Talk:Wiman of Gojoseon

King Zhun
Quote from 史記 朝鮮列傳
 * &#32858;&#40680;&#21315;&#39192;&#20154;&#65292; &#39755;&#32080;&#34875;&#22839;&#26381; &#32780;&#26481;&#36208;&#20986;&#22622;&#65292;&#28193;&#28031;&#27700;&#65292;&#23621;&#31206;&#25925;&#31354;&#22320;&#19978;&#19979;&#37155;...

--Nanshu 01:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The existence of King Zhun is suspicious because The Records of the Grand Historian of the same age never referrs to him.

What's wrong with "Chinese direct rule over peninsula?" I don't say "Chinese direct rule over the whole peninsula". --Nanshu 04:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess you should put 'part of' in front of that.


 * whatever your speculation of weiman's ethnicity, there is no doubt that he, as the king of a korean kingdom (Wiman Joseon), is a part of korean history. not even chinese nationalist historians claim joseon to be a part of chinese history. this page is linked to from various korean articles, & only one china-related article (and that's only in that article's reference to old Joseon). and "wei man" is not exactly a firmly established english spelling; there is no reason to use the chinese romanization as the title. Appleby 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history. You try to push something more than what is deduced from historical sources. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we made room for modern interpretations, but further POV pushing is not tolerated. --Nanshu 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yes please remember that. "wei man" is the chinese romanization; please explain why you believe that the chinese romanization is NPOV, but the korean romanization is POV. please note what articles link to this article. please note that nobody considers Wiman Joseon to be a part of chinese history; it is considered a part of korean history in various english reference works. please do not push your pov without explanation. thanks. Appleby 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop mixing up two different things: You only talked about the former and started an all-or-nothing revert war.
 * 1) selection of romanization systems, and
 * 2) separation of what is directly deduced from historical sources and the narrative of national history.

The historical sources of Man are the Shiji (and Hanshu) and the Weile (and Sanguozhi). What is deduced from them has nothing to do with the modern Korean nation. As you know, Koreans narrate it as part of the history of Korea, but such an narrative cannot be put without proper attribution here in Wikipedia, where people with various backgrounds gather to make a new encyclopedia. If you disagree with the relativistic approach, why not create your own Korea-pedia and put your work there?

Various ideas can be included with proper attribution in Wikipedia. We are inclusive in this sense. But we have to select one default romanization system because adding multiple spellings every time is redundant. Which system is the best? Pinyin, I think, because he was from the Yan and recorded in Chinese sources. --Nanshu 10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * first things first. let's discuss the article naming. the basic rule in wikipedia is to use the common english usage. because wiman is discussed, if at all, by western scholars generally in the context of korea's old joseon, wiman is the more common english spelling. even links to this page within wikipedia are virtually all from korean history articles. it's not a matter of personal opinion, but the reality that wiman is discussed in korean history contexts and spelled from the korean pronunciation. other names in early korean history are found mostly or even exclusively in chinese records (Jin (Korean history), Samhan, not to mention japanese history), but that's no reason to use pinyin, the korean romanization is established in english. Appleby 17:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * let's keep personal opinions out of this & stick to verifiable npov citations. not to say we should rely on google hits for content, but they show the use the "wiman" spelling by western publications in english, and refer to the topic in korean history context:


 * A refugee named Wiman founded ... Wiman Choseon. Not only did he keep the Choseon name, he also adopted Choseon customs and culture, in a sense reviving the fallen kingdom. Wiman Choseon exerted a fair amount of power in Asia, but fell in 108 BCE to China.
 * Chosn declined, and refugee populations migrated eastward. Out of this milieu, emerged Wiman, a man who assumed the kingship of Chosn sometime between 194 and 180 B.C. The Kingdom of Wiman Chosn melded Chinese influence, and under the Old Chosn federated structure
 * Wiman Chosôn (the successor state to Old Chosôn)
 * the first Korean ruler recorded in contemporaneous records is Wiman
 * 194 BC Northwest Korea united under warlord, Wiman
 * Wiman established the state of Chosn (or Wiman Chosn) which was highly Sinified but not a Chinese colony.
 * also given Wiman Joseon and Gojoseon, the consistent article name of korean monarchs per convention would be "Wiman of Gojoseon." but i'd like to hear more about this larger consistency issue with the personal/temple/posthumous names. Appleby 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So you gave up contending for the second point? If so, I'm glad.

For the first point, my question is: How can we secure fairness in the most-common-name policy? I think we can arbitrarily change the result by changing the scope of survey. In this case, you only referred to "history of Korea" things even though I stressed, "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history." If we compare the overall history of China and the overall history of Korea, the weight of Wei Man would be different because China was too large to discuss the situation of a "borderland" in detail. But if you focus on specific issues, say, the history of Yan and that of Pyongyang, we will get a different result. And checking "What links here" doesn't make too much sense because Wikipedia is incomplete. Whether an article exists or not depends on whether it interests active Wikipedians, not on its significance.

So what should we do? I think Man has similar nature to Lelang, Daifang, Gongsun Du, Kang and Yuan, the Chinese stuffs that had to do with the Korean peninsula.

For Gojoseon, you Koreans set up a grand fantasy, but the understanding outside Korea is completely different. I have no time for detailed discussion. In short, we assume the pre-Man situation as depicted in the Shiji:
 * 自始全燕時、嘗略屬真番、朝鮮，為置吏，築鄣塞．秦滅燕，屬遼東外徼．漢興，為其遠難守，復修遼東故塞，至浿水為界，屬燕．

--Nanshu 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:UE: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
 * WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."
 * See English citations above. Appleby 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As Yuje said, Bohai and Man stuffs parallel each other. I guess you are unable to rebut. --Nanshu 11:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though Wei Man came from China, Wiman Joseon is Korean history.--Hairwizard91 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

State of Yan never was Chinese state, and we don't even have his real enthicity. --Korsentry 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Requested move (October 2006)
No consensus. This has been listed for 10 days, and has attracted no votes. The discussion below is not convincing either way. Duja 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wei Man → Wiman of Gojoseon — Wiman or Wei Man was a king of Gojoseon at about 195 BCE, which is ancient Korean kingdom. Wiman is Korean pronunciation, and Wei Man is Chinese pronunciation. So, the pronunciation of the king must follow the pronunication of Korean. --Hairwizard91 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I'm completing move request started by Hairwizard91. --Kusunose 09:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "completing"??? The pages are not changed. --Hairwizard91 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should follow three steps listed in Requested moves but you have only done step 1 (adding the request to the list on the page) . I did step 2 (adding the move template to this talk page) and 3 (creating a place for discussion). Until the discussion ends, the page shall not be moved. --Kusunose 12:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
史記卷一百一十五 朝鮮列傳 第五十五 

... 朝鮮王滿者故燕人也 .... 渡浿水居秦故空地上下稍役屬眞番朝鮮蠻夷及故燕齊亡命者王之都王險 ....--Hairwizard91 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The naming convention of Korean history must follow Korean pronunication. Even though Wiman came from China, he became a king of Beonjoseon. Thus, Wei Man must be moved to Wiman The most authoritative history book, or Shiji has categroized the war between Han of China and Wiman Joseon into the Chapter of Joseon. See Shiji --Hairwizard91 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposed title does appear to be correct, per Naming conventions (monarchs), which specifies "(Name) of (Kingdom)" ... Similarly we put the founder of the latest Joseon Dynasty at Taejo of Joseon, while Yi Seonggye is a redirect. What exactly is the argument in favor of "Wei Man"? -- Visviva 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I should say again the same thing. Wiman Joseon is Korean kingdom and Korean history though Weiman came from China. Thus, This page should be moved to Wiman of Gojoseon from Wei Man Joseon It is not right way if Chinese Qing dynasty has a wiki page named Cheong dynasty in Korean pronunciation, and the same rule must be applied to Wei Man Joseon. Thus, Wei Man Joseon must be moved to Winman of Gojoseon, and Wei Man can remain in the same page. Because Wei Man is chinese, and Wiman of Gojoseon is Korean history--Hairwizard91 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There was some misunderstanding of mine because wiman --> wiman of gojoseon --> Wei man. So, I revised the redirection as follows.

Wiman ---> Wei man

Wiman of gojoseon --> Wiman Joseon

These redirection seems to be fair.--Hairwizard91 08:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not under standard English grammar. "Wiman of Gojoseon" refers to the person, not the kingdom.  Compare Namhae of Silla, Charles III of Spain, Danjong of Joseon, etc.  -- Visviva 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision
I removed edits by User:Hairwizard91 because they are hopelessly erroneous. Correcting all his errors requires much more human resource than rewritting the article from scratch. So I just point out his first several errors: --Nanshu 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only North Koreans and some South Koreans support that his kingdom was located in Liaoning.
 * He did not established a kingdom in 195 BC. What happened in 195 BC was an attack by Gaozu to Lu Wan. It's not clear when he came to the crown.
 * Translating 蠻夷 as Eastern Babarian is not accurate.
 * The Shiji never uses the term Gojoseon. Nor we can assume that what Hairwizard91 means by Gojoseon is put in parallel with Zhenfan.
 * The Shiji never refers to Qi Zhun. And what's Beonjoseon?
 * The Shiji never claims that Wangxian corresponds to Xiandu Prefecture. It appears in a commentary on the Shiji.

General?
In some previous revisions, I wrote without much care, "Wei Man was a Chinese general..." Now Ksyrie restored this sentence, but are there any sources explicitly stating that he was a general? --Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Please stop the edit warring and discuss the content. It's disconcerting to see the editors spend their energy on edit warring over wording and Romanization rather than improving/expanding this article, as this article plainly deserves improvement in content.

For what it is worth, it is my view, with regard to the content under dispute:


 * 1) Both the Korean and the Chinese romanizations should be used.
 * 2) Such language as "barbarian" should not be used.
 * 3) Regardless of the resolution of the above two issues, it is clear that Wei Man is part of Chinese history (as opposed to a question of whether his state was Chinese in nature, which is much more questionable) and therefore the Chinese history category is appropriate; however, he should perhaps be placed into the subcategory Category:Qin Dynasty. The fact that a person may belong to a Chinese history category does not make a person Chinese or vice versa.

Again, please discuss rather than edit warring without comment. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless wikipedia supports drastic deviation from the concensus, remove the Chinese History category and everything that relates to it. We use references, not "interpret" them.

Instead of stating "it is clear Wei Man is part of Chinese history," elaborate why you think so. It is not clear. Wiman even being considered being part of China's history is new to everyone, 'cept for this new wave of overseas-living chinese internet heroes who are writting Korean history to whatever supports their ongoing masturbation about Korea being one of their ilk. I still don't know the source of their obsession. Kuebie 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason that it is a part of Chinese history is that the kingdom he founded warred with China's Han Dynasty and was conquered by it. That makes it a part of Chinese history, just as, for example, the fact that Zhenzhu Khan's Xueyantuo state battled with Tang Dynasty made it a part of Chinese history.


 * Another reason why he's a part of Chinese history is because, well, he was discussed at length in Chinese historical accounts (which, as you must realize, Korean historians have to rely on as well).


 * In any case, the fact that there is a dispute is an indication that there is no consensus, so I don't understand the part of "drastic deviation from the con[s]ensus." (See also above the determination that there was no consensus to move the article to Wiman.)  In any case, I am distressed by your lack of civility.  It does not add to the force of your arguments.  --Nlu (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That may apply to deceased former countries but I hope you know Korea is, however divided, still present in northeast Asia. China incorporates extinct societies near it and call them fiefdoms because the said people are all dead. Ridiculous. Why don't we place Kyushu into Korean History? That's right, their successors are Japan.

Marco Polo wrote a book about China, I don't see the Italians rushing to claim Mongolian heritage.

The only thing being challenged by many contemporary scholars is the view that Wiman's kingdom was ruled by the Yen refugees, thus developing into a powerful state and having ties with the hsiung-nu, gave much trouble to its neighbor in the South. Bringing iron culture to a foreign society doesn't mean you hold dominion over them, especially when there is more proof of Wiman being ethnically a man of Joseon. Of course, we'll then have examine how "Chinese" the people of Yen were before their subjugation. Kuebie 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the state of yan was a feudal domain of the zhou dynsaty and his king swore alliegeance to the chinese king, well have to examine "how korean" they were then...Alitla Gruppels (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this refutes any of my points. Just because something is Korean history doesn't mean that it's not also Chinese history (or vice versa).  Note this has nothing to do with the categorization of Wei's ethnicity (and it should be noted that what is Chinese or Korean in modern times is not necessarily relevant to ethnic identification back then).  Further, Marco Polo was not Chinese; that doesn't mean that he's not part of Chinese history.  But I'd like to hear what other people think.  I will be filing a RFC.  --Nlu (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't share history when a newly arisen nation is declared to be successor of a deceased state. I refuse to believe both Korea and china are 'brother countries' that together sprung out of Joseon. Culture and tradition is examined to differenciate people. Seeing how Wiman Joseon shared nothing, not even the government structure with the proto-chinese (whatever hell that means since the majority are all Han) states, including Wiman in chinese history is foreign. Korea is the only country that has legimate claims of lineage of Wiman and Wiman Joseon, therefore should exclusively belong in Korean history. Kuebie 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Korea" is a country that was established in 1897 (or 1948). There wasn't "Korea" back in the 2nd century BC. And contrary to the perception of many Koreans, not all of the ancient kingdoms that existed on the Korean peninsula in the past were ruled by the same ethnic as the present Koreans. These kingdoms are mentioned in "Korean history" today only because they existed in places that are within the present territory of Korea, much like Native American history is incorporated into U.S. history. --Saintjust 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kyushu has never been a part of Korea. The Korean peninsula, on the other hand, had been a part of Japan between 1910 and 1945. This period and the colonial ruler during then are as much a part of Japanese history as of Korean history. --Saintjust 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, since there appears to be no further discussion at this point, I am going to unprotect the article. Please, however, watch your behaviors. I do think that the appropriate thing to do here is to include both romanizations, but I'm not going to impose that on the article. Please also be aware that anybody who violates 3RR or the spirit thereof will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Romanization, Wording, Categorization
Whether the page should use Chinese or Korean romanization or both; whether such wording as "barbarian" should be disavowed; and whether this article should be placed in Category:History of China or one of its subcategories or not. --Nlu (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article, cities, places and people using chinese romanization should be displaced with Korean ones and be kept that way. I don't how they interpreted "Joseon" as "barbarian." Exclusively Korean history as the people who view Wiman as chinese are an obscure minority. Kuebie 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How does this address whether he is a part of Chinese history? (And I should note that this user has a history of making derogatory remarks toward the Chinese -- including self-evidence repeated intentional decapitalizations above; I think that pretty much discredits his/her arguments.)  --Nlu (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi --- saw the request at WT:KOREA. This guy came from an area corresponding to modern-day China, but became notable in an area corresponding to modern-day Korea, and so I feel it would make more sense to put the Korean name as the title. Hulbert makes a very similar argument at p21 of History of Korea (from Routledge) for example. However, I still think the Chinese romanisation should remain in place, if nothing else for the reason that he came from a Chinese-speaking area and it provides additional information for the reader.

For the name infobox, I'd suggest the use of Infobox East Asian instead of Chinese, since the former allows one to sort the order in which the languages appear (using the parameter "sort=korean1", for example) while Chinese does not. Example at right. Cheers, cab 06:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good solution, and I am not wedded to the concept of having "Wei Man" as the title of the article, in any case, but I do think that both romanizations should be there. However, the issue that came out during the edit warring, really, is about the romanization of the rivers, for crying out loud.  I think that the solution, again, is to have both romanizations.  I do also believe strongly that the article should be categorized in the appropriate subcategory of Category:History of China due to impact on Chinese history, if nothing else -- and in this case, it belongs in Category:Han Dynasty.  --Nlu (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You should note that: So, As long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or anything related to modern Korea.
 * All we can use is a handful of sentences(!) written in Classical Chinese by ancient Chinese officials/scholars.
 * History is NOT a product of political compromise.
 * Introduce primary sources first. Then explain major interpretations for them.
 * Use Chinese romanization for Chinese sources.

Do not avoid using "barbarian". That's what the Shiji says (蠻夷). A reasonable inference is that "barbarian cloth" was non-Chinese cloth.

But Yi Pyeongdo claimed "barbarian cloth" had been Korean cloth and that Wei Man had been of Korean descent. This re-interpretation suited the nationalist view of history (minjok sagwan) and was adopted in national history textbooks of South Korean education. All this stuff belongs to modern history, not ancient history. We should not exclude it because it is against our NPOV policy. But it should be carefully separated.

Note that historians use pinyin as a matter of convenience. If you discuss the linguistic aspect of proper names, use, say, reconstructed Old Chinese. --Nanshu (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (December 2008)
No move Rationale for closing after minimal discussion: the move proposer does not actually see the need for a move, but is simply trying to follow procedure on behalf of three editors who have been edit-warring in an attempt to move the article via copy-paste (an action that voids the GDFL and is thus prohibited). There have been no arguments provided by those attempting to move the article via copy-paste, and it seems doubtful whether any would materialize if the discussion was allowed to continue. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion now, and am also full-protecting the redirect at Wiman of Gojoseon to put a stop to the copy-pasting there. There should be no prejudice towards opening a new proposal if any of the three editors attempting to move the page so desired. If there are any questions/clarification needed, feel free to ask me. Parsecboy (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wei Man → Wiman of Gojoseon‎ — This article has been a subject of repeated cut-and-paste move. As there was a page move edit war in the past, I'm requesting discussion for page move instead of hist-merge request. Please also see previous unsuccessful request. This is a procedural nomination. I have no preference over what name the article title should be. — Kusunose 08:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose moves until rationale is given. The original title of the article was Wei Man and a previous request failed.  (As an aside, arguments like "this guy moved to what is now Korea 2000 years ago so his name should be written in a transliteration of modern Korean" are weak.  Try instead showing what general English scholarly literature on the subject, not just in the context of Chinese or Korean history, uses.) —   AjaxSmack   16:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Late comments
Comments moved here from the already closed discussion above Parsecboy (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Comment Wait, since when did seniority play a role in deciding whether the article name is appropriate? Anyone care to explain how "Wei Man" is any more appropriate (avoid using arguments such as "this guy was from what is now China 2000 years ago-" you get the picture)? 2006 was two years ago. Wikipedia isn't a textbook; we can change it whenever. This article was written up by a Chinese user. It doesn't get any biased than that. Now I'm not sure if everyone here is familiar with current Chinese revisionism (go ahead check my contributions as to see how many crap I revert from Korean articles), so let me explain: These Chinese extremists like to assert that Wiman was a Han Chinese that had set up a colonial regime in Korea. Where they pulled this from I have no idea. The bare facts we have is that he was a refuge from the state of Yan (very diverse region), wore non-Chinese clothing and hairstyle, kept the name Chosun, and that many of men of Chosun occupied high positions. But you don't have to take my word it. Contemporary scholars such as Ki-baik Lee and Bruce Cummings point out that Wiman is likey to have been a man of Chosun rather than Chinese. Interestingly enough, I have yet to find any dissenting views. Kuebie (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I've been always puzzled by the title. Please refer to my comment above. Kuebie (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * source please


 * Support We are dealing with Korean monarch here, therefore title should be in Korean. --Korsentry 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no proof that he is korean, and please show a source. Koreans did not live in liadong peninsula, it was the Donghu who lived there before state of yan conquered it.
 * In those days, Many Koreans lived in Liadong peninsula. Donghu peoples lived in the Liaoxi(遼西) plain. --Historiographer (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Though, He lived as Yan, He settle down in Korea(Gojoseon) after all. --Historiographer (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The state of yan was a chinese state, originating from the CHINESE zhou dynasty. end of story. Ki-baik Lee is also a korean. end of story
 * The so-called progenitor of the Jurchen Jin dynasty was from Goryeo (but I know how much you guys hate that). Like it was said above, such arguments are weak. Thank you, come again. Kuebie (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not what you tried to argue earlier, you removed "chinese" from before state of yan. your trying to claims its a korean state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.54 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

--deleted being ignorant and racially motivated comments.
 * Note The IP users are socks of / . See Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After checking Naming conventions (Korean), I have moved it to Wiman of Gojoseon instead, according to the wording there: "The article titles for monarchs should use the format Name (the Great) of Kingdom. For example: Seondeok of Silla; Sejong the Great of Joseon; Gojong of Korea."
 * If there is some reason I have overlooked why this should be an exception to that convention, please let me know. Regards,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wei Man → Wiman — Since the closing admin has dismissed all of our comments (actually it seems I just missed it by a day), I'll be going for the common name argument. — Kuebie (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Comment Wiman Korea in google search turned up 27,400 results while "Wei Man" Korea turned up 4,990 results . Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/644876/Wiman. Kuebie (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Wiman of Gojoseon is more sensible title because he was monarch of ancient Korean state, therefore regardless of where was from, he should be remembered as one of the ancient Korean monarch.--KoreanSentry (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sensible perhaps, but contemporary scholars like to differenciate Wiman Joseon from Gojoseon. Kuebie (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - as the admin who closed the previous move request, I'd like to make a couple of points in regards to this proposal. First, this request should be filed at WP:Requested moves, to ensure the widest number of participants (especially those who aren't necessarily experts on ancient Korea/China (and I think more importantly, less apt to participate in the frequent ethnocentric arguments that occur in Chinese/Korean history disputes). Also, Google hits are definitely not the preferred way to establish what name has primacy. You would do well to provide reliable sources, either from books, scholarly journals, and the like, that have been published by reputable historians. It would also be useful to consider what other encyclopedias use (Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta encyclopedias come to mind, but others should not be excluded). This is also helpful to editors such as myself, who know little about history of the region. If you're only using Google hits (which are notoriously unreliable), you'll stand a much greater chance of failing to convince the closing admin that your position has merit (I of course will not close this move request, now that I'm sufficiently involved in it). To address the move specifically, I have no opinion at the moment about which name is preferred, at least based on the evidence thus far provided. It would be helpful if editors more familiar with this topic were to provide some hard evidence about the preference in English-language sources. Parsecboy (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't base article name changes on google searches.
 * Oppose i checked the article, the person in question came from the state of yan, so he is chinese and therefore i don't find anything wrong with a chinese name for the article Btzkillerv (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Regardless of whether State of Yan was Chinese or not, or what Wiman's actual ethnicity was, the historical figure in question played a much more prominent role in the context of Korean history, hence I believe it is appropriate to use the Korean name for this person. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is arguable. Especially since Wiman Joseon doesn't even show up on the History of Korea Template.  And that period of time covers all of 85 years of history that is discussed almost entirely in the context of Chinese expansion into the Korean peninsula.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Gojoseon or Old Chosun. Kuebie (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiman Joseon is considered the latter period of Gojoseon. If this is a problem, Wiman Joseon can be added to the template, since it's an important enough period in Korean history. Also, I'm not clear what you mean by "Chinese expansion". If you're speaking in terms of culture, flow of Chinese culture into the Korean peninsula started long before Wiman, and Yan, the main source of that flow, was itself a cultural melting pot between indigenous and Chinese cultures. If you're speaking in terms of polity, context of Chinese political expansion into the Korean peninsula usually pertains to Han Dynasty's invasion of Wiman Joseon and establishment of Four Commanderies of Han. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The article was just falsely named at here by . And see Jean-Baptiste Lully (an Italian born composer) and Wani (Korean scholar in Japan) whose names are respectively styled as the way of their migrated countries because they're known to the settled countries much more than to their mother land. As Cydevil38 says well, Wiman played an important role in Korean history. Besides, Wiman has double or triple of book sources than Wei Man
 * --Caspian blue 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should also probabaly include hits for "Weiman" without a space (e.g., "Weiman" Korea. Most of these concern the subject in question too. —   AjaxSmack   21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I included it per your suggestion, but "Weiman" seems like a common given/surname name in German speaking world and Anglosphere as well as in China such as Weiman-Kelman, Weiman DS, Weiman Chen, Weiman Liao, Weiman and Succar, Ann Weiman, Clara Weiman, Rita Weiman, Weiman republic, Jenny Weiman Peng, Weiman Fang, Peter Weiman, WEIMAN DIV, Weiman Shehui, Zhang Weiman, Carl Weiman, Weiman Ho Shing, NY WEIMAN, Weiman Hsu, Ralph Weiman, The Weiman Co, Ellen Weiman, David Weiman, Bertha Weiman Fox, Liang Weiman, Earl Weiman.--Caspian blue 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, among the hits on Weiman China(295), only 24 are relevant to the pertinent subject. Moreover, Weiman is also related to Manchukuo (Japanese puppet state)--Caspian blue 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Let me add to that: 5,215 on "Wei Man" China  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. 183 is the actual hit . Also note that "Wei Man" seems to be a common Chinese name. Kuebie (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Doctor, Chang Wei-man, linguist usage, Wei Man-to, Wei, Man-Hua Huang, Wei-man LIN, etc come out in the result.--Caspian blue 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - We are dealing with ancient Korean monarch, regardless where this wiman character is originated from, all Korean monarch should be named as Korean title. Some ancient Baekje & Silla rulers also born & lived in Japan then came to Korea become ruler; I don't see them using Japanese sound names? --Korsentry 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to support page move. WP:NAME says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". It also says that naming should be "optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists". As it appears the subject was a non-entity in China and was instrumental to Korean history, it may be more appropriate to move the article to the Anglicised name by which he was best known. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * struck: From the continuing debate, it appears that I know nothing about the subject, the article is wholly inadequate as it omits the importance of the subject to Yan, and that I am unqualified to !vote on the discussion. I am tagging the article WP:NPOV for that forementioned omission. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Wiman is the most used variation of this name in academia. Weiman should be included in the information box but this article should be moved.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I want make sure that these single-purpose accounts understand that we are not debating Wiman's ethnicity (although there is more evidence of him being of man of Joseon but that is neither here nor there) but whether the current title is appropriate or not. Kuebie (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Wi Man was undeniable monarch of Korea. According to the Ki-Baek Lee, He is a descendant of Gojoseon peoples, but just lived in Chinese Yan region, and when he come to Korea as an exile, he changed a costume to Koreanized by himself with a his company. As a result, It is important that his identity is clearly descendant of Gojoseon Korea. --Historiographer (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If Wei Man is seemingly more associated with Korea than with China, it's not because Wei Man indeed belongs to the history of Korea, but because China has much more to say about history than Korea. You know, China is much larger than Korea. China has much longer history than Korea. The number of historic events occurred in China is far more than that of Korea. In other words, the relative importance of the historical man is smaller in China than Korea. And the same is true of all other events shared by China and Korea. We must counter systemic bias. --CCD-Ring (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no strong evidence that Chinese history is longer than Korean history. I would question even Yan State being Chinese while your Chinese people don't even speak the language that spoken at Liaodong peninsula. Chinese language family belongs to Southern Chinese. Therefore you can not justify the entire China being "Chinese". There are 56 ethnic groups in China, we don't know if this Wiman was Han Chinese, there are strong evidence that he was wearing Chosun style of clothing from the records. --KoreanSentry (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Encyclopedias:

Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations

Britannica Online

The Columbia Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia of the Ancient World

The Encyclopedia Americana

Books:

East Asia by Arthyr Cotterell, Oxford University Press.

A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee, Harvard University Press.

The Genesis of East Asia by Charles Holcombe, University of Hawaii Press.

Koguryo, The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives by Christopher I. Beckwith, Brill Academic Publishers.

The Far East and Australasia by Europa Publications, Europa Publications.

An excerpt from the History of Korea by Homer B. Hulbert and Clarence Norwood Weems, Routledge: "On the other hand, the "refugee" who came to Chosun shortly after 200 B.C. is called by his Korean name, Wiman, rather than the Chinese form, Wei-man, because he became a part of the Korean community. It seems no more necessary or appropriate to write his name Wei-man than to render the name of his grandson Ugo according to the Chinese sound of its characters." Kuebie (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disqualified votes and opinions

 * 1) So KOrsentry is saying we should give korean monarchs special treatment, and the baekje and silla rulers in question are definetly ethnic korean, you cannot prove wei man was korean and give "koreans" special treatment.Lord Archivo (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no evidence that he was Chinese too. --KoreanSentry (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - His original profession was as a General in the chinese state of Yan, where he spent much of his life, and talking in Old Chinese too which is the ancestor of the Mandarin language used for this title name. Its like changing Kublai Khan's name to a chinese one because he conquered and moved into china.Alitla Gruppels (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) whats with this? i just came back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitla Gruppels (talk • contribs) 009-01-06T21:41:13 (UTC)
 * The template SPA means your edits are significantly low and new except this edit on vote here. Do not tough others' edit.--Caspian blue 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your analogy is that Kublai Khan lead a Mongolian state to conquer China, and his ethnicity was not a matter of debate. On the other hand, Wiman, whose ethnicity is controversial, was a refugee and a subject to the king of Gojoseon until he usurped power in a coup d'état. The state itself persisted under his rule and that of his sons until China invaded and conquered Wiman Joseon in 109~108 BC. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) i've got news for you, kuebie, modern korean vocab currently has numerous loanwords from chinese, and wiman is one of them. if you want to relfect the accurate pronounciation of his time, go look up his Old Korean name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.95 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this vote is entirely two sided, its being stacked with either chinese or korean voters voting against each other. someone should request someone for comment, like the admin who closed this to ensure no bias.Alitla Gruppels (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yan state is not normally considered as Chinese culture, also Wiman's ethnicity is known to Gojosoen origin and this is even debated today. --Korsentry 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 February 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus Page has been listed for almost three weeks without a consensus being established, and has already been relisted once, and another relist would have the discussion lasting about a month, without the likelihood of producing a clear consensus. Per WP:RMCI a close of no consensus in this discussion defaults to the page not being moved since it has been stable since 2012. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiman of Gojoseon → Wi Man of Gojoseon – It need to distinguishing his first and last name. Ph (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move to Wi Man per WP:CONCISE; "of Gojoseon" seems redundant. -Zanhe (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Wi man", rather support "Weiman" per WP:COMMONNAME. See the following Google Books search results.
 * "Wiman" Korea OR Joseon: 4,510
 * "Wi man" OR "Wi-man" Korea OR Joseon: 292
 * "Weiman" Korea OR Joseon: 7,240
 * "Wei man" OR "Wei-man" Korea OR Joseon: 625
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got different results. Please check them again.
 * "Wiman" Korea OR Joseon: 2,210
 * "Wi man" OR "Wi-man" Korea OR Joseon: 229
 * "Weiman" Korea OR Joseon: 537
 * "Wei man" OR "Wei-man" Korea OR Joseon: 529
 * Bamnamu (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your links return the same numbers as my results above. Your Google Search language settings is Korean. (I tried and confirmed).
 * Please change the following settings:
 * Google Search Settings > Languages > Which language should Google products use? English
 * Google Search Settings > Languages > Currently showing search results in: English
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My Google language setting is the default English. I'm not logged into a Google account. Your links send me to Google Japan actually.
 * Bamnamu (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get reliable search results unless you put all the words into a single set of quotes (e.g. "Wiman Joseon", "Weiman Korea", etc); otherwise, you'll get unrelated results starting from page 5 or so, such as the "North Dakota Weiman Co." and "Weiman Xu". Furthermore, I suggest searching "Chosŏn", "Chosun", "Chaoxian", "Gojoseon", and "Kochosŏn" as well.
 * Bamnamu (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Establishment?
In the first paragraph, it says: "Wi Man (...) established a kingdom in northwestern Korea in the 2nd century BC." The fact is Wi Man kicked off the previous king Jun. May I say the word 'took over Gojoseon' should be added in front of the word 'established'? Because the first paragraph of the article mentions 'Wi Man was the first ruler in the history of Korea(...)', this might mislead readers to think Wiman of Gojoseon was the first kingdom of the Korean peninsula, which is false, and moreover, Korean Dynasties started from Chinese runaway soldiers.

Immigrant?
he cane from an independent state leaving asthe New Chinese Empire asserted control. To try to put this in a modern emigration category seems a bit much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yan state is Chinese Empire as the Qin state what attackted into it. 2001:14BB:CC:79E2:4511:23ED:84AD:860A (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

request changing name to Weiman
When there are record of him being from state Yan as chinese according Records of the Grand Historian and the Book of Han, which says 史记·卷一百一十五·朝鲜列传第五十五》：朝鲜王满者,故燕人也.自始全燕时尝略属真番,朝鲜,为置吏,筑鄣塞. 秦灭燕,属辽东外徼. 汉书·卷九十五·西南夷两粤朝鲜传第六十五》：朝鲜王满，燕人. 自始燕时，尝略属真番,朝鲜，为置吏筑障. 秦灭燕，属辽东外徼. 燕人 which meaning him as Yan state. Is it better to translate it to the Chinese version at first, and then the Korean version. Or doe it matter in anyway 2001:14BB:CC:79E2:4511:23ED:84AD:860A (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)