Talk:Samguk sagi

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

1145 or 1146?[edit]

I follow the majority not the minority at the moment, although I don't like such manner. Kadzuwo 10:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oldest?[edit]

Yes, this is very well known.Kadzuwo 11:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about Hwarang Segi?

It is thought ordinarily as a forgery among Korean scholars. But only Professor Yi Yung Hoon of Seoul National University department of economics is against it, and Korean News Paper reported about his claim:

Korean page
Machine translation by worldlingo (Hwarang Segi is translated as "anger Rang century")

If translation does not appeared, please use Worldlingo.

Please remember it is not my word but a report from Korean major news paper.Kadzuwo 00:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A correction: Professor Yi Yung Hoon is not only one but one of few such scholars. I'm very sorry for my misreading.Kadzuwo 01:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chronicles?[edit]

Why suddenly is it being called the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms? I think this will only cause confusion as it has always been translated in academic literature as History of the Three Kingdoms. Chronicles to me describes a purely chronological history (therefore the pongi section of the history might be termed the Chronicles of Silla, etc.). But the Samguk sagi as a whole incorporates biographies and monographs as well. Besides, the Chinese 史記 clearly denotes "historical record" not chronicle.

Straitgate (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The first two of the external links give 404s. Could someone add another Samguk Sagi source? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Since the lack of reference and sources it should be looked over and be rewritten. Some part is really hard to follow. And the whole article seems to discredit the author rather give information about the book. To me it seems to violate NPOV since the lack of reference... And what doest the "Assessment" section do here!? Wiki is not suppose to make any assessments. Just present facts. Im removing that section for now... – Oppa ^talk – 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Assessment" section has any problem. It is generally accepted concerns. If the name "Assessment" is not appropriate, then please change the name of the section instead of blanking the whole section. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about the content, but the whole article already points out that section and its up to the reader to make assessment of the fact presented, no? – Oppa ^talk – 15:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no references to any sources that support any statements or the "Assessments" in this article. Please provide some.. this article have no credibility. Only bias POV AFAICS – Oppa ^talk – 01:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your blanking of this page. If you wish to add RfC. Please relist again without removing the past discussions. Also please see the translation of Korean article ko:삼국사기 section "Assessment and criticism". I don't understand your objection to "Assessment". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the discussion, didn't blanked it. I'm not Korean. Can't read or understand Korean. I don't oppose the content since I don't know if its right or wrong.. but my critique is based on how the article is written and the lack of sources for the statements. – Oppa ^talk – 12:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does this article have any credibility?[edit]

There is a lot of statements in this articles but no references to any sources to back it up. I can't say I'm familiar with the story of Kim Busik or if the content of the book is valid or not. But this article seems to be bias, written to discredit the book and the author rather than present neutral facts and information about the book. Furthermore, is Wikipedia suppose to make assessments? I thought the viewer was suppose to make their own assessments based on the fact presented. The article shouldn't make any assessments for them, this clearly indicates that this article is bias to me. If someone could provide sources to the statements in this articles would be nice. Thanks! – Oppa ^talk – 12:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences in the assessments section do read like a subjective assessment rather than objective viewpoint, and may need to be reworded if that's not the true situation, so that readers will be certain of the credibility of this section. Phrases such as "It thus appears that", "what all historians agree upon is that" (this generalization should also seriously be reconsidered, and in my opinion definitely requires a citation) need attention. Citations should be added. This is to confirm that such content and alleged claims in the Assessment section were drawn from reliable third-party source prior to its inclusion, to ensure that they will read in accordance with the WP: Original Research policy. I am unfamiliar in this field, but felt that it is important to have reliable and trustworthy information on Wikipedia, and not paragraphs that attempt to mislead or misrepresent. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, responding to the RfC. I added[1] the {{Inline}} template to the article, because the article does seem to have a number of sources listed, they just aren't being cited much in the text itself. Maybe we could also change the "Assessment" section-title to something like "Criticism" or "Academic criticism"? (As long as there are published sources on modern scholarly "assessment", there's no reason WP can't provide a summary of that here).WikiDao ☯ 15:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samguk Sagi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.hawaii.edu/~dkane/Samguk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR[edit]

I have tagged the Background section as containing original research because the majority of it has no citation to backup the claims. If you have managed to find a good source for the section, feel free to add the necessary citations and remove the template. Northern Moonlight 17:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ~SS49~ {talk} 04:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samguk Sagi → Samguk sagi – As per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies... For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources. Ngrams says lower case "sagi" is more common, and the lower case is used by the Cultural Heritage Administration, as per [2]. toobigtokale (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Writing quality[edit]

Please write in an encyclopedic tone and cite sources. This is one of the most important texts in Korean history; it's honestly upsetting to see this article in such a poor state. Please do better; read the Wikipedia manual of style and be more thorough. Otherwise, don't add anything; it's better to have sparse articles than bloated poorly written articles. I deleted a chunk of poor writing. toobigtokale (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]