gija edits 

according to WP:NPOV, the majority view should be referenced to "commonly accepted reference texts." i can't find any english reference texts that discuss this detail, but the most reputable korean-language encyclopedias clearly show the korean scholarship consensus.    the theory that gija joseon was a separate entity adjacent gojoseon is described, if at all, as a minority view.  describes in detail that the consensus today is that gija was likely a real figure in chinese history, but his connection to ancient joseon was a later embellishment. given treatments like , it seems to me we need less on gija joseon in this summary article, and more on the details of various current theories in the gija joseon article. of course, if there are english sources that indicate that the current scholarly consensus is something else, i'd love to see them.