Talk:Four Commanderies of Han

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

one ref map from textbook. Evawen (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image edit war[edit]

No comment from myself on the merits of the image but please quit the slow edit war; if it continues I will protect the article till you take time to figure it out. Consider discussing the various merits here please --Errant (chat!) 16:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Four Commanderies[edit]

Four commanderies are located in northern Korean Peninsula and part of the Liaodong Peninsula. Supporting evidence:

1. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Korea.html

Han Chinese built four commanderies, or local military units, to rule the peninsula as far south as the Han River, with a core area at Lolang (Nangnang in Korean), near present-day P'yongyang. It is illustrative of the relentlessly different historiography practiced in North Korea and South Korea, as well as the projection backward of Korean nationalism practiced by both sides, that North Korean historians deny that the Lolang Commandery was centered in Korea. They place it northwest of the peninsula, possibly near Beijing, in order to de-emphasize China's influence on ancient Korean history.

2. the book "Korea, Old and New":

pp 13: The territorial extent of the Four Chinese Commanderies seems to have been limited to the area north of the Han River.

pp 14: As its administrative center, the Chinese built what was inessence a Chinese city where the governor, officials, merchants, and Chinese colonists lived. Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. ... The Chinese administration had considerable impact on the life of the native population and ultimatedly the very fabric of Gojoseon society became eroded.

pp 16: map of "Korea in the confederated Kingdoms period (ca. 1st-3rd centuries A.D)"

3. the book "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present":

pp 18: For the next four centuries a northwestern part of the Korean peninsula was directly incorporated in to the Chinese Empire.... The Taedong River basin, the area where the modern city of P'yongyang is located, became the center of the Lelang commandery.

Any one who want to "move" its location to purely Liaodong Peninsula, show your evidence. EJcarter (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon, Nae-Hyun. "True Understanding of Old Choson." Korea Journal 27:12 (December 1987): 23-40 says that the commanderies aren't even in Korean peninsula with no archeleogical evidence to prove such claim. North Koreans and other archeleogists found some Han dynasty artifacts that date from Former Han (200 AD), not the Later Han (200 BCE), around the time Gojoseon was invaded by Han. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.126.217 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have to tell you that the journal "Korea Journal" is a Korean publication, although it is written in English. It is not supported and reviewed by the third party of academia (for instance, western academia). What the author did in the paper is exactly described in the first evidence I provided above: "Korean nationalists place it northwest of the peninsula, possibly near Beijing, in order to de-emphasize China's influence on ancient Korean history". Therefore, it is not a reliable source at all.
Second, There are many archaeological evidence supporting the capital of Lelang is near modern-day P'yongyang:
The way of life maintained by the elite at the capital in the P'yongyang area, which is known from the tombs and scattered archaeological remains, evinces a prosperous, refined, and very Chinese culture. -- "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present" of pp 19 and "State Formation in Korea", pp 19-20.
Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. The variety of burial objects found in their wooden and brickwork tombs attests to the lavish life syle of these Chinese officials, merchants, and colonial overloads in Lelang's capital. -- "Korea, Old and New", pp 14.
The second point not only further denies the reliability of your refs and also states that many archaeological discoveries demonstrate the capital of Lelang commandery is in P'yongyang area, in another word deep in the Korean Peninsula. Therefore your argument is entirely wrong. EJcarter (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps and facts[edit]

It is really interesting to examine this blue map supposed to illustrate the "Four Commanderies of Han".

First and foremost, the four Commanderies have to be FOUR, not three. The red topmost/leftmost thing, 汉四郡, is not a Commandery, but a legend, stating the topic of the map. Therefore, two Commanderies are missing. Namely:

  • 臨屯郡, 임둔군, Lintun=Imdun
  • 真番郡, 진번군, Zhenfan=Jinbeon

One cannot argue that these commanderies have disappeared in the +0003 year after the erroneous date chosen by Bede the Venerable, since the

  • 帶方郡, 대방군, Daifang=Daebang Commandery

only appeared 200 years later.

Moreover, the reason why the

  • 玄菟郡, 현도군, Xuantu=Hyeondo

Commandery has been renamed into 遼東郡, i.e. Liaodong Commandery is not clear either.

Finally, what are these a), b), c), d) tags ?

Pldx1 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Four Commanderies of Han. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What scholars say about Four Commanderies of Han[edit]

  • Xu, Stella Yingzi (2016). Reconstructing Ancient Korean History. ULexington Books. p. 120. ISBN 978-1498521444.
"Lelang Commandery was crucial to understanding the early history of Korea, which lasted from 108 BCE to 313 CE around the P'yongyang area. However, because of its nature as a Han colony and the exceptional attention paid to it by Japanese colonial scholars for making claims of the innate heteronomy of Koreans, post 1945 Korean scholars intentionally avoided the issue of Lelang."
"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."
"Chinese civilization had started to flow into the Korean Peninsula through Nang-nang. This was the only time in Korean history that China could establish its colonies in the central part of Korea, where occupation forces were stationed. The Han Empire not only occupied Korea, but expanded westward to Persia and Afghanistan."
"In the corridor between the peninsula and northeast China, the Chinese Han dynasty established four “commanderies” that ruled over parts of the peninsula and Manchuria, much as modern imperial powers governed their colonies."
  • Eckert, Carter J. (1991). Korea Old and New: A History. Ilchokak Publishers. p. 14. ISBN 978-0962771309.
"As its administrative center, the Chinese built what was inessence a Chinese city where the governor, officials, merchants, and Chinese colonists lived. Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. The variety of burial objects found in their wooden and brickwork tombs attests to the lavish life syle of these Chinese officials, merchants, and colonial overloads in Lelang's capital. ... The Chinese administration had considerable impact on the life of the native population and ultimatedly the very fabric of Gojoseon society became eroded."--133.137.58.139 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism or Controversy - Disputes over the exact location of Han commanderies[edit]

@HanKim20: Hello, i understand that it is universally accepted by the majority scholars that the Lelang commandery was somewhere in Today's Pyongyang. However, it is also worth noting that the the location of Lelang has been controversial throughout history. It is not revisionism initiated by North Korea recently. I am not going to edit or remove any of other editor's content, I am just going to add the history background of the controversy on the location of Lelang as below. Feel free to give your opinion and which part do you think is not appropriate and how should I rephrase it in your opinion MarcofuUSA (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history. According to Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. However, the Taedong River in Pyongyang flows westward into the sea. The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan （466 AD ～ 527 AD）, revised the course of the Pei river recorded in original the Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. He claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo people he met in China. [1]. Initially, there were four Commanderies of Han. In the case of Lintun and Zhenfan County, they were abolished not long after they were installed as these two counties were relocated to the Liaodong. Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries is mainly over the Lelang county. Majority scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon period considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi which was based on Chinese records on many aspects. But there were also scholars who disagree with the reinterpretation of Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), who had conducted field research during his visit to China in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary. Lee Ji Rin，A prestigious North Korean historian who obtained his Ph.D in Peking University, in his Research on Ancient Korea also claims that the Han Commanderies were in Liaodong Peninsula.[2] MarcofuUSA (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: No response from @HanKim20: who undo my edit by erasing my contribution claiming there is no disagreement at all. MarcofuUSA (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC) MarcofuUSA (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


06 August 2021[edit]

@Qiushufang:

1.you say undue weight, but you restored without my inclusion of [failed verification] - Below is direct quote from my source [3]. Ri jirin argued that the center of old Choson was in Liaodong. 

Based upon differences in the bronze relics and graves discovered in the Liaodong area from those found in the central plains of China, Ri Jirin argued that the center of Old Choson was in the Liaodong region. (See Map 1, The Territory of Old Choson.) He believed that Old Choson territory extended across Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, and at its peak reached the Daling River, which is west of the Liao River. However, Ri's book, Kojoson yongu (Studies in Old Choson History), which was published in 1963, does not urge the recovery of the ancient territory of Old Choson in the Liaodong region.

2. due to multiple missing sources of information that could not be found in the citation given - Which sources of information could not be found in the citation given? please specify.

3. as well as the fact that large portions of content cite non-English primary sources that have not been translated - below content cited non-English primary sources have not been translated as well. should it be removed from the page?

  • Lelang Commandery (樂浪郡, 낙랑군/락랑군, BC 108 ~ AD 313):[4] 25 prefectures, 62,812 households, population of 406,748 in 2 CE.
  • Xuantu Commandery (玄菟郡, 현도군, BC 107 ~ AD 302):[5] 3 prefectures, 45,006 households, population of 221,845 in 2 CE.

--GoldenTaurus (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added [failed verification] when I could not find mentions of Li Daoyuan, Water Classic, Bak Jiwon, Jehol Diary, or Lee Ji Rin in https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT77566/html/CPRT-112SPRT77566.htm. And yes I do think it's problematic that practically the entire article that does not use the failed verification source is using primary non-English sources. It does not bode well for the content and is indicative of possible original research. It would be better if they had translations but that is missing as well. For content that has been repeatedly removed, you would think the author would simply provide clearer sources but that did not occur. Furthermore none of the sources are academic in nature and appropriate for final decision in these types of historical articles. Qiushufang (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang:

I removed [failed verification] because i added source for Bak Ji won's Jehol diary. You might have overlooked assuming i reverted back to original without amending the previous citation. Please see this [6]. regarding the LI Daoyuan's revision to original water classic, i also provided source and i believe you can read and understand the source. 浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴，以朝鲜为远，循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古，于事差谬，盖《经》误证也。[7] Regarding Ri Ji rin, this is what he said direct quote.
Based upon differences in the bronze relics and graves discovered in the Liaodong area from those found in the central plains of China, Ri Jirin argued that the center of Old Choson was in the Liaodong region. (See Map 1, The Territory of Old Choson.) He believed that Old Choson territory extended across Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, and at its peak reached the Daling River, which is west of the Liao River. However, Ri's book, Kojoson yongu (Studies in Old Choson History), which was published in 1963, does not urge the recovery of the ancient territory of Old Choson in the Liaodong region.
the content added is neither academic findings nor new argument, but a general history background of the issue and definately not any form of final decision. It is just to give readers more fair and balance view. --GoldenTaurus (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves statements like " But there were also scholars who disagree with the reinterpretation of Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), who had conducted field research during his visit to China in 1780." Which is not supported by the source. The entire first section only cites the primary CHinese source as well despite giving ample amounts of interpretation. That's original research. Based on what you said I'd recommend just finding some academic sources and add those instead of constantly arguing. Since this is a general overview of the historiography it shouldn't be too hard. Qiushufang (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: It is not Chinese primary chinese source. Jehol diary is written by Korean Silhak scholar Bak Jiwon. It's simple and straightfoward. The source says clelarly that Bak Ji won in his Jehold diary, written during his visit to Qing China, said that the Lelang country was in Liaodong. Entire The Jehol Diary Chapter 1 of 熱河日記 卷一 渡江錄 is Bak Jiwon explaning why Lelang county is in Liaodong instead of Nothern Korean peninsula. Please read. 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤. basically what it says is that there is another Pyongyang in LIaodong, and the Pei river was in Liaodong and the Lelang country was in Liaodong, not Today's Pyongyang. Hope it clarifies--GoldenTaurus (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can it not be a primary source? It's literally citing a wikisource media project in Chinese. There's no further elaboration or context. WP:NOR states that unless it's explicitly stated in the source it is original research. Even if the source said what you claim it does, you wouldn't be able to use it either because the content makes additional claims. Just find an academic source source. Qiushufang (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: If citing a wikisource media is profhibited, then the above mentioned contents cited wikisource in Chinese text cited should also be removed? My contribution is not a conclusion on the location of Lelang county, it is a historical overview showing the issue is not newly surfaced initiated by North Korea, but has been debated throughout history which is a fact, not a new academic claim or findingds. Thus removing the content is POV vandalism WP:Vandalism --GoldenTaurus (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that it would be helpful if an academic source could be provided in conjunction with the already existing sources to provide context and clarification. The material you have provided so far does not support Wikipedia's WP:NOR so it does not matter if it is "vandalism" because nothing removed is in line with wikipedia policy. In the best case scenario I would stick a one source section on the article anyway because there are barely any secondary sources to support the claims made. Qiushufang (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang:May i know which claim you are referring to? GoldenTaurus (talk)
The entire first section: The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history. According to Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. However, the Taedong River in Pyongyang flows westward into the sea. The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan （466 AD ～ 527 AD）, revised the course of the Pei river recorded in original the Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. He claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo people he met in China. [8]. is based entirely on one primary non-English source in wikiesource which provides no context or makes any of the claims in this statement. Including: Initially, there were three Commanderies of Han said to have been installed in Northern Korean peninsula. In the case of Lintun and Zhenfan County, they were too short-lived to have left meaningful record and archaeological evidence having been abolished only 28 years after they were installed as these two counties were relocated to the Liaodong. Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county. Majority Korean scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi which referred to the Chinese records on the Han commandries. But there were also scholars who disagree with the reinterpretation of Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), a Silhak scholar who had conducted field research in Manchuria during his visit to Qing dynasty in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary.[9] Practically the entire paragraph is based on non-academic primary sources and the only one that is not a primary source contains almost to no info on any of the claims. Where in the source does it say "The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history." or "Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county. Majority Korean scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi which referred to the Chinese records on the Han commandries."Qiushufang (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: Proponents of this revisionist theory claim that the Han Commanderies actually existed outside of the Korean peninsula, and place them somewhere in Liaodong Commandery, China, instead.[13][14][15]
1. Same standard applied, paragraphs like above should be removed from the content as well because the source cited is based on non-English & non-academic primary source contains no info on the claim. should it be removed?
2. There is big difference between making a claim and narrating a historical fact.
The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history.
This is not my claim, but a historical fact. Because of the controversy on the location of Lelang commandery, the Chinese philosopher Li Daoyuan （466 AD～527 AD) had to revise the location of Lelang county in his work Commentary on the Water Classic refuting another Chinese history scholar Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD)'s Water classic years ago. The primary source is in classical Chinese, I did a word-to-word translation as below. You are most welcome to point out the mistake if the translation is wrong.
The Pei river in Original Water classic - 浿水出乐浪镂方县，东南过临浿县，东入于海 translated into English is The river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the southeast, and enters the sea in the east.
The Pei river in the revision by Li Daoyuan -若浿水东流，无渡浿之理，其地今高句丽之国治，余访番使，言城在浿水之阳。其水西流迳故乐浪朝鲜县，即乐浪郡治，汉武帝置，而西北流。故《地理志》曰：浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴，以朝鲜为远，循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古，于事差谬，盖《经》误证也。 If the Pei river flows eastward, there is no reason to cross the Pei river. The river is now under the control of Goguryeo, upon interviewing the Goguryeo missionaries, it's located in the city, the water flows westward to Lelang Korea County, namely Lelang County, which was set up by Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, thus flows northwest.
3. Initially, there were three Commanderies of Han said to have been installed in Northern Korean peninsula.
- this is a fact. Xuantu county is in Manchuria not on Korean peninsula.
In the case of Lintun and Zhenfan County, they were too short-lived to have left meaningful record and archaeological evidence having been abolished only 28 years after they were installed as these two counties were relocated to the Liaodong. - this is a historical fact. (107 - 82 = 25 years), in fact 3 years lesser than 28 years i mentioned. If your question is on the exact years, i can amend it to 25 years.

Lintun Commandery (臨屯郡, 임둔군, BC 107 ~ BC 82) Zhenfan Commandery (眞番郡, 진번군, BC 107 ~ BC 82) 

Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county.  - Again this is a historical fact. Chinese Philosopher Li daoyuan, Korean Silhak scholar  Bak Jiwon (born 1737) in ancient times all had differences on the location of Lelang country.
4. Majority Korean scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi which referred to the Chinese records on the Han commandries.
Again this is not my claim but narration of historical fact. Samguk Sagi on location of Lelang is based on Chinese historical text. The only difference is that in Samguksagi, Nakrang was a kingdom rather than a county. and it was said to be located in the Pyongyang.
5. But there were also scholars who disagree with the reinterpretation of Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), a Silhak scholar who had conducted field research in Manchuria during his visit to Qing dynasty in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary
this is direct quote from Jehol Diary of Bak Jiwon, 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤. Translated to English is, The Go family(Goguryeo)'s land is in Liaodong, although seized by Tang and was not returned to Go family ever since, Pyongyang was originally in Liaodong, always known for being together with Pei river in it, Lelang country was governed by Liaodong, not Pyongyang today. Even the official history text of Joseon dynasty, Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, 禮曹判書申商啓曰: “三國始祖立廟, 須於其所都。 新羅則慶州, 百濟則全州, 高句麗則未知其所都也, English translation ; The ancestral shrine of the Three Kingdoms must build a in their respective capitals. For Silla is Gyeongju, For Baekje is Jeonju, But for Goguryeo, the exact location of the capital is unclear GoldenTaurus (talk)
In conclusion, removed content is not my claim, but a narration of historical facts. it is a fact that the debate on the location of Lelang county has been on-going old issue as early as 500 AD with history written records, not a modern issue surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea. I am not making a conclusion on the location of Lelang, it could be in Liaodong as well as in Pyongyang. I'm open to any academic claims. I am just providing the history background of the issue so that people can understand that the dispute is not a new issue. GoldenTaurus (talk)
This is not an argument over historical facts and revisionism. It's the fact that none of this is referenced. You are using primary sources and non-English sources to extrapolate content that is not found in the source. It is one thing to say that a source says something and then to extrapolate claims from it. Do you understand that? The problem is not that academic claims contradict anything, it's that the original content you have added is not based on anything except what you wrote and the primary sources you used. WP:NOR explicitly says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Qiushufang (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: Proponents of this revisionist theory claim that the Han Commanderies actually existed outside of the Korean peninsula, and place them somewhere in Liaodong Commandery, China, instead.[13][14][15]
You are avoiding my question, Same standard applied, paragraphs like above should be removed from the content as well because the source cited is based on non-English & non-academic primary source contains no info on the claim. should it be removed? GoldenTaurus (talk)
If there are no English, academic, or secondary sources then why are you putting it on English wikipedia? Of course it should be removed. It would be fine in conjunction with other sources. That's why it says based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Not primarily primary sources. Qiushufang (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: what are you talking about? Do you even understand what my question was? I didn't put this, i am asking you if all other contents doesnt fit your standard should be removed as well. Below paragraph for example. There are a lot such citations in many pages, if your standard applies, should all be removed from wiki?

In the North Korean academic community and some parts of the South Korean academic community, the Han dynasty's annexation of the Korean peninsula have been denied. Proponents of this revisionist theory claim that the Han Commanderies actually existed outside of the Korean peninsula, and place them somewhere in Liaodong Commandery, China, instead.[13][14][15]GoldenTaurus (talk)

You call me avoiding a question, but you still have not addressed the fundamental problem about the content you are proposing to be added. Is it a primary source or a secondary source? Is it in English or academic or a published source? If none of these can be satisfied then it should probably wait until one or the other can be added to provide context. Why do you keep avoiding this subject? Now you are copy pasting other content from the article to analyze. It is not in English so I can't understand it. If it were up to me, yes it would be removed given that there is no translation and this is the English wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: Thanks for making yourself clear.
However, According to WP:NOR Citing : Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page
As quoted above, using non English Reliable source is allowed. Therefore your interpretation of Wiki standard is not exactly in line with WP:NOR
as of primary sources,
primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d]
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
My content involved only historical facts. not my claim. I didn't make any personal claim or conclusion on the issue.
1. Chinese philosopher Li Daoyuan refuting earlier original water classic on Location of Lelang is fact. Not my personal claim nor interpretation.
2. Korean Silhak scholar refuting the location of Lelang in Pyongyang in his Jehol Diary which was written during his visit to Qing Dynasty is a fact, not my personal claim or reinterpretation of his work.
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and you are more than welcome to verify the primary sources.
and please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and do not POV-pushing. POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.GoldenTaurus (talk)
So where in the source does it say "The controversies over the exact location of the Han commandries has been debated throughout history." or "The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records." or "Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county."? These are interpretations. And again, you avoided the part where secondary sources and English sources are preferred. Your sources contain ZERO of these attributes. I don't know if they are or are not personal claims, because they are not able to be verified. Do you not understand that? WP:NOV states All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Do you not understand that by saying "Korean Silhak scholar refuting the location of Lelang in Pyongyang in his Jehol Diary which was written during his visit to Qing Dynasty is a fact" is actually an interpretation? If it is not, then where in the source does it say "Korean Silhak scholar refutes the location of Legang in Pyongyang"? Qiushufang (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2021[edit]

""""@Qiushufang: The controversies over the exact location of the Han commanderies has been debated throughout history is seen from the original water classic composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD) which says Pei river flows eastward into the sea and was challenged and revised by the reinterpretation of the Pei river in Lelang by Chinese historian Li Daoyuan 300 hundred years later in his commentary on water classic claiming that the Pei river in Lelang flows westward into the sea. And his claim is based on his conversation with Goguryeo missionaries. "The location of Lelang contradicts the Chinese records." This has also been addressed in the commentary on water classic by Li Daoyuan, which says, 若浿水东流，无渡浿之理，其地今高句丽之国治，余访番使，言城在浿水之阳。其水西流迳故乐浪朝鲜县，即乐浪郡治，汉武帝置，而西北流。 故《地理志》曰：浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴，以朝鲜为远，循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古，于事差谬，盖《经》误证也。Please do not ignore the sources i already provided over and over which i believe you saw and understand. and if you need more examples of Chinese texts contradicting itself on the location of Lelang, i can include more such examples if necessary. for instance, According to the Chinese geography text 太康地理志 wrote 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起. All these places 遂城. 碣石山, 長城所起 still exist today and indicating the Lelang is in Liaoxi. But since i am not making a new claim on the location of Lelang county, I left them out and my focus is on providing a fair and balance view on the issue to show that the debate did not surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea in the name of nationalism. North Korea does not own time machine to travel to ancient times to have left those historical records. "Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county." In fact the very beginning of the page has also pointed this out, Three of the commanderies fell or retreated westward within a few decades, but the Lelang commandery remained as a center of cultural and economic exchange with successive Chinese dynasties for four centuries. Li Daoyuan, Bak Jiwon, Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, they all debate over the location of Lelang county, not other counties. therefore this is a general knowledge statement, not a new claim You said my sources are not verified, I beg to differ. my source is original ancient text written in Classical Chinese and they are all verifiable by any Chinese speaking persons. I'm not using those sources to make any form of conclusion on the location of Lelang county, but just to provide a factual historical overview of the issue, mainly how the debate started As of primary sources, according to WP:NOR primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Below is base on historical facts. not my personal claim. 1. Chinese philosopher Li Daoyuan refuting earlier original water classic on Location of Lelang. verified in source below. 浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴，以朝鲜为远，循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古，于事差谬，盖《经》误证也。 2. Korean Silhak scholar Bak Jiwon refuting the location of Lelang in Pyongyang in his Jehol Diary a fact. not my personal claim. 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance overview of historical facts. GoldenTaurus (talk)

You accuse me of POV-pushing, yet you failed to provide even one published source which confirms your "statement of facts." If these facts are so uncontroversial and so factual, why can you not provide a simple secondary source and not even an academic one? You are simply interpreting what is being written in a primary source, which no other user has confirmed and is simply based on your interpretation. Qiushufang (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of POV-pushing, yet two other separate users have reverted the same content. Are they all POV-pushing? I am simply asking you to provide a source that does not come from a primary source. If it is really so uncontroversial ten it should not be hard at all. Qiushufang (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

""""@Qiushufang:According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance overview of historical facts. i dont know how the two reverts have anything to do with our discussion, since you raised the issue, just for your record One user asked me politely to have it discuss in talk page before posting which is what i did, another use with Korean sounding ID HanKim, going around editing Korean histories pushing Sinocentric historical views who did not respond to my discussion, i assume he had no interst in discussion and just trying to silence contents dont fit his narrative. Again i dont know why you bring this up and i dont think it cant be your justification removing my content which is inline of WP:NORGoldenTaurus (talk)

Who told you to discuss in the talk page? The only user who recommended taking it to talk was @331dot: reverting @MarcofuUSA:. There is nothing in your talk page either. So either you are MarcofuUSA or you're lying. You never posted anything in talk until I called you out on your sources. Qiushufang (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: Typical "If you cant kill message, kill the messenger" tactic. Now you realize your removimg my content is not justified. So trying to silence my content using other ways. As clearly stated above, i was reverted twice by two others one in polite manner asked me to discuss in talk page which i did, another one just reverted and disappeared ever since. He wouldnt reply to my discussion request above. On reason why i signed up for another account, I forgot the password to MarcofuUSA ID and therefore created another one. I didnt use two IDs simultaneously pretending to be different persons. Now, back to discussion, if you are unable to point out any wrong translation or misinterpretation in my contribution, i would have to add my content back. Before that if you have any disagreement, point it out. And i can agree to remove this part from my content as it is not related to the topic "Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang county"GoldenTaurus (talk)
@Qiushufang: The below paragraph is historical facts but not related to the topic of revisionism, therefore shall be removed. The rest remains the same. Initially, there were three Commanderies of Han said to have been installed in Northern Korean peninsula. In the case of Lintun and Zhenfan County, they were too short-lived to have left meaningful record and archaeological evidence having been abolished only 28 years after they were installed as these two counties were relocated to the Liaodong. Therefore the controversy over exact location of commandries mainly lies in the Lelang countyGoldenTaurus (talk)
Can you please quote me the source that says anything you claim above is or is not "historical fact."? You have not provided any evidence that it's historical fact. That is your interpretation again, after I told you wikipedia does not use original research. What are you basing all of this on? Where does it say that it's historical fact? Qiushufang (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang: Know the differece between narration of facts based on source and making a new claim.

1. Li daoyuan revised the location of Lelang by changing watercourse of the Pei river from original water classic composed by another Chinese geographer Sangqin. This is historical fact. Source provided and verified.

2. Majority Korea scholars from Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the Lelang somewhere in Today's Pyongyang. This is a fact, unless you think otherwise, i can remove this part. Up to you.

3. There were also shcolars like Bak Jiwon who claimed the Lelang county was in Liaodong. Source provided and verified.

4. North Korean history professor Ri Jirin who got PH.D in Peking university in his work also claim the Lelang county in Liaodong instead if Pyongyong. Source provided and verified.

5. South Korean history professor Yoon hae hyun also in his understanding of old choson, claim the lelang county not in pyongyang. Source provided and verified.

All above paragraphs are facts. Again as i have emohasized many times, my content is not a claim or ultimate final conclusion on the location of Lelang county, but a historical overview explaining the debate over location of Lelang is not a new issue initiated by North Korea in recent years, but has been on-going issue as early as 500AD by Chinese historians. Please do not misinterprate my content as a new claim or any form of conclusion, it is just historical facts with verifiable sources.

According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance view based on facts. GoldenTaurus (talk)

This is historical fact. Source provided and verified. - Can you please provide me a quote in the source that says it's a historical fact and all the above are facts? You say you are only stating facts, then where does it say they are facts? What is the source that these are historical fats? Qiushufang (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang:Source provided above. Please check. First, you reasoned your revert claiming non-English source is not allowed in Eglish page and got debunked. Then you cherrypicked the paragraphs in WP:NOR claiming only secondary source is allowed and also got debunked. Now you are engaging in unreasonably never ending trolling against my well-sourced content, thus i have reason to doubt you are interested in engaging healthy discussion but merely pushing your WP:NPOV dispute. There was 0 counter argument from you on my content.

According to the WP:NOR A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is what i did. and again please refer to WP:NPOV dispute and you are POV-pushing on the wiki standard and silencing a balance view based on facts. GoldenTaurus (talk)

Again, which part of the sources you provided state that these are historical fact? Readers have nothing to go on but what you claim. You have not provided a descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Please tell me how I can verify it if I cannot read Classical Chinese? How is someone who cannot read classical Chinese verify it? Qiushufang (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang:Read Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk pageGoldenTaurus (talk)

Revisionism by North Korea?[edit]

Modified version. Some unrelated descriptions removed. The original description on the revisionism section lacked balanced perspective from North Korea, making it look as if there was no dispute on the location of Han commandaries in history and North Korea's claim is driven merely by nationalism which only surfaced in recent years. The object is to give a balanced historical overview and background, mainly how it started, the added content is neither conclusive on the location of Lelang county nor to discredit any other claims. 

The debate over the exact location of the Han commandries is not a new issue that surfaced in recent years initiated by North Korea, but has been on-going historical debate started as early as 500AD. According to earliest Chinese geography text Water Classic, composed by Chinese historian Sang Qin (桑欽) (300 AD), the Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the Southeast, and enters the sea in the east. The Taedong River in Pyongyang North Korea, which believed to be the Pei river flows westward and enters the sea in the west. The watercourse of Pei river in Lelang is opposite to the direction of Taedong river in Pyongyang today. Three hundred years later, a Chinese geographer and politician Li Daoyuan （466 AD～527 AD）, challenged and revised the watercourse of the Pei river recorded in the original Water classic in his work Commentary on the Water Classic. Li claimed that the Pei river flows westward into the sea which was in line with the narrative that the Lelang county was in Pyongyang. His evidence was based on his conversation with Goguryeo missionaries he spoke to in China.[10]  Most Korean scholars from the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties considered the location of Lelang county somewhere around today's Pyongyang area based on the Korean history record Samguk sagi. There were also scholars who believe that the Lelang county was in Liaodong, such as Bak Jiwon (born 1737), a Silhak scholar who had conducted field research in Manchuria during his visit to Qing dynasty in 1780. Bak claimed that the location of commandries were actually in Liaodong area in his The Jehol Diary.[11] Ri Ji Rin (Lee Ji Rin)，A prestigious North Korea historian who obtained his Ph.D in history from China's top university in 1961, Peking University, in his published Research on Ancient Korea suggests that based on the initial records of Chinese texts and archaeological findings in Liaodong area, the Han Commanderies were located in Liaodong Peninsula.[12] Another reknown historian from South Korea, Yoon Nae-Hyun also published a similar research in 1987, suggesting the Han commanderies were not in Korean peninsula. [13] However, this theory is not recognized by the mainstream academiaGoldenTaurus (talk)

References

  1. ^ 水经注 [Commentary on the Water Classic (水经注)]. Chinese Text Project.
  2. ^ "CHINA'S IMPACT ON KOREAN PENINSULA UNIFICATION AND QUESTIONS FOR THE SENATE". U S Government Information.
  3. ^ "CHINA'S IMPACT ON KOREAN PENINSULA UNIFICATION AND QUESTIONS FOR THE SENATE". U S Government Information.
  4. ^ 《前漢書》卷二十八〈地理志〉第八：“樂浪郡，武帝元封三年開。莽曰樂鮮。屬幽州。戶六萬二千八百一十二，口四十萬六千七百四十八。有雲鄣。縣二十五：朝鮮；□邯；浿水，水西至增地入海，莽曰樂鮮亭；含資，帶水西至帶方入海；黏蟬；遂成；增地，莽曰增土；帶方；駟望；海冥，莽曰海桓；列口；長岑；屯有；昭明，高部都尉治；鏤方；提奚；渾彌；吞列，分黎山，列水所出，西至黏蟬入海，行八百二十里；東暆；不而，東部都尉治；蠶台；華麗；邪頭昧；前莫；夫租。”Wikisource: the Book of Han, volume 28-2
  5. ^ 玄菟郡，武帝元封四年開。高句驪，莽曰下句驪。屬幽州。戶四萬五千六。口二十二萬一千八百四十五。縣三：高句驪，遼山，遼水所出，西南至遼隊入大遼水。又有南蘇水，西北經塞外。上殷台，莽曰下殷。西蓋馬。馬訾水西北入鹽難水，西南至西安平入海，過郡二，行二千一百里。莽曰玄菟亭。Wikisource: the Book of Han, volume 28-2
  6. ^ 熱河日記 卷一 渡江錄 [The Jehol Diary Chapter 1. Dogangnok - 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤]. Wiki E-text.
  7. ^ 水经注 [Commentary on the Water Classic (水经注)]. Chinese Text Project.
  8. ^ 水经注 [Commentary on the Water Classic (水经注)]. Chinese Text Project.
  9. ^ 熱河日記 卷一 渡江錄 [The Jehol Diary Chapter 1. Dogangnok - 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤]. Wiki E-text.
  10. ^ 水经注 [Commentary on the Water Classic (水经注)]. Chinese Text Project.
  11. ^ 熱河日記 卷一 渡江錄 [The Jehol Diary Chapter 1. Dogangnok - 高氏境土之在遼東者。唐雖得之。不能有而復歸之高氏。則平壤本在遼東。或爲寄名與浿水。時有前郤耳。漢樂浪郡治在遼東者。非今平壤]. Wiki E-text.
  12. ^ "CHINA'S IMPACT ON KOREAN PENINSULA UNIFICATION AND QUESTIONS FOR THE SENATE". U S Government Information.
  13. ^ True Understanding of Old Choson." Korea Journal 27:12 (December 1987): 23-40
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Commanderies_of_Han&oldid=1194987710"