Template talk:History of Korea

message: It's not so nice to write the comment about the template on itself. You'd better talk about in this discussion page. What's is Korean's view and what is the NPOV? --Ryuch 10:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'from the Korean point of view' deleted

message: Excuse me, but I added Jeulmun Pottery Period and Mumun Pottery Period. Please be reminded that both of these periods are classified as proper nouns and so should remain capitalised. Mumun 無文 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  + Jeulmun and Mumun Periods 

message: Hi, I was wondering about why some periods/ages are bolded and some are not. It looks to me that long, long periods of time are bolded, no? If so, both Jeulmun and Mumun fit the criteria for bolding. However, doesn't anyone think that the bolding of Jeulmun and Mumun makes the template appear 'top heavy' and thus look slightly undesirable? Would it not be better to have these two links, and possibly Go Joseon, without bolding? Comments? Mumun 無文 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rationale for bolded and non-bolded text 

message: History of Korea      	History of Korea
Jeulmun Period        	Jeulmun Period
Mumun Period          	Mumun Period
Gojoseon              	Gojoseon
Jin                   	Jin
Proto-Three Kingdoms  	Proto-Three Kingdoms
Buyeo                 	Okjeo
Dongye                	Mahan
Byeonhan              	Jinhan
Three Kingdoms        	Three Kingdoms
Goguryeo              	Baekje
Silla                 	Gaya
North and South States	North and South States
Silla676-936 AD       	Balhae698-926 AD
Later Three Kingdoms  	Later Three Kingdoms
Goryeo                	Goryeo
Khitan Wars           	Khitan Wars
Mongol Invasions      	Mongol Invasions
Joseon                	Joseon
Japanese Invasions    	Japanese Invasions
Manchu Invasions      	Manchu Invasions
Korean Empire         	Korean Empire
Japanese Occupation   	Japanese Occupation
Provisional Government	Provisional Government
Division of Korea     	Division of Korea
Korean War            	Korean War
North Korea           	South Korea
Timeline
List of monarchs
Military history
Naval history	
Timeline
List of monarchs
Military history
Naval history
Korea Portal          	Korea Portal
:"Copyright" 2007 User:Amphitere (and some credits to User:Korea history)
Please leave comments on ways to improve this new template.
:I made some changes - removed unnecessary styles; smaller image; larger font size; no need to bold everything; put North Korea and South Korea side by side; centered misc. section and put Timeline first.I didn't change the background colours, but I think we need to change them.
::Looks good. But I doubt this template can be copyrighted by anyone. It is long: could we shorten it by doubling up some of the specific Proto-Three Kingdoms so that they appear on on line? For example, Buyeo and Okjeo, Dongye and Mahan, Byeon and Jin? Mumun 無文 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better now...it uses space more effectively...Mumun 無文 12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that there seems to be a problem with how the template is placed in almost every single article related to KorHist. 70.53.129.40 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still like this template, the one used right now is too big and too similiar to the chinese one and also confusing. Good friend100 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'kay. I'll fix it.Kfc1864 talk my edits 06:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''"BETA" Version'' of the New History of Korea Template  

message: The infobox looks like Gaya was a subordinate of Silla. It wasn't for many years, it was for short years. I'll change it, any discrepancies here. feel free to revert. Kfc18645 talk 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaya... 

message: Generally Korean do not think it's a goverment which represents entire Koreans. --Cheol (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be a government, but it's so called provisional government, same as article Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. 207.233.69.239 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[People's Republic of Korea]] was not recognized as a government 

message: Please refer to . --Cheol (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldnt read the page you said but it but anyone with a basic knoledge of history recognizes the middle ages as an european concept that only applies to europe. Besides in earlier versions of the template there wasnt no medieval reference.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already it has found evidence. Please, Don't deny it alone.--Historiographer (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: One page?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: User:Historiographer said that "Already, many other history template are used this style. Don't compared with China and Japan. It is in a totally unrelated field.", I absolutely agree with him. Also, You mentioned Cheol's evidence is just One page. However, you are probably not know about East Asian History Foundation (동북아역사재단, 東北亞歷史財團). It is a government organization under Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. Please refer to . This organization have public confidence than your insists.--Aocduio (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  middle age of Korea 

message: Currently South Korea is referred to by its official name, while the North Korea is just listed as North Korea. It looks kind of disjointed. So should we use the official names for the two Koreas? Akkies (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Contemporary history 

message: Since we're now back to the subject, let's see what scholars say about Dangun/Tangun and Gija/Kija:
*
:"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."
It is clear that scholars accept neither Dangun/Tangun nor Gija/Kija as historical, and we should likewise leave them both out of this history template. -Zanhe (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: -Zanhe (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just throw in a "Traditional" or "Legendary" section?  See  for example.  Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me, . The problem is Cydevil38 keeps removing the quasi-historical Gija while adding the clearly mythological Dangun, which is pure POV. See this sequence of edits:   , for example. -Zanhe (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

text: The problem is that Zanhe is trying to add Gija Joseon, which he thinks is "semi-historical". The person Gija or Jizi may be semi-historical, but the account that he founded Gojoseon is mostly rejected as a Chinese fabrication and that he has nothing to do with the founding of Gojoseon, and ignored. Another complication could be with that of Wiman Joseon, which is often considered as historical, due to supporting archaeological evidence. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have a habit of making demonstrably false claims. I do not advocate adding Gija (see last thread), and my preference has always been to treat the Dangun and Gija legends equally, and leave them both out of the history template. My view of Gija being a semi-historical figure is based on books such as The History of Korea and Archaeology of Asia, both cited above. As these and other books demonstrate, Gija is discussed in many books about ancient Korean history, like Dangun. -Zanhe (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I've already shown you definitive sources, two extensively peer-reviewed tertiary sources on Korean history & culture, that "Dangun Joseon" is widely accepted by the Academia. BTW, the Korean Britannica also has makes mention of Dangun Joseon, which is also referenced at Gojoseon. Of course, along with other extensively peer-reviewed tertiary sources, Gija is ignored. This is also reflected in the Korean counterpart of this template. The link of Dangun Joseon to Dangun is because of the lack of the specific article on Dangun Joseon, to which the Korean counterpart is linked to. The Korean Wikipedia is has a detailed article on Dangun Joseon. If you prefer, a link Dangun Joseon to can be changed toDangun Joseon, and later an article can be made about it. As for Xia Dynasty, I don't involve myself in subjects I don't know much about, and this is something that you yourself should contemplate as well regarding Korean mythology, archaeology and history. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, not again. Your "definitive sources" are nothing but two anonymous Korean webpages on naver.com. And your new source from daum.net clearly says Dangun is mythical. I'd also like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible", not on tertiary sources which you've been citing. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. -Zanhe (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: These are tertiary sources published by authoritative institutions, National_Institute_of_Korean_History and Academy of Korean Studies. The new one is Encyclopedia Britannica, and it says "하지만 단군신화는 고조선의 건국과 관련된 일련의 역사적 사건들이 신화적으로 정리된 것으로서", "However, the Dangun Myth is a series of historical events relating to the founding of Gojoseon organized into a myth. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your good will, and am satisfied with your recent edit. I'm glad to put this long-running dispute behind us and look forward to cooperating with you on Gojoseon and other articles. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic consensus

message: 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. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiman Joseon is a single state in Gojoseon period. --133.236.92.193 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「There are other mythical polities where mythical dates are given.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Cydevil is removing fully historical Wiman , while writing the 100% mythological 2333 BC date.--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusion of Sub-periods of Gojoseon

message: * Ewha Womans University Press『Astronomy Traditional Korean』p. 14."Astronomical Heritage of korea　Dates　24 B.C.-2 B.C.　Period　DangunJoseon,GijaJoseon,and WimanJoseon"--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are edit-warring and do not have consensus. I advise you self-revert. Also, you are not separating your comments from other people's comments. Ogress smash! 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You continue to edit against consensus. Ogress smash! 11:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「There are other mythical polities where mythical dates are given.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a tremendous difficulty understanding your comments because you aren't using full sentences or articulating your argument in basically any way. Can you try to be clearer? That link is completely unhelpful, I don't understand the point of it at all. Ogress smash! 16:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ewha Womans University Press『Astronomy Traditional Korean』p. 14."Astronomical Heritage of korea　Dates　24 B.C.-2 B.C.　Period　DangunJoseon,GijaJoseon,and WimanJoseon"--219.111.108.168 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by 219.111.108.168

message: User:Greenhorn38, to my knowledge, the template functions as a broad overview of the country's history. It provides redirects to the individual kingdoms/time periods, but does not include every single detail, such as when a country became a vassal to another or became independent. These are details for the reader to obtain from the article, for which a link is provided in the template. For most other templates, a new link is created ONLY when a distinct entity is created, i.e. when the Silla ceased to exist and was succeeded by Goryeo or when the Korean Empire ceased to exist after being annexed by Japan. In this case however, independent Goryeo and Vassal Goryeo were still the same entity, and thus only warrant one inclusion in the template, not multiple. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the Protectorate to Pacify the East was not part of the Three Kingdoms Period. It was created after the period ended. Additionally, it fell before the North-South States period, so I'm not quite sure where to place it, if it should be included at all. Quite frankly, I'd vote to remove it, especially considering how short-lived it was (on the peninsula, 668-676). I'd like to ask User:Massyparcer and User:Ph for their input as well, given their involvement in this topic as well. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and to be honest, User:Greenhorn38 is currently undergoing a sockpuppet investigation under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenhorn38. He has a history of disrupting Korean history articles with nationalist agendas and has received no credibility for his continued disruptive edits. Massyparcer (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: States mentioned within the Template

message: First of all, thank you User:Donald Trung for your contribution and interest to edit the History of Korea. Please allow me to explain my reasons for reverting your version and I hope you will understand as I know you have put some time and effort to create the image:
* As you mentioned, you are not sure if using the South Korean preferred name is more "neutral". As the series refers to the history of both the Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, you are correct that using the South Korean preferred name is not neutral. The first image that you used had text which either referred to the "History of Joseon Dynasty" or the "History of Choson (North Korea)", and your second edit has the text "History of South Korea" which is not appropriate as North Korea does not use "한국" as their official name.
* As both North Korea and South Korea share the same history before its division, in order to not cause any confusion and bias, it is better to not use any text/seal for the template image to be more neutral.
Therefore the previous image in my opinion does not need to be replaced. Please feel free to let me know your opinion as I am willing to listen and understand your viewpoint or if anyone else has any other opinion, it would be great to discuss before we make any further changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.246.41.175 (talk • contribs) 
: Excuse the late reaction as I didn't get a ping and for the last couple of days I have been using for a more neutral name, but unless one Korea wins the Korean War both names are biased towards one side so I don't disagree with your assessment. Unfortunately there is no universal name for "Korea" or "the Korean peninsula" in the Korean language. --Donald Trung (talk)  16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no such seals as "History of Korea" or "History of Norht/Sourth Korea". The attempted pictures are totally OR. Besides, these pictures are of strong Chinese style, not suitable for Korean history and English Wiki. EditQ (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: EditQ, style isn't "original research" and these aren't "Chinese style", Koreans themselves used Traditional Chinese characters (Hanja) for over a thousand years (and university educated South Koreans still learn them today) and the depicted building is a historical Chinese building. Unless you'd argue that Korean architecture is "too Chinese to be suitable for Korea". — Donald Trung (talk)  21:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are pushing Chinese style in Template:History of Ryukyu,Template:History of Vietnam, making Asian history look like Chinese. It is "sinocentrism". These countries had abandoned Chinese characters. People in these countries don't know Chinese characters, besides it is English Wiki. EditQ (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: EditQ, — Donald Trung (talk)  18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: EditQ, the idea that Traditional Chinese characters are exclusively Chinese would be like claiming that using Latin script outside of Italy would be "italocentrism". I wasn't the person who originally added it to the Ryūkyūan template (:Special:MobileDiff/1118846980), but you reveal your ignorance in these statements. South Koreans still study and use Hanja today, Japanese people (including Okinawans) still use Kanji today, and for thousands of years the Vietnamese used Hán tự (until as recently as the 1950's). These are templates about the histories of these places, Japanese people still use Kanji today, Koreans and Vietnamese people have used Traditional Chinese characters for most of their history. China doesn't have an exclusive claim to Traditional Chinese characters. — Donald Trung (talk)  18:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I've been studying Korean language for a couple of years. Nobody teaches me how to write Hanja. In addition, Chinese characters had been completed abandoned in North Korea. Anyway, there is nothing wrong not to have Chinese characters here and other Asian country history template. Please stop pushing sinocentrism and causing edit disputes.EditQ (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: EditQ, what edit disputes am I creating? There's literally not a single dispute here, the only dispute I see is you pushing a very odd definition of "Sinocentrism" by pretending that no country other than China has a claim to Chinese characters in its history. In reality, Traditional Chinese characters have been used in Korea for thousands of years until they were abolished in South Korea very recently (mixed script publications have been found as late as the 1990's). This article debunks your claims, at "" It is still used to this day in some places in South Korea, later the article claims that Hanja is still taught in South Korean elementary schools: "" So, are South Korean elementary schools "Sinocentric" according to your definition? Just because you haven't seen any Hanja in your studying of the Korean language doesn't mean that anybody else does, especially as it's still a part of the South Korean education system today. And at this point: "" the author specifically mentions that Hanja is still important to understand the Korean language today. -- — Donald Trung (talk)  15:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if it wasn't used today this is still about a history template, the main reason people were against the inclusion of the text above was not due to the Hanja but due to Korea having 2 (two) official names which are disputed between North Korea and South Korea. — Donald Trung (talk)  15:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements in the article you use are biased and wrong. The truth is that there are no Hanja in North Korea, but Korean language works well by itself there. People don't study Chinese characters first before studying Korean history. In history, Chinese characters were only known to the rich people in Korean ancient days. For the majority of Korean population, Chinese characters were aliens. Chinese characters have never served as a symbol of Korean history. Anyway, there are a lot problems with your pictures. None of the issues I stated above have been solved. EditQ (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: EditQ, the fact that the North Korean government doesn't use Hanja doesn't invalidate its historical usage. For thousands of years Traditional Chinese characters were the only script used in Korea and the claim that it was "only for rich people" is very disingenuous as most writing in most history was primarily an elite thing until the introduction of universal elementary education. Even North Korea used mixed script in its early history as seen here. You either seem to follow Communist historiography or Nationalist historiography as I've heard the claim that "only the elites used Chinese characters" by North Korea and Vietnam, but no mainstream South Korean academic would claim this. In fact, both South Korean government officials and historians promote the usage of Hanja (Archive). Most of your arguments seem to claim that Chinese characters are either the exclusive cultural domain of the Chinese (which actually is sinocentrism) or that they were never important in Korean history (which is objectively false). Using native languages for illustrative purposes also isn't discouraged here. — Donald Trung (talk)  14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the source you just provided, "There is a continuing debate in Korea on whether Hanja should be reintroduced into the public elementary school curriculum". That means elementary schools in Korea don't teach Hanja. "Many now believe that learning Hanja is not necessary".Only historians and some pro-China government officials think hanja is useful. Indeed, Chinese characters are controversal, and not suitable to reprent Korean histry at all. EditQ (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: EditQ, one could only come to those conclusions if you actively ignore the rest of the context. It's mostly controversial because people don't want to burden students with additional work. So because historians want Hanja to be viewed as important "it is not suitable to represent Korean history". That makes no sense. It's also quite disingenuous to call South Korea's nationalistic government "pro-China", nationalists typically want their people to be more in touch with their history. The entire argument on the pro-Hanja side is that it was historically important, you seem to project modern sensibilities onto the entirety of Korean history. — Donald Trung (talk)  14:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For the public record, I'm not arguing in favour of re-inclusion of the above images back into the template at this moment (as I agree with user "119.246.41.175") as Korea doesn't have a single agreed upon name, I just find the exclusion reasoning provided by user "EditQ" to be absurd. — Donald Trung (talk)  14:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Korea Template Image