Talk:History of Korea

History is history it is not something you can glorify and alter

In order for the author to save the energy of writing the length of this amateur article, you may as well to say that most of the eastern Asian cultures were originated from Koran. Why is it so hard for some Korean people to differentiate the ‘facts’ and the comic books (including commercial TV programs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrmj (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh-Oh-Oh. I'm very offended. So what?Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While parts of this article are very good, a fair chunk of it is unadulterated nationalist horseshit. It reads as if a bunch of uber-patriotic 15-year-old wankers wrote a fairy-tale history piece for "We Worship Our Country" day. I'm surprised the prehistory section doesn't claim that Koreans were descended from supernatural bears. This has to be one of the more embarrassing articles on Wikipedia.

Samguk Yusa, written in 13th century by a monk, was a collection of legends, fair tales and other unorthodox history. Even people in 15th century call it a absurd book to justify Buddhism. It can't be treated seriously. Some authors try to use such book to prove other hundreds of history book(dated from 5th century B.C) wrong. Even the quotation from this book was altered to justify some purpose of those Korean nationalists. I really feel sad about those poor guys. At least they should learn some basic history before altering it. I can't help laughing when they dated their history to 2333B.C. while even pupils from elementary schools in China know they can only precisely wrote their history back to 841B.C. Is Korea the first country had invented time machine? LOL What a great country!!! Another funny thing is beside the narrative of "Archeology evidence of entering bronze age at 2500 B.C and Iron age at 1200B.C.", there is an evidence of STONE DAGGER from 6-7th century B.C. Does that mean early Koreans are environmentalists who are against iron and bronze tools because they may think coal is not regenerative energy resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesconfuser (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

Why does this propaganda page start with an unreferenced mention of prehistoric 'Korean' pottery. What does the term Korea mean in 8000BC? It means absolutely squat. Moreover, this should not be included in both history and prehistory of Korea. Someone change this nonesense. The entire 'History of Korea' is lacking in credibility when it starts in this fashion.

This is crazy. This is too long. Someone make this make sense! --Pupster21 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Also, make a summary.--Pupster21 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Article. --Pupster21 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Also archive the talk page. --Pupster21 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A summary is a good idea. But I am unsure if you mean that the article is too long or that the talk page is too long. Anyway, I just perused History of Croatia and History of Canada articles, and they are more or less the same length as the History of Korea article.

Mumun 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, you are quite right that there should be a summary. I have added the summary from Korea#History, adapted slightly; it could still use some work. I agree that this article should be trimmed; at 47K it is half again as long as a Wikipedia article should be. Details should be shuffled off into their respective articles. That's a rather tiresome chore, however, and a rather thankless one given the relentless insistence of people on dumping excessive detail here (and in Korea). -- Visviva 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was right after I added details of prehistory in the article that someone raised the issue of the article's length. I agree now. I am willing to have the prehistoric content expunged completely or drastically cut back in favour of a new separate article called Prehistory of Korea. In fact, if the prehistory section is erased from here it would accurately reflect the current unfortunate state of affairs in Korean History and Korean Studies -- very little reliable historical depth or knowledge about the deep past. I wish I could use stronger words but I won't. However, if the expunging of anything is done, I would hope that the excessive detail in some other sections in this article would be substantially trimmed (Japanese colonization of Korea, for instance) and we need to trust the reader to click on the main article. Mumun 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to the last point. However, although creating a Prehistory of Korea article is a great idea, I don't know that we need to get rid of the prehistory here entirely... it's very informative, and if it's removed it will just eventually be replaced by the sort of uninformed silliness that was there before. ;-) Ideally, we would have about a screenful summarizing what is known and theorized about Korean prehistory, including both archeological and historiographic studies, giving the reader an accurate and informed perspective on the current state of scholarship (however inconclusive that scholarship may be). Unfortunately I'm not the best one to write that section... :-)

By the way, do you consider Byeon to be a particularly unreliable source for the Paleolithic dates? Can you recommend another? Cheers, -- Visviva 10:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Byeon and the rest are great, but it would be good to support those important date statements using more specialized publications...unfortunately I couldn't identify any sources that say 700,000 bp, but there are others such as:

• Nelson, Sarah. The Archaeology of Korea. Cambridge UNiversity Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp-26-57.

Nelson's chapter on the Palaeolithic deals with the earliest evidence of Hominind (presum. Homo Sapiens sapiens) settlement in Korea in a careful and thoughtful way. She takes a less critical approach and tries to be objective, I think. For example, "The evidence for early paleolithic in Korea is sparse but..." (pg. 30) and she goes on until pg. 42 presenting evidence that is claimed by others such as Prof. Son Bogi etc to say that there were Lower Paleolithic occupations. However, she makes it clear that the dates of the earliest occupation of Korea are an open question. In the end she seems to settle on 500,000 bp., but it seems it could be much later, c. 200,000 bp.

• Bae, Kidong. Radiocarbon Dates from Palaeolithic Sites in Korea, Radiocarbon 44(2):473-476, 2002.

Professor Bae (Hanyang U.) lists all of the absolute scientific dates available at the time. He explains in this paper that the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Palaeolithic indicate the antiquity of occupation on the Korean peninsula is between 40,000 and 30,000 B.P. However, he argues for the possibility of a more ancient occupation.

• Yi, Seon-bok and G.A. Clark. Observations on the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 24(2):181-202, 1983.

Professor Yi (SNU) appears to reject the claims that Hominids occupied the Korean Peninsula in the Lower Palaeolithic (c. 2.5 million - 120,000 bp) in the above paper.

I haven't seen the Byeon book, and I wouldn't want to dismiss general history books out of hand. Perhaps he quotes some research that I do not know. Anyway, I will start a prehistory article soon. I really don't mind to cut back the prehistory section in the History of Korea, either. :-) By the way, I think the way that the text and references appear now shouldn't be changed in respect to the Prehistory section of the History of Korea article. For example, North Korean research is presented as a 'claim', which is a flag for all reasonable people to differentiate it from a 'fact'. So some kind of critical perspective is offered, which is always good. If there is a way to be more concise elsewhere in the article, we could actually add a single sentence to the material on the palaeolithic in this article that summarizes what I said above. A little more detail would presumably be presented in Prehistory of Korea. Mumun 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No one believe Korea history written, they just cheat themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.133.150 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

宮田 節子 [Miyata, Setsuko]. "創氏改名" [Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names]

The article states : "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names.[20] "

I checked the citation 20(and 25). The book by Setsuko Miyata's "Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names", turned out that it does not support the argument. She states "創氏改名 was voluntary, however it was unnatural that 80% of people voluntarily created surnames in 6 month. So, she concludes, somehow, "there must be some peer puressure among people". http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~korea-su/korea-su/jkorea/nikkan/0311.html

There is a picture of the flyer(with Hangul and Japanese) saying "Aug, 10th is the last CHANCE you can register names! If you want here is the procedure" .. etc. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/tokurei.JPG For more detail: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/seminarmizuno.htm

And Korean language never been officialy banned either. Hangul had been taught in schools throught out Korea, even Japanese kids had to learn. There is nothing like banning Korean language or Hangul, although freedom of speech was not there during the war. I did some research and found a picture of a Korean newspaper "Chosun Ilbo" (March 10th, 1940). I definitely see Hangul there. http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932683.gif

So, "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names" are not only too strong words but also misleading. I'd say it is wrong and should be fixed.

Oh, I forgot to mention there were volunteer Japanese soldiers who kept Korean name and became a major, such as 金錫源 and 洪思翊.

How do you explain that.

Actually, 洪思翊 was a general, and was later executed as a war criminal. --TokyoJapan (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The term of period of unified silla

It is changed as "the period of south and north states" based on the high school history book written by 국사편찬위원회[1]. So, the template of "history of korea" must be changed. But, I do not know how to change it. please can somebody fix it ? --Hairwizard91 15:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that. For one thing, a high-school textbook isn't really an authoritative source by itself, although it certainly deserves some consideration. For another, the template uses "Unified Silla" and "Balhae" together, just as this article now does. Now, I think you were correct to move "Unified Silla" to a third-level heading (parallel with Balhae) in this article. However, both here and in the template, we still need to use the term "Unified Silla" in order to distinguish Three Kingdoms Silla from post-Three-Kingdoms Silla. The term 통일신라/Unified Silla seems to be widely used in both Korean and English scholarship -- considerably *more* widely than 남북국(시대)/Northern and Southern states. To wit:

• • Searching the Korean-language scholarly search engine DBPia.co.kr, we get 17 hits for 남북국 (Northern and Southern States) but 75 hits for 통일신라 (Unified Silla) ... further, several of the former results are actually papers arguing for the use of the term "Northern and Southern states," which is evidence in itself that the term is not well-established. (This surprised me a little)
  • Searching Google Scholar, we get 113 hits for "Unified Silla" (plus another 25 for "Unified Shilla"); all of these, of course, are talking about Korean history. We do get a few hits for "northern and southern states" +korea (69) or "north and south states" +korea (6), but *none* of these seem to be talking about Korean history; they just happen to use the term in referring to either US or global division, and mention the word "Korea" somewhere in the text.

From this it seems clear that the term "Northern and Southern States" is in only sparing use even in Korean-language scholarship, and is still almost never used in English-language scholarship, to refer to the Unified Silla-Balhae period. I think we can and should use this term on Wikipedia, but only when we need a superordinate term to cover both Unified Silla and Balhae. We don't need such a term in the template (there isn't even room for it), but we do need such a term in this article. -- Visviva 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use the 1st heading for grouping Balhae and Unified Silla whatever the name is. Using the 1st headings for each Balhae and Unified Silla does not reflect on the current research of history.--Hairwizard91 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

prehistory

I have added some details in the prehistory section and eventually I hope everyone will be pleased. Let's edit any changes together. 선사 부분의 편집 할 것을 시원하게 열심히 함게 합시다. 여러분의 많은 참여를 바랍니다. 한국 고고학 萬歲! Mumun 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very good to see the update article. But, I want to say something. Korean history viewpoint is based on the people's movement(I dont know the correct english term, but 속인屬人). Korean history viewpoint is not the current territory of Korean peninsula(Do you understand what I am saying. It is too hard to explain two terms). So, the Koreans had lived in north area such as Manchuria in the very very ancient period because Korean is a sort of a nomad in ancient time. I have found that Mumun is only focused on the Korean peninsula. Is there any reason ? Perhaps no Mumum potter might have been found in North of Korean peninsula. --Hairwizard91 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hairwizard91! Indeed, you are talking about 'layman' (屬人) I guess. Mumun Pottery Period culture has been defined first and foremost according to the long-term pottery traditions in the Korean Peninsula, but both archaeologists and laymen think of the term Mumun Pottery Period as a socio-technic period that has unique cultural developments along subsistence, settlement, social, and ideational components.

There is a common explanation of the origin of Mumun culture that, even though North Korean archaeologists would prefer different terminology and points of reference, a parallel explanation for the origin of Mumun culture. Long long ago, the current political, cultural, and ethnic borders did not exist as they do today. People between living around the Yellow Sea interacted intensively at various points in prehistory and protohistory. The Yellow Sea is shallow and smaller than we think. For example, through complex processes of diffusion the Jeulmun pottery-using people of Korea adopted millet cultivation from their Yellow Sea interactions some time around 3500 B.C. or before. Millet is the default crop of Northern Chinese prehistoric agriculture. Cultivation of rice was introduced to southern Korea subsequently. People living in Korea interacted more intensively with Neolithic cultures in Northern China and Shandong between 2000 and 1000. Some time before 1500 B.C. the first northern-style megalithic burials (dolmen 지석묘) were constructed in Liaodong and North Korea. Also -- stone-cist burials in the tradition of those used in southern Korea are found first in Liaodong and North Korea. Finally, the origin of manufacture and use of jade (greenstone) ornaments in southern Korea after 900 or 850 B.C. is likely North Korea.

The pottery traditions of Liaoning, northern Korea, and southern Korea have many similarities. Professor Ahn Jae-ho of Dongguk University, a highly respected archaeologist, is among many who think that pottery-making traditions diffused from Liaoning to North Korean river valleys (Cheongcheon and Taedong Rivers are frequently mentioned) 1500 or a little before to 850 B.C. Many Early Mumun Period settlements were excavated 1953-1970 by North Korean archaeologists -- villages with similar architectural features (i.e. pit-houses with rectangular plan-shapes and interior hearths) range over a large geographical area from Liaodong Peninsula to southeastern Korea.

Most archaeologists in both Koreas and China think that the Liaoning and North Korean people migrated into southern Korea along the Yellow Sea coast in successive waves between 1500 and approximately 850 B.C. In sum, pottery styles that are included under the Mumun pottery definition are made first in Northeast China and North Korea, and this pottery-making tradition slowly was adopted by/entered into the southern Korean peninsula along with many other cultural traits of Liaodong and North Korea including architectural and mortuary features. The general trend is that many aspects of Mumun culture were introduced to southern Korea from Liaoning and North Korea. 하루 잘 보내세요, 여러분! Mumun 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that I have correctly understood. So, the Mumum potter is also found in Liaoning and North Korea areas. Right? If the Mumum potter is found in the area except south Korean peninsula, I think that the article about Mumun pottery in Liaoning and North Korean is also included in the current article. But, the article seems to be explain only about Mumun in the south korea peninsula. Because Korean historians consider that the history by Korean, wherever they had lived, must be included to the history of Korean(which is firstly mentioned as 속인屬人 (not laymen俗人)). This concept of viewpoint about history in Korea is different from those in China and USA. The context of Prehistory seems to be confined to only the Peninsula of Korea. But, it should be extended to the area where ancient Korean had lived such as Liaoning and south Manchuria, even Hebei. Do I say it clearly?--Hairwizard91 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes thank you for pointing out my mistake about 屬人, Hairwizard91. I realize now, I hope, about what you were originally musing. It think it might be fruitful to investigate a little about how this concept of 屬人主義 is characterized across time and space. In general:

• Does 屬人主義 for Korean history change according to circumstances of time and space? For example, is 屬人主義적 interpretation appropriate for the origins of the Mumun Pottery Period?
• You mention that 'Korean historians' use this concept, but I wonder how many would consider this an operable concept in their own research? After all, Korean historians who teach at Korean public and private universities are not educated in an academic vacuum: they are exposed to international historical theories, methods, and ways of thinking about the world.
• I am not sure, and admit my ignorance in this matter, but it seems to me that the most important period relating to the formation of the Korean ethnicity took place some time after the period currently in discussion. Thus, I humbly ask of what utility is 屬人主義적 interpretation during a period of time when the majority of scholars do not yet recognize that the Korean ethnicity has formed?
• To what extent can any ancient texts be used as reliable evidence to interpret life in Liaoning, North Korea, or South Korea circa 2000-1000 B.C.? I humbly ask if it is possible? We need to look at these invaluable texts as the fallible and biased records that they are. We cannot forget that we are involved in an encyclopaedia project -- at the minumum we need to concentrate on reflect the status quo, and at the max it would be nice to help the average reader by taking advantage of cutting edge academic research that is accepted by the majority of the academy.

I neglected to mention on this talk page, but people were already present on the Korean peninsula at the time when people who practiced Mumun period lifeways started to migrate into the Imjin, Han, Anseong, and Geum River drainages. This complicates the origins of the Mumun, as it raises the question of external versus internal influences. For example, both the indigenous people (Jeulmun pottery-using groups) and the Mumun people apparently had the ability to plant, tend, and harvest agricultural crops, albeit at different levels/scales. Full-blown agriculture in Korea developed between 1500-850 B.C., but to what extent was this development attributable to native Jeulmun cultivation? By the same token, to what extent was full-blown agriculture related to the Early Mumun traditions? Unless I continue to misunderstand the 屬人主義 concept, this might make interpretation along 屬人主義적인 lines somewhat difficult in regard to the time and place in question. Archaeological data have limits -- the state of the art in archaeology cannot tell us if external or internal inluences were more important in this case (yet). As such, using 屬人主義적 concepts to envelope prehistoric peoples living in Liaoning into a nationalistic idea of Korean history might not help the average reader to understand the origins of Korean civilization. Not to mention the current addition on prehistory in this article -- does it make sense for the average reader? This also needs to be addressed.

Please forgive me, Hairwizard91 et al, if I have once again misunderstood you. Hope this may help.-- Mumun 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"butt slapping", etc.

While reading the article, I was surprised to come across a reference to "butt slapping" under the Joseon heading, linked to a non-existent article on that topic, under the subheading "Consolidation of the Joseon government". I looked through the history to see if this was a case of recent vandalism, but this language did not appear to be recent. This reference was part of a passage with several grammatical errors, so I edited it. The expression "butt slapping" is really inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The word "butt" is slang, with a slightly comical feel. It makes the entire article sound adolescent and questionable. The more standard term would be "spanking". Looking at other references online, I found some support for a historical practice of caning (e.g. on the buttocks) as a form of corporal punishment in Korea (whereas spanking or slapping would normally be by hand). So I have changed the reference to "caning". If someone wants to revert, please explain why, and please respond to my concerns about inappropriate tone. Thanks. Marco polo 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

cool, nice edit there. I didn't see that, but I do know that they got spanked in Korea during the Chosun Dynasty. =) Good friend100 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Military History

What Happened to the Military History of Korea Article? Easternknight 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

nvm someone just took it out from the Temp box. Easternknight

Law

Defering to Marco's question, we should create a section on ancient Korean law and types of punishments. "Butt Spanking" should definitely be included. Many Korean dramas depicting Josun often depict people lashed on horizontal crucifixes, getting the life spanked off their butts by boards for whatever crime they committed. There are many branches to this, and I am surprised to have not thought of this earlier. Oyo321 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Documented History

Previously I noted that somebody claimed that Korea has a documented history of over 4000 years. If so, would somebody please tell me, in what language and on what material where the documents written on?--Tbearzhang 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably traditional Chinese. Good friend100 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. Even China does not have a documented history of 4000 years. No written documents from the legendary Xia dynasty (which, according to the Chinese, ruled China from about 2200 BC to 1600 BC) has yet been found. The earliest recognized form of written Chinese is found on turtle shells and animal bones, dating back to the Shang dynasty, which was established after 1600 BC. Many tribes to the north of China either did not use Chinese or did not even have language. If the Koreans (who did not even exist 4000 years ago) were using traditional Chinese over 4000 years ago, some 400 years before the Chinese, then how come the language we refer to as "Chinese" is not called "Korean"?--Tbearzhang 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume when you say "tribes to the north" had no language you meant they had no written language. Angry bee (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The written Korean language was invented in 1443A.D.. It usually used by peasants and women. Chinese were still the official written language until the invasion of Japanese in last century. The chinese was totally abandoned as official language in 1949 in North Korea, 1968 in South Korea. Meanwhile Changbai Chaoxianzu autonomous county in China start use Korean as written language in 1953. Mosesconfuser (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mosesconfuser, this is plainly wrong. King Sejong invented the Korean language, and it was the official language of Korea after that. Yes, many scholars at that time objected, yet Korean was the main language. Also, China and Korea both does have history over 4000 years old, almost 5000 years. Do some research, figure out the math, search on some non-Chinese sites (oh, right. Your country's restricted on Internet access. LOL. Must be poor).--The Hegemarch (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

significant changes in historical periodisation terminology in article text

Please attempt to consult and gain consensus with fellow editors before making unilateral changes such as "Unified Silla" to "Later Silla". We are required to reflect the current and or conventional state of historical and archaeological research. This includes periodisation terminology: last time I checked the period after AD 668 is called Unified Silla in English and 통일 신라 in Korean. Unless there has been some kind of overnight blanket change in both the Korean and English literature, the text of this article should refect a recognizable standard of historical terminology and 'Unified Silla' is clearly the recognised standard. Mumun 無文 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Kprideboi's edits again, and I think they are okay but were simply placed in the wrong section. I can see how that might happen because the topic of the first sentence of Unified Silla subsection appears to address the demise of Unified Silla more than anything else. Seems a confusing way to begin description of Unified Silla, especially for unfamiliar editors or readers. Other than being placed in the wrong section, I think Kprideboi's edits are not objectionable and could be placed in the Later Three Kingdoms section.Mumun 無文 15:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious material and false claims in the first two part undermind the value of the whole article

Actually I can't even finish the first two parts. There are two many junks there. For the last 3 days, I read hundreds of pages of materials and try to correct some mistakes or add some content to make some claim full or looks legitimate. Unfortunately all my efforts were simply reverted by some author. Since I was blocked for 24 hours by 'editing war', I feels tired and frustrate to fight with zealot of inventing history. To avert any unnecessary guess, first I admit I am a Chinese. As a Chinese I really don't care about how Korean write their own history. But as a serious armature historian, I can't tolerate false claim showing on this site. Especially most reader of this website is someone without any background on this topic. My conscience can't let it go, so I pick some of those absurd statements on this discussion board, let the readers judge it.

1."Gojoseon was founded in 2333B.C."

China's dated history is back to 841B.C. How can someone get this 2333 from Chinese history text?

2.'Dangun was the first king of Gojoseon.'

The story of Dangun is first recorded in samguk yusa. The book itself was collected by a Buddhist monk Iryeon. Since it is a collection of legends and folktales and even claim Dangun’s grandfater is some Buddha, the book was never be treated like a serious history source. Even someone assume the legends maybe are true. But why didn't the first official book Samguk Sagi record such an important fact, especially in the time of royal people like to emphasis that their thrones were granted by God. Further more in the book of samguk yusa, it says '魏书云。乃往二千载有坛君王俭' which translate as 'according Book of Wei, Dangun was existed in 2000 years ago.' The fact is no existing version of Book of Wei has such statement.

3.'Bronze age in korean peninsula dated back to 2500B.C.'

Our friends say 'archaeological evidence suggests it might have started as far back as 2500 BCE'. But my research show the logic behind this statement is that since they find some kind of potteries dated back to 2500B.C and those pottery was commonly used in other bronze societies in the ancient world, no matter whether we excavate any bronze relics we are in bronze age anyway. LOL. There is another article in wiki clearly states [[Three-age system] is not suitable to Korean Peninsula. Since this subject is so misleading and so controversial, why the hell some author is so scant to use the word like 'may' 'might' 'maybe' or 'probable'. Aren those words deleted from elementary or middle school text book?

4.'"Goryeo" is a short form of "Goguryeo"'

I highly suspect this statement. "玄菟、乐浪，（汉）[[武帝时置，皆（朝鲜)、秽貂、句丽(Guryeo) 蛮夷(barbarians)", here it does not only state Joseon and Guryeo are different people also give some clue how the word Go-guryeo was constructed. Go(高）is the family name of the Goguryeo's kings which mean 'high'. To punish his victory over Guryeo, Wang Mang change the name of 'king of Gogeryeo' to 'Marquis of Xia-Geryeo', which means lower Geryeo. The same reference also stated Goryeo people belong to Mohe. So Goryeo never be the short term of Goguryeo, it's not the custom of chinese using short term. In some book, it states the short term of Geoyeo is Yeo. According the custom, the short term of Goryeo should be Wang-yeo, since the king's last name is Wang.

Altering history can't make a nation great but make its people jokers. The behavior of putting those false facts into text book for elementary school is the crime against humanity. Since I am Chinese, people may accuse me of be bias or are from Chinese prospect. [The the truth is all of those history document are written in Classical Chinese, even the fist preserved Korean history book Samguk Sagi . (I happened to be good at reading them.) So please don't argue with me if you can't read the original historical book. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in history articles, but you and Kubie, the other contender were very conspicuous for the continued edit warring initiated by you. You've clearly ignored the rules here and especially the above section is your original research by the information that you're not an authoritative figure from academic fields. Well, even many academics are very known for their altering history such as Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Don't you look biased and write from Chinese point of view? Yes, you do. "Don't argue with you?" Hmm.. you might've forgotten that Wikipedia is not owned by you. Your custom does not go by the same to Korean history. Plus, please refrain from pouring insulting comments. That does not make you feel good.--Appletrees (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've long given up trying to reason with Chinese internet nationalists. They do not present credible sources with the arguments they make, only amature interpretations of nebulous texts. Sorry wannabe scholars, you guys can muck around with your own history page but don't try to pervert Korean history to fit with your own fantasies. --Kuebie (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, your talk show your ignorance of the content and history facts. Serious discussion about history is always welcome. I want to see more facts. I am willingly to admit I am wrong if I am convinced. However, as an administrator if you don't have interest in history, is it necessary to write your 'opinion' here? I already apologized for my violation of rules and thank for your neglecting my work after "if" in my sentence. I think a normal understanding of my word is I don't want to argue with people who don't have such knowledge and who don't put much effort on it. Once again, Chinese point of view is the 'only' point of view because all the historical articles about Korean Peninsula are written in Chinese before 13th century. The only way to eliminate 'bias' is to shorten Korean history to 13th century. So before that time, it should be called 'prehistory'. By the way how much you know about Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences? Do you know the opinions of each party? Watch your mouth. Your comment is insulting and slanderous. There are too many political subjects there. But the research itself is always needed to solve real argument. That discussion are mostly between scholars. Also it's clearly a country's sovereignty to research the history on its land. I feel shame when I heard the scientific was interrupted under political reason. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Book of later Han fragments the the people by kingdom and during that time Korea was not united. I don't see what your trying to prove.

Wang Man naming of Koguryo as Ha(low)guryo is merely Sino-centric self-satifaction. Man enlisted Goguryeo forces to engage the Hsienpei (12 AD) Goguryeo had a change of heart and warred with the Chinese armies instead. Aahaha you claim to be historian yet you don't even understand the concept of terminological degradtion in chinese texts.

Wang-yeo, what the hell is that? My god, the Go house consolidated power during the reign of Taejo of Goguryeo. Power was exchanged from the Hae (Sono) to the Go (Kyeru). It is the Go house that conquered its neigbors, subjugated the Malgals, created the stele, and warred with China. It has absolutely nothing to do with your overly thought out and (quite laughable) useless naming theory which either way doesn't prove jacksquat. If your still unsure of about the usage and history of the name(s) of Goguryeo, feel free to ask Historiographer. --Kuebie (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really not sure about the usage of the name of Goguryeo from your side of story. What I want to say from Wang Man's story is the structure of word of "GoGuryeo". It prove the assertion of ""Goryeo" is a short form of "Goguryeo"" is wrong. Your argument seems not leave this argument too far. My conclusion is that assertion is a commonly believed but wrong statement. Can you give out any fact that prove I am wrong? I will appreciate your time on this research. --Mosesconfuser (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you keep insulting people who object to your strong point of view and attitude, I'm telling you, you're going to face another problem for yourself. Watch your mouth., your ignorance and "neglecting" are all horrendous personal attacks. You started mocking Koreans here at this talk page and are treating Koreans full of idiots. You don't show any sign of cooperating with others. Administrators do not involve in content disputes except obvious vandalism or a request for WP:DR process filed by editors here.

Sadly, Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has been heavily criticized by people for their manipulations on histories which is a widely known fact. That really suits a crime and offensive a movement. So your lecturing sounds nothing but your emotion. Given Chinese government's political propagandas, the project does not surprise the world. The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in the PRC. In 2006, a senior scholar from Peking University affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections.[10] The project cause a controversy even in the country.

You self-claim that you're absolutely right and others are wrong. However, how could others be convinced that your belief and edit is legitimate and right? You've showed no good history but edit warrings and your problematic attitudes. The person who really watch his/her mouth is YOU. Everything you're doing here is complied and judged, so you would better refrain yourself. I'm so sure that there is none who want to discuss anything with rude people.--Appletrees (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had never said I am absolutely right. But Appletree you only show your opinions but none of the evidence. It is not me but you make yourself looks like an idiot. This is my last attempt to teach you how to view the history. (it's like explain physics to the people believe god create the world) History is a scientific discipline which need diligent work and plenty of knowledge. It is NOT something you prefer to believe. Not like religion, it needs evidences not the faith. I admit I don't all agree the research result of Northeast project but I know what I don't agree and why. Is it ridiculous if I say "I don't agree it because it's not written in such way in my elementary school text or because I love my country."? And please spend 2 minutes on the original reference of the talk of a professor [2] from PKU. Compare your quotation and the words in original paper carefully. By the way, Prof. Song don't agree Korea's history can be dated back to 2333B.C. neither and he also describe the origin of Korean nationalist historian[3]. Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesconfuser (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Teach? Again, you don't realize your illogical and extremely uncivil behaviors. It is NOT something you prefer to believe. This is a hilarious contradiction. Hmmm.. as for idiot, who is a real idiot in this situation? :D Regardless of several warnings by several people, you dared to ignore all the rule and then blocked for the consequence and you don't learn any lesson form the experience at all. Besides, the section 4 is nothing but your original research not approved by general academics. As you said, you're no relation with them. Everybody can become an amateur historian or even become a professor, on Web. So why don't you refrain yourself really. Your link is either broken and written by a Chinese reporter, so I would not wast my time talking to you. Good luck for your world. --Appletrees (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing History: Korean on Korean Slavery

For some reason I usually find very little on this topic but slavery has been a part of Korea for a very long time. Consensus records show a tally of "slaves" and "missing slaves". I thought i'd point this fact out because it seems as if both sides of the slavery topic want it silenced. By both sides I mean the Korean government and the Japanese government. Historically most slaves who ran away ran off to Japan ran off to Tsushima. 142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically Slavery existed on every nations; however, there are no real written documentation about slavery in Korea. I'm pretty sure there was some slavery in the past, but this generally don't considered to be part of history. If you do have valid information, you can create new article on this.--Korsentry 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

The nature of the Chinese propagandists

Another point I'd thought i'd mention is where the Chinese are coming from. Many Chinese folks especially from China have been adulterated with massive amounts of false history and propaganda. Much of this propaganda supports and upholds the collectivist nature of China in that the main ideology of China today is the cultural superiority of China and the fact that all Asian culture is Chinese. Now this might not mean much on the surface but when it comes to other cultures they get extremely offended by anything that doesn't put China in a superior light. My point is not to censor the Chinese but to bring awareness of the potential, many inadvertent bias they bring when commenting on history.

I'm not sure if Europeans are aware of the nature of the Confucian collectivist society but there is very little personal and/or explicit self esteem in these types of societies. There is only implicit/group self esteem allowed as any explicit self esteem will and does encourage jealousy. This although racist and arguable this is why there is a profoundly strong Asian male stereotype among most of the global community.

My point is simple the Chinese derive self-esteem much like Europeans derive self-esteem from personal achievements, from history and the idea of "China", meaning the greater the glorification of Chinese history the more self-esteem they garner. 142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of Korean culture

I'd like to point out that Korea is currently divided where the North is completely isolated even from the South. That said, there have been historically 3 types of cultures in Korea. Baekche, who are very neo-confucian, Silla who are a mix of confucian believers and non-confucian believers and Koryo who are anti-Confucian. What this means today is that with the country split in half, Silla and Baekche culture is the dominant culture, where many believe Korea is Confucian. This is completely false and although they do not consist of the majority they are indeed a powerful factor in defining what is Korean today. This is what I mean by misrepresentation of Korean culture.

That said, Confucian culture is and always has been about being a collectivist, unity and harmony through filial piety. In Korea we have a structure which resembles filial piety which alot of people try to attribute this to Confucian however this is false. Korean culture is militaristic due to the influences of the Koryo kingdom with its culture of war.

That said, it is absolutely impossible to say that Korean culture is Confucian in ideology when the fact is there was Korean-on-Korean slavery. This goes completely against the notion of being a collectivist society and in modern day south Korea, there are plenty of social norms that prevent the idea of being a collectivist from spreading, for example asking for help is looked down upon heavily. This is where the influence of migrants from the North during the war are seen.

Historically, Korea has not been Buddhist or Confucianist and there is plenty of documented evidence of the persecution of both. Most confucian believers were from Baekche however in an undivided nation non-Confucian believers have always dominated the land. These confucian believers are usually the ones who become slaves and it is also the reason why Japan is a neo-Confucian country. It is well documented that the origins of the Japanese imperial line are from Baekche, and many famous artists who ran from persecution were from Baekche.142.150.48.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)