Talk:Samguk sagi/Archive 1

Archive 1

1145 or 1146?

I follow the majority not the minority at the moment, although I don't like such manner. Kadzuwo 10:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oldest?

Yes, this is very well known.Kadzuwo 11:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about Hwarang Segi?

It is thought ordinarily as a forgery among Korean scholars. But only Professor Yi Yung Hoon of Seoul National University department of economics is against it, and Korean News Paper reported about his claim:

• Korean page
• Machine translation by worldlingo (Hwarang Segi is translated as "anger Rang century")

If translation does not appeared, please use Worldlingo.

Please remember it is not my word but a report from Korean major news paper.Kadzuwo 00:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A correction: Professor Yi Yung Hoon is not only one but one of few such scholars. I'm very sorry for my misreading.Kadzuwo 01:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chronicles?

Why suddenly is it being called the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms? I think this will only cause confusion as it has always been translated in academic literature as History of the Three Kingdoms. Chronicles to me describes a purely chronological history (therefore the pongi section of the history might be termed the Chronicles of Silla, etc.). But the Samguk sagi as a whole incorporates biographies and monographs as well. Besides, the Chinese 史記 clearly denotes "historical record" not chronicle.

Straitgate (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

The first two of the external links give 404s. Could someone add another Samguk Sagi source? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

Since the lack of reference and sources it should be looked over and be rewritten. Some part is really hard to follow. And the whole article seems to discredit the author rather give information about the book. To me it seems to violate NPOV since the lack of reference... And what doest the "Assessment" section do here!? Wiki is not suppose to make any assessments. Just present facts. Im removing that section for now... – Oppa ^talk –  22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Assessment" section has any problem. It is generally accepted concerns. If the name "Assessment" is not appropriate, then please change the name of the section instead of blanking the whole section. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the content, but the whole article already points out that section and its up to the reader to make assessment of the fact presented, no? – Oppa ^talk –  15:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no references to any sources that support any statements or the "Assessments" in this article. Please provide some.. this article have no credibility. Only bias POV AFAICS – Oppa ^talk –  01:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)