Talk:Pre-modern Korea

Time period for article?

Hi User:Yvwv , I was wondering what the time period for these history article would be? I personally thought it would cover history before WWII (Many North and South Koreans see their modern history beginning at the onset of the Korean War). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

For a starter, the article can include everything from the Stone Age to the Pacific War. If it would become to lengthy, we can consider a split at some relevant historical turning point. /Yvwv (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it could be objectionable to consider everything before the 1940s "pre-modern". What would "pre-modern" be in Europe? Before the 17th century, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What would be a better name? Pre-colonial Korea? Pre-war Korea? Korean monarchies? Would Colonial Korea have enough potential destinations? /Yvwv (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That is the difficult part of defining this, although (as a European myself) I would personally consider everything from WWII onwards as the modern era in Europe.

Colonial Korea is problematic. There are structures left over from the occupation (with distinctive Japanese architecture) but by and large most was destroyed during the Korean war or on purpose by the Koreans afterwards. Then again there are many locations that symbolize acts of resistance that could be included.

Historical Korea could work if defining 'modern' is also problematic. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Historical Korea" is fuzzy enough to work, though it's a deliberately imprecise term that really doesn't bear much examination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at w:History_of_Korea , Wikipedia seems to define everything from the Emperor Dangun (around 2,300BC) up until the end of the Joseon dynasty (1897) as pre-modern. This seems to go with our Pre-modern_Japan article that is defined as being before 1853. I'm not sure how best to name this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, what do you think, would it be insulting to Koreans to consider everything before the Japanese occupation as pre-modern? It would be good to get some input from Koreans. Should we solicit opinions from some of the students editing the guides to Ansan and some other places? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(indent) I just wish these period travel articles had travel-friendly or travel-oriented titles. Some seem so forced, perhaps because they're being created just for the sake of it rather than because the creator actually has anything in mind for them. Just because someone is interested in history, doesn't mean they want to travel without any more focus than "Seeing anything that predates X date". This article appears to be a simple current and former capitals list. The Japanese version is the same except it includes two ports, Himeji Castle for no reason except that "it's famous", and the entire island of Hokkaido (useless for travelers). How many of these articles do we plan to create? I understand the intention, but some are being made without real purpose or focus, particularly these articles that are made just to fill in time gaps. I mean, just look at this discussion. Clearly no one knows much about the topic, so it's just being created for the sake of saying we've covered all of Korean history. I suppose their existence may inspire someone to create a useful history-related article, but these themselves are quite weak to me. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your point is really well taken. Some history topics, like Roman Empire, really have a lot of content, but it doesn't follow that we should just create an article about every possible historical topic, especially less well-defined ones. Historical topics are in any case per se inessential, in my opinion, and shouldn't be created unless the article's starter intends to work hard on them, though to be sure while soliciting collaboration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The wiki format is experimental, by nature. Through experience from articles such as Ancient Greece and the Ottoman Empire, there seems to be more interest in writing and reading an article about a definite historical period. Possibly, East Asian history could have a different outline. /Yvwv (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely get where ChubbyWimbus is coming from, and I would completely prefer focus and definition to be given to these articles rather than the 'create it and contributors shall come' approach seen thus far.

In this particular instance I felt it was worth to see at least what could be done given my knowledge on the subject. The article is in nascent form, but I was hoping to add more historical content rather than just a list of capitals. From my perspective it would be better as an itinerary rather than an exhaustive list such as the Roman Empire. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The list format is another thing that I also think is misguided. Many of these just list cities when they should actually be listing specific places (sites) where you can see something of particular importance/fame from the period, places associated with important people of the time, great representatives of something from the specified place/time, places where important events of the time took place, etc. Instead, we are given lists of cities with little or no indication of what or how much they offer. I think this is in large part a symptom of the lack of focus. We cannot offer information that is specific and relevant when we haven't established what the article is about or who it's been created for. There are after all, many many places and things that were built before and/or have significance related to the specified dates but with no greater focus, we really can't get too deep.

An article about Jomon Japan (sorry, I know Japan better than Korea) would at least suggest we list archaeological sites and former settlements, recreated Jomon villages, and Jomon museums or other museums that house a variety of artifacts, particularly famous or representative artifacts, etc. But "Pre-Modern Japan" suggests we list which of the above knowing that we've got most of history to cover along with it?

Perhaps in Korea's case, Baekje travel might make an interesting topic. As someone mentioned above, disregarding whether there is enough content to make such an article, we can at least agree that an article about Japanese colonial sites in Korea would be a very focused article with a clear purpose and audience. Imperial Tombs of Japan (or Korea) would be a focused historic topic, as well, but these sorts of highly focused articles are difficult to create arbitrarily. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Baekdusan

Baekdusan was added to this article, and it is a very important location in Korean Mythology (both traditional and the modern North Korean story). However I don't believe it has anything of historical value (pre 20th century) to see? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've not been there, and it's possible that there indeed aren't any century-old sites (left?) to see. Nevertheless as it's a symbolically important place (I've heard about it even if my knowledge of Korea before WW2 isn't too impressive) I'd still keep it in the list. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)