Talk:Wei Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, 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.
	???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force United States military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 King Zhun 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.2 Discussion 3 Revision 4 General? 5 Protection 6 RfC on Romanization, Wording, Categorization

[edit] King Zhun

Quote from 史記 朝鮮列傳

聚黨千餘人，魋結蠻夷服而東走出塞，渡浿水，居秦故空地上下鄣...

--Nanshu 01:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The existence of King Zhun is suspicious because The Records of the Grand Historian of the same age never referrs to him.

What's wrong with "Chinese direct rule over peninsula?" I don't say "Chinese direct rule over the whole peninsula". --Nanshu 04:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess you should put 'part of' in front of that.

whatever your speculation of weiman's ethnicity, there is no doubt that he, as the king of a korean kingdom (Wiman Joseon), is a part of korean history. not even chinese nationalist historians claim joseon to be a part of chinese history. this page is linked to from various korean articles, & only one china-related article (and that's only in that article's reference to old Joseon). and "wei man" is not exactly a firmly established english spelling; there is no reason to use the chinese romanization as the title. Appleby 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history. You try to push something more than what is deduced from historical sources. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we made room for modern interpretations, but further POV pushing is not tolerated. --Nanshu 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

yes please remember that. "wei man" is the chinese romanization; please explain why you believe that the chinese romanization is NPOV, but the korean romanization is POV. please note what articles link to this article. please note that nobody considers Wiman Joseon to be a part of chinese history; it is considered a part of korean history in various english reference works. please do not push your pov without explanation. thanks. Appleby 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop mixing up two different things:

1. selection of romanization systems, and
2. separation of what is directly deduced from historical sources and the narrative of national history.

You only talked about the former and started an all-or-nothing revert war.

The historical sources of Man are the Shiji (and Hanshu) and the Weile (and Sanguozhi). What is deduced from them has nothing to do with the modern Korean nation. As you know, Koreans narrate it as part of the history of Korea, but such an narrative cannot be put without proper attribution here in Wikipedia, where people with various backgrounds gather to make a new encyclopedia. If you disagree with the relativistic approach, why not create your own Korea-pedia and put your work there?

Various ideas can be included with proper attribution in Wikipedia. We are inclusive in this sense. But we have to select one default romanization system because adding multiple spellings every time is redundant. Which system is the best? Pinyin, I think, because he was from the Yan and recorded in Chinese sources. --Nanshu 10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

first things first. let's discuss the article naming. the basic rule in wikipedia is to use the common english usage. because wiman is discussed, if at all, by western scholars generally in the context of korea's old joseon, wiman is the more common english spelling. even links to this page within wikipedia are virtually all from korean history articles. it's not a matter of personal opinion, but the reality that wiman is discussed in korean history contexts and spelled from the korean pronunciation. other names in early korean history are found mostly or even exclusively in chinese records (Jin (Korean history), Samhan, not to mention japanese history), but that's no reason to use pinyin, the korean romanization is established in english. Appleby 17:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

let's keep personal opinions out of this & stick to verifiable npov citations. not to say we should rely on google hits for content, but they show the use the "wiman" spelling by western publications in english, and refer to the topic in korean history context:

• A refugee named Wiman founded ... Wiman Choseon. Not only did he keep the Choseon name, he also adopted Choseon customs and culture, in a sense reviving the fallen kingdom. Wiman Choseon exerted a fair amount of power in Asia, but fell in 108 BCE to China. [1]
• 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 [2]
• Wiman Chosôn (the successor state to Old Chosôn) [3]
• the first Korean ruler recorded in contemporaneous records is Wiman [4]
• 194 BC Northwest Korea united under warlord, Wiman [5]
• Wiman established the state of Chosn (or Wiman Chosn) which was highly Sinified but not a Chinese colony. [6]

also given Wiman Joseon and Gojoseon, the consistent article name of korean monarchs per convention would be "Wiman of Gojoseon." but i'd like to hear more about this larger consistency issue with the personal/temple/posthumous names. Appleby 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So you gave up contending for the second point? If so, I'm glad.

For the first point, my question is: How can we secure fairness in the most-common-name policy? I think we can arbitrarily change the result by changing the scope of survey. In this case, you only referred to "history of Korea" things even though I stressed, "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history." If we compare the overall history of China and the overall history of Korea, the weight of Wei Man would be different because China was too large to discuss the situation of a "borderland" in detail. But if you focus on specific issues, say, the history of Yan and that of Pyongyang, we will get a different result. And checking "What links here" doesn't make too much sense because Wikipedia is incomplete. Whether an article exists or not depends on whether it interests active Wikipedians, not on its significance.

So what should we do? I think Man has similar nature to Lelang, Daifang, Gongsun Du, Kang and Yuan, the Chinese stuffs that had to do with the Korean peninsula.

For Gojoseon, you Koreans set up a grand fantasy, but the understanding outside Korea is completely different. I have no time for detailed discussion. In short, we assume the pre-Man situation as depicted in the Shiji:

自始全燕時、嘗略屬真番、朝鮮，為置吏，築鄣塞．秦滅燕，屬遼東外徼．漢興，為其遠難守，復修遼東故塞，至浿水為界，屬燕．

--Nanshu 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• WP:UE: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
• WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."
• See English citations above. Appleby 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As Yuje said, Bohai and Man stuffs parallel each other. I guess you are unable to rebut. --Nanshu 11:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though Wei Man came from China, Wiman Joseon is Korean history.--Hairwizard91 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Revision

I removed edits by User:Hairwizard91 because they are hopelessly erroneous. Correcting all his errors requires much more human resource than rewritting the article from scratch. So I just point out his first several errors:

• Only North Koreans and some South Koreans support that his kingdom was located in Liaoning.
• He did not established a kingdom in 195 BC. What happened in 195 BC was an attack by Gaozu to Lu Wan. It's not clear when he came to the crown.
• Translating 蠻夷 as Eastern Babarian is not accurate.
• The Shiji never uses the term Gojoseon. Nor we can assume that what Hairwizard91 means by Gojoseon is put in parallel with Zhenfan.
• The Shiji never refers to Qi Zhun. And what's Beonjoseon?
• The Shiji never claims that Wangxian corresponds to Xiandu Prefecture. It appears in a commentary on the Shiji.

--Nanshu 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General?

In some previous revisions, I wrote without much care, "Wei Man was a Chinese general..." Now Ksyrie restored this sentence, but are there any sources explicitly stating that he was a general? --Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Please stop the edit warring and discuss the content. It's disconcerting to see the editors spend their energy on edit warring over wording and Romanization rather than improving/expanding this article, as this article plainly deserves improvement in content.

For what it is worth, it is my view, with regard to the content under dispute:

1. Both the Korean and the Chinese romanizations should be used.
2. Such language as "barbarian" should not be used.
3. Regardless of the resolution of the above two issues, it is clear that Wei Man is part of Chinese history (as opposed to a question of whether his state was Chinese in nature, which is much more questionable) and therefore the Chinese history category is appropriate; however, he should perhaps be placed into the subcategory Category:Qin Dynasty. The fact that a person may belong to a Chinese history category does not make a person Chinese or vice versa.

Again, please discuss rather than edit warring without comment. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless wikipedia supports drastic deviation from the concensus, remove the Chinese History category and everything that relates to it. We use references, not "interpret" them.

Instead of stating "it is clear Wei Man is part of Chinese history," elaborate why you think so. It is not clear. Wiman even being considered being part of China's history is new to everyone, 'cept for this new wave of overseas-living chinese internet heroes who are writting Korean history to whatever supports their ongoing masturbation about Korea being one of their ilk. I still don't know the source of their obsession. Kuebie 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason that it is a part of Chinese history is that the kingdom he founded warred with China's Han Dynasty and was conquered by it. That makes it a part of Chinese history, just as, for example, the fact that Zhenzhu Khan's Xueyantuo state battled with Tang Dynasty made it a part of Chinese history.

Another reason why he's a part of Chinese history is because, well, he was discussed at length in Chinese historical accounts (which, as you must realize, Korean historians have to rely on as well).

In any case, the fact that there is a dispute is an indication that there is no consensus, so I don't understand the part of "drastic deviation from the con[s]ensus." (See also above the determination that there was no consensus to move the article to Wiman.) In any case, I am distressed by your lack of civility. It does not add to the force of your arguments. --Nlu (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That may apply to deceased former countries but I hope you know Korea is, however divided, still present in northeast Asia. China incorporates extinct societies near it and call them fiefdoms because the said people are all dead. Ridiculous. Why don't we place Kyushu into Korean History? That's right, their successors are Japan.

Marco Polo wrote a book about China, I don't see the Italians rushing to claim Mongolian heritage.

The only thing being challenged by many contemporary scholars is the view that Wiman's kingdom was ruled by the Yen refugees, thus developing into a powerful state and having ties with the hsiung-nu, gave much trouble to its neighbor in the South. Bringing iron culture to a foreign society doesn't mean you hold dominion over them, especially when there is more proof of Wiman being ethnically a man of Joseon. Of course, we'll then have examine how "Chinese" the people of Yen were before their subjugation. Kuebie 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this refutes any of my points. Just because something is Korean history doesn't mean that it's not also Chinese history (or vice versa). Note this has nothing to do with the categorization of Wei's ethnicity (and it should be noted that what is Chinese or Korean in modern times is not necessarily relevant to ethnic identification back then). Further, Marco Polo was not Chinese; that doesn't mean that he's not part of Chinese history. But I'd like to hear what other people think. I will be filing a RFC. --Nlu (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't share history when a newly arisen nation is declared to be successor of a deceased state. I refuse to believe both Korea and china are 'brother countries' that together sprung out of Joseon. Culture and tradition is examined to differenciate people. Seeing how Wiman Joseon shared nothing, not even the government structure with the proto-chinese (whatever hell that means since the majority are all Han) states, including Wiman in chinese history is foreign. Korea is the only country that has legimate claims of lineage of Wiman and Wiman Joseon, therefore should exclusively belong in Korean history. Kuebie 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Korea" is a country that was established in 1897 (or 1948). There wasn't "Korea" back in the 2nd century BC. And contrary to the perception of many Koreans, not all of the ancient kingdoms that existed on the Korean peninsula in the past were ruled by the same ethnic as the present Koreans. These kingdoms are mentioned in "Korean history" today only because they existed in places that are within the present territory of Korea, much like Native American history is incorporated into U.S. history. --Saintjust 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Kyushu has never been a part of Korea. The Korean peninsula, on the other hand, had been a part of Japan between 1910 and 1945. This period and the colonial ruler during then are as much a part of Japanese history as of Korean history. --Saintjust 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, since there appears to be no further discussion at this point, I am going to unprotect the article. Please, however, watch your behaviors. I do think that the appropriate thing to do here is to include both romanizations, but I'm not going to impose that on the article. Please also be aware that anybody who violates 3RR or the spirit thereof will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Romanization, Wording, Categorization

Whether the page should use Chinese or Korean romanization or both; whether such wording as "barbarian" should be disavowed; and whether this article should be placed in Category:History of China or one of its subcategories or not. --Nlu (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article, cities, places and people using chinese romanization should be displaced with Korean ones and be kept that way. I don't how they interpreted "Joseon" as "barbarian." Exclusively Korean history as the people who view Wiman as chinese are an obscure minority. Kuebie 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this address whether he is a part of Chinese history? (And I should note that this user has a history of making derogatory remarks toward the Chinese -- including self-evidence repeated intentional decapitalizations above; I think that pretty much discredits his/her arguments.) --Nlu (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Korean name
Hangul 위만 Hanja 衛滿 Revised Romanization Wiman McCune-Reischauer Wiman
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese 衛滿 Simplified Chinese 卫满 Hanyu Pinyin Wèi Mǎn Wade-Giles Wei4 Man3

Hi --- saw the request at WT:KOREA. This guy came from an area corresponding to modern-day China, but became notable in an area corresponding to modern-day Korea, and so I feel it would make more sense to put the Korean name as the title. Hulbert makes a very similar argument at p21 of History of Korea (from Routledge) for example [7]. However, I still think the Chinese romanisation should remain in place, if nothing else for the reason that he came from a Chinese-speaking area and it provides additional information for the reader.

For the name infobox, I'd suggest the use of {{Infobox East Asian}} instead of {{Chinese}}, since the former allows one to sort the order in which the languages appear (using the parameter "sort=korean1", for example) while {{Chinese}} does not. Example at right. Cheers, cab 06:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution, and I am not wedded to the concept of having "Wei Man" as the title of the article, in any case, but I do think that both romanizations should be there. However, the issue that came out during the edit warring, really, is about the romanization of the rivers, for crying out loud. I think that the solution, again, is to have both romanizations. I do also believe strongly that the article should be categorized in the appropriate subcategory of Category:History of China due to impact on Chinese history, if nothing else -- and in this case, it belongs in Category:Han Dynasty. --Nlu (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You should note that:

• All we can use is a handful of sentences(!) written in Classical Chinese by ancient Chinese officials/scholars.
• History is NOT a product of political compromise.

So,

• Introduce primary sources first. Then explain major interpretations for them.
• Use Chinese romanization for Chinese sources.

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 anything related to modern Korea.

Do not avoid using "barbarian". That's what the Shiji says (蠻夷). A reasonable inference is that "barbarian cloth" was non-Chinese cloth.

But Yi Pyeongdo claimed "barbarian cloth" had been Korean cloth and that Wei Man had been of Korean descent. This re-interpretation suited the nationalist view of history (minjok sagwan) and was adopted in national history textbooks of South Korean education. All this stuff belongs to modern history, not ancient history. We should not exclude it because it is against our NPOV policy. But it should be carefully separated.

Note that historians use pinyin as a matter of convenience. If you discuss the linguistic aspect of proper names, use, say, reconstructed Old Chinese. --Nanshu (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)