text:
Talk:Gojoseon

How can books written so much later be quoted as sources of authority?
Donyi: Means Eastern Tribal People. NOT EASTERN BABARIANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthcom (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at all the historians for continuing to quote from the Samguk Yusa as if it was Gospel Truth. A book written in 13th Century CE with political justification in mind would be suspect by any criteria. However, Korean national pride has prevented an unbiased assessment of the past. Although all the East Asian states are guilty of such biase, it appears the Koreans are much more rigidly so.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * When only a few references remain such as Samguk Yusa because most historical documents have been purposefully destroyed or stolen by the Japanese, what you should be amazed at is the strength of the Korean culture to somehow still preserve at least some of its history, not the Korean national pride which is the sole reason why Korea still stands as a country after numerous number of invasions from China, Japan and Mongolia. No wait, be amazed at both, just positively. You have absolutely no right to to call Koreans biased, and Wikipedia is definitely not a place for you to do so. Wookie919 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Wayne Leigh. Ancient Chinese records would be a better source than something like the Samguk Yusa. Writing didn't even exist in Korean states until probably after 1 AD. And the article here makes it sound like it is entirely legit. Just as the Japanese Kojiki is pretty much fiction when describing pre-300 AD events, I think the same can be said for Samguk Yusa concerning these early pre-AD events. Angry bee (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 * And I also agree with Wayne Lee and Angry Bee. It is simply amazing how Koreans like Wookie919 nonchalantly dismiss very reasoned and critical engagement with Korean nationalist historiographies. We "have no right to call Koreans biased?" Um. Yes we do. And many continue to call you biased. You are the last remaining non-autocratic nation that wholesale still believes absolute myths about your origins, and then tries to force that mythology into the academic mold of what, outside of Korea, is know as history. But Korea historians are dismissed summarily in the halls of Asia Studies in the greatest universities of the world. Korean historians are almost completely dismissed. At least they are viewed with trememdous skepticism. And this is not because there is anything wrong with Koreans themselves, it is because koreans cannot move away from the 1895 dangun/minjok complex posited by Shin Chae Ho and his band of journalistic politicos who were trying to decenter China and displace the influence of Japan. But that was then, and this is 2011, and contemporary Korea cannot seem to let go of this late 19th century mythology about itself. In anycase, none of it belongs in wikipedia. None of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.163.250 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I cannot believe how people just call Koreans biased. Yes, I am another Korean, and yes, I do not agree with Wayne Lee and Angry Bee. For some reason, people just think myths from how a country was born was just a myth for the whole country's history. If Gojoseon was not existing, then there wouldn't be any Koreans in the current, because after Gojoseon has been taken over by the Han Dynasty in China, they have all moved to separate countries like the Buyeo Kingdom, in the 2nd century BC, Okjeo, Dongye, and Samhan. Buyeo was the northern part state, which takes the northern land of North Korea and the southern part of Manchuria. The eastern was Okjeo and Dongye which were small countries lying by the East sea (or the Sea of Japan even though I strongly disagree to this name). Samhan are the three hans which were located at the land of later Baekje and Silla. If you can prove why had the population of these 5 countries had increased tremendously and exponentially for a short period at the early 100 BCs other than the existence of Goguryeo, then I will disprove all the Korean's idea. And for the comment above my paragraph, I cannot believe why Koreans are viewed with skepticism. I understand your idea of how China was decentered other than with our own power. But you should understand, as with another example of this, putting the Chinese power during the Imjinwaeran (the Korean-Japanese war in 1592-98)because the attack of the Japanese were so unexpected by the time even though there were people who noticed it, and there were many severe warnings from nature as well, but the people ignored it as much as the warnings were severe. Now, I am not saying it was because the Japanese invasion in the 19th century was unexpected, but Japan was already opening ports to the Western World like Europe and the US, which was forced to any Eastern country without being colonized, like the Opium War in China. But China was less affected by the Western World than Japan, which had already been impacting themselves by importing stuff from the Western World, and that is the reason why Japan is considered as the most developed country in Asia along with China, which had many people to work on themselves to improve their economical status. Well, at that time, the most trustable frenemy for Joseon was either China or Russia because there were already people who turned their sides to Japan, which were called Chinilpa, which simply means 'friends of Japan.' I strongly disagree to the ideas of you guys and if you want to know more that Gojoseon is not biased and it is real, you should go to the Korean elementary school, 5th grade, which explains a lot with photos and stuff of sings that Gojoseon people have left behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom20020420 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed to support claims of Gojoseon as a Great Power
You need to cite the ancient contemporaneous sources which mentioned the existing of this polity called Gojoseon, especially in the highly dramatic descriptions of war with the state of Yan. Without these, it is difficult to put forward claims that Gojoseon is a power and highly organized state rather than a loose confederation under a chieftain.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Leigh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gojoseon Equals Liaoning Bronze Dagger Culture
The Liaoning bronze dagger culture is an archeological complex of the late Bronze Age in Northeast Asia. Artifacts from the culture are found primarily in the Liaoning area of Manchuria and in the Korean peninsula. Various other bronze artifacts, including ornaments and weapons, are associated with the culture, but the daggers are viewed as the most characteristic.

Lee (1996) considers that the culture is properly divided into five phases: Phases I and II typified by violin-shaped daggers, Phases IV and V by slender daggers, and Phase III by the transition between the two. Of these, remains from Phases I, II and III can be found in some amounts in both the Korean peninsula and Manchuria, but remains from Phases IV and V are found almost exclusively in Korea.Wayne Leigh 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A Founding Myth is Not Historically Accurate
The founding myth of Old Gojoseon should not be used as an actual historical civlization. Old Gojoseon should be considered a semi-mythical dynasty, with the mythical founding date of 2333 BCE.

Old Gojoseon has no archeology evidence, there is minimal textual evidence, and the story of Old Gojoseon was first mentioned after the 14th century.

Intranetusa 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Heh, this is 16 years old.
 * Having said that, I suppose that's why the founding myths are called myths.
 * However, there is some textual evidence (not minimal as you assert). The ancient historian Sima Qian writes that Wiman was a military officer/commander from Yan, and following Yan's subjugation in 195 BC, he fled east and submitted to the king there. The following year Wiman overthrew the king and usurped ruling authority. This suggests that at the time there was a state (with unclear organization or centralization) to the east of Yan on at least part of the Korean Peninsula, though how long that state existed is unknown. What is evident is that because, only two generations later, Emperor Wu of Han seemed to believe that Wiman Joseon (which still used the state name of Gojoseon) could pose a threat to his empire if it joined with the Xiongnu, the Gojoseon that Wiman usurped must have been at least somewhat organized and centralized to be a political consideration for the Han dynasty.
 * Archaeologically, Gojoseon seems to correlate with the Liaoning bronze dagger culture, as that form of dagger production disappears from the Liaodong Peninsula in the same period of time in which the State of Yan takes Liaodong from Gojoseon in the Gojoseon-Yan War, only to reappear in a later form in the southern Korean Peninsula with the emergence of the Korean state of Jin.Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Article move
There was a suggestion that Go-Joseon be renamed and moved to Gojoseon, Former Joseon or Old Joseon, but no debate.

Founding myth of Korea
anyone want to take up maybe deleting Founding myth of Korea? doesn't seem to add anything, other countries don't have analogous entries. there's already a separate article on Dangun. just trying to organize things logically. Appleby 17:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Credibility of Gyuwon Sahwa
Article states: Gyuwon Sahwa is a credible historical record written in 1675 which is based on earlier records that are now lost. However, I believe that its credibility as a historical document is disputed. The current official history textbooks in use in South Korea do not consider it credible, and do not have this list of danguns (whereas all the other kings/emperors/etc. are listed). [I live in South Korea.] Furthermore, many historians consider the work to be disputed (see ).

To conform to the NPOV policy, I propose that this section be marked disputed.

It looks like while HDGG is widely considered a forgery (it was not written when it says it was written, even though the contents are based on some earlier "alternative history" texts), it's more complicated for GWSH. Apparently the "original" GWSH is in the Korean national history museum, and many people consider it authentic (although some think it too is a forgery). Just because the book is authentically old, doesn't mean the content is accurate, of course. The content was not intended by the author to be a mainstream scholarly history, but a collection of the more nationalistic legends and alternative histories. I think it'd be good to briefly explain this in the article.

The "History" Section
The discription in the History section looks somewhat ambiguous.

 * The people of Gojoseon are called in Chinese records Dong-i, "eastern bowmen,"

Dong-i or Dong Yi (東夷) in Chinese can be hardly interpreted as "eastern bowmen", but rather "eastern barbarians." The term Dong Yi is paralleled with "北狄 (Bei Di)", "西戎 (Xi Rong)", and "南蛮 (Nan Man)", which mean "northern barbarians", "western barbarians", and "southern barbarians" respectively. The interpretation "bowmen" seems to be just the build-up of the character ("弓" the bow and "人" man). And,

 * ...Dong-i, "eastern bowmen," belonging to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic.

Each of eastern/northern/western/southern barbarians is not a single race, but these terms referred to a group of peoples who lived east, north, west and south to the center of the Chinese civilization. And the languages of "eastern barbarians" peoples are not documented, so there is no concluding "belonging to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic."

 * Gojoseon eventually consolidated in Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula...

This sentence can make readers misunderstand, since it can sound as if the eastern "barbarians" founded an organized state.

In a later paragraph,

 * Gija, a subject of the Yin state, entered Gojoseon and introduced the culture of Yin around the 11th century BC Gojoseon clashed with the Zhou during China's Warring States Period (475-221 BC),

This can mean that Gojoseon directly fought against the Zhou Dynasty. Adjacent to Manchuria were Yan or Wei and the tribes/peoples in Manchuria may have fought against these neighboring states, but it's suspicious if Gojoseon fought with Zhou which was far from Manchuria and had much stronger states between Manchuria and Zhongyuan area.-222.15.81.187 13:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) is it possible that 夷 was used to indicate a relationship with bowmen? why did they use diff't characters for "barbarian": 夷 狄 戎 蛮? i'm asking cuz i honestly don't know, though i'll try to research this further myself.
 * 2) i think the little evidence there is does indicate that gojoseon's language was altaic, see Fuyu languages, although i agree it should clarify gojoseon does not equal all of "dong yi" & the altaic connection is not certain.
 * 3) i think "consolidate" is a good compromise, as there is little evidence of a formal kingdom until later, but there is enough written & archeological evidence that gojoseon can be identified as organized within a geographic location.
 * 4) i don't know where this came from either, i'll look into this more, can you provide some sources we can look at, too? Appleby 15:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, 夷 狄 戎 蛮 were generic terms to refer eastern, northern western and southren people, respectively. Because of sinocentrism, they became to mean barbarians.    For example, 後漢書 (Hou Hanshu) has 東夷列傳 (the records of the eastern barbarians) and it records people of 夫餘 (Buyeo), 挹婁, 高句驪 (Goguryeo), 東沃沮 ((East Okjeo), 濊 (Ye), 三韓(Samhan) and 倭 (Wa).  Notice Chenese consider not only Korean but Japanese 東夷. --Kusunose 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Chinese people in eastern Shandong and Jiangsu provinces are also called 東夷 (still called that sometimes), and they were historically bowmen (archaelogical evidence). The term was later extended to refer to all eastern peoples (including the Japanese), and became a geographic term. There is no clear Altaic connection though.  Many Northern Chinese have Altaic connections anyway (descendents of steppe peoples). Naus 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact or fiction?
I think it is a trifle unreasonable to omit doubts about the historicity of Gojoseon from this article. The historical and archeological bases adduced for this extremely ancient state are more than a little shaky. -- Visviva 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * it's my understanding that there isn't any doubt about gojoseon's existence in this area, bordering yan/yen to the west, i think referred to in various chinese records much before goryeo records (guk by 4th century bc). there are some doubts as to its exact location, with the consensus being pyongyang (or beginning in manchuria & later moving to pyongyang). during corresponding times in this region, there are walled cities & evidence of a fairly distinctive culture. i understand the debate is the degree of its political organization, whether a loose federation of walled cities (cummings, lee k.b.) or a kingdom. i think by the time of wiman, it may have been a kingdom, but not before. i think "state" is often, but not always, used by even non-korean scholars, although any one term is problematic because of the length of the claimed history. this is all from memory of googling at the time i worked on the article, so correct me if i'm wrong. Appleby 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When was Gojoseon established?
This article states that According to legend, it was founded in 2333 BC by Dangun, however I found several sources suggesting different timing - the the 30th century BC. Here are some links:, , Mausoleum of Dangun,.

Which is the more widely accepted date? Lejean2000 09:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Amusingly enough, all three of those websites are blocked from where I sit in South Korea. If the Mausoleum of Dangun article is to be trusted, however, this is a purely North Korean claim based solely on their own "archeological" findings.  In fact, when I'm next among my books, I think I can find some scholars who consider the Gojoseon period to have probably begun some thousand-or-so years later than the 24th century BCE.  -- Visviva 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * For instance, Cumings (1997, p. 25) only indicates that Gojoseon was among the small peninsular states which emerged "by the fourth century BC." Lee (1984, p. 13) also only mentions Gojoseon as having emerged in the Liao and Taedong valleys by the 4th century.  Some, like Kim (1997) do regard "Dangun Joseon" as having possibly existed during the Neolithic period, i.e. before the 13th century BCE; however, by the same token they reject the possibility that Gojoseon can be regarded as a "state" or even "tribal confederation" in the modern sense.
 * Of course, there is ultimately no satisfactory answer to the question, since no satisfactory historical record exists; but any date prior to 500 BC must be considered speculative and/or legendary. -- Visviva 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of a re-organization
I have reshaped part of the article a bit. I have moved the historical parts ("Kingdom".. and a very short paragraph whose title I forgot) to the newly named "Founding legend and historical foundation of Gojoseon", which seems to make more sense, as the legends have historical significance and is relevant to the somewhat obscure history of the old kingdom, and added my own content based on the reading of Lee Ki-Baik's "Hanguksa Sillon", among other things. I have not subtracted anything but slightly rewritten some sentences. They can probably be improved even more. The "iron culture" section could be expanded a lot more, I'm sure. A bibliography section should also be added...

Bronze Culture + Iron Culture
Very very important sections, I think. I corrected some the (horrible) grammar of the bronze culture paragraph. I don't have time to do the rest now, but can someone please, rephrase this section? There's also a problem of content. No real comparison with Chinese bronze culture of the time, and of course, no references. Iron culture deserves a lot more content as well... Shogo Kawada 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I've done it, anyway. Shogo Kawada 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding the map of Gojoseon's territory
I have added the map of Gojoseon's territory. But, it is removed by someone. I think that this map is reasonable.

This map is the results of Professor Yoon in Dankuk univ. as everybody knows it. I want to discuss about the map.

 * I see two major problems with the map:
 * 1) it appears to be either from a copyrighted book, or a copyrighted blog; in either case, it is subject to deletion as a copyvio.
 * 2) It represents one person's research; this may or may not reflect general consensus among scholars of early Korean history.
 * If the map can be used at all, it should be clearly labeled as one person's theory. Most of the texts I have indicate that Gojoseon probably occupied some area of northern Korea or Manchuria, but do not suggest anything near the scope indicated by this map.  -- Visviva 06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It is fair that all theories or major a few theories about the gojoseon territory should be described according to the opinion of Visviva

 * I think I should find another map or draw by myself based on the theory.--Hairwizard91 04:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding a new section about the territory of Gojoseon
It is better adding a new section of gojoseon's territory because there are several different thoeries about it. Maybe, it can be categorized into three things.

1. Based on the Prof Yoon, the territory covers sourth manchuria, some of Liaoning, Liaodong, and north Korean

2. The territory covers only Liaoning.

3. The territory covers only Pyongyang.

Anybody can comment about these three territory theory.

Part of Liaoxi was also Gojoseom territory. The border between Gojoseon and Han was Pei river, based on earlier Chinese records, it was located at Hebei today Traineek (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone give the source of the foundation years of Gojoseon?

 * BC 2622 by whom ?

 * BC 2786 by whom ?

 * BC 2800 by whom ?

 * BC 2337 by whom ?

There are so many theories about the foundation years. Can anyone give the sources of them ? ??? I thought Wikipedia said that Japan was under Gojoseon's rule... What about that information?? I want to know... Did Gojoseon occupy Japan or no??? PLz someone answer me.. I have a project due on Japan.

 * No, it didn't. Check any book you want on Japanese history.  Or Korean history for that matter.  -- Visviva 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

 * There are three opinions
 * 1. BC2357
 * Book_of_Wei(魏書), Jewang_ungi(제왕운기), Dangunsegi(단군세기), Sesongillok Jiriji(세종실록지리지) as the first year of 堯.
 * 2. BC2333
 * (Donguk tonggam)동국통감, Haedong ijeok(해동이적), Dongguk Yeokdae Chongmok(동국역대총목) as the 25th year of 堯
 * 3. BC2308
 * Gogi(古記) cited by Samguk Yusa as the 50th year of 堯

 * Chinese records of 四庫全書 says B.C. 2333. Korean just use this records of 四庫全書 --Drpepper000 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, the year B.C.2333 was not on Samguk Yusa. Then, the text on the article is wrong. Jtm71 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Where in 四庫全書 does it say 2333 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry bee (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Li
I have made the link to "li" direct rather than through a disambiguation page. But looking at the article on li, I noticed that it ONLY talks of the li as a unit of distance, not of area. This means that the Gojoseon text is unclear/meaningless. Even when that gets cleared up, I think a parentetical comment on about the size of the area in km^ or mi^ would be in order to facilitate reading - rather than paging back and forth in Wik, crashing and simply giving up. Kdammers 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the way of representing the area in East Asia. 2000 Li just is directly quoting the history books. Yan and Gojoseon was located throught west and east, 2000Li may the horizontal distance. Korean still uses 3000Li in spoken language (not in written language) when referring to the area of current Korean territory. --Hairwizard91 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Koreans I asked do NOT use li for area (They use either km^2 or pyoung. Li is a unit of length / distance that they use (see my comments at Li / talk.  In any case, what-ever it meant at the time of the loss of territory, simply translating it to "kilometers" or explaining it as "kilometers" does not give understandable information.  Is it actually square km or is it pushing back the entire frontier  that number of km.  There's a huge difference. Kdammers 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you said. But, 2000Li is just quotation from primary source, and this is interpreted as the 2000li length from the west to the east. So, it can be used as the approximation of the area from the horizotal length. --Hairwizard91 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gojoseon as a kingdom
Was Gojoseon a kingdom? I mean are there any namings of Gojoseon as "王国" (kingdom") in historical records of 2 th.-100 BC? If not, would it be better to change the definition of Gojoseon in the head of the article from "kingdom" to more accurate wordings like  "cultural and political entity" or just "state"? --133.41.84.100 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder also,it seems the Gojoseon maybe the longest-existing kingdom in the human history.--Ksyrie 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question, Gojoseon is just another title to describe many Kingdoms or states that existed during Gojoseon era.--Korsentry 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Jewang yeondaeryeok 제왕연대력 ...
Jewang yeondaeryeok, the historical chronology does not exists. It is mysterious to refer a document which was disappeared. Jtm71 09:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Recommend a good source?
What is a good source of information that discusses the archaeological verifiability of the Dangun legend dating to 2333BC?

Also, how come there isn't a left menu on this Talk page? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The subject of Gojoseon has been taken up several times indirectly in the publications of the archaeologist Choi Mong-lyong (please see his article for one example). He wrote several articles dealing with Wiman Joseon. Kim Jung-bae refers to Gojoseon as well in his English works, but he does so in passing. If one looks through the index of articles of Korea Journal and other names pop up (e.g. Yun Nae-hyeon, etc). However, they can write and write and write 'till the cows come home: there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that Gojoseon existed -- mapping the distribution of bronze daggers does not imply the presence of an archaeologically verifiable state-level society. A Sarah Milledge Nelson paper from 1995 (see her article for ref) discusses the political motivations for why there are still some trained academics who willingly choose to stake their entire professional careers on the existence of this Gojoseon. Mumun 無文 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of Gojoseon
I've been researching this time period left and right and the map that was included was simply pointless. The map was only a topographic view of the Korean penninsula and part of Manchuria with "Gojoseon" written in bold across it. It showed no delineation of the territory or any other information. I removed the map, as there was no reason for it to be included at all.
 * Why did you removed the map without the approvals & signature?--Korsentry 01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Temporary (1 week) example
My edit using a user space template is a temporary (1 week) demo case for a requested change to the protected template Infobox Former Country. I will delete the modification as soon as the proposal process is over. Unless there is some damage to Gojoseon, I ask that this edit be allowed to remain for a week while they check over the code change. For further info on the template change request, see discussion on the template page. This particular article was selected because it has a BC date. If this article is a bad choice for some reason, I would be happy to move to a suggested alternate article using this infobox. Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit left the page emitting metadata stating that the country existed from 2333 AD until 107 AD. I've reverted. Please do you testing in a sandbox page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mythical founding at Baekdu or Taebaek?
The text says that the mythical founder descended from heaven to Taebaek, but the link goes to Baekdu. Unless there are other mountains by the same name, these two are really far apart. Something needs to be clarified or corrected. 70.127.243.9 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
The "Former Country" infobox is intended for historical states, not for semi-legendary kingdoms of prehistory. Seriously, it is more bother than it is worth in this case. Why have an infobox if it contributes literally nothing? --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, See below category, if you put it that way, the below category is crushed. I also notice already mentioned term "legendary". See Shang Dynasty, This articles also point to specific years exactly, Do you think this years was possible? It's not gonna remove or edit in all of these cases.--Historiographer (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope to resolve some issues once and for all
Here are the several issues in this page:

1. Dangun is only a myth. Its non-existence is clear. It is not part of the history. supporting ref: "no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth" from "The Korea, A global studies handbook".

2. Korean Bronze Age starts from around 800 BC. supporting ref: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/1000bce_ko.htm

3. Gija section: we need to hear voices from two sides. both Chinese records and Korean records have Gija records, we need to present them. Korean believed Gija for more than one thousand years before they started questioning it, then we need to tell what role it played for that period. archaeological discoveries also talk for both sides and we can not simply ignore one side.

Historiographer, the discussion on "History of Korea" page answered your concern on Shang Dynasty. EJcarter (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

More Info
http://byeongjupark.wordpress.com/article/gojoseon-2zvfgrgyend5c-5/ excellent source for more information to add to this topic revealing what happened in greater detail (Armorbeast (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

 * Sorry, but that's a terrible source written with an obvious nationalist agenda and practically no reliable sources. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Gojoseon is a real former Empire
According to Professor. Yi Deokil, Gojoseon is a real Empire. Also according to a Russian historian, iem putin, Gojoseon really existed with the vast land, but the problem is that Koreans do not accept it as real. Korean peninsula's bronze age starts from 5000BC based on archaeological evidences. And if we only see now's South Korea, it is 3000BC to 4000BC. If we include Wooharyang in Manchuria, where many Korean styled tombs were found, bronze age of Korean history starts from 6000BC. In addition, not regarding these kinds of early dates of bronze, existence of Gojoseon can be proven, since Inca and Mya started their civilizations in stone age. Interestingly, some early built pyramids were shown recently that they were built with bronze-made tools, which show that Egyptian civilization possibly began in new stone age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World historia (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Then you ought to be able to provide reliable English sources stating so. Where no such sources exist, and even 'Koreans do not accept it as real,' then the only conclusion is that it's a fringe of the fringe theory. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Korean sources are fine, through keep WP:UNDUE in mind. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a map with larger Gojoseon.
Gojoseon had a land almost similar as Goguryeo. It was a confederated Empire of small kingdoms. The map is too small. Somebody, please put a map! A better map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.93 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jangdan (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent major changes
Recent major changes to this article gives undue weight to a fringe theory, Gija Joseon. This is a widely rejected theory, where as Dangun and Wiman are widely accepted legendary and historical figures per mainstream sources. The Gija legend is already addressed in the subsection Gija controversy, which puts it in appropriate context. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Kudos to who finally added some content sourced from an academic publication. The book he cited was written by a respected scholar (Professor Gina Barnes of the SOAS, University of London), yet you called it "fringe view from North Korea". That's beyond ridiculous. Please do not remove scholarly content and replace it with unsourced stuff, which you did twice already. -Zanhe (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the cited sources was North Korean. Cold Season's edits puts Gija legend out of context. It is even mentioned in Barne's book that Gija legend is a Chinese fabrication. Whatever details with regards to Gija can be added to Gija controversy, which puts it in proper context. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, my source was a secondary source from a reputable author who dealt with the information and analyzed it, and not a "North Korean" source. Also, Dangun with its bear-mother and heavenly father is as much rejected as any founding myth (and this is cited). I could as well make a Dangun controversy section in the near future, same scope. The only founding story that had some scholarly credence is the Weiman story. This section deals with the founding myths of Gojoseon and not which founding myth sounds most favorable to whomever to be propped up. --Cold Season (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not Barnes' work that is at fault, but its interpretation in this article. You used a singular source to explain a refuted theory in detail as if it was accepted by scholarly consensus. Gija controversy definitely is not. It is a fringe theory, a "Chinese fabrication" you might say, and further elaborations should be put into that context. And stop reverting before you've made consensus. Oh, and you DID use a North Korean source. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no interpretation; the info is blunt and reflects what the source states. And I even explicitly stated which scholar made what conclusion. And if you still want to argue it, then I would suggest you to open a RFC, or I will, since this isn't going anywhere. Also, provide me with the EXACT DIFF and quote of me directly using a North Korean source, because I know that I only cited the information as reflected directly how Barnes presented it (that is, I only cited Barnes). --Cold Season (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is, by completely ignoring the structure of this article and ignoring the previous consensus there - that Gija legend is controversial. And this is also dealt as a subsection of state-formation, which is what the book by Gina Barnes is about. The appropriate structure is already there, but you completely ignored it and went into unnecessary detail about Gija, as well as other "legends". As explained in the book by Barnes, Gija is a later fabrication and it has nothing to do with Gojoseon. Therefore, current structure it is under should be kept, and whatever details you want to add, you can add to the already existing subsection about Gija. You can take it up to RFC, but please stop making reverts before some consensus can be established. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gija and Dangun are both legends about the founding of Gojoseon, and are both discussed in pretty much every history book about ancient Korea. 's addition was based on unassailable scholarly source, yet you keep removing the content claiming it was a "North Korean source". Could you please enlighten us by pointing out which source Cold Season used was North Korean? -Zanhe (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The current structure AND the old structure is that of the sub-heading which states "Founding legend", both Dangun and Gija is a founding legend. And both have the same validity of historical accuracy, i.e. little to none at all as both have been rejected by various scholars. Let me make this clearer, the Dangun legend is a later fabrication as well. Also, you want to give the only weight to the Dangun legend while giving none to the others (POV), while literature does not. The current consensus is at equal treatment of the various legends at the moment, while you alone are against it; consensus is also against the sole treatment of only the Dangun legend as shown throughout this talkpage's history. I will make a RFC, depending on when I tire from your unilateral opposition. --Cold Season (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I just looked at this in detail because I love history. Events almost 2000 years ago are naturally a little fuzzy, but we can go on what the research says. The claim of North Korean propaganda has been substantiated and I generally agree with the points made by Zanhe and Cold Season here. Edit warring this is not going to help. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC on founding legends
Two questions regarding the founding legends. (1) Should the founding legends section include all founding legends and its secondary analysis or solely focus on the Dangun legend? (2) User Cydevil38 claims that the current version comprising all legends is an undue POV as shown above and the article history edit summaries, preferring the sole focus on the Dangun legend like the version. Is it? I note: the source is freely available on Google Books if you desire more information. --Cold Season (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * According to Archaeology of Asia and numerous other scholarly sources (see Template talk:History of Korea for more examples), Gija/Kija is a semi-historical figure, but the ancient legend of his migration to Korea is not archaeologically proven. Dangun/Tangun, on the other hand, is entirely mythical. Cold Season's version fairly analyzes all legends based on a respected academic source (by Prof. Gina Barnes of University of London), yet Cydevil38 has repeatedly tried to suppress any mention of Gija from the founding legend. This is consistent with his disruptive behaviour on Template:History of Korea, where he's edit-warred against multiple editors to erase Gija while adding Dangun, espousing the fringe view that Dangun was a historical figure. This is fundamentally a single disruptive editor pushing a discredited POV against both academic and Wikipedia consensus, and I believe that ANI would be a better venue to resolve the issue. -Zanhe (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Prior to Cold Season's rewrite, this article was structured like this: Found Myth(Dangun), State formation, a short mention of Gija Joseon and its controversy, Wiman Joseon, then its cultural foundation. Cold Season's cited literature is seriously misrepresented, and gives undue weight to Gija, a fringe theory. I will compare the literature and Cold Season's interpretations.

 * Cold season's interpretation of the Dangun myth:
 * "The origin of this myth is unknown."
 * There is just one line as to its evaluation. The literature cites multiple sources, and is described and evaluated as:
 * Kang & Macmillan (1980) "this myth appears to be a native product"
 * Kim C. (1948-49) "two stone slabs in the Han Dynasty tomb of the Wu Liang family in Shandong depict in bas relief the essence of the Tangun story, thus forming the 'Chinese version of, and probably the Chinese prototype for, the Tan'Gun legend of Korea"
 * Sohn et al. (1970) "implying that the Tan'gun myuth belongs to the Dong-i ancesters of the modern Koreans, not the Han Chinese."; "accept that Tan'gun story is only a founding myth"
 * Kim J. B. (1980) "dissociates the Tan'gun myth from Choson altogether and instead attributes it to the Neolithic inhabitants of the Korean peninsula."; "pushes Tan'gun back into the Neolithic period, thus disassociating him from state formation altogether."
 * Kim C. W. (1966) "dismisses Tan'gun and Kija as legendary"
 * Hatada (1969) ignores Dangun(and Wiman for that matter).
 * Han W. K. (1970) "ascribes only legendary status to Tan'gun as the founder of Choson, but then he reifies the legend by stating that the dominant clan of Choson was the 'bear totem family.'"
 * Lee K. B. (1984) "links the early polity(Gojoseon) to the Tan'gun myth by proposing that 'Tangun-wanggom' was a title borne by successive leaders of Choson."

 * Cold season gives a full paragraph on the evaluation of Gija. The literature describes and evaluates Gija/Kija/Jizi/Qiji as:
 * Gardiner (1969) "founding of Choson by Qiji (K. Kija) must have been a later conflation."
 * Henderson (1959) "has nothing to do with the founding of Choson"
 * McCune (1962) "has nothing to do with the founding of Choson"
 * Hatada (1969) "subsrcibes exclusively to the Qizi story"
 * Han W. K. (1970) "does not deal with Qiji in their accounts of Choson origins"
 * Choi M. L. (1983, 1984, 1985, 1992) "does not deal with Qiji in their accounts of Choson origins"
 * Henthorn (1970) "does not deal with Qiji in their accounts of Choson origins"
 * Sohn et al. (1970) "Qizi story is only a fabrication."

 * With the exception of Hatada (1969), who descrbies Gojoseon as a Chinese entity, all cited authors reject Gija's relation to Gojoseon or doesn't even mention Gija. Dangun is a widely accepted founding myth for Gojoseon, and his birthday is public holiday in South Korea. Meanwhile, Gija's relation to Gojoseon is rejected by mainstream scholars as a later Chinese fabrication. This article used to simply describe Dangun as a founding myth, and gives an account of Gija and its controversial nature. Wiman's story is treated as history. Please take a look at the cited literature, pages 10-14. As for Zanhe's accusation that I espouse a fringe view of accepting Dangun myth as history, I don't; I espoused that mainstream scholars use the name to describe a period of Gojoseon, which is "Dangun Joseon", as opposed to its later iron age counterpart, "Wiman Joseon". I have given him proof that such is the scholarly consensus, and also explained the difference between the Dangun myth and Dangun Joseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The sub-header has stated "Founding legend" (before and now) and not—and I quote you—"Found Myth(Dangun)". The Dangun/Tangun myth and Jizi/Kijia/Gijia myth are both founding legends. From what you just wrote, the only thing that I can take from it is that the Jizi/Kijia/Gijia myth IS DEALT WITH in the sources as a founding myth (just like the Dangun myth). You say that the Dangun/Tangun myth is widely accepted as the founding myth for Gojoseon.... by who? Scholars or Gojoseon literature? Or you? Both myths are legends, both myths are fabrications, and both myths have been rejected as historically invalid, so the claim of fabrication to support any of your statements is bogus. And I find it strange that you only call Jizi/Kijia/Gijia myth a fabrication (well, duuhhh...), but are so readily willing to not apply it to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Gojoseon's founder is the offsping from a deity-like prince and a bear-woman). The situation is... Are all these founding legends? Yes. Are all these dealt with in sources? Yes. --Cold Season (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Non-content comment. Rather than WP:CANVASSing on Wikiproject Korea, you could at least show some effort to equally notify the other involved Wikiprojects, Cydevil38. I've just notified the rest. --Cold Season (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when did this article come under the purview of WP:China? Cydevil38 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since 2008 actually, even though a certain user (who's banned for behavior that's... uhh...) kept removing the WP template in the past. Whatever may be, the template was present when you canvassed (and I'm sure you're not unfamiliar with the faux pas, since you have been taken to ANI over it before). Neither did you notify the other Wikiprojects, only Wikiproject Korea... --Cold Season (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment. The general article structure stated "Founding legend" as the sub-header (this can be seen in the article history), the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth, Weiman/Wiman myth, and the Tangun/Dangun myth are all founding legends. Rather hypocritically, Cydevil38 just changed the article structure to give precedence to the Tangun/Dangun myth in a centric POV. Also seen is is that Cydevil38 erased or downplayed all the other myths, while trying to prop up the Dangun/Tangun myth. In fact, the user even removed the cited info stating that there were three founding myths while falsely claiming that he/she was just "merging" the info. I see that Cydevil38 also decided to go ahead and insert his/her Korea-centric views and removing the material that is discussed in this RFC, disregarding the ongoing RFC. I find it quite astounding how Cydevil38 calls the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth as a fabrication, but seems to be unwilling to apply the same to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Dangun was the offspring of a bear and a deity), even falsely and Korean-centrically calling it "widely accepted" . Actually, even I wrote that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth had been rejected  into the article, so what are you arguing about? Probably the fact that scholars also rejects the Dangun/Tangun myth, but Cydevil38 does not seem to like that as he/she views it as "widely accepted". Scholarly sources state that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth and Dangun/Tangun myth are historically invalid; they are legends. Cydevil38 refuse to grasp that with this Korea-centric tunnel vision. --Cold Season (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment. Gija Joseon was traditionally treated as the successor to Dangun Joseon. I do not see why there needs to be a choice, given that the two founding legends - and other variants thereof - existed simultaneously in the historical record. At a factual level, Gija Joseon is widely rejected today due to lack of archaeological evidence for the penetration of Shang culture into Korea. By contrast, it is not as easy to reject Dangun Joseon because of the state's relative lack of Falsifiability, besides the fact that its ruler was not born of a bear, obviously. Regardless, when talking about founding legends, factual basis is less relevant than perception. At a historical level, Dangun and Gija were both important in traditional Korea and therefore both have to be mentioned. In modern perception, however, it is my understanding that mainstream Korean thought rejects Gija Joseon while tracing Gojoseon exclusively to Dangun Joseon. Obviously Korean perception is not all that matters, but in an article about a Korean legend, I think it is fine for the Korean perception to take precedence, as long as it is not to the exclusion of relevant historical views and is not presented as factual truth. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Since the myths are all considered as historically invalid indeed, an argument for giving stronger weight on one myth over the other is weak. Korean perception takes completely no precedence (unlike what you claim); on what guideline are you basing that? That would be a nationalistic-based POV. Even if we go by this "Korean perception," their so-called mainstream perception... or their popular recognition was at the Jizi/Gija/Kija myth up till about the 18th century. In short, only (secondary) sources take precedence AND they deal with all the legends. This is giving due weight as reflected in sources, and not prop up one's centric preferences in founding myth. --Cold Season (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 * To the degree that we agree Dangun Joseon and Gija Joseon are both myths, this is a debate over Korean mythology, not Korean history. Per Mythology: "Mythology [refer] to [a people's] body of stories which they tell to explain nature, history, and customs." It is necessarily subjective. When dealing with Korean mythology, the Korean view takes precedence because it is their version of the story that we want to describe. This is very different from an article about historical facts, which has to maintain NPOV with respect to all parties, difficult though that frequently is. But here, we are dealing with the traditional stories Koreans told to explain their world. There is no 'objective' version of such stories. Instead of trying to give equal weight to every version, the goal instead ought to be to describe how the stories evolved through the course of history, and how they arrived in their present form, which de-emphasizes/removes Gija. One of the issues in play here is obviously the changing nature of how Koreans perceive myth vs. history, and the lingering desire to "historicize" the Dangun myth over the archaeologically debunked Gija myth. I encourage elucidating these issues over trying to argue which myth ought to be given greater weight in the article. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The only view that takes precedence is scholarly sources, not Korean view (which as I have shown above is heavily involved with Jizi/Gija/Kija myth regardless). This is in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. You are suggesting a nationalistic-based POV, which is not in accordance. --Cold Season (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Once again, you distort the secondary source you have cited. This was my main point all along. The source cites eight other secondary sources. Only one of them subscribes to the Gija theory, then again that same source makes no mention of Dangun nor Wiman. Two of them say it's a fabrication. Two of them say it has nothing to do with Gojoseon. Three of them do not even mention Gija. That's what the cited secondary source says. You have given severe undue weight in the sense that you have not dealt at all with the previous structure were both Gija and Wiman were dealt with. It's just that they were in different subsections as different periods of history. This was properly dealt with when I merged the Gija subsection, remove repetitive material, and provide a simple summary of what the cited secondary says. On a second note, Gija legend wasn't unilaterially "mainstream" prior to the 18th century, nor did it have precedence over the Dangun legend. Both legend became popular during Goryeo dynasty among different strata of Korean society. And with regards to your derogation of the Dangun myth because of its connections to the bear, this is a serious work by a respected expert that deals with the bear aspect in various myths in the region. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 * (1) Your so-called "main point" is rejected by three users, but only you unilaterally claim it. It also seems to change frequently as indicated by re-reading the section above and this RFC. That's because these fickle main points (plural) of yours are all weak, but... use anything to POV push your unilateral view, I guess. (2) You state that "both legend became popular" (you stated it). Oh? Your desire to give precedence of one myth over the other is purposefully inconsistent with this. But frankly, what you think is irrelevant and contradictory to sources, such as one given in my previous statement. Only sources are relevant and sources deal with ALL the legends . (3) There's no derogation, unless you think it's historically valid that an offspring of a bear is the founder of whatever state. These are legends and myths, which is also reflective in your cited "serious work by a respected expert" about bear myths (so that was a meager statement with no real point). --Cold Season (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Your continued denial of the given evidence is not very helpful. I ask in good faith that you reconsider on what the cited source says, based on the evidence. Both legends did become popular prior to the 19th century, during Goryeo dynasty and especially during Joseon Dynasty. Primary sources from Joseon Dynasty often refer to Dangun as the "founder of the nation" and Gija as "bearer of civilization". However, one of them, the Gija Myth, died out along with its patrons and its ideological basis, the Confucian elites and Sinocentricism of Goryeo and Joseon dynasties. Contradictory historical and archaeological evidence that became widely recognized in the 20th century and onward became the death-knell to this myth, and now Gija Joseon is rejected by the mainstream thought of historians. I can this cite from "Theory of Gija Derivation" on the Encyclopedia of Ancient and Medieval Korean History and Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Cydevil38 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 * (1) Your "evidence" of distortion has been rejected by several people here and here. Actually, you are the one who's continually denying treatment of the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth into this article, while sources do not. You are distorting the facts and giving undue greater weight to the Tangun/Dangun myth over all other myths. Heck, you even removed cited information about the other myths to prop up the Tangun/Dangun myth. (2) These are all myths, so what are you talking about the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth being rejected (well duh... again...) and the Dangun/Tangun myth being "widely accepted" as shown above. Your argument is of little worth as there's no historical validity to both these myths. And the scholarly body of literature does not present them as historical facts. (3) It is, however, significant that ALL THESE MYTHS ARE DEALT WITH IN SOURCES and the weight given into the article should be reflective of sources. (4) You can cite as many sources that rejects the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth as historically invalid as you want (you're just proving that the Jizi/Gijia/Kijia myth is dealt with in sources). I'm not even arguing it (strawman), since that's what I also literally had written into the article. But you refuse to apply the same with the Dangun/Tangun myth, but rather attempt to prop it up as the one "true" myth in a nationalistic-based POV, contradictory to sources (few of them as shown in the section by User:Zanhe below and the cited information that you removed from the article). --Cold Season (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What scholars say about Dangun/Tangun and Gija/Kija

 * "The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."
 * "The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."

 * "Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."
 * "Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."

 * "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."
 * "An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."

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

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

 * "The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
 * "The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."

 * "If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."
 * "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. -Zanhe (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

About Gojoseon-Yan War
There is really limited amount of information about this war, and almost all the sources are the studies of modern Korean historians. Korea claims that Gojoseon existed and today's Liaoning province of China was part of it, but there is no record to prove this statement. Also, in the History of Manchuria template, Gojoseon is placed as one of the earliest owners of that region, which is clearly baseless. I hope someone can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.4.4 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Cydevil38
Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「Exclusion of sub-periods of Gojoseon came as a result of a long-standing debate as well as a compromise in good faith. Reinclusion any sub-period of Gojoseon only undermine such effeorts, and does not help understanding of Gojoseon at all.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing of Cydevil38　by here. 「There are other mythical polities where mythical dates are given.」--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Sorry. Cydevil is removing fully historical Wiman, while writing the 100% mythological 2333 BC date.And, Cydevil is removing Wiman of sub-periods, while writing 2333 BC date　(Dangun giwon) of sub-periods. Thanks.--219.111.108.168 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mythical founding dates
So there's a couple things I wanted to talk about here. Statements about mythical foundings belong to Korean mythology and not to areas of fact. In fact, scholars do provide dates for the founding of the state, and we should use this information, not the magical date of 2333 BCE.

Dates I found rapidly using Google books:
 * Somewhere as early as 500 BCE to as late as 300 BCE:, page 415
 * About 500 BCE:, page 29
 * About 400 BCE:, p. 22.

Just because it is religiously important due to colonialism and politics does not, in fact, justify the use of false history. Additionally, the traditional histories don't even agree on the specific date of 2333. In the discussion you linked me to on ANI, this was the information you used as RS:
 * There are three opinions
 * 1. BC2357
 * Book_of_Wei(魏書), Jewang_ungi(제왕운기), Dangunsegi(단군세기), Sesongillok Jiriji(세종실록지리지) as the first year of 堯.
 * 2. BC2333
 * (Donguk tonggam)동국통감, Haedong ijeok(해동이적), Dongguk Yeokdae Chongmok(동국역대총목) as the 25th year of 堯
 * 3. BC2308
 * Gogi(古記) cited by Samguk Yusa as the 50th year of 堯

How can we, in good faith, write a founding date at odds with RS just because it aligns with particular political platforms? Like, great, it's a national holiday in the Koreas. This is not relevant to an article on the historical state of Gojoseon except perhaps as a passing comment along the lines of "Gojoseon is lauded as the origin of modern Korea and its mythical founding is celebrated as a national holiday in both Koreas." Ogress smash! 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The source I added was from an academic conference on the subject of Gojoseon's founding year, hosted by Institute for Traditional Korean Cultural Studies. There are also many other secondary sources that set 2333BC as Gojoseon's founding date. Doing a google books search on "Korea 2333" ought to bring out plenty of sources that stipulates 2333BC as the founding of Gojoseon. Also, please note again that the article on Xia Dynasty, which doesn't even have a question mark despite its mythical status like Gojoseon.

In any case, there was an extensive debate over this as well at the Korean talk page. It ended up with 2333 along with a question mark. The proposed years were 2333 and 700. 700 is based on a Chinese source that mentions Joseon for the first time. However, as the archaeological basis of Gojoseon goes as far back as 1500BC(some suggest 2000BC), 700 is not a definitive year either. My suggestion is that, if possible, still insert 2333 but with (legendary), and insert 700 with an appropriate side note(can't think of one right now). In the infobox below, 700 can also be added along with the appropriate side note, and 194 as the founding year of Wiman Joseon. The year of Gojoseon-Han war should be discarded since it's irrelevant. Founding years can be included in the lead, first 2333 and then 700.

As for the significance of the founding date of 2333, I think it's a good idea, except that it's not a national holiday North Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree with . 2333 BC is a politically important date, but historically baseless. Its origin is explained in detail by Professor Hyung Il Pai in Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-formation Theories: it was likely calculated by counting back 1048 years (the age when Dangun abdicated) from 1286 BC, Gija's estimated year of arrival in Gojoseon after the collapse of the Shang dynasty (see here). No sane person would consider such a date historical, and it has no place in the history infobox. -Zanhe (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Troy, founded in 3000 BC. Xia Dynasty founded in 2070 BC. Goguryeo founded in 37 BC. Baekje founded in 18 BC. Silla founded in 57 BC. These are all mythical legendary dates, unless you consider the least advanced state among the Three Kingdoms of Korea to be the most advanced(Silla). This article is about a legendarily founded tribal confederation and/or/later kingdom. Like the history of Japan, it is clearly indicated that this polity is legendary. In none of the previously mentioned polities are they defined with a question mark. Despise this pattern of defining founding years, I suggest a compromise out of good will, to defining the traditional founding date as "legendary", instead of a question mark or even the lack of it. Are you going to deny this compromise or not? Cydevil38 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The arguments over historicity and the alternate dates estimated should be also added to the article. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I just checked and Troy 1. doesn't have an infobox with dates 2. has legitimate archaeological dating back to 3000 and is not described as a single kingdom "founded" at that date but rather an ancient settlement. Xia was dated according to the the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project, a multi-disciplinary project commissioned by the People's Republic of China in 1996 to determine with accuracy the location and time frame of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. Tsinghua University professor Li Xueqin was the director, and some 200 experts took part in the project, which correlated radiocarbon dating, archaeological dating methods, historical textual analysis, astronomy, and other methods to achieve greater temporal and geographic accuracy. The roughly beginning of CE dates for the other states listed are unremarkable and don't claim an extra 1500 years. Ogress smash! 08:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology project is a controversial government project that even has ties to the [Northeast Project, which infuriated Koreans. But that aside, I'd like you people's opinion on this infobox. For the dates and events, I have used Gina L. Barne's State Formation of Korea. I have clearly marked two significant eras, 2333BC and 1000BC as legendary and tribal, respectively. Later developments and events have also been added. Any input is welcome. 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.161.79.71 (talk)

Latest IP edits
Propose reverting latest IP edit Aside from our own rather rough patch, we all agree (as I understand it) that the IP edit warrior's edits about Wiman etc. is against consensus. I propose to revert the latest IP edit if the two of you also agree this is acceptable behavior. I also had the page temporarily and partially edit protected, so it should give us a brief cushion. Consider this my "yes" vote in case one of you decides to do it. Ogress smash! 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. And I see that the page has already been semi-protected. -Zanhe (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Newly Proposed Infobox
As I have said earlier, I have made an infobox that clearly indicates 2333BC as a legendary founding date, along with significant events based on Gina L. Barne's State formation of Korea. If there is no objection in four days, I'll replace the infobox in the article. Cydevil3800 (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are the relevant quotes from State formation of Korea for the additional information I have added.
 * Tribal federation: If his territory was large enough by 108 BC to have been divided into commanderies upon the conquest of Wangxian, then this maximal territory was the culmination of trends in political development through interaction and cannot be projected backwards into the 1st millennium BC without a corresponding contraction in size. It is possible that there were several Early Iron Age politics in the Chaoxian region in the 1st millennium BC; probably organized as centralized but simple chiefdoms, these are easily envisioned as having been dominated by a fellow ruler whose own polity became known as Choson.
 * State-formation: At any rate, within the region demarcated by the Liao and Han Rivers - that is, the region containing Chaoxian - at least one historically attested polity having a ruling hierarchy had emerged by the 2nd century BC. Cydevil3800 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I object. The "scholarly" founding date is probably half a millennium too early, for one. Ogress smash! 06:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "scholarly" founding date you are referring to is state-formation, hence the name "kingdom". It is dated to 2nd century BC here, which is a very conservative figure. The 1000 BC refers to tribal confederation. Cydevil3800 (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What tribal formation? I read the book section just now and "tribal" does not appear. She mentions probably that in the first millennium - which does not mean "at 1000 BCE" - "[i]t is possible that there were several Early Iron Age polities in the Chaoxian region in the 1st millennium BC; probably organized as centralized but simple chiefdoms, these are easily envisioned as having been dominated by a fellow ruler whose own polity became known as Choson." That is not the same as "1000BC(tribal)". 1000 BCE is not what she says - 400 BCE is in the first millennium BCE -, nor is "tribal". And none of those things were the state of Joseon; she describes a previous period. Are you going to date Goguryeo's founding as the founding date of Gojoseon? That's the equivalent of what it seems you are doing here by establishing a mess of previous chieftain-lead polities that had one with more clout than others as "the state of Joseon".

 * In addition, I see zero reason to include a legendary date, one that varies by whichever mythistory you want to win, in the infobox. That is the kind of material we discuss in an article's section. You threw a fuss about this earlier and I replied about the articles about states and cities you claimed were doing this (Shang, Troy) and I rebutted them. I maintain that it's not appropriate. I'm sure somewhere on this Wiki is an article with spurious dates, but that's not quality article material. Ogress smash! 07:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I admit I've misread. I misunderstood organized as centralized but simple chiefdoms as a tribal federation. I've also misread the part about Iron Age, so the options are 400BC as cited by one of your previous sources, or the one by Barnes, which is 2nd century BC. In either case, archaeologically/historically attested foundation date is controversial. With regards to Xia(not Shang), I've already said that it is a controversial government project. It was politically motivated, and has its share of controversy. Even the respective articles make mention of this(Xia Dynasty, Erlitou culture, Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project). With regards to the legendary date, you say there's no reason to include it, but it's widely used in academic materials. It's text-book material for grade schools. In fact, the Korean government made this date a historical fact in text-books in reaction to Chinese historical revisionism(not that I agree with it). Also, the dates of Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla also have legendary foundation dates. Goguryeo's founder, Jumong, was born from a god and the daughter of a god. Baekje's founders were the sons of Jumong. Silla's founder was born from an egg.
 * In any case, I'll rename legendary to mythological, since that seems more agreeable. Cydevil3800 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Liaoning and Manchuria
The article talks about Liaoning "and" Manchuria, as if they are separate places, as does the Dangan article, but according to the Manchuria, Liaoning is in Manchuria.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Liaoning is part of historical Manchuria and not exactly the same. Manchuria also includes part of the modern Russian Far East. Historicalchild (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, so "and" is the wrong word.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Founding Controversy
Gojoseon was founded by a Chinese Prince. So why is it seen as a Proto-Korean state?

Historicalchild (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Because it was established in what is now Korea, inhabited by proto-Korean people. -Zanhe (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A broken reference link and a weird sentence
First, this link doesn't work for me http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/04/eak/ht04eak.htm

Second, it sources the following sentence "During its early phase, the capital of Gojoseon was located in Liaoning; around 400 BC, and was moved to Pyongyang, while in the south of the peninsula, the Jin state arose by the 3rd century BC." I'm mildly rewriting it, feel free to revisit it yourself.

Third, "In the past, the earliest surviving Chinese record, Records of the Three Kingdoms, admitted Gija Joseon" Is "admitted" the right word choice? Can you admit a person in this sense? Maybe, admit his existence? Or recognize him?--Adûnâi (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't know what that means.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Gojoseon
Kariangyoji/90.146.213.80 has for a long time trying to discredit the Korean foundation myth of Dangun while trying to portray another myth, the Gija myth, one that is rejected by most scholars today, as being a historical one. I'm trying to put this in a neutral, sensible light, that the Korean foundation myth of Dangun is indeed a myth, and that the Gija myth is also a myth that is rejected by most scholars. The Dangun myth is indeed a myth, but there are no archaeological or historical evidence against it. On the other hand, there are archaeological and historical evidence that are inconsistent with the Gija myth. In fact, the Gija myth is attributed to an entirely different polity in the Liaoxi region, backed by archaeological evidence. I'm reverting your edit, and I welcome any criticisms or doubts that you may have on my talk page. Koraskadi (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Please be a bit clearer with your edit summaries. I see a lot of sources removed with "making more neutral" and "pov" which seems to usually mean "I don't like it" Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any sources. I just moved them to a more appropriate sentence in the article. Please check the edits I have made. Koraskadi (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I only saw half of your edit. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Koraskadi has for a long time trying to discredit the Korean foundation myth of Gija while trying to portray another myth, the Dangun myth, one that is rejected by most scholars today, as being a historical one. I'm trying to put this in a neutral, sensible light, that the Korean foundation myth of Gija is indeed a myth, and that the Dangun myth is also a myth that is rejected by most scholars. The Gija myth is indeed a myth, but there are no archaeological or historical evidence against it. On the other hand, there are archaeological and historical evidence that are inconsistent with the Dangun myth. In fact, the Dangun myth is attributed to an entirely different polity in the Liaoxi region, backed by archaeological evidence. I'm reverting your edit, and I welcome any criticisms or doubts that you may have on my talk page. --Kariangyoji (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "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."
 * "An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."

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

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

 * "The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
 * "The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."

 * "If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."
 * "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."

 * "The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."
 * "The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."

 * "Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."
 * "Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."

Why'd you say "its existence"? Are you talking about Dangun or Gojoseon. You need to be more specific because the quotes talk about Dangun and only 'him'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.167.165 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Also mythological gets the message across well enough. That's why you don't see verbiage like "deny its existence" on Zeus, Poseidon, Huangdi. Because people know what mythological means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.167.165 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Adherence to Samguk Yusa as reference and the topic of secondary sources
I find it peculiar that there's a strong need to use the Samguk Yusa as a main source for this article; a work that is written over a millennia after the timeline and is filled with fanciful descriptions (e.g. being born from a she-bear). Even though this primary source is so directly cited in this wikipedia article, the actual information here often appears to be uncited WP:OR commentary of wikipedia contributors on the work instead. How about letting credible secondary sources do the commentary thereof, instead of adding WP:OR statements under the veil of citing the primary work?

Btw, some of the short form citations point to nothing. Maybe it can be found in the Wikipedia article history or just check Google books? --Cold Season (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Agree with . Analysis/interpretation of primary sources, especially those of only quasi-historical nature such as Samguk Yusa, is WP:OR and should not be done. This article should be written based on modern, neutral academic sources per WP:SECONDARY and WP:NPOV. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Western, Chinese and Japanese scholars accept a Han Chinese Weiman as historic fact

 * "The term was used again by a refugee from the Han dynasty named Wiman, who about 200 B.C.E. set up a kingdom in Korea called Wiman Choson."
 * "The term was used again by a refugee from the Han dynasty named Wiman, who about 200 B.C.E. set up a kingdom in Korea called Wiman Choson."

 * "The earliest documented event in Korean history involves China. After an unsuccessful rising against the first Han emperor Gaozu, the defeated rebels sought refuge beyond the imperial frontier and one of them Wiman, took control of Choson, a Korean state in the north of the peninsula."
 * "The earliest documented event in Korean history involves China. After an unsuccessful rising against the first Han emperor Gaozu, the defeated rebels sought refuge beyond the imperial frontier and one of them Wiman, took control of Choson, a Korean state in the north of the peninsula."

 * "For instance, Wiman, a refugee from the Yan dynasty, which then existed around present-day Beijing, led his band of more than 1,000 followers into exile in Old Chosŏn in the early second century bc."
 * "For instance, Wiman, a refugee from the Yan dynasty, which then existed around present-day Beijing, led his band of more than 1,000 followers into exile in Old Chosŏn in the early second century bc."

 * "Wiman Chosŏn In the fourth century bc Old Chosŏn was bordered on the west, far beyond the Liao River, by the northern Chinese dynasty of Yan."
 * "Wiman Chosŏn In the fourth century bc Old Chosŏn was bordered on the west, far beyond the Liao River, by the northern Chinese dynasty of Yan."

 * "Immediately after destroying Wiman Chosŏn, the Han empire established administrative units to rule large territories in the northern Korean peninsula and southern Manchuria."
 * "Immediately after destroying Wiman Chosŏn, the Han empire established administrative units to rule large territories in the northern Korean peninsula and southern Manchuria."

 * "Here, Wiman was described as a "Gu Yanren 故燕人"or a person from former Yan. It is confusing because there were two Yans around this period. The first was the Yan state, which was one of the seven states during the Warring States period, and the second was the vassal state of Yan of the Han dynasty."
 * "Here, Wiman was described as a "Gu Yanren 故燕人"or a person from former Yan. It is confusing because there were two Yans around this period. The first was the Yan state, which was one of the seven states during the Warring States period, and the second was the vassal state of Yan of the Han dynasty."

 * "One of his ex-subordinates in Yan, named Wiman, together with some 1000 followers, sought refuge elsewhere among the old Qin fortifications in what is now Korea."
 * "One of his ex-subordinates in Yan, named Wiman, together with some 1000 followers, sought refuge elsewhere among the old Qin fortifications in what is now Korea."

 * "Wiman is probably most accurately understood to have simply been a man from Yan."
 * "Wiman is probably most accurately understood to have simply been a man from Yan."

 * "One of Lu Wan's generals, Wei Man (K, Wiman), defected from Yan, led his forces to Korea where he defeated Ko-Choson, ousted king Chun (who may have fled south), and established his own state with his capital at Wanggom (P'yongyang)."
 * "One of Lu Wan's generals, Wei Man (K, Wiman), defected from Yan, led his forces to Korea where he defeated Ko-Choson, ousted king Chun (who may have fled south), and established his own state with his capital at Wanggom (P'yongyang)."

 * "195 BCE: Wiman flees the state of Yan and arrives in Joseon where he is made responsible for the defense of the Western border."
 * "195 BCE: Wiman flees the state of Yan and arrives in Joseon where he is made responsible for the defense of the Western border."

 * "Wei Man (K. Wi Man), a man from the state of Yan who made himself king of Chaoxian (Choson) when Qin conquered Yan, by leading refugees from Yan and Qi into Northern Korea."
 * "Wei Man (K. Wi Man), a man from the state of Yan who made himself king of Chaoxian (Choson) when Qin conquered Yan, by leading refugees from Yan and Qi into Northern Korea."

 * "Choson underwent another period of turmoil the usurpation by Wiman, a refugee from Yan, circa 194 B.C."
 * "Choson underwent another period of turmoil the usurpation by Wiman, a refugee from Yan, circa 194 B.C."

 * "Wiman, a general from the state of Yan, one of the last states to submit to the control of the Han Dynasty in China, left for Korea where he receives a new position assisting King Jun, the ruler of Gojoseon."
 * "Wiman, a general from the state of Yan, one of the last states to submit to the control of the Han Dynasty in China, left for Korea where he receives a new position assisting King Jun, the ruler of Gojoseon."

 * "Wiman, the king of Choson (Ch'ao-hsien), came originally from the state of Yen."
 * "Wiman, the king of Choson (Ch'ao-hsien), came originally from the state of Yen."

 * "According to Samguk Yusa, the Kica Cosen period was initiated around 1120 BC by Kica, a scion of the fallen Shang Dynasty of China who fled to Ancient Cosen and the Wiman Cosen period was begun around 194 BC by Wiman, a Chinese military leader of Yen who fled to Ancient Cosen and usurped the throne."
 * "According to Samguk Yusa, the Kica Cosen period was initiated around 1120 BC by Kica, a scion of the fallen Shang Dynasty of China who fled to Ancient Cosen and the Wiman Cosen period was begun around 194 BC by Wiman, a Chinese military leader of Yen who fled to Ancient Cosen and usurped the throne."

 * "`The Account of Zhao- xian` relates the circumstances of a certain Wiman, a lieutenant of the state of Yan, who later became the king of Choson."
 * "`The Account of Zhao- xian` relates the circumstances of a certain Wiman, a lieutenant of the state of Yan, who later became the king of Choson."

 * "This interpretation of Wiman as the Leader of a Yan refugee group who became a Choson ruler is generally accepted as the starting point of Korean state formation in historical times."
 * "This interpretation of Wiman as the Leader of a Yan refugee group who became a Choson ruler is generally accepted as the starting point of Korean state formation in historical times."

 * "Weiman (Korean Wiman) of the northeastern Chinese state of Yan took over the northern part of the peninsula circa the third century CE."
 * "Weiman (Korean Wiman) of the northeastern Chinese state of Yan took over the northern part of the peninsula circa the third century CE."

 * "In 193 BC, a rebellion against the Kija Dynasty was led by Wiman, a Manchurian who had deserted the Chinese army and was serving Kija as a border guard."
 * "In 193 BC, a rebellion against the Kija Dynasty was led by Wiman, a Manchurian who had deserted the Chinese army and was serving Kija as a border guard."

 * "Retaliation by the Han then brought in refugees from Yan, the most notable of whom was a war lord, Weiman ('Wiman'in Korean), who somewhere about 200 BC led his followers into the territory held by Choson."
 * "Retaliation by the Han then brought in refugees from Yan, the most notable of whom was a war lord, Weiman ('Wiman'in Korean), who somewhere about 200 BC led his followers into the territory held by Choson."

 * "In 195 BCE, the Yan king revolted and went over to the Xiongnu, a steppe nomad people.One of his lieutenants, Wiman (Chinese: Weiman), is recorded in the Shiji as having fled with 1,000 followers to Chosŏn, where the ruler Chun appointed him a frontier commander."
 * "In 195 BCE, the Yan king revolted and went over to the Xiongnu, a steppe nomad people.One of his lieutenants, Wiman (Chinese: Weiman), is recorded in the Shiji as having fled with 1,000 followers to Chosŏn, where the ruler Chun appointed him a frontier commander."

 * "In 194 BC Old Chosön became Wiman Chosön when it was overthrown by the leader of a group of Chinese refugees, Wiman."
 * "In 194 BC Old Chosön became Wiman Chosön when it was overthrown by the leader of a group of Chinese refugees, Wiman."

 * "In 108 B.c., the Han emperor Wu Ti destroyed Wiman and established four Han provinces."
 * "In 108 B.c., the Han emperor Wu Ti destroyed Wiman and established four Han provinces."

 * "After a period of decline, Old Choson falls to Wiman, an exile from the Yan state in northern China. Wiman proves to be a strong ruler, but his ambitious program of expansion eventually brings him into conflict with the Han dynasty of China. The Han defeats Wiman Choson and establishes a protectorate over northern Korea in 108 b.c. Resistance to Chinese hegemony, however, is strong, and China reduces the territory under its active control to Nang-nang colony with an administrative center near modern Pyongyang."
 * "After a period of decline, Old Choson falls to Wiman, an exile from the Yan state in northern China. Wiman proves to be a strong ruler, but his ambitious program of expansion eventually brings him into conflict with the Han dynasty of China. The Han defeats Wiman Choson and establishes a protectorate over northern Korea in 108 b.c. Resistance to Chinese hegemony, however, is strong, and China reduces the territory under its active control to Nang-nang colony with an administrative center near modern Pyongyang."

 * "Sima Qian's Historical Records, written around 100 B.C.E., records that in 195 B.C.E., when the king of the Han Dynasty state of Yan (in the region of modern Beijing) rebelled, one of his lieutenants named Weiman (Wiman in Korean) fled east to Choson (Chaoxian in Chinese) with a thousand followers."
 * "Sima Qian's Historical Records, written around 100 B.C.E., records that in 195 B.C.E., when the king of the Han Dynasty state of Yan (in the region of modern Beijing) rebelled, one of his lieutenants named Weiman (Wiman in Korean) fled east to Choson (Chaoxian in Chinese) with a thousand followers."

 * "The Han Chinese triumph was possible because the political solidarity of Wiman Joseon, which was nothing more than a loose tribal confederation, was not centralized enough to hold back external invasion. In this region, Wudi established four prefectures: Lelang, Zhenfan, Lintun, and Xientu."
 * "The Han Chinese triumph was possible because the political solidarity of Wiman Joseon, which was nothing more than a loose tribal confederation, was not centralized enough to hold back external invasion. In this region, Wudi established four prefectures: Lelang, Zhenfan, Lintun, and Xientu."

 * "As the Yen gave way in China to the Qin (221-207 B.C.) and the Han dynasties (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), Chosn declined, and refugee populations migrated eastward. Out of this milieu, emerged Wiman, a man who assumed the kingship of Chosn sometime between 194 and 180 B.C. The Kingdom of Wiman Chosn melded Chinese influence, and under the Old Chosn federated structure--apparently reinvigorated under Wiman--the state again expanded over hundreds of kilometers of territory. Its ambitions ran up against a Han invasion, however, and Wiman Chosn fell in 108 B.C."
 * "As the Yen gave way in China to the Qin (221-207 B.C.) and the Han dynasties (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), Chosn declined, and refugee populations migrated eastward. Out of this milieu, emerged Wiman, a man who assumed the kingship of Chosn sometime between 194 and 180 B.C. The Kingdom of Wiman Chosn melded Chinese influence, and under the Old Chosn federated structure--apparently reinvigorated under Wiman--the state again expanded over hundreds of kilometers of territory. Its ambitions ran up against a Han invasion, however, and Wiman Chosn fell in 108 B.C."

 * "According to the Shijing (Book of Odes), after Yan was defeated by the Jin state in 221 BC, Weiman, a former Yan officer, invaded KoChosun and founded a principality with its capital near P'yongyang around 194 BC."
 * "According to the Shijing (Book of Odes), after Yan was defeated by the Jin state in 221 BC, Weiman, a former Yan officer, invaded KoChosun and founded a principality with its capital near P'yongyang around 194 BC."

 * "In fact, of the entire contents of the Han Account, only three portions are believed to contain information of a historical nature. The first portion states that in the early-second century B.C. (between 194 and 180 B.C.), King Chun of Chosön was attacked by Wei Man, an exile from Yan China, and fled to the Han territory, accompanied only by a few court officials, where he called himself the King of Han."
 * "In fact, of the entire contents of the Han Account, only three portions are believed to contain information of a historical nature. The first portion states that in the early-second century B.C. (between 194 and 180 B.C.), King Chun of Chosön was attacked by Wei Man, an exile from Yan China, and fled to the Han territory, accompanied only by a few court officials, where he called himself the King of Han."

 * "Wiman: A government official of the Chinese Yan Empire, Wiman fled to Kojoson with a band of his followers."
 * "Wiman: A government official of the Chinese Yan Empire, Wiman fled to Kojoson with a band of his followers."

 * "The only deduction we can make is that practical knowledge of Chinese and the Chinese script in Korea dates back to 194 B.C., when Wiman, from Yen in China, founded a primitive Korean state in the northwestern part of the peninsula."
 * "Subsequently, the establishment by China's Han dynasty of their four commanderies on the soil of Wiman' s Ancient Choson in 108 B.C. must have familiarized the resident Koreans with Chinese and the Chinese script."
 * "Subsequently, the establishment by China's Han dynasty of their four commanderies on the soil of Wiman' s Ancient Choson in 108 B.C. must have familiarized the resident Koreans with Chinese and the Chinese script."

 * "The Chaoxian (Korea) chapter of this Chinese history describes the origin of the first recorded Korean state, called in Korean "Wiman Choson." Wiman, the founder of the new state, had lived in the northeastern Chinese state of Yan but fled to Korea due to shifting political alliances."
 * "These tombs are associated with the Lelang commandery, which was established by the Han dynasty of China, successor to the Qin. Han generals conquered the armies of Wiman's grandson Ugo and established control over the northern part of the Korean peninsula."
 * "These tombs are associated with the Lelang commandery, which was established by the Han dynasty of China, successor to the Qin. Han generals conquered the armies of Wiman's grandson Ugo and established control over the northern part of the Korean peninsula."

 * "At this time a large number of people migrated to the Chosŏn fleeing from the Liaoning region on account of the chaos and confusion in China that was produced by the fall of the Chinese Qin Dynasty and the rise of the Han Dynasty. Among these migrants was a man named Wiman who was ordered by King Chun to guard Chosŏn's borders."
 * "At this time a large number of people migrated to the Chosŏn fleeing from the Liaoning region on account of the chaos and confusion in China that was produced by the fall of the Chinese Qin Dynasty and the rise of the Han Dynasty. Among these migrants was a man named Wiman who was ordered by King Chun to guard Chosŏn's borders."

 * "The Han established 'four commanderies' (Chin. sijun, Kor. sagun) in the conquered territories of Wiman Chosŏn, The commanderies were named Lelang (Kor. Nangnang), Zhenfan (Kor. Chinbon), Lintun (Kor. Imdun), and Xuantu (Kor. Hyéna'o)."
 * "The Han established 'four commanderies' (Chin. sijun, Kor. sagun) in the conquered territories of Wiman Chosŏn, The commanderies were named Lelang (Kor. Nangnang), Zhenfan (Kor. Chinbon), Lintun (Kor. Imdun), and Xuantu (Kor. Hyéna'o)."

 * "This was the beginning of Wiman Joseon. Some view Wiman Joseon as a colonial dynasty of China because of the origin of Wiman, but it is accepted theory to include Wiman Joseon as part of Gojoseon."
 * "This was the beginning of Wiman Joseon. Some view Wiman Joseon as a colonial dynasty of China because of the origin of Wiman, but it is accepted theory to include Wiman Joseon as part of Gojoseon."

 * "Wiman (衛滿), a leader of Yan, chased King Jun (準王) of Gojoseon out of the throne in 194 BC. This is the so-called Wissi Joseon (衛氏朝鮮), the first state of ancient Korea historically verifiable."
 * "Wiman (衛滿), a leader of Yan, chased King Jun (準王) of Gojoseon out of the throne in 194 BC. This is the so-called Wissi Joseon (衛氏朝鮮), the first state of ancient Korea historically verifiable."

 * "108 BC: Han armies invade Wiman Choson; Chinese commanderies are set up across the north of the peninsula"
 * "108 BC: Han armies invade Wiman Choson; Chinese commanderies are set up across the north of the peninsula"

 * "In the process they re-examined Chinese and Korean historical records and came up with two better authenticated alternatives to Tan'gun as founders of their kingdom, the aforesaid Kija, and Wiman (Ch. Wei Man). Both were apparently of Chinese origin and had founded Chinese-style statelets to set the peninsula on its historical path."
 * "In the process they re-examined Chinese and Korean historical records and came up with two better authenticated alternatives to Tan'gun as founders of their kingdom, the aforesaid Kija, and Wiman (Ch. Wei Man). Both were apparently of Chinese origin and had founded Chinese-style statelets to set the peninsula on its historical path."

 * "According to the Wei Ji, groups of ethnic Chinese were already living in Korea when Wiman, a general from a nearby Chinese state, "adopt the mallet shaped hairdo and dress of the eastern barbarians", and fled into the peninsula with about a thousand followers."
 * "According to the Wei Ji, groups of ethnic Chinese were already living in Korea when Wiman, a general from a nearby Chinese state, "adopt the mallet shaped hairdo and dress of the eastern barbarians", and fled into the peninsula with about a thousand followers."

 * "The elevation of Tan'gun to historical status is a direct challenge to Kija, a Shang aristocrat enfeoffed in Choson at the time of the fall of the Shang dynasty. Kija was later followed by Wiman, a general from the state of Yan who arrived around 195—194 BC to set up Wiman Choson and whose descendants later contested Han emperor Wu's invasion in 108 BC. Thus, the traditionally accepted dynastic state sequence of the Sam Choson of Kochoson, Kija Choson, and Wiman Choson has been overturned in the revised Korean ancestral state lineage."
 * "The elevation of Tan'gun to historical status is a direct challenge to Kija, a Shang aristocrat enfeoffed in Choson at the time of the fall of the Shang dynasty. Kija was later followed by Wiman, a general from the state of Yan who arrived around 195—194 BC to set up Wiman Choson and whose descendants later contested Han emperor Wu's invasion in 108 BC. Thus, the traditionally accepted dynastic state sequence of the Sam Choson of Kochoson, Kija Choson, and Wiman Choson has been overturned in the revised Korean ancestral state lineage."

 * "One of Lu Guan's generals, Wiman, escaped with one thousand of his followers to northeastern Korea and became a ruler there in about 194 B.C.E. Wiman's Choson was eventually overthrown by the Han empire in 108 B.C.E."
 * "One of Lu Guan's generals, Wiman, escaped with one thousand of his followers to northeastern Korea and became a ruler there in about 194 B.C.E. Wiman's Choson was eventually overthrown by the Han empire in 108 B.C.E."

 * "The Shih chi, mentioned earlier, and the Han shu [History of Han], written in the first century A. D., limit the treatment of Korea in their respective biography sections to descriptions of the establishment of Wiman (Weiman in Chinese) Choson and the military campaigns waged by Emperor Wu ti of Han to subdue this ancient Korean dynasty."
 * "The Shih chi, mentioned earlier, and the Han shu [History of Han], written in the first century A. D., limit the treatment of Korea in their respective biography sections to descriptions of the establishment of Wiman (Weiman in Chinese) Choson and the military campaigns waged by Emperor Wu ti of Han to subdue this ancient Korean dynasty."

 * "Historical knowledge becomes firmer from the second century BC, when the dominant political force in the region was of Chinese origin. This brings us to Wiman Chosŏn."
 * "Historical knowledge becomes firmer from the second century BC, when the dominant political force in the region was of Chinese origin. This brings us to Wiman Chosŏn."

 * "Among these refugees was one called Wiman, or Wei-man in Chinese, a general of the state of Yan, who managed to flee with around 1000 of his soldiers."
 * "Among these refugees was one called Wiman, or Wei-man in Chinese, a general of the state of Yan, who managed to flee with around 1000 of his soldiers."

 * "The Chinese emplaced three commanderies in Wiman Chosŏn territory, the chief of which was called Lo-lang (Nangnang in Korean)."
 * "The Chinese emplaced three commanderies in Wiman Chosŏn territory, the chief of which was called Lo-lang (Nangnang in Korean)."

 * "Around 190 B.C., a man called Wiman (Wei Man in Chinese), who was either of Chinese background or a Korean in Chinese employ, usurped the throne of Choson."
 * "Around 190 B.C., a man called Wiman (Wei Man in Chinese), who was either of Chinese background or a Korean in Chinese employ, usurped the throne of Choson."

 * "On the other hand, the “refugee” who came to Choson shortly after 200 b.c. is called by his Korean name, Wiman, rather than the Chinese form, Wei-man, because he became a part of the Korean community."
 * "On the other hand, the “refugee” who came to Choson shortly after 200 b.c. is called by his Korean name, Wiman, rather than the Chinese form, Wei-man, because he became a part of the Korean community."

 * "His descendants governed the people until Kija, a wise Chinese philosopher came to the country. Later in 193 B.C. King Kijun was overthrown by his subject Wiman, a refugee from China, and fled to the southern part of the Korean peninsula."
 * "His descendants governed the people until Kija, a wise Chinese philosopher came to the country. Later in 193 B.C. King Kijun was overthrown by his subject Wiman, a refugee from China, and fled to the southern part of the Korean peninsula."

 * "One of these refugees, Wiman, led a revolt in 190 BC, usurping the throne and establishing a state called Wiman Choson."
 * "One of these refugees, Wiman, led a revolt in 190 BC, usurping the throne and establishing a state called Wiman Choson."

 * "Chinese accounts relate that the state of Chosun, whose ruler was named King Chun, was overthrown by a renegade Chinese from Liaodong named Wiman."
 * "Horse and chariot burials from the 2nd century BCE which are earlier than the Chinese commandery of Lelang (called Nangnang in Korean), which was established in 108 BCE, have also been found in the vicinity of Pyongyang and thus would date from the time of Wiman Chosun.""
 * "Horse and chariot burials from the 2nd century BCE which are earlier than the Chinese commandery of Lelang (called Nangnang in Korean), which was established in 108 BCE, have also been found in the vicinity of Pyongyang and thus would date from the time of Wiman Chosun.""

 * "Historical records reveal a more detailed and clearer picture of the history of the northwest region after Wiman (Ch.: Wei Man), a refugee from the Chinese state of Yan (?–222 B.C.E.), usurped the throne from King Chun of the old Choson kingdom sometime between 194 and 180 B.C.E."
 * "Wiman Choson fell in 108 B.C.E. to the Chinese Han dynasty (194 B.C.E.– 220 C.E.), which subsequently set up commanderies, including lelang commandery (Kor.: Nangnang, 108 B.C.E.–313 C.E.) in the former Choson territory."
 * "Wiman Choson fell in 108 B.C.E. to the Chinese Han dynasty (194 B.C.E.– 220 C.E.), which subsequently set up commanderies, including lelang commandery (Kor.: Nangnang, 108 B.C.E.–313 C.E.) in the former Choson territory."

 * "During this turbulent period refugee populations migrated eastward, and among them a leader by the name of Wiman emerged, who succeeded in driving King Chun of Old Choson from his throne (sometime between 194 and 180 B.C.)"
 * "During this turbulent period refugee populations migrated eastward, and among them a leader by the name of Wiman emerged, who succeeded in driving King Chun of Old Choson from his throne (sometime between 194 and 180 B.C.)"

 * "In 194 B.C. Wiman, a tribal chieftain of Chinese origin, overthrew the Han family and established the kingdom known as Wiman Choson."
 * "In 194 B.C. Wiman, a tribal chieftain of Chinese origin, overthrew the Han family and established the kingdom known as Wiman Choson."

 * "We know that this state, at whatever period it actually originated, was conquered in 195 BC by a figure called Wiman who established a new dynasty while continuing the use of the name of the state."
 * "We know that this state, at whatever period it actually originated, was conquered in 195 BC by a figure called Wiman who established a new dynasty while continuing the use of the name of the state."

 * "Ancient Korean history is comprised of the following states, Former Choson, Later Choson, Wiman Choson, the Four Commanderies, the Three Han states, Silla, Koguryo, Later Koguryo, Paekche, Later Paekche, and Parhae."--222.146.173.59 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ancient Korean history is comprised of the following states, Former Choson, Later Choson, Wiman Choson, the Four Commanderies, the Three Han states, Silla, Koguryo, Later Koguryo, Paekche, Later Paekche, and Parhae."--222.146.173.59 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone really disputes this, and your POV (i.e. anti-Korean) language seems to be intentional, espcially because a number of the sources you cite are Korean academics. Weiman/Wiman was a usurper from the State of Yan, who fled to Gojoseon in the same year that Lu Wan defected to the Xiongnu. It is not clear whether the two events are related, but Emperor Wu of Han seemed to believe that Wiman Joseon could align with the Xiongnu and thus pose a threat to his country.Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Korean kingdom or kingdom on Korean peninsula?
, why do say there was no Korean ethnic group back then? The article seems to indicate the contrary. And it doesn't seem clear that the kingdom was on the peninsula if it included Liaoning.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , it would be nice of you if you show me facts to it's contrary. What about why I say so, so there isn't a RS about any ethnic Korean person of Gojoseon state, there even isn't a RS about Koreanism of Gojoseon. According to the map, Gojoseon was partly on Korean peninsula. Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Academic perspectives section
I changed what I felt was appropriate, as prior versions of this section used NPOV language and seemed to be less about academic perspectives on the state/political entity of Gojoseon and more about nationalist (particularly Korean and Chinese) criticisms/claims about the existence of various founding myths. The last two (very large) paragraphs were effectively criticisms of various Korean nationalist (i.e. not necessarily academic) positions/theories related to the founding of Gojoseon, rather than a discussion of academic/research perspectives on the various myths surrounding the poorly-attested founding of Gojoseon. I did eliminate the most severe NPOV language, but even so, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to re-organize the content (some of which is relevant) into something more neutral. Maybe they should have their own subsection, such as "controversies"? Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it looks OK, and the thing that is disconcerting is the presentation of "myths" as true in some places. I think it does portray academic perspectives.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) –  12:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Gojoseon → Old Joseon – For WP consistency (e.g., Unified Silla, Later Baekje, Former Yan, Later Yan, Early Lý dynasty, Early Lê dynasty). According to WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Unlike "Wiman" (Wiman Joseon) or "Gija" (Gija Joseon), "Go" is not a name. It means "old". It should be translated. "Old Joseon" is used by the National Institute of Korean History. Bamnamu (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regardless of what the National Institute of Korean History uses, Gojoseon appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME in English. It garners more results than "Old Joseon" in Google Books, Scholar, and Search, and from a cursory browse most of the article's sources use it. There is precedent for this kind of split in article naming when adapting from foreign names: we have green curry but pad thai isn't "Thai stir fry". ― novov (t   c)  09:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Common name tends to outweigh both 'official' names and consistency with other articles. toobigtokale (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiman Joson and it's fall
The topic is a bit confusing.

"In 109 BCE, Emperor Wu of Han invaded near the Liao River. A conflict would erupt in 109 BCE, when Wi Man's grandson King Ugeo (우거왕, Hanja: 右渠王) refused to let Jin's ambassadors through his territory in order to reach the Han dynasty. King Ugeo refused and had his son, Prince Wi Jang (長降) escort the ambassador back home. However, when they got close to Han's borders, the ambassador assassinated Wi Jang (長降) and claimed to Emperor Wu that he had defeated Joseon in battle. Emperor Wu, unaware of this deception, made him the military commander of the Commandery of Liaodong. The outraged King Ugeo made a raid on Liaodong and killed She He. Scholars also hypothesize that the initiation of war may also have been because the Han Dynasty was concerned that Gojoseon would ally with the Xiongnu against the Han.

In response, Emperor Wu commissioned a two-pronged attack, one by land and one by sea, against Gojoseon. The two forces attacking Gojoseon were unable to coordinate well with each other and suffered large losses. Eventually, the commands were merged, and Wanggeom fell in 108 BCE. Han took over the Gojoseon lands and established Four Commanderies of Han in the western part of former Gojoseon."

So, the ambassador FROM Jin escorted back to Jin and when they got close to Han's border... What? They escorted from where to where? How they could reach the Han border if they travelled to the opposite direction? Ugeo refused and HAD his son. (??) So he had a son. And? Maybe commissioned to, or charged to. And who was She He? Why Ugeo killed him/her? And which scholars hypothesised the motive behind the war? So, the war began, and the Han army suffered great losses and won and Wanggeom fell. Who? What? And again no sources.

So, all of these need to either delete or rewrite.

Szeitzp (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gojoseon