Jump to content

Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

mygoguryeo.com is by no means a neutral source of information

Goodfriend100 you would agree Korean ever occupied the whole east coast of China?

Time of flight—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.232.59 (talk • contribs)

mygoguryeo.com appears to cite korea.net, an official website of the Republic of Korea. Therefore it appears to be a WP:NPOV violation. Good friend100, I suggest that you find another source. Or alternately, you would need to mention "...according to the ROK government" each time.--Endroit 03:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's odd that you can believe what Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) says but cannot believe the website that contains link to korea.net. FYI, CASS is national academy of PRC. How can you believe CASS while they cannot be neutral source of information? You would need to mention "...according to the PRC government" each time. Mannah1011 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"Appears"? [[1]], the site is citing other sources that agree that Goguryeo is Korean (some have broken links however).
I'd like to mention that in Goguryeo controversies, this site [[2]] (english chosun, a Korean news site) is used to source all the statements in the "Chinese claims on Goguryeo" section. Oddly, the news article is about a Chinese historian refuting the Chinese claims on Goguryeo. The article is however used to site a section to source something for "Chinese claims on Goguryeo".
Yet, you do not even revert this or disagree with the usage of english.chosun, which would (in your eyes) be a POV source and cannot be used, just as you disagree with my.goguryeo.com. I am going to delete the section as it does not make any sense at all with the section and source contradicting each other. Good friend100 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I clicked on ALL "history" pages from that source mygoguryeo.com, and this is what it says on bottom:
I guess you're right, there's one other source. I revise my comments as follows: "mygoguryeo.com is completely sourced either by nationalistic Korean organizations or the Republic of Korea."
Oh, and you can't miss the large print above each page title that says "THE PRIDE HISTORY OF KOREA!"
This whole site is full of Korean nationalism, and hardly qualifies as an WP:NPOV source. But this is just my opinion, so others should comment here as well.--Endroit 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--Removed-- personal opinions.

Don't avoid my question and answer it. Why don't you delete text that are sourced from [3], which is a POV site (since it is Korean)? I don't understand why you are rejecting sources that don't agree with you, but leave POV sources that agree with you alone. Its almost ridiculous, Endroit, when you claim your not on either side but leave POV sources that support China alone.

I agree that my.goguryeo.com is a POV source. Good friend100 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[Candidates_of_biased_non-NPOV_references] listed nearly all conditions of the current reference list. You are welcome to create a more organized NPOV list of reference. But so far you haven't accepted canonical history records like Twenty-Four Histories and Samguk Sagi as reliable sources, so I don't think you are in the position to blame other users on discussing whether single-sided websites like chosun.com (joseon dot com) can be treated as reliable resources.--Jiejunkong 14:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of historical records because they can be research. Even though they are primary sources, interpretation can be different. Good friend100 15:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems are solved step by step. Can you directly answer the question whether Twenty-Four Histories and Samguk Sagi are reliable sources?--Jiejunkong 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand english. I just answered your question above your last comment. Good friend100 15:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical records are fine, especially something like the Twenty Four Histories. Good Friend, I believe you yourself have argued to include Korean references from the 17th and 18th century on other articles. There is no need to censor them in either case. However, care should be taken to just include direct quotes without interpretation, and to (in this case) categorize them as traditional Chinese history. --Cheers, Komdori 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Visviva already made a good case against this here, and Jiejunkong so far has made no effective refutations. That diagram and its narratives are an unacceptable piece of original research. I couldn't even seperate it into a different section because it was Jiejunkong's personal theory, and I couldn't really create a section on "Jiejunkong's personal theory on modern historiography". Cydevil38 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, lets keep in mind that usage of NPOV sources have been rejected by Endroit, Komdori and other CPOV editors. There are plenty of NPOV sources that attests to the general consensus among experts that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom. This so far has received only one failed attempt of refutation. Cydevil38 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I already posted replies to User:Visviva's accusations, both in here and in the talk page of Image:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg. Neither User:Visviva nor you have responded with technical and sincere messages (actually both of you completely disappeared from technical talk). So I don't think you can repetitively use these abstract-level accusations without proving its validity. By "abstract-level", I mean that it is easy to say everything is imperfect in general, but this is not the reason to block NPOV statements and reliable sources.--Jiejunkong 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I think a number of users, including you, are clearly against the foundations of history research. The modern historians, no matter where he/she is from, Germany, France, USA, Japan, China, Korea, must rely on relevant canonical history records, in this case Twenty-Four Histories and Samguk Sagi to study history. Otherwise it is a fabrication practice of proofs. You call literal translation of canonical history records as "original research". Such accusations are not only audacious, but also destructive to the entire foundation for wikipedian to write history articles.--Jiejunkong 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We may have to wait to link the picture itself until we can discuss it, but there is no reason to eliminate the text. Cydevil, if you read the discussion you'll see that Visviva and I discussed how the Twenty Four Histories falls... it's probably better in most cases to consider it a primary source due to the age, but that doesn't mean we can't use them at all. The problem is we can't draw interpretations or conclusions from them that aren't in the main text itself. So to have a direct quotation will often be okay, we just have to be very careful about how it's done.
Also keep in mind m:Don't be dense. Of course the Twenty-Four Histories present the traditional Chinese viewpoint. We can't exclude the source simply because it has a Chinese origin (ie isn't neutral), or you have to exclude almost all primary and many secondary sources. We just have to make sure it's noted that this is what's being done (in other words, we can't treat it like this information is coming from a standard unbiased source, but have to note that "traditional Chinese history says"... --Cheers, Komdori 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm disputing Jiejunkong's work NOT because it's Chinese in origin, but because it's a original research of primary sources. Firstly, in the diagram, he's categorizing various states of the past into modern nations(Korea, China). I'm pretty sure that those are ideas of his own fabrication, i.e. original research, unless he can cite some secondary source by modern historians. Why can't we use these primary sources? Because they are subject to interpretation. For example, Book of Song clearly indicates that Goryeo inherited Goguryeo, but Jiejunkong conveniently leaves it out. Today, history is not just based on ancient historical records, but they are also based on other evidences such as archaeological artifacts and anthropological analysis. This is why secondary sources are important, and why they should be used instead having amateur editors making original research of primary sources. Cydevil38 03:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply Your complaining on records written in ancient Chinese language is not valid. The Korean canonical record Samguk Sagi was originally written in ancient Chinese. The modern Korean version is a translation rather than original record. For the texts I quoted, I did the English translation and I am responsible for the sentences I wrote. So far you are not complaining about my English translation, but furiously against some meta-physical things like the validity of history records written in Chinese. By your attitude, you are shutting down the entire wikipedia section because nothing but identical copying is valid in your standard.
[4] is a literal graphic depiction of canonical history records. I don't think you can call it "original research" or "fabrication". If so, any modern efforts, both textually and graphically, to translate ancient records into legible modern forms would be "original research" and "fabrication". Reasonable wiki users who read the ancient records carefully haven't denied the validity of my depiction. Surely it is imperfect (any translation is imperfect), but I am open to improvements on the depiction. Now that you explicitly requested that Goryeo must be added into the diagram, I am glad to add it if nobody objects. For the ending time in the diagram, I think Jurchen Jin Dynasty and Goryeo would be proper ending dynasties, or the diagram would be too big (because if the timeline goes to the modern time, do you want to include Japan factors, which are irrelevant to Goguryeo at all?).--Jiejunkong 06:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also I agreed to the conclusion that Goryeo inherits the southern part of Goguryeo (with nearly no Mohe people involved in this inheritance). This means the inheritance between Goryeo and Goguryeo, like the one between Balhae and Goguryeo, is not exclusive. Like the Goguryeo->Balhae=>Khitan_Empire=>Jurchen_Jin inheritance line, the Goguryeo->Unified Silla=>Later Goguryeo=>Goryeo inheritance line is also an undeniable fact, neither is "original research" or "fabrication". (Here -> denotes partial inheritance, => denotes nearly full conquering/inheritance).--Jiejunkong 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, any modern efforts, both textually and graphically, to analyze and interpret ancient records would be "original research", but they are done so by experts who hold advanced degrees in the relevant fields, such as history or archaeology. "Oringinal research" of such experts published into reliable sources are called secondary sources. Your "original research" on the other hand is just a personal theory of a Wikipedia editor. Cydevil38 06:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of wikipedia maintainance is only of your personal opinion. The current WP is, as long as the translation is a faithful translation with NPOV expression and reliable source, a wikipedian is encouraged to edit the free wikipedia article. The bizzaro wikipedia you just described is not this wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 07:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and also WP:V. The sources you have used may be original research and can be interpreted in different ways, which violates Wikipedia policy. It can also violate WP:NPOV. The fact that the source you have used is in Chinese, and since most of the editors here cannot read Chinese, those sources cannot be verifiable.

You are violating several Wikipedia policies. Good friend100 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, alot happens when you are busy over a weekend! I also agree that mygoguryeo.com is certainly not a NPOV site and things on the web site should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, why so much verbage on Balhae here? We are not discussing the Balhae article. Are we using Parhae to map the geneology of Koguryo? Is that the rationale? WangKon936 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Any Chinese user will be able to verify the source, so it doesn't violate WP:V or WP:NOR. Otherwise, we'd have to strip out the Korean sources from various articles, too, to be fair. --Cheers, Komdori 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Korean canonical history record Samguk Sagi and non-canonical record Samguk Yusa were originally written in ancient Chinese language. The modern Korean version is actually a translation. It would also cause disaster to Korean history study if the WP:V or WP:NOR accusation holds.--Jiejunkong 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)\
Jiejunkong, I don't really see a whole lot of strength in any of your arguements and your diagram is flawed. It assumes that Goryeo had no connection to Parhae, but it did. As many as 100,000 Parhae refugees (as recorded in the Goryeo-Sa) fled to Goryeo, including the crown prince. If it was as many as 100,000 people, and if we believe Chinese records regarding the population of Parhae, then that would be almost a fifth of Parhae's entire population. Wang Geon, the King of Goryeo, includes many Parhae refugees, including the crown prince, in his own family registry, indicating he believed he had a common ancestory with them. Now regarding your arguement on the Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa written in classical Chinese. So what? The Vulgate was written in Latin, the language of the Roman Empire. The language of the Catholic Church is Latin. Does that mean that Catholic Church has a POV of the Roman Empire? If I'm misunderstanding your arguement, please let me know. Otherwise, you need to rethink your thesis. WangKon936 04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
About reliable source You are arguing whether a reliable source, such as canonical records of ancient China and Korea, is actually recording the truth. Human beings make mistakes. The canonical records do have errors, but every other reliable source also has. I am not going to discuss the percentage of errors in every canonical records and the quality of these records. Such discussion is irrelevant to wikipedia because this is not about the wikipolicies, such as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. User:Good friend100 falsely argued that these canonical records are not reliable sources because they were written in Chinese. And now you are backing him up. Would you please read the related wikipedia official guidelines and show your arguments by quoting original texts from those official guidelines? And please don't forget to answer the questions: (1) If the reliability of these Chinese canonical records is invalidated only because they were written in classic Chinese language, then is Samguk Sagi reliable (given the fact Samguk Sagi was also written in classic Chinese)? (2) If Samguk Sagi is reliable but those Chinese canonical records are not, then what is the reason? --Jiejunkong 01:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
About Balhae -> Goryeo connection It is quite obvious that this discussed connection cannot be added before adding Goryeo, which is about to be added into the diagram. I personally am fine with depicting the 1/5 population migration from one node to another, as long as such rule is applied uniformly (that is, if reliable sources show that similar population migration also happened between other nodes, we don't change the rule). On your side, I appreciate if you can provide the original texts and corresponding English translation for your request. Everything in the real world is flawed, but this move will reduce "flaws".--Jiejunkong 01:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys must have ALOT of time on your hands. I don't see how you people can write so much in such a short period of time. Anyways, I don't think you completely understand what I'm trying to say, but what I might be trying to say could be flawed because I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say. So let me see if this is correct. You say that canonical records mean history texts commissioned by the respective governments in antiquity? Because that's not what canonical means. I say this because you reject the Samguk Yusa as "canonical." It is true that the Samguk Yusa is not commissioned by the court of Koryo, unlike the Samguk Sagi, however, it is considered by all Korean historians as an important history text of the Korean Three Kingdoms Period, thus as far as studying that part of history, it would be considered canonical. So, please clarify. WangKon936 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are we arguing whether "Samguk Yusa" is canonical? The subject here is "reliable source". Canonical records are authoritative, thus qualified as Wikipedia:Reliable sources according to the "authoritative" term in the wikipolicy. Samguk Yusa is not canonical because a non-official record is not canonical. There is no need to change the standard because of Samguk Yusa, which is nevertheless a reliable source because of the "trustworthy" term. Note that we are not talking about whether the recorded contents are true or false or trustworthy; instead, we are talking about whether Samguk Yusa was genuinely produced by Buddhist monk Iryeon and thus became a trustworthy document (reliable source). The discussion should not deviate from the wikipolicy on "reliable source".--Jiejunkong 09:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Parhae. I think Parhae's connection to Mohe/Jurchen is stronger then Koguryo's connection to the same. The best evidence we have says that Mohe made a greater percentage of Parhae's population then it did Koguryo's. I think Parhae had aspects of Koguryo culture but was a intermediate kingdom that pointed the way to the future of Manchuria, chiefly it's future as a Mohe/Jurchen/Manchu dominated area after the decline of the Khitan. Whereas Mohe made a majority of the population of Parhae, it did not consitute a majority of Koguryo's population. Mohe in Koguryo were an allied people who lived in the border areas, not the core of Koguryo's civilization. The Mohe didn't always fight for Koguryo. They sometimes changed sides, particularly as Koguyro was weakening in the late 7th century. The Chinese made a clear distinction between Koguryo and Mohe people and they choose to leave Mohe people in Manchuria and deport Koguryo people to other areas of the Tang Empire. WangKon936 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
What you said in this paragraph is mostly consistent with my view. Other than taken to other areas of the Tang Empire (e.g., famous Tang general Gao Xianzhi/Go Seonji was descended from a noble family of Goguryeo), Goguryeo remnants went to both Balhae/Parhae and Unified Silla. For Mohe people, they lived in the north part of Goguryeo, and were different from the people in the south part of Goguryeo. After the fall of Goguryeo, Mohe mostly went to Balhae, but not Unified Silla.--Jiejunkong 09:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Fully agree with Jiejunkong. Chinese canoncial sources are all primary so they are useable. Sites like my.goguryeo violates wikipedia policy. Chinese sources all show how Goguryeo was a tributary state of China and that it is a Chinese kingdom. Chinesepride 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I only represent a single user's viewpoint. My viewpoint is that Goguryeo is a shared history between Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu and modern Korean. It is not exclusive. Around year 600, Mohe-Jurchen people were more related to the ancestors of modern Korean than the ancestors of modern Han Chinese. But at year 1125, Jurchen people made a critical decision to invade Song Dynasty, and this decision changed everybody's fate. Now, nearly a thousand years later, most Manchu people from the Mohe-Jurchen line are mixed with Han Chinese. (Due to the immensity of Han Chinese population, according to informal studies, even a person is classified as Manchu today, the Han Chinese blood dominates Mohe-Jurchen blood by a calculation on his/her parents, grand parents and grand grand parents). So it is my view that the statement, Goguryeo is a shared history between modern Korean and modern Chinese, is better than an exclusive view.--Jiejunkong 01:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of Chinese nationalist sites claiming false information too, and yet no one here criticized these sites. Not all contents from mygoguryeo.com are bias or nationalistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming

--Removed-- This is from Chinese nationalists, so I removed. History should be history, not to be used as pride.

Uh huh. Where's your source? mirageinred 02:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but Britannica, Encarta, CIA Factbook 2007, and Columbia Encyclopedia seem to disagree with you, and all the interwikis are titled Goguryeo, not the Chinese one. So what makes Gaogouli it the most common name? mirageinred 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinapride and Chinesepride... sockpuppets? There seems to be an increased infultration of sockpuppets here as of late, these two I've pointed out not being the least of them. WangKon936 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We could check the IP addresses or protect this article from being edited by new or unregistered users. Good friend100 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well luckily they (and the ip that was flipping around offensive messages on a few users' talk pages) are being very blatant. So far the disruption has been sporadic and easily reverted. If they start violating 3RR or the level of disruption increases, it might be time to do something about it in terms of protection. --Cheers, Komdori 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Gaogouli is modern Chinese pronunciation of Korean "Koguryo", the actual native naming should be Koguri (Goguri) or Kori (Gori or Guri). Since Goguryeo was one of Koreanic Kingdom, it must follow Korean naming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Goguryeo-China Wars

"Goguryeo-China Wars" is a blatantly pro-Korean POV title. It is very funny that when a Chinese polity (such as the Yan state of the 16 Kingdoms) is a formative part of Goguryeo, there is no mention of the words China or Chinese; but when a Chinese polity is responsible for going to war against Goguryeo, it is suddenly labeled Chinese and of China (such as the case for "Goguryeo-China Wars"). Furthermore, the obvious POV and siege mentality of some of the editors here against more objective edits is truly laughable. --Naus 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For good faith purpose, maybe the users, who wrote this section title and insist on using the title, want to prove that Silla, a major participant in these so-called "Goguryeo-China Wars", is also Chinese. I am just kidding.  :-) --Jiejunkong 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please not joke like that. Thanks.
The entire article is littered with such edits. The above is but just one effort to (1)Glorify Goguryeo (2)Demonised China (3)Strengthen Goguryeo linkage with Korea (4)Weaken Goguryeo linkage with China.
Wiki Pokemon 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we're talking about several dynasties on the Chinese side, so there was no real alternative. And Shilla participated only in the last war.--General Tiger
You are still putting Silla into the China basket, aren't you?--Jiejunkong 05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an alternative, General Tiger. It is the term "Chinese polity" (for instance, the Khitan Liao Dynasty is a Chinese polity). However, some people here obviously are not comfortable with this term, as one can argue that Goguryeo perhaps was also a Chinese polity. That apparently is an unthinkable blasphemy to write here. If Wikipedia created a new POV tag template called "HOPELESSLY BIASED, DON'T EVEN BOTHER" this site should be the first to qualify. --Naus 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Even just "Goguryeo War History" would be better.
Wiki Pokemon 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Prominent?

Caveat added According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I am obliged to make it clear that I currently don't have any problem with Dr. Mark Byington's trustworthiness. I also think that Dr. Mark Byington may not know that somebody here has disseminated false information about his career, and has used his casual email messages as reliable sources. The related arguments are about two general problems, ie., the authoritativity of a post-doc fellow in a field (does post-doc fellowship imply authoritativity?) and using email messages as published materials with a reliable publication process. These arguments are by no means personal against Dr. Byington himself (And it is impolite to Dr. Byington if the arguments become personal). I apologize if my remarks have implied any impoliteness, and this apology is all about politeness issues, but not truth or fallacy issues. BTW, to User:Good friend100, don't you think you should make an apology to Dr. Byington because of the false information you broadcast again and again?--Jiejunkong 02:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Mark Byington iswas a post-doc in Harvard University. I don't think we can call him a prominent figure in research when he wrote the argued email. And if his email is used as reference, this kind of documents without any peer review are not considered as reliable sources. For example, Wikisource refuses to accept such modern documents without peer reviews.--Jiejunkong 05:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought he has published a research paper about this controversy. Now I know it is just an email. Good thing we have not had cited sources coming from comic books or TV dramas. Wiki Pokemon 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong is wrong. The person of whom Jiejunkong speaks finished his Post-Doc a long time ago. He is now the DIRECTOR of the EKP at Harvard U [5]. Mumun 無文 12:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
About the referred email from Byington The email was referred to as Byington, Mark (2004-01-01), that is, it was posted on January 1, 2004, when Byington was a postdoc in Harvard. Whether long time ago or not, he's a postdoc when he wrote this email. --Jiejunkong 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply Look at the page "Mission" (Under construction). This is a quite new progress and I am not aware of his promotion. Can you provide more information about his current status? Director in a school or a small company is not like a director in a big company like RAND. An adjunct faculty (even non-tenure track one like post-doc) can be a director of his area. Also it is controversial to treat modern emails as reliable sources. There are tons of such emails in Northeast Project. I wonder dumping such emails to wikipedia will cause more troubles. --Jiejunkong 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an attempt to not use reliable sources which he knows are correct. No easy way to reject a Harvard professor is there? Hahaha. Good friend100 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is you who repetitively claimed that Mark Byington is a Harvard Professor, but obviously from a unreliable source. I am not sure about History Departments in USA (not in where you are), but in my field, postdocs typically cannot get tenure-track professorship in the same department. If you are a postdoc in school A, you should acquire your tenure-track professorship in School B. Thus it is unlikely Mark Byington was and is a Harvard professor, as you claimed many times.--Jiejunkong 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't make up excuses. If you are angry that there are reliable sources that reject Chinese claims on Goguryeo, thats too bad.
First link from searching google shows Mark Byington as a professor. [6] I don't get any of your nonsense about postdoc and school A's and B's. Good friend100 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't you read the sentence on the page you presented---"Mark Byington, KI Post-Doctoral Fellow, 2003-2004"? Do you want to define the term "Post-Doctoral Fellow, 2003-2004" as a "Professor of Harvard on January 1, 2004"?--Jiejunkong 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Come now, everyone. Let me appeal to your sense of caution and common sense. What good will come of this conversation thread? It is irrelevant and unseemly to be discussing a flesh-and-blood individual in this way. All that stuff that we learned from our parents about manners and good behaviour apply in any situation that we find ourselves, no? Let's wrap this up and address issues in the article in a more direct way, shall we? ^-^ Mumun 無文 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 repetitively made false claims on Byington's status when Byington wrote the referred email. He said Byington's email was from a Harvard "Professor" (sometimes with the adjective "prominent" prefixed). Well, this repeated claim is clearly false, because the truth is that the January-1-2004 email was from a Harvard Post-doc Fellow, not a Professor for sure, and you backed that user up with diffusions and confusions on the investigation. In addition, this email without peer review can hardly be classified as a reliable source even if it is from a Harvard Professor. User:Good friend100 should be more careful about his sources, in this case it is already a double-failure.--Jiejunkong 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the discussion style of User:Good friend100. He cannot argue straight or rationally, just forcing his way through with irrelevant or POV materials, ignoring what he doesn't like and justifying his POV by stating he doesn't understand other POV presented. It's hard to treat him seriously in a discussion.
Wiki Pokemon 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Byington's June 2002(as a Harvard University) paper titled "The Creation of an Ancient Minority Nationality: Koguryo in Chinese Historiography" was published in the First World Congress of Korean Studies. He also had seminars about East Asian Archeology Seminar at Harvard University in March 21, 1997 titled "Castles of the Archer Kings: Ruins of the Early Korean State of Koguryo in Northeast China".--kwayzguy

Then please use the published paper as a reliable source. This is not the reason to use an email message as reliable source.--Jiejunkong 10:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The message of his email was informal, but portrayed a concise view about the current Northeast Project that the CCP finances. His message was based upon his views from personal fieldwork and references of many peer-reviewed papers. His articles says the same thing, but in a more scholarly manner.--kwayzguy

If "his articles say the same thing, but in a more scholarly manner", then please do use the article as a reliable source. This conforms to the wikipedia rules and serves your interests at same time, then why don't you do it?--Jiejunkong 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A person like Mark Byington has the advanced degrees and the years of meticulous research and publications. You can't easily throw an "off-the-record" email as "non-sense". A personal opinion must stem from some sort of an idea or construct to shape his view about the Koguryo "debate". Korean historians and non-Korean historians would have come across his articles even before this issue exploded to this proportion. I do not know the actual rules, but he's a historian and his opinion whether "off-the-record" or not has credibility. This is a debate should be about the issues not about the person. Don't attack someone or his opinion because it seems "dubious". ---kwayzguy

Here is what James Baker said about the year 2000 Florida vote counting incident: "And it is simply not fair nor is it appropriate under federal law nor is it constitutional for those rules to be changed after the game has been played." There is no exception concerning the definition of "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources", not for anybody (including Byington). From my understanding of "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources", the email message Byington sent out at January 1, 2004 is not qualified as a reliable source. If you think the other way, I wish that you could stick on the wikipedia rule, not something else. BTW, you can sign your user name with "--~~~~". --Jiejunkong 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The email that was posted within the site was an international, English language, non-partisan, moderated electronic discussion group. It adheres to strict academic standards. The point of this international electronic forum is to provide Korean specialists to discuss and communicate about theories, tools of analysis, and etc. It functions similarly to a seminar, but more accessible. The forum is open only to those with a serious academic commitment to Korean studies. Any messages without any serious scholarly debate is deleted. Mark Byington is a trustworthy person because he is a serious historian dedicated to Korean studies with name recognition within Korean studies groups. He has also been involved with Korean studies at least since the late 1990s. The moderators of this site are established Korean specialists. You have specialists such as Gari Leyard, J.C. Jamieson, Ruediger Frank, Andrei Lankov, and more. So how does Mark Byington's email become "dubious" and not "reliable" because its an email. It's group of Korean specialists discussing a topic on this site and Mark Byington posted his academic view.----kwayzguy

First, I don't know who you are and why didn't you sign your user name here. I don't care whether you are a big name or a small name, or your profession is the president of United States of America or whatsoever. Wikipedia has rules, and if the rules say that something fails to be qualified as reliable source, then it is not a reliable source. Here is a quote from wikipolicy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources:"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Email messages already failed the 1st criteria "published materials with a reliable publication process". Thus even if you are arguing that the author is trustworthy or authoritative, it doesn't qualify. Even for trustworthy or authoritative sources, you need to quote credible published materials with a reliable publication process, not some smalltalk style messages with no responsibility held against the talker.--Jiejunkong 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Users Cydevil38, Good friend100, 219.253.79.115

Hostile reverts from Users Cydevil38, Good friend100, and 219.253.79.115 (of Seoul, KR) have been preventing any legitimate good faith edits to restore some semblance of balance and objectivity to this article. These actions are absolutely despicable. That the Wikipedia community have allowed these three trolls to continue their agenda for so long here reflects a serious attack on the spirit of Wikipedia and a failure on its private mediation that does not appear to exist. --JakeLM 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Restoring" balance and objectivity? I don't think so. Cydevil38 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows anyone to make edits. Do not worry too much about biased edits, it will be corrected eventually. The more biased the edit, the more resistece it will encounter. This is how Wikipedia works, it will automatically balanced itself. Simply put, good editors will prevail over bad editors. But it takes time and vigilance against bad editors with their bad edits.
Wiki Pokemon 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the hostile reverts have been going on since the begining of 2006 in Goguryeo-related articles such as Balhae. We can only resolve this matter by following the proper Wikipedia policies, such as WP:DR and WP:CON.
The first order of matter which you should consider at this point is to join our ongoing mediation.
The following is a quote from User:Daniel, from the mediation committee, explaining how to join:
I'll look forward to seeing you there.--Endroit 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course Endroit, I'll look forward to seeing you there too. I'm sure you read JakeLM's comment which included accusing me and Cydevil38 of being trolls. Yet you do not warn him or admonish him. I see this as POV, leaving everybody on your side alone, whether they do right or wrong, but picking on editors' comments who are opposing you. Being active in this discussion and reminding everyone to discuss in the mediation, have you seen Naus describe us as "Nationalistic Korean crap"? Did you even bother to warn him? I see your comments and actions as POV. Please stop. Good friend100 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the "hostile reverts" being a part of Goguryeo-related articles since early 2006, as far as I can remember. I was not referring to the incivility, which indeed exist on both sides, but I am choosing to ignore. If you feel incivility is a problem, please feel free to pursue this issue with an admin on your own. As far as your last statement "Please stop" is concerned, I certainly will carry on as I see fit, as I know you will.--Endroit 20:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will! Check [[7]]. Good friend100 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What about hostilities from Chinese trolls? Cydevil38 is good person in nature, he did not distort or senselessly editing articles. This section should be removed from discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This quote is just so wrong

The Mark Byington quote: "current practice in the PRC" in describing "a very vaguely defined greater Chinese nation of the remote past," and that their position is "one that must exist in order to fall into line with current Chinese views of the Chinese past"

First of all, the current Chinese view of the Chinese past certainly has not been a practice limited to the PRC (to suggest that the PRC invented this concept is simply trying to disguise China-bashing with PRC-bashing). The current interpretation of Chinese history has been in existence since at least the 1800s under the Qing Dynasty and was one widely acknowledged by Western countries (See late 19th century American map of China on the right. The Qing Dynasty was called the "Chinese Empire" even though it was ruled by Manchus). During the late Qing Dynasty, the concept of being Chinese overlaped ethnic boundaries such as Manchu, Tatar or Han. The ROC and PRC directly inherited the legacy of the Qing Dynasty, not that of the Han Dynasty. And the history of the Qing Dynasty is intimately linked with the history of Manchuria. --JakeLM 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You can publish an academic rebuttal if you don't think he's right. Wikipedia is not where you profess personal theories against expert opinions. Cydevil38 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, an email quote of a postdoc in Korean studies is not one of "expert opinion" on this matter. Try again. --JakeLM 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jake, FYI- Byington has finished all his post doc work and just recently received his PhD in Korean History from Harvard. His PhD dissertation on Puyo (Bueyo) was, in my opinion, excellent. WangKon936 05:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way Cydevil38, if you revert one more time the constructive edits I and others have made in the past two days, you will be blocked. This is your 3RR warning. --JakeLM 23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jake, your frustration is understandable, but the manner at which you display it is counterproductive. You are resorting to threats and rudely worded responses. You are also name calling. Grouping people into certain nationalistic camps is not helping either. At least that's how I'm viewing it. Correct me if I'm wrong. WangKon936 00:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, none of your edits are constructive. They only make the article more and more biased. The current version is already a significantly compromised article for CPOV. There's enough of Chinese political propaganda in this article, an article that is supposed to be on topic with history, but has been severely tainted by modern politics. Cydevil38
That's your POV and is quite frankly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. When you presume a priori that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom (as you and others like Good friend100 have done), you are already severely tainting this article with modern politics. If Goguryeo were a truly historical article, you wouldn't be using the words Korean nor Chinese in the entire article, as both these concepts derive from later ideas of the nation-state following the French Revolution. Your rebuttal just shows how inherently biased you actually are and why you perceive any mentioning of China or Chinese to be POV, when in fact they are just necessary counterpoints to your gravely flawed initial position. The only thing that has been "compromised" in recent edits is the stench of Korean irredentism. --JakeLM 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The general consensus among non-Chinese historians, who are not motivated by politics, is that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom. This article is already severely tainted by Chinese ultra-nationalism by deviating from that general consensus, and you're attempting to only further that tain of modern politics. National concepts of modern origin are often used for modern historical interpretations. If you don't think words like "Korean" nor "Chinese", belong here, why don't you delete all refernces to "Chinese" or "China" from articles like Shang Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty, etc. Cydevil38 00:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Such adjectives as "Chinese" and "Korean" are loosely defined and given by the author of the history that is being written. It is not an exclusive lock-in as you are suggesting for Goguryeo = Korean. The historical legacy of Goguryeo instead can be shared between Korea and China, depending on the perspective of the history written (whether of Korea or China). This is certainly the case for the Qing Dynasty, in which you will find it labeled both Chinese and Manchurian, depending on the period and on the particular history written (whether a history of Manchuria or China). Similarly for the Khitan Liao Dynasty, the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, and the Mongol Yuan Dynasty. Koreans certainly may also go ahead and write a Korean historical narrative involving the Shang Dynasty (actually some Korean scholars indeed have), but that doesn't mean the Shang Dynasty is no longer a part of Chinese history. Your interpretation of history is narrowly ethnocentric and has frankly been debunked since WWII. Your position of ethnic exclusivity towards claims of history is one of ultra-nationalism and racialist theory, not mine. --JakeLM 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that modern nation-states such as "China" (PRC) and "South Korea" (ROK) are modern constructs, the concept of "Zhong Guo"/"Zhong Hua" have existed long before these ideas. In both cases, they are referred to as "Chinese." And of course, the references to "Chinese" in the Wikipedia articles refer to the latter. Assault11 00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Assault, you cannot have it both ways. CyDevil's assertion that it's not fair to refer to Zhong Guo as Chinese is a fair one. If Koreans can't use "Korean" or "Koreaness" to refer to older kingdoms in wiki, then why should China be allowed the same? Why should we call Yamato or the Kofun period "Japan" of "Japanese" if the idea of Japan was not even around at the time? I believe the point is this. Wiki is not using the terms of Chinese or Korean or Japanese to lay any nationalistic identification or "marker" if you will on any ancient kingdom. It is doing so to help the reader understand the ancient kingdom better in the context of modern terms and identification. Thus, we don't call the Tang Dynasty China or Chinese to say that it has anything to do with the modern state of China today, but we do so to offer educational context to people who want to learn more about said kingdom. WangKon936 05:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of whether Goguryeo was "exclusively Korean". It's simply that the Chinese claims that Goguryeo was "Chinese" is widely rejected by non-Chinese historians and experts on Goguryeo. Cydevil38 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the only "expert", Byington, rejected Goguryeo is Chinese through an email (even then the title of the email is an unsure question "Koguryo part of China?"). Most other "experts" might have said Goguryeo is Korean, but did not reject that it is Chinese. In fact many "experts" are not very sure whether to put it Chinese or Korean by associating it's early history with Chinese and the later history with Korea. Of course many other "neutral" sources like newspapers and magazines rejected Goguryeo as Chinese, but they are not "expert".
Wiki Pokemon 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
From your post, I think we can say that you are against the statement that "Goguryeo is shared between ancestors of modern Korean and modern Northeastern Chinese of Mohe-Jurchen line". In other words, your view is that "Goguryeo is exclusively Korean". If you don't agree to this remark, please clarify.--Jiejunkong 03:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
From many of his posts, I think what he is trying to say is that ADSOLUTELY nobodys opinion matters, not even his own, not even conical historical record (whether Chinese or Korean), not even the Korean government, not even when facts are irrefutable, and of course not anything Chinese. Only those "neutral", non-Chinese, non-Korean and preferably western sources counts, even if they are from "emails" or newspapers. And since, according to his conclusion, that "majority" of those sources that "count" say Koguryo is Korean, that makes "Koguryo is Korean" unquestionably legitimate, and all others wrong. Furthermore, it naturally follows then, that sources from Korean conical historical records, Korean government and patriotic websites are now made legitimate, and all others are not, by those sources that count.
Wiki Pokemon 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that because almost no other countries or historians agree with the Chinese viewpoint. What makes people angry is not that Goguryeo is part of Chinese history (this is obviously true), but how China is simply making a claim that Goguryeo was Chinese. People view this as intruding into other people's own history.

I removed the "email" source from the article. And english sources (yes, western sources), are accepted because this is the english wikipedia and the sources can be verified since people that edit here are english speakers.

I disagree with both Chinese and Korean primary sources. I don't think I have ever endorsed Korean canonical sources nor do I have access to them. I disagree with them because they can be interpreted differently and can be original research. Good friend100 20:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New tool to help improve articles

I have been thinking about some "technical problem" of the article. THe article seems to have proper citation from various sources. But unless one looks carefully at the citation, the reader might not know that many of the sources are of poor quality. Some editors obviously have been exploiting this obscure loop hole, citing POV sources to make their edits look more legitimate, and hoping that the reader might not find out the dubious sources. A reader might thus be "cheated" in this way, thinking that the arcticle is sound because it has been backed up by what they thought are good sources.

One way to close this loop hole, is to put all cited sources into objective categories like (1) Published Researched Papers (2) Conical Historical Records (3) Newspaper and Magazine Articles (4) Partiotic Websites (5) Emails and Internet Forums (6) Other Sources etc. All edits need to be properly cited and other editors will then categorise the sources according to above. This way a reader will easily judge the "strength" of this article by seeing the legitimacy of the sources cited.

There is technical problem to be solved first though. The current "ref" and "reference" tags do not allow categorization. We need a new "tool". I am think about extending those tags to allow categorization capability. I think such a "tool" will help to improve articles (not just this very controversial one) I think, by letting user knows which sources are good or bad. Does any editors out there know how this could be done, or even possible? I am not familiar with Wikimedia, PHP or OpenSource, but I am willing to get involved with this project with some help from others. Are there any editors willing to help out with this?
Wiki Pokemon 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a creative and interesting proposal. I also think that readers could benefit from references organised in such a way. It heartens me to see the above editor, who I had previously thought was a troll, propose something that we can really think about. We could tweak the wording a little. Thank you. I hope that, if such a plan is agreeable to other editors, that we could be as creative and thoughtful in arranging the existing references in the same spirit as the above proposal. Thank you to Wikipokemon ^-^ Mumun 無文 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea to categorize references is not from me. It is from another editor here which I thought is an excellent idea. He did it manually which is tedious and I feel that many editors will not take the effort to do. To make other editors do this I thought we need a tool as easy to use as the current "ref" and "reference". I am just suggesting to modify "ref" and "reference" tags to add categorization capability, so that editors will be willing to do this. Like I say we need lots of technical expertise in Wikimedia, PHP and OpenSource to make this possible. I cannot do it alone, I need help from others. Anyone who would like to help can contact me on my talk page.
Wiki Pokemon 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not too hard to do the classification without asking for extra wiki supports. We can add explanations at the beginning of reference section, and prefix each reference with classes like "Ancient canonical record", "Ancient record", "Technical conference publication", "Technical journal publication", "Non-technical magazine publication", "Non-technical newspaper publication", "Electronic publication", etc. Of course, without extra wiki supports, we have to do this by hands.--Jiejunkong 07:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I volunteered too quickly to do this. I need to learn from scratch PHP, the working of Wikimedia and OpenSource, plus getting access to the projects and testing ...etc. I don't have that much spare energy. But I have checked out Template:Harvard citation and Harvard referencing, and it looks like it can meet our need. If nobody object we can go ahead and change citation to Harvard style, "ref" should be used purely for footnote only. I urge all editors not to object because this will make the article better. As for categories we can start with these

  • Technical Publications
  • Research Papers
  • Conical Historical Records
  • Non Conical Historical Records
  • Encyclopedia
  • News Articles
  • Websites

Feel free to make suggestions.
Wiki Pokemon 05:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) Fix a typo in your writeup: "Canonical" means something of "canon", as if announced by the Church in the western medieval time，when the knowledge system was controlled by the Holy Church, and the written language for official records is Latin. In ancient Asia, mostly inherited from ancient China, the knowledge system was controlled by the government, as in Imperial examination (the "Ke Ju" System), and the written language for official records is classical Chinese. Thus it is an analogue between eastern and western systems when we say that official records like "Twenty-Four Histories" are `canonical'. (2) The category "Websites" needs refined classification. Some websites, such as those of professional organizations like IEEE and AMS, are used to publish research papers, thus they are fine. But some highly biased non-professional websites should be avoided in the reference . Also I am against the use of email messages, which are not reliable due to its volatile and casual nature.--Jiejunkong 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to the Intro Paragraph

There have been some changes since my first revisions to the intro paragraph and I wanted to go through them with participants and see what people think.

"Two thirds lying in China"

Should be taken out. Why? This supports a Chinese POV. Koreans can equality say that Koguryo covered two thirds of the Korean peninsula. It's only fair that we add both statements. However, given that the intro is getting unwieldy as it is, let's just keep it simple and say that the kingdom was in both Korea and Southern Manchuria, as we had always had a consensus to say.

"Many Chinese scholars consider Goguryeo an important regional power which had maintained century-long tributary relationship to China and was heavily influenced by Chinese culture, thus should also be considered as part of Chinese history."

I'm not sure if there is a consensus of Chinese scholars who believe this in it's entirety. I think it's Chinese scholars who are more tied to the Northeast Asian project who would adhere to this. If this is true, then it should be reflected as such. Furthermore, it's not likely that Chinese scholars of the Chinese Diaspora (particularly in Singapore and Taiwan) believe this either. Thus, it should, at the very least, mention that it is Chinese scholars who are within the borders of the PRC who hold to these set of beliefs, or it should be toned down.

You can make it even more specific that Chinese scholars from Northeast China hold such view. They have strong historical attachment to Koguryo, just as much as Korean scholars are. They are just as qualified and have the same motivations as Korean scholars. And their views are just as valid as their Korean counterpart.
Wiki Pokemon 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Pokemon. After giving this some thought for the past couple of days, it has become clear to me that the views of scholars in the Northeast Asia Project are a minority (although a vocal one). There doesn't appear to be a concensus among Chinese scholarship inside and outside the borders of the PRC. Thus, I don't feel as if I need to use undue effort to articulate their view. Neither should wiki feel obligated to expound their view as equal to more established and accepted views. It would be rather counterproductive to defend their views given that they are just a vocal minority. 69.231.148.170 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Their views aren't very valid when they are widely rejected by non-Chinese scholars, and even Chinese scholars within the PRC. Cydevil38 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You haven't answered the question whether you think "Goguryeo is exclusively Korean" or not. If you do, I think we are seeing a competition of invalidity between you and many Northeast Project participants, who dare not to take an exclusive view on the Goguryeo inheritance problem.--Jiejunkong 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You are asking the wrong question. Wikipedia isn't run by personal opinions of editors such as myself. It should be based on reliable research by experts, in this case, historians and archaeologists. No scholar specifically says Goguryeo is "exclusively" Korean. However, at least China is often used as an exclusive entity from Goguryeo, and Goguryeo is often defined as a Korean kingdom or state. You seem to be taking editing to a very personal level. Again, Wikipedia should be based on reliable research by experts, not personal opinions and analyses of Wikipedia editors. Cydevil38 10:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong. First of all, please don't make demands on how and when I should express my viewpoint. We are all equals here are we not? I expect to be treated with courtesy. If you have seen my contributions in the Koguryo Talk page over the past few months, you will see that I have tried to treat everyone fairly and with respect. I expect the same from you. Regarding your question, this is my answer. I believe that Koguryo is important to the national history of North and South Korea, but I believe Koguryo is important to the regional history (specifically the Northeast) of China. Koguryo, unlike the Manchu or Mongols, never conqured the seat of government for the central plains centered Chinese civilization, thus it never "ruled" China. On the other hand, Koguryo vied with the other kingdoms of Korea for domination of the peninsula and considered both Silla and Baekje subordinate and tributary states. Koguryo never viewed Sui or Tang in this manner. Koguryo, Baekje and Silla struggled with each other to be the legitimate ruler of peninsular peoples, hence to this very day, even though Silla (through Tang help) ultimately won that struggle, the idea that Koguryo should be a part of a larger "Korean" national consciousness lived on. Thus, I believe that Koguryo history is not exclusively Korean and it is also important to the history of Northeast China. However, I think it's important to lay out the differences between national history and regional history and build a base of mutual respect and understanding regarding this controversial matter. WangKon936 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Jiejunkong is asking Cydevil38 the question, not you, unless you are sock of Cydevil38. :)
Wiki Pokemon 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Can WangKon936 elaborate on this vicarious reply incident? --Jiejunkong 08:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"However, most international scholars agree that Goguryeo was the most powerful kingdom of the Three Kingdoms of Korea[citation needed]."

There is no consensus of international scholars who believe this so it should be taken off.

"It was an active participant in the power struggle between the Three Kingdoms of Korea as well as the foreign affairs of associated polities in China and Japan."

This is entirely true. Many references to Koguryo (or rather Koryo) in the Nihongi.

This might be true, but not the entire truth. I have said that treating geopolitical relationship between Koguryo and Silla and Bekjie as "power struggle", and between Koguryo and Chinese, Japanese Kingdom as "foriegn affairs" is selective edits. You cited Nihongi as your reference, that is ok. But the Chinese historical records said the other way around, but you choose to ignore it. Leave that sentence out, or say something more accurate like "It was an active participant in the geopolitical power struggle between Silla, Bekjie, Han, Sui, Tang and Japan." You yourself is guilty of the "little edits" here to overtly suggest Koguryo is part of Korea, and foreign to China.
Wiki Pokemon 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Ponkemon. I don't know if you are aware of this, but I had posted my intentions on the wording of the intro about a month ago and there was general concensus that it was okay. It is your objections that are rather new. However, it doesn't mean that your questions don't need to be addressed. You are suggesting edits that destabilize the peace and I'm seeking a diplomatic solution through specific wording. WangKon936 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
According to secondary sources, most notably Djarylgashinova's analysis of primary sources like the Gwanggaeto stele, Goguryeo's politics was centered around the peninsula and treated other peninsular states as their "subjects" and distinguished them from other states, such as Chinese and Japanese states. And again, the general consensus is that Goguryeo is Korean, and not Chinese. China is often referred to as an exclusive entity when Goguryeo history is being discussed. For example,
  • The tension between the three Korean kingdoms grew more intense, and Koguryo became increasingly belligerent towards China. Denis Twitchett, the Cambridge History of China, page 232~233. Cydevil38 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


You know what. All the little edits in the intro paragraph by both Korean and Chinese ultra nationalists are rather childish and unprofessional. For anyone who comes to Wiki to actually want to LEARN about this important Asian kingdom are probably confused by reading this terrible intro. WangKon936 05:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, all the unreferenced tags are unneccessary. Its simply a way to destroy the credibility of the article. Good friend100 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By looking at the quality of the references you have used so far, it is not a surprise that you are complaining "the credibility of the article". :-) --Jiejunkong 07:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jiejun, please rein in the personal attack. I agree that Good Friend should really use better sources instead of web based links from sites that have questionable motives and scholarship. I've had this discussion with him during Imjin War edits. However, it does not help bring peace to this talk page when you are making personal insults. WangKon936 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Here is what I said: "By looking at the quality of the references you have used so far, it is not a surprise that you are complaining "the credibility of the article". :-)". Please point your finger to where the personal attack is. Otherwise, I think you are acting weird against some fun making comments that are quite normal. The sentence is very ambiguous, could be praise of high quality and could be sarcasm against low quality. It really depends on the quality of the references being referred to. Cheers.--Jiejunkong 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What do the Chinese believe?

Chinese scholars and Korean scholars believe Korean-Manchurian or Manchurian Korean descent population numbers around 107,430,000 millions. They are scattered around North East China or China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonjj (talk • contribs) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a question I have tried to answer to see what the conscensus of Chinese scholars believe on the matter of Koguryo. This is complicated by the fact that much of what Chinese scholars believe is locked in Chinese language materials. Furthermore, what the Chinese believe regarding Koguryo is diverse and varies within and without the borders of the PRC. Some Chinese scholars believe that Koguryo falls within their histiography and others do not. What prompted my question is when I ran across the following article: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2007052973068

The Dong A-Ilbo states that:

"The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is a national academy of China. It is a renowned think tank which deals with domestic and foreign affairs. The Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Science (東北工程) is one of the academy’s research projects conducted by the society’s sub-organization, the Research Institute of the History of Chinese Northeast Borderland (邊疆史地硏究.)..., [which]... concluded that Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae are part of the history of China."
"However, the project’s claim is in contrast with what the society has said in its publications. In November 2005, a book was released to give an outline about nations all over the world. In the book about South Korea, the society acknowledges that Gojoseon and Goguryeo are the ancient kingdoms of Korea."
"The book has been edited by 11 professional institutions and their experts under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Therefore, this book is attracting public interest as it can be referred to as academically denying what scholars of the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Science have claimed."

I believe extensive rewrites to this article are necessary. However, there appears to be diversity within the PRC borders as well as to how to view Koguryo. We should get to the bottom of what these diverse ideas are, not only in the PRC proper, but also (if possible) in Taiwan, Singapore and the Chinese Diaspora. WangKon936 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would estimate that the majority of CASS scholars find the Northeast Project to be repugnant and an affront to proper academic research. The institute is very large and diverse and so it is unfortunate that the NEP seems to have brought the whole thing into disrepute in some academic circles. Mumun 無文 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Okie, then I have a serious question here. Who, among Chinese professional scholarship, believes Koguryo is Chinese? Apparently not all do, even within the borders of the PRC. I doubt Taiwanese or Singaporian scholars or ethnic Chinese scholars who are in the U.S. take the Northeast Asian Project view either. Honestly, I'm a little confused. WangKon936 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see problem in the statement that Goguryeo is Korean, if this interpretation is not exclusive. Indeed, Han Chinese people had little to do with Goguryeo and their opinion should be less important than the one from Manchu people, who cannot be ignored in the discussion.--Jiejunkong 08:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be wise to choose several reliable NPOV sources on Goguryeo, such as those done by Rhee, Nelson, Gardiner, Barnes and Byington, to do some rewriting. Cydevil38 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know about Rhee, but the others sound good. You may also want to use Pai, she's pretty unbiased. WangKon936 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I need to point out a fact of common-sense, which is rejected by some users here. These above-mentioned professional researchers are not magicians who can travel back in time to see what happened in ancient time. They must rely on ancient records, either written records or archaeological records, to do their research, otherwise fabrication of evidence has been committed.--Jiejunkong 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Jie, the problem with putting primacy to original source documents (or as original or oldest as possible) is that they were created with an agenda. Ruling families come to power and commission (i.e. pay for) the creation of new histories that provide an interpretation of history that supports the power of the rulers who pay the bills of the historian. Thus, you have to take original (or cannonal, as you say) sources with a grain of salt. This is why the best analysis takes different sources, matches them with consistancies in archeology and the science of textual analysis and comes up with interpretations that distill better facts and more accurate truths. No historial scholar would base his reputation on just one set of sources from just one point of view. WangKon936 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the historical records doesn't imply that the quoted contents are true or false. It is only about Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, which grant the approval for qualified sources to be shown in wikipedia. I certainly support taking different reliable sources, as many as possible. If there is a conflict between two reliable sources, a simple way is to point it out and also to list supportive reliable sources for both of them. The wikipedia readers are given the information from reliable sources, but not any conclusion. In a nutshell, the primacy of the wikipedia is on reliable sources and NPOV expressions of these reliable sources.--Jiejunkong 03:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
These are neutral researchers who are neither Korean or Chinese. These researchers are experts on history, who hold extensive knowledge on ancient records, arcaheology, as well as methodology of historical analysis. Really, what are you afraid of? Which is a more neutral, reliable, credible source that can be used in Wikipedia? The personal opinion of a Chinese "history buff" editor, or dedicated experts on history who are neither Korean or Chinese? Cydevil38 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what do you mean here. I support the use of all reliable sources, either qualified ancient sources or qualified modern sources. The sources I am against are violating the wikipolicy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. On the other hand, it seems that your words are implying Jurchens' ancient canonical records cannot be used in this article (because Jurchen-Manchu people are Chinese now). But this is ridiculous for two reasons. (1) Please check the wikipolicy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, your challenge should be based on wikipolicies, not some extraneous rules suddenly appear. If a source is qualified as reliable source by the wikipolicies, then it is a reliable source. Other arguments are irrelevant. (2) Nearly 1,000 years ago when these records were written, Jurchens were not speaking Chinese though the Jurchen historians wrote in classical Chinese. This was exactly like the Goguryeo state, where Goguryeo people didn't speak Chinese but Goguryeo historians wrote in classical Chinese. In order to disqualify ancient records, you are using the modern nationalists' view to classify ancient people's non-existing modern status. Unless you can show me a Time machine, I don't think your means is valid by any means.--Jiejunkong 03:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the definition of reliable source from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." For a counterexample, E-mail messages obviously fail the criteria "with a reliable publication process". They are not reliable.--Jiejunkong 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note Manchurian are not the original people under Goguryeo period. During the height of Goguryeo expansion, most citizens or people of Goguryeo were Buyo and Koreanic tribes, Jurchens and Khitans and other nomadic tribes came much later periods and certainly few clans of Jurchens were allowed to stayed within Goguryeo boarders but in return they joined Goguryeo in wars as mercenaries. Later periods, some of that survived Jurchen clans formed Balhae together with Goguryeo survivals, and because of this Jurchen and other nomadic tribes were insignificant in development of Goguryeo.

Recent vandalism

Recently, there has been an increasing number of vandals on this article [8] [9], as well as those relating to it. Some of these new trolls have adopted incredibly obscure usernames denoting their allegiances/nationality, and a significant portion of these new breed of vandals/trolls are "Chinese." Common tactics employed by these new trolls include (but not limited to): 1) Harassment of Korean user/talk pages [10] [11] 2) Persistent blanking of disputed articles [12] 3) Persistent showing of support for Chinese editors involved in the disputed articles [13] [14] 4) Involvement in disputed articles involving Koreans, but not Chinese [15] [16] 5) Awarding administrators who've taken action against a particular individual/group [17] [18].

Despite this, I have reason to believe that many of these new trolls are in fact, not Chinese. After a bit of searching, a few sites became suspect. I won't point fingers at anyone or accuse any particular group, judge for yourself (URL to a popular Korean MMORPG message board):

If true, what this user did is wrong. However, pointing fingers solves nothing. Let's move on fellas. WangKon936 03:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1) help out with anti-Wikipedia campaign

2) Why Wikipedia is so fuc*ked up

3) WHERE IS MY 100K JSTAR1??????? [19]

Regards,

Assault11 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If true, what this user did is wrong. However, pointing fingers solves nothing. Let's move on fellas. WangKon936 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an abuse of wikipedia editing rights.--Jiejunkong 08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the means, I whole heartedly agree with the motives. This Goguryeo article really shows Wikipedia's limits in presenting a fair, reliable source of information. Cydevil38 10:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One more quick point and I'm out. His means taint his motives. WangKon936 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who will be interesting in distortion of Korean history other than Chinese and Japanese trolls? Vast majority of Anti-Korean trolls are in fact Japanese and Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Manchuria template

Assault11 persists on changing History of Manchuria to History of Northeast China. If this kind of reversion conitnues, the History of Manchuria template should be left out of this article. It's a controversial template in the first place anyways. Cydevil38 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a response in the template's talk page. Since you have made no attempts to be part of the discussions, you are not in a position to alter the status quo. If you want to remove the template altogether (from this article), that is fine with me. You are after all, part of the Gaogouli discussion. In fact, I recall that I've - along with most Chinese editors - never even supported this template in the first place. However, that would set us back quite a lot and we would have to find an alternative measures for compromise. Assault11 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I did participate in the discussion, though I didn't waste my time responding to every one of your objections that I deemed pointless. And don't try to fabricate consensus. Whlee was referring to another template, template:History of Northeast China created by Wiki Pokemon. Cydevil38 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, nevermind about Whlee not having had a consensus. He actually did, which I didn't remember until now. I've engaged in discussions with him in his talk page, and I have addressed his concerns. Please see his talk page.[20] And mine.[21] Cydevil38 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Assault11, the template MUST be moved to northeast china. We have already discussed this and it is not fair for nationalists to manipulate wikipedia. Zhang123 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

These random people who come in without a proper user page... I'm just gonna ignore them. Very high likelihood that they are someone's sockpuppet. WangKon936 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, you participated in the discussions with only one thing in mind - bringing up irrelevant topics into the discussion [22] and making ad hominem attacks against those have different viewpoints than you [23] [24].

I have made many attempts to discuss with you on these matters. You did not reciprocate, now who's fault is that? I asked many questions regarding the historical usage of Manchuria, yet you didn't utter a single word. If you are incompetent in NE Chinese history (as you stated yourself [25]), that is not my problem. You chose to not be involved in the discussion process. If you think my points are "pointless," then that's too bad. As far as I'm concerned, you have no right to alter what has been agreed upon. Assault11 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo article is a very relevant topic in template:History of Manchuria, because the template has been created to resolve edit warring in Goguryeo. Most users expressed support for "Manchuria" because it is the widely used English term. The only person that agrees with you is Wikipokemon, and nobody else. Again, I don't need to respond to you one by one when you're making pointless objections that elude main arguments being made by others. Cydevil38 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at the poll again. Most of those who've agreed were Korean editors. More Chinese editors voted in favor of incorporating the HoC template than the HoM. Yeah, Wiki Pokemon and I make up the bulk of the editors involved in the discussion (3 in total). Where were you?
If that's your attitude, fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, you have no right to change what has been agreed upon.
By the way, if you take down the HoM template, the HoK template will be removed as well. Assault11 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There were also non-Korean/non-Chinese editors who agreed to them. The only agreement was between you and Wikipokemon, who's been eluding the main argument that the common English term is Manchuria. Also, in the RfC, the outside comment was that only the History of Korea template should remain, with History of China template taken out. Cydevil38 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What argument? We already proved Northeast China is more common. Assault11 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting really sick of this repetitive "discussion" with Assault11, so I'll simply provide the "evidence" that they've attempted to use to prove my point that they were only eluding the main argument and continues to push for a POV that has little support from evidence. This is the evidence that Wikipokemon attempted to use:

[26] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[27] Encarta Dictionary
[28] American Heritage Dictionary
[29] Collins Dictionary
[30] Answer.com
[31] Columbia Encyclopedia
[32] Britannica Encyclopedia
[33] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[34] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[35] Catholic Encyclopedia
[36] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[37] AncientWorld.net
[38] Nuttall Encyclopedia

All of those are entries on "Manchuria", with the exception of Encarta. This is final and irrefutable without contradictory evidence. Cydevil38 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice use of your selective reading skills, just about all of them equate "Manchuria" with "Northeast China". Refer to news articles (see template talk page), just about all of them use NE China nowadays. Assault11 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Below is the summary of the descriptions of Manchuria from the references above:
  • All references above say that Manchuria is Northeast China or a region of Northeast China or Northeastern division of the Chinese Empire or province of China. All indicated the region consists of the three northeast provinces of China.
  • 5 references say Manchuria is a historical name, or historical region.
  • 3 references say Manchuria is coined by Japanese /Russians for sinister purposes and considered offensive.
  • A few references say Manchuria was the homeland or historical homeland of the Manchu, but also includes many other tribes and immigrants.
  • Note that none mentioned Russia or Primorsky Krai or Khabarovsk Krai.
All the points in the summary are extremely strong arguments by themselves for the case of Northeast China.
Wiki Pokemon 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really. All of them are entries on "Manchuria", attesting to the common usage of "Manchuria" in the English language to define that region. Cydevil38 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course really. All of them have to "explain" that Manchuria is Northeast China. It is historical. The ordinary person today will not know what Manchuria is without explaing to them that it is Northeast China. Do you need to explain to anyone where Northeast China is? I don't think so.
Wiki Pokemon 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Pokemon, your assertion below is conjecture. In my opinion, in the English speaking world I think Manchuria is better recognized then Northeast China. I'd have to say in academic circles, Manchuria is used more often then Northeast China. However, NE China is getting some more use. Byington, five years ago, used Manchuria, but he uses NE China a bit more often now. WangKon936 15:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

THE MANCHURIA TEMPLATE SHOULD BE REMOVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. If the reasoning is that Korea's Goguryeo and China's Manchuria overlap, then it's only fair to add a Korean template to the Manchuria Wikipedia article. 2. This is blatant Sinocentrism. The Manchuria template casts an image that China's land and influence exceeds it's current boundaries without any unbiased evidence. China's expansionist agenda is becoming quite apparent. The usurpation of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and the violent approach China has with Taiwan should cast suspicion to China's new "claim" that Goguryeo was just another Chinese kingdom. Would we accept Nazi Germany's claims that France, Poland, and other parts of Western Europe were in fact larger territories of Germany? 3. To look at this problem from another angle, let's look at the Greece and Italy/Rome Wikipedia articles. Greek and Italian/Roman exchanges are quite notable. Yet there are no Greek templates in Italian/Roman articles. Why? Because of the controversial nature of it's insertion.

To maintain Wikipedia's democratic nature and it's precision, I hope the Wikipedians out there will seriously consider this argument. Scholars from Harvard to the University of California, as well European scholars, all maintain the questionable nature and the suspicion of China's assertions and the ramifications that their assertions entail. Although a template, it can be seen as a small step to fighting imperialism and preserving fairness and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.170.97.196 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wei Cuncheng

Where is the proof that the content of "Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" was made by Wei Cuncheng himself? I recall seeing the source for it, but nothing in the short summary suggested that this was the work of the person in question. Assault11 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The user who wrote that segment made reference to his work. If it's not based on Wei Chunchung's work, then that segment is original research of primary sources. Cydevil38 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it original research? AFAIK, Original Research only applies when facts from primary sources are interpreted. Is there anything you dispute here? I don't see how much different this is to the Tang Taizong article [39], where primary sources Zizhi Tongjian and Xin Tang Shu are used. Assault11 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute how information from the primary sources are being interpreted. Tributary relations in the past were a means to commit to trade and diplomacy. The source that the writer referred to was Wei Cunchung, an active participant of the Northeast Project whose POV is very biased and controversial. Hence, the readers should be informed of where that segment came from. Cydevil38 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you even read Chinese? Point to me the line/excerpt where it says that. I only see it being sourced from primary sources. Assault11 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Assault, if it's not from Wei Cuncheng, then who's theory is it? And Cydevil, will you just chill out? Why do you have to take such a confrontational attitude? I agree that the list of tributary relations between Koguryo and Chinese kingdoms doesn't really mean anything since Baekje, Silla and Yamato Japan had very similar relations with the Chinese kingdoms. Exact same tribute exchanged and similar titles given. In none of the articles does anyone care what year and what year tribute was exchanged. It's totally superfluous info and provides NO educational value as far as I can tell. WangKon936 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the inital insertion of the segment: [40], where it is clearly shown that the reference material is a work of Wei Cunchung. Cydevil38 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not telling me much. Is he even part of the Northeast Project? Like I said, don't just point to me a general meaningless summary. Assault11 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tributary Relations

The current segment on "Political connections between Goguryeo and Central Plains dynasties", based on a work by a Northeast Project participant, is certainly unacceptable by NPOV and factual accuracy standards, but I wouldn't mind pointing out that Goguryeo did engage in tributary relations. However, this should be presented under a section that covers overall diplomatic relations of Goguryeo, and point out that other non-Chinese states, such as Bakje, Shilla and Japan(Wa) have also engaged in this tributary relationship. As for what tributary relationship is, I think tribute presents good information on this for the readers. Cydevil38 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you conclude that its unacceptable when you've never even read the work yourself? Is he even a Northeast Project participant? Assault11 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think pointing out that Baekje and Silla were also tributary states is fine. Asserting that Japan was would be far more problematic. --Nlu (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the point that Cydevil is saying is that Baekje and Silla, as well as Yamato Japan after Prince Shotoku, had firm tributary relations with Chinese kingdoms and exchanged pretty much the exact tributary trips that Koguryo did with China. As China gave Koguryo the title of "General pacifying Xutun Commandary" China would also give the title of "General pacifying Chenfan commandary" to Silla and "General pacifying Taifan commandary" to Baejke and "General pacifying Jinhan and Baohan" to Yamato Japan. These non-Chinese states took these types of titles to add legitimacy to their own rules. These titles really didn't cost the Chinese anything, since they didn't have control of said territories anyways. WangKon936 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
However, these tributary missions are much more established and regular between China and Goguryeo/Baekje/Silla than with any Japanese state, Yamato or not. There were relatively few records of arrivals of Japanese emissaries in Chinese history, and they are spaced apart by many, many years, while arrivals of emissaries from Goguryeo/Baekje/Silla were a near yearly occurrence, even during the period of warfare between China and Goguryeo. My problem with stating that Japan had a tributary relationship with China would not be per se with the word "tributary"; it would be with the word "relationship." I am not sure that you can really call it a "relationship" when it's that irregular. --Nlu (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point. I guess my point is that the list of titles and tributary trips as it is in the Koguryo article is probably superfluous given the normality of such a relationship with many otherwise independent countries in the Chinese cultural sphere. Hence I request for its removal from the article. WangKon936 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Nlu, I think we are building up to a balanced conversation regarding setting some guidelines as to how we can do some major rewrites to this article that would be acceptable to a majority of parties here. I'm totally open to discussing this. We may also want to throw in a biblography and a list of seminal authors. It would be great to get the ball rolling on this. WangKon936 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In an interview with the Korean press, I think Kenneth Gardiner provided a very balanced view on the relations bewteen Goguryeo and China: 후한(後漢) 시대 대부분의 기간 동안 고구려는 전한 시대에 유지했던 종속적 동맹국 지위에서 결별한 양상을 보였으며 동북아시아에 있어 중국의 패권에 도전하는 주요 세력으로 점차 부상했다. 더불어 고구려가 늘 중국의 세가 약해진 시기를 이용했다는 사실도 특기할 만하다. 중국이 강성하고 통일상태에 있을 때에는 저자세를 견지했다. 이런 점에서 볼 때 고구려 왕들도 중국 변방의 여느 국가의 왕들과 별반 다르지 않았다. 기실 북부 베트남은 여전히 중화제국의 일부분으로 남았으며 9세기 당 왕조가 몰락할 때까지 그 상태를 유지했다.

고구려의 왕들은 국내에서 자신들의 권위를 높이기 위해 중국 조정의 책봉을 받아들였다. 전기 고구려의 왕위는 부족 간에 오고 갔으며 특정 부족(예를 들면 계루부) 출신의 왕이 책봉을 받은 경우 이는 그 부족의 권위를 높이는 데에 보탬이 됐다.”

For most of the Later Han Dynasty era, Goguryeo veered away from the subordinate alliance it maintained with Former Han Dynasty and gradually rose as a main power challenging China's hegemony in Northeast Asia. It's also an interesting fact that when China became weak, Goguryeo often used this as an opportunity. When China was strong and unified, Goguryeo maintained low status. In this respect, Goguryeo kings were not very different from kings of other states bordering China. The fact is that northern Vietnam remained a part of the Chinese empire, and this status was maintained until the fall of Tang Dynasty in the 9th century.

Goguryeo kings accepted investitures from the Chinese government to enhance their own domestic authority. The throne of early Goguryeo was exchanged bewteen tribes, and when a king from a particular tribe(such as Gyeru tribe) recieved investiture, it greatly helped in enhancing the authority of that tribe. [41] I'd appreciate it if someone else could verify this translation. Cydevil38 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this argument about "Tributary Relations". Now let me try to offer my view as an observer. My personal opinion is that this tributary argument is not the core part of this article. In those "Twenty-Four Histories" books before Jurchen Jin Dynasty, the authoritative authors treated Goguryeo as a foreign state, sometimes with tributory relation, but sometimes without. It is valid to say that Han Chinese people before year 1115 had nearly nothing to do with Goguryeo, except some rare exceptions like the famous Tang General Gao Xianzhi (Go Seonji), who was from a Goguryeo noble family. Therefore, the Goguryeo factor in modern China is nearly all from the Goguryeo->Balhae=>Khitan Empire=>Jurchen Jin Dynasty line (in terms of kingdom/dynasty). In terms of ethnic groups, the Goguryeo factor in modern China is from the Sumo Mohe=>Jurchen=>Manchu line. Before this fact is fairly written down into the article, why should we argue about a secondary issue here? --Jiejunkong 08:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, perhaps we can address your concerns by replacing the template here with a former countries template like in Goryeo, and draw two lines coming from Goguryeo to Unified Silla and Balhae, then two lines again coming from Balhae to Goryeo and Khitan Empire. While these Twenty-Four Histories, the Book of Song more specifically, directly draws a connection between Goguryeo and Goryeo, I think that kind of association is fair enough. Cydevil38 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
From the beginning I agreed and agree to the point that Goryeo is a descendant of Goguryeo, though Goguryeo is not exclusively inherited by Goyeo. I think drawing two lines from Balhae to Goryeo and Khitan Empire is reasonable, but as we have already seen that only about 1/5 population went to Goryeo, the other 4/5 went to Khitan Empire. Illustrating this quantitative fact is also reasonable in my opinion.
As to the Book of Song, the original Chinese writing is "高麗，本曰高句驪。"（Goryeo was originally Goguryeo），and immediately the historian authors wrote "禹別九州，屬冀州之地，周爲箕子之國，漢之玄菟郡也。在遼東，蓋扶餘之別種，以平壤城爲國邑。漢、魏以來，常通職貢，亦屢爲邊寇。隋煬帝再舉兵，唐太宗親駕伐之，皆不克。高宗命李勣征之，遂拔其城，分其地爲郡縣。唐末，中原多事，遂自立君長。後唐同光、天成中，其主高氏累奉職貢。長興中，權知國事王建承高氏之位，遣使朝貢，以建爲玄菟州都督，充大義軍使，封高麗國王。"(Too long to be translated here, but basically the historian authors knew what's going on) The sentence "高麗，本曰高句驪" undeniably identified the inheritance relation between Goguryeo and Goryeo. But this paragraph is from Volume 487, which is dedicated to Goryeo. It has nothing to do with Balhae. Volume 491 is dedicated to Balhae. "渤海本高麗之別種。唐高宗平高麗，徙其人居中國。則天萬歲通天中，契丹攻陷營府，高麗別種大祚榮走保遼東，睿宗以爲忽汗州都督，封渤海郡王，因自稱渤海國，並有扶餘、肅慎等十余國，曆唐、梁、後唐，朝貢不絕。" (Too long to be translated here, but this paragraph also identified the inheritance relation between Goguryeo and Balhae)--Jiejunkong 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As a note to eliminate confusion, the following paragraph from User:Wangkon936 on 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC) is a reply to User:Cydevil38 on 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC), not to the previous paragraph.--Jiejunkong 06:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to get that involved. In my mind, the Moho / Koguryo relation and linking it with Jurchens, then Manchu, then Jin Dynasty then today's China is neither easy or clean cut. The Moho were an important contributor to manpower for Koguryo's wars, but it's unclear as to how much contribution they were beyond that. It's likely that they didn't make a lot of cultural contributions as nothing recognized as Moho culture (with the exception of some barbed arrowheads I believe) was ever found in any of the Koguryo tombs, both north and south of the Yalu river. It is clear from both Chinese and Korean sources that no Moho leader names were recorded as ever serving a high function in Koguryo leadership. Now this is very different for Parhae, where the Moho made a significant contribution of the population and leadership structure of that kingdom. Thus, the contention that later Jurchen histories made to their connection to Koguryo may have been more political, to solidify their Manchurian base, rather then actual. It's like saying that Germany has some incredible connection to the history of the Roman Empire because some Ostrogoths in Southern Germany provided troops to the Romans in their wars. Then later some of these Ostrogoths (along with other goths) allied with the Franks to start the Holy Roman Empire. This is very similar w/Koguryo and the Moho. One of (I think) seven Moho tribes allied with Koguryo, the Blackwater tribe. However, what consitutes the Jurchens and the later Manchu is not only this one tribe, but many others. Anyways, most historians would not tie the histiography of the Roman Empire with Southern Germany or the Ostrogoths, right? Again, I do not say that all of Koguryo histiography should be Koreas, as I believe that Koguryo is also important to the history of Manchuria (or the region of Northeast China). I'm just saying that Koguryo's connect to the people of current day Manchuria is so diffused and indirect, it cannot be equal to the connect that Koreans have with Koguryo. WangKon936 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I know Mohe's cultural connection to Goguryeo was tenuous, but as you've said, Mohe's cultural connection to Balhae is well-established. This is something that Korean(at least in South Korea) scholars admit. However, addressing that Balhae's lineage from Goguryeo is not so exclusive, that much of its constituents had little to do with Goguryeo, I think it's appropriate to draw two connections to Balhae's origin - one coming from Mohe, and the other coming from Goguryeo. Cydevil38 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a conversation people should reserve for the talk page on Balhae. However, I do think it makes sense. I think both populations (Koguryo and Blackwater Moho) needed each other to establish that kingdom. It would have been very difficult for the Moho to create a Chinese style civilization without the technical and political knowledge that the Koguryo refugees brought with them. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Koguryo ruling families of Balhae to withstand Tang attacks or incursions without their Moho allies. Later on, it became clear that Balhae was a kingdom that had it's own different identity and that the fall of that kingdom would ferilize other kingdoms in Manchuria that were both Khitan and Jurchen. WangKon936 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tributary relations (cont.)

It seems that Good friend100 is not interested in accepting solid, irrefutable facts - despite proof presented from both primary and secondary sources. Good friend100 asserts that "Goguryeo ended tributary relations with 'China' by the year 106 CE". His source states the following:

''From 75 BC until about 106 AD the governors of a small military prefecture of the Chinese Han dynasty, named Xuantu, engaged Koguryo leaders in a client relationship...

However, this excerpt ONLY concerns the Han Dynasty. I have provided proof that tributary relations with successive Northern dynasties did not end at Han:

Samguk Sagi (Korean primary source):

Year fifteen (656), summer, fifth month, iron fell like rain. Winter, twelfth month, envoys were sent to Tang to offer congratulations to the imperial crown prince. [42]

And the footnote corresponding to this excerpt states the following:

The Cefu yuangui (CY) 冊府元龜 (book 970) records this as a tribute mission.

Good friend100 ignores this by questioning the validity of primary sources (even though Samguk Sagi is a Korean source):

Again, Wikipedia leans more on other sources than primary sources for articles. And again your interpretation can be different from others. I see that sentence you put as a present to the imperial crown prince (for reasons I do not know why) and that it is "congratulating". (see Good friend100's talk page for more info)

In response, I gave him a secondary source to confirm it:

If you are still not convinced, here's a secondary source to confirm it:

Peace was maintained with the Koguryo after they sent tribute to the Tang in 619 until the Tang vassal state Silla complained that Koguryo and Paekche attacked them in 643. [43]

Despite solid evidence that tribute did not end in 106 CE, Good friend100, continues to assert this false claim into articles. It is almost laughable to see how some Koreans even reject their own historiography, citing these original historical texts as "original research." Can anyone clarify this for Good friend100? Assault11 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not rejecting my own historical records. I'm simply stating that primary sources (I don't care if they are Chinese, Korean, Japanese, french, bengali, etc) can be interpreted differently.
I still believe that Goguryeo ended tributary relations in 106 AD. You have given nothing else but repeats of your sources instead of responding to my logical thinking of the issue. And about my source, I already explained why Byington extends Goguryeo's non tributary status beyond the Han. You are simply repeating the same things over and over again. And I'll say again that your source is also wrong and cannot be used because its inaccurate. Silla was not a vassal of the Tang. That source is obviously Chinese POV.
If you want to bring this to this talk page, I'll say this one more time to the other editors.

Goguryeo did NOT pay tribute to China as it grew more powerful because it didn't need to. Consider the wars Goguryeo fought with China. Do you think it is logical or makes sense that Goguryeo would pay tribute to its enemy? I don't think so. Good friend100 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer in case you start repeating everything again.

Your sources are NOT legitimate because:

  • Your primary sources can be interpreted differently. Even here, I interpret a "offer congratulations to the imperial crown prince" as a gift Goguryeo sent to congratulate the prince on whatever occasion or event the prince had.
  • Your secondary source you mention is totally inaccurate. Silla was not a vassal of China. That source is heavily POV and cannot be used. mygoguryeo.com anyone? Good friend100 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Alright, so now you claim that Samguk Sagi is "Chinese POV," despite the fact its a Korean source? Oh god, your argument is so downright humorous I don't even know where to begin.
Silla was not a vassal of China (Tang)? Says who? You?
Both Parhae and Silla established peaceful diplomatic relations with the Tang dynasty and began to assimilate Tang institutions and culture, a major factor in the later blossoming of their native cultures. International trade between China and Korea developed out of a paternalistic exchange of goods at the government level that operated something like an open acknowledgement of the balance of power. Through this "tribute system," the two Korean states recognized China as the paramount power, and their trade embassies paid ceremonial obeisance to both the Chinese court and its envoys to the two kingdoms. The ceremonial obligations which accompanied this "trading system" clearly reflected China's world view. In exchange for "tribute" paid to the imperial court, the Chinese benevolently rewarded the "inferior" state's envoys with "gifts." Any failure to observe this protocol could be taken by either party as a premeditated insult. While states peripheral to China adopted this system of trade and diplomacy in varying degrees, the Korean kingdoms adopted it rather completely. [44]
Wait, my bad, that Korean-centric site is also Chinese POV, right? Assault11 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay Assault, you've shared the data. Now what is your point? WangKon936 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should try to understand what I'm saying more throughly. I said that primary sources can be POV and original research. And cut the negative attitude. Good friend100 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Friend. I've said this to you before and I'm saying it again. Please don't argue points that you are not very familiar with. You are not familiar with the Samguk Sagi or the New or Old Histories of Tang, so don't talk like you know what you are saying. The three kingdoms of Korea commonly paid tribute to the Chinese kingdoms. If you were reading any of my posts, you'd see what the purpose of such tribute missions were. Stop making yourself look bad and stop providing other people a straw man fallacy for them to beat on like a piñata.
The Samguk Sagi, Koguryo pongi, states:
Kwon (chapter) 19, year 9 of King King Munja’myong's reign:
"In summer, sixth month, a tribute mission was sent to Wei. In autumn, eighth month, a tribute mission was sent to Wei. In winter, tenth month, a tribute mission was sent to Wei."
Kwon 20, third year of King Yong’yang's reign:
"... a tribute mission was sent to Sui."
Kwon 21, second year of King Pojang's reign:
"Spring, first month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang. The Tang emperor ordered the Assistant Minister of the Court of National Granaries [Sinongcheng][22], Xiangli Xuanjiang, to carry an edict to the [Koguryo] king which read,
“Silla has pledged its loyalty to our [Tang] court and has never failed to offer tribute. As a result you and Paekche have joined forces. However, if you again attack Silla then next year I shall mobilize my army and lead an expedition against you."
Again, stop making silly arguements or get baited into silly arguements, especially when you have very little knowledge to back yourself up. WangKon936 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What did Koreans make up? Kingj123 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Wangkon certainly can see my lack of knowledge here. And I'm actually going to listen to him! Good friend100 12:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And yet you continue to insert the false claim that "Most historians believe that Goguryeo ended its tributary status with China in 106 AD." Let's just suppose this statement is correct (which it obviously is not), one historian does not translate into "most."
Also, regarding this edit of yours:
"Before Goryeo was established in 918, the Chinese characters (高麗) referring to Goryeo were also used in Chinese and Japanese historical and diplomatic sources to refer to Goryeo."
What are you talking about?! That "Before "Goryeo", historical sources referred to "Goryeo" as "Goryeo"? Mull that over and tell me if that made any sense. Assault11 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Assault, GF100 no longer believes that. So what else do you want to accomplish here besides pick a fight with GF that you know you'll win? Please stop creating your own strawmen.WangKon936 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WangKon936, see GF100's revert just a few minutes ago[45]. Does that look like he changed his opinion? I don't think so. Assault11 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What GF is trying to say (but does so with poor grammar) is that the word "Goryeo" was used to refer to both Goguryeo and Goryeo, hence it shows a continuation of historical terminology from Goguryeo to Goryeo, then to the modern Romanization of the word Goryeo to Korea. If you disagree, then argue the point based on your objections to the subject, not the person who advances the subject (despite the fact that he used bad grammar to do so). WangKon936 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait. GF's edit on line 182 is rather odd. I've gone to some length in saying that Koguryo had exensive tributary relationships with Chinese kingdoms, but he's reverted to something that he's said he no longer believes. GF should explain himself here. WangKon936 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the section is really a POV from China. I added several sentences to it. Of course they are sourced. The source clearly says that although China considered Goguryeo to be a tributary state, Goguryeo was NOT a real tributary state because China had no power over the Goguryeo court at all. Good friend100 18:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GF100, you don't appear to have a clear understanding of what tributary relationships in the Chinese cultural sphere are. You should research that until you feel you can a confident understanding, then you should be prepared to comment. To be fair, you are not the only one with a misunderstanding of tributary relationships. WangKon936 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I know about the tributary system. Good friend100 & Cydevil, I think that the best argument you can make here is that internal conflicts & political power relations within the Goguryeo state and among the Goguryeo tribes pushed Goguryeo to accept the tributary system to further legitimize a particular tribe or family's rule over other dissident factions; however, Goguryeo maintained a stance independent from China & readily defended Chinese invasions. (Wikimachine 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

GF100 continues to assert that "Tributary relations ended in 106 AD." [46] This is absolutely false. After reading his above reply, I can see that he has no idea what he's talking about. Anyway, those who can talk some sense into him, please do so. Thanks. Assault11 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wangkon, I keep finding your comments to me insulting. I was quoting off of thissite which I doubt you have even read since you make your comment like that.
The article says that China did not have any control over Goguryeo's government. Am I wrong?
And Assault11, consider yourself warned. "I have no idea what I'm talking about"? I am not going simply stand here and watch you delete information like that. Good friend100 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: According to Britannica, Goguryeo (Koguryo) "had sent tribute regularly" to Tang until about 642.--Endroit 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Year fifteen (656), summer, fifth month, iron fell like rain. Winter, twelfth month, envoys were sent to Tang to offer congratulations to the imperial crown prince. [42]
There are no mentions of tributes before or after this recorded incident and it hardly constitutes a relation. Furthermore the initial Tang invasion lasted from 645 to 649 and I fail to see any reason why anyone would send "tribute" during a time of war. Whats more is Goguryeo won the first invasion.
Peace was maintained with the Koguryo after they sent tribute to the Tang in 619 until the Tang vassal state Silla complained that Koguryo and Paekche attacked them in 643. [43]
This quote is nonsensical when the Tang dynasty did not have complete power in 619 and was a relative baby when it began in mid 618. The Sui dynasty still had remnants of its dynasty in 619.
These bits and pieces do not constitute proof, and some of it is original research which needs to come from a credible figure with authority about the matter. The 2nd source given by the person above does not constitute a secondary source when its referring to an event completely unrelated not to mention historically implausible original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.222 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sui tributary relations is laughable at best. Its mired with intermittent tributes paid, every few years and then the start of the Sui war which resulted in the complete destruction of the Sui dynasty as a result. Yet after the war was won by Koguryo he sent tributes? Why the intermittent tributes? Either the author translated it wrong or something is wrong with the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.222 (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Communists' Influence

I am sure that the communist governmemnt in China have huge influence towards the education.Kingj123 14:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How did you come to this conclusion? Did you see the word Communism anywhere in this article? Nobody wants to spread communism here. The South Korean government is doing the same thing as the Chinese government in educating its people. The whole issue is about how you interpret ancient history to suit your own interest. Or on the Korean part, how to invent history. Time of flight

Communism has nothing to do with this, although the Chinese government probably does have strict rules on education. Good friend100 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can distinquish clearly between Goguryeo's culture from rest of China, there is no doubt. China is debating the obvious.

Also, China is the one who is acting, not Korea. The way you said that South Korea are educating its people makes me laugh. Every country in the world educates its people. But the peoblem is that Chinese education never mentioned of Goguryeo as part of China before communists took over, while Korea taught its people throughout the history.

I believe Gaogouli (or Goguryeo, whaterevr you rcall it), 's history is nevertheless part of the Chinese history, and this history was recorded in various classical historical works in classical Chinese, which every Chinese student who has been graduated from high school can read. It might also be part of Korean history though, you may call it one of your ancestral states or whatever. I don't care how your read out from that history, but at least please don't make things up - Time of flight.


Kingj123 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No China, communist or not, viewed Goguryeo as Korean until they got scared if Korea reunifies and then the Koreans living in Manchuria might secede. Good friend100 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
GF100, there is little risk of that happening. Besides, there are only 2 million Koreans in Manchuria out of a total Manchurian population of 120 million, most of which are Han Chinese. Your suggestion is rather preposterous. WangKon936 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What did Koreans make up? Specify. Kingj123 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Faked history, e.g. Hwandan Gogi

What a lame answer and it is not even specific enough. It is not even in the full sentences. Look, we are debating about one of the strongest kingdoms in Northest Asia.

"fake...fake... history... fake...yeah.. those fake stuffs Koreans made..."

It is shameful, I hope other Chinese people give better reasons than that!


I have a Korean book just about 1 inch thick book about Goguryeo that has sofisticated, metaphorical, meaningful, emotional and widely connected history. I enjoyed it so much that I read over several times and I learned something new eachtime. Not even a single Korean could ever make that up. You should try reading it before you make any comments.

What is a "real" history for Chinese? Did they come with any better and more meaningful histories? Did chinese ever have insperation to make and publish inch thick books that only relates to Goguryeo independantly that have sofisticated, metaphorical, meaningful, emotional and widely connected history?

Also, being part of Chinese history doesn't mean that Goguryeo is nessesarly part of China. That is a false assumption.

Present Manchurian culture and tradition is different than Goguryeo's.

C Castles and fortresses today are exactly the same as the fortresses in Korea.

China is a wonderful country. However, among many present Koreans, my mother's last name is said to be descended from Goguryeo. It breaks my heart when I hear that Goguryeo is Chinese.

China finds Goguryeo just an regional state in China. Goguryeo means more than that to us. Kingj123 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is just my personal opinon. I am not an expert in history and I don't usually edit in here. But it is a controversial issue I shall point out. There's something in this article that I don't feel comfortable with, it tries to cut any connection between Goguryeo and ancient Chinese dynasties and kingdoms in the central plains, and only lists China as its No 1 enemy. Time of flight

China is certainly not the only enemy for Goguryeo.Kingj123 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think much can be accomplished if we tone down the Korean rhetoric in this article and just go by the facts. It will make a more drier article, but one that is less controversial. It would also be helpful to put down the contributions that Chinese culture had on Koguryo and some of the antagonisim that Koguryo had with other Korean kingdoms that it was contemporary with. WangKon936 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel passionately about this dispute as you do, Kingj. Maybe the stuff that you wrote above are a little bit too excessive. (Wikimachine 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
And I'd say, folks -- lay off the personal attack. In addition, I'd suggestion to everyone: when you can, read the Samguk Sagi. It is certainly no "fake history," and I think would open a lot of eyes from people who just throw nationalist rhetoric around (on both sides). --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will (try to) stay quiet for a while, fixing other articles. Kingj123 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

North Korean Juche ideology

There's no reason to get upset about all this, because the communist propaganda exists equally on both sides. Here's a source describing North Korean Juche ideology, and how they've distorted archaeological and historical studies. North Korea is particularly ridiculed for the manner in which they've "found" Dangun's grave. And North Korea is accused of glorifying Goguryeo, while playing down the significance of Silla. And because of their Juche ideology, North Korea is supposed to be "self-sufficient" enough, and so heaven forbid China had anything to do with "their" Goguryeo history!--Endroit 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, the South Korean government, historians and civilian groups were far more vocal than North Korea in protesting China's claims on Goguryeo history. And the last time I checked, South Korea is a fully functioning democratic state. Cydevil38 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
North Korea is too much different from South Korea to be considered a voice about Goguryeo. Yes they are ethnic Korean and obviously support Goguryeo is Korean. But you can't take their announcements seriously.
It is South Korea that is doing much of the fighting and stop accusing each other of history distortion. Too bad if China distorts history and too bad if North Korea distorts history. We obviously know that Communist propaganda and other communist influences are there. Anyways, don't you guys think it would be a good thing to go back to topic instead of governments? Good friend100 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article on Goguryeo controversies fails to mention North Korean Juche ideology with respect to Goguryeo, and how it distorts archaeological & historical studies. If nobody else wants to, I can put it there.--Endroit 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing is though North Korea is not very involved in this controversy, which is obvious considering their political dependence on China. Cydevil38 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Its the Koreans distorting history right? I certainly don't see this in the news.

"North Korea is distorting Chinese history"

Keep in mind that China is distorting history a ton compared to what North Korea does. Good friend100 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, North Korea does its fair share of distoring history when compared to China. Same can be said for Russia, although Russians generally doesn't concern Koerans since there isn't much conflict in interests. Cydevil38 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing of reliable and neutral sources available online that covers Goguryeo in some depth

The following are reliable and neutral(non-Korean, non-Chinese) sources of expert authorship that have full or limited availability online that covers Goguryeo in some depth.

Entry on Goguryeo in Encyclopedia Britannica[47]
Entry on Goguryeo in Concise Encyclopedia Britannica[48]
Entries on Goguryo in Encarta[49]
Entry on Korea(~540 C.E.) in Encyclopedia of World History[50]
Entry on Korea(540~918) in Encyclopedia of World History[51]

Archaeology of Korea by Sarah M. Nelson, Chapter 7(Three Kingdoms AD 300-668)[52]
State Formation in Korea by Gina L. Barnes, Chapter 1(Early Korean States) page 20[53]

I'll continue expanding the list, and add relevant text from sources not available online, as time allows. Cydevil38 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Here are some of my choices for now:

  • "History of Korea," Dr. William E. Henthron (University of Hawaii), Macmillan Publishing Company.
  • "History of the Puyo State: Its History and Legacy," Mark Byington's PhD dissertation, Department of East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 2003.
  • “The Samguk Sagi and the Unification Wars” John C. Jamieson Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1969.
  • "Koguryo in Chinese Historiography" Mark Byington, The Interaction of Korean and Foreign Cultures: Proceedings of the 1st World Congress of Korean Studies, III. Songnam, Republic of Korea: The Academy of Korean Studies, 2002.
  • "The System of Military Activity of Koguryo." Asmolov, Konstantin V., Korea Journal 32:2
  • "Of Pigs and Jealous Brothers: Problems Concerning the Relocation of the Koguryô Capital" Daniel Kane, University of Hawaii, 1999.
  • Koguryo Biographies of the Samguk Sagi, transalated by Daniel Kane, University of Hawaii.
  • "Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900 AD" Dr. David A. Graff, Kansas State University.

Any others please feel free to contribute suggestions or make comments. WangKon936 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipolicy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, the sources you have listed here are as reliable as any "published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". But I am just curious why you (likely intentionally) didn't include Twenty-Four Histories, Samguk Sagi and similar trustworthy ancient records in the list. My comments are: if any author in your list does not do research based on Twenty-Four Histories, Samguk Sagi and similar trustworthy ancient records, then what remains in such an author's article is merely the person's personal POV with magic evidences.--Jiejunkong 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There are several issues involved, so I'll lay them out as follows:

  1. Introductory section:Should perspectives of scholars from a particular political state, such as Many Chinese scholars consider Goguryeo an important regional power which had maintained century-long tributary relationship to China, thus Chinese often consider Goguryeo as part of Chinese history., be mentioned in the article's introduction?
  2. Goguryeo-China wars section[54]: Does Goguryeo-China wars violate NPOV?
  3. Modern Politics section[55]: Is the Korean Studies mailing list[56], a moderated mailing list on Korean history, a reliable source for Mark Byington's opinion in the Modern Politics section?
  4. Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties section[57]: Is this section primarily based on Wei Cuncheng's work(inital insertion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&diff=130834456&oldid=130473640), and does it conform to NPOV?
  5. Sources: Is it appropriate to directly cite ancient historical records for contents in the article without going through secondary or tertiary sources?

The above are not the only disputes involved in this article, but those have been the cause of recent revert wars that still go unresolved. Please feel free to comment on other parts of the article that you find problematic. 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydevil38 (talk • contribs)

Responses to RfC by already involved editors

The above CyDevil? WangKon936 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently yes, based on the "history" log.--Endroit 15:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments / opinions for each point are as follows:

1) "Many Chinese scholars believe..." should be toned down given that a majority of Chinese scholars both inside and outside the borders of the PRC don't seem to believe this. It seems to be a vocal minority of Chinese scholars who hold the view. I have always maintained that the appropriate statement should be something like:
many Chinese scholars believe that Koguryo is an important regional kingdom in Northeast China... or something equally vauge, given the diversity of opinion on the matter on their side.
2) I'm indifferent either way.
3) Mark Byington's comments on the mailing list can be used in conjunction with an academic paper authored by him called "Koguryo in Chinese Histoigraphy" which he makes many of the same points.
4) "Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" should be taken out. It clearly supports a minority Chinese POV which is rather weak given that the other two Korean kingdoms had pretty much the same kind of realtionship with said Chinese Dynasties. Thus, the verbage expounded there doesn't really point to anything other then Koguryo playing a role in tributary relationships with various Chinese kingdoms, just like many other independent states bordering China at the time. This section, should, however, be replaced with a section that explains the nature of the tributary relationships and Koguryo's diplomatic relations with Chinese kingdoms in general.
5) I've discussed my opinion on this matter several times and I think it's appropriate to directly quote the source materials at times and at times it's not. For statements of fact such as, "Battle B took place on Date X" it's probably fine. If these ancient sources hold weight when cross referenced with peer sources, (i.e. Old History of Tang, Samguk Sagi and Records of the Grand Historian), that is very strong evidence indeed. WangKon936 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with what WangKon936 just said. Also:
1) People should discuss first before changing stuff around in the intro.
2) If you're going to have a general section on "Goguryeo-China wars", you should cover the earlier centuries also. For example, it is significant that Goguryeo defeated the Chinese commanderies at Xuantu, Lelang, etc. Also, Goguryeo was "completely routed" by the Cao Wei in 245. (Barnes:2001, p. 25)
4) The section on "Political Connections..." is excessive, and should be replaced by a section describing cultural & political relations between Goguryeo and China in general. The new section should discuss Buddhism, for example, and how it entered Goguryeo from China. And I believe Goguryeo's political system was modeled after Northern Wei's if I'm correct. Such were the important things in the relationship between China and Goguryeo.
--Endroit 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1) Agreed. I'll include my version of the intro ppl tonight in the talk page for everyone to consider.
2) Yep. There were times where Koguryo got their ass kicked by Wei. Should be mentioned if we are to talk about the ass whipping Koguryo gave to some Sui and Tang invasions to provide a balanced viewpoint.
4) I agreee. There should be a special section to discuss the relevant Chinese influences on Koguryo. Buddisim is one, letters, technology, statescraft, political structure, confucianism, etc. are others. WangKon936 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "political connections" section should be replaced with cultural connections between Goguryeo and China. I wrote some of this in in the "Culture" section of the article so we don't have to be repetitive. But including buddhism and arts, etc is something everybody can agree on. Good friend100 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, you are POV. Not even admonishing editors like these [[58], certainly show your POV on the issue. Making all moves to remove any "offensive" material by the "Koreans" is a good thing but when blatant CPOV editors call Koreans ethnocentrists and this place a "giant circlejerk" for them, its ok, right?
Or maybe you just missed the edit? Or maybe the editor didn't need any admonishing because somebody else could take care of it?
It is totally not fair how your attitude holds back the article. I think you should reconsider your edits and comments that may be POV. Good friend100 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an excellent source

[59]

Here is a very informative source on Goguryeo culture and has a lot of information on Goguryeo religion, Dongmaek festival, etc.

I hope that this source can be used, since the only things I will be writing about is the culture, which (I hope) is not controversial here.

I'm asking if you think that this source is fair to use for the culture. Good friend100 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GF100, let's keep the biblography limited to primarily english language sources so everyone can see and evaluate. WangKon936 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
What about the Chinese language sources other editors use? We cannot verify those either. Good friend100 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
However, a bulk of research on Goguryeo is in Korean, and I'd say while some South Korean historians interpret history with a nationalistic bias, there are also those who don't. There are also contributions by non-Korean scholars, such as Russians, available in Korean but not English. In such cases where Korean sources can provide information that is otherwise hard to reach or views of non-English speaking scholars from other countries, I think their usage should be allowed with verification by peers who can also read Korean. Cydevil38 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the bulk of Koguryo research is in Korean, however, for the purposes of getting a wiki article done, English language sources should provide us the bulk of what we need here. Again, we are writting a wiki article, not a academic piece. Regarding Korean sources, we should keep them to a minimum and focus on sources that do not discuss nationality, or ethnic heritage, etc. We should also be open to using Chinese sources, although no one has as of yet made any suggestions to a Chinese work that focuses on information on the kingdom of Koguryo, and not the actually nationality or ethnicity of said kingdom. It would be wonderful if we had a paper from a Chinese scholar that talked about Koguryo pyramid, stone chambered tombs, frescos, religion, etc. without wrapping the discussion on any issues of nationality and ethnicity. Likewise for Korean sources. WangKon936 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as I said, I'm only trying to confirm that we can use this site for the culture ONLY. Its very informative. Good friend100 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. About Goguryeo-China wars section: This section's title is POV. It must be changed to a proper term.
  2. About the "Sources" including email messages: Ancient canonical records are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", thus, by definition of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, are reliable. Ancient trustworthy records are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy in relation to the subject at hand", thus, by the same definition, are reliable. I don't think there is any valid reason to fight against this wikirule. Frankly speaking, this argument should never occur if we follow wikirules. On the other hand, email messages miserably fail to meet the standard due to its unreliable publication process. Can anybody call "clicking the send button of MS Outlook" as "reliable publication process"? Absolutely no. After the first sentence in the quoted definition of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources is failed, even if you are still arguing that the author is trustworthy or authoritative (which is not yet a sure thing), we have to say that email messages have already failed to be rated as reliable in wikipedia, and why do we need more arguments here?--Jiejunkong 05:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding (1) I don't see how it is POV. Koguryo fought various Chinese kingdoms throughout it's history and a special section to describe the battles in total would be helpful as well as educational. Perhaps you would feel better if we included a section that described Koguryo's battle with other peninsular kingdoms? That might balance things out.
2) I agree w/wikirules regarding ancient sources, but again, depends on what you are gleaning from those records. Ancient records tend to be better when stating facts such as "battle A happened on date B" rather then commentary such as "we are so much better then those goat herding barbarians in the north...". Also, I don't suggest we take Byington's email as a stand alone piece, but weigh it with academic papers that Byington wrote to compliment it. WangKon936 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wangkon that there should be a section dedicated to Goguryeo's wars with other peninsular kingdoms. Cydevil38 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) The 1st problem of the title "Goguryeo-China wars" is the exclusion of Silla, which played the most critical role in all wars against Goguryeo, i.e., based on the man power involved and other factors, Silla took the leading role in the Silla-Tang alliance and destroyed Goguryeo. That is, the war led by Silla ended all wars against Goguryeo. Ignoring the critical war is certainly POV. The 2nd problem is the concept of "China" in this title is not clear. When Goguryeo was at its peak time, Han Chinese people were defeated by Xianbei and stayed to the south of Yangtze River. This title unnecessarily draws modern politics into ancient history study. Just like Jurchen's case (at year 1115, Jurchens were not Chinese), at year 494, Xianbei people were not Chinese, though their grand grandsons are. Let's draw a simple analogy: it is ridiculous to classify a person using his grand grandson's identity, for example, if somebody is an American, this doesn't mean his/her grand grand grand parents were American (unless he/she is one of the native people). (2) As to a reliable source X, it is always fine to add something like "Source X says" etc. to clarify statements, so I cannot see a single reason to block reliable sources even if the source may have errors. If there are conflicts between reliable sources, it is also always fine to present both and let the readers decide. As to emails (which are unreliable according to wikirules), if there are reliable sources that can serve as substitutions, I don't see a reason why we should keep the unreliable one.--Jiejunkong 04:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Commenting that "Silla, which played the most critical role in all wars against Goguryeo" shows how you misunderstand who did what in the Goguryeo wars. Goguryeo fought with all the Chinese dynasties by itself. Silla only came in during the Goguryeo-Tang war.

We are not ignoring the "critical war". We are not excluding Silla, if you read the article. Good friend100 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the section's title is Goguryeo-China Wars, and you put the Goguryeo-Silla War in this section, can we say that you are implying Silla is part of China? Is this a joke, or just a byproduct of some improper writing? --Jiejunkong 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

Wangkon's proposed paragraph. Changes in italics:

"Goguryeo was an ancient kingdom located in the southern part of Northeast China, southern Russian Marintime province, as well as the northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula. It is considered one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Chinese scholars consider Goguryeo an important regional kingdom that was influenced by Chinese culture and, at times, maintained tributary relations with contemporary Chinese kingdoms. It was an active participant in the power struggle between the Three Kingdoms of Korea as well as the foreign affairs of associated polities in China and Japan.
The Samguk Sagi, a 12th century CE Goryeo text, indicate that Goguryeo was founded in 37 BCE by Jumong, a prince from Buyeo, although there is archaeological evidence that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon, an earlier kingdom that also occupied southern Northeast China and northern Korea. It was a major regional power of East Asia until it was defeated by a Silla-Tang alliance in 668 CE. After its defeat, it was later divided between the Tang Dynasty, Unified Silla and Balhae; some of the territory might have also been taken by the Khitan, still in tribal form at this point."

Yeah, I took out a lot of fluff that didn't really need to be in an intro. The thinking is that the intro should be short, to the point and an effective set up to the rest of the article. Other aspects of Koguryo should be bright out in the body of the article, not necessarily in the intro section. Thoughts? WangKon936 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with all changes.
  • "Manchuria" shouldn't be wholly replaced by "Northeast China", since it's the most commonly used term. It should be "Goguryeo was an ancient kingdom located in southern Manchuria, which today consists of Northeast China and southern Russian Maritime province, as well as the northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula. Same thing for Gojoseon.
  • Well established historiography of the Three Kingdoms of Korea shouldn't be a mere "consideration".
  • Another disagreement is having modern political issues layed out in the introductory paragraph. I still feel that it belongs to the Modern politics section. Cydevil38 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think User:Wangkon936's writeup is so far so good. I don't agree to User:Cydevil38's objections.--Jiejunkong 05:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Then how about this sentence that I have already discussed with Cydevil38:
  • The Samguk Sagi, a 12th century AD Goryeo text, indicates that Goguryeo was founded in 37 BC by Jumong, a prince from Buyeo, although archaeological evidence clearly shows that complex chiefdoms existed in the area of Goguryeo state formation after 500 B.C. (Barnes 2001:7,8; Liu 1997).
BTW, Liu 1997 comes from the edited volume edited by Sarah Nelson about ten years back. I think the full bib. ref. is in one of the treads above or perhaps has been archived. ^^ Mumun 無文 11:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Complex chiefdoms don't equal Koguryo thus it doesn't make sense to include that. 2nd century BCE is as early as I'm willing to go and still retain some scholarly credibility. WangKon936 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments:
  • I'm indifferent w/the terms Manchuria and Northeast China. Byington, in his more recent works, is starting to use NE China more often. What's the concensus on this anyways? Weren't there a battle royale regarding this? Also, Gojoseon was not THAT big. They were not in central Korea.
  • I think both views, Korean and Chinese as I've stated them, are equally valid. The word "consideration" doesn't lessen the value, it just makes both views equally valuable and worthy. In my mind, the histiography of Koguryo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea is rock solid, but using such terms, "rock solid," "undeniable," etc. would compromise the neutral tone I'm trying to establish for the article.
  • I don't understand your third point. Please clarify. WangKon936 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on this yet, but it's currently at the mediation stage of the dispute resolution process at template talk:History of Manchuria. A Wikipedia:Third Opinion has been filed on this matter, and they were all supportive of the usage of "Manchuria".
  • I think it's undermining the neutral tone by setting the Three Kingdoms of Korea historiography on an equal footing with Chinese claims on Goguryeo. Take a look at the articles on Chinese Three Kingdoms, such as Eastern Wu or Cao Wei, where its historiography isn't degraded into a mere "consideration", but given as statements of well-established historical fact. Or how about Shang Dynasty, where this polity, even more ancient and vague than Goguryeo, is described as a "Chinese dynasty". But I'll propose a compromise. How about Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, was an ancient polity located in southern Manchuria, which today consists of southern Northeast China and southern Russian Far East, and northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula. Or, Goguryeo was an ancient kingdom located in southern Manchuria, which today consists of soutehrn Northeast China and southern Russian Far East, and northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula. It was one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla, that actively engaged in the power struggle for the domination of the Korean peninsula as well as the foreign affairs of associated polities in China and Japan. I prefer the latter.
  • Having narratives on what a certain group of scholars from a certain modern polity think in the intro is, if you ask me, really lame. It makes both the article and the Chinese look lame. I won't be so vocally opposed to it, but clarifying "Chinese scholars" as "Some scholars of the People's Republic of China" may be an imporvement to the version you proposed. But again, this is not something I'll dwell on. Cydevil38 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Munmu, it probably is true that there were proto-Korean (certainly Yemek) tribes since at least 500 BCE in southern Manchuria. However I have kept 37 BCE as the foundation date because it has been a part of Koguryo histiography for so long. Tribal leauges don't equal centralized civilizations. I think it's worthy to mention that Koguryo MAY of had some sort of origin in the 2nd century BCE in respect to the archeological evidence and vauge passages in the Old History of Tang about Koguryo being 900 years old by the time of her fall. Given that there is so little we know about what Koguryo was, if anything, in the 2nd century BCE, I've elected NOT to choose it as the foundation date/time. WangKon936 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a much needed improvement to this article. More detailed account of this archaeological evidence in the main body of the article can also be considered an improvement for readers' understanding of this kingdom. Cydevil38 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Let's nail the intro first. WangKon936 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe this has turned into a contest of how many times the word "Korea" or "China" can be inserted into the intro.... or deleted. And perhaps terms such as "Northeast China" and "Three Kingdoms of Korea" are no exception. Omitting such words "might" be an answer, but it would be odd not to mention the present-day location of Goguryeo in the intro. (Personally, I don't see anything wrong with WangKon936's suggestions).--Endroit 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks like the main objection I have is from CyDevil. I'll take his verbage and make some minor modifications. Thus the revised intro would look like this:

"Goguryeo was an ancient kingdom located in southern Manchuria, which today consists of southern Northeast China and southern Russian Far East, as well as the northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula. It was one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla, that actively engaged in the power struggle for control of the Korean peninsula as well as the foreign affairs of associated polities in China and Japan.
The Samguk Sagi, a 12th century CE Goryeo text, indicate that Goguryeo was founded in 37 BCE by Jumong, a prince from Buyeo, although there is archaeological evidence that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon, an earlier kingdom that also occupied southern Manchuria and northern Korea. It was a major regional power of East Asia until it was defeated by a Silla-Tang alliance in 668 CE. After its defeat, it was later divided between the Tang Dynasty, Unified Silla and Balhae; some of the territory might have also been taken by the Khitan, still in tribal form at this point."

I'll wait a few days, watch for comments/discussion before making the changes. WangKon936 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria is a term use to describe Qing(Manchu)/Chinese territory only, while once included Russian Far East(and Korea peninsula too?), today it is strictly NE China. If you want Manchuria to include area outside of NE China then you should not use 'today consists of...', but 'once consisted of...'. It is probably better for readers if we use Manchuria(NE China) or NE China(Manchuria) which is the most common style use among respectable articles.
Wiki Pokemon 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok I am mislead by the sentence into thinking that Manchuria included Korean peninsula too. As you can see, it can also easily mislead other readers too. Your very first proposal is probably the best and least ambiguous, but you can use southern Manchuria(NE China) or southern NE China(Manchuria) for Cydevil sake, even southern Manchuria(present day NE China) is also ok.
Wiki Pokemon 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Back again. I think there is no need to use 'southern' for Manchuria(NE China), didn't it occupy entire Manchuria(NE China). OK to be specific let me write it out what would be good "Goguryeo was an ancient kingdom located in Manchuria(Northeast China), southern Russian Marintime province, as well as the northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula." I still think 'foriegn affairs' is a creative expression in this case although I will not stop it.
Wiki Pokemon 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the modified version. And this is the Third Opinion section[60][61] in template talk:History of Manchuria that has much relevance to usage of Manchuria and Northeast China in the English Wikipedia, where all Third Opinion contributors preffered "Manchuria" as the primary definition. I wouldn't mind using Manchuria(present day Northeast China but others may disagree whether RFE is or was a part of Manchuria. Also, Wiki pokemon does have a point in one regard, the passage regarding Goguryeo's current location can mislead readers to think that the Korean peninsula is a part of Manchuria, so some technical rewording in that regard may help. And I don't agree that Goguryeo occupied the entirety of Manchuria. Cydevil38 22:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that a little rewording may be in order so to not confuse ppl that Korea is not a part of Manchuria. I'll wait till tomorrow and then make changes to the article. WangKon936 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
WangKon936, I fully disagree with your changes, please change it back to as it before.

"Along with Baekje and Silla, Goguryeo was one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea. Goguryeo was an active participant in the power struggle for control of the Korean peninsula as well as associated with the foreign affairs of peer polities in China and Japan." Goguryeo wasn't in position of power struggled between other two Korean Kingdoms and China and Japan, where was China and Japan during Goguryeo era? You mean Sui and Tang, and Yamato? Please remove the China and Japan, China and Japan had nothing to do with Goguryeo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The History Section

Now that we have general concensus regarding the intro, the next logical step is the History Section. It needs to be vastly improved, starting with, but not ending with, the nationalistic tone of the section. An improvement of the sources should be done as well, taking out web links and putting in more established and academic sources. Anyone else like to add to this discussion before work begins? Please discuss suggestions for wholesale changes here first before going out to make said changes. Thanks! WangKon936 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No specific examples at the moment, but I suggest that the sub-sections, Founding and Centralisation, could benefit with the addition of archaeological interpretations of the period of Goguryeo state formation. The article will be more balanced if it addresses the findings and interpretations of all academic disciplines with which it has associations. Mumun 無文 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, but these sections should be comparatively short, given that they fall outside of the article's parameters and should really be in another article called "Proto-Three Kingdoms of Korea." Besides' Gina Barnes book regarding Korean state formation, what other sources do you recommend? WangKon936 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In Foudning, I think it should be generally divided to two short paragraphs, one focusing on the historiographical perspective, and the other focusing on the archaeological perspective. And I don't think Barnes covers Goguryeo's origin in much detail. She quotes Rhee, who has done some papers on the archaeological basis of Goguryeo's origins in the English language. Cydevil38 18:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil may be referring to this:
  • Rhee, Song nai
1992 Secondary State Formation: The Case of Koguryo State. In Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: Hunter-fisher-gatherers, Farmers, and Sociopolitical Elites, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Song Nai Rhee, pp. 191-196. WSU Press, Pullman.
I think that the content in the sections 'Autochthonous Development' and 'Population Growth and Stratification' in the Rhee paper (pp.192-193) may be applicable to Founding. I can attempt to summarise this at some point later. I agree that Barnes 2001 is a bit short on detail in regards to Goguryeo. I agree it will be important to express ideas concisely and to not be too lengthy. Mumun 無文 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Rhee's work that I have in my posession is Huanren-Jian Region Prior to the Formation of Koguryo State from Archaeological Perspectives, which I think is one of the very few works on the archaeological perspective of Goguryeo's origins. It was published in 1993 in a Korean journal, in two langauges, English and Korean. I think that this may be a duplicate copy of another one of Rhee's works Barnes cited for Goguryeo's origins, which is Society and culture of Huanren-Jian region prior to the emergence of Koguryo state in light of archaeological data. I'll try to obtain this copy, though it may take some time. Cydevil38 00:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gina Barnes (2001) draws upon and compares over 20 different sources, not just Rhee. It contains valuable comparative analyses of the key sources. Some of Barnes' sources may, of course, be cited directly also. However, I believe it is important to refer to Barnes, to keep our article balanced and NPOV. Here are some other sources cited by Gina Barnes (2001):

  1. The History of Korea (The Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations) by Djun Kil Kim (Chun-Gil Kim)
  2. Arts of Korea by Chewon Kim
  3. Rise of Civilization in East Asia by Gina L. Barnes
  4. Ancient Art by Margaret Ellen Mayo
  5. Strengthen the Country and Enrich the People: The Reform Writings of Ma Jianzhong (Durham East Asia Series) by Paul Bailey
  6. South East Asia (Economist Business Traveller's Guide) by LTD
  7. Records of the Grand Historian: Qin Dynasty by Qian Sima
  8. Middle East by London Stanley Gibbons Ltd
  9. Early History of Korea by K H H Gardiner
  10. Early Buddhist Japan by Jonathan Edward. Kidder
  11. Ancient Chinese (Ancient Civilizations) by Tristan Boyer Binns
  12. Historical Atlas of China by A. Herrmann
  13. Cultural Studies (Cultural Studies Journal) by Journal
  14. Stoneware and Porcelain by Daniel Rhodes
  15. History of Korea by Takashi Hatada
  16. A New History of Korea (Harvard-Yenching Institute Publications) by Ki-Baik Lee
  17. Ancient Chinese by Sonia Cheng
  18. Central Asia by London Stanley Gibbons Ltd
  19. Buddhist Studies by Jan Willem De Jong
  20. A History of Korea (Saffron Korea Library) by Korea Historical Research Association
  21. The Archaeology of Korea (Cambridge World Archaeology) by Sarah Milledge Nelson
  22. Sex and Gender Hierarchies (Publications of the Society for Psychological Anthropology) by Barbara Diane Miller
  23. China: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary (Durham East Asia Series) by Michael Dillon
  24. HISTORY OF KOREA by Henthorn
  25. Chinese Potter by Margaret Medley
  26. Ancient History (The Indonesian Heritage Series) by Indonesian Heritage
  27. Far East by Himalayan International Institute

--Endroit 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get rid of nationalistic titles such as "Kwangetto the Great", etc.? It's really not necessary. I will also work on a section on Goguyeo's relationships with peninsular states (including wars) this coming weekend. WangKon936 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that partciular title should go, and integrate it into the section concerning Goguryeo's expansion and centralization(strengthening of royal power) of state, much of which, as far as I know, occured during the reigns of Gwanggaeto and Jangsu. However, I think the first mention of Gwanggaeto in the article should give him the title "the Great". Cydevil38 05:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Koguryo Foundation Date

Should be listed as 37 BCE. There is no concensus of scholarship that says Koguryo was around in 2nd century CE. Even in Byington's PhD thesis he say's it's impossible to tell and the only thing we can be fairly certain of is that Koguryo was certainly around at 12 CE, when it was first mentioned in Chinese history books. As a matter of fact, Byington is more certain that the middle of the 1st century BCE is the actual founding date of Koguryo as a tribal leauge with some sort of centralization. I'll put up quotes from Byington this weekend. WangKon936 04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the true foundation of Koguryo, I advocate, based on evidence forwarded by Mark Byington in his 2003 PhD dissertation on Puyo. In pages 200 to 240, he talks about Koguryo's foundation and comes to the conclusion that it was probably founded well into the 1st century BCE, not the 2nd century BCE, like some, more Korean nationalistic scholars. Some points I've summarized below:

1) There is a lack of textual evidence, be it Chinese or Korean, that state a 2nd century BCE foundation. According to a geographic monograph in the Han Shu the term Koguryo (or Gaoguli) was in use since 113 BCE, however, no references to the Koguryo people (not just a geographic reference as in the Han Shu) was mentioned till 12 CE, when they revolted from Xuantu.

2) Mark Byington accepts Kim Pu Sik's Koguryo foundation date as pretty much "plus or minus several decades" accurate. Per his words in page 233 of his dissertation, "While the dating of the events in the earlier chapters of the Annals [of Koguryo in the Samguk Sagi] is generally untrustworth, most of the events described appear to be misdated by only a few years, perhaps reflecting a later compiler's efforts to create as accurate a chronology as possible given material representing undated but seriallly sequenced events."

3) Byington uses two events to come to a "mid" 1st century foundation of Koguryo. First is the reorganizatinon of Xuautu in 75 BCE in response to increasingly coordinated and aggressive attacks by the Yemaek tribes, one of the forerunners of Koguryo. The second event is recorded in the Han Shu's annals as they relate to the records of Wang Mang, a warlord who had control of Xuantu. In it the Chinese records make their first noteworthy mention of Koguryo as a revolt in 12 CE when Wang Mang attempted to get Koguryo to attack the Xiongnu. Up until then, besides that vauge reference to geography in the Han Shu, Koguryo was not considered a group of people and was most likely confused as one of the many tribes of Yemaek peoples.

The sum of my research would thus state three major points:

1) There is reason to believe that Yemaek tribal groups with some centralization existed in the 2nd century BCE, but there is virtually no evidence to say that a centralized Koguryo state existed amoung these Yemaek tribal groups.

2) If Kim Pu Suk had any Silla bias towards his his dating of the three kingdoms of Korea, it's likely in the retro-dating of Silla and not the false dating of Koguryo and Baekje. Mark Byington (leading Koguryo scholar) never accuses Kim Pu Suk of false dating of Koguryo's foundation date based on a Silla bias and neither does Jonathan Best (leading Baekje scholar).

3) The understanding that Koguryo's history is 700 years old is attested in Chinese, Korean and Japanese ancient sources. The Nihongi itself quotes a lengthy letter where the mother of one of Koguryo's first kings said that the kingdom would only last 700 years (as she interpreted a dream). There is only one passing reference to Koguryo being 900 years old in one Chinese text, but the weight of all sources indicate a 700 year life of said kingdom. Thus the weight of evidence would suggest Koguryo being founded in the middle of the 1st century BCE, as attested to the majority of Korean historiography, however, based on archeological and textual evidience that there was increasing centralization of Yemaek tribes in the 2nd BCE, theories of Koguryo being in existance since the 2nd century should at least be mentioned. WangKon936 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything written above by WangKon936 is well reasoned from my perspective. I also support the use of Dr. Byington's work. I wonder how the same question could be answered by the exclusive use of archaeological data ? What does the archaeological record say about the 'foundation date of Goguryeo'? I am biased but I think the inclusion of archaeological data in this question would enrich our knowledge and help raise the profile of Goguryeo. Mumun 無文 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mumun man. Wangkon has done a fantastic job on making a much more accurate, comprehensive rewrite on the section, but I think some more on the archaeological data would be helpful. Cydevil38 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll put some more updates on this coming weekend as well as my reasoning for major changes in the talk page, again, this weekend. WangKon936 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Erasing References to Danguns of Joseon

I see that there are links to rulers or "Danguns" of GoJoseon in this article. Considering that the list of Danguns is problematic at best, they should be deleted. I will withhold doing so for a few days to get some comments. WangKon936 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the said links as per the WangKon936's comments...but can't see them. Mumun 無文 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly find the "Danguns" problematic in a historical article, but I don't see it anywhere. Cydevil38 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I found it. I'll try to fix it up. Cydevil38 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN Violation

There are numerous violations of WP:NCGN in this article. WP:NCGN states that 'When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it'. Manchuria is an archaic names which describes the modern geographic region of NE China in the period from 1635 to 1945. In the modern context, that name is called NE China, and should be used instead of Manchuria. Using Manchuria to describe the region out of its relevant historical period of 1635 to 1945 is therefore a violation of WP:NCGN. Will the editors here please correct the violations.
Wiki Pokemon 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please resolve these issues in the Manchuria /Northeast China discussion pages. Once it's resolved there, please ask for an update on Koguryo page. Thanks! WangKon936 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In the mean time, perhaps it is reasonable to request conformity to this WP:NCGN guideline: In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." Thanks.
Wiki Pokemon 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria and Northeast China are two different articles. According to the wikicontents, the former one is historical and the latter one is geographic. If a reference is clearly a geographic reference, the modern name Northeast China should be used according to WP:NCGN; if a reference is clearly a historical reference in the proper period of Manchuria, the historical name Manchuria should be used; if it is ambiguous between historical and geographic, either one can be used.--Jiejunkong 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong, that is your personal interpretation, and it is disputed. Please try to work with consensus by resolving the dispute at the relevant page rather than spreading the dispute to other articles. Cydevil38 22:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not a personal interpretation. "Manchuria" was indeed a historical concept relating to the Manchu ethnicity created by Huang Taiji when he switched the Jurchen to Manchu (then known as 满洲族). There are no ambiguities concerning this fact. Do not jump to conclusions when you cannot back yourself up. What exactly do you dispute here? Assault11 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you guys don't quit this, I'll report all three of you Wiki Pokemon Jiejunkong, and Assault11 to sock puppetry and RFC for ban from all Korea-related articles. (Wikimachine 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
Go ahead, it will just be deja vu all over again. By the way, Northeast China has nothing to do with the Korean peninsula. Thank you very much. Assault11 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, Korea has a longer history with Manchuria (northeast china) than China does. Notable Korean influence is actually quite large in the liaodong area, from archeological finds. It would be most appropriate to withdraw that unsupported and biased claim. Odst 02:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules are rules. You cannot change or ignore the rules simply because it doesn't suit you. Cydevil38, Wikimachine and Good friend100, this triad has become a notorious mafia which causes disaster to the articles they touched. Also welcome for any investigation, I don't play sock puppetry.--Jiejunkong 03:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While the requests are being implemented, revert war will reflect the community consensus - in other words, you guys are out of the game b/c there are more of us neutral editors than you CPOVs. Or even better, an admin will intervene. (Wikimachine 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
To Wikimachine: you, Cydevil38/Cydevil and Good friend100 are infamous ultranationalists who respect no rules and no history records. It is joke to call yourselves neutral. Your self-promotion on the neutrality aspect is entertaining. --Jiejunkong 03:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutral? Wait, just who was it that always resorts to branding those who do not subscribe to your particular POV a "CPOV nationalist" editor [62]? And who was it that always ends up making ad hominem attacks on other editors [63]. Nice try, sherlock. Assault11 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
bickering, bickering, bickering. all of you are ultranationalists, not only wikimachine and cydevil, but jijenkong and assault...Chinese records and Korean records don't necessarily conflict each other too much... It's just that the Chinese refuse to accept out of sheer nationalism, and the Koreans are being braggarts and nationalistic pigs. Odst 02:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop now. Cease and desist. Any further flaming posts here will be considered trolling as per WP:TROLL and will be reverted and/or slow reverted. This is the Goguryeo talk page. If you wish to engage in infantile bufoonery let me show you the door. Take yur disputes that do not directly relate to this article elsewhere -- anywhere but here. I am speaking to all of those who have posted the above irrelevant messages. All users are reminded that WP:CIVIL is policy, NOT a guideline. Mumun 無文 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural influence on Japan

Is the passage Goguryeo, along with China and Baekje, played a significant part in influencing Japan with their culture. really necessary in the introduction? I don't think it's as important to warrant a place in the introduction. I suggest either taking this passage out or moving it to another section where it is relevant. Cydevil38 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree sentence could placed elsewhere in the article. Re-inserting the statement in another location will help us to streamline the intro and emphasize the key points about Goguryeo. Mumun 無文 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree as well. Move it to another location.--Endroit 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Wangkon has taken it out without moving it to another location. Personally, I feel that Goguryeo's influence on Japan, unlike that of Bakeje, was limited and wasn't very significant, so I'm reluctunt to add it again to relevent location(perhaps cultural legacy). If someone disagrees, I suggest re-adding the passage into "Cultural Impact". Cydevil38 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fee free to move that elsewhere. As a note, Prince Shotoku's buddist mentor (and chief religious advisor to the regent) was a Koguryo monk. Also Koguryo fresco tomb mural style (as well as Baekje's) is evident in early Japanese tombs. My edits don't extend beyond the "Jumong Myth" section yet. Will make more edits during the week. I've just been soooo busy. WangKon936 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Since two other editors have agreed to this as well, I'll move it to "Cultural Impact". Cydevil38 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I won't. I think this should be worked upon later on when we focus on this section. Cydevil38 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry. I thought about that when I added it, but I figured someone else would do it, cause I am too lazy. Odst 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

zh.wikisource has the reliable sources you mentioned

To anonymous user with IP 216.99.99.119: zh.wikisource has all the reliable sources you mentioned. I've spent lots of time to input all canonical sources about 靺鞨 and 高麗(as an abbreviation of Goguryeo before year 918, and as Goryeo after 918), cast me a message if you need more reliable sources on this topic. At zh.wikisource, I was busy at admin and handling 全唐詩 and 宋史. 高麗 is not my main concern.--Jiejunkong 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


I am trying to link all orginal history text regarding Goguryeo History (from zh.wikisource) to this page. But somehow my links don't work. Could you please tell me how. Thank you.

You can use [[zh:中文維基百科條目|顯示名稱]] and [[s:zh:中文維基文庫條目|顯示名稱]] to refer to wikipedia articles in other language system and other sister wikis.--Jiejunkong 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you are supposed to cite secondary or tertiary reliable sources, not primary sources that are centuries old. Also, there's no point in compiling a list of centuries old records in Chinese on a Goguryeo article in an English encyclopedia, is there? Not to mention Samguk sagi is hardly the only Korean record that records Goguryeo. Cydevil38 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please present original wikipolicy texts to back up your claim. I am waiting for your wikipolicy quotes about this interesting "primary/secondary/tertiary" classification. Otherwise, you are announcing your personally made rules to defy reliable sources. I cannot understand why a user, who does research based on google search and refuses to accept reliable sources used by professionals, is able to edit history articles. This really puzzles me. This reliable source problem has been argued for months, in here and in Image_talk:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg#The_reason_why_canonical_history_records_are_reliable_sources. If you cannot refute the original wikipolicy quotes from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and still persist in blocking professional resources, then we cannot assume you are a good faith user.--Jiejunkong 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I commented at 06:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC). "So far User:Cydevil38 has stalked me for every edit I've made to Goguryeo and Manchuria related articles. The denial-of-service strategy he has used is: (1) Randomly cites a wikirule, which could already be changed to another personal definition, e.g., reliable sources are defined as non-Chinese language sources in Goguryeo related articles according to him, and citing Chinese language sources becomes "Original Research"; So far nobody knows how can he create these conclusions from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability; (2) Then you have to discuss the referred wikirules with him; (3) Then he either offers random comments without referring to the original wikirule texts, or simply runs away; (4) Then we stuck in arguing about wikirules and the infinite loop goes on."
This time User:Cydevil38 didn't even bother to offer a wikipolicy's name at all. I am waiting to see whether he will cite a specific wikirule's name but without quoting the original texts, or he simply runs away and leaves his so-called "primary/secondary/tertiary wikipolicies" rotten here.--Jiejunkong 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To User:Mumum, I deleted your sidekick tag which supports User:Cydevil38's rule-breaking behavior. I posted a message saying that User:Cydevil38 had not participated in related talk at 7:01 UTC in User talk:Nlu, then User:Cydevil38 demonstrated his efficiency by rapidly posting the random message at 7:30 UTC to act as if he involved in the talk. But the message he posted is completely random and I cannot see the relation of his message to the discussion on reliable sources (defined by real wikipolicy). Now several hours have passed and he has not shown the efficiency he typically showed. My worry about his disappearance is genuine and real. This discussion is related to the topic because User:Cydevil38 is employing this hit-and-run strategy to block any edit he dislikes for the Goguryeo article, so this discussion is not unrelated to the article as what you claimed.--Jiejunkong 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also this section and User talk:Nlu page will become the proof of filing an RFC against User:Cydevil38's denial of authoritative reliable sources. This rule-breaking denial advocated by User:Cydevil38 (with supports from several other POV users) has lasted for months and needs to be settled by wikirules.--Jiejunkong 12:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, as I've argued (and I think with sufficiently backed up citations to Wikipedia guidelines), the Chinese official histories are not primary sources as far as Wikipedia's definitions are concerned, except in the context of historiography of those works. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain from engaging in this discussion, as I don't think this is the proper venue for it. However, I will make my position clear just in case someone claims a false consensus on my behalf. While I agree that they can be used descriptively for simple historical events, such usage should be discouraged when other ancient historical texts or modern scholarly consensus disagree with it. And any further direct usage of such material should be discouraged in preference for modern scholarship and scholarly consensus. Cydevil38 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless anybody produces overwhelming number of authoritative sources which discredit the Twenty-Four Histories, they are fair game. Most historians refer to them. For example, Gina Barnes (2001) refers to "Records of the Grand Historian: Qin Dynasty" by Sima Qian, as I have shown above. Please show sources which "disagree" with the Twenty-Four Histories before you start discrediting them yourself. Even then, you need to clearly cite sources who discredit them, before you can make such a claim.--Endroit 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Things go back to May 18, 2007, see Talk:Goguryeo/Archive7#To_Cydevil38:_dilemma_in_reference_adding_and_blanking. Two months have passed, and no progress is made at all. I am troubled by the fact that the arguments against canonical records are not based on original wikirule specifications, but on user's personal interpretations.--Jiejunkong 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Political connection between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties

I'm about 80% finished with my edits and will focus my additional major edits on the aforementioned section, which needs A LOT of work. I've renamed it "The Political and Cultural relationship between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" because I believe it is a more accurate reflection of the actual case. I will delete entries such as "...enfoliated as duke of..." and other references to Chinese titles given to Koguryo rulers as it is materially no different from the type of titles that the Chinese dynasties had given to Silla, Baekje or Yamato Japan and hence, doesn't really give much meaningful information. Instead, it will summarize Koguryo relationships with the various Chinese dynasties as well as the impact sinofication had on Koguryo. WangKon936 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats cool. Lets hope the CPOV editors don't start up again. Good friend100 05:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope they don't, as my goal won't be to be particularly offensive to them. WangKon936 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Clean-up of Article

Please excuse my slow clean-up and revision of the article. I'm going through it, but there is ALOT of work that needs to be done. ALOT of needless detail and overtly nationalistic verbage in this article make it of little use to people who want to do research and learn an objective view of this kingdom. Please be patient. Thanks! If you have any suggestions, please let me know! WangKon936 02:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, you're doing a great job. And about Goguryeo's move to Pyongyang, I read it somewhere that its main motive was to centralize power to the royalty and weaken the power of nobles. I can't remember the source, unfortunately. Do you happen to have any knoowledge of this? Cydevil38 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To Cydevil38, you can't do unilateral changes without consensus, for example, covertly replacing Wandu (present day Ji'an, Jilin) by Hwando without discussing it with users who don't know Korean Romanization rules. Wandu (Hwando) is a more neutral expression, and I might accept "Hwando (Wandu)" if you wrote so (but you leaped).--Jiejunkong 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hwando fortress is not a present-day entity, so it should be treated as a historic entity of the Goguryeo era. In which case, this article consistently uses Korean romanizations. If you didn't notice, I didn't change present-day geograhpical entities such as "Mt. Wandu". Cydevil38 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I'll present its present-day Chinese term in brackets in the first mention of the fortress. Cydevil38 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You are changing the problem being discussed to another one. In your editing summary written at "05:42, 12 August 2007", you said you are writing "Korean romanization for Goguryeo entities". This is the problem being discussed. 丸都 is a phrase in Chinese language, and its Pinyin romanization is Wandu, not Hwando (which is a Korean romanization). For the "丸都" phrase, Your suddenly switching from Wandu to Hwando at 04:39, 12 August 2007 was a unilateral POV push, which deleted Pinyin romanization for a fabricated reason not supported by wikipolicies. Don't you think it is more neutral to put both Chinese Pinyin romanization and Korean romanization together?--Jiejunkong 04:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think this is a matter of neutrality. This article consistently uses the Korean romanization, most of which were originally recorded in classical Chinese. "Hwando"(22 hits in google books[64]) is also much more common than "Wandu"(3 hits in google books[65]) in English publications. Please use your common sense, and refrain from causing disruptions from matters as trivial as this. Cydevil38 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You have reverted the article for a unsupported personal reason for the third time. In particular, the recent two reverts are instant ones without much delay. I think it is you who are causing the disruptions. In all wikipolicies, there is NO rule saying, for a Chinese word like 丸都, Korean romanization must be used solely and Chinese romanization (i.e. Pinyin) must be removed. As a user owning relatively good skills in the regional history, I rely on Pinyin, not Korean romanization, in English translation. Your deletion of Wandu is a unilateral move that is of your personal interest only.--Jiejunkong 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following the debate as closely as I should have. Is it possible to compromise and use the Korean pronunciations, particularly the "McCune-Reischauer" style given that South and North Korea are not in agreement regarding the Revised Romanization and put the Pinyin in parenthesis, particularly with place names that are currently in PRC territory? WangKon936 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is of Korean History, and It would most make sense to Romanize 丸都 into Hwando, because, as Cydevil said, 丸都 is a Historical identity. I don't think there is an established settlement or name for the area today. Odst 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right. There are no established guidelines that I know of that could be applied to this case. WP:NCGN, however, offers something similar, in which case the widely accepted historical English name is used for places that no longer exist. This is quite a different case though, so this is where we should exercise some common sense. Cydevil38 04:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that Hwando is the name that is most commonly used in reliable English publications, thus it would be benefitial to the English readers that we use the common romanization. In my version, I already put the current Chinese term for the place, which includes the Chinese Pinyin, in the first mention of Hwando fortress. Apparently, someone still thinks that isn't enough Pinyin, and wants more, and I don't really want to go into a long debate over a matter as trivial as this. It's just lame and time consuming. Cydevil38 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
About using "McCune-Reischauer", I think it would be benefitial to the readers that we use this style of romanization, since this is by far the most common romanization in Koguryo-related articles. If we are to switch to this style, the article's name should be changed to Koguryo as well. However, the Naming Convention on Korea-related articles suggests using the Revised Romanization. Cydevil38 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a directly related wikipolicy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) for phrases and sentences written in Chinese language. 丸都 is written in (classic) Chinese language and hence covered by this wikipolicy.--Jiejunkong 08:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am indifferent either way... BUT... Byington and Gina Barnes are rather consistant in using Chinese romanization for place names in current China AND consistant in using pretty much exclusively Korean romanization for historical characters (i.e. Kwangetteo, Jumong, etc.). Could be a good compromise here. WangKon936 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong's changes today at 8:43 seem fine. Including both place names in the correct romanization pattern works. The chinese place name needs to be give so readers will know where said locations are in today's maps. WangKon936 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I don't know Korean Romanization rules and have hard time to catch up with the names like Goguryeo/Koguryo and Balhae/Parhae etc. Since these names have already been written in this way for quite a long time, I would leave them alone to avoid unilateral moves and editing wars. But the contents being edited now (and in the future) could be properly written following wikipolicies.--Jiejunkong 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
For wikireaders' information, 丸都山城 is typically translated into English as "City Site at Wandushan" (i.e., "丸都山+城", which means a 城/city site at 丸都山/Wandu Mountain, not exactly "丸都/Wandu + 山城/Mountain City"). Here "丸都山" ("Wandushan" or "Wandu Mountain") is the current official name for the mountain.--Jiejunkong 06:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the "city site at Wandu Mountain" is a historical remain. Nobody lives there in the present day. The repeated claim saying that "present-day Wandu Mountain City" is problematic. The truth is that it was Wandu Mountain City around year 200 to refer to a mountain-area fortress protecting the capital Guonei City, and the same name is used to refer to the historical remain (see the picture). Why do some POV users want to add "present-day" to the historical name "Wandu Mountain City"? They want to claim that it was historically called as Hwando, but present-day as Wandu. This untrue claim is from a false original research. It is nothing about historical name or present-day name, but about different romanization systems.--Jiejunkong 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"Wandu Mountain City" is a present-day entity, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Cydevil38 02:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This aritcle is for English speakers, not Korean or Chinese speakers. Hence, the common romanization in reliable English publications should be used in the benefit of English readers of this article. Absolute majority of reliable English publications, including the major encyclopedias, recognize Goguryeo as a Korean entity and consistently use Korean romanization. In case of Hwando(Chinese:Wandu), Google books search results in 20 hits for Hwando[66] and 3 hits for Wandu[67]. 2 of 3 hits for Wandu are in fact false positives. Jiejunkong should start to realize that these articles in the English Wikipedia are for English readers who are interested in the subject, not Chinese nationalists who want Goguryeo to become Chinese. Cydevil38 02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you appear in Talk:Wandu_Mountain_City and [68] to address the technical contents (i.e., of verifiable and reliably sourced history, not of politics) and present some coherent things we can read? Please, don't play smart by typing in a word to Google.com and give us the search results, which are very unreadable.--Jiejunkong 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's not Like we haven't acknowledged that the present-day location is in China. If we were referring to the location itself, we would be referring to Wandu as you have said. However, that is not the case. I keep telling you over and over, we are referring to Hwando fortress that once acted as a capital for Goguryeo. Hwando fortress was established and NAMED by Goguryeo. That is why"present day Wandu mountain" has been added, just for the sake of information. If Hwando was a Wei entity, it would undoubtedly have been called Wandu in this article. Since it was a Goguryeo entity, it must be called Hwando. Odst 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That place is known as 丸都城. 城 or 都城 should be translated into city not fortress. 丸都 could be Wandu or Hwando. It was first edited here as Wandu. If you want to remove it, please quote Wiki policy.
Wiki Pokemon 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
丸都城? if you romanize that into Korean, It's Hwandoseong, literally meaning "round capital-fortress". Then that has nothing to do with 丸都山城, which means "Round capital Mountain-fortress" 山城 and 都城 have different meanings. 丸都城 cannot be translated directly by its meaning, because it is only an abbreviation for 丸都山城. Well, the fact is that all Korean Cities were fortresses.By the way, the edits in no way violate any Wikipedia policies or naming conventions.Odst 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is then known as 丸都城. 丸都山城 is today's name. 城 is city. Saying that it is a fortress instead of a city is unsubstantiated original research. Last, I am saying did Wandu break any Wikipedia rules that you must remove it?Wiki Pokemon 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, It didn't break any conventions as far as I am aware... It's just that it makes much more sense to Romanize it the Korean way. By the way, 城 is not city. It is fortress. 城 is sometimes used to mention a fortified city or town, but its technical meaning is Fortress. 丸都山城 is not today's name. It was always known as 丸都山城 , but it was referred to colloquially as 丸都城. Odst 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Different romanization systems do cause some problems. There are Wade-Giles and Pinyin romanization systems for Chinese, and there are McCune-Reischauer and Revised romanization for Korean. Typically, these 4 systems produce 4 different spellings. I wonder if the administration team wants to define a clearer rule on which one(s) to use. (1) At least for the Chinese language, Pinyin is replacing Wade-Giles because the latter one doesn't represent the "correct" pronunciation (it was more convenient for Westerners to pronounce, but the pronunciation is not Chinese). (2) I guess that most Chinese users have no idea how Korean romanizations work, and vice versa (Korean users have no idea how Pinyin works). Because Goryeo used Chinese as the written language until the 15th century when King Sejong invented Hangul, all historical entities before the 15th century were presented in the (classic) Chinese characters. This phenomenon demands a balanced solution for both Chinese readers and Korean readers to understand the romanization forms of the historical entities.--Jiejunkong 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated a relevant talk at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Romanization_of_Chinese_characters. Welcome for speaking out your opinion.--Jiejunkong 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. Historical entities deserve to be romanized depending on which nation's history it belongs to. The naming conventions are perfectly clear. In the article, we are only addressing the fortress that existed in present-day Wandu mountain. We are not directly referring to Wandushan. If we were, it would be correct to Romanize it in Pinyin, because Wandu is a site located in China (as we have clearly described the present day location). Again, we are referring to the historical entity that no longer exists.
Therefore, it would be correct to name the historical entity in Korean romanization.

Odst 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed before. I guess you haven't read the section carefully. What you just said is violating WP:MOS-ZH, in particular Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Can't you see 丸都 are Chinese characters which need proper romanization not for you only?--Jiejunkong 01:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

discussed before? uh huh, with you quietly evading much of it. Maybe we should romanize every single historical entity in Wikiproject Korea into Pinyin. Oh wait, maybe we can also Romanize all the Kanji words in the Japanese articles into Pinyin. Hell, why don't you just go ahead and move this article to Goagouli, since they are Chinese characters? Odst 01:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed before, search "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)" and you will find the matching place. And don't put your words into my mouth---I didn't translate Japanese article into "Pinyin" hell. In contrast, I respect your habit and leave Korean romanization (Hwando) here. It is your rude behavior which removed Pinyin to block all Chinese speaker's viewing. Frankly speaking, Hwando doesn't make sense to Chinese speakers. It means 环豆 or something alike, not 丸都. --Jiejunkong 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, I forgot to type in a period. I will fix it now. but even with that little typo, you seem to have trouble comprehending American English, because again, you are missing the point. I'm not sure what it is, whether you do not understand or pretend not to understand, but you are pissing me off with your **** ** ****** ***** ( I censored it, because it may count as a personal attack). WHAT???? I DIDNT REMOVE PINYIN! WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? I don't think Goguryeo makes sense to Chinese readers either... you might as well change that, too...(sarcasm) Odst 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You want to get personal, but I will let the administrators judge your behavior here.--Jiejunkong 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

again...why don't you actually address the points properly, rather rambling on about Chinese Romanization and such? it's really annoying... Odst 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No Consensus

I don't care what you guys say b/c I'm not going to repeat after Odst - I completely agree with him - and that's why I don't need to participate in the discussion. Who cares, at the end of the day, you have no consensus, and that means the article remains in the original form. You guys love all that Wikipedia policies & crappy/conflicting conventions so much, well here's a law that you'll all like and that is without consensus no change. Good day to y'all. Wikimachine 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The original form is Wandu (see [69]). Cydevil38 did 4 unilateral changes 1st unilateral change,2nd unilateral change,3rd unilateral change,4th change, and then you took over ([70],[71], [72]). I would appreciate you cool down a little bit to check the edit history before rushing to blind revert.--Jiejunkong 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me also tell you guys, probably the only way for you to check that what you're doing is sensible is by doing Rfc. And I promise you your crappy idea will be rejected completely. ( Wikimachine 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, Wangkon's version is probably a compromisory attempt at Jiejunkong's proposal. However, there is no consensus either for the compromise or Jiejunkong's version so no change. Got it? Also, I think that the mountain should be named Wandu, but the fortress should remain as Hwando. Jiejunkong made too many weasel wordings and unnecessary statements just to emphasize the fact that it's located in the Wandu mountain in the Jilin crappy whatever. I think that my version is the most sound, with most focus on the info's only & good flow in English. Wikimachine 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikimachine. Besides, Jiejenkong still hasn't given a good reason for Hwando to be romanized as Wandu. Whining and reverting won't really help at all, because I'll be there to revert it back. :P Odst 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine is making things up. Wangkon first edited independently on 12 Aug. I doubt he make a compromise with Jiejenkong for that original version. Either way, that is the original version. That version was immediately changed unilaterally by Cydevil just hours later to replace Wandu with Hwando, and started the revert war. Jiejenkong reverted but compromised to allow Cydevil addition of Hwando.Wikimachine then mentioned we should stick to the version before the edit war, but he now back tracked, and made a totally unilateral version which suit himself. Whatever happen, seek a consensus before making changes to the original version. Remember that the first provocation comes from the revert of the original version.Wiki Pokemon 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

nevertheless, it would be stupid to romanize the fortress in Pinyin... Note how history is written in books and other sources. Odst 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that, although I'm too busy to check on it. It would be helpful if you provided links. By saying this I'm not trying to avoid some big issue here - I don't feel like that at all. However, whatever that was written sounded really POV. Wandu/Hwando stuffs were everywhere, just for the emphasis. I doubt that Wangkon wrote all that stuffs. Jiejunkong brought about the change first. (Wikimachine 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
You doubt that, but its a fact. Go check out edit history made by WangKon on 12 Aug. Cydevil is the first one who messed with WangKon edit unilaterally, from Wandu to Hwando. That would be more POV than Wandu/Hwando. That is the start of the chain reaction. And you back tracked on your word.Wiki Pokemon 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the mention of this entity was first included in Chinese romanization by Nlu in this edit[73]. I find this understandable since he probably didn't know the Korean romanization. However, I've noticed this inconsistency recently and corrected it. Using the Korean romanization is also benefitial for the English readers since majority of reliable English publications, including Cambridge Histories which is recommended by WP:NCGN, uses the Korean romanization. I dind't think this would cause much of a fuss, and it's sad that some editors here have made this matter into yet another opportunity for a "Goguryeo is Chinese!" POV push. Anyways, I think it's best to deal with this as Darkwin has suggested in Jiejunkong's Wikiquette alert on me, that this should be dealt with a RfC on History and Geography. Cydevil38 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but I still don't approve of what happened. Nlu stuck in Wandu just for the purpose of providing info & b/c he didn't get the Korean romanizations, etc. But since this is within Korean context, Wandu should be mentioned once or twice for the plain purpose of informing the readers with some connectible concepts/names..... not that ridiculous amount of repetition and wandu/hwando for some propaganda. (Wikimachine 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, I wrote "Wandu/Hwando" mainly for NPOV and politeness purpose. Since [UNESCO has officially adopted the Pinyin romanization form "Wandu", it seems that you are blatantly adopting a rude gesture here (see your choice of the word "ridiculous", "absolute", etc.). As to the so-called propaganda, I am aware of the propaganda you have gone through----the typical big fat governments in east Asia including the one on the peninsula.--Jiejunkong 04:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Where is the source for this?

Dae Jung-sang and his son Dae Joyeong, both former Goguryeo generals, regained most of Goguryeo's northern land after its downfall in 668, established the kingdom "Later Goguryeo". Later Goguryeo was renamed Great Jin, and eventually Balhae after the death of Dae Jung-sang.

I am not sure if Dae Jung named the kingdom "Later Goguryeo" first. I always thought it was Dae Jin, then Parhae. WangKon936 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I think that passage is incorrect. My sources show no metion of Dae Jungsang participating in the creation of Goguryeo, But I know for sure Dae jo yoeng did. Later Goguryeo was formed by some monk dude waaaaay after Balhae was formed. Odst 23:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought also. WangKon936 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Dae Jung-Sang is the father of Dea Jo-Yeong. I will list references if you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csiahistorian (talk • contribs) 11:50, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

he wasn't involved with the formation of Pohai...Odst 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong infos.

OK, I can understand why some people call Goguryeo as chinese area, but it should note that without consulting Korean government, chinese government is doing and destroying Goguryeo artifacts, and blocking access of Korean visting to the site or artifacts. Also, it tries to force in historian with its military power that Goguryeo is puppet of Chinese main country. Question comes, then, why Goguryeo fought against chinese multiple times? This clearly indicates that Goguryeo is not puppet of main-land chinese territory. Also, also, there is evidence that Parts of Manchuria was choson's land, but when Japan took that, and after liberation, the foreign country decided to give it to chinese without consulting Kor. Government similar to what of Dokto is. If you want to give me evidences, I'll give that next month. (since i only go to wikipedia for once a month) Conclusion:Therefore Goguryeo is not chinese territory. Also, you need to release block, because front image of template of preventing access is broken. Thanks for hearing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.108.120.26 (talk) 02:05:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Wangkon336, please not be rude for the comments made by me. Everyone should be respecting each others in Wikipedia. --Csiahistorian 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
someone needs to take a course on english :-D
But then... we all know that, don't we? Who really does need to be reminded that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom, not a Chinese? It's not like there is anyone who thinks Goguryeo is Chinese, right? it's just farly obvious (unless you are an idiot)... :-P >>> Odst 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment was not written by me. I would assume any comments not signed by myself, but written in a similar style, to have been written by someone else. WangKon936 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

listing the reference for claims on each side of chinese and korean might help

Just saying that it is not POV or not might be backed by number of people. It seems that there are much chinese users than Korean users, so rather than just doing surveys, listing references help. It is just opinion, don't criticize me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.108.120.26 (talk) 02:07:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Wangkon936, I know i made comments using anonymous user, but I didn't know, so and please respect other people's comments. --Csiahistorian 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

yo, that aint wangkon...Wangkon is at least proficient in his language. this guy aint wangok... probably some nutty Korean kid that came to the US recently. >< Odst 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment was not written by me. I would assume any comments not signed by myself, but written in a similar style, to have been written by someone else. WangKon936 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit unprotection for temporary grammar mistake

There are many things that is capitalized but shouldn't capitalzed and with some grammar mistakes. Such thing is "In November 668 Bojang, the last king of Goguryeo, Surrendered to Tang Gaozhong." {{editprotected}}

Well, this article has been protected for a month, so I'm going to unprotect it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

I'm Korean.

I think Goguryeo, Balhae is not completely Korean history.Dongmyeongseong and Go, even though the myth says differently, were probably half-Mohe half-Buyeo descent, everything points to that. Adding to that, as both were mostly manchurian, I guess that not all of Goguryeo's histgory should be Korean. I say again: I'm Korean.Kfc1864 talk my edits 09:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

KFC, I agree with some of what you say, although with Koguryo, they couldn't have been half-Mohe as the Mohe didn't move into central manchuria until after the fall of East Buyeo in the 4th century A.D., almost 400 years after the formation of Koguryo. WangKon936 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
KFC. First of all, I'm not certain at all to why you emphasize the fact that you are not a Korean. This does not strengthen the point you poorly attempted to make at all. Please submit conclusive evidences to which it may suggest that Goguryo might be a part of Chinese history, if you fathom so. Ever since 'China's Northeast Asian Project' started in 2002, numerous heated debates started to escalate regarding the "ownership" of Goguryeo, Buyeo, and Balhae's history. Let me first remind you that there has been No significant claims regarding the history of Goguryeo raised by China before the project I mentionde. One of their flawed logic comes from the fact that Goguryeo was situated in part of China geographically hence, making it a tributary state of China. Another claim states that since Goguryeo was founded by a minority of Chinese back then, it rightfully is part of chinese history. This is a blatantly ridiculous claim as there are no convincing sources at all and it is illogical to think that all the accomplishments done by Goguryeo back then, including building of many castles and conquering a huge portion of lands, was done by a "minority" of Chinese (Non-Hans to be exact). If someone claimed that Goguryeo was related to Chinese history, I wouldn't disagree with that particular claim. However, if there's a claim stating that Goguryeo was part of Chinese History, this is an unthinkable claim which most scholars woud disagree of. L46kok (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh...Hello, I was making exactly that point. I think of it as a seperate history, neither part of Korean, or Chinese history. That's what I meant to say.Kfc18645 talk 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
KFC, Anyway, is there any evidence you are a Korean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.209.8 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm not Korean.Hardyandtiny

Uhhhh...I'm Chinese. Until all the recent fuss came up, I never considered Goguryeo to be a Chinese nation (or more like never heard of it). During my study, there were hardly any mention about this nation before 1990s. So... I don't know what to say about this topic.--Livinginhaidian 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well then, nor should the names, town names, people's names, should be roomanized in chinese, cuz tats chinese nationalism. Nor should it be romanized in korean, cuz thats korean nationalism. SO WHAT LANGUAGE SHOULD IT BE WRITTEN IN? Omg, idk y japan is so upset with Liancourt Rocks, and y china is so upset with goguryeo, balhe, etc. a;cham;na il;jum;jum;kko;i;ne. Amphitere 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuts. LOLTime of flight —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

--Removed-- Pro-Japanese nationalist statement, no credibility what so ever.

Dear Wayne, I have taken the liberty of placing your comment in a more appropriate section of this discussion. I have also given it a title that I think summaries your ideas well. Just FYI. WangKon936 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, I'd like to refer you to this compilation of research on the Koguryo language, which may be of great interest to you:

http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal(02-2)(2).pdf]

It's a special volume of Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies that focuses on the Koguryo language, where some prominent linguists of Northeast Asian languages have contributed. You can also find a paper by Beckwith, the main proponent of Koguryo-language-was-Japonic-but-not-Korean theory. It's a huge download(about 50mb), but it's well worth it.

On the particular topic on whether Koguryo language was Korean or Japonic, this journal volume has three articles. They are as follows:

  • The Ethnolinguistic History of the Early Korean Peninsula Region: Japanese-Kogurŏic and other Languages in the Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla kingdoms by Christopher Beckwith
  • The Lost Languages of Koguryŏ by Juha Janhunen
  • When was Korean First Spoken in Southeastern Korea? by J. Marchall Unger
  • Koguryŏ and Packche: Different Languages or Dialects of Old Korean? by Alexander Vovin

It seems that all four agree that at some point in time people spoke Japonic on the Korean peninsula. The contention remains on which part of the Korean peninsula spoke the Japonic language and which part spoke the Korean language. It is my understanding that Beckwith believes that people on the Korean peninsula spoke Japonic with the exception of southeastern part of the Korean peninsula. Korean would spread throughout the Korean peninsula as a consequence of Silla's expansion. Janhuen believes the linguistic situation was quite diverse, people on the western coasts of the Korean peninsula possibly speaking Japonic, those in the southeastern part of the Korean peninsula speaking Korean, and argue that the language of the ruling class of Koguryo was either Tungusic or Paleo-Siberian(in his words, "Amuric"). Unger and Vovin, on the other hand, argue that although Japonic languages were spoken on the southern part of the Korean peninsula, all the three kingdoms, Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla, spoke different dialects of the same language, Old Korean, by the time of the Three Kingdoms of Korea period.

The current situation in the academia seems that the discussion is still on-going and inconclusive whether Koguryo was Japonic or Korean, or even Tungusic or Paleo-Siberian, so we'll have to give it more time for further development in the academic discussions. Cydevil38 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We aren't here to decide whether it was close to japonic or korean language. There is inconclusive evidence about goguryeo language, so we can't make our own opinions.
And yes, Koreans and Japanese are closely related, the language structure and vocabulary is extremely similar. Good friend100 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not proper to claim that Goguryeo might be related to the culture of Japan due to the linguistic similarity. As Goodfriend100 mentioned, Japanese and Korean and so many similarities (Even more similar than English and Spanish, if you ask me), it is hard to determine what type of language people in Goguryeo spoke based on today's assumption. L46kok (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I have taken 2 east asian history courses and there were absolutely no mention of Goguryeo being Japanese. Thats about the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. What is being taught is the complete opposite, Korean kingdoms migrated to Japan instilling many things such as religion, civilization and the Yakuza eventually. This nothing more than the Japanese trying to save face from its obvious subordinate position in East Asian history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.222 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Gakjeochong mural (각저총 벽화) depicts a ssireum competition in the 4~6th century.
In Gakjeochong, a Goguryeo tomb shows that a knight drinks a cup of tea together with two ladies in the interior in the 4~6th century

(The century infos are different from source to source over the net.)

Hello, I think these pictures could be useful to update the article if you added more info regarding Goguryeo people's habits and pastime like ssireum and Korean tea. The pictures I found from internet were originally for hanbok, but I'm ignorant of Goguryeo history and this article looks controversial. Therefore, I leave this piece here. Good luck. --Appletrees 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Nothing wrong with adding Goguryeo paintings of ssireum competition. If any editors decide to cry over these pictures, that would be lame. Good friend100 03:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pitiful Chinese

Its pitiful that the Chinese have no honor about history. They'll gladly change whatever they need to maintain healthy self-esteem. The sad part about all this is the Chinese reliance on ancient history. I know alot of people from different races and only the Japanese and Chinese have this desperate reliance to keep face. It may or may not stem from being genetically inferior in terms of looks and the fact that most of them are super nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.222 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brave commentor who has not included a sign name... How equally "pitiful." WangKon936 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have problem with signing my user ID, I've tried but can't signed. Need some help here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Were the Hae and Ko houses different? Also, what is the Kyeru lineage?

King Mobon was the last of the Hae line. Did Jumong actually carry the surname Ko? It seems king Kwanggaeto wanted to show that he is in fact the direct descendant of Jumong so abruptly changed his surname to legitimize Ko rule.

What exactly is the Kyeru lineage? Were there different sects within the Ko house? Kuebie (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Why remove the note about another use of 高句麗: 高句麗縣

Why remove the note on the top: This is about the state founded in northeastern Asia named Gaogouli or Goguryeo (高句麗). For the county named Gaogouli or Goguryeo (高句麗縣) founded by Han Dynasty, see Gaogouli County -Dicting (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, your use of the Chinese pronounciation is a clear indication of chinese point-of-view pushing. Second, 高句麗縣 played such an obscure part in history that it's neither worth mention nor is reflexive with "Goguryeo." If anything, your 'note' should be on your 高句麗縣 directing the reader to the Goguryeo page not the other way around. Kuebie (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Gaogouli, Goguryeo... are only different pronunciations of 高句麗. In other dialects, it may pronounce as Kaokoulei, Gaogolee, Kaokorei......, and in Japanese it pronounces as Keukira (こうくり), and Cao Cấu Ly in Vietnam. And all of them means 高句麗. That's why I use 高句麗 instead of English letter Gaogouli. When the name of an article has another use, Surely we need to give a note. -Dicting (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And also the official language of Gaogouli State uses 漢字(Hanzi, Kanji in Japanese, Chinese characters in English), as well as Gaogouli County. They couldn't know that they would be called Goguryeo, Gaogouli or others similars -Dicting (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, so tell me again why your so insistent on adding the chinese pronounciation of Goguryeo? Again, Goguryeo does not = 高句麗縣. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuebie (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Gaogouli County (高句麗縣) is another use of Gaogouli (高句麗). -Dicting (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, then that's considered npov forking. Kuebie (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
m..? Could you please tell me your IQ? When we say Gaogouli, we may mean Gaogouli State, Gaogouli County, Gaogouli People, or others related to Gaogouli. -Dicting (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Gaogouli is the mandarin Chinese pronounciation of 高句麗 (縣 is widely translated as county in English). Certainly I use Gaogouli. Most of 1.3 billion Chinese People know that 高句麗 pronounces as Gaogouli (or mistake it as Gaojuli), but very few of us know Goguryeo. Are you Koreans going to force 1.3 billion Chinese to learn Goguryeo? -Dicting (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the chinese use. Your idea of having the world conform to the use of the chinese pronouciation just because you guys can't keep your population under control is just ludicrous. What next - are you going to officially change France to 'Faguo?' Good luck with that. Kuebie (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I never and would never force you to use the Chinese pronounciation and you also should not force us to use your Korean pronounciation. We Chinese has countless kinds of pronounciation of 高句麗, and Gaogouli is only the standard Chinese pronounciation of it. -Dicting (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter. Kuebie (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kuebie, Why did you remove the following two:

  • The note of Gaogouli County
  • The Chinese pronounciation of 高句麗: Gaogouli

Why? For the latter, The name of the article uses Goguryeo, the Korean pronounciation of 高句麗, instead of Gaogouli, the Chinese pronounciation of 高句麗, is already a big concession to Korean for Chinese. You Koreans have never say thanks to us for this, instead, you eaven oppose us to add our pronounciation Gaogouli as a paratactic name. I see that You korean is just 得寸進尺(Give you an inch and you will take a mile). -Dicting (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, where common names in English are used. The common English name of Goguryeo is Koguryo, but Goguryeo is used per naming convention that revised romanization is to be used. Also, the Chinese pronounciation of Gaogouli is provided in the name box. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seek Third opinion

Now Koreans always remove the above content I added, and yet they havn't privded the reason (say nothing of sufficient reason ) why they do so. How to solve the conflict? Just now I read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and I think in the first step it's a good idea to seek Wikipedia:Third opinion, and I'd like to launch one. -Dicting (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion on inclusion of note

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

The disambiguation note that is being disputed links to a page named Xuantu Commandery, which only makes a minor reference to Gaogouli County in the article's final sentence. In my opinion, such a note does not help Wikipedia readers, therefore it is not needed. Truthanado (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to tell a fact: actually there is an indepedant article Gaogouli County. But Korean users don't like the article Gaogouli County exists bacause of their absurd motivation and they try to redirect it to Xuantu Commandery. Please see:Talk:Gaogouli County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaogouli_County and [Revision history of Gaogouli County]. I have just now requested for preventing their vandalism at the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. -Dicting (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Just now I read the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and found that it says befor administrator_intervention_against_vandalism The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. So as the first step I added a waring sign just now. -Dicting (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, Gaogouli County or Prefecture is not a notable entity, and it is rarely mentioned. Reliable sources usually refer to Xuantu Commandery instead. The article on Xuantu Commandery has plenty of room for further elaboration on its prefectures, including Gaogouli Prefecture, so please elaborate on the prefectures there. And most importantly, disambiguation of Gaogouli County is not necessary here because this article is called Goguryeo, not Gaogouli. I'm pretty certain the readers won't get confused between Goguryeo and Gaogouli County. If you feel concerned, you can make a disambiguation page for Gaogouli, which currently redirects to this article. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You korean logic and pretext are redicloius. Related issue please discuss here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaogouli_County -Dicting (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between Gaogouli State and Gaogouli County

There was a big Gaogouli state, and there was a small Gaogouli county. It indicates the high possibility that the later Gaogouli state regarded the area of Gaogouli county as the core area of Gaogouli. -Dicting (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between Goguryeo and Xuantu commandery are well covered in this article based on reliable sources. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now I searched and read some parts of some history books. And now I get to know that during Han Dynasty, the administration of Gaogouli State was assigned to Gaogouli County. In the Han Pingdi era, Han Dynasty altogether had 241 states including Gaogouli States. Those states and their near county has similar relationships. -Dicting (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And also Gaogouli(高句麗) = Xiagouli(下句麗). Gao (高, high) and Xia (下, down) are only adjective. When Wang Mang became angry with Gouli peolple, he changed the name of Gaogouli to Xiagouli, just like Shangyintai (上殷台, 上/Shang means up) was renamed to Xiayintai (下殷台, 下/Xia means down). -Dicting (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's simple terminological degradation, fairly common in Chinese writings. It stemmed from Goguryeo attacking Yen instead of the Hsing-nu. I don't know what your trying to prove (much less what your actually trying say). Kuebie (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Dicting, what are you trying to prove? Please clearly state your points. Rationale for the Goguryeo foundation date has been firmly established in the body of the article.WangKon936 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goguryeo/Archive_8&oldid=1136769589"