Talk:Gija Joseon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconKorea Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.
WikiProject iconFormer countries Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

How can books written so much later be quoted as sources of authority?[edit]

I continue to be amazed at all the historians for continuing to quote from the Samguk Yusa as if it was Gospel Truth. A book written in 13th Century CE with political justification in mind would be suspect by any criteria. However, Korean national pride has prevented an unbiased assessment of the past. Although all the East Asian states are guilty of such biase, it appears the Koreans are much more rigidly so.Wayne Leigh 10:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, Koreans are one of the most nationalistic people in the world, partly due to a very nationalist educational system, to the point that they spend significant effort to alter many accepted histories to satisfy a nationalist bend.

The removal of the former first paragraph of the "Controversy of Gija Joseon" section[edit]

Please justify why the existence of that former paragraph adds anything to the article. The paragraph is POV and unnecessary given the better-stated reasons arguing against the historicity of Gija Joseon above and below it. Further, it is internally logically inconsistent:

  1. It argues against Gija Joseon's existence by assuming that a lack of archaeological evidence for its existence.
  2. It then argues that a tomb in Shandong is Jizi/Gija's tomb.
  3. Further, it cites, for support, a Web site that I've looked at; nothing on that Web page supports the assertion.

That doesn't work logically. First, there is no conclusive -- or even persuasive -- evidence that it was Jizi's tomb (and there is really no archaeological evidence that the person of Jizi even existed -- which I'd say is a much better argument for the non-existence of Gija Joseon). Second, assuming that it is Jizi/Gija's tomb, then it would actually tend to support the existence of Gija Joseon's existence, by extension of other Korean legends that stated that the Shandong Peninsula was at one point Korean-ruled. (See, e.g., Chi You.) The paragraph's statements are analogous to assertions that Yang Guifei fled to Japan because there was a tomb claiming to be hers in Japan. That simply makes no sense. If it's going to be reinserted, it needs to be cleaned up and re-attributed with better citation, while at the same time justified. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC has been filed. Korea history (talk · contribs), please stop reverting without discussion and without justifying your reasons. I am, and other editors are, making good faith efforts to try to discuss the reasons for the edits. You are not. Please at least try to engage in a discussion. --Nlu (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If, as you claimed before, your English isn't good enough to engage in a discussion, then I think you have to seriously consider whether you are truly adding to the quality of English Wikipedia with your edits. Further, even if that is the case, you can and should write comments in Korean and ask someone else to translate it. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The reasons why I believe the paragraph should be removed are listed above. Please make comments. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any paragraph base on a fact in this article ...? I doubt there is any true story. I wonder where is the article before the day 16.10.2006. Jtm71 09:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting re-direction from Jizi to Gija of Gojoseon[edit]

Since we have Wiman of Gojoseon, Jizi should be Gija or Kija of Gojoseon. Considering we are dealing with Korean monarch. --Korsentry 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)

References on Gija Joseon on the "Gija" page[edit]

Just to tell interested editors that a lot of referenced information now found on the Gija wiki could be used to improve this page. I have no time to do it myself in the next few weeks, but if some brave soul is willing... Madalibi (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

This article has been tagged with an NPOV concern since 2007 (!). Is there still an active problem that needs to be addressed, or can the tag be removed? --Elonka 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll remove it. Tags like this which are added should be followed up with discussion on the talk page. It's amazing how many of those tags outlast the issues they were designed to report. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputed tag, article is a mess[edit]

I included a "disputed tag" for now, as many parts are unsourced or possibly violate WP:RS. Also the whole artile is about the controversy if Gija was real (or Chinese or whatever). If I have time I will include neutral sections about Gija Joseon itself. If someone has suggestions please write them here. Thank you.--AsadalEditor (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some references that may be usefull for other editors: [1], [2], [3] --AsadalEditor (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]