From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I think that the Chi Woo myth doesn't belong here. It is about Chi You, a Chinese and Miao deity not about a Korean mythical emperor. It should be moved to Korean Mythology , since this is like focusing on Ammon in the Zeus article! In other words, the article has become Out Of Topic. As a Chinese, I feel quite offended about the nationalism (or even jingoism?) in Japanese (Empress Jingo) and Korean mythology (think of the vast Korean empire of the mythical ages). Well, Chi You's tomb is in Shandong? This reminds me of Korean ultra-nationalists who claim that this region was actually Korean... Hmm... Is this a racist myth,, claiming that Chinese are inferior (and not equal) to Koreans?!? I am afraid that this is the case.

wow, many errors to point out for you. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

References and other concerns[edit]

Aside from the absolute lack of references in this article, does anyone else think that the inclusion of a korean soccer team support group and comics is straying a bit much from the mythology article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Another angle of the picture[edit]

From the folklores that my father and uncles and grandpas have told to me, they mentioned that koreans and miao/hmong among other ethnic groups were from the same *tribe* ruled by chi you in ancient times. also told to me was that japanese origin were from the same group of tribes under chi you's ruling/guidance before war broke out between chi you and huang di. they told me of the many tribes that chi you brought together, and the groupings that they made to distinguish the different clans. i believe 7 groups were eventually established. if considering this, it could very well have been the same one (chi you) mentioned in the korean mythology. i, being half hmong/half bouyei, pronouce the name chi you as txiv yawg, which sounds pretty much like chi you, meaning grandpa. since as long as i can remember, my father has told me that our clan group was that of the 5th group. being that asia has one of the oldest record history, many things were for sure lost/distorted because they were initally passed down orally, from father to son, and so on. separation for 1000s of years would yeild difference in folklore but from researching about korean mythology, the korean version of chi you does resemble that of the one that was told to me. i wouldn't just throw out the notion that the korean version is out of whack because of its almost overwhelming similarity to my own.

Just because some legend is nationalistic, racist, or otherwise offensive, doesn't mean it's not a factual legend. There is plenty of scope in this article for both perspectives — but not for POV accusations. -- Perey 23:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chi Woo and Chi You are referred to using the same characters and have their sources from the same texts. They ought to be in the same article.--thevizier 12:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


And, when you are speaking of high-antiquity, it would be rather meaningless to refer to the tribes under Huang Di and Chi You as Chinese, Hmong, Korean etc... Perhaps they were culturally and genetically the ancestors of the current people, but given population movement, culture exchange, intermarriage, even that isn't a clear and fast way to determine things. That the Koreans trace their ancestory to the Dong Yi people in Shandong, I think, does not mean China nowadays is any less of what it is. The Dong Yi tribes, merely being the ancestors to later proto-Korean peoples (and proto-Chinese) does not mean they were either Chinese or Korean, as both those terms are grossly anachronistic in reference to something around 3000-1000 BCE. --thevizier 12:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Koreans did worshipped Chi You as a war deity, but I see the things about Baedal and Hwangoong as a different mythology. I divided the article into sections and clarified the statements for the NPOV. --Puzzlet Chung 15:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying the whole thing (I am the original author of this article; I apologize for overreacting and being so whiny). I think that factual accuracy and NEUTRALITY are assured now, and no one should be offended now. It`s a shame that mythology has often been politically abused (I`ve to admit that I stepped into this peculiar trap). Oh, and sorry for my horrible English.

17:31, 2 Jul 2005, "Li Siwen"

(removed by owner)

I'd like to point out one thing. The fact that Koreans traditionally worshipped Chi You is rather irrelevant to the present ultra-nationalistic popularity of "Chi Woo." After all, Koreans also worshipped(?) Guan Yu (Korean: 관우). In Seoul, there is a temple for Guan Yu, called Dongmyo (동묘). (There's also a subway station of the same name.) Nobody with half a sense claims that Guan Yu was Korean based on that. It's just like that Europeans' worship of Jesus doesn't make them Jewish.
I for one am disgusted at this endless parade of ignorance by some Koreans. (I know Puzzlet Chung is not one of them... I'm just disgusted at those whose parade of ignorance is so widespread that they deserve an entry on their own in Wikipedia.) Yongjik 09:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone cite any sources to demontrate the Goguryeo worship Chi You?[edit]

I doubt the authencity.--Ksyrie 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, but, no one is sure. Jtm71 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for my education, can anyone cite any other sources than Hwandan Gogi to demontrate that Chi You was an ancestor of Korean?[edit]

because it is unbelieveable that there was no text record until 1910's if Korean really regarded him as an ancestor for thousands of years.

I agree that ancient Korean might worship Chi You, but it does not mean he was regarded as an ancestor, just like the case of Guan Yu, mentioned by a Korean friend above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobori (talkcontribs) 06:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reddevil.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Reddevil.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(It should be noted that this account is the direct opposite of Chinese accounts.)[edit]

I was wondering at the end of the Korean account why it said that it is the direct opposite of Chinese accounts? They actually match up quite well. Chinese sources also said that Huangdi lost many if not most of the initial battles with Chiyou. It was only the last battle that Huangdi won with the chariot that proved to be a decisive victory for the Huaxia tribe, which matches the Korean account which stated that they lost a battle. The only difference between the two accounts is the the amount of emphasis place on the outcome of the last battle. From a Chinese perspective, the victory was a big deal because they gained new land and the tribes oof Dia nd Yan merged to become one. For the Korean account, the defeat at the last battle wasn't very significant to them because they didn't lose any of their original territory, all they lost was a foreign territory they invaded and occupied. If its OK, I'd like to remove that comment and maybe explain the differences between the emphasis of the two accounts. I have contacted most of the major contributors of the articles. I hope to get all your input on the matter. The users I have contacted are:

whipsandchains (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly,the korean myth about Chi You seems to be apocrypha,the earliest book recording it is a 1911 one,for the date,it cann't to be a myth which requires to be more ancient,maybe hundreds of years ago.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is poorly referenced even on the most basic things. I don't know if it's ready for conflicting materials. Benjwong (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I can probably help clean this up a bit by adding references from Shanhaijing and other mythological sources. But annals and historical references is out of my league though. And I know next to nothing about Korean history except for the Imjin Wars so I can't really help with adding references to the Korean account either.whipsandchains (talk)
The Korean myth about Chi You is believed to be developed in late 20th Century, since a bunch of people comes up with Hwandan Gogi advocating that it was a true history. It isn't the history, nor widely believed myth before like 50 years. --Puzzlet Chung (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Puzzlet, so is it widely believed now by Koreans? whipsandchains (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Classical Chinese Citations and Quotations[edit]






























朱昆田原引《鶡冠子注》,黃帝百戰止七十五。考陸佃原注有「百戰之數未盡聞」及「大略」句,不可刪,今依原注補入。〔補〕 赤帝為火災,黃帝擒之。(《文子》)











〔朱昆田原按〕 說蚩尤者不一。《孔子三朝記》《大戴禮記》以為庶人,孔氏、小司馬氏以為諸侯,應劭以為古天子。或以為炎帝之後,或以為九黎之君。或謂殺之於中冀,或謂殺之於青丘,或謂殺之於凶黎之穀。傳聞異辭,並存焉可也。



黃帝都有熊,又遷涿鹿。(《通誌·都邑略》) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up Chi you Controversy section[edit]

I have removed a recently added section here. There are a number of problems. First, it has no sources. Secondly it may also be more fitting as a separate Chi you controversy page, or add a korean section into Hua-Yi distinction. It is also possible to split this page into two sections, a traditional Chinese interpretration of Chi you and Korean interpretation of Chi you. Benjwong (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to entertain what was the equivalent of independent research/soapboxing by anonymous IP. An encyclopedia is not a blog for people's personal opinions about history, which is what that section looked like. The current article already mentions the Hwandan Gogi controversy - there's no real reason to spell out the details, much less create another page, unless the claim is notable enough to warrant it, which would require that it fulfill Wikipedia:Notability in having significant coverage by reliable third-party sources.Lathdrinor (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)