Template talk:Korea topics
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This template was loosely modeled on Template:India topics. The idea being to create a standardized list of major topics which can be used on gateway pages such as Portal:Korea, South Korea, North Korea, etc. May or may not be an ideal solution -- comments welcome. -- Visviva 11:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- i think it's a great idea. this could be much more useful than categories or lists, which both have serious usefulness issues. Appleby 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Academic consensus
[edit]- 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."
First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.--133.236.57.224 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)