Talk:State of Shinshi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (History), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Major problems

Our article on the Hwandan Gogi suggests that the text is widely considered to be a forgery, and that this kingdom is viewed as, at best, mythological. Obviously, one of the two articles is extremely inaccurate; the general view of the history of this period suggests that it's this one. In any case, scholarly sources need to be cited for the quite extraordinary claims made here. Kirill Lokshin 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand where you got that. Baedal is also known as Guri. Guri was a part of the Yemaek tribes, called Dongyi by the Chinese. Guri was an existing nation, and this was the result of the one of the newest studies by historians in Korea and other nations around the world. I cant exactly give you an english source cuz like i said, its a recent Korean study that was proven true. Maybe the part about the Baedal kings ruling for 471.6 years at average isnt true. i dont kno dat for sure, but i do know that Guri was an existing nation. --Kprideboi 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm more concerned about the statements in regard to its size. It's perfectly possible that there was an ancient Korean nation by this name—although some sources would be nice—but claims of an empire larger than modern China in a period before the invention of writing will require some pretty serious sources to be accepted as a mainstream veiw, as they appear to be rather bizarre on the surface of things. Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i see. i have only one source dats not in Korean. http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/go-chosun.htm by a guy named Lee Wha Rang. Not sure if i should trust dis guy tho.. i'll take dat part out of the article if dats wat u think is right. r u Russian?? i had a Russian friend named Kirill. jus wondering.--Kprideboi 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Websites probably aren't reliable enough for ancient history; we'd need something like a formal historical journal or some other published works to use as sources.
(And yes, originally; but I live in the U.S. now.) Kirill Lokshin 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i suppose. Da site did have accurate facts on Goguryo, and Balhae tho. oh, and i made a lil typo on my last comment. Dat website was da only source i had dat was NOT in Korean. haha.. anyways, yeah. i changed it according to a Korean source dat i have. Its an official governmental document that came from University of Seoul. it should be accurate. According to that document, Baedal reached Shandong peninsula at its height. dat should make sense since Chi-Woo the great's tomb was excavated in Shandong.--Kprideboi 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a more reasonable claim. Eventually we should probably try to get some Korean historians to work on this and the associated articles and sort out what's actually been verified as historical from what's mostly mythological; but that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. Kirill Lokshin 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The VANK site will be a help. It is a formal channel to the understanding of korea. According to the texts, The Kojoson is the first nation in korea.Jtm71 15:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think that comes anywhere close to a reliable source. We really need some scholarly treatments of the subject; unfortunately those are not easy to come by. Cheers, -- Visviva 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone can read Korean, I would like to introduce the most reliable site. The Korean textbook on internet written by the National Institute of Korean History Jtm71 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nifty. Although that doesn't seem to mention anything about Baedal at all (not that that's a big surprise). -- Visviva 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The website is Korean high school students' text book. But, there is a description about Shinshi and Hwanung that are the capital city of Baedal and the founder of Baedal in Pages 34-35.--Hairwizard91 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In Hanguksa(The History of Korean) which was written by the national institute of korean history, no one does mention the name 'Beadalguk'. What is important is that the name 'Baedalguk' is not aknowledged by most of the Korean historians. No one knew the existence of the 'Baedalguk' before 1979 except the author(s) of Hwandangogi. The 'Baedalguk' should be changed to 'Shinshi' in order to gain more authenticity, and then the names like 'Baedalguk' and 'GeoBalHwan' could be referred as an additional information. Jtm71 09:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion. If possible, we should talk as korean from the next times. It is hard to understand the context as English... haha.
You had only said that the name of Shinshi's nation and the founder's name of Keobalhan were wrong. I think they could be fabricated my Yi Yoo-rib...


You wrote, 'However, the reign year of Baedal based on Hwandangogi came from Samgeonggi삼성기, which may means that Samseonggi삼성기 may be fabricated, more specifically Chronicle of Baedal신시역대기 in Samseonggi can be fabricated.' in my talk page. Are you sure of the period during which the 'Baedalguk' existed ...? I think it is not a good idea to write uncertain information as a article of the Wiki-Pedia. Jtm71 04:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As you already have seen the article, it is myth yet. It has not be proved as true history.
As you can see the history of China, they added 삼황오제 to true history as it is... Why we can't do...
The fact that one of others does is not a excuse, I think. If you think they are wrong, you rather do point out the irrationallity. Jtm71 04:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I agree what you have pointed. So, it is better moving to Shinsi State, and rewrite entire article only based on Gyuwonsa Hwa removing the name of 거발한 and 배달국.
How do you think about it.--Hairwizard91 05:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
So, hopefully you can edit the article based on GyuwonSahwa, and this page can be moved to Shinshi's state. That may be more reasonable if Shinshi's nation can be proved as real history of Korea.--Hairwizard91 04:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The 'Shinshi' first appeared in 'SamgukYusa'. The main part should be written in accordance with 'SamgukYusa', and then the term related to the other source like Gyuwonsahwa and Hwandangogi should be added as another chapter. Jtm71 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely understand what you point. Maybe you can make the article about Shinsi State. 위키서 중국애들 적이 저에겐 너무 많습니다. 님께서 만드는것이 더 수월하게 본문을 진행시킬수 있을것 같아요.

Then this article can be moved to 'Shinshi' and this page will be directed to that page. And then, the contents will be substituted with additional comment.

If there is better way or objection from others, please express the opinion. Jtm71 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that the document has moved, parts of it can be fixed on real base. Jtm71 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with the person of Shinshi and the state of Shinshi

This article may be conflicted with the person of Shinshi and the state of Shinshi. It should be clarified between them, and then, perhaps, the article should be devided into two articles.--Hairwizard91 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't write about myths as if they were real

Please pay attention not to write about mythical states in the same style as you would for states whose existence is proven. The article starts out saying that the source for all this is the Hwandangogi (that is, something most dubious to say the least, or a polite way to avoid the label “fictional country”), and at the same time has, for example, a “Legacy” section with some dubious claims drawing a connection with Goguryeo.

When you mention something real in an article on an otherwise fictional topic, mark it as such, and be careful to keep fact and fiction separate; otherwise, careless readers may mistake Baedal for a historic country, or Goguryeo for a myth. Wikipeditor 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A sentence was added. However, the user who edited this document is blocked now. Jtm71 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion of reverting

I suggest this article to revert to that of 12.Nov.1996. All the contents are mixed up with unreliable books and that blurs the actual information in need.Jtm71 02:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change in article

The book Hwandangogi is not considered as a valuable historical text in the South Korea and the North Korea, so it is absurd to use it as a major source describing the shinshi. Jtm71 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Why shouldn't we use fiction as a source for a fictitious place? An article on Middle Earth should use Tolkien's works. Every source that treats places like this as something real probably falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources and/or Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). Wikipeditor (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The balance of this article

In Korea, most data used in researching the Shinshi is the Samgukyusa, not the Hwandangogi. For the Hwandangogi is just considered as a historical record of the modern times, the article have to be balanced by reducing or extracting the contents from Hwandangogi. Jtm71 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)