Talk:Korean mythology/Archive 1

Archive 1

What About Adding Some Stories?

The page only mentions certain things like the creation of the world and things like that. Only a couple of actual folklore is in it (i.e. Hungbu nolbu, Sun and Moon). BUt what about the story of Kyonu and Chingnyo, the two lovers who meet only once a year. Another would be the story of the lumberjack who got a golden axe from a spirit, or something like that. There are many more that can be mentioned too. --Jettd42291 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Cosmology

I removed the "Cosmology" section as it was unsourced and does not bear much resemblance to Korean mythology as the term is generally understood. I have a notion that the content of this section was largely taken from the Hwandan Gogi, possibly with an admixture of the Gyuwon Sahwa, and it might find a home in those articles -- but only if properly sourced. -- Visviva 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are the content of neither Hwandangogi nor Gyuwon Sahwa. The content is from the famous mythical books by Park Jesang Budoji부도지. It is better restore again. This is the text of budoji and its interpretation. [1] --Drpepper000 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2003-2004 discussion

Zestauferov, do you believe Hwandangogi? --Nanshu 01:15, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• _{This sentence was removed by 86.128.125.158 (talk · contribs) at 2006-11-03T20:53:21 without permission, so is restored.}

한국어 아라요? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 2003-11-24T09:45:30 (UTC)

I don't speak Korean.
This article contains new "mythology" but I don't know enough to separate it from actual mythology. I'm curious where you taken the information. --Nanshu 23:10, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing "new" about any of the info on the page. Korean mythology is disintegrating rapidly to the level of folklore because of lack of interest or perhaps rather embarrassment. The modern Korean is most often lapsed buddhist a member of some kind of protestant church or atheist (disenchanted through the corrupt and chauvenistic form of Confusionism which has developed since the late Chosun period where a strict hierachy exists with despotic eldest son-grandfathers heading the families) and influenced mainly by American trends. Shamanism has been almost stamped out and remains mainly as a means of making money amongst charlatans and new-age young-grannies. The Shamanic mythology is shunned or sneered at as a matter of shame. The only acceptable form for the appearance of any of the old mythological figures is in the form of a children's fairytale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 2003-11-26T10:26:35 (UTC)

Quote from the article:

7 Hwanins ruled a country in succession from 7193-3898 BCE their country spreading 50,000-li north to south and 20,000-li east to west comprising of twelve Dongyi nations. Bak-dal Nara, the first Dongyi state of Greater Mongolia stretching from the Stanovoy mountains in the Lake Baykal vicinity from the North to the Yangzi river in the south (including present Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Anhui) and the Russian Maritime Provinces in the East to Dunhuang in the west is established in 3898 BCE ruled by the first of 18 Hwanungs. Tangun the son of the last Huanung recorded in Korean memory Kuh-bul-dan established Korea in 2333BC.

This is NOT traditional mythology. Such an absurd story has been cooked up since the end of the 19th century. --Nanshu 00:56, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? The Koreans I meet and talk to are convinced that this is the case, and they always say that Japanese people hate this fact because it undermines their claim to Kendo (I do not understand the exact nature of this claim). It seems like it is a pretty well known story in certain circles. Out of interest, what is your basis for suggesting the book was only written in the 19thC withut earlier precedence? By the way do you live in Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 2003-11-30T06:29:19 (UTC)

You seem to live too long in Korea. Unfortunately, Koreans tend to receive other Koreans' stories on faith without checking whether they are really true. So, we often have to trace back to the ultimate sources, which require knowledge of Classical Chinese, as for history.

My basis for suggesting the book was only written in the 19thC? It's a rather long story. I think Choe Inseong provindes nice analysis of Hwandangogi and other books.

And, yes, I am an engineering student living in Japan. --Nanshu 23:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is certainly interesting discussion of Korean mythology. Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with Korean mythology? Are you guys an expert or people interested in mythology in general? Although I would appreciate it if animosity between Japan and Korea politically or otherwise does not result in disrespecting each other's culture full of tradition...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.245.150 (talk) 2004-01-11T17:34:34 (UTC)

My $0.02: I have to agree with Nanshu that as it stands this is not a fair presentation of traditional mythology. Mythology, yes, but there is a lot of contamination from unreliable 19th-century sources such as Hwandangogi (yes, it was only written in the 19th century), and it is difficult to separate what the genuine traditional myths are from these, owing to the loss of a large body of traditional manuscripts. I can't really edit the article at this point because I am not a student of Korean mythology, but I have read fairly extensive scholarly works based on Shamanic narratives and folklore, and it would be nice to have the results of such studies summarised here rather than the Bakdalnara cycle. I am Korean, by the way, should anyone jump to conclusions. --Iceager 23:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello I am a Korean myself, and I have heard this mythology since childhood, so I do believe there is nothing wrong about the content of this article and it is a well known story.I DO agree that the dates in the quote shown by Nanshu is highly likely forged (except for the founging of the Joseon), as it is quite impossible to get exact dates of things that happened thousands of years ago, but Korea's history is VERY long. And for the fact that we are embarrased at our ancestor's beliefs, I think that no matter how farfetched the stories are they are still our history and culture. Also, most of Japan's culture originated from Korea itself. JustShin 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am a Korean. But, I have never heard this mythology. Please show us the first historical materials of this mythology. These discussions are not academic controversies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.111.79.98 (talk) 2007-06-12T08:28:23 (UTC)

Another Korean pitching in. I also have not heard of the Koreah mythology extending beyond 2333 B.C. until last year. Though, since then I've been researching the topic myself since I have a severe interest in mythologies and folk beliefs. I found out that the old old myths are considered credible enough the Korean academia spends a fair amount of time and effort researching and debating it. If this is the case, I think it's safe enough to mention it in this article without labeling it a chauvinistic forgery... Though I'm not naive enough to say that the dates and years mentioned are to be trusted 100%.--24.27.128.220 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:TNT

It's so bad, we probably need to restart this from scratch. I have reviewed a number of Korean topics now, and it really seems as if people contributing to Korean topics are somehow under the impression they are excused from citing sources and just dump tons of unreferenced, and mostly essay-like, text. The only possible approach to such a situation is this, blank unreferenced content first, ask questions later. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Needed to clean up

The article looks quite mess.....--Appletrees (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like no one's worked on it since. That summary is baaad. Is there anyone here willing to work on this? Edit: There we go, had to go and get my user. Darxide (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

From an inexperienced Wikipedia user: I don't really know how to edit wikipedia, but LARGE portions of this article are plagiarized from "An Illustrated Guide to Korean Mythology" by Choi Won-Oh. I have the book next to me and am comparing it with the article. The ENTIRE section on kut is a direct quote of the book's preface, and the classification of Korean myths also seems to be lifted from it. This book is not even correctly cited in the references, and there is no indication that large portions of this article were lifted directly from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.161.162 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up the lead and the first section and the second section (Changed the title, etc). I don't have time for the next few sections. Also the book is dated to 1988, so I updated to a book with a 1998 and tried to get rid of the judgmental language towards Muism, by using terms Muists would use. For example, Muists would say Muism, rather than Shinkyo, the basis would not be Kut, which is a ritual, but on the religion itself, and also calling them crazy witches, wizards, etc and changing that to "Shaman" and "Shamanesses" as well as the odd male-centric bit of muism, despite the fact that it's thought the early religion was split 50/50 practice with the majority who actually practice today being women. (Despite past persecution) I can also add 2 books of legends, but I need to find space to reference them.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a few typos: Under Gods of Death "juhseung chasa" it should actually read JeoSeung Saja - or something similar. It's also not uniform throughout the article: sometimes jeoseung, sometimes juhseung. Either one sounds close to the Korean, but we should pick one and stick to it. All other references to "Chasa" might be incorrect, given that the word "Sa-ja" means envoy/emissary - Jeoseung Saja being an emissary of the afterlife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.235.220 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about TNT

...but large swathes of this article do need to be killed with fire. It seems to be under the impression that the Cheonjiwang Bonpuri is the entirety of Korean mythology or has deities who reflect anything except local Jeju beliefs. Since an article on "Korean mythology" should be about the mythology of Korea, the entire thing probably needs to be shunted to a separate article on Jeju beliefs with links and parallels discussed. This article, however, should be focused on the mainland, particularly the most common beliefs of the common Koreans and any official cults patronized by the various Korean states. — LlywelynII 16:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a total rewrite. Some thoughts.

This article isn't cutting it.

First, there needs to be a proper definition of mythology. When Korean scholars talk of Han'guk sinhwa "Korean mythology," they mean one of two wildly different corpuses:

• Munheon sinhwa "literary mythology": Stories transcribed in sources such as the Samguk Sagi, e.g. Dangun, and which are now divorced from their ritual context. These include state foundation myths, the supernatural stories preserved in the traditional histories, and myths about the founding ancestors of descent groups described in jokbo.
• Musok sinhwa "shamanic mythology": The mythical narrative poetry that is a fundamental part of religious practice in modern Korean shamanism. These are divided geographically, into mainland narratives and the Jeju bon-puri, or by topic (as seen in the bon-puri article). This includes the myths of village patron deities (maeul sinhwa "village myths" or dang sinhwa "shrine myths"), because ritual dedicated to village patrons typically involve shamans.

If you look at the Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Culture's category for "Mythology", you will see that every single one of the stories listed is one of these two. The only exception is the creator giantess Mago-halmi, but even she does appear as a side character in the mainland shamanic narrative The Princess Bari and in the Jeju Heogeung-aegi bon-puri. And if you look at their definition of "mythology", they say:

"구연자가 이야기의 내용이 신성하다고 여기며, 이야기의 내용이 옳은가 거짓인가에 대한 비판이 금기시되는 것이 신성성이 구현되는 양상이다... 한국신화는 문헌에 정착한 건국신화와 무속의식에서 전승되는 무속신화가 주류를 이루고 있고, 마을에서 전승되는 당신화와 씨족집단에서 전승되는 성씨시조신화 등도 있다."

"[Mythology] is a genre where the narrator believes that the content of the story is sacred, and discussion of whether the story is true or false is tabooed... The mainstream of Korean mythology are the state foundation myths preserved in literary sources and the shamanic myths transmitted in shamanic rituals, but there are also shrine myths passed down in the village and descent group founder myths passed down within the descent group."

Keeping this in mind, my opinion WRT article scope is that:

• Namu-doryeong and Mago-halmi should be moved to Korean folklore, because stories associated with them do not hold religious significance and are not old enough to be grandfathered into being considered mythology. The current Korean folklore article is not about the same type of "folklore" that Russian folklore, English folklore, French folklore, etc., are about, and should also be totally rewritten.
• The primary divisions in this article should be one section discussing literary mythology, a second section discussing shamanic mythology, and a final section about connections between the two (e.g. the Jumong myth parallels the Jeseok bon-puri).

That's one issue. The second issue is that the current organization-by-topic system is dysfunctional:

• The Princess Bari is not an "afterworld myth" but the archetypal "myth of the ancestral shaman" (mujo sinhwa), along with the Jeju Chogong bon-puri.
• Once this article reaches a somewhat comprehensive state, organization-by-topic will easily fall apart. For example, Jeju has the Munjeon bon-puri, the myth of the household gods. The mainland analogue to this (identical narrative structure and details) is the Chilseong bon-puri, the myth of the star gods. Similarly, the Chogong bon-puri (myth of ancestral shamans) is the Jeju version of the mainland Jeseok bon-puri (myth of the fertility gods).
• Because Jeju probably has as many structured shamanic myths as the rest of Korea combined, organization-by-topic leads to a disproportionately Jeju-focused article. But Jeju is just 1% of the Korean population!

IMO, the "shamanic myths" category should be organized like this:

• Section 1: Introduction of ritual context.
• Section 2: Mainland narratives, with a focus on those found throughout large parts of the mainland. Myths that deserve a dedicated paragraph are The Princess Bari, the Jeseok bon-puri, the Changse-ga-type creation myths, and the two Seongju puri myth groups, with maybe a line or two for the Chilseong puri and the Sonnim-gut.
• Section 3: Jeju narratives. Sum up the bon-puri article in a few paragraphs, noting mainland-Jeju parallels where appropriate. A few bon-puri deserve their own paragraphs; I'd think Chogong, Chasa, Segyeong, and the village-shrine Gwenegi-t-to bon-puri would be broadly representative.
• Section 4: Connections between shamanic mythology and folklore/Buddhism.

Thoughts? I'm not sure if I'll have the time to fix this, but it does deserve fixing.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Deities" section is also unusable

The "deities" section, which I just noticed, is nigh-unusuable:

• Mixes literary deities with shamanic deities. Hwanung is not worshipped in Korean shamanism, and Dangun only barely.
• Mixes NRM deities with traditional deities. Haneullim is not worshipped in Korean shamanism either, and a quick look through Google Books at the source in the Haneullim article shows that not only is the source of questionable academic reliability WRT the history of Korean shamanism (describing the religion as a "deteriorated form... in need of radical renovation" and making nationalist claims not current in South Korean scholarship), the author himself concedes that Haneullim is "neglected" in the modern religion.
• Mixes Jeju deities with mainland deities. Seonang and Danggeum-agi worship is mainland only, Hallakgung'i or Sobyeol-wang are Jeju only. They were never worshipped together.
• Unreliable sources: Bugeun is not a god of sexual relationships and Doosan Encyclopedia is not a very reliable source; EKFC, the actual reliable source, describes Bugeun as a title for gods used in the Seoul region, often deified historical individuals.
• OR: Nowhere in the Woncheon'gang bon-puri (all of which you can read in English here) is it mentioned what sort of goddess the main character Today becomes. Gamang (called Gamheung in the article) is not the "father of the gods" and is not described as such in the source. Gamang is actually a mainland deity invoked only to begin a religious ceremony, whose exact nature is not clearly described by shamans.

In fact, I think it might be better to remove the deities section entirely.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean mythology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MisterCake (talk · contribs) 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It's well written, but worth going over it all before I pass when there's a possibility of some strange translation or something. Done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Despite spinning narratives it keeps it in summary.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: y
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Nice images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Could use 'alt' text as it's called. Did it.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good to go.

Introduction

• Pick one of "bodies" or "corpus" for consistency. Something like "sets" might be more neutral, though literary terms ok too.
• Might use "what is history and what is mythology" or something. "where it history ends and mythology begins" is perfectly understandable, but worry it's more "journalistic" than encyclopedic
• "they" instead of "the category"
• "only in fossilized form" - I assume this needs quote marks
• "first intepretations" rather than e. g. "first studies" is interesting choice of words
• "defined by religious sanctity" little unclear
• "Don't think "descent groups" is used in English; rather "ethnic group"
• "The term myth is used here in its academic sense" "the academic sense" sounds better
• 'It is not being used to mean "something that is false".' Just say false, or is untrue, or something. "Something that is false" makes me think a proposition

Literary mythology

• "The oldest surviving accounts of the founding myths of the ancient Korean kingdoms—such as Gojoseon, Goguryeo, and Silla—are transcribed in Classical Chinese in Korean texts compiled during or after the twelfth century, although these were based on earlier, now-lost sources. " Can't put my finger on it but might need rewording. Long sentence if nothing else.

• Not a deal-breaker but consider when you can put references at the end of sentences. Sometimes it needs to be next to a word with a comma, and sometimes it can be moved to the end of the sentence and understood as to which word it refers. When it is the latter case, my eyes prefer it.

• "Having ruled for fifteen centuries, Dan'gun moves away when King Wu of Zhou sends Jizi to Korea." May need elaboration

• "Yi's work is much longer and more detailed than the Samguk sagi, but much of this may be due to the poet's own literary embellishment." Needs a source

Shamanic narratives and oral mythology

• "shamanism increasingly appealed most to women in the private sphere who were marginalized by the new social structure" Would rewrite this. Maybe "shamanism began to appeal mostly to women in the private sphere."

@MisterCake: Thank you for taking this on!

• Unified at "corpus". "Set" is a bit ambiguous for my tastes.
• Reworded to "differentiate between historical fact and mythology".
• "Fossilized form" is my wording, actually!
• Absolutely, "interpretations" there is an awkward translation from Korean. Fixed.
• Your edit as "is always religious" is perfectly fine there.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point - I think it's the word with most definitions in the OED. In contrast, I worry corpus is a little 'niche'. Hence I went with group in the lead. Not sure myself.

That one is good.

Ah, it seemed to contrast with the quoted "living mythology". Might just say "documents" for the less flowery language, rather than "fossilized form.

More to go over but just to respond, and no problem, interesting stuff. Pardon that not as fast as if it were my native tongue. Cake (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@MisterCake:

• "Descent group" is an anthropological term not uncommon in English-language scholarship on East Asia, referring to a social unit which claims descent from a single distant ancestor: an extended family in its most extended sense, such as the descendants of Confucius. Unfortunately we don't have a proper article for it. Modern Korea has no indigenous ethnic group other than Koreans, but there are thousands of descent groups. If you think it's too confusing I could change it to "kinship group" or "family lineages", although again this isn't ideal because "descent group" is a specific term in academia with a precise meaning.
• "Included in genealogies" is also intentional because most of these genealogies really do consist only of family trees; these myths are introductions that take up only a very small volume of the text.
• The issues with the myth notice have to do with Template:Myth FAQ, unfortunately.
• The "oldest surviving accounts" sentence has been reworded.
• The Jizi sentence has been contextualized a bit.
• The citation in question has been moved up to make it clearer where the sourcing comes from.
• The women sentence has been reworded, but the fact that women were marginalized by increasing enforcement of patriarchy and found relief in shamanism is an important point to note here and should be kept.
• I will add some alt-texts soon, though I feel that they might coincide with the captions.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm. While that's interesting and will apologize if deleting it was brash, that's all one means by an ethnic group. The descendants of Charlemagne a Westerner might say; a group of people sharing a common ancestor. It's true that families fit that too - a family is a kind of ethnic group, hence ethnic groups can be described as extended families in the most extended sense. The Lee Family of Virginia or European-Americans or Europeans are all ethnic groups. Regardless, while I'm not sure I see any ambiguity, I still treated it as if there was some, hence "families and ethnic groups." The 'descent groups' seem to be family genealogies and surnames, yet so many of them to constitute an ethnic group, or whatever is between that and a family. Further, "descent group" seems to me a proprietary use. Could well be in anthropology and sociology journals, or have some technical usage in a Korean context for which I am ignorant. But if it's just, what's the word in an English dictionary where's it's "blahblah" group and you mean that strain of people tied by common descent. In the bible "Ethnos" means another nation of people or nations of people in general. Clan or tribe are other possibilities. If it translates as "descent group" literally; hard for me to complain. Cake (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly didn't want it deleted, just put it as a footnote when I was worried the caption was so large in turn making the meatier text into odd shapes unnecessarily. Unless I've been doing it wrong, alt texts are more like describing the experience to a blind person or something. If they are still to be done, I could do them after I went through the rest. Cake (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 151 is Seo D. 2002 and I assume it's supposed to be 2001. Understandable typo but it's always possible they had another publication the next year missing in the list of works cited. Also, how then 151 and 152 can be combined, and 1st and 2nd, that's nice to look for sometimes. This article isn't so lengthy where that's a big concern, but if you make one that is, fewer notes can make it load that much faster. Cake (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Pardon to get on you for the Myth FAQ. Indeed something about it looks wrong. Cake (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nature and context of shamanic narratives

• "musicians who provide musical accompaniment " can just be 'accompaniment', and have said musicians.
• Not sure if keep the "see below" and "aforementioned" notes with Bari. Those seem to be confusing, as if they refer to each other.
• Seems like "All shamanic narratives meet the purposes of both religiosity and entertainment, albeit to varying degrees." should be the first or second sentence. It goes with the first more than the preceding, it seems to me.
• Seems like the one paragraph starting "Korean shamanism" needs to be separated into two somewhere.

Regional traditions of shamanic mythology

• "as well as characteristic preferences in the performance of narratives." might need a rephrase. differences maybe?
• "Ethnologist Hong Tae-han calls it a grouping made for convenience" a quote or characterizing what he said?
• "This region has the fewest myths." A little abrupt. Maybe "also"?
• "The musicians go beyond simply providing background music to intervene directly in the performance" Try just ", intervening" rather than "to intervene."
• "while the performing shaman actively addresses the specific audience watching the ritual" would rephrase or try to trim down
• "Vibrant" seems unencyclopedic. Maybe "active"?
• "human" musicians seems implied
• "Uniquely out of the five regions, Princess Bari is unknown in Jeju" Might can be stated better, like just straightforwardly, it's the only region where Princess Bari is unknown.
• Dont think "of shamanic narratives" needed in section headers. much like one doesn't need "Silla state foundation myth". its already a subset.Cake (talk)

@MisterCake:

• I've changed "descent group" to "family lineage", which I think preserves the meaning decently and gets away from the jargon of the original term. "Ethnic" to me implies e.g. Race and ethnicity in the United States Census or Ethnic groups recognized by the People's Republic of China. "Clan" is possible but I would avoid it because it has a political/military connotation, e.g. the Arab clans or Scottish highland clans that were political as well as social units, which has never been the case in Korea.
• I'd be very grateful if you could do the alt text at the end, especially since it's nice to have a fresh pair of eyes.
• The citation fixes have been done. And thanks for noting that the article isn't too long! Getting it to fit into WP:SIZE recommendations and not have it look like, e.g., the Donald Trump article was actually quite challenging given the breadth of the topic.
• "musicians who provide musical accompaniment" is indeed quite the tautology.
• Neither the "below" nor the "aforementioned" seemed particularly useful, so I've removed them.
• "All shamanic narratives meet the purposes of both religiosity and entertainment, albeit to varying degrees" now heads the paragraph.
• The Korean shamanism paragraph is indeed a bit long, but I'm not sure there's a natural break there, especially when most of the paragraph is cited to a single source.
• "as well as characteristic preferences in the performance of narratives" was reworded to "as well as distinctive tendencies in the actual performance of the narratives".
• Hong's statement has been expanded on and contextualized.
• "Also" has been added there.
• "To intervene" was changed to "and intervene". "Intervening" would also work, but it seemed better to cut down on the number of commas per sentence.
• "while the performing shaman actively addresses the specific audience watching the ritual" was changed to "while the performing shaman actively interacts with the human audience" (in implied opposition to the divine audience, of course).
• "vibrant" was changed to "vigorous".
• "human" has been removed there.
• "Uniquely out of the five regions, Princess Bari is unknown in Jeju" was rephrased to "The island represents the only tradition where Princess Bari is unknown".
• The section headers have been reworded.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Think it's looking better. For "creation narratives" all I would do is wonder about "making life unbearably hot during day and unbearably cold during night" if it's unbearable, how is there life? It says "original" like it might mean before life. If it doesn't just mean "too", I've possible missed something. Also, maybe section headings, since it's so focused on compare and contrast Jeju and northern. Cake (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Localized mainland shaman narratives

""But when Kim-jangja rejects the Visitors again" again? a second time?

"only to ignore the vow when they recall the illness in response." ambiguous whether it's him or the gods, though presumably it means the gods ignored it and recalled it.

Also before the last two or three sections - good to make sure all the older dates at least have a CE or AD or BC or whatever they need. And we don't need to link to the article internally.

Jeju shamanic narratives

First paragraph seems to say there are three or four, but I count two or three. Cake (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@MisterCake: Thank you for the general copyediting.

• "Unbearably" has been tempered down to "very"; the actual myths are not very clear about how humanity survived at all in the age of the doubled suns and moons, given that they talk about people drying up from heat during day and bursting open from frozen veins during night and other such pleasant things. But most of the narratives are still clear on the fact that the earth was still inhabited in this primordial age.
• "Again" has been changed to "a second time".
• Kim-jangja ignores his promise to sacrifice for the gods, and the Visitors kill his son in response. I've tidied up this part so it should be clearer.
• Could you point to some dates that need CEs or BCEs? The only BCE dates are in the Buyeo, Goguryeo, and Baekje section, and they're all marked as such. The other dates can all be understood to be CE from context, since e.g. 1762 is clearly 1762 CE when we're talking about an oral tradition.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps it was just one: " The oldest of the five is the Gwanggaeto Stele, erected in 414". Seems to need an AD or CE for Fall of Rome times.
• Notes "c" and "g" seem to need a footnote. Might be the source next to it. Also, used to the numbers in front of the letters rather than vice versa, but I suppose that doesn't matter. After one more scan and assuming my concerns were addressed, I'll add the 'alt' for the pictures and pass it. Cheers. Cake (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@MisterCake:

• 414 CE has been added.
• Citations have been added to the footnotes.

Thank you again for the thorough review!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)