Talk:Korean nationalist historiography

A few comments and suggestions

Here are a few comments and suggestions on how to develop this page. I originally posted them on my talk page, but they should be even more useful here.
TITLE:

• I think this is the best possible title, as we find this appellation in all kinds of scholarly studies. I've added a redirect from Nationalist historiography in Korea. There should be no controversy here.

KOREAN NAME?

• I've found two possible Korean equivalents for the notion of Korean nationalist historiography (KNH). The first one is pretty obvious: minjok sahak (民族史學), which means "minjok [racial/national] historiography." I'm not sure it should be mentioned, because it's more of a label than a concept, but I'm putting it here for consultation. The other one is more recent: juche lon (主體論; "self-reliance theory"), which is based on the notion of juche proposed by the beloved Great Leader and Eternal President of the Republic Kim Il-sung. Jager 2003 (p. 59) claims that a "new nationalist historiography" (which she calls chuch'eron) emerged after the violent suppression of the Gwangju Democratization Movement in South Korea in 1980. This suggests that there are many intellectual motivations behind KNH, and that we should probably tease them out more clearly.

LEAD:

• What exactly are "the purposes of Korean nationalism"? This concept is probably too vague to serve in a definition.
• Needs clarification: who "lamented the weakness of Korea in world affairs"? Was it just Shin Chaeho or the other two as well?
• "Effete" is a citation from Jager's book (footnote 7). Maybe we could find a better way to express the same idea without a quotation mark (in the lead, I mean).
• Is "chosen people" (cited from Pai's book) representative enough of KNH to be cited in the lead? (Just asking.)
• The Korean minjok is the central concept of Korean nationalist historiography, so it should probably be mentioned in the lead.
• Verb tenses: most of the lead is written in the past tense, until we hear that these views "have increasingly come into the mainstream." We should probably clarify what parts of KNH were prominent in the early 20th century (under Japanese rule), in the immediate post-war years, and now. Jager's claim that a new KNH emerged after 1980 deserves consideration.

PEOPLE:

• I've seen many studies saying that Shin Chaeho was the founder of Korean nationalist historiography because he was the first to center Korean history around the concept of minjok (race-nation). Are the earlier (Joseon) people cited in this section just precursors of Shin, or already full-fledged representatives of KNH? Should we start with Shin first and then explain who were his inspirations?
• This section could also be renamed "Emergence" or "Origins," because it focuses on precursors and advocates of KNH. The intellectual context of Japanese colonial occupation could be described more fully.

NEUTRALITY: there are a few subtle issues that need to be resolved before this article can be considered neutral (NPOV).

• Almost two thirds of the references (26 out the 43, counting footnotes that appear several times in the text) are to Hyung-Il Pai's book on Korean archeology. That's probably too much, since her book is written in a very critical and debunking tone that is not fully representative of the way English-speaking scholars discuss Korean nationalist historiography. Her book is clearly a reliable source (and I must admit I like it a lot!), but we should be careful not to give it undue weight. For example, the "Ethnic homogeneity and pure blood" section sounds pretty scathing. That's probably because all of the info and judgments (except for one footnote) come from Pai's book. (This is speaking as a WP editor. As a practicing historian, I also resent distorting the past in the name of modern nationalist conceptions, be they Chinese, French, or Zulu.)
• A few turns of phrase might appear too emphatic, for example "completely mythological" when "mythological" would do the job. Be careful when you use "despite": you might sound like you're setting up a point. I'm also thinking of the sentence: "The well-documented existence of the Four Commanderies of Han by which China's Han Dynasty administered the Korean peninsula has caused consternation to Korean nationalist historians." "Well-documented" may not be necessary, and I'm not sure "consternation" is the right word. Also it's inaccurate to say that the Han dynasty administered "the Korean peninsula" with these Four Commanderies. Some of these commanderies were in Liaodong, and Lelang was in the northern part of the Korean peninsula.

STRUCTURE:

• I like the current structure, but I wish "Themes" and "Methods" could be distinguished more clearly. The crucial focus on Manchuria could be explained in more detail, once again in connection with the Korean minjok.

MISSING:

• The functions of KNH in postwar Korea. KNH is not only about distinguishing the Korean people from other peoples like the Chinese and the Japanese. It can be used politically inside Korea, for example to discuss re-unification, or the form of government that best suits the needs of the Korean people.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Korean name of the title - This is a very difficult task. First is the question of how to translate "Korea". In the context of nationalism, this term would translate to 한민족 (hanminjok), or the "Korean ethnicity/nation". Second is historiography. The dictionary meaning of this term literally translate to "means of recording history". If that is fine, then it should be 역사 기록학 (yeoksa girok hak). However, I must caution that this term is rather very seldomly used.

Neutrality - I think the current "PEOPLE" section would be a good point of starting this article, with much edits of course, and delete other sections in their entirety for the time being. Current sections on Themes are Methods are just a complete mess of original research, synthesis, misinterpretation of sources, distorted information and political rhetorics. They are not contents to improve upon but rather completely rewritten. An addition of a "Background" with a main article link to Korean ethnic nationalism to explain the historical context of how this particular form of historiography has emerged would also be a good idea. Pai's book on archaeology and Shin's book on ethnic Korean nationalism should be good primary reliable sources for this article. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read your sandbox[1]. It's very unfortunate that it was Shirgley's initiative to make this into a nationalistic debacle in what is potentially a useful article. I think your initial subsections are pretty well organized (Japanese colonial scholarship, First works, Post-war scholarship, Important issues). I also propose renaming Japanese colonial scholarship to Background. The current state of the article is major issues, and it is not a material upon which we can improve upon. It should be replaced. In this regard, I strongly suggest that we first make this into a stub article with a basic explanation, and start from there with addition of the sections Background, First works, Post-war scholarship and Important issues. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the Korean terms. Hyung-Il Pai says minjok sahak, others speak of juchelon. Anyway I'm not sure we really need a direct Korean equivalent for KNH, but we should definitely explain the notion of Han minjok (origins, relevance to nationalist historiography, etc.) and explain what juche means when we eventually discuss postwar nationalist historiography.

As for content, I agree there are issues with the current article, but it has existed for less than two days, so I say let's give it a chance to grow and change organically! As usual with all content disputes, the key is reliable sources, reliable sources, and more reliable sources. The more RS we include, the more balanced this article will become. But I take your point about WP:SYNTHESIS seriously. Let's just read more RS, and we'll see what we find!

Finally, thank you for liking my sandbox structure. I like it a lot too! :) I also think a more historical first section explaining the origins, basic concepts, and historical development of KNH would be helpful. I'll try to see what I can do... Madalibi (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to this little disruptive push, I integrated two new sources into the article, and made Shin Chaeho central to the narrative, as Madalibi suggested. By the way, with both Madalibi and Cydevil crying out for the creation of articles for Chinese and Japanese nationalist historiography, I'll have you both know that I was working on the former. My contributions history shows that I was mucking around relevant articles like "Liang Qichao" and "Tumu Crisis", as well as preparing a pretty big edit on the origins and implications of China's "national humiliation" narrative. So this idea that I'm not an equal opportunity article writer is just nonsense :). I think Madalibi's suggestion to keep on building the article with his precompiled sources is the best way forward. Shrigley (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I made another edit which took the suggestion of removing "Korean nationalism" as a goal, but articulated the goal of Korean independence and raising national consciousness (I could have also added, proving Korea's historical independence, but I think that's implied in the body when I say they wanted to refute Japanese kokugaku scholarship proving Korea's historical un-independence). The Allen source that I found is quite nice because it clearly defines the Korean nationalist school of historians, and uses the term Minjok Sahakka, so we should probably use Minjok Sahak.

I also removed the "Four Commanderies" sentence, further reduced the proportion of references that cite Pai, mention which views have come into mainstream and which have not (such as Manchurian irredentism in South Korea's 1970s), as well as adding more emphasis on Manchuria because of how much Shin Chaeho valued the territory. The next job is probably to elaborate more on the minjok instead of using the word uncritically, but I'm afraid if I use the Tae Don Noh source (which doesn't mention historiography too much) that Cydevil will accuse me of synthesis :(. Maybe you can help with that, Madalibi, since by your sandbox it looks like you've already read up on that topic.

Oh, and it's getting more and more "neutral", too, since I also compare Dangun to Yellow Emperor and Amaterasu (Koreans are not the only nationalists in East Asia!), note how the nationalist historiography was a reaction to Japanese oppression (Cydevil's "proper context"), and even mentioned Western ideas (yay, Korea is modern and Western!), such as Social Darwinism through Liang Qichao's translation. Shrigley (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was effective! I'm impressed by (and envious at) how fast you can write about topics of this complexity. And thanks for keeping your good humor. I'll try to see if I can help on the minjok theme, but I'm going to be busy these days, so I can't guarantee I will act fast. If I may comment on one thing: I still think the difference between "themes" and "methods" is unclear. Or to be more specific, "themes" are pretty clear, but "methods" may not be the right word. Something else I just noticed: the section on Balhae/Bohai is entirely about pre-20th century historians. If "Korean nationalist historiography" refers to a way of writing history that focuses on the minjok (which I think is the way reliable sources discuss this topic), then this section seems out of topic. It's not irrelevant, though. One solution would be to merge "Koreans transcending the peninsula," "Reinterpretation of Balhae as Korean," and "Claims on Liaodong and other Chinese territories" into one big section on KNH's rediscovery of "Manchuria" (or whatever RS call it, and taking care to explain the implications of this term). The Balhae sub-section would show that there were precedents to 20th-century claims on "Manchuria" based on the newly "rediscovered" Korean minjok. That whole consolidated section would have to come after "ethnic purity and homogeneity," which explains the origin of these new claims. So we'd have something like this:

==Themes==

===Ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness===

On the Korean minjok: integrates content from "Ethnic homogeneity and pure blood," "Revised Korean founding myth," "Superiority over China and Japan," and "Altaicism and connection with Inner Asia."

===Rediscovery of Manchuria=== (if we can borrow from Schmid's title)

With content from "Koreans transcending the peninsula," "Reinterpretation of Balhae as Korean" (presenting precursors of 20th-century nationalist historians), and "Claims on Liaodong and other Chinese territories" (still about late Joseon, but with good transition to Korean empire and Japanese scholarship), in that order

This structure would have many advantages: we no longer have free-floating sections, because all content would fit under two distinct but related themes (something like race and territory); we get rid of the possible confusion between "themes" and "methods"; the smoother transition between sections makes the article easier to read; and we get rid of some possible "OR" issues (if there were any) by simple reshuffling. Curious to see what you think! In the meantime, keep up the good work! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work, therefore I'll make this comment very brief. First, I think that is a good reorganization of the subsection of Themes. Nonetheless, I don't think this to be a perfect solution. For instance, Pai's work, upon which much of this article is based, focuses on five or six(?) specified themes. I don't have access to this material at this time there fore I will not go further on the details. Ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness can be a general theme agreed upon by multiple reliable sources. Rediscovery of Manchuria sounds good, although I have some reservations. Was Manchuria really an important theme of the nationalist historiography in the early 20th century? I imagine so in the context of which many Korean nationalists were exiled to this area during Japanese occupation. If my memory serves well, the significant part of this subsection will be devoted to contemporary archaeological excavations and discoveries in the area, and historical interpretations(historiography) of these archaeological discoveries. More consultation of reliable sources is necessary, and this issue should be approached carefully. In case of Methods, it should really focus on the 'Methods' of historiography, not "Korean nationalist claims on Chinese territories". Proper contents of Methods should be, well, methods upon which history was written, such as interpretations of historical texts and archaeological discoveries. Therefore, subsections of methods can be named, "Historical Texts" and "Archaeology". Cydevil38 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cydevil. Thanks for these ideas. I was actually not proposing to reorganize the "Themes" section, but to merge all seven sections of "Themes" and "Methods" into one large section called "Themes" (or "Important themes") that would be divided into two big subsections: one on various aspects of the Korean minjok (homogeneity, purity, distinctiveness, descent, etc.) and one on the territorial implications of this racial-ethnic definition of the minjok. Once we do this we could also follow your suggestion of adding a "Methods" section with subsections on "Historical texts" and "Archeology" if we find RS that actually discuss the methods of KNH.

According to the reliable sources I've read, Manchuria was crucial to the writings of Korean historians during the Japanese occupation. These historians were not making direct territorial claims, though: they just said that the Korean minjok had lived in (and maybe even originated from) "Manchuria," and that Manchuria should therefore be considered part of Korean history. This claim was inspired by the Japanese notion of "Mansenshi" 滿鮮史 ("Manchurian-Korean history"), with the difference that Korean writers emphasized the independence of the Korean minjok instead of its subordination. This whole notion has shaped the way Korean scholars interpret archeological finds (as Pai shows), but archeology is not necessarily the most central part of this topic as a whole.

The themes Pai focuses on are also discussed in other reliable sources. If we read broadly enough, we will end up with several interpretations that we can present next to Pai's. But the sources I've seen usually criticize the premises of nationalist historiography (in any country, including China and Japan, but this page is about Korea), so we should certainly include criticism in this wiki. Still, I think we should first present claims and then discuss criticisms (I mean in every subsection, not at the very end) instead of setting up refutations in almost every sentence, as is the case in the "Ethnic homogeneity and pure blood" section, for example.

Anyway, thanks to everybody's help and Shrigley's editing, this article is improving very fast! There's a lot of work left to do, but if everyone keeps participating in this way, I see this article developing into a spectacular featured article on another fascinating aspect of Korean history! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide important themes in several reliable sources with regards to Korean national historiography, book by book.

Constructing "Korean" Origins pg. 7 - 1) the common origins of the Japanese and Korean races, 2) Korea as part of Manchuria, 3) the historicity of Kija and Wiman Choson, 4) the existence of the Han dynasty commandery of Lelang in Pyongyang, 5) the Wa colonial occupation of Mimana in Southeast Korea.

Ethnic Nationalism in Korea - 1)Pan-Asianism vs. Nationalism, 2)Colonial-Racism vs Nationalism, 3)International Socialism vs Nationalism, 4) North Korea and "Socialism of Our Style", 5) Ilmin Chuui and "Modernization of the Fatherland". In this book, the "Manchuria-Korea" problem is provided as a situation where Korean migrants to the area were being ethnically discriminated by the Chinese immigrants, and international socialism and nationalism were competing to earn the support of these Korean migrants. There is little about historiography. Manchuria, however, is mentioned in Colonial-Racism vs. Nationalism, where some Korean nationalist historiographers conceive Korea as a the center of the East Asian cultural sphere, which includes both Manchuria and Japan. Other than this, little mention of Manchuria is made.

I have other books that could provide a relatively objective historiography based on archaeology such as The Rise of Civilization in East Asia by Gina L. Barnes. The issue of state-formation is a major theme in this book, and covers archaeology of Manchuria quite extensively in connection to Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The themes Cydevil38 mentions are relevant, especially those from Ethnic Nationalism in Korea. "Pan-Asianism" and "colonial racism" are part of the context minjok-centered historiography emerged from, so they deserve discussion. So do the tensions between international socialism and nationalism in post-war North Korea. These would make good additions to the "History" section.

Manchuria is mentioned in lots of places. You could start with Andre Schmid's articles "Rediscovering Manchuria: Sin Ch'ae-ho and the Politics of Territorial History in Korea" (Journal of Asian Studies 56.1 [1997]: 26-47) and "Looking North Toward Manchuria" (South Atlantic Quarterly 99.1 [2000]: 219-40). Both should be available to you if you have access to a good university database.

Another important theme we haven't discussed so far is "migrations and invasions." Madalibi (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I just reshuffled "Themes" and "Methods" into a broad section called "Themes" divided into "The Korean minjok" and "New territorial conceptions." Apart from adding the new subtitles, I didn't change a single word. The point is just to show what the new structure would look like. By all means, feel free to revert to the previous version if you think we need more discussion! Madalibi (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "The Korean minjok" would be a little hard to understand for the average reader. I think using "Korean Ethnic Homogeneity and Distinctiveness" is a better alternative. As for "New territorial conceptions", how about "Reconceptions of historical territories?" Cydevil38 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the contents, I think they are best presented in this order: 1. Ideological/Historical Context, 2. Historiography itself, 3. Evaluation from a relatively objective point of view. I put emphasis on evaluation, because evaluation of Korean nationalist historiography is not necessarily critical, but can be supportive. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Minjok is a concept that many authors leave translated and which we need to need to discuss the history of, as well as of its context and implications. Same with Chinese minzu and Japanese minzoku, which many authors also leave untranslated and explain. The proposed section title is unacceptable, because "reconception" implies a return to an earlier conception, which is ahistorical, and "historical territories" implies that these territories (that in some cases go as far as Zhejiang, historians like Shin have claimed) are historically Korean, an idea which we cannot treat uncritically—and which, most importantly, our reliable sources treat critically. Shrigley (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims of Baekje presence in western Manchuria and eastern Chinese coasts were based on preexisting historical records, such as the Book of Song. Therefore, it is a reconception, not a conception. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Song is not a Korean source. To show that it is a reconception, you have to first show that Korean historians once included these territories into their conception of the Korean state. Further, the Book of Song does not make statements about Baekje's territorial extent on eastern Chinese coasts. The claims you are talking about are reinterpretations of Book of Song records regarding the granting of territorial titles that the Liu Song dynasty never had ownership of in the first place. Without delving further on this side subject, it is enough to say that the lack of support for these claims in international historiography today makes this a case of revisionist nationalism rather than a reconception. To elevate Korean nationalist historiography, which is based on flimsy evidence, flawed philology, and is not supported by mainstream scholars and experts on the subjects in question, to the level of reconception is simply NPOV. Lathdrinor (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

[Written before I saw Cydevil's new posts in the "Tags" sections. Gotta go, but will reply later!] As long as we explain minjok as soon as it comes up, the reader shouldn't have trouble understanding. (Unless they read only the table of content, but in this case they don't deserve to understand!) Back in the days, I found lots of different translations for minjok in reliable sources. To avoid a translation problem, saying just minjok seems like the simple solution. However, I agree that "ethnic homogeneity" and "ethnic distinctiveness" (more neutral than "superiority," though superiority is also a theme) are two important themes that should have their own subsection.

As for the territory section, I'm not sure the current title ("New territorial conceptions," which I chose) is best. As sections on Joseon make it clear, some of these conceptions were not new. I do agree that "historical territories" might imply that these territories were historically Korean, but I don't think "reconception" implies a return to an earlier conception. To me it just means "conceptualizing anew," which seems to be what happened. Hmmm... "Geopolitics of the nation" might sound too academic for WP. "Re-imagining" might also have undesirable connotations. How about "the territory of the nation"? Madalibi (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A very poor start

I was tempted to nominate this article for an AfD, but I believe the subject matter, while presented in a very biased manner, is legitimate and if improved greatly, should be an article useful to the people's understanding of nationalism and historiography not only in Korea, but also that of other East Asian countries. This article would've been best started by the efforts of User:Madalibi, but unfortunately the article had a bad start riddled with anti-Korea and Chinese nationalist rhetorics.

For one, much of the article were original research and synthecation not supported by cited sources. It also heavily relies on one particular source. In other words, this article is mostly a reinterpretation of Pai's book from a Chinese nationalist point of view. Second, much of this article covers historians and historiography that is not relevant to Korean nationalist historiography. Korean nationalist historiography began in the early 20th century with the influence of ideals of nationalism of the West. Third, one of the sections, "Methods", is basically a synthesis of materials to present Chinese nationalist rhetorics without relevance to Korean nationalist historiography. For this reason, I have deleted the section. I think my current edit, although still very poor and biased, is a good place to start. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is a start, not a perfect piece. The balance among sources will naturally even out when I (or you, or Madalibi, or anyone else) gets the time to read and add new source materials. There's plenty of room to add more information without butchering well-sourced information. The thing about Pai, is that it often happens that the only academics who critically study some phenomenon will adopt a skeptical or credulous tone. For example, a lot of people complain that the article Men's rights movement is negative, but that's because most of the current academic studies of the MRM come from feminist scholars. I absolutely did consult Korean nationalist sources, for example Shin Yong-ha, but he's a less credible source than Pai because rather than talking, for example, about Shin portraying yangban as traitors; his rhetoric actually treated their work as treacherous and traitorous. By all means, contribute your sourced information about the influence of Western nationalism, but don't blank materials based on unelaborated allegations of original research that are patently untrue. Shrigley (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The particular section I have deleted in its entirety, which is Methods, is full of original research, synthesis and misinterpretatin of the cited sources. For instance, Traditional histories of Korea up until the mid-Joseon Dynasty attributed Korean origins to Chinese refugees and considered Korean history that of a long series of kingdoms connected with China. - The cited source clearly indicates this to the particular state of historiography in mid-Joseon Dynasty, not before or after. The entire subsection of Balhae(incorrectly named as Bohai per Wikipedia policy) is completely irrelevant to Korean nationalist historiography. While the subsection on Manchuria has some relevance to Korean nationalist historiography, it is introduced in a very improper context and with multiple issues I have mentioned above. In any case, I will not debase myself as to go into a pointless edit war, but do not remove the NPOV, SYN and OR tags because this article is in dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific criticism. I have reworded the section not to suggest that the mid-Joseon views were representative of the pre-Joseon views, because we don't know what they are (so it wasn't wrong, just too speculative). Since this was the only specific, actionable synthesis concern you have, I feel justified in removing the tag since I have addressed it. If you think there is improper context, then propose some proper context (and that doesn't mean unsourced apologia like last time). By the way, "Balhae" is not the most common name in the literature; it's "Parhae". Bohai may actually beat Balhae, but I've replaced Bohai with Balhae as a gesture of good faith. Cheers. Shrigley (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not my only SYNTH or other concerns I have with this article. I attempted to make this article workable by getting rid of much of the material that I found to be hard to work on due to being replete with these issues. You responded by just reverting it. I believe it would be much more productive if this article is rewritten with a different structure and with more reliable sources. As you refuse to work in this way, my only alternative is to inform the reader of the issues involved and try to work out a consensus. Methods is just a bunch of synthesis/OR material put in an entirely wrong context. These contentious issues belongs in a potential subsection Important Issues, only after the other subsections have been worked out so that we can have a context on which to address those issues. Again I'd like to emphasize that this article practically needs rewriting, not adding additional material. A better way to do this is to trim down the article to some basic elements that we can all agree on, and carefully add additional materials through consensus-building discussing on the talk page. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"[does] not [need] adding additional material... trim down... [to] elements that we can all agree on" sounds to me like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just like pure blood theory and your stated wish to AfD this one too. There's no requirement that you personally agree with the contents for text to exist, just that it's verifiable. Also, let me remind you that "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article." Your proposed bowdlerization turned an article with replete inline citations into one that contained a lot of emotive apologia for the nationalist historiography, which was unsourced or consulted sources without specific page references, sources which didn't seem to address nationalist historiography in particular, unlike the preexisting ones. That's a backward step in OR and SYNTH, two labels that mean something different than "I don't like it". Shrigley (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Much like the Pure blood theory in Korea, the entire structure is a biased synthesis of published materials. The sections in question are replete with it to the point that I don't think picking and improving one by one would be productive at all. What this article needs is restructuring and rewriting. The current article is not workable and counterproductive to constructive editing. Also, I'm following Madalibi's suggestion to allow this article a few days to see if it can organically improve at all. Until the issues are resolved, do not remove the tags. In addition, Manchuria is the historical name of the area in question. Do not use the word "northeast China" under historical contexts. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit-warring to keep cleanup tags as "badges of shame" on this article against their express purpose to help fix specific problems makes a mockery out of your statement that "I will not debase myself as to go into a pointless edit war". There are no issues of original research to be resolved, because in general, the sources are extremely solid, address the title's topic, and support the text; where you don't think they do, I am happy to engage you in productive discussion to harmonize them. Otherwise, they're completely illegitimate and any editor can remove them at any time.

As for the "Manchuria" issue, I know that you were involved in the extremely contentious "History of Manchuria" discussions a few years ago, and Madalibi claims to have academic training on the Qing Dynasty, so I think there's very little I could educate you two about. Nonetheless, the short gloss of the issue is that the name "Manchu/ria" was invented no earlier than the 17th century, was used by Japanese and other empires to justify cleaving off an overwhelmingly Han-populated region (with a long Chinese history, esp. Liaodong) from China, and the name completely fell from use after World War II. Your invocation of the Wikipedia:Naming convention is irrelevant, as we're not naming a title. Bohai existed before the 10th century, so "Manchuria" is extremely anachronistic. It's less confusing for everyone to say where the region is in relation to modern toponyms, and that's "modern northeast China". Shrigley (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is riddled with NPOV, SYNTH and OR issues. I attempted to edit the article so that it can be worked on constructively without such issues, but you simply blanked/reverted to your own version. Therefore, these issues stand. The titles of the subsections themselves are riddled with such issues, as do its content. As Maladlibi suggested, I will give this article a few days if it can be improved at its present state. Otherwise, there need to be major edits to restructure and rewrite the article extensively. In the meantime, do not remove the tags. This article is strongly contested at its present state. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Such accusations mean nothing when you don't explicate them. It wasn't me who "blanked" content by reverting your butchering of the article, but rather, you blanked whole sections and created a whole section, half of which was sourced to content that didn't address historiography and half of which was entirely unsourced (as it is plain to see[2]). Neutrality means covering the topic as it is represented in the majority reliable sources: which, for most of them, means critically. It does not mean half-negative, half-positive, as would be obvious if we were writing an article on, for example, Nazism. The best way to improve this article is to integrate more sources to bring this article further towards representing the majority of mainstream reliable sources. It's not to think, "Hmm, well this presentation disagrees with my nationalistic schooling, so it must not be neutral". If you quote reliable sources to the table that contradict elements of the article, or present it in a different way, we can discuss and find ways to integrate them. Otherwise, you cannot keep the tags. See #Tags below. Shrigley (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's stay cool about this!

Hi everybody! Before this cascades into another frustrating experience for everybody, I would like to ask all parties involved to stay cool-headed. I think the current article is an excellent start, but I agree it's not as neutral as it should be. Sure it's not perfect, but that simply means we should work together to improve it. Cydevil38: you say that "Korean nationalist historiography began in the early 20th century with the influence of ideals of nationalism of the West." Good point! Instead of blanking, I say let's include this kind of info into the article. (Some good sources to this effect are already cited in Shin Chaeho, Doksa Sillon, and Korean ethnic nationalism.)

The "Further reading" section also lists a number of reliable sources that anybody can use to improve the article. Many of them are available on Google Books. Still on Google Books, you can also search for "Korean nationalist historiography" (97 results) or Korea "nationalist historiography" (673 results) and use the books that show up to edit this page. Let me address more specific points in the sections above. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Madalibi, I simply don't find the current article to be a sufficient basis on which we can improve upon. It has to be rewritten. I'd like to suggest that we start from your sandbox rather than dealing with the current article at hand, which without doubt Shrigley will engage in edit warring to any major changes. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I understand your frustration, but I still think we need to work on integrating more RS instead of deleting current content, which is also based on RS. All we need is a little time. Even if I agreed that we should start over, my voice wouldn't represent any kind of consensus. AfD would definitely fail, and looking for admin help would just lead to more frustrating discussions and wasting of a lot of time that would be better spent improving this article. Since major changes will indeed lead to edit warring, could we first focus on adding more good content? Or how about this: could you make a list of themes that you think are missing from this article? That would be a good starting point for development. Cheers again! Madalibi (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Madalibi, the primary issue here is that much content distorts the reliable sources, replete with original research, synthesis and misinterpretation of the reliable sources. It is not what is missing, those that are already there, thus the need for a rewrite. For instance, you ask of me for more themes to add. The only theme I can think of is the theme of ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness. Both these aspects of Korean ethnic nationalism lead to the portrayal of the Yemaek tribes as the primary ethnogenesis of the Korean people, which leads to a long historical legacy of resistance against foreign invasions. This so-called "superiority" issue was of whether Korea from Japan or Japan was from Korea in the context of Japanese colonial racism. As for the Altaicism section, this is primarily archaeology and language issues that have become mainstream in Korea and also widely accepted among international scholars. It is for example international research on Upper Xiajiadian, which the article criticizes Korean nationalist historiograpy of ignoring, is one of the archaeological basis on which the connection between Korean cultures and that of Scythia is made, and also supports the "Altaicism".

Problems become more pronounced in Methods. The three subsections themselves do not reflect the objective methods which the Korean nationalist historiographers took to make their new history of Korea, but rather a bunch of historical accusations reflecting the current political conflicts on history between Korea and China. In the section on Korean founding myth, it presents Gija Joseon as the traditional origin of Korea. However, such "founding" myths or stories were in flux throughout Korean history, and the founding myth of Gija Joseon itself reflects Confucian ideological inclinations of mid-Joseon Dynasty. The material also denigrates the Gojoseon as conmpared to Gija Joseon, despite the fact that founders of these kingdoms, Dangun and Jizi, are both mythological figures. Historiography of the Dangun founding mythology predates the so called "revised Korean founding myth" in the early 19th century by almost a millennium. In the subsection of Balhae, the entirety of the subsection with the exception of the last sentence is irrelevant to Korean nationalist historiography. As for Liaodong and other Chinese territories, this is just further nonsense that drives the frame of this article to that of a political/historical controversies than that of an article on historiography.

Malidibi, these are just a few examples of the current problems. I simply believe that it will be much more productive if we simply start from scratch. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the slanderous allegations of source misrepresentation without giving specific examples. You had one minor concern in the above section, which I already addressed. And you seem to be misreading the article: the text never presented the Gija Joseon narrative as the Authentic Truth, but as the narrative preceding the Dangun one; in fact I noted that it was the historiographical tendency of the time to emphasize Gija while downplaying Goguryeo, etc., as a trend which has been reversed. So I did acknowledge that the emphases have been in flux. And it doesn't matter who uttered the word "Dangun" first, but when it was popularized by history writers. As for NE China, it is utterly crucial to Shin Chaeho's narrative that Korea became weak when it relinquished Goguryeo's territory north of the Yalu River. In fact, I purposefully neglected current China-Korea disputes contrary to your allegations, because I mention nothing about the dispute over whether Goguryeo is "Korean" or "Mohe", even though I have plenty of sources about the South Korean government's historical interventions such as the Goguryeo Research Foundation, as you are well aware. Shrigley (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Tags

Cydevil, you cannot simply assert that the article has NPOV and SYNTH issues without explicitly saying where the issues are and how to fix them. The goal of cleanup tags—as I have said repeatedly, but you don't seem to be listening—is not to discourage people from reading an article, by implying that it is somehow defective. The goal is to fix specific, documented issues. Articles on Wikipedia are by definition, incomplete. There are always things to add and things to subtract, and if you have some abstract ideas on your mind about how to restructure the article, as you have indicated in the above sections, then you can plan them in your head or in a sandbox and execute them later.

I am seriously trying to build this article into a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate article worthy of FA status. Your first objection, which just mirrored Madalibi's that the first draft relied too much on Pai's book, is obliterated since I added dozens more footnotes that are not Pai. I adjusted the text to address your only specific synth objection about pre-Joseon historiography on Gija Joseon. And I have been constantly working on implementing Madalibi's specific, actionable suggestions because they are possible to act on. When you edit-war to keep the tag, e.g. [3], you aren't referring to any specific grievance. Furthermore, since this article is so big and is being restructured all the time, I ask you to instead of tagging the whole article, use specific inline tags: {{citation needed}}, for example.

If you choose to ignore discussing this issue, then don't re-add the tags when I remove them. Otherwise, you are showing signs of tendentious editing. Shrigley (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Shrigley: I was really happy earlier on when Cydevil38 requested "An addition of a 'Background' with a main article link to Korean ethnic nationalism to explain the historical context."[4] This means we did a great job at Korean ethnic nationalism. It also means Cydevil38 can change his mind, and that he will certainly approve of this page once it's been brought up to the high level we're all aiming for. :) So let's be optimistic!

Cydevil38: you must have noticed that Shrigley is doing an amazing job at improving the article. He has acted on every specific claim you and I have made so far, and I see no reason to think he'll stop (though he may legitimately disagree on some points). If you have more specific criticisms, please list them here and we'll see what we can do! This can be as basic as "this extra word in that sentence makes it sound harsher than what the original source said." The key is finding concrete points that need work. We do need your help to improve this article, so please keep at it. And if you like what the "Pure blood" article eventually turned into, I have hope that you will come to like this one too! :)

Personally I don't think the article suffers from WP:SYNTHESIS, because the sources cited are really about KNH, and the judgments we read in the current article are really in the sources cited. I do agree, though, that there may be a slight WP:NPOV problem with the current text, but it's not easy to pinpoint. Is it something in the wording of some sections? Or something in the structure? Not sure... So yes, the article is still not perfectly neutral, but this is a huge topic, so it's normal. We've all agreed that we need to add more RS, but Shrigley is quickly taking care of that. So Cydevil38: would you agree to remove the tags and use your energies to contribute more ideas to the article as you've done in the sections above? Don't feel obligated to agree, of course. I just think we can use our energies more productively than by reverting and counter-reverting. Cheers to all! Madalibi (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply looking at how sections of the article are structured can give you the idea of how Shrigley is using, often copy/pasting, published sources to synthesize a Chinese nationalistic point of view to denigrate Korean nationalist historiography. We've been already discussing on what the major themes of Korean nationalist historiography are. The current structure do not reflect the major themes. They mostly serve to denigrate Korean nationalist historiography on themes that Shrigley finds offensive from a Chinese nationalistic point of view. For instance, both "Revised Korean founding myth", "Superiority over China and Japan" and "Altaicism and connection with Inner Asia" are all elements of Ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness. "Revised Korean founding myth" is an account where the Dangun mythology and the state of Gojoseon was used as the starting point of the Korean civilization. Mythology was not "revised". Dangun and Gija were distinct mythologies from the start, and it's simply that Confucian scholars of the Joseon dynasty preferred the latter. "Superiority over China and Japan" is, per Shin, a few cases where Korean nationalists took a pan-Asian frame of national identity. I don't think this historical view is notable or relevant to the section, and is better placed in history. Also the emphasis of resistance against foreign invasions in Korean nationalist historiography is an element of Ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness and distinctiveness, not "superiority over China and Japan". Overall, Ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness should 1. Competing national identities, the need to derive ethnic distinctiveness and the inability of Confucian historiography to provide this ethnic distinctiveness, 2. Framing a unique set of historical entities that can distinguish Korea from Japan and China in history, and emphasis given to histories, i.e. warefares, that further distinguishes Korea from Japan and China in history and also reinforces the concept of an imperishable "national spirit" that can be revived and fought against foreign invaders(like the Empire of Japan), 3. Evaluation from a relatively objective point of view, the most notable of which is the matter of state-formation of Gojoseon and the Three Kingdoms of Korea.

The current section "New territorial conceptions", which I recommend being renamed, is worse of the two. All the subsections are basically about Korean nationalist historiography of Manchuria. The subsections are basically "Korean claims on Chinese history and territory". The contents are so out of line that entire section would fit well into such title with only minor revisions. This section, as you have suggested, should deal with the territorial implications of the Themes. Many of the historical entities that Sin has included in Korean nationalist historiography occupied parts of Manchuria. A lot of politics were also involved in the discourse. The subsection "Altaicism and connection with Inner Asia" has more to do with ethnic distinctiveness, and its territorial implications is not very notable.

In any case, I think it's best to continue the current process of discussing the needed changes to the article, first on its organization, and working our way down from themes to territorial implications. History has to be worked on too. The current article is replete with SYNTH, OR and NPOV issues. I first trimmed down the article to its basic elements that I believed solved most of those issues and was a starting point for making constructive edits. Shrigley simply reverted it. Shrigley simply WP:OWNs this article, and I don't want to get into a lame edit war over this. Nonetheless, readers should be warned of the current issues that this article has, which is being discussing over at this talk page. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Cleanest Race. I mean, wow, you should really be commended for your hell-bent efforts to spread your "pure blood Korean" propaganda on Wikipedia. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks, it's implausible for you to accuse me of both "copy/pasting" and a form of "original research" at the same time—those are completely opposite things! Long on rhetoric, short on reliable sources: this is your message. Let's try to extract some meaning out of your discussion of content:

• Many of the historical entities that Sin has included in Korean nationalist historiography occupied parts of Manchuria. What's your point? Maybe some did; maybe some didn't. Are we then not to document the claims because they are "truth"? Maps of ancient empires are notoriously disputable; a lot of the ancient history is partly or wholly mythological, rather than historical. Japanese colonial historiography on Korea said that ancient "Japanese" states controlled parts or the whole of Korea, based on Emperor Jimmu and stuff, which some early Korean historiography accepted (they were proto-nationalist if not nationalist, in the sense of being anti-Chinese but pro-Japanese, when Japan hadn't revealed its intent to annex yet).

  There are loads of reliable sources (which I cite) that document the importance of Manchuria not only to Shin but to many Korean nationalist historians, who associated control of northern territories with the strength of the Korean minjok. Many sources also say that this nationalist historiography is directly connected with the desire of the same amateur historians-cum-activists to gain control of those territories which they imagine to have been "Korean" in the past, whether by might or by immigration. I'm not making this stuff up. It's in the sources. You may not like it, but if you think it's false, you must come up with an equal or better source that contradicts it.

• Mythology was not "revised". Dangun and Gija were distinct mythologies from the start There was a Dangun idea, and there was a Gija idea; however, both were modified by KNH historians, who were influenced by the Dangun religious cult, which probably introduced its own innovations. It wasn't a case of just switching around already-existed-for-5000-years-unchanged myths. As I documented, shin sach'e historians treated Dangun as the brother of the Japanese god Susanoo, yet Shin attacked the idea and connected Dangun to Mount Changbai for a more westerly connection with northeast China, rather than Japan. Likewise, as I said above: we have historical records that people didn't identify with minjok prior to the 18th century: although KNH historians treat it as a category, we must note how the minjok was created.
• emphasis of resistance is an element of Ethnic homogeneity and distinctiveness and distinctiveness, not "superiority Well, this is another one of your assertions which come up against the reliable sources which explicitly state that KNHistorians believed that Koreans were superior because foreign forces couldn't crush the indefatiguable Korean spirit of independence. This is also corroborated by Shin-via-LiangQiChao's Social Darwinist ideas of 5/6 minjoks in conflict around Manchuria, fighting for survival. It just sounds like you disagree with the text, and this has nothing to do with neutrality or synth issues. On the contrary, if I were to replace the sourced text with your unsourced opinions, that would be something worthy of cleanup tagging.

If you "don't want to get into a lame edit war over this", then don't edit war. Step back from the article and go outside or something. But the fact is that you are edit-warring, and in order to have tags, you need to demonstrate two specific things:

• WP:NPOV: What does this actually mean? From the linked page: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Representing RS fairly is exactly what I have been doing, because I have been reading sources that academically cover this topic (rather than racking my brain for calcified knowledge from South Korean textbooks or television dramas). You're not accusing me of not representing RS views. You're accusing me of not representing your own views. Therefore, the NPOV tag is misplaced, and must be removed.
• WP:SYN: "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Where do I state a conclusion that is not published in a reliable source? You have not ever given me a detailed accusation of this, because if you did, I would surely address it, and there would be no cause for complaint and no justification for tagging. That tag is similarly unwarranted, and deceptive, since it implies that there's some ongoing accusation of synthesis which is not articulated. Shrigley (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think these tags are wasting everybody's time. There might be issues with the article (I would agree with some NPOV because of balance, but not with SYNTH), but we're all working on it actively. I think it's more useful to work on the article than try to pinpoint where it's flawed, which is not that easy. So I've taken the initiative to replace the current tags with the {{under construction}} banner, which will tell readers that nothing here is definitive. I hope this will be all right with everybody.

If Nagorno-Karabakh War can become a featured article despite bitter conflicts between Azeri and Armenian editors (both of whom had compatriots massacred by the other side just a few years ago), then I think we can do something good here when our only differences are ones of opinion. Shrigley and Cydevil38: I say let's get back to editing! Madalibi (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the Article

This is in continuation of mine and Malibi's discussions to reorganize the article to make it a workable artcle without NPOV and SYNTH issues.

My proposal for the Structure of the Article are as follows:
==Introduction==
==Background==
==History==

===early 20th century===

====Pan-Asianism and Western Imperialism====

====Japanese Colonial Policy of Assimilation====

====International Socialism and Nationalism====

===After World War II===

====South Korea====

====North Korea====

==Themes==

===the Korean ''minjok''===

====Ethnic homogeneity====

====Ethnic distinctiveness====

===Reconceptions of historical territory===

(Rediscovery of Manchuria) no subsections

Cydevil38 (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the working outline proposal. There's a lot to discuss, both here and in the previous section. Good news is that the basic structure (if not the section titles) of the current article looks a lot like the one you're proposing. This means we're getting somewhere! :) So just to get us started: what would you put in the "Background" question? Madalibi (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One possible structure for the "History" section would be purely chronological, and therefore as neutral as we can possibly make it. I'm thinking of something like this:

===Pre-1905===

Would discuss Confucian historiography and Joseon historians who are sometimes identified as precursors of KNH. This would mean merging the subsections called Confucian and Joseon dynasty, which are now in two different sections and appear a bit redundant that way even if they have a different content.

===1905 to 1945===

Would discuss Japanese colonial policies and scholarship, which did start before 1905, but only become relevant in Korea after that date. Would also discuss the first nationalist historians in their geopolitical and intellectual context. We may even need a subsection on Shin Chaeho that puts together what we say about him in other sections. This section would include the content of the subsections called Japanese colonial and Japanese era, which are currently in two different sections.

===Since 1945===

====North Korea====

====South korea====

Advantage of this structure: presents a coherent chronological narrative with clear transitions between periods

Disadvantage: the table of content won't spell out the important themes, but I think the "Themes" section should take care of that. Any ideas? Madalibi (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking again, I think "background" can be properly covered in the introductory paragraph and the following sections on history. Lets first discuss early history. What relevance does historians of mid-Joseon dynasty have with Korean nationalist historiography? It is that starting at mid-Joseon dynasty a new school of thought called [silhak] emerged in response to Confucian fundamentalism of the times. These silhak scholars started to look at Korean history without the bias of Sinocentricism. They were not motivated by nationalism, but their historiography was useful for the Korean nationalist historians, as they were also trying to veer away from Sinocentricism in their effort to conceive an ethnic identity distinct from China and Japan, in competition with Pan-Asianism. In this part, we can naturally flow from Pre-1905 to 1905. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! Do you have a reference to a reliable source that discusses silhak in relation to 20th-century historical writing? Madalibi (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As for 1905 to 1945, I think it would be more useful to frame them in terms of competing national identities, as this competition was the primary influence on historical discourse that formed Korean nationalist historiography. For instance, at the beginning many Koreans were Pan-Asianists, thinking Koreans, Japanese and Chinese should unite against Western imperialism. Based on this identity, the Pan-Asianists try to find common elements in Korean, Japanese and Chinese culture and history that they can unite upon. On the other hand, Korean ethnic nationalists asserted that not even Japan or China can be trusted in the world-wide struggle of nation states. Therefore, Korean nationalist historians such as Shin tried to conceive a Korean national identity that was independent of both Japan and China culturally and historically.

Then there is the Manchurian Incident. After this incident, Japanese adopted a full-fledged assimilation policy of Koreans, conceiving a national identity of Koreans and Japanese. Japan tried to look for cultural, historical and archaeological sources to back their claims. Again, Korean nationalists reacted to such claims from their own point of view. Thus the discourse of Korean nationalist historiography is on this stage heavily influenced by Japanese colonial racialism.

Another phase is international socialism, which mostly took part in Manchuria. This phase has important implications for North Korea, as it was then that Kim Ilseong - formerly an international socialist - became a fierce Korean nationalist after getting almost killed by Chinese communists in a massacre of ethnic Koreans in the Chinese Communist Party.

I recommend we write this part of the article in this manner, with distinct phases in each paragraphs. Each paragraph can have a starting event, such as the Manchurian Incident. We can think of others for the other two phases. Or we can divide these into three subsections. In any case, this time frame is when much of the discourse were taken to formulate Korean nationalist historiography, so this is the part where we should devote much of our effort and time. 13:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

These are all relevant themes. Very briefly:

• I think the broader Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Pan-Asian) context is very important. We already have info on this, but we could further expand it, taking care not to present this as some sort of coming to consciousness of the Korean nation, but that goes without saying.
• We're still missing info on the 1930s, though Shrigley has already inserted bits on alternative historiography in that decade.
• Japanese colonial policy might become a guiding thread all along, because KN historians kept responding to it.
• In the interest of narrative clarity, could we discuss international socialism as some kind of background in the North Korea section?
• "Phases": yes, but only if reliable sources agree. I'd rather present developments chronologically without assuming that they're actual "phases." A lot of what we discuss actually overlaps in time. Think of Pan-Asianism, Japanese colonial racism, and Tōyōshi 東洋史, for example. (And wow, I can't believe there's no wiki on such an important thing as Tōyōshi!)

I have a publication deadline in 4 days, but I will try to keep up with the article. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I will continue this discussion after five days. Publication deadlines can be a bitch. Cydevil38 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Korea Journal online

There are four articles from the Korea Journal in "Further reading." All can be downloaded for free at http://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/index.htm. The most helpful might be Em 1999 and Park 1999 (both from issue 39.2), which are two sides a debate on nationalism in Korean historiography, with Em critical and Park more supportive. They might be particularly helpful to keep developing the article! We also have Kim 1970 from issue 10.11 and Noh 1997 from issue 37.4. Madalibi (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One reliable source with lots of relevant content

Andre Schmid's book Korea Between Empires, 1895–1945 (2002) has a chapter called "Narrating the ethnic nation" (171-98) that sounds ideally related to our topic. Another chapter titled "Spirit, History, and Legitimacy" (pp. 139-70) is about the notion of "national spirit" that discusses two more relevant themes: the importance of history as source of national spirit (pp. 140-42) and Japanese colonial views of Korean history (pp. 147-54). The epilogue (pp. 253-78) also makes all kinds of interesting points on the roles of KNH after 1945. Pages 264-70 and 276-78 are particularly about postwar uses of minjok. Notably, Schmid says that postwar historians have generally abandoned Shin Chaeho's focus on Manchuria. Madalibi (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A few more suggestions

Friends -- I found this article to be a much needed, fascinating topic and developing toward an extremely useful piece of work. Congrats on starting it and on your continued dedication. A couple of things struck me as an outsider who sometimes teaches a little on Korea but has no training. You may already have them in mind, but here goes, just in case:

• The article has outgrown its original title. It now is turning into a history of history writing in Korea, certainly in the sections "History of KNH before 1312" and "KNH 1313-1905." To my mind, this is a good thing, but the title could be changed to "Korean Historiography" (which seems to be coextensive with "nationalist" history in the modern period). This would also get the article out of the problem of deciding whether there can be "nationalist" history in the period before there were nations. Or else the article could be divided into two, which seems less desirable.

• The uninformed reader needs to be told in the first sentence of sections 1.1 & 1.2 what the dates mean, as "pre-modern" doesn't help all that much). Why "1312"? This is never explained.

• Referring to Chinese "evidential research" is good because it is explained (redlink kaozheng, which needs an article). Maybe also explain (and give characters) for "pragmatic learning" if that has a CHinese inspiration or counterpart.

• "Precursors of nationalism": this is not clear. It's probably ok to conflate "nationalism" with "Korean" but why is it "nationalist" for Park Ji-won to argue that Korean historians were beholden to Zhu Xi? Did he write in a way which was not? Likewise is there some other way to say "nationalist framework"? Maybe "in a framework which used Korean chronological divisions and emphasized Korean themes"? Or some such. The phrase "blamed the yangban... for toadying to China" seems better because it is specific.

• The lede does not now give the uninformed reader either a brief summary of the topic or a synopsis of the article. Though I realize that the synopsis may have to wait until the article is more finished, it sometimes also works the other way around, that is, that writing the synopsis may help shape the article. The lede should also tell the reader more explicitly in the first sentence what is meant by "nationalist." Sometimes "nationalist" is different from "native," "nativist," or "patriotic." Sometimes not.

• It's possible that in trying to respond to all the suggestions, the article has gotten too long.

Thanks again for starting the article. Keep up the good work. Maybe the next target should be Chinese historiography! It does exist, but needs to be fleshed out and shaped. There does not appear to be Japanese historiography, but maybe I just couldn't find it under that title.ch (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all the good suggestions, CH. I agree with, well... pretty much all of them!

• It's true that the article is getting long. With 55kB of "readable prose size," it's bordering on WP:TOOBIG, and we're not even done adding content. Either we summarize a lot, or we start cutting unnecessary details.
• I agree that "nationalism" means too many things when it's undefined. I tried to reword the lede so that it would start with a definition: KNH takes the Korean minjok as the subject of history. This definition happens to correspond with what reliable sources say about this topic. But this automatically means that all "precursors to nationalism" will be about another kind of "nationalism," because the notion of minjok only appeared in Korea around 1895. So we do have a problem...
• As for the topic of the article, I think we have two choices (well, at least the following two choices):

1. Broaden it to Korean historiography. If we do this, we need to develop the pre-1895 sections so that they will no longer focus on "precursors of nationalism," which would constitute undue weight in such a broad article. On the downside, this topic shift might make the article even longer, or force us to cut lots of relevant content to leave room for new developments.
2. Keep the focus on KNH because it's so central in reliable sources, and as such probably deserves a topic of its own. It would be great if we could then create a broader page on Korean historiography with a section on KNH that will link to this wiki as "main article." If we follow this option, we have at least two ways of dealing with the long pre-1895 sections: (1) reduce their size, which is simple but would mean little integration between pre- and post-1895; (2) keep a basic paragraph on Confucian historiography, and mention pre-1895 historiography only when it comes up in the writings of nationalist historians (as explained in RS, of course). Option (2) is more difficult, but it would make for a clearer narrative, I think.

Well, that's all I have time for right now. Thanks again for your help, CH! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Restructure

I'll attempt to revise the strcture to a workable article.

1 History of Korean nationalist historiography

1.2.2 Precursors of nationalism

1.3 1890-1905

Contact between Korea and the West and the influx of Western ideologies(Nationalism, Social Darwinism) Social upheaval(Western ideologies, revival of Confucianism, native religions such as Tonghak) Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War(Japanese archaeological expeditions to Manchuria and Siberia)

Kim Minhwan's (1988) quantitative analyusis of 1950 articles taken from five major newspapers published at the turn of the twentieth century shows that pan-Asianism was more salient than nationalism as an ideology of Korean independent and security, at least until the Japanese Protectorate Treat of 1905. (Shin, pg.27)

Pan-Asianists accepted race as anew base of Korean identity. Influenced by social Darwinian racism, they reviewed race as the basic category of distinction in the world and understood the present global situation as one of racial struggle, especially between the yellow and white races. (Shin, pg 31)

However, Japan changed its "diplomacy" after the war, putting Korea in dangerous position, destabilizing China, and isolating Japan. A teacher's guide to the textbook added that after Japanese victory over Russia, a decades-old Japanese promise to support Korea's reform and independence turned into an "excessive measure," the 1905 protectorate treaty. Editorials in hwangsong sinmun, an early supporter of pan-Asianism, also expressed their concerns with Japan's imperialist ambitions. In their view, Japan was an uncertain partner with the West and could be so in the East as well. History confirmed such concerns and anxieties. When Japan forced Korea to sign the 1905 treaty, the newspaper's editor-in-chief Chang Chiyon published the famous editorial on November 20, "We Wail Today" ............... In this view, the treaty not only jeopardized the security of Korea but also put the whole East Asia region into peril by creating division and tension among neighbor nations. Using nationalist rhetoric, the piece expressed a bitter sense of betrayal and ended the newspaper's long-standing advocacy of pan-Asian alliances. An Chunggun, an early advocate of "Theory of Eastern Peace," was said to have assassinated Ito Hirobumi, a key Japanese promoter of pan-Asianism who later became an architect of the protectorate treaty and first residency-general in Korea, because Japan violated its promise of Asian solidarity. (Shin, 34-5)

1905-1945

• turning point* Annexation of Korea

Japanese Colonial Racism

Korean ethnic nationalism

Manchurian Incident

Korean nationalists attempted to transform a centuries-old sense of a political community into a modern form of national identity. They no longer considered Korea to be part of China or a China centered regional order, but rather as an independent sovereign state int he world system. Also, int he place of loyalty to the monarchy and attachments to the family, clan, and village, they sought to redirect people's loyalty to a new, all-embracing identity of Koreans as a unique ethnic nation. ... However, in their view the current world was an arena of struggle between imperialism and nationalism, not among races. Therefore the competing "other" was not the white race, but other nation-states, especially imperialist countries, including Japan. In an article published in Taehan maeil sinbo on "Imperialism and Nationalism," Sin Ch'aeho, leader of the first generation of Korean nationalists, urged his fellow Koreans to recognize that imperialism had replaced isolationist Monroeism as a major ideology of super powers and that the only way to resist imperialism was through the promotion of nationalism. ... Korean nationalists, unlike pan-Asianists, saw the dangers of imperialism (both Western and Easter [Japanese]) cand called for a strong national identity that could help Korea survive in a world of rampant imperialism. (Shin, 35)

They [pan-Asianists] claim that this is an age of race war. Where the yellow race prospers, the white race perishes, and where the white race prospers, the yellow race perishes. Our yellow race, they argue, must be united around Japan to preserve our race. Is this the talk of a drunk or sleepwalker?" (Shin Chaeho) (Shin, 36).

In establishing a new nation-based identity and solidarity, Korean nationalists appreciated the value of their own history and language, rather than a common East Asian heritage. Sin Chaeho proclaimed, "Wtihout the nation, there is not history; without history, the nation cannot have a clear perception of sthe state." In his view, history was an "indispensable instrument ... in instilling nationalism and implanting national awareness in our young people so that they can compete on equal terms with other nations in the struggle for survival, where only the winners are allowed to exist and the losers perish. This new history would have to be one of the Korean minjok, as Em points out, "a category inclusive of every Korean without regard to age, gender, or status distinctions". It was in this context that early twentieth-century Korea saw great efforts to reinterpret Korean history as one of an ethnic national history, not the conventional dynastic one subject to Chinese dominance int he region. This new historiography established a racial and ethnic genealogy of the Korean nation that emerged from Tangun, the mythic founder. Sin, for instance, argued that the Kroean people were descendants of Tangun Choson who merged with Puyo of Manchuria and eventually became the Koguryo people. The Koguryo remained the ethnic or racial core of the Korean nation, which had survived and thrived through defese and warfare against outside forces. The Korean race should be considered to be distinct from, and not a part of, the Chinese, Japanese, or any other Asian race. (Shin, 36-37)

Cydevil38 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

1.4 After World War II

1.4.1 North Korea

1.4.2 South Korea

2 Themes

2.1 The Korean minjok

2.1.1 Ethnogenesis The most influential study on racial origins is Kim Chong-hak's 1964 article "Hanguk minjok hyongsongsa" (History of the formation of the Korean race), which has been widely cited as the earliest multidisciplinary attempt to argue for the independent origins of a "korean" race with no historical or cultural links to Japan, Manchuria, or China. In Kim's outline of the development of an "original" Korean race, the Korean peninsula was invaded by two races, a "northern strain" (pukpang-gye) and a "southern strain" (nambang-gye). The former was represented by the migration of Paleo-Asiatics, who brought their southern Siberian Neolithic cultural elements; the latter originated from somewhere in the South Seas. Kim hypothesized that these two elements entered the Korean peninsula in a series of invasions and migrations to form the distinctive racial, archaeological, and cultural characteristics of the Korean race as the Han minjok sometime during Bronze Age (ca. 1000 B.C.). Pai, p.78

The attraction of this hypothesis lies in its ability to draw territorial boundaries for the prehistoric Korean racial formation that exclude the regions of central China and Japan. This geographically "independent" scenario made chance incursions by "imperialists neighbors" impossible, thereby significantly reducing the risk of "foreign" racial or cultural contamination of Korea's ancient civilization. Thus, for nationalist scholars, Kim's hypothetical Korean ancestors maintained their Koreanness by migrating into the Korean peninsula. Kim's northern-southern racial amalgamation framework therefore satisfied the nationalistic goal of finding an independent Korean race, polity, and culture in the prehistorical era. Pai, p. 78

To summarize, archaeological periodization and art-historical interpretations were used to support the assertion that Korea reached the threshold of civilization when Tangun, as the first shaman-king and ancestor of the race, founded the Kochoson state. The mythical origins of Korea were given credibility by archaeologists who described clay fragments as female goddess figurines and bear totems in order to support a pre-Tangun Neolithic matriarchal society. When Bronze Age Korea became equated with Tangun's state of Kochoson, Manchurian stone-cists tombs, dolmens and slim bronze daggers were seen as indicators of emerging class stratification and labor specialization under a hereditary kingship beginning with Tangun. The identification of a "bear-like" image on the Han dynasty WU family shrine in SHandong as depicting the Tangun myth along with finds of the Korean slim dagger in Liaoning, were then used to demarcate the territorial boundaries of the earliest "Korean" ancestors. Pai, p. 88

As evident from the preceding discussion of this national endeavor to highlight the importance of Tangun Choson in Korean prehistory, shamanism continued to be used in the search of an overarching mythical, anthropological and historical framework that explained the unique racial, religious, and political characteristics of the ancient Koreans. The representation of shamanism as the only legitimate and indigenous prehistoric "Korean" religion predating later "imported" religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism thus proved to be an important factor in the development of the discourse of nationalist origins. The existence of a unique Korean belief system was emphasized as early as the 1930s in the writings of Sin Chae-ho. Pai, p. 88

The possibility of a Korean shamanistic universe was given credibility with the help of archaeologists and art historians who attempted to link the prehistoric Korean peninsula to the "shamanistic sphere" of the Tungus inhabitants of Siberia and Mongolia. Their interpretations of prehistoric Korean society as esssentially "ritualistic" in nature reliy heavily on nineteenth and twentieth century ethnographies of the Tungus and Mongols that documented the most elaborate and active shamanistic practices in Northeast Asia. Nationalist historians in South Korea have continued to emphasize the importance of "shamanistic motifs," such as sacred trees, bear cults, totems, and taboos and their critical role in evolution of ancient Korean kingship. As shamanism became portrayed as the all-encompassing ideology that unified ancient Koreans culturally and religiously, art-historical studies have analyzed Bronze Age animal motifs and gemetric designs on bronzes and rock art reliefs as the earliest examples of Korean artistic styles and expressions. Pai, p. 92

Another highly touted aspect of Korean bronze art is its purported link to the widespread "Scythian" animal art of the Central Asian steppes because the art's appearance continues to signify the arrival of a superior northern race, who as horse-riding nomads equipped with advanced bronze technology conquered the Korean peninsula. This nomadic shamanistic vision/version of Bronze Age Korean society not only was integrated into the Tangun myth but was extensively adapted to the theory that successive waves of in-migrating races had contributed to the make-up of the Korean race. A teleological spiritual, artistic, and racial connection to shamanism also strengthened the nationalistic historians' argument that Koreans are indeed one of the oldest continuously existing races in Northeast Asia and are direct descendants of both Neolithic Paleo-Asiatics and Bronze Age Tungus tribes. p. 94 Cydevil38 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2.1.2 State-formation

2.2 Historical territory

2.2.1 Rediscovery of Manchuria

Thanks for these ideas and for the sources! First, just to make sure: are these all citations from Shin's book on Korean ethnic nationalism? Second, I particularly like your suggestion about "ethnogenesis": I agree that it deserves its own section under "the Korean minjok" section. And "historical territory" is simple and probably better than "national territory," which is ambiguous because of the many meanings of "nation." I think it's also relevant to say more about Pan-Asianism near the beginning, as you suggest we do. Finally I'm thinking that a lot of the citations you posted would make excllent additions to the page on Korean nationalism! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're all citations from Shin's book. The ones I just added are from Pai's. I'll be adding more sources as I find the time. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the existing version, the dogmatic emphasis on 'Korean independence' in your restructuring removes a lot of content. While 'Korean independence' is and has been an important undercurrent of Korean nationalist historiography with respect to ethnogenesis, it is far from the only undercurrent. Shrigley's sources on other undercurrents, including the nationalist appropriation of Chinese texts and the glorification of Tangun, the Korean nation-race, and the various attempts to expand not only Korean territoriality, but also Korean racial identity for the sake of building a 'Greater Korea,' have to be integrated for a satisfactory NPOV article on the topic. The way you've stated it now, the Ethnogenesis section bespeaks of an apologist's view of Korean nationalist historiography rather than a proper introduction to it. This is not the impression I got from reading Pai's scathing critique, one of your two primary sources.Lathdrinor (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was emphasizing anything. I'm simply quoting important parts of Pai's book for later use, focusing on the view of Korean nationalist historiography itself. It's far from complete. Of course, evaluation of Korean nationalist historiography should be made from a neutral point of view. Cydevil38 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was all you were going to add from Pai and Shin. In the case that it's just an early WIP, I'm not going to comment on it till I see the whole draft, and so present my earlier comments only as suggestions. I do think, given your earlier heated disagreements with Shrigley and his investment in this article, however, that you try to reach consensus with him before replacing the content.Lathdrinor (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having my doubts of consensus building efforts with Shrigley, considering his extremist POV pushing activities on Korean articles. Nonetheless, I'm working with other editors constructively with adding more and more resources to make this article give a good account of what Korean nationalist historiography is, its characteristics, and how it matches or deviates from scholarly consensus in history and archaeology. 11:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV sources for evaluations

I've found an interesting source today, which is Hulbert's History of Korea, first published in 1905 and editor's edition published in 1962. This was published decades before Shin's works on Korean nationalist historiography, and even predates any form of nationalism in Korea. The differences between Hulbert's work and KNH could be a reference point of nationalistic influence on KNH and the so-called "undercurrents" that Lanthrinor kindly pointed out. Another amusing source I've found is The Story of Korea by Joseph H. Longford, published in 1911 after Korea was annexed by Japan and when Western countries such as the UK had benign diplomatic relations with Japan. It would be interesting to compare its view of Korean history to KNH.

Other good recent sources with NPOV on Korean history could be the archaeological studies by western scholars such as those of Gina L. Barnes and Sarah Nelson. Any suggestions? Cydevil38 (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan W. Best and Mark Byington are resources for the Three Kingdoms period of Korea. Given that linguistics is an important topic in nationalist historiography, Vovin, Robbeets, Beckwith, Janhunen, Unger, etc. are all scholars who have published on the topic.Lathdrinor (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)