This template is excellent! Thanks for making it. I wonder if it might be a good idea to include two more periods between Gojoseon and Three Kingdoms, namely:
(I'm still working on the latter two articles. Feel free to create them.)
Thoughts? -- Visviva 11:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In general, in the school textbook Wiman Josen and Jin(A Dynastiy of China) are not included as a historical period. And Wiman Joseon is one of controvercies, some people regard it as a period of Gojoseon. Chinese commanderies was a temporal occupation, and they should be included in Chinese history, not in Korean history even though they placed in Korean peninsula. And at that times Goguryeo was developing, so we could see it is included in Three Kingdoms period. Samhan, too. What about linking those articles to Gojoseon and Three Kingdoms? -- Ryuch 12:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not so nice to write the comment about the template on itself. You'd better talk about in this discussion page. What's is Korean's view and what is the NPOV? --Ryuch 10:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Years instenad of the name of the period, it's strange. It's a shame for Korean, but we usually call it 일제시대(일정시대), which means Japanese occupation period. I revert. -- Cheol 7 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)
I don't think Dangun Joseon, Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon belongs in the timeline as separate entries. Dangun Joseon just goes to Gojoseon, and Gija and Wiman are covered as controversies in the Gojoseon article. The three separate ideas are not widely accepted by modern scholars in Korea or the west. There is a lot of uncertainty about Gojoseon, and not enough agreement on the details to put it so prominently. PlacidoQ 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already an article on Dangun. I don't know why you would need different articles on Dangun, Dangun Joseon, and Gojoseon.
If being controversial is the reason, you should also include Hwanguk and Baedalguk, which are even more controversial. But then the list would not be a general guide to basic Korean history articles, but a collection of all kinds of speculations and theories.
The Korean Wikipedia is very undeveloped, because of the popularity of a similar types of services at Korean portal sites. It should not be taken as a guide to the popular or scholarly consensus. Many basic articles haven't even been created. Just take a look at their History of Korea article. PlacidoQ 06:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I added Jeulmun Pottery Period and Mumun Pottery Period. Please be reminded that both of these periods are classified as proper nouns and so should remain capitalised. Mumun 無文 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering about why some periods/ages are bolded and some are not. It looks to me that long, long periods of time are bolded, no? If so, both Jeulmun and Mumun fit the criteria for bolding. However, doesn't anyone think that the bolding of Jeulmun and Mumun makes the template appear 'top heavy' and thus look slightly undesirable? Would it not be better to have these two links, and possibly Go Joseon, without bolding? Comments? Mumun 無文 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline List of monarchs Military history Naval history
Please leave comments on ways to improve this new template.
I like this template better than the one being used now, that ones too big. Was there a discussion on this before? Because I seemed to have missed a chunk of it. Good friend100 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some other place people are discussing the major change to this template? I liked the older slimmer version, it was more complete, visually simpler and easier to navigate. I wouldn't mind some color, but I would like to keep the list as before. Esroh 23:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to get the template to float under an infobox?. Articles like Later Three Kingdoms look terrible. PC78 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed back to the old version (last edited by Kusonose) for now, because Kfc1864's change was too drastic. It lost too many links, has too many colors, and was too wide, among other technical problems. The one on the right is incorrect or misleading in a few areas. I would like to see the old version improved with subtle 2- or 3-tone coloring, and reduced in size a little bit without losing information. Just my own opinion. Esroh 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the existing template, but could we please have some discussion before a new IP address completely replaces it? Some of the problems I see with 221.138.73.61's design are: the inclusion of Hwanin/Hwanung myth, inclusion of state and person(Dangun/Gojoseon), inconsistent use of collective names (Samhan and individual Hans, but not Three Kingdoms), Provisional Gov't listed before Japanese rule, and so on. As stated before, I also think it's too garish and too wide, but that's my subjective view. Esroh 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at Wiki markup, but here are some ideas and questions to improve the existing version:
Let's discuss these things, before just completely replacing the existing one. Esroh 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Joseon covers the period of Korean empire, Jap.'s occupation, and provisional gov. --Cheol (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox looks like Gaya was a subordinate of Silla. It wasn't for many years, it was for short years. I'll change it, any discrepancies here. feel free to revert. Kfc18645 talk 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally Korean do not think it's a goverment which represents entire Koreans. --Cheol (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to [3]. --Cheol (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no need to refer to "middle age" because the actual years are already in the table. Yes, some sources use "middle age" terminology, but many historians consider it to be a European historic label that loses relevance or confuses meaning when applied to other regions. I thought the earlier form of the table was much easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.50.161 (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that middle age is the European Middle age. Scholars of Korean history divide the period into some ages, one of them is 'middle age'. Please refer this page also --Cheol (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, most other non-European history templates. "Middle Ages" may be sometimes used, but it is disfavored and completely unnecessary here. It doesn't add any information. 203.247.145.21 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare pretty much any non-European history template. Ancient, Middles Ages, etc. label do not add any info, and are generally disfavored by modern historians. Of course you can Google to find some examples, but it's not the general consensus. I don't mind efforts to make the template prettier, but the addition of these section labels are distracting. 203.247.145.21 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said there is Korean middle age, but now I do not insist to use that term in this template. As I wrote when this discussion page just started, we'd better make it simple as it could be possible. In this template 'Middle ages' just covers Korea dynasty and some scholars argue a period of Chosun dynasty also belongs to the age. So it is not so useful and clear. I like current template which does not have 'Middle ages'. Thank you for you attention and discussions. --Cheol (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the simple style more, but the dispute is about more than just "style." Content change, like the misleading Middle Age and other unnecessary era labels, should be discussed more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.176.245.15 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the proposed new template is not the style, but the inconsistency of headings. If there is a heading called Ancient, Proto-Three Kingdoms era should surely be under that, as well as probably some part of Three Kingdoms. Proto-Three Kingdoms or Later Three Kingdoms is not at the same categorical level as "Ancient" and "Modern History." What is the definition of Middle Ages? Later Three Kingdoms, or even late Silla, could be "Middle Ages." There is no academic consensus for calling early Joseon "Middle Ages" or "Modern" or "Early Modern."
While "Modern" and "Contemporary" may be relevant labels for European art movements, they do not add anything to this template for Korean history. Why aren't there articles under Ancient Korea or Middle Ages of Korea? Because they would be unnecessary and inappropriate article topics, since there already are articles for the major periods of Korean history. All of these "ancient" or "modern" labels are unnecessary, inaccurate, misleading, and redundant, because each major era already has actual years listed in the template.
Also, "Later Goguryeo" and "Republic of Korea" are wrong labels, because Wikipedia's policy is to use common names, which is why the titles of the articles are "Taebong" and "South Korea," and the template should use the same name as the article title.
I wish people would discuss these substantive issues before just insisting on a change. Thank you. 203.247.145.21 (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During transition to new template, middle ages and early modern period are added without consensus. I'm not sure I could fix correctly, so I hesitate to revert. But I want to point out current version is not correct one. --Cheol (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see ancient history and middle ages. these labels are generally considered specific to european history, and do not fit every culture. this has been discussed before. please discuss and get knowledgeable consensus before change. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.176.245.15 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historiographer, please don't revert people for the fun of it. You re-introduced errors, such as the beginning date of Unified Silla and the alphabetical order of North and South Korea. Korean war is a historical event, just like Japanese occupation, so should appear chronologically, not in the "by topic" section. I'm not sure independent movement should be a separate line, given the scale of this template (5 centuries of Joseon Dynasty is just a single line), although other people should comment on this. 99.88.103.225 (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently South Korea is referred to by its official name, while the North Korea is just listed as North Korea. It looks kind of disjointed. So should we use the official names for the two Koreas? Akkies (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it into 'South Korea'. --Cheol (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there has been a ongoing edit warring, I have reverted controversial parts to the stable version, based on a version by Caspian blue as of 6 September 2009 while retaining some of Historiographer's edits, as per WP:REVERT If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. My changes and rationales are as follows. Please stop further edit warring and discuss issues for changes here. --Kusunose 04:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the problem here instead of reverting back and forth. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gija Joseon is widely rejected by historians, due to contradicting archaeological evidence and historical anachronism. It is also suggested that Gija Joseon was fabricated during the times of Han Dynasty to justify its conquests of Gojoseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proof of burden is on you. You, and some anon IP, are the ones insisting on making these biased changes on Gija Joseon. No serious works of Korean history, including the ones you cited, considers Gija Joseon seriously. They are sometimes mentioned, only to be contradicted. In many cases, such as in The Rise of Civilization in East Asia by Gina Barnes, it's not even mentioned. Take a look at this article[5] which concerns the Gija Joseon controversy. Unless you provide some significant proof that Gija Joseon is a widely accepted part of Korean history, I suggest you refrain from making edits that contradict scholarly consensus. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that whereas Dangun is a widely accepted founding myth of Koreans, therefore a legendary starting point of Korean history, the legend of Gija is widely rejected. What that means is that the very narrative and possibility of the Gija legend is rejected. On the other hand, Dangun is accepted as a founding myth that has been shared by the collective consciousness of Koreans since at least Koryo period, and there are also scholars who claim that Dangun may have historical veracity as a political position rather than a singular personality. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for Zanhe to present evidence that Shang Dynasty, what he refers to as the Dongyi, is linked archaeologically with the Julmun pottery culture, Mummun pottery culture and most importantly, Liaoning bronze dagger culture. Also, I would like Zanhe to refute the now dominant theory that the Gija legend was anachronistically fabricated during Han Dynasty to justify its conquests of Gojoseon. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template didn't have such pure mythical figures to start with. You keep obsessing about "adding Dangun while moving Gija". Gija is archaeologically contradicted, and it is known to be a propaganda fabricated by the Han Dynasty to justify its conquest of Gojoseon. You have quoted only one book on Korean history, which ultimately contradicted your own view that Dangun Joseon is purely myth, that it represents an archaeological complex. Now, lets see authoritative sources on Dangun Joseon and what it is defined as.
Since we're now back to the subject, let's see what scholars say about Dangun/Tangun and Gija/Kija:
It is clear that scholars accept neither Dangun/Tangun nor Gija/Kija as historical, and we should likewise leave them both out of this history template. -Zanhe (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recap: "There is a difference between "Dangun Joseon" and "Gija Joseon". The contention with Gija is not about the person, but the state that he supposedly founded. Both historical and archaeological evidence contradicts existence of such a state. On the other hand, "Dangun Joseon" is widely accepted by the Academia. Dangun is interpreted as a political position of the tribal period of Gojoseon. The VERY BOOK you have cited reflects this point of view. Plus, the Xia Dynasty of China is also a mythological polity founded by a mythical ruler, yet it is included in the template of Chinese history. This template that includes Dangun Joseon and excludes Gija Joseon reflects academic consensus, and also the corresponding template in the Korean wikipedia. Cydevil38 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)" Dangun, in Dangun Joseon, is a descriptive name, not a confirmation of the myth itself. Gija Joseon, meanwhile is rejected by the mainstream Academia. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of putting an end to this incessant edit warring, I will show good-will and simply insert Gojoseon, and categorize it as legendary. I expect some good-will and cooperation in return to improve Gojoseon from the sorry state it is in right now. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exclusion of sub-periods of Gojoseon came as a result of a long-standing debate as well as a compromise in good faith. Reinclusion any sub-period of Gojoseon only undermine such effeorts, and does not help understanding of Gojoseon at all. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@219.111.108.168: For like the seventh time, this is not engaging in building a consensus. You just paste that same thing OVER AND OVER. What does it mean? Nobody knows! It's a mystery! Watch me do it: Ewha Womans University Press『Astronomy Traditional Korean』p. 14."Astronomical Heritage of korea Dates 24 B.C.-2 B.C. Period DangunJoseon,GijaJoseon,and WimanJoseon"[20] YAY I PASTED IT WOOOO. Ogress smash! 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This anon IP is a sockpuppet[21]. I'll make the request for sockpuppet investigation when I have the time. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Greenhorn38, to my knowledge, the template functions as a broad overview of the country's history. It provides redirects to the individual kingdoms/time periods, but does not include every single detail, such as when a country became a vassal to another or became independent. These are details for the reader to obtain from the article, for which a link is provided in the template. For most other templates, a new link is created ONLY when a distinct entity is created, i.e. when the Silla ceased to exist and was succeeded by Goryeo or when the Korean Empire ceased to exist after being annexed by Japan. In this case however, independent Goryeo and Vassal Goryeo were still the same entity, and thus only warrant one inclusion in the template, not multiple. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you User:Donald Trung for your contribution and interest to edit the History of Korea. Please allow me to explain my reasons for reverting your version and I hope you will understand as I know you have put some time and effort to create the image:
Therefore the previous image in my opinion does not need to be replaced. Please feel free to let me know your opinion as I am willing to listen and understand your viewpoint or if anyone else has any other opinion, it would be great to discuss before we make any further changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.246.41.175 (talk • contribs)
For future context, these are the images. They showcase a royal palace with the name "History of Korea" in Chosŏn'gul (left-to-right), Traditional Chinese characters (right-to-left), and Seal script which were the scripts used by Korea in its history to write the Korean language. The images also feature women wearing traditional Korean dresses. While I think that each of these images are superior, I must agree with the Hong Kong IP user above that neither of them can be considered neutral in the current political climate and no real neutral name for "Korea" exists in the Korean language that can actually be conveyed in Hanja and Chosŏn'gul at the same time. For this reason I am proposing that one of these images gets used once both Korea's agree on a name or unite in the unknown future. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]