Talk:Korean clans of foreign origin

Wrong

Province-based Family surnames in Korea do not have China or Chinese origins. Not sure what angle Wikipedia got their source from all those are wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaTimes2Disqus (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Han Hong-koo

https://imgur.com/a/ewRJol8

I'm linking this here because while the other sources can be accessed easily, this one can't.

Bamnamu (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Rename page

From "Korean clan names of foreign origin" to "Korean clans of foreign origin". I'm not sure the "names" part adds any meaningful distinction, and the new title is more concise. Also all of the clans pages/categories don't specify "name" like this page does. toobigtokale (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lady Saso

@CountHacker and @Ger2024 would you like to discuss this topic? Id argue since Lady Saso is a legendary figure to begin with and likely isnt really verifable (and neither is Park Hyeokgeose, I mean the claim is that he was born from a golden egg) I think it really isn't a strong claim to add, also given that there's a dispute on if Saso was Chinese or Buyeo to begin with. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The theory from the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The Lady Saso theory is more likely. If it is the Lady Saso theory, then chinese origin would currently be the most supported theory as it was recorded in Korean literature( written by korean academist). For information like korean surname of foreign origin, most information was taken from sources in Doosan and Encyclopedia of Korean Culture & Korean Dictionary. If this is not enough to prove, then so are most information in this page. Ger2024 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding the issue. The Golden Egg Theory and the Lady Saso theory are not seperate. They are both from the exact same source, the Samguk Yusa.

Il-Yeon, who wrote the Samguk Yusa, wrote it as a compilation of poems and folklore.The issue here is precisely because the source you are referencing (the Samguk Yusa) both writes that he was born from a Golden Egg and also that Lady Saso gave birth to him. Various modern historians, Western or Korean or etc, have questioned the actual factual reliability of the source. For example here.

So the source itself can't be taken literally to begin with, unless we are assuming that Lady Saso is actually divinely related, and that people are born from Golden Eggs. So it's clearly not a true story to begin with and is a fictional legend from Korean folklore, the other portion is that there is a dispute on what the Samguk Yusa was referring to. The source interpretation is disputed, with claims either that this was from China or whether it was from Buyeo. This is far more disputed than say the Gija Joseon myth, where while Gija/Jizi is generally considered a ficitious person or loosely based on a real person, its undisputed that he was from China.

Also Wikipedian policy does not generally approve of using Encyclopedias and encourages using English sources. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a fictional myth, egg or Lady Saso. We don't have the wiki page on the Julio-Claudian dynasty saying its from Trojan origin due to the Aeneid. The progenitor of the Park clans is also considered to be Park Hyeokgeose, not Lady Saso. His mother's origin should not matter. The Tang dynasty isn't a Xianbei dynasty because Gaozu's mother was an ethnic Xianbei. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I know, but currently Park Hyeokgeose does not have a supported father figure. Park Hyeokgeose only well-known parental figure would be Lady Saso (she was given the name Sacred Mother of Mt. Seondo ). For now, the strongest connection appears to point to China, unless further information comes to light. Ger2024 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Then what about Korean Language and Literature Dictionary. This theory was also supported over there by other Korean academists. The Buyeo theory on the other hand was not really mentioned by sources in Doosan and Korean dictionary (at least there are no credible sources to back up the Buyeo theory).

You know that all sources can be edited correct? If you are going to be so strict, then most information provide over here in "korean surname of foreign origin" does not have much supported evidence either. This would include the Heo surname that originated in India. And even the surname that originated from Mongolia and Vietnam would be questioned. As you said, most sources can be manipulated. And if thats the case, maybe most information in this page should be revised? Ger2024 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ger2024, I agree with you that this page should be revised instead of WP:UNDUE information relying on genealogical fictions concocted by Korean clans to make their ancestors seem more prestigious. It's pretty clear that most clans claiming foreign origins before the Goryeo period aren't actual of foreign origin. I'm currently going have only clans that were from Koryo period and the Choson dynasty appear in this list. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean you are 1 of the editor, so if you want to amend, you can also go ahead and amend. However this doesnt change the content written in Doosan, Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Korean literature and Language Dictionary content in Naver. I mean you are unable to change the information there in Naver. As long, as the korean side (korean academist) agrees to that, there is nothing you can do about it either. Ger2024 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Knew that you were going to do this when you are unable to win the fight. If this make you satisfied, then go ahead. Most people would take the information in wiki with a grain of salt. What matters most is the information in Naver (eg, Doosan, Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Korean literature and Language Dictionary content in Naver). Are you going to get mad that you cannot edit the information over there? As long as the korean side (academist) agrees with this, none of it matters. Ger2024 (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

First off, the source you are specifically citing from, we can factually prove that it can't be taken literally. It is physically impossible for humans to be born from Golden Eggs, that alone prevents us from taking the Samguk Yusa (and the Korean Encylopedia page it is used in) at face value simply because the source is not factually reliable.

Second off, I pointed this out in the Gija Joseon myth (and the same applies to the Heo myth), while I agree with CountHacker's view that we dont have wiki pages on the Julio-Claudian dynasties saying its Trojan in origin, the Lady Saso-Park connection is even far weaker than that because sources aren't even sure if Lady Saso was A) actually Chinese, its vague and is interpreted to be either Chinese, Buyeo, or even an unnamed country and B) the Samguk Sagi explictly does not mention this origin story, and should be taken far more seriously as a factual source on this regard.

Descent in Korea is patriolineal, and again, you are treating Lady Saso as if she were Chinese when 1) we cant verify if shes real or not and more importantly 2) the source you are using does not even verify if shes actually Chinese or from Buyeo. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is incredibly disrespectful to CountHacker and I that you are blatantly edit-warring when we are trying to discuss with you and I previously warned you to not do this. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for doing this. Lets reach a discussion first Ger2024 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point. But you know that all sources can be edited correct? If you are going to be so strict, then most information provide over here in "korean surname of foreign origin" does not have much supported evidence either. This would include the Heo surname that originated in India. And even the surname that originated from Mongolia and Vietnam would be questioned. As you said, most sources can be manipulated. And if thats the case, maybe most information in this page should be revised? Ger2024 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also to continue, the whole Korean bongwan theory does not make much sense. Just because somebody is from the "Miryang park Clan", does not mean that they are actually genetically related. Many koreans in the past have fabricated their origin. So in a way there is no way to really track where they came from. Ger2024 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Check out the most recent edit, I removed all the clans claiming foreign origins before the Goryeo dynasty including the ones supposedly from India. Also removed the Jeongseon Lee clan as being of Vietnamese origins, when it's been proved unlikely. The thing is that it is more than certain that no clans claiming a Chinese ancestor before the Goryeo period are telling the truth, whereas clans in the Goryeo period and after have a possibility to be genuinely of Chinese origins. For example, the Sanggok Ma clan, there's a paper by Adam Bohnet [1]. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also probably you can remove all the contents over here as well. Korean Bongwans/ chinese surnames are never a true certified thing. Do you seriously believe that all 4.6 million gimhae Kims share the same origin. Or all koreans that has "Jeonju Yi" bongwan are all descendents of the Joseon royal family? Ger2024 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The chinese scholar has taken the information from Enclopedia of Korean Culture. Ger2024 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ger2024, they did not. Please check the references in the article. Jin did not cite that ever. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Why so double standard? I thought you guys cannot trust Chinese people? Also the lady Saso have additional things to back up besides "Encyclopedia Of Korean Culture". The "Korean language and literature dictionary" has also stated this information that Lady Saso came from China (written by Korean academist themselves) Isnt this more reliable than the Chinese scholar claim on on Korean Bongwans from Mongolia and Vietnam? Shouldnt korean themelves know more about their own things? Ger2024 (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

So now you suddenly believe the Chinese scholar? If the Chinese scholar said that Miryang Park clan and Lady Saso come from China, are you also going to believe? Ger2024 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't take legends about a clan as real history. No genuine scholar would actually take a legend literally. As for the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, it clearly states that Lady Saso is a legendary character. The first sentence is : "The legendary protagonist of Silla during the Three Kingdoms period, called Seondosansinmo or Seondosungmo." [2] ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Still previously you mention that "Encylopedia of Korea Culture" as unreliable? Then why are you still using that as reference for Mongolia and Vietnam. Also you guys always mention that you cannot trust Chinese sources. So why take Chinese sources. Why dont you try retrieving "real korean information" to back up about the bongwans from Mongolia and Vietnam? Ger2024 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have never mentioned "Encylopedia of Korea Culture" as unreliable, I think it's a reliable source. Tertiary sources like encylopedias are usable. Also who is "you guys"? I have never stated Chinese sources should not be trusted. If you look at the entire thread, the only sources I've said shouldn't be trusted are certain parts of Korean genealogical records fabricated to create an illustrious Chinese ancestor. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Then if "Encylopedia of Korea Culture" can be trusted, why cant you trust the one with Lady Saso. (You know that Lady Saso existence is believed in Korea right? These is a momument of Lady saso in Gyeongju National park. Also in "Encylopedia of Korea Culture" & "Korean language and literature dictionary", if you look at the last sentence, this was stated: which seems to be related to the migration of our people from the continent to the Korean Peninsula in ancient times. Which suggest that Korean themselves believe that there is migration to Korea. (The legend of Hyeokgeose Park comeing out from golden egg is extremely unlikely). There is migration to Korea as stated in "Encylopedia of Korea Culture" and "Korean language and literature dictionary" Ger2024 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I do trust the Lady Saso article, in that it accurately depicts a legend. A monument depicting a legendary figure doesn't make a legendary figure real. We have many statues of the Greco-Roman deities of legend, it doesn't mean Venus and Hercules are real figures. If Lady Saso is a legendary figure symbolizing migration from the Asian mainland to the Korean peninsula, then we should treat it as a symbolic legend not a real person. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And what about the last sentence about the migration? If the Koreans believe that Lady saso is just a legend, whay do they have to add the last sentence. Also you mention about the golden egg theory. Any concrete evidence to support that besides being a legend? A legend can be created but so is history. For the ones that originate from Mongolia and Vietnam, there is no concrete evidence that the person existed, other than the claims in encyclopedia of Korean Culture and the Chinese scholar (both are not concrete evidence either and can be "fabricated". Also talking about myth, then everything is a legend, including Kim Alji. Kim Alji being the ancestor of Gyeongju Kim clan is also a legend and is not factually supported. (Even though its not factually supported, but still its widely believe in Korea, especially among Silla Kim descendents. Ger2024 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I addressed the migration sentence, "If Lady Saso is a legendary figure symbolizing migration from the Asian mainland to the Korean peninsula, then we should treat it as a symbolic legend not a real person". Yes, Kim Alchi is obviously a legend. There definitely was a man who was the ancestor of the Kim dynasty of Silla. He probably wasn't born in a golden box. Just because there's some Korean idiots who think he really was born from a box, doesn't mean we should treat every Korean myth as true. For someone who is clearly smart enough to know what Kim Alchi is a legend and that it's impossible for all 4.6 million people claiming to be members of the Gimhae Kim clan can't all be King Suro of Gaya's direct descendants, why do you want to peddle an irrational myth? ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Kim Alji is also a legend but still all the l korean people from Gyeongju Kim clans believe that Kim Alji existed. At least they claim origin from him even though its just a legend.

If the Koreans want to believe that, then thats all that matters. Similar to legends, even some historical figures can be fabricated. Most countries probably fabricate their history to a certain degree. This even includes Korean Bongwan books. You do know that some names/figures in history probably doesnt exist as well right. Like I mention before, clan books and history can also be fabricated. Thats why I said that you should just delete the entire page, as almost everything can be fabricated. Ger2024 (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That is why I say you should delete the entire page. They all have similar level of credibility, whether its Lady Saso, Kim Alji, Hwang Ok and even some historical figures. Korean Bongwan books can also be fabricated in history. Ger2024 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That's why I deleted the sections that are clear fabrications, based on your advice. I kept the clans post-Goryeo since they are more likely to be real, and not fabrications. Yes, there's a chance some of them are fabrications. Then, they should removed based on the academic research proving so. Per Jin Guanlin "While the putative apical ancestors of these clans are said to be from the Song (宋朝, 960–1279), Yuan (元朝, 1279–1368), and Ming dynasties (明朝, 1368–1644), a good number of them were from the Song. Most of these putative apical ancestors were scholars invited to Korea, Chinese envoys, or refugees who fled the incursions of northern peoples. As there is considerable detail about the relationships between these putative apical ancestors and their descendants, chances are good that these ancestors, unlike those of the pre-Koryŏ foreign clans, did in fact originate in China." The remaining clans in the current article are not descended from legends such as the ones you mentioned. For example, Shen Xiu (愼修), the founder of Geochang Shin clan, is mentioned in the Goryeosa. The current page is fine now since the legends are removed, it doesn't require complete deletion like the fabricated kings listed in the Cheongju Han clan genealogy, as seen here in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janghye of Gojoseon. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not a fact either. There is also a research/ report that supports that Sino-Tibetan (Chinese language) and Yeniseian language from Siberia and Na-Dene language from Alaska is related. Look at this link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41928491

But is it a fact? Nope it isnt. At least its not proven. Same can be said about what the chinese scholar wrote. Ger2024 (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're gonna remove information based on a citation source (Jin Guanlin), you need an actual reason over "I don't like it". Show me a paper disproving their origins and then remove it. I don't see why Jin shouldn't be trusted, just because he's a scholar from China doesn't mean he's wrong. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You do know that all this is just theory and not a fact right?

There are so many research studies that supports that Sino-Tibetan (Chinese language) and Yeniseian language from Siberia and Na-Dene language from Alaska are related. (all of them are from western linguist) but still its not proven.

Similarly, there is only 1 study that support the bongwan from Vietnam and Mongolia. (and even then its controversial). You cannot just use 1 study to prove your point. About the connection of Sino-Tibetan (Chinese language) and Yeniseian language from Siberia and Na-Dene language, there are more studies/reports that support this.

But still it is not "proven". Hence it is not a fact. Ger2024 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You do know that all this is just theory and not a fact right?

There are so many research studies that supports that Sino-Tibetan (Chinese language) and Yeniseian language from Siberia and Na-Dene language from Alaska are related. (all of them are from western linguist) but still its not proven.

Similarly, there is only 1 study that support the bongwan from Vietnam and Mongolia. (and even then its controversial). You cannot just use 1 study to prove your point. About the connection of Sino-Tibetan (Chinese language) and Yeniseian language from Siberia and Na-Dene language, there are more studies/reports that support this.

But still it is not "proven". Hence it is not a fact.

I have deleted everything except for surnames that migrated in recent years (those from United States,....) Ger2024 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@CountHacker I just want to say I respect your attitude and efforts to engage with someone who wasn't too keen on trying to engage with other users.

Apparently we were talking to a sock puppet, though that i think partially explains why they didnt respond to my warnings about telling them to not engage in edit warring + a ANI notice l left them earlier.

I do agree with your general arguments that the clans listed should be based off academic sources rather than folklore, please feel free to add your suggestions of adding clans based off academic research (with sourcing, the page def needs more sources). Im not the best expert on this topic though as indicated by the talk page, I do know a fair amount on the folklore side. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Even the Goryeo ones are also not proven, the history books and record books can be edited. Also the bongwans from Mongolia and Vietnam should be deleted as well. Since the information from Mongolia and Vietnam is from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (which previously you and Sunnyediting99 said that reference from there is not reliable. Since its not reliable, why dont you delete all the bongwans from Mongolia and Vietnam as well? Ger2024 (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have taken out bongwans from Mongolia and Vietnam as well. Since previously you guys have mentioned that sources from Encyclopedia of Korea culture is not accurate and not reliable. Ger2024 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The information about Mongolia and Vietnam is from Jin Guanlin, a Chinese scholar [3] not the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The Chinese scholar has taken information from sources in "Encyclopedia Of Korean Culture". (what was provided by koreans). But if you mention that "Encyclopedia Of Korean Culture"is not reliable, then you should remove this as well. Ger2024 (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Why so double standard? I thought you guys cannot trust Chinese people? Also the lady Saso have additional things to back up besides "Encyclopedia Of Korean Culture". The "Korean language and literature dictionary" has also stated this information that Lady Saso came from China (written by Korean academist themselves) Isnt this more reliable than the Chinese scholar claim on on Korean Bongwans from Mongolia and Vietnam? Shouldnt korean themelves know more about their own things? Ger2024 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also maybe you might want to delete the entire information in this page before you can get "real information". And even then what is even "real" in history. History can be fabricated in recent times. You can quote whichever reference you want, but there is no way to actually prove it. Ger2024 (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)