Talk:Jizi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:35, 25 September 2007 editNanshu (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,250 edits romanization← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:17, 13 October 2007 edit undoHistoriographer (talk \| contribs)12,133 edits →Romanization Next edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	==Romanization==		==Romanization==
	Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is NOT an encyclopedia for Korean history but an encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge. Jizi would be looked at from various standpoints. From the viewpoint of source-based history, in other words, as long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or something related to modern Korea, and this standpoint is reflected in romanization. Of course, we don't exclude the modern Korean stuff because it is against our NPOV policy. It would be handled well if we carefully separate the nationalist view from history, and it is never acceptable to push the former into the latter. --] 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)		Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is NOT an encyclopedia for Korean history but an encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge. Jizi would be looked at from various standpoints. From the viewpoint of source-based history, in other words, as long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or something related to modern Korea, and this standpoint is reflected in romanization. Of course, we don't exclude the modern Korean stuff because it is against our NPOV policy. It would be handled well if we carefully separate the nationalist view from history, and it is never acceptable to push the former into the latter. --] 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

			:We'll not need to have the country (Gojoseon) name translated into Chinese language. Because ''Joseon'' by reason of Korean kingdom. therefore must change with the Korean language. also Chinese nationalism too often assert they's rights. Sameness, why apply the chinese name? it's also NPOV policy ] 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:17, 13 October 2007

Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

China Unassessed

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for the proposed move. After all, normally a ruler is separate from the country he or she ruled. Although things are murkier here in the semi-mythical past, it seems like that basic distinction should still apply. -- Visviva 16:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argh.. I'm sorry I'd been confused. --Puzzlet Chung 18:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restoration

I've restored this article to revert a cut-and-paste move from several months ago, which was followed by extensive POV-pushing and insertions of original research. There may be salvageable additions in the history of the Gija page, but I can't find them (see Talk:Gija for discussions of problems with that fork). -- Visviva 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

South Korean interpretation of Gija(Jizi)

There is a passage in this article where it says South Korean high school textbook describes Gija Joseon as a "Korean tribe". First, this is something I've never heard of. As far as I know, the mainstream scholarly consensus in Korea is that Gija Joseon is a myth. I've also asked some high school students to check their history textbooks to see if there is any mention of Gija Joseon. There is none, according to them. I'd like to know what source this passage is based upon so I can verify this. Cydevil38 02:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I referred to South Korea's national history textbooks for high schools translated into Japanese and published by Akashi Shoten. As for the textbooks for the 5th and 6th Curriculum, Jizi is not mentioned in the main text but one footnote says:

古朝鮮の発展と関連して箕子朝鮮についての記録がある。中国の史書には周の武王が箕子を朝鮮を封じたことになっている。そしてその年代を紀元前12世紀頃してもいる。しかし箕子朝鮮を、朝鮮の発展過程で社会の内部に登場した新しい支配勢力を示すものとして、また東夷族の移動過程で箕子に成長したある部族が古朝鮮の辺境で政治勢力をつかんたものと見る見解が支配的である。

But after reading your comment, I checked the new textbook for the 7th Curriculum and noticed that this footnote had been dropped. This means Jizi is completely excluded from South Korean history education even though Jizi has had immense impact on Korean ideologies and perceptions of history. --Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Romanization

Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is NOT an encyclopedia for Korean history but an encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge. Jizi would be looked at from various standpoints. From the viewpoint of source-based history, in other words, as long as we concentrate on analyzing primary sources, we don't have to care about the application of the boundary of "Korean" to history, Korean nationalism or something related to modern Korea, and this standpoint is reflected in romanization. Of course, we don't exclude the modern Korean stuff because it is against our NPOV policy. It would be handled well if we carefully separate the nationalist view from history, and it is never acceptable to push the former into the latter. --Nanshu 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll not need to have the country (Gojoseon) name translated into Chinese language. Because Joseon by reason of Korean kingdom. therefore must change with the Korean language. also Chinese nationalism too often assert they's rights. Sameness, why apply the chinese name? it's also NPOV policy Korea history 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: