches on pages from the United States, so we will compare three English speaking countries: Australia, Canada and United Kingdom. In Australia, there are 8,720 hits for "History of Korea" and 27,100 for "History of China". In Canada, the respective figures are 12,100 and 25,900 while in UK, figures are 94,900 and 230,000; all have more hits for "History of China". The gap becomes even wider when one uses "Korean history" and "Chinese history". Globally there are 901,000 hits on "Korean History" and 4,550,000 for "Chinese History". In Australia, figures are 6,530 vs. 69,200, it is 8,450 vs. 59,200 in Canada and 52,000 vs. 799,000 (15 times!) in UK. The relative lack of English information, while not absolute or entirely accurate means that out of those, there are not going to be as many quality sources on Korean history in English as there are for Chinese history. Another example I can cite is the library catalogue classification, in Australia. In Australian system, 900s are dedicated to history and of these 950s to Asia. China is 951, Japan is 952. Korea is not 953 or 954 or something like that...but (probably given the geographic and cultural proximity over the millennia) 951.9, reflecting relative deficiency of fine sources, are given 951.9. In case you're wondering, not all countries have their own whole number Dewey code and I believe decimal classification within the whole number turf of another country does not imply anything sinister politically or historically. Finally, I am under the impression that the number of Korean history scholars in Western world is only a fraction of those studying Chinese or Japanese history; please correct me if you know the truth to be otherwise. In this kind of environment, it is not surprising that there are not as many quality sources written in English. It is fault of no one in particular, but the fact is that study of Korean history is still largely a domestic matter with significant contributions from her neighbours.


 * Furthermore, your mention of Wikipedia rules triggered a search of relevant policies, and it seems there are rooms for improvement on either side. WP: Verifiability states that "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". I am not and have never asserted that sources written in Korean are superior but that it should not be discarded simply because it's written in the language that the editors may not be familiar. If you can find the quality source that support the arguments, by all means replace them, but simple lack of English source in itself does not disqualify the edit. There's nothing in the page about the situation where one side of controversy has an English source while the other side has the source from different language, and the WP: Neutral point of view does not answer the question wholly on the matter. While you may assert that the edits I made would not be accepted outside Korea, given the relative lack of scholars specialising in Korean history outside Korea means they may not necessarily constitute clear majority viewpoint in terms of number comparison to scholars in Korea even if they can claim majority in terms of global distribution.


 * Another issue is the number and quality of international sources in the relevant sections. While the more significant proportion of modern history sections' references are done by authors speaking English, out of 29 references used in introduction and relevant ancient history (up to the point of fall of Gojoseon), 13/29 are citation from English sources, with 8 distinct sources; the rest are sources written by Koreans. This is another reflection of how the contribution of English authors in ancient Korean history is still not as significant as they are in (for example) Korean history. In any case, three of eight sources are internet homepages (I do not doubt their credibility just because of this), four are private publications (including books by Eckert and Connor that are used throughout in relevant sections) and only one appears to be an article in an academic journal. I would like to ask you how the private publication, which take up majority of English-language citations in the relevant pages, are any different from the journal articles or books in Korean, other than that they are written in English. While not always the case, I believe the privately published books are not typically peer-reviewed either; please correct me if you think these particular English publications have been peer-reviewed. As for the Korean publications, bulk of the citations I used are either written in English wholly (whether originally or translated) or at least abstracts in English give fair idea as to the substance of the argument. I wonder if you actually took time to read these citations before throwing them out for lack of "international acceptability". These sources are in English language (or at least parts of it); just because it was written by Korean in itself does not disqualify it either. If you dislike the presence of Korean language sources in the article, you can start by replacing the pre-existing Korean sources with corresponding English ones, but in the default of corresponding English sources written by someone in the English country you can't just throw a source simply because of Korean origin (especially given they are at least partly written in English).


 * You are right about saying Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project between editors and that my argument will not be accepted by others. That remains to be tested of course, but so far you are the only one who has been good enough to engage in discussion over the topic. So I believe at the moment, it is a moot point.


 * In any case, I did not set out to prove that Samguk Yusa and the account of Dangun is definitely not a myth, but to explain that there are other viewpoints, a significant proportion if one considers the number of scholars and lay populations interested in the matter. I never set out to erase the views that I do not agree with from the article, but to describe the significant dissent where they exist. I also endeavoured to use the words to compromise different views where it had to be done succinctly and to use NPOV language with emotional detachment, but you have been the one that have been rigid in the opinion that your wording and no else is correct, even in the matters that do not have corresponding reference. For details, look at my last two posts, including the wording of "became" vs. "is" in terms of Gija controversy and "myth" vs. "account" in terms of Dangun issue. "Internal" and "External" evidence at the beginning of the paragraph on Gija was referring to the fact that there are no other sources other than Samguk Yusa and other medieval Korean texts referring to Dangun Joseon while there are references outside Korea in regards to Gija Joseon. It was also my latest attempt at compromising the wording given your refusal to accept my previous compromise.


 * We may have reached an impasse; I will wait for your response before proceeding with the edit. I urge you to look through my responses over last 36-48 hours; I believe they hold answers to a lot of your questions. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am deeply impressed by your statistic data on pubs and figures. Yes, as you said, the academic research on China has a much larger pool than the studies on Korea does. However, another data is actually far more important than the above and you might help me and other editors to know: regarding the number of publications on history of China, how many are written by Chinese scholars and how many by western scholars? what is the ratio of those two numbers? How about the ratio on Korea study? I would say if those two ratios are close, then we should always use English refs as much as possible, as they did on the History of China page. Talking about the private book I referred, the book "Korea, Old and New" is reviewed to be "most reliable and useful" by journal of Korean Study (vol.16,pp 118)". But your refs as Korean books (originally) and journals are only reviewed by Korean scholars without being testified by the "third party". WP: Verifiability is the rule here. As wiki editors we must follow the wiki rules and we are not in the position to adjust any wiki rule. I also would like to ask whether you agree that on this English wiki page when opinions conflict, the one from reliable English-language sources (especially academic journals and some book reviewed to be most reliable and useful) should be adapted over the opinion from Korean journals and Korean books.(I hope we can have such agreement, otherwise the further discussion could be very noisy) EJcarter (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to ascertain the ratio of (I presume you mean English-language) publication on the history of Korea/China by the domestic and international scholars. I do however encourage you to try to find out. If you ask me to hazard a guess, I would say the ratio of publications by the Koreans regarding the Korean history will be substantially larger than the share of the Chinese regarding the Chinese history, simply because of relatively small number of experts in Korean experts and thus smaller research output in the West. That is personal opinion and nothing else.


 * I have no doubt about the regard Prof. Eckert and his "Korea, Old and New" are held in the academic arena. However the book was published in 1990, and you just can't get around the fact that it doesn't take into account more than twenty years of latest research and archaeology. Also, from your words I am led to believe that the review was written AFTER the publication; you can't really call it peer-reviewed unless you can show that Prof. Eckert went back to review parts of his work per the peer-review process. By contrast, any frivolous research submitted to the peer-review journals I quoted in the past (even if written in Korean, had English abstracts) will be thrown out before it sees the light of the day. In any case, my understanding is that Prof. Eckert is an expert in MODERN HISTORY of Korea, having originally trained in WESTERN history, and while I'm sure he knows his ancient history quite well, it doesn't sound logical that any expert in Modern History, however good he/she is, knows everything that the best experts of Ancient History knows.


 * Regardless of the acclaim Prof. Eckert's book may have received, that still does not cover the matter of "international peer review" criterion that you've stressed throughout this discussion. While the sources from Korea may have been peer-reviewed only by Koreans, you have yet to show that the private publications used throughout the sections in which we have disputes, have some sort of peer-review process, especially BEFORE THE PUBLICATION. Lack of bad review does not necessarily mean that the sources are decent in cases of private books and they can be published regardless of the validity, while the peer-reviewed articles can't be published at all if they are frivolous. In any case, I endeavoured to provide references through several English-language publications, and commend you to study them.


 * Your idea that English-language sources such as journals and books should be adapted over the corresponding sources from the Korean sources is a complex matter. I do agree that where there are English and Korean source supporting the same argument, English source should be given preference in the English Wikipedia for the sake of editor's readability. However where there are conflicting opinions and only Korean sources of good repute can be found in one hand while there are English sources available for the other, it becomes more complicated and delicate matter. While the WP: NPOV says that the views of the tiny minority should not be included, this is not applicable in situation like this given that Korean academia and population as a whole constitute a significant proportion (I wouldn't speculate about the actual numbers). I'm quite sure you agree that more than 95% of people outside Korea don’t know enough about Korean history to be interested in the matter. Thus where there is a significant dissent between the significant proportion of academia in Korea (to an extent that it will be at least considered and debated regularly in their communications) versus the rest of global academia, I believe it should be mentioned, to an extent.


 * From your words however, I find something troubling. It seems that you are implying that the sources from Korean scholars should not be given same weight as those by Western scholars, even if they are published in English as a book or in an international peer-review journal. It is phrases like "Korean books (originally) and journals are only reviewed by Korean scholars" and "one from reliable English-language sources...should be adapted over the opinion from Korean journals and Korean books" (my italics). I hope that's not what you're implying because such implication will be enormously insulting to the Korean scholars whose only fault is their lack of ability to read and write in a language that is not their native tongue when studying the history of their own country. If we take the implication to the extreme, one can argue that a Bachelor's thesis about Korean history written English in a Western university is more authoritative than a landmark journal article written by a Korean Professor of fifty-year' standing in the academic field on the same matter.


 * Now that I discussed your queries, I would like to outline what I'm planning on doing. I agree with you that WP: Verifiability is key here, though it doesn't seem to have a clear contingency for a situation like this. In any case, given we established what our disagreements were, I will comment on my planned action.


 * Firstly, the sentence about Gojoseon in the introductory section have no verifiable source, but a broken link and a Wikipedia link to Dangun, which I believe you will agree is not an authoritative source. As such, your viewpoint has no more verifiability than mine as it stands. I therefore added three sources relevant to the issue. One by Hyong-sik Sin asserts that there are factual stuff to Dangun's account (yes, that's the word he's using) while late Ki-Baik Lee discusses the origin of term Dangun wanggeom and later about Samguk Yusa. While Seth believes Dangun's story is a myth, he affirms the importance of Samguk Yusa as a historical source. If you are wondering about the reputation about late Prof. Lee's book, I suggest you try the editorial reviews here:.


 * On the following sentence on Gija, you told me earlier that "The saying of Gija "became a controversy today" is also a direct quotation of the ref.". Given the sentence written is liable for copyright violation, we have to change it for this reason if for nothing else. I propose something in the line of "whose existence and role have been controversial in the modern era.", though I invite you to fine-tune it. Given that the previous wording of "became a controversy today" may be perceived as biased, I urge you to find more detached phrase should be feel urge to edit my proposal.


 * At the end of the same paragraph mentioning the foundation of Balhae, citation request is present. You objected to my last reference, so I found two relevant references written in English.


 * Now we move to the body of the article. At the end of the paragraph discussing Gojoseon, we have been arguing over the wording here. I noted from discussion before that ""no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth". This is the exact sentence from the US standard text book "The Korea, A global studies handbook"." per another user. If that's the case, it is also liable for copyright violation and has to be changed. I personally would prefer "No evidence has been found that supports whatever facts that may lie beneath this", taking out myth rather than quibbling over the wording. I also believe the inclusion of "May" is better for the sentence.


 * About the next paragraph on Gija, I tried to respect your views about the controversy rising in modern era, now that we have more space than in the introduction where we have to be succinct. Also given that the half of the relevant sentence in the introductory section was about the controversy surrounding Gija, I feel we have to give a short discussion over the controversy, whatever the factual merits of the controversy (at least they are not completely groundless as I discussed before, though I do not deny his existence or probable significant role). Edit the explanation about the controversy if you want, but I urge you to keep it in some form, for the sake of the spirit of expanding upon the introductory section.


 * Regarding the possible historical Gojoseon from the 8th Century BC, the reference provided does not say anything about the historical Gojoseon possibly rising in the 8th century BC but about it being firs mentioned in the records in the early 7th century BC. I therefore changed the sentence to reflect the reference. I also added an English reference to further verify the information. In the next sentence about the notability of Gojoseon by 4th century BC, I added the reference of late Prof. Lee alongside that of Prof. Eckert; two masters of Korean history echoing together side by side sound poetic to me!


 * Finally about the Bronze Age dispute, I finally found an international peer-reviewed journal article you might like. I know it was written by two Koreans (well, I'm not sure about the nationality of the corresponding author), but it is in a reputable international journal, written originally in English with the corresponding author in the faculty of a U.S. University. To doubt its verifiability or repute simply because the authors have Korean heritage does not sound charitable at all. Given this source, I felt justified to change the wording about the beginning of the Bronze Age in the introductory section from around 800 BC to by 800 BC.


 * I thought it will be best to explain my change, so any further discussion can revolve around this. I hope you study the new changes and references thoroughly and make necessary edits for the sentences that may violate copyright by using direct quotes. I hope you don't reject some of them out of hands simply because they were translated from Korean (unless you can show that the English version does not reflect the original Korean study) or worse, because they were written by Koreans; such view doesn't sound charitable and helpful. Also revise the sentences for which I pointed copyright violations; I urge you to consider adopting some of my suggestions, in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation that is fundamental to the Wikipedia Project. Let me tell you that the reason for my inclusion of English books and journal article instead of the Korean articles with English abstracts, and constant efforts to re-word the contentious sentences are not because of the realisation of the weakness of the position, but because I see the constant argument about wordings to be unhealthy for the article. If I insisted on being as rigid as you, we could be here until the end of the year.


 * As well as in regards to these contentious issues in the article, I would like to consult you on a matter on which you have not showed interest thus far. The introductory section at present show little details about military history and major wars of Korea, though they take up a significant proportion of any Korean history textbook. While they are given substantial treatment in the body of the article, I wonder if you think it's justifiable to add a few sentences to describe major wars of each era. Given that the article is already known to be too long, I'm not entirely sure about the advisability of the idea, but would like to hear what you think. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)