Revision as of 17:04, 1 July 2008 editMengTzu622 (talk | contribs)59 edits →Jizi's descendants?← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:11, 5 February 2009 edit undoKoreanSentry (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users545 edits →RomanizationNext edit → | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
''Joseon'' by reason of Korean kingdom? Hopeless. Probably you are a dyed-in-the-wool nationalist indoctrinated with the ''minjok sagwan''. It would be difficult for you to imagine there are approaches free of nationalism, but I think this is the first hurdle for us to achieve NPOV in history-related articles. --] 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | ''Joseon'' by reason of Korean kingdom? Hopeless. Probably you are a dyed-in-the-wool nationalist indoctrinated with the ''minjok sagwan''. It would be difficult for you to imagine there are approaches free of nationalism, but I think this is the first hurdle for us to achieve NPOV in history-related articles. --] 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
: Joseon is Korean by ethnically and linguistically for the Joseon legion, if this isn't the case, then why Chinese are claiming other ancient states that not even Chinese begin with? --Korsentry 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Jizi's descendants? == | == Jizi's descendants? == |
Revision as of 04:11, 5 February 2009
Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class | ||||||||||
|
China Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Template:Korean requires
|hangul=
parameter.
I'm not sure I understand the rationale for the proposed move. After all, normally a ruler is separate from the country he or she ruled. Although things are murkier here in the semi-mythical past, it seems like that basic distinction should still apply. -- Visviva 16:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Argh.. I'm sorry I'd been confused. --Puzzlet Chung 18:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Restoration
I've restored this article to revert a cut-and-paste move from several months ago, which was followed by extensive POV-pushing and insertions of original research. There may be salvageable additions in the history of the Gija page, but I can't find them (see Talk:Gija for discussions of problems with that fork). -- Visviva 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
South Korean interpretation of Gija(Jizi)
There is a passage in this article where it says South Korean high school textbook describes Gija Joseon as a "Korean tribe". First, this is something I've never heard of. As far as I know, the mainstream scholarly consensus in Korea is that Gija Joseon is a myth. I've also asked some high school students to check their history textbooks to see if there is any mention of Gija Joseon. There is none, according to them. I'd like to know what source this passage is based upon so I can verify this. Cydevil38 02:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I referred to South Korea's national history textbooks for high schools translated into Japanese and published by Akashi Shoten. As for the textbooks for the 5th and 6th Curriculum, Jizi is not mentioned in the main text but one footnote says:
- 古朝鮮の発展と関連して箕子朝鮮についての記録がある。中国の史書には周の武王が箕子を朝鮮を封じたことになっている。そしてその年代を紀元前12世紀頃してもいる。しかし箕子朝鮮を、朝鮮の発展過程で社会の内部に登場した新しい支配勢力を示すものとして、また東夷族の移動過程で箕子に成長したある部族が古朝鮮の辺境で政治勢力をつかんたものと見る見解が支配的である。
But after reading your comment, I checked the new textbook for the 7th Curriculum and noticed that this footnote had been dropped. This means Jizi is completely excluded from South Korean history education even though Jizi has had immense impact on Korean ideologies and perceptions of history. --Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Romanization
Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is NOT an encyclopedia for Korean history but an encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge. Jizi would be looked at from various standpoints. From the viewpoint of source-based history, in other words, as long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or something related to modern Korea, and this standpoint is reflected in romanization. Of course, we don't exclude the modern Korean stuff because it is against our NPOV policy. It would be handled well if we carefully separate the nationalist view from history, and it is never acceptable to push the former into the latter. --Nanshu 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- We'll not need to have the country (Gojoseon) name translated into Chinese language. Because Joseon by reason of Korean kingdom. therefore must change with the Korean language. also Chinese nationalism too often assert they's rights. Sameness, why apply the chinese name? it's also NPOV policy Korea history 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Joseon by reason of Korean kingdom? Hopeless. Probably you are a dyed-in-the-wool nationalist indoctrinated with the minjok sagwan. It would be difficult for you to imagine there are approaches free of nationalism, but I think this is the first hurdle for us to achieve NPOV in history-related articles. --Nanshu 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Joseon is Korean by ethnically and linguistically for the Joseon legion, if this isn't the case, then why Chinese are claiming other ancient states that not even Chinese begin with? --Korsentry 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Jizi's descendants?
The article talks about several families claiming to be descendants of Jizi, but states that they did so based on a typographical error. I checked the footnote, it only seems to mention the error in regards to the Han family, but not the other two. So was it only the Han family's claim that is based on the typographical error, or were the claims of the other two families also based on the same error or some other errors?
Categories:- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed China-related articles
- Unknown-importance China-related articles
- Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject China articles