Talk:Gogok

Untitled

I edited this page to make it more comprehensive and informative. Tortfeasor 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Visviva 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gokok?

Shouldn't we be providing titles that conform to the July 2000 romanization scheme? The title here seems to be a play on Mc-R. Isn't it "Gokok" according to the July 2000 scheme? Additionally, according to this romanized title "Kokkok", the Korean should be 곡곡 which is obviously not correct.

i agree, somebody please move it to the properly romanized name. my guess would be gok-ok, but not 100% sure. Appleby 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I admit I don't have the technical expertise for it. To be honest, someone in magatama made this page because they were made about some of the edits there. Tortfeasor 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be gogok under RR. I think that the middle consonant is usually tensed -- although none of the dictionaries at hand can confirm this -- but that kind of sound change is recognized only in MR, not in RR. Hence gogok in RR, and possibly kokok in MR. Mercifully, RR is the one that's most important for us here. Anyway, if someone with native-speaker intuition can clarify the pronunciation, that would be excellent. -- Visviva 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Ok, its quite clear that the Gogok and Magatama articles have nearly the some information and are the Japan and Koren-centric forks of each other. There is no need to two articles to discuss the the same topic. The articles need to be merged, and the nationalistic difference worked out, as the duplication is redundant. pschemp | talk 14:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp: First, thanks for the picture of the gogok necklace. I would have probably agreed with you that this was a fork when my edits in magatama were deleted because the information was "Korean" and I was asked to make a gogok article. However, I now think that it would be okay if the two articles stand seperate. Scholarly sources use both "magatama" and "gogok" as evidenced by all the citations and I think that that is a very strong evidence that both terms are different and distinguishable. Additionally, the word magatama has a stronger meaning than just "comma-shaped beads" (which is what the presumably merged title of the new article would be) because of the importance of imperial regalia, etc. Let me know what you think. Tortfeasor 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why one article can't address what are basically regional differences in the exact same object. Scholarly articles are written from national points of view too, but really, other than the significance in the two cultures, the information in these two articles is the same, in some cases word for word. They never should have been split in the first place, splitting is not the answer to arguments over their origin. Neither should the sourced information have been removed from magatama to begin with. Just because the British and the Americians use different words for fried potatoes slices, (chips vs crisps) doesn't mean we need two separate articles about it, though people on either side may be passionate in defending their particular regional term adn even may write scholarly articles about it. They are the same object, and need to be in the same article, especially since the origin can't be pinned down to either culture, and writing from just one view results in two POV articles rather than one NPOV article. pschemp | talk 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think it may be word for word just because the same editors worked on both pages but I guess that is beside the point.

"Espcially since the origin can't be pinned down to either culture" shouldn't be the main reason why we should merge. If Keally, hardly a pro-Korean guy, states that the majority of the archaeological community believes that comma-shaped beads originated in Korea and since there haven't been other sources proferred in the last 2 or 3 months, it doesn't seem that the origin is as controversial as some would hope/like it to be.

Question: would you merge it into Magatama or Comma-shaped beads or Gogok?

I'm still on the fence but I think your argument is persuasive. Tortfeasor 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, if the origin isn't controversial, that means the Magatama *are* Gogok and thus the same object. There doesn't seem to be any physical difference in the two objects either. As far as I can tell one is not more comma shaped than the other and the term applied to it only depends on where it was found. If there was some huge difference in the object, rather than just cultural significance, I'd be more inclined to keep them separate.

That being said, yes indeed, putting them at one name or the other may start the next Japanese/Korean war, but again I use the Crisp example. It redirects to Potato chip, the American term and the article mentions the British term first thing, but a decision was made, and while I'm quite sure not everyone in Britain is happy about that, a war wasn't started and a compromise was agreed on. This is what redirects are for. I don't really care which place it goes, in fact I'd be happy to hear reasons for either. This would be a decision that would need to be worked out, and might be painful, but I'm sure the editors here are mature enough to come to a decision.pschemp | talk 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

i would have to agree that the articles should be merged, for logically satisfying encyclopedic organization. they really do refer to the same object, in slightly different cultural contexts. i share tortfeasor's fears of an ugly edit war, however, as evidenced in certain other articles that have recently brought out the ugliest of partisanship, vandalism, sockpuppeteering, etc.

i like your potato chip/crisp example, & tentatively, i would consider naming the merged article magatama (since it is apparently more common) but mentioning gogok first in the text (apparently earlier origin). the critical thing would be for a nonpartisan editor like you, pschemp, to try to keep the discussion on track. Appleby 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. PSchemp, could you clarify? Do you want, for example, a magatama page with gogok redirecting to magatama? Or do you think that the two should be merged under an innocuous title, such as Comma-shaped beads (which they are also commonly refered to) with subarticles on magatama and gogok. If we merge, I would prefer a neutral name.

Also, I see that you understand the political ramifications of such a move/merge. I can hardly say that we Korean and Japanese interested editors are as mature as our British and American interested colleagues and blood would be on your hand  :-)

If its okay, I would like to see what other editors opinions are but for right now I would be leaning towards a merge under a neutral name: Comma-shaped beads. Tortfeasor 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

on second thought, i can see a problem with gogok redirecting to magatama ... since they are signs of royalty in respective countries, the cognitive dissonance would be much more than "potato crisp" redirecting to "potato chip," perhaps almost as bad as "Qur'an" redirecting to "Bible." (i exaggerate, but not by much) i guess it would all depend on the commonness of the terms magatama, gogok/gokok/kokok/kokkok/etc, comma-shaped bead/jewel/stone/etc. my general impression was that magatama was more common in english, but accurate searches will be hard to conduct. perhaps if both articles are more filled out with respective specific cultural context, they should remain separate? i just don't know, so will just shut up for now. Appleby 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against. As the origin of the beads are not verifiable (unless somebody invents a time machine), I can see a problem with merging one to the other. Also, a neutral name merge would make no sense to a reader. Would you search for "Potato based snack (fried)"? I say leave the articles alone, and continue expanding Magatama. Leave Gogok for somebody with more knowledge on the Korean side and have both articles live in harmony (symbolic pun intended). -- Emana 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

most archaeologists?

"However, most archaeologists conclude that this art form originated in Korea." Can anyone cite the sources of the statistics? If there is no such things, the sentence should be deleted.--Hskf4 10:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese claims are flimsy

Japan is known for stealing ancient Korean artifacts since the Hideyoshi war on Korea to forced Japanese occupational period, as much as 200,000 artifacts were stolen from Korea and only few thousands were returned. Japanese have been busy fabricating their ancient past to claimed on Korea's ancient past. Without the proper bronze and confiscated tools you can not produce artifacts like Gog-ok (curved jade), also where are all these other jades from Japan, why only just Gog-ok? There is high possibility that Japanese have been stealing Korea's Gog-ok and claiming as theirs.

Japan claims Gog-ok was originated from Northern Japan during later stone age, that would be Ainu people. Today, no Ainu people in Japan are producing any Gog-ok jades or precious stone items. We all know about Ainu people in Japan, they weren't very developed people.--Korsentry 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Connection with Pazyryk burial felt?

Come to think of it, the ornaments for a horse in the Pazyryk felt look like gogoks. Komitsuki (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gogok/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is controversial and has merge template (with Magatama- origin cannot be agreed upon.

Last edited at 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gogok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612092144/http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/catalogue_detail.php?&object_number=C.102-1984&_limit_=10&_function_=xslt to http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/catalogue_detail.php?&object_number=C.102-1984&_limit_=10&_function_=xslt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)