Talk:Gojoseon

message: Donyi: Means Eastern Tribal People. NOT EASTERN BABARIANS.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthcom (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When only a few references remain such as Samguk Yusa because most historical documents have been purposefully destroyed or stolen by the Japanese, what you should be amazed at is the strength of the Korean culture to somehow still preserve at least some of its history, not the Korean national pride which is the sole reason why Korea still stands as a country after numerous number of invasions from China, Japan and Mongolia. No wait, be amazed at both, just positively. You have absolutely no right to to call Koreans biased, and Wikipedia is definitely not a place for you to do so. Wookie919 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Wayne Leigh. Ancient Chinese records would be a better source than something like the Samguk Yusa. Writing didn't even exist in Korean states until probably after 1 AD. And the article here makes it sound like it is entirely legit. Just as the Japanese Kojiki is pretty much fiction when describing pre-300 AD events, I think the same can be said for Samguk Yusa concerning these early pre-AD events. Angry bee (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: And I also agree with Wayne Lee and Angry Bee. It is simply amazing how Koreans like Wookie919 nonchalantly dismiss very reasoned and critical engagement with Korean nationalist historiographies. We "have no right to call Koreans biased?" Um. Yes we do. And many continue to call you biased. You are the last remaining non-autocratic nation that wholesale still believes absolute myths about your origins, and then tries to force that mythology into the academic mold of what, outside of Korea, is know as history.  But Korea historians are dismissed summarily in the halls of Asia Studies in the greatest universities of the world. Korean historians are almost completely dismissed. At least they are viewed with trememdous skepticism. And this is not because there is anything wrong with Koreans themselves, it is because koreans cannot move away from the 1895 dangun/minjok complex posited by Shin Chae Ho and his band of journalistic politicos who were trying to decenter China and displace the influence of Japan. But that was then, and this is 2011, and contemporary Korea cannot seem to let go of this late 19th century mythology about itself. In anycase, none of it belongs in wikipedia. None of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.163.250 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I cannot believe how people just call Koreans biased. Yes, I am another Korean, and yes, I do not agree with Wayne Lee and Angry Bee. For some reason, people just think myths from how a country was born was just a myth for the whole country's history. If Gojoseon was not existing, then there wouldn't be any Koreans in the current, because after Gojoseon has been taken over by the Han Dynasty in China, they have all moved to separate countries like the Buyeo Kingdom, in the 2nd century BC, Okjeo, Dongye, and Samhan. Buyeo was the northern part state, which takes the northern land of North Korea and the southern part of Manchuria. The eastern was Okjeo and Dongye which were small countries lying by the East sea (or the Sea of Japan even though I strongly disagree to this name). Samhan are the three hans which were located at the land of later Baekje and Silla. If you can prove why had the population of these 5 countries had increased tremendously and exponentially for a short period at the early 100 BCs other than the existence of Goguryeo, then I will disprove all the Korean's idea. And for the comment above my paragraph, I cannot believe why Koreans are viewed with skepticism. I understand your idea of how China was decentered other than with our own power. But you should understand, as with another example of this, putting the Chinese power during the Imjinwaeran (the Korean-Japanese war in 1592-98)because the attack of the Japanese were so unexpected by the time even though there were people who noticed it, and there were many severe warnings from nature as well, but the people ignored it as much as the warnings were severe. Now, I am not saying it was because the Japanese invasion in the 19th century was unexpected, but Japan was already opening ports to the Western World like Europe and the US, which was forced to any Eastern country without being colonized, like the Opium War in China. But China was less affected by the Western World than Japan, which had already been impacting themselves by importing stuff from the Western World, and that is the reason why Japan is considered as the most developed country in Asia along with China, which had many people to work on themselves to improve their economical status. Well, at that time, the most trustable frenemy for Joseon was either China or Russia because there were already people who turned their sides to Japan, which were called Chinilpa, which simply means 'friends of Japan.' I strongly disagree to the ideas of you guys and if you want to know more that Gojoseon is not biased and it is real, you should go to the Korean elementary school, 5th grade, which explains a lot with photos and stuff of sings that Gojoseon people have left behind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom20020420 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: How can books written so much later be quoted as sources of authority?

message: You need to cite the ancient contemporaneous sources which mentioned the existing of this polity called Gojoseon, especially in the highly dramatic descriptions of war with the state of Yan. Without these, it is difficult to put forward claims that Gojoseon is a power and highly organized state rather than a loose confederation under a chieftain.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed to support claims of Gojoseon as a Great Power

message: The Liaoning bronze dagger culture is an archeological complex of the late Bronze Age in Northeast Asia. Artifacts from the culture are found primarily in the Liaoning area of Manchuria and in the Korean peninsula. Various other bronze artifacts, including ornaments and weapons, are associated with the culture, but the daggers are viewed as the most characteristic.
Lee (1996) considers that the culture is properly divided into five phases: Phases I and II typified by violin-shaped daggers, Phases IV and V by slender daggers, and Phase III by the transition between the two. Of these, remains from Phases I, II and III can be found in some amounts in both the Korean peninsula and Manchuria, but remains from Phases IV and V are found almost exclusively in Korea.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gojoseon Equals Liaoning Bronze Dagger Culture

message: anyone want to take up maybe deleting Founding myth of Korea? doesn't seem to add anything, other countries don't have analogous entries. there's already a separate article on Dangun. just trying to organize things logically. Appleby 17:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding myth of Korea

message: The discription in the History section looks somewhat ambiguous. 
:The people of Gojoseon are called in Chinese records Dong-i, "eastern bowmen,"
Dong-i or Dong Yi (東夷) in Chinese can be hardly interpreted as "eastern bowmen", but rather "eastern barbarians." The term Dong Yi is paralleled with "北狄 (Bei Di)", "西戎 (Xi Rong)", and "南蛮 (Nan Man)", which mean "northern barbarians", "western barbarians", and "southern barbarians" respectively. The interpretation "bowmen" seems to be just the build-up of the character ("弓" the bow and "人" man). And,
:...Dong-i, "eastern bowmen," belonging to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic.
Each of eastern/northern/western/southern barbarians is not a single race, but these terms referred to a group of peoples who lived east, north, west and south to the center of the Chinese civilization. And the languages of "eastern barbarians" peoples are not documented, so there is no concluding "belonging to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic."
:Gojoseon eventually consolidated in Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula...
This sentence can make readers misunderstand, since it can sound as if the eastern "barbarians" founded an organized state.
In a later paragraph,
:Gija, a subject of the Yin state, entered Gojoseon and introduced the culture of Yin around the 11th century BC Gojoseon clashed with the Zhou during China's Warring States Period (475-221 BC),
This can mean that Gojoseon directly fought against the Zhou Dynasty. Adjacent to Manchuria were Yan or Wei and the tribes/peoples in Manchuria may have fought against these neighboring states, but it's suspicious if Gojoseon fought with Zhou which was far from Manchuria and had much stronger states between Manchuria and Zhongyuan area.-222.15.81.187 13:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, 夷 狄 戎 蛮 were generic terms to refer eastern, northern western and southren people, respectively.  Because of sinocentrism, they became to mean barbarians.    For example, 後漢書 (Hou Hanshu) has 東夷列傳 (the records of the eastern barbarians) and it records people of 夫餘 (Buyeo), 挹婁, 高句驪 (Goguryeo), 東沃沮 ((East Okjeo), 濊 (Ye), 三韓(Samhan) and 倭 (Wa).  Notice Chenese consider not only Korean but Japanese 東夷. --Kusunose 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chinese people in eastern Shandong and Jiangsu provinces are also called 東夷 (still called that sometimes), and they were historically bowmen (archaelogical evidence).  The term was later extended to refer to all eastern peoples (including the Japanese), and became a geographic term. There is no clear Altaic connection though.  Many Northern Chinese have Altaic connections anyway (descendents of steppe peoples). Naus 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "History" Section 

message: I think it is a trifle unreasonable to omit doubts about the historicity of Gojoseon from this article.  The historical and archeological bases adduced for this extremely ancient state are more than a little shaky. -- Visviva 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's my understanding that there isn't any doubt about gojoseon's existence in this area, bordering yan/yen to the west, i think referred to in various chinese records much before goryeo records (guk by 4th century bc).  there are some doubts as to its exact location, with the consensus being pyongyang (or beginning in manchuria & later moving to pyongyang). during corresponding times in this region, there are walled cities & evidence of a fairly distinctive culture. i understand the debate is the degree of its political organization, whether a loose federation of walled cities (cummings, lee k.b.) or a kingdom. i think by the time of wiman, it may have been a kingdom, but not before. i think "state" is often, but not always, used by even non-korean scholars, although any one term is problematic because of the length of the claimed history. this is all from memory of googling at the time i worked on the article, so correct me if i'm wrong. Appleby 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact or fiction? 

message: Very very important sections, I think. I corrected some the (horrible) grammar of the bronze culture paragraph. I don't have time to do the rest now, but can someone please, rephrase this section?
There's also a problem of content. No real comparison with Chinese bronze culture of the time, and of course, no references. 
Iron culture deserves a lot more content as well... Shogo Kawada 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze Culture + Iron Culture 

message: It is better adding a new section of gojoseon's territory because there are several different thoeries about it. Maybe, it can be categorized into three things.
1. Based on the Prof Yoon, the territory covers sourth manchuria, some of Liaoning, Liaodong, and north Korean
2. The territory covers only Liaoning.
3. The territory covers only Pyongyang.
Anybody can comment about these three territory theory.
Part of Liaoxi was also Gojoseom territory. The border between Gojoseon and Han was Pei river, based on earlier Chinese records, it was located at Hebei today Traineek (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a new section about the territory of Gojoseon

message: I have made the link to "li" direct rather than through a disambiguation page.  But looking at the article on li, I noticed that it ONLY talks of the li as a unit of distance, not of area.  This means that the Gojoseon text is unclear/meaningless.  Even when that gets cleared up, I think a parentetical comment on about the size of the area  in km^ or mi^ would be in order to facilitate reading - rather than paging back and forth in Wik, crashing and simply giving up. Kdammers 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the way of representing the area in East Asia. 2000 Li just is directly quoting the history books. Yan and Gojoseon was located throught west and east, 2000Li may the horizontal distance. Korean still uses 3000Li in spoken language (not in written language) when referring to the area of current Korean territory. --Hairwizard91 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Koreans I asked do NOT use li for area (They use either km^2 or pyoung.  Li is a unit of length / distance that they use (see my comments at Li / talk.  In any case, what-ever it meant at the time of the loss of territory, simply translating it to "kilometers" or explaining it as "kilometers" does not give understandable information.  Is it actually square km or is it pushing back the entire frontier  that number of km.  There's a huge difference. Kdammers 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you said. But, 2000Li is just quotation from primary source, and this is interpreted as the 2000li length from the west to the east. So, it can be used as the approximation of the area from the horizotal length. --Hairwizard91 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li 

message: Was Gojoseon a kingdom? I mean are there any namings of Gojoseon as "王国" (kingdom")  in historical records of 2 th.-100 BC? If not, would it be better to change the definition of Gojoseon in the head of the article from "kingdom" to more accurate wordings like  "cultural and political entity" or just "state"? --133.41.84.100 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder also,it seems the Gojoseon maybe the longest-existing kingdom in the human history.--Ksyrie 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, Gojoseon is just another title to describe many Kingdoms or states that existed during Gojoseon era.--Korsentry 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gojoseon as a kingdom 

message: Jewang yeondaeryeok, the historical chronology does not exists. It is mysterious to refer a document which was disappeared. Jtm71 09:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewang yeondaeryeok 제왕연대력 ... 

message: What is a good source of information that discusses the archaeological verifiability of the Dangun legend dating to 2333BC?
Also, how come there isn't a left menu on this Talk page?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of Gojoseon has been taken up several times indirectly in the publications of the archaeologist Choi Mong-lyong (please see his article for one example). He wrote several articles dealing with Wiman Joseon. Kim Jung-bae refers to Gojoseon as well in his English works, but he does so in passing. If one looks through the index of articles of Korea Journal and other names pop up (e.g. Yun Nae-hyeon, etc). However, they can write and write and write 'till the cows come home: there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that Gojoseon existed -- mapping the distribution of bronze daggers does not imply the presence of an archaeologically verifiable state-level society. A Sarah Milledge Nelson paper from 1995 (see her article for ref) discusses the political motivations for why there are still some trained academics who willingly choose to stake their entire professional careers on the existence of this Gojoseon. Mumun 無文 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommend a good source?

message: I've been researching this time period left and right and the map that was included was simply pointless. The map was only a topographic view of the Korean penninsula and part of Manchuria with "Gojoseon" written in bold across it. It showed no delineation of the territory or any other information. I removed the map, as there was no reason for it to be included at all.
:Why did you removed the map without the approvals & signature?--Korsentry 01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Gojoseon

message: My edit using a user space template is a temporary (1 week) demo case for a requested change to the protected template .  I will delete the modification as soon as the proposal process is over.  Unless there is some damage to Gojoseon, I ask that this edit be allowed to remain for a week while they check over the code change.  For further info on the template change request, see discussion on the template page.  This particular article was selected because it has a BC date.  If this article is a bad choice for some reason, I would be happy to move to a suggested alternate article using this infobox.  Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit left the page emitting metadata stating that the country existed from 2333 AD until 107 AD. I've reverted. Please do you testing in a sandbox page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary (1 week) example  

message: The text says that the mythical founder descended from heaven to Taebaek, but the link goes to Baekdu. Unless there are other mountains by the same name, these two are really far apart. Something needs to be clarified or corrected.
70.127.243.9 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythical founding at Baekdu or Taebaek?

message: The "Former Country" infobox is intended for historical states, not for semi-legendary kingdoms of prehistory.
Seriously, it is more bother than it is worth in this case. Why have an infobox if it contributes literally nothing? --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, See below category, if you put it that way, the below category is crushed. I also notice already mentioned term "legendary". See Shang Dynasty, This articles also point to specific years exactly, Do you think this years was possible? It's not gonna remove or edit in all of these cases.--Historiographer (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Here are the several issues in this page:
1. Dangun is only a myth. Its non-existence is clear. It is not part of the history. supporting ref: "no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth" from "The Korea, A global studies handbook". 
2. Korean Bronze Age starts from around 800 BC. supporting ref: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/1000bce_ko.htm
3. Gija section: we need to hear voices from two sides. both Chinese records and Korean records have Gija records, we need to present them. Korean believed Gija for more than one thousand years before they started questioning it, then we need to tell what role it played for that period. archaeological discoveries also talk for both sides and we can not simply ignore one side. 
Historiographer, the discussion on "History of Korea" page answered your concern on Shang Dynasty. EJcarter (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hope to resolve some issues once and for all 

message: http://byeongjupark.wordpress.com/article/gojoseon-2zvfgrgyend5c-5/  excellent source for more information to add to this topic revealing what happened in greater detail (Armorbeast (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's a terrible source written with an obvious nationalist agenda and practically no reliable sources. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info 

message: According to Professor. Yi Deokil, Gojoseon is a real Empire. Also according to a Russian historian, iem putin, Gojoseon really existed with the vast land, but the problem is that Koreans do not accept it as real. Korean peninsula's bronze age starts from 5000BC based on archaeological evidences. And if we only see now's South Korea, it is 3000BC to 4000BC. If we include Wooharyang in Manchuria, where many Korean styled tombs were found, bronze age of Korean history starts from 6000BC. In addition, not regarding these kinds of early dates of bronze, existence of Gojoseon can be proven, since Inca and Mya started their civilizations in stone age. Interestingly, some early built pyramids were shown recently that they were built with bronze-made tools, which show that Egyptian civilization possibly began in new stone age.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by World historia (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you ought to be able to provide reliable English sources stating so. Where no such sources exist, and even 'Koreans do not accept it as real,' then the only conclusion is that it's a fringe of the fringe theory. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Korean sources are fine, through keep WP:UNDUE in mind. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gojoseon is a real former Empire

message: Gojoseon had a land almost similar as Goguryeo. It was a confederated Empire of small kingdoms. The map is too small. Somebody, please put a map! A better map!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.93 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a map with larger Gojoseon.

message: Recent major changes to this article gives undue weight to a fringe theory, Gija Joseon. This is a widely rejected theory, where as Dangun and Wiman are widely accepted legendary and historical figures per mainstream sources. The Gija legend is already addressed in the subsection Gija controversy, which puts it in appropriate context. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to  who finally added some content sourced from an academic publication. The book he cited was written by a respected scholar (Professor Gina Barnes of the SOAS, University of London), yet you called it "fringe view from North Korea". That's beyond ridiculous. Please do not remove scholarly content and replace it with unsourced stuff, which you did twice already. -Zanhe (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

text: First of all, my source was a secondary source from a reputable author who dealt with the information and analyzed it, and not a "North Korean" source. Also, Dangun with its bear-mother and heavenly father is as much rejected as any founding myth (and this is cited). I could as well make a Dangun controversy section in the near future, same scope. The only founding story that had some scholarly credence is the Weiman story. This section deals with the founding myths of Gojoseon and not which founding myth sounds most favorable to whomever to be propped up. --Cold Season (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Barnes' work that is at fault, but its interpretation in this article. You used a singular source to explain a refuted theory in detail as if it was accepted by scholarly consensus. Gija controversy definitely is not. It is a fringe theory, a "Chinese fabrication" you might say, and further elaborations should be put into that context. And stop reverting before you've made consensus. Oh, and you DID use a North Korean source. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no interpretation; the info is blunt and reflects what the source states. And I even explicitly stated which scholar made what conclusion. And if you still want to argue it, then I would suggest you to open a RFC, or I will, since this isn't going anywhere. Also, provide me with the EXACT DIFF and quote of me directly using a North Korean source, because I know that I only cited the information as reflected directly how Barnes presented it (that is, I only cited Barnes). --Cold Season (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is, by completely ignoring the structure of this article and ignoring the previous consensus there - that Gija legend is controversial. And this is also dealt as a subsection of state-formation, which is what the book by Gina Barnes is about. The appropriate structure is already there, but you completely ignored it and went into unnecessary detail about Gija, as well as other "legends". As explained in the book by Barnes, Gija is a later fabrication and it has nothing to do with Gojoseon. Therefore, current structure it is under should be kept, and whatever details you want to add, you can add to the already existing subsection about Gija. You can take it up to RFC, but please stop making reverts before some consensus can be established. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gija and Dangun are both legends about the founding of Gojoseon, and are both discussed in pretty much every history book about ancient Korea. 's addition was based on unassailable scholarly source, yet you keep removing the content claiming it was a "North Korean source". Could you please enlighten us by pointing out which source Cold Season used was North Korean? -Zanhe (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The current structure AND the old structure is that of the sub-heading which states "Founding legend", both Dangun and Gija is a founding legend. And both have the same validity of historical accuracy, i.e. little to none at all as both have been rejected by various scholars. Let me make this clearer, the Dangun legend is a later fabrication as well. Also, you want to give the only weight to the Dangun legend while giving none to the others (POV), while literature does not. The current consensus is at equal treatment of the various legends at the moment, while you alone are against it; consensus is also against the sole treatment of only the Dangun legend as shown throughout this talkpage's history. I will make a RFC, depending on when I tire from your unilateral opposition. --Cold Season (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at this in detail because I love history. Events almost 2000 years ago are naturally a little fuzzy, but we can go on what the research says. The claim of North Korean propaganda has been substantiated and I generally agree with the points made by Zanhe and Cold Season here. Edit warring this is not going to help. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent major changes

message: *
:"The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."
*
:"Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."
*
:"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
*
:"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
*
:"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
*
:"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
*
:"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."
First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What scholars say about Dangun/Tangun and Gija/Kija

message: There is really limited amount of information about this war, and almost all the sources are the studies of modern Korean historians.
Korea claims that Gojoseon existed and today's Liaoning province of China was part of it, but there is no record to prove this statement. Also, in the History of Manchuria template, Gojoseon is placed as one of the earliest owners of that region, which is clearly baseless. I hope someone can fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.4.4 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Gojoseon-Yan War 

message: Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「Exclusion of sub-periods of Gojoseon came as a result of a long-standing debate as well as a compromise in good faith. Reinclusion any sub-period of Gojoseon only undermine such effeorts, and does not help understanding of Gojoseon at all.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Cydevil is removing fully historical Wiman , while writing the 100% mythological 2333 BC date.And, Cydevil is removing  Wiman of sub-periods, while writing 2333 BC date　(Dangun giwon) of sub-periods. Thanks.--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Cydevil38 

message: So there's a couple things I wanted to talk about here. Statements about mythical foundings belong to Korean mythology and not to areas of fact. In fact, scholars do provide dates for the founding of the state, and we should use this information, not the magical date of 2333 BCE.
Dates I found rapidly using Google books:
* Somewhere as early as 500 BCE to as late as 300 BCE: , page 415
* About 500 BCE: , page 29
* About 400 BCE: , p. 22.
Just because it is religiously important due to colonialism and politics does not, in fact, justify the use of false history. Additionally, the traditional histories don't even agree on the specific date of 2333. In the discussion you linked me to on ANI, this was the information you used as RS:
:There are three opinions
: 1. BC2357
:: Book_of_Wei(魏書), Jewang_ungi(제왕운기), Dangunsegi(단군세기), Sesongillok Jiriji(세종실록지리지) as the first year of 堯.
: 2. BC2333
:: (Donguk tonggam)동국통감, Haedong ijeok(해동이적), Dongguk Yeokdae Chongmok(동국역대총목) as the 25th year of 堯
: 3. BC2308 
:: Gogi(古記) cited by Samguk Yusa as the 50th year of 堯
How can we, in good faith, write a founding date at odds with RS just because it aligns with particular political platforms? Like, great, it's a national holiday in the Koreas. This is not relevant to an article on the historical state of Gojoseon except perhaps as a passing comment along the lines of "Gojoseon is lauded as the origin of modern Korea and its mythical founding is celebrated as a national holiday in both Koreas." Ogress smash! 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just checked and Troy 1. doesn't have an infobox with dates 2. has legitimate archaeological dating back to 3000 and is not described as a single kingdom "founded" at that date but rather an ancient settlement. Xia was dated according to the the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project, a multi-disciplinary project commissioned by the People's Republic of China in 1996 to determine with accuracy the location and time frame of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. Tsinghua University professor Li Xueqin was the director, and some 200 experts took part in the project, which correlated radiocarbon dating, archaeological dating methods, historical textual analysis, astronomy, and other methods to achieve greater temporal and geographic accuracy. The roughly beginning of CE dates for the other states listed are unremarkable and don't claim an extra 1500 years. Ogress smash! 08:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythical founding dates 

message: Propose reverting latest IP edit Aside from our own rather rough patch, we all agree (as I understand it) that the IP edit warrior's edits about Wiman etc. is against consensus. I propose to revert the latest IP edit if the two of you also agree this is acceptable behavior. I also had the page temporarily and partially edit protected, so it should give us a brief cushion. Consider this my "yes" vote in case one of you decides to do it. Ogress smash! 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest IP edits 

message: The article talks about Liaoning "and" Manchuria, as if they are separate places, as does the Dangan article, but according to the Manchuria, Liaoning is in Manchuria.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so "and" is the wrong word.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liaoning and Manchuria 

message: Gojoseon was founded by a Chinese Prince. So why is it seen as a Proto-Korean state?
Historicalchild (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was established in what is now Korea, inhabited by proto-Korean people. -Zanhe (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding Controversy 

message: First, this link doesn't work for me http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/04/eak/ht04eak.htm
Second, it sources the following sentence </br>
"During its early phase, the capital of Gojoseon was located in Liaoning; around 400 BC, and was moved to Pyongyang, while in the south of the peninsula, the Jin state arose by the 3rd century BC."</br>
I'm mildly rewriting it, feel free to revisit it yourself.
Third,</br>
"In the past, the earliest surviving Chinese record, Records of the Three Kingdoms, admitted Gija Joseon"</br>
Is "admitted" the right word choice? Can you admit a person in this sense? Maybe, admit his existence? Or recognize him?--Adûnâi (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that means.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A broken reference link and a weird sentence 

message: I find it peculiar that there's a strong need to use the Samguk Yusa as a main source for this article; a work that is written over a millennia after the timeline and is filled with fanciful descriptions (e.g. being born from a she-bear). Even though this primary source is so directly cited in this wikipedia article, the actual information here often appears to be uncited WP:OR commentary of wikipedia contributors on the work instead. How about letting credible secondary sources do the commentary thereof, instead of adding WP:OR statements under the veil of citing the primary work? 
Btw, some of the short form citations point to nothing. Maybe it can be found in the Wikipedia article history or just check Google books? --Cold Season (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with . Analysis/interpretation of primary sources, especially those of only quasi-historical nature such as Samguk Yusa, is WP:OR and should not be done. This article should be written based on modern, neutral academic sources per WP:SECONDARY and WP:NPOV. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adherence to Samguk Yusa as reference and the topic of secondary sources 

message: *
:"The term was used again by a refugee from the Han dynasty named Wiman, who about 200 B.C.E. set up a kingdom in Korea called Wiman Choson."
*
:"The earliest documented event in Korean history involves China. After an unsuccessful rising against the first Han emperor Gaozu, the defeated rebels sought refuge beyond the imperial frontier and one of them Wiman, took control of Choson, a Korean state in the north of the peninsula."
*
:"For instance, Wiman, a refugee from the Yan dynasty, which then existed around present-day Beijing, led his band of more than 1,000 followers into exile in Old Chosŏn in the early second century bc."
*
:"Wiman Chosŏn In the fourth century bc Old Chosŏn was bordered on the west, far beyond the Liao River, by the northern Chinese dynasty of Yan."
*
:"Immediately after destroying Wiman Chosŏn, the Han empire established administrative units to rule large territories in the northern Korean peninsula and southern Manchuria."
*
:"Here, Wiman was described as a "Gu Yanren 故燕人"or a person from former Yan. It is confusing because there were two Yans around this period. The first was the Yan state, which was one of the seven states during the Warring States period, and the second was the vassal state of Yan of the Han dynasty."
*
:"One of his ex-subordinates in Yan, named Wiman, together with some 1000 followers, sought refuge elsewhere among the old Qin fortifications in what is now Korea."
*
:"Wiman is probably most accurately understood to have simply been a man from Yan."
*
:"One of Lu Wan's generals, Wei Man (K, Wiman), defected from Yan, led his forces to Korea where he defeated Ko-Choson, ousted king Chun (who may have fled south), and established his own state with his capital at Wanggom (P'yongyang)."
*
:"195 BCE: Wiman flees the state of Yan and arrives in Joseon where he is made responsible for the defense of the Western border."
*
:"Wei Man (K. Wi Man), a man from the state of Yan who made himself king of Chaoxian (Choson) when Qin conquered Yan, by leading refugees from Yan and Qi into  Northern Korea."
*
:"Choson underwent another period of turmoil the usurpation by Wiman, a refugee from Yan, circa 194 B.C."
*
:"Wiman, a general from the state of Yan, one of the last states to submit to the control of the Han Dynasty in China, left for Korea where he receives a new position assisting King Jun, the ruler of Gojoseon."
*
:"Wiman, the king of Choson (Ch'ao-hsien), came originally from the state of Yen."
*
:"According to Samguk Yusa, the Kica Cosen period was initiated around 1120 BC by Kica, a scion of the fallen Shang Dynasty of China who fled to Ancient Cosen and the Wiman Cosen period was begun around 194 BC by Wiman, a Chinese military leader of Yen who fled to Ancient Cosen and usurped the throne."
*
:"`The Account of Zhao- xian` relates the circumstances of a certain Wiman, a lieutenant of the state of Yan, who later became the king of Choson."
*
:"This interpretation of Wiman as the Leader of a Yan refugee group who became a Choson ruler is generally accepted as the starting point of Korean state formation in historical times."
*
:"Weiman (Korean Wiman) of the northeastern Chinese state of Yan took over the northern part of the peninsula circa the third century CE."
*
:"In 193 BC, a rebellion against the Kija Dynasty was led by Wiman, a Manchurian who had deserted the Chinese army and was serving Kija as a border guard."
*
:"Retaliation by the Han then brought in refugees from Yan, the most notable of whom was a war lord, Weiman ('Wiman'in Korean), who somewhere about 200 BC led his followers into the territory held by Choson."
*
:"In 195 BCE, the Yan king revolted and went over to the Xiongnu, a steppe nomad people.One of his lieutenants, Wiman (Chinese: Weiman), is recorded in the Shiji as having fled with 1,000 followers to Chosŏn, where the ruler Chun appointed him a frontier commander."
*
:"In 194 BC Old Chosön became Wiman Chosön when it was overthrown by the leader of a group of Chinese refugees, Wiman."
*
:"In 108 B.c., the Han emperor Wu Ti destroyed Wiman and established four Han provinces."
*
:"After a period of decline, Old Choson falls to Wiman, an exile from the Yan state in northern China. Wiman proves to be a strong ruler, but his ambitious program of expansion eventually brings him into conflict with the Han dynasty of China. The Han defeats Wiman Choson and establishes a protectorate over northern Korea in 108 b.c. Resistance to Chinese hegemony, however, is strong, and China reduces the territory under its active control to Nang-nang colony with an administrative center near modern Pyongyang."
*
:"Sima Qian's Historical Records, written around 100 B.C.E., records that in 195 B.C.E., when the king of the Han Dynasty state of Yan (in the region of modern Beijing) rebelled, one of his lieutenants named  Weiman (Wiman in Korean) fled east to Choson (Chaoxian in Chinese) with a thousand followers."
*
:"The Han Chinese triumph was possible because the political solidarity of Wiman Joseon, which was nothing more than a loose tribal confederation, was not centralized enough to hold back external invasion. In this region, Wudi established four prefectures: Lelang, Zhenfan, Lintun, and Xientu."
*
:"As the Yen gave way in China to the Qin (221-207 B.C.) and the Han dynasties (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), 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--apparently reinvigorated under Wiman--the state again expanded over hundreds of kilometers of territory. Its ambitions ran up against a Han invasion, however, and Wiman Chosn fell in 108 B.C."
*
:"According to the Shijing (Book of Odes), after Yan was defeated by the Jin state in 221 BC, Weiman, a former Yan officer, invaded KoChosun and founded a principality with its capital near P'yongyang around 194 BC."
*
:"In fact, of the entire contents of the Han Account, only three portions are believed to contain information of a historical nature. The first portion states that in the early-second century B.C. (between 194 and 180 B.C.), King Chun of Chosön was attacked by Wei Man, an exile from Yan China, and fled to the Han territory, accompanied only by a few court officials, where he called himself the King of Han."
*
:"Wiman: A government official of the Chinese Yan Empire, Wiman fled to Kojoson with a band of his followers."
*
:"The only deduction we can make is that practical knowledge of Chinese and the Chinese script in Korea dates back to 194 B.C., when Wiman, from Yen in China, founded a primitive Korean state in the northwestern part of the peninsula."
:"Subsequently, the establishment by China's Han dynasty of their four commanderies on the soil of Wiman' s Ancient Choson in 108 B.C. must have familiarized the resident Koreans with Chinese and the Chinese script."
*
:"The Chaoxian (Korea) chapter of this Chinese history describes the origin of the first recorded Korean state, called in Korean "Wiman Choson." Wiman, the founder of the new state, had lived in the northeastern Chinese state of Yan but fled to Korea due to shifting political alliances."
:"These tombs are associated with the Lelang commandery, which was established by the Han dynasty of China, successor to the Qin. Han generals conquered the armies of Wiman's grandson Ugo and established control over the northern part of the  Korean peninsula."
*
:"At this time a large number of people migrated to the Chosŏn fleeing from the Liaoning region on account of the chaos and confusion in China that was produced by the fall of the Chinese Qin Dynasty and the rise of the Han Dynasty. Among these migrants was a man named Wiman who was ordered by King Chun to guard Chosŏn's borders."
*
:"The Han established 'four commanderies' (Chin. sijun, Kor. sagun) in the conquered territories of Wiman Chosŏn, The commanderies were named Lelang (Kor. Nangnang), Zhenfan (Kor. Chinbon), Lintun (Kor. Imdun), and Xuantu (Kor. Hyéna'o)."
*
:"This was the beginning of Wiman Joseon. Some view Wiman Joseon as a colonial dynasty of China because of the origin of Wiman, but it is accepted theory to include Wiman Joseon as part of Gojoseon."
*
:"Wiman (衛滿), a leader of Yan, chased King Jun (準王) of Gojoseon out of the throne in 194 BC. This is the so-called Wissi Joseon (衛氏朝鮮), the first state of ancient Korea historically verifiable."
*
:"108 BC: Han armies invade Wiman Choson; Chinese commanderies are set up across the north of the peninsula"
*
:"In the process they re-examined Chinese and Korean historical records and came up with two better authenticated alternatives to Tan'gun as founders of their kingdom, the aforesaid Kija, and Wiman (Ch. Wei Man). Both were apparently of Chinese origin and had founded Chinese-style statelets to set the peninsula on its historical path."
*
:"According to the Wei Ji, groups of ethnic Chinese were already living in Korea when Wiman, a general from a nearby Chinese state, "adopt the mallet shaped hairdo and dress of the eastern barbarians", and fled into the peninsula with about a thousand followers."
*
:"The elevation of Tan'gun to historical status is a direct challenge to Kija, a Shang aristocrat enfeoffed in Choson at the time of the fall of the Shang dynasty. Kija was later followed by Wiman, a general from the state of Yan who arrived around 195—194 BC to set up Wiman Choson and whose descendants later contested Han emperor Wu's invasion in 108 BC. Thus, the traditionally accepted dynastic state sequence of the Sam Choson of Kochoson, Kija Choson, and Wiman Choson has been overturned in the revised Korean ancestral state lineage."
*
:"One of Lu Guan's generals, Wiman, escaped with one thousand of his followers to northeastern Korea and became a ruler there in about 194 B.C.E. Wiman's Choson was eventually overthrown by the Han empire in 108 B.C.E."
* 
:"The Shih chi, mentioned earlier, and the Han shu [History of Han], written in the first century A. D., limit the treatment of Korea in their respective biography sections to descriptions of the establishment of Wiman (Weiman in Chinese) Choson and the military campaigns waged by Emperor Wu ti of Han to subdue this ancient Korean dynasty."
*
:"Historical knowledge becomes firmer from the second century BC, when the dominant political force in the region was of Chinese origin. This brings us to Wiman Chosŏn."
*
:"Among these refugees was one called Wiman, or Wei-man in Chinese, a general of the state of Yan, who managed to flee with around 1000 of his soldiers."
*
:"The Chinese emplaced three commanderies in Wiman Chosŏn territory, the chief of which was called Lo-lang (Nangnang in Korean)."
*
:"Around 190 B.C., a man called Wiman (Wei Man in Chinese), who was either of Chinese background or a Korean in Chinese employ, usurped the throne of Choson."
*
:"On the other hand, the “refugee” who came to Choson 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."
*
:"His descendants governed the people until Kija, a wise Chinese philosopher came to the country. Later in 193 B.C. King Kijun was overthrown by his subject Wiman, a refugee from China, and fled to the southern part of the Korean peninsula."
*
:"One of these refugees, Wiman, led a revolt in 190 BC, usurping the throne and establishing a state called Wiman Choson."
*
:"Chinese accounts relate that the state of Chosun, whose ruler was named King Chun, was overthrown by a renegade Chinese from Liaodong named Wiman."
:"Horse and chariot burials from the 2nd century BCE which are earlier than the Chinese commandery of Lelang (called Nangnang in Korean), which was established in 108 BCE, have also been found in the vicinity of Pyongyang and thus would date from the time of Wiman Chosun.""
*
:"Historical records reveal a more detailed and clearer picture of the history of the northwest region after Wiman (Ch.: Wei Man), a refugee from the Chinese state of Yan (?–222 B.C.E.), usurped the throne from King Chun of the old Choson kingdom sometime between 194 and 180 B.C.E."
:"Wiman Choson fell in 108 B.C.E. to the Chinese Han dynasty (194 B.C.E.– 220 C.E.), which subsequently set up commanderies, including lelang commandery (Kor.: Nangnang, 108 B.C.E.–313 C.E.) in the former Choson territory."
*
:"During this turbulent period refugee populations migrated eastward, and among them a leader by the name of Wiman emerged, who succeeded in driving King Chun of Old Choson from his throne (sometime between 194 and 180 B.C.)"
*
:"In 194 B.C. Wiman, a tribal chieftain of Chinese origin, overthrew the Han family and established the kingdom known as Wiman Choson."
*
:"We know that this state, at whatever period it actually originated, was conquered in 195 BC by a figure called Wiman who established a new dynasty while continuing the use of the name of the state."
*
:"Ancient Korean history is comprised of the following states, Former Choson, Later Choson, Wiman Choson, the Four Commanderies, the Three Han states, Silla, Koguryo, Later Koguryo, Paekche, Later Paekche, and Parhae."--222.146.173.59 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone really disputes this, and your POV (i.e. anti-Korean) language seems to be intentional, espcially because a number of the sources you cite are Korean academics. Weiman/Wiman was a usurper from the State of Yan, who fled to Gojoseon in the same year that Lu Wan defected to the Xiongnu. It is not clear whether the two events are related, but Emperor Wu of Han seemed to believe that Wiman Joseon could align with the Xiongnu and thus pose a threat to his country.Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western, Chinese and Japanese scholars accept a Han Chinese Weiman as historic fact 

message: , why do say there was no Korean ethnic group back then? The article seems to indicate the contrary. And it doesn't seem clear that the kingdom was on the peninsula if it included Liaoning.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , it would be nice of you if you show me facts to it's contrary. What about why I say so, so there isn't a RS about any ethnic Korean person of Gojoseon state, there even isn't a RS about Koreanism of Gojoseon. According to the map, Gojoseon was partly on Korean peninsula. Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean kingdom or kingdom on Korean peninsula? 

message: I changed what I felt was appropriate, as prior versions of this section used NPOV language and seemed to be less about academic perspectives on the state/political entity of Gojoseon and more about nationalist (particularly Korean and Chinese) criticisms/claims about the existence of various founding myths. The last two (very large) paragraphs were effectively criticisms of various Korean nationalist (i.e. not necessarily academic) positions/theories related to the founding of Gojoseon, rather than a discussion of academic/research perspectives on the various myths surrounding the poorly-attested founding of Gojoseon. I did eliminate the most severe NPOV language, but even so, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to re-organize the content (some of which is relevant) into something more neutral. Maybe they should have their own subsection, such as "controversies"? Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks OK, and the thing that is disconcerting is the presentation of "myths" as true in some places. I think it does portray academic perspectives.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic perspectives section 

message: :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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 12:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Gojoseon →  – For WP consistency (e.g., Unified Silla, Later Baekje, Former Yan, Later Yan, Early Lý dynasty, Early Lê dynasty). According to WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Unlike "Wiman" (Wiman Joseon) or "Gija" (Gija Joseon), "Go" is not a name. It means "old". It should be translated. "Old Joseon" is used by the National Institute of Korean History. Bamnamu (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Common name tends to outweigh both 'official' names and consistency with other articles. toobigtokale (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 December 2023 

message: The topic is a bit confusing. 
"In 109 BCE, Emperor Wu of Han invaded near the Liao River. A conflict would erupt in 109 BCE, when Wi Man's grandson King Ugeo (우거왕, Hanja: 右渠王) refused to let Jin's ambassadors through his territory in order to reach the Han dynasty. King Ugeo refused and had his son, Prince Wi Jang (長降) escort the ambassador back home. However, when they got close to Han's borders, the ambassador assassinated Wi Jang (長降) and claimed to Emperor Wu that he had defeated Joseon in battle. Emperor Wu, unaware of this deception, made him the military commander of the Commandery of Liaodong. The outraged King Ugeo made a raid on Liaodong and killed She He. Scholars also hypothesize that the initiation of war may also have been because the Han Dynasty was concerned that Gojoseon would ally with the Xiongnu against the Han.
In response, Emperor Wu commissioned a two-pronged attack, one by land and one by sea, against Gojoseon. The two forces attacking Gojoseon were unable to coordinate well with each other and suffered large losses. Eventually, the commands were merged, and Wanggeom fell in 108 BCE. Han took over the Gojoseon lands and established Four Commanderies of Han in the western part of former Gojoseon."
So, the ambassador FROM Jin escorted back to Jin and when they got close to Han's border... What? They escorted from where to where? How they could reach the Han border if they travelled to the opposite direction? Ugeo refused and HAD his son. (??) So he had a son. And? Maybe commissioned to, or charged to. And who was She He? Why Ugeo killed him/her? And which scholars hypothesised the motive behind the war? So, the war began, and the Han army suffered great losses and won and Wanggeom fell. Who? What? And again no sources.
So, all of these need to either delete or rewrite. 
Szeitzp (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiman Joson and it's fall