Talk:Wiman of Gojoseon

message: 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)
replies: text: You should follow three steps listed in Wikipedia: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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move (October 2006) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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:
* 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.
--Nanshu 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: 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)
thread_title: General?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC on Romanization, Wording, Categorization 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Immigrant?