Talk:History of Korea/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This articles makes Koreans look really, really bad

This is a really good example of horrible historical writing. It makes all of Korea look really, really bad in the world of academia and higher learning all over the world. I am at an ivy-league school, and we just laugh at some of the stuff in this article. REALLLY -- we laugh at you over coffee and donuts in the morning and we laugh at you over lunch and dinner. I am amazed that intelligent koreans actually believe some of the garbage in this article. But keep up the good work, as i mentioned above. Scholars and academics the world over laugh at you on a daily basis, while at the same time we COMPLETELY IGNORE and DISTRUST your scholarship. I laugh at it, too, but in the end, it is really sad you are so childish that you cannot listen to the rest of the world when you are wrong about so many points in this article. I like to believe that there are many Koreans who actually are smart enough to know good history when they see it. But I sure don't see any of them speaking up here.

So Sad. It makes Koreans look like complete fools.

If you thought your affiliation with an Ivy-League university would impress others, I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. I have no way of knowing exactly in what capacity you are in there (and am not interested in knowing) and whether you actually have a genuine expertise in the history of Korea. If you have new material or viewpoints to share, by all means go ahead, but just lamenting at the garbage and childish and other distasteful words do not get anything done.

It just happens that there are many points of disputes in various issues regarding Korean history, particular pre- and ancient history. But given we're talking about history of KOREA, one cannot just ignore the researches and archaeological findings out of Korea; I would imagine the words of Italian historians would have a fair weighting in discussions of the history of Roman Empire, for example. If there are variances of viewpoints with international scholars, the international conventions are exactly held to exchange the ideas and new research, and I trust international texts will be updated over time to reflect latest researches.

Given you laugh at the article over coffee, donuts, lunch and dinner, I suppose you are quite versed in the topic. I invite you to make some substantive contributions to the article. And next time, please leave a signature, so we know who we're talking to. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, I'm not trying to impress you at all. I'm young in the field of Asia Studies, but It seems some Koreans (not all of course) are only impressed with themselves. That's why you feel so confident putting out some of the nonsense in this article, and then you tell yourselves it is correct. No one else in the world believes it, that's for sure. I'm simply trying to tell you the truth about what the overall weight of the most trustworthy peer-reviewed, rigorous scholarship says about Korean "research." This silly article is just part of that overall critique of much (not all of course) Korean "research." I just happened across it last week, and simply laughed my way through it--especially the first part! And you should also know that there are many outstanding Korean scholars who would forcefully dismiss much of this article. They don't have time to fight folks like yourself who are so deeply emotionally invested in making Korea look good, and OLD. It is obvious that you are too emotionally invested personally in the subject to be objective when you can write most of what is in the first paragraph!!! You are obviously trying to make Korea into a historical entity that it is not -- and never was. But it's your life. I sure don't have time to fight you making a fool of yourself. But just know that you are doing a great job of making all of Korea look silly. Cheers.

Just because you believe something to be true or false does not necessarily make it so. Given you seem to be most unhappy about the introductory section, I will limit my discussion to that part of the article for now. If you care to study the changes I've made to the introductory section, you will find that the majority of changes were to do with changing the wordings and fixing the sentence (or paragraph) structures where needed (though some of these changes were debated). The credit for constructing the backbones of the section belongs to others. So you can stop accusing me of being emotionally invested when writing the first paragraphs.

The only major substantive changes of note that I've made in the introductory section that were objected were the dating of the Palaeolithic era and the nature of Samguk Yusa in relation to Gojoseon (as well as a less explicit changes to the dating of the Bronze age, but that was only elaborated over in a later section). As I explained in discussion with another user (which you can read in the section of this page above the current discussion), I provided the "peer-reviewed" sources from reputable journals in regards to dating of the Palaeolithic and Bronze eras. I will leave it to you to consider the sources I added; I would start by looking at the impact factors of the journals concerned. As for Samguk Yusa and Dangun, whatever the sentence previously said could not be verified by a dead link and another Wikipedia page so I provided several sources with different viewpoints on the issue; you can look at the details in the discussion topic above. Other changes I made to the introductory section were largely not objected by other editors, though one editor requested the exact page of the reference I cited for the emigration of Balhae refugees. Of course that is not to say that none of the edits I made to the succeeding sections of the articles were challenged but given your interest in the introductory section, (I wonder why many editors are not as interested in the body of the article?) I will not go into it for now.

Now as I hope you can see, I did not replace the existing viewpoints with another, but simply added the alternating viewpoints (especially on dating) where they exist. If you refuse to believe that the alternating viewpoints exist, I suggest you to write to the corresponding authors responsible for the sources I added. But before you do, I suggest you consider the fact that the publications do not reflect any information that became available after the author wrote the last page and thus may be superseded by new findings when appropriate

As I said before, your claim about this article being "silly", "non-sense", and that "no one else in the world will believe it" is not helpful to the development of the article, and in fact are just your opinions. I would also like to repeat that the formulation and development of study of Korean history is primarily the job of historians in Korea (and those of her neighbours, to an extent), who have the access to most up-to-date information. I wonder what proportions of degrees on Korean history are held by Koreans compared to the rest of the world; I seriously doubt that the non-Korean experts will outnumber the native historians. I am well aware that there are many Korean historians who would not agree with changes I made but there are others who would; the existence of debates is the why I did not obliterate the existing viewpoints but presented the alternating viewpoints where they are widely known, with relevant references. I also wonder how Russian historians would react if Americans tried to dictate what to include and exclude when studying Russian history; same applies here.

You may not have time to fight me making fool of myself. I myself don't have time to fight someone whose main contributions to the discussion thus far have been suppositions and questionable criticisms without even identifying oneself. Feel free to make constructive criticisms and contributions; door's always open for those. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Extremely poor article

I don't intend to perform any edits to the topic, but I'm simply going to write here that this article reeks of nationalistic self-gratification. There are so many points that are simply laughable that I don't even want to point them all out, but here are some:

1. Opening paragraphs contain claims that cannot be verified beyond one or few authors. Claims such as "Korea has been inhabited since 400,000-500,000 years ago" or "Korea is considered one of the oldest countries" cannot be verified.

2. Similarly, I see some skewed language throughout, especially with sections dealing with Japan.

3. Full and detailed explanations of foreign attacks on Korea but no mention of invasions launched by Korea (such as the Mongol Invasion of Japan in which Korea was both the instigator and an instrumental force).

4. Claims that Japan asserts legality of the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. The government of Japan has stated on many occasions that the treaty has been rendered null and void by the 1962 Agreement between Japan and Korea.

5. Claims of forcible service for Japan during WWII. Thousands of Korean soldiers signed up for military service out of free will, with many achieving senior ranks as mentioned several years ago in this discussion page. Claims of foricble service is exaggerated.

6. Claims that Japan banned Korean language completely. There exists reliable images of the newspapers from the Colonial era that feature both Hanja and Hangul. There also are plenty of evidence of Japan standardizing school curriculum around Hangul, with Japanese as the language of higher education. How this section has remained in this article is beyond me.

7. Absolutely no mention of the efforts Japanese had put into developing infrastructure such as University of Seoul (then called Imperial University of Keijo) and construction of the Sup'ung Dam that produced thousands of MW of power. One only needs to look at images of Colonial-era Seoul/Pyongyang to see the development that took place. The article, by not mentioning these achievements, is heavily biased.

These are just some of the most pressing issues in this article. There are good reasons to believe that there are many more issues with this article; one only needs to look at the comments from past editors in this page.

As a long-time user of Wikipedia, I'm sorely disappointed that Wikipedia has allowed this extremely poorly written article to stay. Have we not learned from the years of abuse from nationalists, Korean/Japanese/Chinese alike? 96.55.113.54 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We are expected to assume good faith, and believe me when I say that I wholeheartedly wish to do so with this IP... But the truth is, this just sounds like sour grapes from a Japanese person with a chip on his shoulder about Koreans (it's a very old, very sensitive inter-cultural dynamic...) I want to say that we should take these criticisms with a grain of salt. Jersey John (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the comments are more than a year and a half old, and probably don't even apply any more. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed Incorrect Reference

In the beginning of the article, it was claimed that "Korea is considered to be the oldest country and civilization in the human history," and the reference given for this statement was page 9 of Carter Eckert's Korea, Old and New: A History. No such statement exists on page 9 of that book. While it is hard to say with absolute certainty that no such statement exists anywhere in that book (it is a long book), an Amazon.com and a Google Books search for the term "oldest" yields several results, none of which make a claim that is in any way similar to this.

If this statement is going to be in this article from that source, can someone here direct me to where I can find the claim in Eckert's book, and possibly provide here the direct quote from the book that's being used to support this claim?

☾ Luna (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for raising the issue about Prof. Carter Eckert's Korea, Old and New: A History. I do not have access to that particular book and cannot verify what page 9 or other pages of the book may say about how old Korean history is. I will take your word for it that no relevant statement exists as far as you can see.

I did a quick look at the editing history of this article and it appears that the citation for Eckert's book was made by Quendearn (contribs) on or around 25th of September 2011. Unfortunately, it appears that this user has been indefinitely blocked from editing the pages since 10th of October. So it may be difficult to verify how this particular citation came to be.

However it should be noted that a similar statement to the one attributed to Prof. Eckert had been included in the article in the past and the origin of that citation can be better established. The page 9 (coincidence?) from Mary E. Connor's The Koreas: A Global Studies Handbook says "Korea is one of the oldest countries in the World". It appears that the statement to the effect of the above with the citation (not in conformation with an academic referencing guideline, but as a weblink to the source in the Google Books) has been added by an anonymous user on or around 22nd of February 2011. It appears that this statement survived for most of the period between February and September last year until changed with attribution to Eckert's text, the verifiability of which is questioned now.

Therefore, I propose that the statement that you've removed from the first paragraph of the article be re-inserted, with attribution to Connor, at least until the existence of similar statement from Eckert's book can be ascertained. I will change the citation to conform with the format similar to that of other scholarly sources.

In terms of another matter, a statement in the first paragraph of the Prehistory section of the article says that modern Koreans are probably not the ethnic descendants of the Palaeolithic inhabitants of Korea. It appears that this statement with attribution to page 2 of Eckert's book has been also made by Quendearn at or around the time of the inclusion of the assertion we discussed above. Given the question over the verifiability of the citation regarding the duration of Korean history from Quendearn is questionable, it would be great if you can verify if the statement about the relationship between the Palaeolithic and modern Koreans are indeed included in Eckert's book. Given that Connor makes a similar statement in page 9 of hers, I will add the reference to her book to the article, leaving attribution to Eckert for now until you or someone else can verify it. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement that modern Koreans are not the ethnic descendants of the Paleolithic inhabitants was present in Eckert's book, and every other source I've looked at. I've confirmed that Connor's book does state, on page 9, that "Korea is one of the oldest countries in the world"; but I suppose it should be noted that Connor contextualizes this statement immediately in discussion of a legendary origin for the country and goes on to point out that "no evidence that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth, but over the centuries the legend has contributed to the Korean sense of identity as a distinct and proud race." (pages 9-10)

Given that (1) Connor appears to be discussing a mythic past, (2) the statement "Korea is one of the oldest countries in the world" is, robbed of context, so vague and potentially confusing as to say almost nothing, (3) that even properly contextualized the statement is exceptionally vague (what are the other old countries? what is meant by country here, if there is no ethnic link between Paleolithic and contemporary Koreans? etc?), and (4) this lack of clarity is not alleviated by a careful reading of the chapter in question (I have just completed reading it, and these questions are not answered by the author), I suggest that this sentence be replaced with something more specific.

After doing a bit of research, I could find no scholarly reviews of Connor's book in the usual sources (EBSCO's databases 'Historical Abstracts' and 'MECAS' yielded no results); I did, however, find a more recent introductory textbook on the history of Korea, which has a much more specific statement as to the age of Korea. This text, A Concise History of Korea: From the Neolithic Period through the Nineteenth Century by Michael J. Seth is mentioned in the Bibliography section of the article, but not specifically cited. Not only is this text more recent (2006 as opposed to Connor's text of 2002), it was written by a University Professor (whereas Connor is a secondary school teacher), and was also reviewed favorably by James Lewis of Oxford University in a major scholarly publication in 2008 ("Concise History of Korea: From the Neolithic Period through the Nineteenth Century/Everlasting Flower. A History of Korea (review)" in The Journal of Korean Studies volume 13 no. 1 2008, pages 135-143). While the historian's position does not necessarily determine their noteworthiness, the fact that it was both written and favorably reviewed by scholars suggests that we have more reason to consider it noteworthy than Connor's book.

Seth's book, in the introduction, states more specifically that "Before being effectively partitioned by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1945, Korea had been one of the oldest continually unified states in the world." (page 1, my emphasis) Because this statement is far less ambiguous than Connor's, both in and out of the context of the larger work, I will change the sentence to reflect this particular statement and cite it properly.

☾ Luna (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmation about my enquiry. It appears from Google Books that reference about Eckert's view on the link between the Palaeolithic and the modern Koreans are indeed in his book.

I have no problem about you replacing Connor's attribution that I've included with that of Seth. I was simply restoring the reference that was included in the sentence pertaining to this particular issue in the article given you raised a concern about the validity of the citation to Eckert; I have no vested interest to see Connor's citation upheld. Only disagreement I have about your views from above is that I do not believe the possible (or one may say, probable) lack of genetic link between the Palaeolithic and the modern Koreans do not necessarily invalidate the view about the cultural continuity of the Korean civilisation from antiquity, at least unless one is to say that the descendants of the Palaeolithic people moved out of Korea and developed their own civilisation distinctly different from that of Korea well into the historical period. One may say that the discussions of the life of Palaeolithic people in the historical texts imply that these people played substantial roles in shaping the pre-history of Korea. I must also note that some scholars (mind you, mostly from Korea) still argue there may be genetic relationships between the Palaeolithic and the modern Koreans. I suggest you look at Chai-Shin Yu's "The New History of Korean Civilisation" (2012), p. 2, or Ki-Baek Lee's "A New History of Korea: (1984), p. 1, if you are interested. In any case, that issue about whether the probable lack of ethnic link between the ancient and modern inhabitants of Korea invalidate the description of Korea as an old civilisation may not be material for the purpose of editing the Wikipedia article but is more about the exchange of personal opinions (I suppose you brought the point up primarily to discuss the ambiguity of the relevant paragraph in Connor's book) and I digress.

Given that Seth discuss in length how the Korean society came to be so homogeneous over the centuries in several of his texts (including the one you quoted from 2006, but also in the introductions of his work on modern history (2010) and the one on general history (2010)), I felt justified in adding the mention about the homogeneity of the civilisation in the sentence we've been editing. Also given how Seth (in both of his 2010 works on Korea; it seems his general history in 2010 is largely the amalgamation of his pre-modern history text from 2006 and modern history text from 2010) and Pratt (2006) stress that the current division from 1945 is a political one along an "arbitrary line that had no historical, geographical, cultural or economic logic" (A History of Korea: From Antiquity to Present, 2010, p. 2), it seems apparent that the authors view Korea as an old, homogeneous country, in the sense of geographical and cultural entity if not in terms of modern politics. If you are not comfortable with the word "country" given the current division it may be substituted with "civilisation"; that is indeed why I preferred to use "civilisation" in editing. If you do not have objection, I would change the sentence under question to "It is one of the oldest and most homogeneous countries in the world", without reference to it ceasing to being so in 1945 after the division, and retaining the attribution to Seth. I will also add the citation to Pratt.

If you have qualms about "countries" feel free to change it with "civilisations" or another appropriate word. You may wonder if this change is wise given the discussions about "Korea had been one of the oldest continuously unified states in the world" in page 1 of both 2006 and 2010 (General History) texts from Seth, but two ideas (of Korea continuing to be one of the oldest and most homogeneous countries/civilisations after 1945 and it ceasing to be a "continuously unified state" after 1945) are not mutually exclusive, not to mention that the entirety of the Korean peninsula belongs to the Republic of Korea as far as South Korean Constitution is concerned (I believe North Korean regime is making a similar claim). I also recognise that you thought that statement about Korea being one of the oldest countries in the world is vague; I suggest that "one of the oldest" may be changed to something like "an ancient" perhaps with reference to the recorded history from before the beginning of the Common Era.Sydneyphoenix (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick word on "mythical origin" of Gojoseon issue, I had an extensive discussion over this matter with EJcarter in January. At the end of it all, I added three references with different viewpoints about the historical authenticity of Gojoseon, Dangun and Samguk Yusa. All of the authors (including Seth) affirm the importance of Samguk Yusa as a historical source, though Seth is cautious in his analysis of Gojoseon and Dangun. Sin is more vocal about the authenticity of Dangun and Gojoseon. Now given you discounted Connor's account in preference to Seth's largely based on the latter's expertise in academic history and notability, one can say that the similar preference over "secondary school teachers" like Connor should be given to other Professors with degrees in Korean history such as Sin or Lee. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to simply revert your edits. Let's hash this out here, and either come to an agreement about what can be said from these sources, or seek arbitration from a more experienced editor, because as it stands I would attest that the current article reflects a subtle bias that could be very misleading to lay readers who are not familiar with Korean history.

I will note here that Sin's book, first of all, discusses the authenticity of Dangun and Gojoseon not on page 19, as attributed, but on page 20; and "discusses" would probably be too strong of a term for what he does. By one reading, he actually just asserts the authenticity of the account: "According to the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms, Gojoseon was founded ... in 2333 B.C. ... This story is not just a myth, but a historical account that shows how far back Korean history dates." (page 20) Later, though, Sin acknowledges that the account is a myth, and that the account itself was written in the thirteenth century, more than four thousand years after the purported founding. (page 23) An alternate reading of Sin would be that "the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms ... is not just a myth" but that it "shows har far back Korean history dates" not because contemporary historians believe that text to be reliable in its claim for a foundation year of 2333 B.C.E., but because this thirteenth century text is one of the oldest Korean histories. Sin's text isn't clear which of these he means, but he is clear that the story is a myth.

I will note that history, as Sin is using it, is a technical term, as in an account, and that myth, when used by historians, is also a technical term. Myth is not synonymous with fiction: a myth is a particular genre of storytelling which may or may not have its basis in historical fact. So acknowledging that the story is a myth does not automatically discredit its truth value. The same goes for Lee's discussion of the histories of ancient Korea, as discussed on pages 166-168. Lee talks of them as "histories" as a genre, just as we might talk of the Book of Kings from the Hebrew Scriptures as a "history." History, in the technical sense employed by all the authors cited for the statement "According to the partially legendary Samguk Yusa and other Medieval Era records, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BC" are using the word "history" not as a synonym for "fact" or "nonfiction" but as a genre which is by no means mutually exclusive with myth. All the sources acknowledge it to be mythic (which is, again, not to say that it is untrue, but just that it follows the genre conventions of myth). It seems disingenuous then, to call it "partially legendary." By calling it partially legendary the article introduces a dichotomy that contemporary historians writing in English do not take seriously: that something is either a legend/myth, or it is "real" history. The document in question is a history and a myth. I would be fine with calling it either a mythic history, or a historical myth, but the term "partially" implies that the deployment of the mythic genre within the text is not complete. That some places it employs myth, and other places it does not. Do you have a source that would confirm that this is the case?

Also, reading over the discussion you previously referenced, I am not saying that Koreans can't write history as it is understood in the contemporary sense. This Wikipedia article is employing the contemporary sense of the word, yes? Which means that this article is a history, not as in the Book of Kings or the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms, but as in a contemporary history that employs contemporary historiography. Contemporary historiography would clearly point out what is claimed by ancient peoples to be true in a mythic text, and what contemporary historians who are reading those sources claim to be true. I am not saying, as others have said, that Koreans cannot write authoritative histories of their own country. But I would also disagree that Koreans have a privileged position on Korean history and are capable, simply by the fact that they are Korean, of writing a better history. We don't favor one source or another based on the ethnicity or nationality of its author, but rather on its reliability, right? So I wonder if you have access to journal searches that would confirm the scholarly importance of the Korean sources, as I have for Seth's book? Are Sin and Lee's books reviewed favorably by the wider community of modern historians?

The reason that I ask that I think it is generally acknowledged by both Korean and Anglo authors (here cited) that the mythic origin story is a point of contemporary pride and ethnic identity for modern Koreans. Which again, doesn't mean that the story is a fabrication, but does mean that presenting it with ambiguity about its mythic quality could be misleading from a NPOV perspective. The story is a patriotic myth, whether it is true or not, and full disclosure for people who might regard patriotic myths with a different kind of outlook than histories written employing contemporary historiography deserve to have this clearly stated.

As for the change to "oldest civilisations," it strikes me as being just as vague as "oldest countries." What constitutes a consistent civilization? Both of these statements are, within the community of historians, weasel words. Quoting the Wikipedia article on the topic that weasel words "equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated." Statements like "Korea is one of the oldest countries in the world" are used very informally in (usually) secondary school textbooks or popular histories to generate interest in the reader. But they don't really belong in an encyclopedia, especially when a specific statement can be made in the same space that communicates the nuance behind the weasel words. Does this make sense? If you rewrite Seth's statement (which is specific) into something about "civilizations" (which is a vague term), then you are falsely attributing to him.

I propose the following edits:

Before the split of Korea in 1945, it had been one of the oldest states in the world and has been exceptionally ethnically homogeneous throughout its history. (Retaining the Seth citation.)

The mythic origins of Korea can be found in the Samguk Yusa, which states that the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BC. (Retaining the current citations.)

I agree that we can remove my sentence from Connor that claims there is no contemporary historical evidence for the 2333 B.C.E. date, though you did reference a more nuanced discussion of the reliability of the Memorabilia. That nuanced discussion is not present either in Lee or Sin's book, though, so I wonder if you can direct me to a source that details the question of the Memorabilia's reliability?

☾ Luna (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk the matters through and try to reach an agreement or compromise.

I accept your point about mistake in page referencing in Sin's book. When we incorporate the results of the present discussion, we should check and confirm the page reference for this book, though counting the pages, the reference may actually be from page 19. It is also true that he lists the account of Dangun, first as that with historical facts than as a foundation myth (though it seems to be from page 21 by my reckoning). It should be noted however that the main part of the section asserts account of Gojoseon of Dangun to be of historical significance, and there's no inference about Sin thinking otherwise until he introduces the "foundation myth" in page 21, where he reproduced the myth without an analysis of his own. This seems to imply that Sin consider substantial portions of the account in Samguk Yusa (which by the way was written in 13th century, about 3500 years after the supposed time of Dangun, not over 4000 years) to be of historical significance. Therefore, I would disagree with your view that Sin considers the account in Samguk Yusa to be no more than a myth. This does not mean the embracing of the claims about a Son of the God of Heavens descending to the earth or of a bear turning into a woman as historical facts. I wonder how you reached the interpretation that Sin's account shows "how far Korean history date" because Samguk Yusa is one of the oldest historical records in Korea. Am I right in guessing that you think Sin is saying that a proof of the length of Korean history is the fact they have historical records surviving from 12th and 13th centuries? I myself do not know how the age of recorded historical documents and the length of civilisation supposedly have a causative relationship.

I appreciate that you recognise that myth is not synonymous with fiction. While in academic sense your assertion about calling an account a myth does not necessarily discredit its historical value is correct, many lay readers may not make that fine distinction and may be misled by unqualified use of the term "myth". If history in terms of academia is not mutually exclusive with myth (and as it happens, I agree with you on this point) and is not synonymous with non-fiction, the matter of account with substantial mythological aspects but also possible historical information (the congruence of the information with the "fact" being another matter) becomes a delicate matter. Neither Sin nor Lee unequivocally call the account of Dangun mythological in the sections of their books dedicated to Gojoseon; Lee says in p. 14 of his book (without exact dating of the era) that "its (Gojoseon's) early leaders seem to have borne the title tan'gun wanggom" without dismissing the account as a myth. Seth is somewhat ambivalent on the matter (describing the account as an example of myths from which "clues about the past" can be found, then recognising in the next page that later Korean histories asserts the national foundation by Dangun). This hardly sounds like a resounding endorsement of the argument that the account in Samguk Yusa is wholly mythic as to warrant the unqualified description of the account as mythical in an encyclopaedia for the benefit of lay people. One of the reasons the sources with different views on this matter were added is to highlight the existence of differing viewpoints.

You wondered if I am saying that Samguk Yusa sometimes employ myth while at other times it doesn't; that is indeed what I am trying to say. For example Seth in his book discusses the importance of Samguk Yusa in studying early Korean history (p. 16 of his 2010 Combined History text) and refer to Samguk Yusa several times to describe the situation in Silla period. In a more detailed analysis of Samguk Yusa in pp. 119-120, he goes on to say that the text is in some areas more accurate than the "official" history (Samguk Sagi) and contains "valuable material on ancient Korea" including the story of Dangun. While I would object to Seth's observation that Dangun is not mentioned in "Samguk Sagi" (there's a passing reference in the "Annals of Goguryeo", though granted, not a full account), it seems reasonable to say that Seth view Samguk Yusa as being "partially mythical/legendary". This view is reinforced by his mention of Buddhist tales and legends contained in Samguk Yusa. While I do not have the relevant pages of Lee's book in front of me, I recall from the discussion in January that Lee viewed "Samguk Yusa" favourably as a historical record. I will take a moment to mention that Iryeon was born a Royal Prince of Goryeo with one monarch as his father and two of his brothers as monarchs, implying privileged access to rare and important records available at the time-just an interesting trivia about the context of "Samguk Yusa".

As for the academic review that Sin's and Lee's book have received, I doubt there will be many in English language, though there are probably several in Korean. I will just say in Sin's defence for now that he's a retired full Professor with degrees in ancient Korean history who have served in the panel to draft official history textbooks for Korean schools. Late Ki-Baik Lee is a giant in modern study of Korean history, and his "A New History of Korea" has received favourable review from international journals, some of which are represented in the back cover of his book. If you want some of the other editorial reviews, I suggest you follow this: [1]. Given the dates of publication, it may be difficult to find online originals of those reviews.

Given this, and having considered your criticisms for the term "partially legendary" and your proposals for a more accurate description, I agree that a new term is needed. Your proposal has the problem of leaning too much on the view of one of the three references cited, when a case may be made that Seth himself held the view that "Samguk Yusa" is partially legendary. If we are to make a full description that recognise the mythological aspects of the account without misleading the readers into thinking that the account is necessarily fictional, something in the order of "According to the account in Samguk Yusa which contain mythical and historical records..." may be considered, though one may question the wisdom of such a drawn-out description in the executive summary. I agree that the nature of the account should be disclosed to avoid misleading them into thinking either that it is a fully factual account or that it is a legend with entirely fictional basis. This is not an easy matter and I eagerly await your response.

Your comment about the issue of "one of the oldest civilisations/countries" comment also has its merits in academic history. The phrase is indeed hard to quantify. While I disagree with your comment that the term "civilisation" does not belong in encyclopaedia (for example, the article on History of China is using it in the context similar to the one we're discussing), I accept that it is problematic as far as quantification and comparison with other cultures are concerned. The problem with your proposal for the sentence is that it can be said that it views the history of Korea too much as a political unit without considering how the 1945 division affected Korea in other ways. Also one may question if the cessation of Korea as a unified political entity is worth the mention in the executive summary of the article, especially when there's no corresponding expansion on the topic in the body of the article. Given these issues, one may have to consider if the sentence is important enough to be included in the article, especially in the introduction. I propose either the sentence be removed until we or others can discuss the issue further. Should you insist that we work with sentence, I suggest something similar to "Prior to its division in 1945, Korea had been one of the oldest unified states in the world, with homogeneous demographics and distinct cultural traditions throughout its history". For the purpose of future discussion, I note that the Wikipedia article on History of China asserts that "China is one of the oldest civilisations in the world", with the single citation to a timeline of Chinese history from the Shang dynasty (BBC website), letting the readers to make up his/her mind as to whether it is indeed one of the oldest civilisations in the world (I imagine 99% of the readers would say yes).

I think I discussed most of the points you raised, answering your last question about the reliability of "Samguk Yusa" to some extent. In summary to my long discourse, I would like to point out that while the academic historians are well aware that myths and history are not mutually exclusive and that information about the past can be drawn from the myths, many lay readers may be misled into thinking that the account is completely fictional if described as "mythic" without qualifications.

Therefore, out of necessity to minimise ambiguity and taken considerations the views from the citation that "Samguk Yusa" may be a partially legendary account, I propose the following: "According to the account in Samguk Yusa which contain mythical and historical records, Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded by Dangun in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE."

As for the sentence about the anciency of the civilisation, I would prefer that we remove it from the article until the issues about the over-emphasis on the political division at the expense of cultural continuity and its significance of the political division to the grand scheme of the history of Korea are further discussed. If the sentence is to stay similar to the current format, I would propose: "Prior to its division in 1945, Korea had been one of the oldest unified states in the world, with homogeneous demographics and distinctive cultural traditions throughout its history." While this does not exactly resemble any single sentence in Seth's book, all the core assertions in the sentence is present in the p. 1 of Seth's 2010 combined history text.

Thank you for a stimulating discussion. You have given me a lot of food for thoughts and I hope I have been of some assistance. I hope we continue to discuss and collaborate in the spirit of collegiality. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed revision of the sentence drawn from Seth's work is fine. I still think that introducing the dichotomy of historical and mythic elements in the sentence regarding the Samguk Yusa introduced a problematic reading for lay readers. Your concern is that a lay reader may see the text as described as mythic and think that it has no bearing on the real history of Korea. My concern is that describing the text as historical and mythic will imply to lay readers that there are portions of the text which are taken at face-value. For what it's worth, I think a lay reader is far less likely to think that a mythic history is not of "historical significance" than they are to think that something being called a "history" without qualification is considered straightforwardly accurate.

Thus, I still very much prefer the term "mythic history" or "historical myth." Setting aside, for the moment, the question of what we will refer to this document as, do you have any specific citations from Lee or Sin (or anyone) who state unambiguously that they think the Samguk Yusa provides sound historical evidence for a foundation year of 2333? Because if this document is of historical significance, but if no one believes it provides an accurate foundation year that should be taken without interpretation, then it seems a moot point. If you have access to the texts, then a specific page number would be helpful for me to evaluate whether or not these historians are claiming that we can establish a 2333 foundation date for Korea from the Samguk Yusa.

Your point about the History of China article is well-taken, and I did not mean to imply that the word "civilization" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; rather that the specific statement "X is one of the oldest civilizations in the world" is vague, and requires clarification. Civilization does mean something, and it's a valid word to use as long as you deploy it so that it is clear what is being said. In the History of China article, for example, the word civilization is linked, and the first words in the article on civilization are: "Civilization (or civilisation) is a sometimes controversial term that has been used in several related ways." This immediately alerts a reader to the ambiguity involved in the statement. In addition, the notion of China-as-civilization seems to be a bit more complicated than what's being meant in this article. Chinese civilization is much less geographically and ethnically homogeneous than Korea, and there is considerable debate about what might be meant by "China." The sentence that immediately follows the claim in the China article also establishes the sources from which an early date can be drawn, referencing texts written around two thousand years before the Samguk Yusa.

☾ Luna (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there will be many sources (at least in English language) that would assert the unqualified reliability of the foundation date written in Samguk Yusa. The closest English language source I can find at the moment is Sin's assertion in p. 19 of his book; whether one sees it as Sin endorsing the date unquestionably or describing as a hypothesis in his thinking is debatable. There is an issue of Sin introducing the "Myth" in p. 21, but one can see that he's doing nothing other than narrating the summarised version of the account without personal analysis of his own.

In any case the fact that the sources unequivocally advocating the reliability of the foundation date among serious academic history will be scant is precisely why we cannot make a statement about the date (even with reference to Samguk Yusa) without the qualification that the document that the date's attributed to is held to be mythical in large sections of the academia and the community; I am not trying to remove the qualification in the relevant sentence. The current format more or less does provide qualification, and your concern about dichotomy of the statement was addressed in my last response about Seth's analysis of Samguk Yusa as a historical record in p. 16 and pp. 119-120 of his 2010 Combined History text, where he note both the historical and legendary aspects of Samguk Yusa. Even if we are to avoid what you call dichotomous statement, a description of the record as "historical myth" or "mythic history" will require a qualification such as "possibly mythic history" as none of three references call the record unequivocally mythic (Seth is the closest to arguing that). While you believe average readers are "less likely to think that a mythic history is not of "historical significance" than they are to think that something being called a "history" without qualification is considered straightforwardly accurate", it is not up to you or me to make that kind of decision for them; it's our job to edit to present the relevant information so they can make up their mind about it (hence the references with differing viewpoints). In any case, given I am not advocating the removal of the qualification about Samguk Yusa being "partially legendary", so you may not have to worry so much about that aspect.

About the sentence about the civilisation/state's antiquity, I am glad you approve of my modification. However my first preference is to remove it until several problems associated with its placement can be better resolved. I wonder if you would insist that the sentence in some form should remain in the article. Let's hear what you think about the justifiability and necessity of a sentence of that nature in the article, let alone the executive summary, before making a decision.

Your suggestion about "China as a civilisation" being more complicated than what we're discussing in this article seems to be based on the relative lack of geographical and ethnic homogeneity in that country's history. That may be so but how exactly does that give more justification to the use of the term in History of China than in History of Korea? I note that the concept of "civilisation" in the context of two countries share the commonalities that the term involves the changes and developments in the respective societies in terms of politics, ethnicity, geography, literature, economy, technology, spirituality, among other aspects. Thus I don't see why we cannot speak of Korean civilisation in Wikipedia when we can speak of Chinese civilisation.

Also while it's true that History of China quote older sources than Samguk Yusa such as Shi-Ji and the Bamboo Annals (which are about 1500 years older than Samguk Yusa, not 2000 years), the fact remains these records are still secondary sources written about two thousand years after the supposed events of ancient/prehistoric China. One may wonder whether there's really that huge a difference between the acceptability of these Chinese records and Samguk Yusa as historical records of their respective ancient past: what are the material difference between the records written 2000 years after the supposed events and the ones written 3500 years after the supposed events? Sydneyphoenix (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.Please disregard my earlier statement about Iryeon being borne into the Goryeo Royal Family-it seems I confused him with another Buddhist Master of Goryeo period, Uicheon. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to simply have the sentence about the age of the civilization removed if you prefer that. Initially, I think that's what I did. I just removed it completely because the source cited didn't actually say that. So if you agree to a removal until we can get better sources on the statement, or until we can decide where it would best be placed in the article, that's fine with me.

Let's set aside the question of the China article for a moment, because that's not the article we're editing. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't use the term "Korean civilization" in this article, but I am pointing out that if we are looking at the China article as an example of a good one then it clearly contextualizes that statement and explains it, both by linking to the Wikipedia article on civilization, and by explaining where this claim comes from. But this is a discussion about the "oldest civilization in the world" sentence which, I think we both agree now, can simply be removed until good sources can be found.

Let me try to be clear about "partially legendary" thing. The fact is that if we only have one source that may or may not consider the date to be accurate, so even if Sin does consider it to be accurate, we have at least three other sources (Connor, Lee and Seth) that discuss it in detail without claiming that it is accurate in its dating. One possible interpretation of one source doesn't constitute a consensus. I much prefer to remove all descriptors of the Samguk Yusa than to leave "partially legendary" because, again, this is not how a historian or an encyclopedia editor would write about this kind of document. I'm going to return to the Book of Kings example. There is debate among historians as to whether or not there was a King David of Israel, one of the main figures of the Book of Kings. Yet, even those scholars who believe that there was a historical David do not describe the Book of Kings as "partially legendary," or "partially mythic." The text is mythic, and the text is a history, and it may more or less accurately describe a real, historical person.

While you say that a "description of the record as 'historical myth' or 'mythic history' will require a qualification such as 'possibly mythic history' as none of three references call the record unequivocally mythic (Seth is the closest to arguing that)" you'd be wrong. Sin, Connor and Seth all describe the text as mythic. You're still entertaining the idea that a mythic text is one which has no basis in reality, but that's simply not true. The best source you have for claiming that the text is accurate clearly describes it as a myth. This should be a clue that myth ≠ fiction. Myth is a genre. It is a style of writing with certain consistent thematic elements. There is consensus among the sources we have been discussing that it is a myth. There is no consensus that it is reliable in its 2333 BCE date. No qualification is required for calling it mythic if there is consensus on the matter.

Although you cite Seth's 2010 book as the place where he "note[s] both the historical and legendary aspects of Samguk Yusa", the pages you cite make it abundantly clear that Seth does not consider the text to be accurate as history without careful hermeneutics and confirmation from other textual and archaeological sources. On page 16, he writes "Still another source is the myths and legends associated with this period. The study of myths for historical information is a difficult and controversial field [my emphasis], but it too can yield clues about the past." Clearly Seth doesn't think we can take the account of the Samguk Yusa at face value. It can give us "historical information," not history. It can "yield clues," but does not contain unambiguous statements that can be taken as historical fact. Seth's 2010 is actually the clearest discussion we have seen so far that specifically addresses the reliability of the Samguk Yusa to modern historians. Seth is clear that it is a myth, and that it is a legend. He does not say that it is a history in the contemporary sense of the word. On page 119 of the same, "Samguk Yusa is a history of Korean from its mythic origins [my emphasis here] to the end of the tenth century" and on page 120 Seth notes that it is "an invaluable source of historical information," note the specific wording here: a source of historical information, not a trustworthy account of history that can be taken at face value. This point is emphasized later on page 120 where Seth says "The Samguk yusa, although an invaluable historical source, is better thought of as a collection of tales and stories containing many folk traditions." So, again, Samguk Yusa is described as myth, a collection of tales, etc. Where is the "partially" qualifier? Whatever else the Samguk Yusa is, it is myth.

You rightly state that "it is not up to you or me to make that kind of decision for them; it's our job to edit to present the relevant information so they can make up their mind about it." So, I think we should present the information as these historians present it. It may be important to you to qualify the mythic quality of the text, but these authors do not see fit to qualify it. One (Connor) goes out of her way to point out that there is no historical evidence to support the foundation story in the Samguk Yusa; but, fine, we've established that she might be among the least noteworthy of our sources. Seth, who is frequently cited in this article, calls the origin story in the Samguk Yusa a "mythic origin" and emphasizes the mythic quality of the text. Lee simply discusses the genre, but makes no statement about its reliability, nor does he say anything about it being "partially mythic." Finally, Sin claims that we can know something (he doesn't say what) about how old Korea is by consulting the Samguk Yusa, and then goes on to call it a mythic text. While Sin says that the Samguk Yusa is "not just a myth," grammatically this isn't the same as saying "partially mythic." The former implies that while the text may be a myth, it is also other things. This may be a complete overlap. It may be completely a history and completely a myth. The latter implies that there are places where the text deploys a mythic genre and places where it does not. To paraphrase Sin with the phrase "partially mythic" is to change the meaning of what he's saying. As Sin does not elaborate on how the Samguk Yusa can be used to gain information about Korea's origins, or what information we can gain about Korea's antiquity from the text, we cannot paraphrase him in a misleading way. Again, do you have any source that describes the text as "partially mythic"? Because so far all I see is very clear consensus that the text is mythic, and some ambiguity with an acknowledgement that it would be controversial to treat the text as being reliable (Seth:2010, page 16).

Here is my proposed edit:

The thirteenth century text Samguk Yusa recounts the mythic origins of Korea with the foundation of the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE.

This edit avoids the unnecessary considerations of the Samguk Yusa's genre, which should be explicitly discussed in the main article on that text, but clearly states that about this issue, the issue of Korea's foundations, there is scholarly consensus that the genre in question is myth, whether it is a historically accurate myth or not. Connor says so, Seth says so, Sin says so, and Lee does not address the question of whether or not it is a myth. I'd call that consensus unless you have other sources you'd like to bring to bear in this discussion, but I am fairly dubious that you're going to find a contemporary reliable scholar, of whatever nationality and in whatever language, that would argue that a story about a god mating with a bear to produce the founder of Korea is not a myth. Maybe it's true that a god mated with a bear and the offspring of that union founded Korea in 2333 BCE. Maybe it's not true that a god mated with a bear, but it is true that the person in question founded Korea in that year. But whether it's true or not, and no matter which parts of this story are true, the genre is clearly, and with scholarly consensus, mythic.

If this is not compelling enough, and if you have no new sources to bring to bear, I would suggest we seek some kind of arbitration from a more senior editor, particularly one who has experience dealing with NPOV issues. I am not suggesting that you are not neutral, but I am suggesting that an attempt to present the 2333 BCE date as coming from a source that is "partially" mythic raises some warning flags when we're talking about a patriotic myth.

☾ Luna (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good that we could agree on the topic of the sentence about the antiquity of the Korean civilisation. Let's remove it until the discussion among the editors fully develop, though I suggest that the proposal I've made along ''Before the split of Korea in 1945, it had been one of the oldest states in the world and has been exceptionally ethnically homogeneous throughout its history. with Seth's citation be considered again if the issue resurfaces.

About the sentence regarding Samguk Yusa and Gojoseon, I feel we are quite close to reaching an agreement/compromise, so mediation may not be necessary. I will make a detailed response to your post within a day or two, but in the meantime, I provisionally suggest the following options for the edit, in the decreasing order of preference:

First preference: According to the possibly mythic record in Samguk Yusa and other medieval records, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE. (retaining the present references)

Second preference: According to the mythic historical record in Samguk Yusa and other medieval records, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE. (retaining the present references)

While we may consider According to the possibly mythic historical record..., I believe this option has significantly different context from the other options I proposed, and I am not actively advocating this option, for now.

Another option is to follow the example in other similar Wikipedia articles such as History of China page, where it list both the earliest Chinese state with written records and then the other assertion made by the ancient texts. Following this example, we can consider something like:

Alternative proposal with different sentence structure and information: While medieval Korean texts such as Samguk Yusa assert the foundation of the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE (current citations, either all three or some of them), the earliest written record about Gojoseon dates from about 700 BCE (citation from Peterson and Marguelies, p. 6)

While I will get back to you with full response in a day or two, please feel free to comment on the three proposals I've made before my full response if you wish. I propose that we reach an agreement in the next round of the exchange of the opinions to reach an agreement and then implement the results of this discussion. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it is not "possibly mythic," but clearly and unambiguously mythic according to the consensus of all sources currently cited, that option would be misleading. The second one is better, but the term would be "mythic history" not "mythic historical record." A mythic history is a clear genre, while "mythic historical record" is ambiguous. This may just be a fluency issue, but trust me that "mythic history" makes sense where "mythic historical record" is confusing. So I would agree with this rewrite of your second option:

According to the mythic history in Samguk Yusa, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE.

By stating "the mythic history in Samguk Yusa we avoid the insinuation that the text is only concerned with the origin story, or that the text contains nothing else. I'm removing "and other medieval sources" because, which ones specifically recount this creation story/date combination, and are they mentioned in the sources we're consulting?

I dislike the alternative proposal, because by contextualizing it against the earliest written record in the peninsula, we might be implying that there's reason to take these two sources (archaeological artifacts and medieval mythology) as being relevant to the accurate dating of Korea's antiquity. This is not a view that is shared by any of our sources, except Sin, who is vague on the matter. It is, furthermore, a position that two of our sources (the only ones who take up the question in detail, Seth and Connor) are explicitly wary of.

I really don't know whether a fuller reply to my point is needed, unless you believe that I am misrepresenting the sources. To summarize my points above: Seth, Connor and Sin all explicitly describe the source in question as a myth. Lee does not describe it as a myth, but that is because his discussion uses slightly more technical vocabulary, and takes up a more nuanced discussion of various genres of history. He does not at any point introduce a description of the text in question that would be incongruent with its description as a mythic text. Seth and Connor explicitly state that we cannot take anything the text says at face value because it is a myth. Lee doesn't address the question (at least in the pages I have consulted and which are being used in this article) of the reliability of the text for dating. Sin says we can know something about how old Korea is from the text, but he doesn't say what. We have consensus among these sources that the text is myth (three out of four say it is a myth, and one source does not deny this or offer a narrative that is incompatible with that description). There is no need to qualify our statement that the text is a myth unless, again, you have new sources to bring to bear or believe that I have misrepresented the sources, in which case I would ask you to use some direct quotes in your rebuttal to make sure we're literally and figuratively on the same page.

☾ Luna (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience over last couple of days. Your last two posts raised many points, some of which I would try to address so we can reach an agreed compromise in regards to the sentence in the introduction about Samguk Yusa and Gojoseon.

First of all, you already agreed to ditch Connor as a reference in the discussion about another part of the introductory section, citing the perceived lack of notability and/or expertise of the author. Given that point and the one that she has never been cited in the sentence under question ever since we started this discussion, I question the point of calling upon her in this discussion. Given that I do not have access to Connor's book, I cannot verify much of the argument you may make citing Connor. I propose that we leave Connor's book out of discussion for now, for the purpose of speedy discussion.

Then we have the matter of Sin and Seth's appraisal of the Dangun account in Samguk Yusa, given we've established that Lee does not take a clear side on this matter. Sin in his main discussion about Gojoseon is quite clear that the record about the foundation in 2333 BCE is a historical account, "not just a myth". While he does not go as far as to claim the story as wholly factual, it will be a stretch to claim that he considers the account to be wholly mythic, as far as the main part of the section is concerned. While he does relate the "foundation legend" in p. 21, he does not add any assessment or interpretation of his own, as I stated many times. In a nutshell, Sin affirms the story of Dangun as a "historical account" in his own discussion and simply goes on to describe the "foundation legend" at the end of the section (in smaller fonts) without his own interpretation. I do not see how that qualify as Sin unequivocally interpreting the account as clearly and wholly mythic as you claim.

As for Seth, I recognise that he takes different position from Sin and largely sees the account as mythic, though he's not wholly consistent in different pages of his book, just as one can point out ambiguity for Sin’s position. I will refer from his 2010 combined text. While it's true that Seth describes the account of Dangun as mythical or legendary in many of his reference to the character, he does not wholly discount the notion that the account may be real. In page 17, he says "Although some later Korean ‘’’histories’’’ would assert that the state was founded by Tan ‘gun in 2333 BCE, the earliest uncontested date for a political entity called Choson is 109 BCE." Also in page 209, he writes that "Another private history, Haedong yo'ksa (History of Korea) by Han Ch'i-yun (1765-1814) covered the history of Korea from Tan'gun (my bold font) to the fall of Koryo". While they certainly do not indicate that Seth considers the account in Samguk Yusa to be largely factual, these pages do indicate that Seth was not consistent in his view that the account was certainly and wholly mythic.

Thus we can see that the three cited sources have different views about the status of the account: Sin calls it "not just a myth, but a historical account" and introduces the story at the appendix of the section without any interpretation or analysis; Lee is largely silent on the matter; Seth views the account as "mythic" in most instances but is inconsistent at times. Given that, I would say the argument is not exactly one-sided for either position and qualification such as "possibly" or "likely" to the term "mythic" is not unwarranted to describe the lack of clear consensus over the status of the account.

About your observation about my argument regarding Seth's assessment of Samguk Yusa as legendary at times while historical at other times, I would like to first refer you to p. 16 where he states that "The most important written sources are two histories, the Samguk Sagi and Samguk yusa. But they were compiled in 1145 and 1279 respectively, centuries after the events they describe. Although they are based on earlier sources that are no longer extant and remain extremely useful for our understanding of ancient Korean history...". Seth basically describes Samguk Yusa as having comparable authority as to Samguk Sagi in terms of ancient Korean history. Your argument about the myth and legends later in the same page do not directly pertain to Samguk Yusa. While your points about p. 119 and p. 120 may be valid, you left out the reference to "Along with the Samguk Sagi, the Samguk Yusa remains one of the two major sources for early Korean history" (p. 119) and that it's often more accurate than the the Samguk Sagi in chronological details. I would also question your belief that the use of word "a source of historical information" in p. 120 was deliberate on Seth's part to highlight the alleged claim that Samguk Yusa is not a trustworthy account of history. While you tried to use a sentence later in the page to back your claim, that sentence have the problem of calling Samguk Yusa an invaluable historical source and that one may question the continuity of context in the two non-consecutive sentences. At best (for your argument), Seth point out certain legendary or mythic aspects of Samguk Yusa (which may make it partially mythic) but he stops well short of discrediting it as a valuable historical source.

Thus I would like to contend that contrary to your view, the consensus among the cited authors about the account of Dangun being mythic is questionable if not weak. I also note that there are certain merits to calling the account "partially mythic" or by another variation of the phrase, especially given Seth's analyses in p. 16, pp. 119-120 and Sin's affirmation in substantive (or analytical) part of his book. However given your discomfort about dichotomy of the phrase, I relented to changing it to "possibly" or another variation. While I agree that Sin's "not just a myth" is not equivalent to "partially mythic", one can certainly argue that it is consistent with "possibly/likely mythic", especially given that the sentence concerned in the article take its context from diverging viewpoints of the three sources cited. That none of three sources directly call it "partially mythic" or "possibly mythic" does not invalidate such qualification given Seth's analyses in p. 16, pp. 119-120 and the differing views about the nature of the account among the authors.

I would like to take a moment to try to answer your query about what Sin says one can learn about the antiquity about Korean history from Samguk Yusa. Let me clarify what Sin actually says in p. 19; he says that this (account in Samguk Yusa with the date of 2333 BCE) implies that Korean history dates as far back as Chinese history... and that this story (account in Samguk Yusa)...shows how far Korean history dates. While you are welcome to try to get a clarification from Sin, I believe it's likely that Sin's saying in effect that: from the account about the foundation of Gojoseon in 2333 BCE as written in Samguk Yusa, it can be seen that Korean history is about as old as Chinese history.

Regarding my last proposals, you suggested that we remove the phrase about the "other medieval records" unless they are referred to in our sources. As it happens, both Lee and Seth do mention other medieval sources of Dangun account. To begin with Seth implies the notion by Although some later Korean histories' would assert that the state was founded by Tan'gun in 2333 BCE in p. 17. In p. 119 he says Yi Song-hyu (1224-1300) composed the "Chewang un'gi" (Song of Emperors and Kings), a long poem recounting the rulers of Korea starting with Tan'gun. A substantively similar sentence is written in p. 114. Lee in the p. 194 of his book states In 1485, there also appeared Korea's first overall history, the Comprehensive Mirror of the Eastern Kingdom (Tongguk t'onggam) which treated in chronological fashion, for ease of reference, the whole of Korean history from Tan'gun.... Thus I believe it's justifiable to include the mention of "other medieval records" simply by adding the relevant pages to the existing citations.

You also seem to dislike the "mythic historical record" or "possibly mythic record" due to what you call ambiguity. However other than your assertion about ambiguity, you did not present other objective justifications; in fact you yourself acknowledge it may be just a matter of fluency. My explanation for the term "record" is that given that we are using "according to x (our main dispute) in..." format, I felt that the use of the word "record" makes it more clear that this account is not the sole component of Samguk Yusa. If you are uncomfortable about the possible notion of lending the story more authority by calling it "record", I will settle for alternatives such as "account" or "entry".

Thus I still feel justified in proposing my first preference proposal from the last discussion, slightly amended:

According to the possibly (OR likely) mythic record (OR account OR entry) in Samguk Yusa and other medieval records, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE. (retaining the present references, with additional pages for other medieval records)

The amended second preference proposed edit is:

According to the mythic historical record (OR account OR entry) in Samguk Yusa and other medieval records, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE. (retaining the present references, with additional pages for other medieval records)

I will acquiesce to an edit based on the second preference proposal, at least in temporary basis, though would reserve the right to propose a further change once appropriate sources become accessible.

I understand your reservation about the alternative edit incorporating the traditional foundation date and the first written record about Gojoseon in similar style to History of China. While I will not pursue this avenue for now if you are averse to it, I propose that we leave the matter available for a discussion (not necessarily by us) in future; that alternative may allow more room in terms of editing the relevant sentences, both in the introduction and the body of the article.

Well, that's it for now. Thank you again for your patience. I can sense that we're so close to an agreement; I can only hope that a step or two back each from the original position from both of us can result in a workable compromise. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, the entire crux of your position is based, again, upon the false dichotomy between myth and truth. These things are not opposing concepts, and you are therefore reading an ideological argument into sources that, as a historian, I can assure you aren't there. I'm not going to assume that English isn't your first language, but I would ask you whether it is or not in light of the several grammatical issues with your edits. If it is not your first language, I would suggest that perhaps you don't have the fluency with the technical language of historical scholarship in English to see that these sources are not debating about or expressing doubt about the fact that the source in question is mythical. They do talk a bit about what kinds of conclusions modern historians can draw from this mythic text, but none of the quotes you provided express any kind of doubt that the text is a myth.

Again, these are the salient facts and none of the points you raised above change these salient facts: Seth nowhere expresses doubt, or even the contention of doubt among contemporary historians, that this is a mythic text. He expressly states that it is a myth. Sin expressly states that it is a myth and, despite your thought that the likely reading of Sin tells us that he trusts the accuracy of the text, we aren't here to assume what is a likely reading. We are here to accurately summarize the consensus of contemporary historians. Your desire to add "other medieval records" is also not supportable by the citation, as Lee does not expressly state whether these other records also recount the foundation myth with a date of 2333 BCE; thus, while it is clear from Lee that there is overlap between the Samguk Yusa and other texts, he does not there make it clear whether the specific account we are including in the article is in the other accounts.

Because it is nowhere described as possibly mythic in any of the sources, nor can such a position be inferred from any of the sources we are examining, your first proposal is unacceptable. Your second proposal is unacceptable because it is needlessly wordy and lacks fluency (not fluency in a technical historical language, but fluency in clear, readable English). In addition, we have no source which states that the origin-story specifically is corroborated by other texts. Your inference that because Lee discusses some overlap between the various histories that there must be overlap in the origin story is just that: an inference. Unless you have a source that says this, we can't include it. The general overlap is exceptionally relevant to a specific discussion of this text, in the text's own article, but not in brief aside about the mythic origin story of Korea. Similarly, although you want to infer that Seth believes that the 2333 BCE date is accurate, he does not actually say this in his text. Your inference about what you think he likely means isn't sound basis for introducing ambiguity to a term that our sources are clear on, especially given the fact that even if Sin trusts the dating of the account (something he never explicitly states), this would not introduce any ambiguity into the statement that the text is a myth. You have offered inferences to support your position. I have offered a thorough reading of the relevant material in the sources cited. This has become a non-issue, unless you have new sources.

I will edit the sentence to read: According to the mythic origin story recounted in the Samguk Yusa, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE.

The above is clear, does not infer anything from the sources that is not stated, and for the purposes of a brief aside about this text and its bearing on a discussion of the wider topic of the History of Korea is more than sufficient to convey accurately and without bias what is relevant from the sources in question. Consensus is one thing, but I'm not going to compromise the accuracy of the article or permit the misrepresentation of the sources simply to gain consensus. If you'd like to see this sentence edited further, I suggest we seek a third party editor, more experienced than either of us, who has experience dealing with NPOV issues specifically. Thanks for your continued civility.

☾ Luna (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it’s regrettable that I cannot write in fluid and flawless way that you would. It happens that my aptitudes lie more in science rather than arts/literature. So you may have a point about my expertise with the specialised language of historical scholarship, though in my defence I’ve completed history courses at the university level. Your other point about whether English is my native language seems to be out of place so I wouldn’t comment on it, except to say that I perhaps should have proof-read my posts better. I noticed that you went back to correct the grammatical mistakes in one of your replies.

Leaving aside that, your argument about the consensus among the sources regarding the mythical quality about the Dangun account merits a reply. I agree that you have fair points in most areas. While I have many things to say, for now I would point out that the idea of Sin “expressly” stating the account to be myth is up for a debate. The issues that we have to consider is whether “not just a myth, but a historical account…” would be classified as “express statement” that the account is myth, and whether a simple reproduction of the “legend” without the author’s comment or analysis can be classified as “express statement”. In both cases, I would say “no” or “very unlikely” though I suspect you would have different take for those points.

Another point that I would make is that I’m not trying to say that Seth believes that the foundation date of 2333 BCE is accurate, but that Seth says that ”later Korean histories” (note plural!) would assert the foundation date of 2333 BCE in p. 17 of his book. Even if my other points from the different pages from Seth’s and Lee’s books are vulnerable given that they do not specifically refer to the 2333 BCE date, I would think that Seth’s comment in p. 17 about “later Korean histories” would justify the mention of other records containing Dangun’s account. If we are to assume that the reference have to literally and specifically reflect the statement in the article, we would also have to take out the sentence about “China is one of the oldest civilisations in the world” in History of China (even though the statement is true), given that the reference given for that statement merely says that the first Chinese Dynasty about which clear records remain existed from around 1700 BCE. I would not think that statement in itself proves the antiquity of Chinese civilisation without a comparison with other civilisations. I also note that the mention about the other records about Dangun is included in the corresponding sentence in the body of the article, without specific reference to a modern text but pointing toward the Wikipedia pages of the relevant medieval sources.

In any case, I can sense that your position over the sentence we’ve been discussing is clear. Given that your current proposal (which you already effected) drastically changes the sentences from the following proposals, I suggest that we adopt the proposal which received mutual agreement-you proposed it based on my earlier suggestion, I expressed the intention to acquiesce- which is:

According to the mythic history in Samguk Yusa, the Gojoseon (Old Joseon) was founded in northern Korea and Manchuria in 2333 BCE.

Given that this is the last proposal that has been found to be acceptable to large extent from both of us I suggest we follow this pending further discussion.

I suggest that we further discuss the wisdom of including the mention about other records. I recommend you consider my points about p. 17 of Seth’s text, and precedents from History of China and the body of History of Korea. I would also wonder if the efforts to better represent the account should yield to the mere fluency of reading. I would be happy to hear what you think about these.

Unfortunately I have other businesses to attend to, so will take a near-complete leave of absence from Wikipedia for about 2 weeks. While I will probably get to read your response, I may not be able to guarantee a reply until around the 15th of this month. Thank you for your collegial response. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Refimprove template

Currently, the {{refimprove}} template on top of the article serves no purpose, since the article is adequately cited. I suggest that the template be removed from the article, and of there are issues with the citations in particular paragraphs, these be marked with {{fact}} in the corresponding places.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• No objections, removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Date Error

Dates categorizations should be changed from BC and AD to BCE and CE respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.124.138 (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? WP:DATE says that we don't change arbitrarily. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

AD (Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi) - (In the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ) implies Korean history and culture were developmentally dependent on Christianity; or in the least, only understandable with a perception of Christian mores being omnipresent. Similarly, BC is an English language modification of aCn (ante Chritum natum - before the birth of Christ). The article itself indicates Buddhism and Confucianism both thrived on the peninsula prior to the introduction of Christianity. Thus, the use of AD and BC in this article smells of Christian ethnocentrism; such usage, when applied to a diverse culture like Korea, is disrespectful and academically inaccurate.

Stylistically, BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) do not suggest a cultural dependency on any particular religion, nor do they provide any connotation of a specific culture being unified in one religious practice. Modern historiography reserves the usage of AD and BC to where appropriate (e.g., St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin in AD 382), while historic events outside a dependency on Christianity for understanding should use BCE and CE to avoid ambiguity (e.g., Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.206.1 (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking and sorting the bibliography (3 june 2013)

Hello. I started a *technical* reorganization of the "Bibliography" section that lists the books used to support the contents of the main page.

1. The division between "surveys", "historiography" and "other" seems excellent, and I simply keep it as it was.
2. All the *books* that were described inline are now *described* in the sub-section "others" (obviously, the references will remain inline).
3. I have sorted each of these three sub-sections by alphabetical order of author
4. I have fixed the isbn numbers of all these books: now (2013-06-01), they are all correct even if the isbn of the CJK books are only decoded by google-asia, not by google.com.

Now, my next move will be to modify the way these books are referenced inline. The principle is simple: It suffices to put

 <ref>{{harvnb|AUTHOR|YEAR|p=PAGE}}</ref>

in the right place, with the right values for AUTHOR,YEAR,PAGE. Since there are 114 references, this leads to 114 occasions to commit a mistake. Please assume good faith, and correct me if necessary ! Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Some examples of what is described above:

• general rule (use *one* of the two methods)

 lee97 <ref>{{harvnb|Lee|1997|p=847}}</ref> {{sfn|Lee|1997|p=847}}
 leeha <ref>{{harvnb|Lee|Ha|Sorensen|2013|p=847}}</ref> {{sfn|Lee|Ha|Sorensen|2013|p=847}}

• special rules (use *one* of the two methods)

  leeki <ref>{{harvnb|Lee Ki-baik|1984|p=847}}</ref> {{sfn|Lee Ki-baik|1984|p=847}}
  leeyu <ref>{{harvnb|Lee Hyun-hee|2005|p=847}}</ref> {{sfn|Lee Hyun-hee|2005|p=847}}

I kept the *as it was* Lee Hyun-hee instead of the general rule Lee|Ha|Sorensen because of (1) don't change for the simple fact of changing (2) in any case, this is easier to type Pldx1 (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting from Sockpuppet

Current version was written by Sockpuppets. It must be revert from him. Isn't it?--Historiographer (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you reverted a large number of edits at least some of which were made by users in good standing. If you make a list of sock and subsequently only revert their edits, it would help.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Taft big enough to mention here?

Shouldn't the Taft–Katsura Agreement get some sort of mention on this page? Hcobb (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

South Korea "Democratic"?

A section near the beginning is phrased "In 1948, new governments were established, the democratic South Korea ("Republic of Korea") and communist North Korea ("Democratic People's Republic of Korea")"

Surely that "democratic" should read "capitalist". As the later section (divided korea) includes the phrase "a series of oppressive autocratic governments took power in South Korea"

I'm not making any political point here.79.69.201.181 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Academic consensus

• Seth, Michael J. (2010). A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-7425-6717-7.

"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."

• Stark, Miriam T. (2008). Archaeology of Asia. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4051-5303-4.

"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."

• Schmid, Andre (2013). Korea Between Empires. Columbia University Press. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-231-50630-4.

"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."

• Peterson, Mark (2009). Brief History of Korea. Infobase Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4381-2738-5.

"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."

• Hulbert, H. B. (2014). The History of Korea. Routledge. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-317-84941-4.

"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.--133.236.112.50 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reformat this material before inserting it to the article, so that it conforms with WP:MOS.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: the above message was originally posted by me here. The anom user (who uses many different IPs) has reposted my message on several talk pages without proper attribution. I have no connection with this user. -Zanhe (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Null and void

From the article: In 1910 Japan effectively annexed Korea by the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, which along with all other prior treaties between Korea and Japan was confirmed to be null and void in 1965. While Japan asserts that the treaty was concluded legally, this argument is not accepted in Korea because it was not signed by the Emperor of Korea as required and violated international convention on external pressures regarding treaties.[106][107]

This looks as 'slightly weird'. Japan asserts that the treaty never existed (that is the meaning of null and void). Therefore, the treaty cannot have been legally concluded. At the same time, Korea asserts that the treaty never existed (that is the meaning of null and void). Therefore, the treaty cannot have been non-legally concluded. A treaty that has never been concluded (that's the meaning of null and void) cannot be yellow or square or whatever you want. Such a non-existing thing is only another instance of the fact that any element of the empty set fits all properties... and therefore belongs to none of them.

Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Who are the Koreans?

With respect to the human and physical geography of Korea, what exactly are the Korean people(s)? Are they descendants of Chinese peoples (or people from the areas in today's China) speaking a separate language, but historically using the same written language? 109.148.223.104 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160210101236/http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/faculty/Bae/pdfs/2000_Norton_Korean%20Paleoanthropology_JHE.pdf to http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/Faculty/Bae/pdfs/2000_Norton_Korean%20Paleoanthropology_JHE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233011/http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html to http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214055517/http://baekje.chungnam.net/english/index.jsp to http://baekje.chungnam.net/english/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922051632/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/29/japan.comfort.women/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/29/japan.comfort.women/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023061108/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/66/IMG/NR004366.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/66/IMG/NR004366.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120701173656/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=254242&v=43 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=254242&v=43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150625032709/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Korea.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Korea.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140213042851/http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/eng/index.jsp to http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/eng/index.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Japan's current position is that the 1910 annexation treaty was NOT concluded legally

In the section "Japanese rule", the article states "While Japan asserts that the treaty was concluded legally, Korea disputes this argument." This is factually incorrect. Here are the facts: In 1995, Prime Minister Murayama made a comment which seemed to imply that the treaty was concluded legally. He immediately apologized and reversed his statement. Then in 2010, on the 100th anniversary of the treaty, Prime Minister Kan issued a further statement that the treaty was not concluded legally, and was not a treaty between equal partners. The current position of the Japanese government is that the treaty was NOT concluded legally. If there is no objection, I will BE BOLD and delete the incorrect sentence. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)