Talk:Jizi

---

Untitled

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

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

Restoration

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

South Korean interpretation of Gija(Jizi)

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

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

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

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

Romanization

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

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

Joseon by reason of Korean kingdom? Hopeless. Probably you are a dyed-in-the-wool nationalist indoctrinated with the minjok sagwan. It would be difficult for you to imagine there are approaches free of nationalism, but I think this is the first hurdle for us to achieve NPOV in history-related articles. --Nanshu 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Joseon is Korean by ethnically and linguistically for the Joseon legion, if this isn't the case, then why Chinese are claiming other ancient states that not even Chinese begin with? --Korsentry 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Adding onto this, I feel like because Gija (Jizi) is a controversial (yet also important) legendary figure in Korean identity in Korea, it might be better to call the wikipedia article title Gija? Obviously he was Chinese, but his (alleged) influence and impact are solely on Korea. It's kind of like how William the Conqueror was clearly Norman (and you could argue Viking or French hertiage) but his impact was almost exclusively on England, hence why he's not named "guillaume" in his wikipedia page. Of course, feel free to critique my thoughts. --Sunnyediting99 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Jizi's descendants?

The article talks about several families claiming to be descendants of Jizi, but states that they did so based on a typographical error. I checked the footnote, it only seems to mention the error in regards to the Han family, but not the other two. So was it only the Han family's claim that is based on the typographical error, or were the claims of the other two families also based on the same error or some other errors?

Jizi in Korean Classics (raw original text only)

《三國遺事》 "都平壤城（今西京）始稱朝鮮。又移都於白岳山阿斯達。又名弓（一作方）忽山。又今彌達。御國一千五百年。周虎王即位己卯封箕子於朝鮮。壇君乃移於藏唐京"

《三國史記，高句麗本紀》 "黄門侍郞裴矩説帝曰:'高句麗本箕子所封之地,漢晋皆爲郡縣,今乃不臣.'"

《朝鮮王朝實錄》 “平壤府……本三韓舊都。唐堯戊辰歲，神人降於檀木之下，國人立爲君，都平壤，號檀君，是爲前朝鮮。周武王克商，封箕子於此地，是爲後朝鮮。”

尹行恁《辭弘文館副校理疏》 “箕子遂東出，誕敷九疇之化，用敘八條之教，剔荒穢而布聲明。君臣父子、親上事長之義，衣服宮室、養生送死之禮，靡不燦然煥然，廩廩有中華之風。是聖人之不幸，而東土之幸也。式至今幾千百年，斯民永賴，豐功盛烈，於戲不忘。”

李穡《婆娑府》 "綿歷夏商不純臣，箕子受封師道新。九疇森列照天下，當時親炙知何人。"

李穡《終場》 "東方世教盡悠悠，箕子封來又幾秋。禹範九疇明似日，蒼生萬古倚洪休。"

李民宬《箕子廟》 "萬古明夷垂大訓，九疇洪範敘彝倫。東國君臨中國聖，至今文物動華人。"

李塥《讀東史箕子紀》 "殷恪於周已作賓，漸漸麥秀獨傷神。三韓未屬周天下，被發東來定不臣。洛畫敷陳道已傳。更爲八教化朝鮮。東人報答知無替，遺廟千年尚儼然"　　

崔錫鼎《次董天使韻》 "八條流化浹民深，班固書稱俗不淫。懇惻同歸仁者事，艱貞直契聖人心。"

徐居正《黃州近體詩十律，承雅教奉酬》　　 "箕子封來履大東，五畝田桑姬制日。八條治化禹疇風，龍蛇分戰曾三國。" 　　 尹鬥壽《平壤志序》： “平壤，箕子之舊都。城之南，有井地，區畫分明，溝塍方正。千載以下，猶可見其三代之制焉。”

韓百謙《箕田遺制說》， "箕子，殷人，其畫野分田，宜仿宗國，其與周制不同，蓋無疑矣。"

李萬敷《錦繡》 “城北有箕子廟，東有箕子宮古址，外城有箕子田阡陌。” 　　 河演《井田》 "平蕪千里井田痕，流水浮雲八九村。日暮牛馬南畝上，勤耕遺化至今存。"　

沈彥光《井田》 "井畝有遺基，依然三代制。緬懷聖者遠，良法悲久廢。"

成倪《陪巡察使李相公看審外城田畝》　 "鎬京文物舊繁華，箕子遺風代代誇。膴膴田原分八井，毿毿楊柳蔭千家。生靈不耐耕耘苦，廟議皆思賦稅加。" 　　 河演《箕子井》 "井字田中十長淵，靈源一脈湧涓涓。無來清濁關治亂，何讓周家潤德泉。"

車天輅《箕子井》 "百尺寒泉徹地清，汲深分碧轆轤聲。一桮頓解相如渴，卻勝衢撙酌萬生。"

沈銪《箕子井》 "貪泉一酌懷千金，此語雖迂或可諶。水味如能移素性。我與箕子亦同心。"

金世弼《箕城感古》 "邈矣仁賢萬古風，般商文物化吾-東。江山百劫消沈後，閭井當時漫滅空。幾處樓臺登倦客，一丘松標認頹宮。平陽蒲坂今何似，落日箕城思不窮。"

李睟光《箕城感古》 "少年豪氣壓梨園，處處樓臺歌吹喧。萬古山川箕子國，一城花柳莫愁村。"

李珥《箕子殿》 "麥秀悲殷祚，彝倫敘我東。轉深微禹歎，只有變荑功。罔殿苔昏畫，宏庭柳拂空。井田今有址，安得挽遺風。" 　　 《高麗史》 “禮部奏：我國教化禮儀，自箕子始，而不載祀典，乞求其墳塋，立祠以祭。” 　　 河演《箕子墓》 "清秋埋玉此山深，白馬朝天恨莫尋。千古浿江霜後月，也明當日不臣心。"

金時習《箕子陵》 "峨峨陵墓壯，寂寂有松楸。八教垂千古，三仁競一丘。草生翁仲沒，花發鬣封幽。往事無因問，孤城暮靄收."

車天輅《箕子墓》 "百世師先聖，千年國故墟。明夷傳易繇，洪範入周書。古墓殘碑在，荒山拱木餘。浿江流不盡，遺化共何如。"　 　 金時習《箕子廟》 "古廟丹青剝，尊崇歲月深。堪嗟顛社日。可忍不臣心。設位裝香火，雕瑉記德音。至今民仰慕，蕉荔獻誠忱。"

宋相琦《次副使箕子墓韻》 “浿江何似一清河，聖人來辟檀王都。先將九法敘彝倫，一派東漸畫井區。山無盜賊女貞信，八條歷落民風敷。”

沈銪《謁箕子廟》 "松檜深嚴覆短牆，門前立馬拜中堂。冠峨服古瞻真像，遺澤千年山水長。" 　　 李崇仁《謁箕子祠》 "臺山山下碧松陰，箕子祠堂靜且深。洪範九疇敷帝訓，遺風萬古感民心。鬼神阿衛森如在，蕉荔芬芳尚必歆。多少華人頻動問，愀然東望每謳吟。"

徐居正《箕子祠》 "歎息殷王子，荒涼獨此祠。西周陳範後，東國化民時。荔子春秋謹，碑文日月垂。"

沈彥光《箕子祠》 "高義非周臣，邦之遼海外。千秋念明德，山下荒祠在。"

Please add more if you find any. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.129.18 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic consensus

• Pai, Hyung Il (2000). Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories. Harvard University Asia Center. p. 95. ISBN 978-0674002449.

"The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."

• Pai, Hyung Il (2000). Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories. Harvard University Asia Center. p. 122. ISBN 978-0674002449.

"Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."

• Seth, Michael J. (2010). A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-7425-6717-7.

"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."

• Stark, Miriam T. (2008). Archaeology of Asia. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4051-5303-4.

"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."

• Schmid, Andre (2013). Korea Between Empires. Columbia University Press. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-231-50630-4.

"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."

• Peterson, Mark (2009). Brief History of Korea. Infobase Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4381-2738-5.

"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."

• Hulbert, H. B. (2014). The History of Korea. Routledge. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-317-84941-4.

"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."--219.111.109.7 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: the above message was originally posted by me here. The anom user (who uses many different IPs) has reposted my message on several talk pages, all without attribution. I have absolutely no connection with the user. -Zanhe (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)