Talk:Goguryeo

Korean: U; Hanja: high; RR: history

Old discussions: Archive1 (2005 and earlier), Archive2 (2006 and 1-2/2007), Archive3 (3/1/07-3/14/07), Archive4 (3/15/07-3/17/07), Archive5 (3/18/07-3/26/07), Archive6 (3/27/07-4/8/07)

Archived strawpolls: Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls

Next straw poll: navigational templates

It looks like we have a basis consensus (while there are disagreements) that the infobox should include Korean, Chinese, and Russian names.

The next issue that I'd like to make subject to a straw poll (and reminder is that this is non-binding in any case; that's why I am not going to yet implement the Korean/Chinese/Russian infobox, as the protected state of the article will not be lifted (by me anyway) while we still have major disputes here) to is the issue of national historical navigational templates. The issues here are, as I see them:

1. Whether {{History of Korea}} (to be referred to below as HoK, for shorthand) should stay.
2. Whether {{History of China}} ("HoC") should be added.
3. Whether a new {{History of Manchuria}} (exact content to be determined later if it is to be added -- but see User:Nlu/History of Manchuria for an example, but that will definitely not be the final form) ("HoM") should be added.

Keeping in mind that the use of such navigational templates is to comply with WP:NAV, I think the options to be considered below are:

1. No national history navigational templates.
2. HoK stays. No other national navigational template is added.
3. HoK stays, and HoC is added.
4. HoK stays, and HoM is added.
5. HoK stays, and HoC and HoM are added.
6. HoK is removed, and HoM is added.
7. HoM and HoC

   This option was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

8. HoC only

   This option was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Before we actually open the straw poll, I'd like to ask people whether this is a good list of options to consider. Are there others? Are these too many? Please discuss. I'd like to leave the discussion period for the options open for 24 hours. --Nlu (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A caveat to be said: why I used "national" above is for convenience. It is not intended to endorse (or deny) a view that Manchuria was/is a "nation." --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, hearing no objections to the list of options, I'd like to open the straw poll for 72 hours. Please indicate your support or opposition for each option, with reasons. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 1: No national history navigational templates

Support

1. Support maybe a good way to avoid dispute--Yeahsoo 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't see any reason to take out HoK, as to be stated below, and therefore oppose this option. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Doing this would do a disservice to this article and make it less informative, etc. WangKon936 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose A dumb idea Jegal 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose — My reasoning goes as follows:

   • HoK is the bare minimun we have to have, and I will give it 100% support.
   • HoM deserves a chance, and should be discussed further in Talk:Manchuria. Until such time as HoM is completely rejected by the editors of Manchuria-related articles, I will also give 100% support to HoM.

   It follows that... For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Why is this option even up here? Its definite that we should have a template. Good friend100 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose I see no reason to. Templates can only strengthen an articles, not harm them. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 2: HoK only

Support

1. Support. Goguryeo's connection to the history of Korea is plain, and the template is useful for navigation. For reasons to be stated below, I think that leaving only HoK is not a bad idea. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Ideally, this would be the option I like the most. However, I don't think it will solve the constaint edit wars that have plauged this article. WangKon936 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I could only see this working out if only a limited number of editors were allowed to edit the article and all others blocked out and could only edit if their track record was good which would be reviewed by the admins. Jegal 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   That's not an option; it's not supported by any Wikipedia policy. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. Probably the option pro Goguryeo people would like to see. Good friend100 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support This would definitely work out if only experts(except those from the PRC) are allowed to edit this page. Cydevil38 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Support. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Goguryeo is as of Korea as of China--Ksyrie 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   • Are you saying Korea is Chinese? I'm offended. You should realize that almost the entire international community disagrees with the PRC's claim on Goguryeo and how many of your quick excuses are flawed. Good friend100 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Yeahsoo 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose I'm agree with Endroit :

   Goguryeo is not 100% Korean because

   - if it was then modern Korean language would be significantly different see Goguryeo language and would be closer to Japanese language.

   - King Sejong of Joseon has established the borders of "modern Korea" see (four forts and six posts (Hangul : 사군육진 Hanja : 四郡六鎭)).

   - Koguryeo belong to HoK and HoM -- Whlee 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose Amongst China, Korea, Japan and Russia historians, it is widely disputed that Goguryeo can be considered as an HoK-only entity. On one hand, Goguryeo is arguably more important to Jurchens_{(who founded Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 and Qing Dynasty, now indisputably considered as part of Chinese history)} than Koreans. On the other hand, Goryeo is typically considered as modern Korea's direct ancestor, but the connection between Goguryeo and Goryeo is controversial. HoK-only is a decision against Jurchens history.--Jiejunkong 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Option 3: HoK and HoC only

Support

1. Support I see no reason why History of China shouldn't be included. Gaogouli is no different from the Kingdoms of Nan Zhao and Da Li (one of whom, is linked to the HoC). Assault11 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support--Ksyrie 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Yeahsoo 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Support Goguryeo is definitely a major ancestor of Jurchens_{(who founded Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 and Qing Dynasty, now indisputably considered as part of Chinese history)}. In addition, it is arguably even more important to Jurchens than Koreans. I see reasons to list it as HoK, and I see reasons to list it as HoC. I don't understand why some people (including some sockpuppets) want to remove HoC. --Jiejunkong 05:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This has nothing per se to do with the assertion that Goguryeo is part of Chinese history, which is true (notwithstanding the more problematic issue of whether Goguryeo was a Chinese state in any definition). Goguryeo is not linked from HoC, nor should it be since HoC is already way too crowded; therefore, HoC is a navigational template that doesn't belong on the page. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. WangKon936 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Good friend100 22:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Jegal 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Goguryeo is not a part of Chinese history. Cydevil38 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is part of Chinese history. Korean and Chinese history share much of their history because of the connections with each other. Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh geez, then Sui Dynasty and Tang Dynasty must be part of our history too, as well as the Japanese Empire. Cydevil38 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• If it disappoints you, thats too bad. But its the truth. Sharing history has no problems and you shouldn't overreact to this. Good friend100 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2. OpposeIt isn't sufficientWhlee 09:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Absolutely no evidence that can substantially support this. Many chinese arguments are based on claims. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 4: HoK and HoM only

Support

1. Weak support. I actually agree with some of the comments that the case for creating HoM is not compelling. I proposed it as a compromise measure only, and I am not convinced of its necessity. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Good in the long run, will help stem more disputes. Good friend100 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. I agree w/Good Friend on this one. WangKon936 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Jegal 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support this option.--Endroit 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Conditional support Only if a consensus on the Manchurian history template is reached. However, I find such a consensus doubtful as long as CPOV editors(Ksyrie, Endroit, Assault11, Yeahsoo) are involved. Nonetheless, I'm willing to cooperate, in good faith, with other editors. Cydevil38 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Conditional support Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

8. Support In support of Cydevil's arguments. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

9. Strong Support for this measure! Go-gur-yeo is a native kingdom of the same ethnic origins as those now called ethnic Koreans originally from northern Manchuria, It was later called Gao-gou-li by ethnic Han people, and much later recognized the suzerainty of Chinese emperors over the region for purposes of trade and peaceful relations. A predecessor kingdom (Buyeo) also has better relations with the Han people owing to their strategic geographical relation, this shows the complicated relation of the kingdom of Goguryeo to the History of China through its location in the region that we now all call Manchuria, or Northeast China as some native officials like to call it —- .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

10. Partially Support: This is okay, only if Manchuria is interpreted as an English name for the land in Northeastern China and Fareast Russia. Goguryeo is part of the history of this land.--Jiejunkong 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose Absolutely not (for reasons explained above/before). The concept of Man Zhou as a geographic entity did not materialize until the 20th century, even then, it existed only as a puppet regime - hence, it is illegitimate. Assault11 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Strongly Oppose--Yeahsoo 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 5: HoK, HoC, and HoM

Support

1. SupportIt is part of Chinese history. Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment is denied by the true user Goodfriend100. It is apparent that someone has made a false comment under his name. Please disregard. Oyo321 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Strongly Support'. Goguryeo had interactions with kingdoms in the southern part of Korean peninsula (Paekche, Silla and Kaya), the China Empire (espcially Sui and Tang Empire) and Chinese kingdom (during the 5 dynasty 16 kingdoms) and peoples living in Manchuria (Puyo for instance...) Whlee 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, for the same reasons I gave for opposing Option 3. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. WangKon936 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strongly Oppose This is probably the only option thats worse than "HoC Only." It would result in a massive and messy article that would welcome few to read. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 6: HoM only

Support

1. Very weak support'. I'd support it if there's support for it as a compromise measure. Again, I don't see a reason to remove HoK. --Nlu (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Very weak support'. The reason to remove HoK is it contains too many disputed info, it should be deleted or rewrite. Of course the HOM should defnitely be wrtie in caution--Yeahsoo 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Very weak support'. Goguryeo had interactions with kingdoms in the southern part of Korean peninsula, the China Empire and tribes living in Manchuria. Being agree with Nlu i dont see a reason to remove HoK : at its height under Kwanggaetto Koguryeo occupied 2/3 of the Korean peninsula and Silla was its vassal.See the story of Misahun, King Naemul etc... Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Conditional Support As long as there is sufficient research invested into Manchurian templates. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose WangKon936 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Good friend100 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. It is improper to list something only under a (puppet) state that no longer exists.--Jiejunkong 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Option 7: HoC only

1. This option was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose i'm completely AGAINST Chinese North East Project (東北工程) Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose No evidence whatever other than "google search hits." Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 8: HoC and HoM only

1. This option was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose it also belong to HoK Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

   This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why "Shilla-Tang" Invasion?

Why "Shilla-Tang" invasion? Shilla was only a vassal state of Tang. It should be "Tang-Shilla" invasion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Let's all choose to ignore this little statement. It's clearly flame baiting by someone who doesn't have enough guts to show who he is. WangKon936 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it showed someone from some country would prefer to use hostile and not-NPOV words on others and even on his own ancestors, even though they do know it is not fact. vassal? yes, Shilla is a vassal and it united Korea, and Goguryeo is also vassal by the time, you should use "put down the rebellion". Plus it is Goguryeo invade Shilla first. In the latest news, it said, the king of Shilla almost get killed by Goguryeo soldiers on the way back from Tang, it is a guy last name "Wen" saved him by pretent he is the king. This is reported by Chosun.com last week. --Yeahsoo 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Next issue: History of Manchuria template

It looks like we have a consensus of having {{History of Korea}} and a {{History of Manchuria}} on this article. The next issue for us to tackle is what the content of the History of Manchuria template should be. Again, the example that I had (which a couple other editors have modified as well) is at User:Nlu/History of Manchuria. I'd like for folks to start digging in and modify it, ideally in the same type of "staggered" format that {{History of China}} is in (and which I don't know how to do, and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to design all that well). I think after this is solved, we'd be fairly close to having a consensus that would be sufficient to unprotect the article, as the other content issues appear to be largely insufficiently problematic. I'd like to give us 120 hours to work on this. I'm also going to be calling for help on this on Talk:Manchuria. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To make up for the limited space of the History of China template that disallowed for the listing of Goguryeo & other countries, this should try to include as much as possible on the former countries that existed on Manchuria & after that maybe the modern countries - China & Russia could be included. If the template was to neglect several minor countries that existed on Manchuria, but managed to insert Russia & China... this would clearly look like a concessive device for CPOV to make up for the exclusion of the History China template & to challenge the disputed nationality of the country. (Wikimachine 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

China and Russia are clearly major parts of Manchurian history and therefore should be included. As I mentioned, I am inviting people to edit this proposed template, so if you have ideas, go ahead and do so. --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But History of Manchuria never even existed until now, and is being created within the context of this debate. Therefore it should focus on the prehistoric~premodern time period to suit the article Goguryeo and other related articles. Modern China & Russia are ... out of context. Just because China & Russia controlled the territory or is controlling the territory right now is not a reason to include them - the modern elements, to the template concerning Manchuria in its historic sense. Korea controlled Manchuria once (if you agree that Goguryeo was Korea). Then Korea should be included? Ah! so did Japan control Manchuria once! Then we better put Japan too. And then we better put Mongol... (Wikimachine 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Are we going to have links to Russian dynasties/kingdoms then? I don't think Russian kingdoms extended all the way to Manchuria back then.

I think the following dynasties should be included

• Balhae
• Buyeo and its related kingdoms
• Samhan
• Okjeo
• Han Dynasty
• Jin Dynasty

If you could elaborate on the ither Chinese kingdoms that would be helpful. Good friend100 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • There are more than 10 different race or tribe on the land, xianbei(鲜卑） qidan（契丹） tujue（突爵） xi奚，elunchun鄂仑春，Manzu Juchen, Yan燕(many more different Yan) 公孙氏 most important, Republic of China People's republic of China, AND the name should be Manchuria in China--Yeahsoo 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Friend, I think you may be misunderstanding the point. Nlu is not advocating the inclusion of ALL Chinese and/or Russian history, just the parts of their histories as they are important to Manchuria. The way Nlu has his template as it is seems very complete and comprehensive to me. Samhan and Okjeo should not be included as they were on the peninsula proper and never located in Manchuria. WangKon936 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am utterly shocked at your proposal.

The difference is that those Russian states, at the time of their existence, did not control any part of modern Manchuria. Former Yan, Former Qin, &c., did. (Since Former Qin only did so very briefly, its removal wouldn't hurt a whole lot, but Former Yan and Later Yan were major players in what is now Manchuria.) Former Yan, in particular, was a major rival of Goguryeo, and had destroyed Buyeo and Yuwen, both of which were entirely encased in what is now Manchuria. Similarly, Tang ruled a major part of Manchuria.

But what is particularly egregious about your list is that the the Samhan had nothing to do with modern Manchuria. No reputable historian would suggest that they controlled any part of modern Manchuria or had a Manchurian origins. It's more likely that Okjeo did, but even that is unlikely.

Meanwhile, you are suggesting leaving off states that had their heartland in Manchuria -- Liao Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. It's preposterous. The list that I had was intended to be NPOV in that it did not matter whether they had "legitimacy" in Manchuria; that they were a substantial part of Manchurian history and had a substantial territory possession in Manchuria was sufficient.

This list you proposed made me feel that you had no understanding for the history of those states that you are proposing be removed. Any template of Manchuria history that does not include Liao Dynasty, in particular, simply doesn't comport with reality. It's surreal. --Nlu (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, I think the Manchurian template you have proposed is fine. We may want to tweak it later, but it has much of what we need at this point. That's my two cents. WangKon936 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was only a suggestion, don't get the wrong idea. I wasn't mocking anybody or having the intention to make fun of anything. Good friend100 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Yeahsoo's objections -- most of the groups you mentioned are already on the template as I proposed, and the Xi and the Shiwei are not because there's currently no article for either group; they would certainly both belong. Tujue's not included because there is really no evidence that they were in Manchuria. Meanwhile, "Manchuria in China" is wrong (because this template is intended to cover the parts of Manchuria that now are in Russia), in any case. Since we appear to have a consensus otherwise on these issues, I am planning to let this sit for about 24 hour more and then unprotect the article, implementing the three issues that have been addressed here. If you have an objection, please do so before tomorrow. --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be another reiteration of my previous stance. I remain strongly opposed to the very idea of a "History of Manchuria" template since there is absolutely no need for it whatsoever. The main problem I have with this is the use of the term "Manchuria." How can you have a template of something that has never existed before (again, excluding Man Zhou Guo/Manchukuo)? Manchuria was never used as a geographic label in Chinese historiography and ever since the Qing Dynasty, this region was always referred to as the "Three Provinces (of the Northeast)." The lost territories (north of Heilongjiang and east of Wusulijiang) that resulted from the Unequal Treaties (namely the Treaty of Aigun/Aihui and the Convention of Beijing) used to be part of this region as well. As far as the modern construct of the term "Chinese" is concerned, historical and modern Northeast China (AKA. Dong Bei) has always been a Chinese entity. This is why any reference to this region has to be within a Chinese context.

As far as my personal opinions/beliefs go, the inclusion of a "HoM" template would be anything but a compromise and would certainly not end the dispute. In fact, I view this as a step back from the status quo. As a native Northeasterner, there is no way that I'll ever accept the use of Man Zhou in place of Dong Bei. Assault11 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think you have to realize that that view is not really shared by anybody else in this discussion. A consensus doesn't require everyone to go along with it. --Nlu (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because barely half of those involved are even Chinese to begin with. Look at the archives under the talk:Manchuria, a lot of Northeasterners expressed similar views as mine on this matter. If there's to be any serious considerations to be made, this issue should at least be presented, discussed and approved by WikiProject China. Why this is even being brought up here is beyond me. I seriously hope this will be reconsidered and proper procedures will be taken to address this issue. Assault11 03:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I got a question to Assault11 what do you mean when you talk about Northeasterners? You mean Han Chinese (who represent roughly 90% of the peoples living in Manchuria) or Manchu peoples (who represent at their best around 9-10% of the peoples)? Whlee 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Northeasterners refer to all peoples residing in any of the three provinces of Northeast China, regardless of ethnicity. Assault11 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines dealing with consensus requires what you're asking. --Nlu (talk)

That is not my point. The fact that the proposed HoM template covers a wide range of primarily Chinese-themed articles warrants the approval of WikiProject China members. Also, according to the official policies[1] on resolving disputes (under conduct a survey), a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it. Assault11 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On Endroit's claims

It should be noted that Endroit's claim on "Tungusic origins of Goguryeo" is based on a work by Gina L. Barnes where it says The polity of Koguryo developed among the peoples of the eastern Manchurian massif during the first few centuries after Han China established its commanderies on the peninsula. While it only says "peoples of the eastern Manchurian massif", Endroit somehow assumes that it was "Tungusic". If we are to look further into these "people of the eastern Manchurian massif", we have to look into Rhee Song-nai's works, whom Gina Barnes cited for that claim. These "people of the eastern Manchurian massif" which later became the heart of Goguryeo is, by Rhee's definition, the Huanren-Jian region.

According to Rhee, Neolithic life-ways persisted for several millennia in the region as late as the third century B.C. The neolithic culture of Huanren-Jian region, however, was by no means static. Examination of tools and pottery suggests that over time there was a great deal of dynamism in cultural innovations. In many respects, the neolithic society of Huanren-Jian region, during the first millennium B.C., was very similar to that of the Korean peninsula of the same period. As with the latter, megaliths were also being constructed, suggesting the presence of social stratification as well. Source: S. Rhee, Huanren-Jian Region Prior to the Formation of Koguryo State from Archaeological Perspectives, Mahan Paekche Munhwa Sa.

This region was a part of the same general cultural continuation as that of the Korean peninsula which progresses from Jeulmun pottery period, Mumun pottery period and then to the Megalthic culture of NEA. As far as these people of the Huanren-Jian region is concerned before state-formation of Goguryeo, they should be distinguished from Endroit's definition of "Tungusic"(definition of this term vary, so in this case I'm only using Endroit's personal one, which is a term clearly exclusive to Koreans). However, I can agree with the term "proto-Korean", but this is with regards to the tribal peoples of the region prior to Goguryeo's state formation. Thus, origin of Goguryeo based on archaeology should be defined as "proto-Korean tribes of the Huanren-Jian region". And if Endroit wants to continue to insist that these can't be "Korean" because they extend beyond the Korean peninsula, he should consider the fact that "Korea" is also a term that can be used to define non-geographical/political entities, such as culture or languages. As an example, I will quote Roger Blench, an expert who wrote a comprehensive book on origins of East Asian peoples[2]: China is on the very edge of the Korean-speaking area, in Jilin Province, adjacent to the North Korean border. Korean today is an isolated language, linked to Altaic, but not closely. However, in an earlier period there must have been a linguistic family, Koreanic, with more diversity than is apparent today, and probably spread over a broader area of NE China. Accounts of the ‘Neolithic’ in Jilin (Zhen-hua 1995) and Heilongjiang Provinces (Ying-jie 1995) suggest they a similar culture with strong links to the Korean peninsular, dating to >4000 to >2000 BC. Fish and aquatic resources were apparently of major importance in their diet and are characterised by incised and impressed pottery with geometric markings. It is possible that these regions were originally populated by Koreanic speakers.[3] Cydevil38 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Endroit's claims based on Gardiner, I'll get back to them later. But to put it bluntly, Endroit's anti-Korea crusade in making Goguryeo into a Chinese state is hopeless. This is the title of Gardiner's Ph.D thesis: The Rise and Development of the Korean Kingdom of Koguryo from the Earliest Times to A.D. 313. It should also be noted that, in an interview with the Korean press, Gardiner refuted the Northeast Project's Xuantu rationale.[4] Cydevil38 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So Cydevil38, your sources essentially agree with me that the Goguryeo (Koguryo) came from up north across the Yalu River, because Heilongjiang is from up north. And linguistically speaking, we have the following hypothetical influence: Altaic languages → Buyeo languages → Goguryeo language, and we also have Altaic languages → Tungusic languages, where some scholars believe that the speakers of the Buyeo languages group originally came from the Lake Baikal region in Siberia. And that's even more scholars agreeing that Goguryeo's origin was from up north.

This genetic study by Han-Jun Jin confirms that the Koreans are genetically the most similar to the Manchurians (Fig. 2 in Jin's study) (although he concedes that the Koreans are also very similar to the Yunnan and Vietnamese people based on his PC-analysis in Fig. 3).

Han-Jun Jin says:

• The genetic relationship with Manchuria is consistent with the historical evidence that the Ancient Chosun, the first state-level society, was established in the region of southern Manchuria and later moved into the Pyongyang region area of the northwestern Korean peninsula. Based on archeological and anthropological data, the early Korean population possibly had a common origin in the northern regions of the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal of southeastern Siberia (Han 1995; Choi and Rhee 2001). Recent studies of mtDNA (Kivisild et al. 2002) and the Y-chromosome (Karafet et al. 2001) have also indicated that Koreans possess lineages from both the southern and the northern haplogroup complex. In conclusion, the peopling of Korea can be seen as a complex process with an initial northern Asian settlement followed by several migrations, mostly from southern to northern China.

Genetically speaking, before the Guguryeo people went into Korea, their ancestors were likely of BOTH Tungusic AND Chinese origin. I deliberately used the word "Tungusic" because on the one hand you don't seem to want to accept that Goguryeo had any Chinese blood, and on the other hand other people didn't want to use the word "Manchurian". (The Manchurians of today are considered to be "Tungusic" origin anyways.)

If you don't like the word "Tungusic", you can call them "Manchurian" or "from Heilongjiang" (or "from northeastern China") instead; it's no big deal, just take a pick.--Endroit 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit. I'm trying to understand your line of reasoning and if that line of reasoning makes much sense. Is it correct to assert that you believe Goguryeo is Chinese in a sense because it was primarily located north of the Yalu river until the 4th century? Are you saying that present day national boundaries determine how we view the histography of past kingdoms? If this is true, then I find it rather hard to defend. It's fraught with problems. Why? National boundaries changes over time. Europe saw history like this for the longest time. For example, the French in the 19th century thought Holland was their land because a lot of French Huguenots migrated there. Austria invaded Italy in the 14th century because it claimed that it had the political right to rule Italy because they were the successors of Charlemagne, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. It took two devastating world wars for Europe to grow up and stop their nonsense of using present day or desired national boundaries to interpret history. The Europeans have matured. We East Asians obviously haven't.

Seriously, let's take your conclusion of "Koguryo is Chinese because it was located north of the Yalu" to its logical conclusion. The region known as Manchuria was nominally under control of what we would call China. However, the main constituent of the Chinese is really originated in the central plains. People who speak a sino-tibetan and multi-tonal language who settled in the central plains of the middle reaches of the Yellow River. During Han Dynasty times, southern Manchuria and northern Korean fell under their control under five commandaries (okay, four plus Taifang). Three of these commandaries lasted barely a century. Xuantu lasted for three centuries and Lelang lasted for almost four. Other then that, the people of the century plains culture never had consistant control of Manchuria. In the 17th century, the Manchu, a non-Chinese Tungstic people conquered the descendents of the central plains culture, i.e. the Ming Chinese. These non-Chinese Tungstic people pretty much completely assimilated into the Chinese majority and thus Manchuria, that was outside the control of China for most of its history, became sort of an inheritance, through their subjugation by the Tungstic Manchu, and their following assimilation of their would be conquerors. The fact of the matter is that Chinese control of Manchuria, when you look at the spectrum of history, has never been all that consistant or long. Chinese control of Manchuria is on and off and up and down. This is fact. It's also fact that Manchuria is currently firmly under Chinese control. Thus, when we look at the history of Manchuria in a holistic and thematic manner, then we see Manchuria as having it's own distinct history often times outside of China. Thus it's hard to say that Koguryo is Chinese just because it started in and occupied much of Manchuria as the Chineseness of Manchuria isn't all that consistant itself, particularly before the 18-19th century. WangKon936 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another landmark study on Korean genetics and their origins was done by a team from Singapore. An abstract is available here: [5]. Essentially these guys say that Koreans are most related to "central Asian Mongolians." WangKon936 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, since your knowledge in this subject matter is very elementary(for instance, Huanren-Jian is in Jilin, not Heilongjiang), I'll just make a very simple answer suitable to your level - if any proto-Korean ethnicity is to be applied to Goguryeo, that would be Dongyi, not Tungusic. Chinese is not even a term that can be used in this context where proto-ethnicities are involved. So you know what? Why don't we link proto-Korean to Megalithic tombs or Mumun pottery period or Gojoseon(Ancient Chosun), and let the readers decide on who they were on a factual basis. While Dongyi would be more of an appropriate proto-ethnicity, the article on it is, well, very substandard and is not coherent with the archaeological definition of Dongyi that applies to these proto-Korean tribes of the region. And as for the term "proto-Korean" itself, I don't think you'll have a problem with this term if you recognize Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom, regardless of when it became "Korean". And of course, I won't have a problem with including the geographical region of where these people were, say, " proto-Korean tribes of Huanren-Jian region in what is now the Jilin province, PRC".

And Endroit, with regards to genetics, are you suggesting that "southern lineages" are Chinese and "northern lineages" are Tungusic? Please elaborate. Cydevil38 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing Endroit. If you didn't know it yet, this "migration of proto-Koreans from southern Siberia to the Korean peninsula" that those scholars are talking about refers to the Mumun pottery period people, on which the current consensus is that these people exterminated the indigenous populations of the Jeulmun pottery period people. And as I've said previously, the Huanren-Jian region also follows this archaelogical pattern, hence why Rhee said In many respects, the neolithic society of Huanren-Jian region, during the first millennium B.C., was very similar to that of the Korean peninsula of the same period. Cydevil38 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Correction/elaboration - while the theory that Mumun replaced Jeulmun people is the majority consensus, upon reviewing the source by Choi & Rhee, it seems they're supporters of an emerging alternative theory that Jeulmun pottery period people culturally evolved to Mumun pottery period people with no significant demographic changes involved. In other words, the Based on archeological and anthropological data, the early Korean population possibly had a common origin in the northern regions of the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal of southeastern Siberia claim from Endroit's source refers to Jeulmun, not Mumun. Cydevil38 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous. The Dong Yi has nothing to do with the so-called "proto-Koreans" (that is assuming, such neologisms even exist). The Dong Yi lied east of the Xia (Huang He) in what is now the Eastern Chinese coast (stretching from roughly Shandong to Zhejiang provinces). This following article (in Chinese) has a pretty good summary of the Dong Yi[6]. Assault11 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term Dong Yi does not necessarily mean barbarians in Shandong only, but is a general term for eastern barbarians outside of the central plains core Chinese culture. This would include proto-Koreans in present day Manchuria. WangKon936 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The traditional areas of settlement of the Dong Yi were located in the Chinese coast (roughly Henan/Shandong provinces). Recent archaeological findings in the former Qi state capital in Shandong (Lin Zi) points towards a general southern migration of the Dong Yi[7]. There is no proof whatsoever to suggest that the people of the Eastern Chinese coast (Jiangnan - Shandong peninsula regions) and Northeast China were "proto-Koreans." That is just downright ridiculous. Oddly enough, upon skimming through a couple of Chinese websites, I found the following comments:

很多韩国学者自以为韩国就是东夷。其实是大大的错误。韩国所谓“东夷”论 学术上完全站不住脚 所谓 东夷 就是古朝鲜人的祖先的说法完全没有考古依据。 这是最近几年韩国的所谓“学术界”为了支撑起 所谓“韩民族6000年历史” 而炮制的一种学说。

I suppose this is the main rationale behind Cydevil's thinly-veiled claims over China's Shang Dynasty earlier. Whatever the case is, the Dong Yi and the aforementioned are not Korean. Assault11 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WangKon936, I cannot open the link you submitted, for the genetic study by the Singaporean team. Please give me its relevant info, such as its title, authors, and the year published. I'd really like to see that one.

Also, I am NOT saying that Goguryeo was Chinese, although I maintain that they were profoundly influenced by the Chinese. When I introduced my genetic evidence, I was referring to the earlier period referred to as Gojoseon (or "Old Choson" or "Ancient Chosun" or "Chaoxian").

Just in case anybody missed it, I again resubmit the following genetic study, which appears to be by a South Korean team:

• Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans <== This is a PDF file.

by Han-Jun Jin, Kyoung-Don Kwak, Michael F. Hammer, Yutaka Nakahori, Toshikatsu Sinka, Ju-Won Lee, Feng Jin, Xuming Jia, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim

Published online: 18 September 2003

This study cleverly tries to play down the predominant existence of Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) (O-M122), widely reputed to be associated with the Chinese peoples (and their spread of rice farming to its neighbors). Including 12.5% of "O-LINE1" conceded by Han-Jun Jin, Jin's data for the Korean people appears to have roughly 50% of Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) (O-M122) (including most of the "O-M175" in his data), meaning that at least half of today's Korean DNA is from China.

Looking at the genetic evidence, a simple question arises: "When did all the Chinese people migrate to Korea?" Han-Jun Jin proposes the following explanation:

• With increasing political chaos in the Chinese mainland during its Warring Period (476-221BC), many Chinese moved further southward and eastward, and eventually inhabited all of China (Eberhard 1980). There is also historical evidence that many Chinese fled and sought refuge in the Korean Ancient Chosun during the Warring Period (Yun 1998; Choi and Rhee 2001). In addition, archeological evidence indicates that rice cultivation had spread to all parts of the Korean peninsula around 1,000BC, introduced from the Yangtze River basin in southern China (Choi and Rhee 2001). The recent range expansion and introduction of rice cultivation from southern China may have resulted in the appearance of Y-chromosomal lineages carrying haplogroup O-M175-derived markers in Korea.

So this genetic evidence apparently suggests that the large Chinese migration into Manchuria and Korea is related to the spread of rice farming from China, at around 1,000BC for Korea (and possibly earlier for Manchuria). Bronze and iron were also introduced into Manchuria and Korea from China in the mean time (in addition to rice). And the region occupied by Gojoseon contained a large Chinese presence by the time Goguryeo (Koguryo) became prominent. Moreover, Wiman Joseon was already Chinese ruled, even before the Han Dynasty establish commanderies there, and a Chinese culture was firmly established in the Gojoseon region, ruling over Buyeo (Puyo) and Goguryeo (Koguryo). So regardless of Goguryeo's ethnic background, Goguryeo was profoundly influenced by the Chinese. (Note that I'm NOT saying that Goguryeo WAS Chinese, and I don't believe that they had any Chinese blood in the begining, although they may have eventually contained some Chinese blood).

Now regarding whether Goguryeo was "Tungusic" or not, that is NOT my main issue, and I don't really care for it. However, the opinion appears to be split among various scholars: Some believe Goguryeo was more Tungusic (Manchurian), and some believe they were more similar to Silla (Korean). Regardless, Goguryeo was from Manchuria, so they were "Manchurian" to begin with. In the English language, the word "Korea" is typically NOT used for the area north of the Yalu River, and so editors are advised NOT to use the word "Korean" when referring to the "Manchuria" region, although "proto-Korean" should be an acceptable wording.--Endroit 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, opinions of scholars are not "split" on Goguryeo. As far as Goguryeo specialists, such as Rhee and Byington, are concerned, connection bewteen those with "Tungusic" elements, such as Bueyo, and Goguryeo is denied. Archaeological trait of Goguryeo is very similar to that of the Korean peninsula. And as for Gojoseon, it's true it was influenced by the Yan state, iron culture in particular. However, other cultural(archaeological) traits, such as bronze and neolithic elements, is that of a cultural continuum very different from the Chinese one. Even the cultural traits of Yan state can be traced to Manchuria as opposed to China, quite distinct from other Chinese states. According to Barnes, Yan state was the "melting pot" that has significant implications for its influence over other tribes/states in Northeast Asia, such as Gojoseon.

And, as for genetics, let me make some corrections. Rather, many corrections. First, using the mentioned haplogroups and subclades to corroborate the existense of a historic state is moronic - the same goes for those Korean scholars who have attempted thus. It's also moronic to attribute a certain haplogroup to a certain ethnicity. For instance, what you call "Haplogroup O3" is also prevalent among none-Sino-Tibetan(i.e. non-Chinese) peoples, and the interesting fact is that its ancestral lineages, such as O* and O3*, are more prevelant among the non-Chinese populations in Central Asia and Manchuria. As for its dispersal, it's spread throughout Asia, as far as the Australian aborigines. Also, what the study refers to as "southern lineages", is in fact Haplogroup O2b, which is the "Northeast Asian" haplogroup, i.e. this particular haplogroup is exclusively Northeast Asian. Another subclade of O2, which is O2a, is very common among SEA populations, which is why those scholars associate Koreans with SEA populations. As for C3, though scholars in that particular study call it the "northern lineages", is in fact a lineage that likely expanded from the southern coasts of Asia, Korea and Japan in particular, long long time ago. And, even assuming that O3 and O1 spread from China to Korea, the likely candidate is either Austronesian or Hmong-Mien, not Sino-Tibetan, assuming that the area wasn't proto-Dongyi or Altaic. O2 also may have been the result of a prehistoric migration from southern China, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a subclade most characteristic of Northesat Asian populations.

Anyways, in the end, all this talk on genetic anthropology doesn't have much relevance on the discussion at hand, because none of it can really corroborate historic events involving Goguryeo. Also, as far as archeological perspective is concerned, I don't really agree with your reasoning, but I agree with using the term "proto-Korean" for the origins of the Goguryeo state, which was established in 3rd century AD. Cydevil38 15:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

at least half of today's Korean DNA is from China. Then where did today's China DNA come from? Or how about Japan? You can claim Japan as Chinese land and culture because of similiar DNA.

Its a weak argument using DNA because humans originated from what is now Africa and its not easy to accurately find out whose DNA came from where. Good friend100 18:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just telling it like it is, with sources. Take a look at the bunch of arrows in this diagram. It will answer a lot of your questions. Although Han-Jun Jin refrains from mentioning "M122" (Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA)) in his study, it accounts for approximately 50% of the Korean DNA. In addition "P31" (Haplogroup O2 (Y-DNA)) accounts for 19% of the Korea DNA. According to this diagram 74% of the Korean genes ("M122" and "P31") came from China.

I am still waiting for any sources from WangKon936, Cydevil38, or Good friend100. Your arguments are moot without any sources.--Endroit 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is find the abstract of the report. But it's a bit dated. However, the Tay study is rather seminal and future genetic reports do point to it as a starting point.

Article

Origin of the Koreans: A population genetic study

N. Saha, J. S. H. Tay

Department of Paediatrics, Division of Human Genetics, National University of Singapore.

Abstract

A population genetic study was undertaken to investigate the origin of Koreans. Thirteen polymorphic and 7 monomorphic blood genetic markers (serum proteins and red cell enzymes) were studied in a group of 437 Koreans. Genetic distance analyses by both cluster and principal components models were performed between Koreans and eight other populations (Koreans in China, Japanese, Han Chinese, Mongolians, Zhuangs, Malays, Javanese, and Soviet Asians) on the basis of 47 alleles controlled by 15 polymorphic loci. A more detailed analysis using 65 alleles at 19 polymorphic loci was performed on six populations. Both analyses demonstrated genetic evidence of the origin of Koreans from the central Asian Mongolians. Further, the Koreans are more closely related to the Japanese and quite distant from the Chinese. The above evidence of the origin of Koreans fits well with the ethnohistoric account of the origin of Koreans and the Korean language. The minority Koreans in China also maintained their genetic identity. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc. WangKon936 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the section below this one and I have two sources refuting the claims on Goguryeo from China, by Mark Byington, a researcher at Harvard so all these "scientific" claims are not to be the most accurate. Good friend100 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to keep talking about Korean genetics here. I don't know what you are trying to prove Endroit. We have really wasted too much time on Korean genetics in the Koguryo talk page. Personally, I don't really care what the genetics are. I bet if you break down English genes it will probably tell you that they are Germans. If you break down Polish genes it will probably tell you that the have a lot of Russian in them. So what? I've been looking up info on Haplogroup O3 and all it really means is that Koreans are East Asian, like the Chinese, Vietnamese, Manchurians, Mongolians and some Japanese (particularly the southern populations). This just means that Koreans are in the "Northeast Asian" grouping and genetic experts will even put them in the "Northeast sub-Siberian" segment. Furthermore, you make the claim that 50-70% of Korean genes are "Chinese." That is YOUR interpretation of the genetics data. However, no reputable Non-Chinese genetics scientist has gone on record to repeat for verbatum your claim. I've actually looked and I couldn't find anything. What does that mean? It means that none of us here, including you, are really all that qualified to interpret the complex sets of genetic data and make broad, generalized conclusions. Lastly, this is a subject we really shouldn't discuss here in Koguryo talk. If we want to go further, why don't we all move this to Korean People talk, okay? WangKon936 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm getting tired of Cydevil and Endroit making this talk page too long. It isn't a scientific debate (I certainly don't understand any of it, way ahead of my range) Good friend100 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not simply referring to "Korean genetics" during modern times. Han-Jun Jin specifically cites the Japanese "Yayoi migration" and says: "Therefore, these results provide convincing evidence for recent male migration, originally from China, into Japan moving through Korea".

Wikipedia dates the relevant Yayoi period from 300 BC to 250 AD, meaning that the "Yayoi migration" is roughly concurrent with Gojoseon (Wiman Joseon & Gija Joseon) and the Four Commanderies of Han in Korean history. (By the way, the Four Commanderies of Han and/or Lelang Commandery should be ADDED to the {{History of Korea}} template).

At this point I submit the following additional source as evidence:

• Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes <== This is a PDF file.

by Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking, Satoshi Horai

Published online: 18 November 2005

Selected summary from this source, pertaining to the Yayoi migration....

1. Describes the Yayoi migration into Japan based on the O-SRY(465) genes and other genes with close lineage (haplogroups O-M122 and O-M95).
2. Reiterates that "the entire O haplogroup has been proposed to have a Southeast Asian origin (Su et al. 1999; Kayser et al. 2000; Capelli et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001)." (Their definition of Southeast Asia includes southern China). Then hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan."
3. In the concluding paragraph, it states "we propose that the Yayoi Y chromosomes descend from prehistoric farmers that had their origins in southeastern Asia, perhaps going back to the origin of agriculture in this region."
4. Hammer's DNA study is based on a "global sample consisted of > 2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago."

All I am saying here is that significant Chinese population existed in Manchuria and the Korean peninsula before Goguryeo entered the peninsula, as supported by genetic evidence. And therefore Goguryeo was profoundly affected by the Chinese, before they entered the Korean peninsula. (The genetic background of Goguryeo is NOT my issue. Nor is the total percentage of the Haplogroup O (Y-DNA) (O-M175), hypothesized to be from southern China.)

WangKon936, YOUR outdated 1992 source, Saha & Tay from Singapore, appears to be talking simply about the modern Korean genes, and appears not to refer to the Gojoseon period. Good friend100, like I already said above, whatever Byington says is irrelevant to what I am saying here. Byington doesn't even talk about Gojoseon in your sources. All I am saying here is that significant Chinese population existed in Manchuria and the Korean peninsula before Goguryeo entered the peninsula, as supported by genetic evidence. And therefore Goguryeo was profoundly affected by the Chinese, before they entered the Korean peninsula.--Endroit 10:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, those people that you interpret as "Chinese", are in fact, as far as the relevant studies suggest, a group of people from "Southeast Asia". Back then, the "Chinese", the more apt term being "Sino-Tibetan", were rather limited to the upper Yellow River regions. If anything, as I've said, those associated with the rice agriculture on the Yangzi river valleys were Hmong-Mien. And of course, all of your studies rely on the premise that the Haplogroup O expanded from southeastern Asia. As nascent as is the field of genetic anthrpology, this is a very shakable premise. For instance, there are studies that suggest otherwise[8]. Since you don't know anything about genetic anthropology, I'll let this map-for-dummies explain things to you[9]. I'm not saying that these results are absolute - genetic anthropology is a dynamic on-going process where new discoveries are made every year. It is possible that the Haplogroup O spread from SEA, but it's also possible that Haplogroup O spread from Central Asia/Manchuria. Nonetheless, the fact remains, none of these studies corrobate your claims on historical events regarding Goguryeo, and they are irrelevant. Even the National Geographic, which is a very outdated and inaccurate source(as I've said, genetic anthropology is very dynamic), refers to O3 as "10,000" years old. Anyways, if you're so concerned, why don't you take this to the relevant articles, such as Haplogroup O (Y-DNA). There, I'm sure you'll take a lot more attention from the experts in this field. Cydevil38 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another point Endroit, all the sources that you cite are based on modern distribution of genetic haplogroups and subclades. So, although WangKon's source is outdated, not to mention your own, my point is that all of them are based on "modern genes". And if you STILL DON'T KNOW what your sources are saying, they are inherently based on the modern distribution of Haplogroup O2b and its subclades. Cydevil38 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Michael F. Hammer, in his data, defines "Southeast Asia" to include people from: Taiwan Han and Hakka (TAI), Taiwan Aboriginal (TAB), Southern Han (SHA), Tujia (TUJ), Yizu (YIZ), Miao (MIA), Yao (YAO), Zhuang (ZHA), She (SHE), Vietnam (VIE), Malay (MAL), Philippines (FIL), and Indonesia West (INW). (Except for the last 4, they're all from southern China).

And Hammer hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan." So my statement about the Haplogroup O in Korea is backed by Hammer's opinion. Cydevil38, your sources don't back your accusation that this claim is "shaky".--Endroit 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, the majority of those people aren't even Sinitic. They're very diverse - Austronesian, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kaidai, etc. And if you can't comprehend what the study says, then that is your problem. Why don't you just take this to Haplogroup O (Y-DNA), and see how well your POV will be accepted there. Cydevil38 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael F. Hammer's sample for "Southeast Asia" consisted mostly of Chinese people, including (but not restricted to) the Han Chinese.

A significant amount of Chinese people existed in the Korean peninsula (and Manchuria), during Goguryeo's early years (prior to the 3rd century), and my sources strongly support it. In fact, there are no sources to refute that claim so far.--Endroit 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[10]

[11]

Even if Chinese people did live in the Korean peninsula they were probably driven out of Goguryeo as Goguryeo became powerful. And it still does not justify that Goguryeo was not 100% Korean. Good friend100 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo was more Korean than Chinese, and that's what Byington believes. And I am in general agreement with what Byington is saying overall.

However, you will notice that Byington uses the Chinese romanization "Fuyu" to describe Buyeo/Puyo/夫餘. That would seem to indicate that Byington believes Buyeo was less Korean than Manchurian (or Chinese). Also Good friend100, whatever you're saying here is not backed up by any source, indicating that perhaps you're just trolling.--Endroit 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit. I have in my posession Byington's PhD thesis, which is entitled "A study in the history of Puyo." For his PhD thesis, he exclusively uses the Korean romanization of Puyo. However, I will not say just because of this he thinks one way or another. It's presumptuous to say that just because of a romanization preferrence that one expert believes one thing more then another. WangKon936 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make an accusation like that simply because the Chinese side gets slammed by a Harvard professor who clearly wrote that there is a major flaw in Chinese claims on Goguryeo. Good friend100 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Buyeo dispute can be discussed at the Buyeo page. Simply mentioning Buyeo in a parenthetical mark does not mean Buyeo is Chinese.

And I didn't make any ridiculous claims over anything. Good friend100 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My claim that Goguryeo was "not yet Korean" in the beginning, is different from the PRC claiming that Goguryeo was "Chinese". Therefore, you cannot use Byington's arguments against mine. Also, Byington never says that Goguryeo was "100% Korean". Byington cites the "linear model of racial descent" by "the late 1930s Chinese historian, Jin Yufu", which says that "the remainder of this (Fuyu) lineage became the present Korean nationality". Good friend100 please read carefully, and cite your sources correctly. You're just making things up. Besides, I am in general agreement with Jin Yufu's claims and wording, as cited by Byington.--Endroit 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"This peculiar way of depicting pre-modern history is clearly grounded in the practical desire to provide security for all of China’s borders – these territories are today Chinese because they have historically always been Chinese."

"But it is probably more important to these scholars and politicians that the present way of viewing the past as a device to validate the present order of things be upheld and any cost – not because of any particular fears that ethnic Koreans in China’s Northeast might want to break away, but more because any admission that Koreans might have a valid historical claim to some PRC territories might incite unrest among other border groups, particularly in the Southwest and Northwest. This would explain why the Chinese have been so unwilling either to address the issue as a political matter or to back down on the academic position."

What am I claiming and what am I making up? I don't understand what kind of claims I am making up to have you accuse me of "making things up".

I am not saying Goguryeo is 100% Korean. It certainly had some Chinese populations or communities in its territories. My point is that the PRC's argument is flawed and their claims are weak, challenging the claims the Gaugouli supporters are making right now. Good friend100 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation task

The mediation task for this case is still pending (Nlu is doing great work though), and I, not yet involved with this subject matter, am willing to mediate this case even though I am not part of the mediation committee (my nomination is in process).

I am a Taiwanese Canadian, and is disinterested with Sino-Korean relations. However, I have strong knowledge in the history of Goguryeo, and hopefully I could provide an outside opinion in addition to resolve this longstanding dispute. Do you guys accept me? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to have help. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a dispassionate person of Korean background helping you to mediate. Is that at all possible? WangKon936 05:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to have a third party opinion rather than having a pro Korea or pro China editor doing the mediation. Thanks for your effort. Good friend100 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I also want to belong to the third party, i'm currently working on the History of Manchuria, written dozen of stub articles, creating a Manchu Wikipedia, i've just started to learn Manchu language as an autodidact and Chinese Mandarin. Manchu history and culture are complicated but so rich. I would remain neutral in that Sino-Korean dispute on that sensible this topic.Whlee 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't label people as "bad" just because they are ethnic Chinese. You simply cannot say "because he is Chinese, he supports Gaugouli" Good friend100 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I never said that Aquo1rius would be bad. Please do not make unsubstantiated assumptions about me. I just said that it might be nice to have a someone who is dispassionate and Korean by background involved. WangKon936 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually somebody who knows about Korean/Chinese history and has a thir party viewpoint would be best. Good friend100 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be a good idea also. WangKon936 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad Good friend100 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source

[12]

[13]

Two research papers by Mark Byington from Harvard University on Asian studies clearly shows the PRC's flawed claim on Goguryeo. Good friend100 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope both Korean and Chinese editors read this. I am curious to know why there are no comments or arguments?

So in order to complete Goodfriend's hanging argument, I've extracted an excerpt from the first link summarizing Dr. Byington's research and evidence, for those of you who may be inconvinced to read by the rather long paper.

"The Chinese argument for Koguryo's Chinese-ness is a pretty flimsy one. The two main arguments are, 1) that the Koguryo state grew out of the Han Chinese commandery of Xuantu (i.e., out of Chinese territory), and 2) that Koguryo kings acknowledged their places as "minority nationalities" of China by accepting investiture from Chinese emperors. The problems with this are obvious. There are even weaker arguments than this: for example, more Koguryo refugees wound up in Tang China than in Silla after 668, therefore Koguryo was more Chinese than Korean - this argument comes from a prominent historian in Shenyang. The weaknesses of the arguments are well known to the Chinese historians who promote them (and not all historians in China support the "official" position, by the way, but there are two or three very vocal ones who do). The fact that the two core arguments listed above could also be made to apply to Paekche (and even to Silla, with a little extra twisting of the source materials) is also a troubling matter to the Chinese historians I described above, who want to make clear that Paekche was NOT a Chinese state."

Oyo321 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Styling

Looking through the page, I have a proposal. Would it be better to use {{Infobox Former Country}} to replace the current infobox, and then add a section (something like "Names of Goguryeo, see User:AQu01rius/Goguryeo)? I know this is not congruent with WP:MOS-KO, but I was wondering if it would improve the outlook of the page. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are discussing about a template of Manchuria to compromise the two names as some editors don't like both the Korea and China template up there. Good friend100 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Former Country}} would be helpful, but I think that we've reached a consensus on having multiple language names in the infobox as well. I'd say do at least that, and then we can consider adding the Former Country infobox on top. --Nlu (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the Manchuria / Korea, History of info boxes rather then Former Country infobox. Plus, we fought a long time to reach that consensus. Perhaps you can make suggestions that build upon the consensus we have worked so hard to achieve thus far and we can go from there? WangKon936 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was just experimenting with the template. I have adopted the model of the consensus into the practice page, see if it looks good. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Remnants?

I have not been involved in the current dispute and I don't really want to spend the time to go over everything that's been written here, but I want to ask - is there any research on what became of the remnants of the Goguryeo people after Goguryeo's collapse? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Goguryeo remnents went to Balhae, which considered itself a successor to Goguryeo.

Some were assimiliated into Unified Silla and others were assimilated into Tang China. Good friend100 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "most" is a controversial statement that isn't really provable. Change it to "a substantial portion" and I'd agree. --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm agree with Nlu we have no proof in addition to that i got doubt concerning Dae Jung-sang's ethnicity have a look on that pageborn as Qiqi Zhongxiang. Qiqi means big/great (大) in Malgal/Mohe language while in Gogouyreo language it seems to be different close to "na".Whlee 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Balhae was founded with a mix of Koreans (Goguryeo people) and nomadic tribe people, while the government was made up of a Goguryeo royal family. It is not wrong to say "most" Goguryeo people went to Balhae, or the Balhae people wouldn't have considered itself as a successor to Goguryeo. Good friend100 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Most" requires 50%, and I don't think there's a way to prove that mathematical percentage. (Meanwhile, your comments appears to imply that Dae was from a "Goguryeo royal family," which is itself a controversial statement.) --Nlu (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that its almost impossible to find an accurate number, but based upon the fact that Balhae considered itself as a successor to Goguryeo, it is reasonable that a large portion of the Goguryeo remnents went to Balhae. Good friend100 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't disagree with "large portion." But I think using the fact that Balhae claimed to be Goguryeo's successor is not particularly convincing. Southern Tang claimed to be Tang Dynasty's successor, but it would be wrong to use that claim to state that it was Tang's successor. --Nlu (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Southern Tang specifically announce that they were successor to the Tang? (Balhae doesn't say so because of the edit lock). The article doesn't state that Southern Tang considered itself as a successor. Also, 9 other small kingdoms were created with the fall of the Tang, so ALL those kingdoms could be considered as successors. It is a slightly different case, while with Balhae (unified silla was the conqueror and retained most of Goguryeo culture, etc) only one state is created as the successor of Goguryeo to "continue" the Goguryeo lineage. Good friend100 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Friend, you can't make the assumption that "most" Koguryo people went to Parhae based on the fragmentary evidence that remains. This evidence (the New and Old History of Tang, the Samguk Sagi and others) would actually imply that most of the Koguryo population was deported out of the old Koguryo territory. The Koguryo people kept revolting and the Tang finally got fed up with it and simpily depopulated Northern Korea and Southern Manchuria and spread them all across the Tang empire. The more loyal to Tang were kept in and around the Imperial city. The rebel ring leaders were sent to the Empire's peripherary and even as far as Tibet and Burma. Even when Dae Jo Young begain Parhae, he had to free Koguryo refugees that were being held in Tang captivity in Northern Manchuria. It was these freed refugees that helped him establish Parhae, not any Koguryo people who still resided in former Koguryo territory. Awhile ago I had given you a link to a Korean article that was a good primer on the Koguryo Diaspora. Did you have a chance to read it? Please do when you get the opportunity.

http://www.korea.net/news/news/newsView.asp?serial_no=20040303016&part=111 or cut and past this link : www.korea.net/news/news/newsView.asp?serial_no=20040303016&part=111 WangKon936 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, I don't know if you read Chinese characters at all, but this is where to look with regard to the claims that Li Bian (the founder of Southern Tang) made: zh:s:資治通鑑/卷282. --Nlu (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To WangKon, nice source, thanks

To Nlu, I know a number of Chinese charecters, just don't know Chinese pronunciation, and I agree with you on Southern Tang's claim. Good friend100 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Friend. Parhae ONLY declared that they were the sucessors to Koguryo in diplomatic language to Japan. They never said they were the sucessors to Koguryo to the Tang or to Silla for that matter. Parhae did this so they could inherit the good relationship that Koguryo had with Japan. The royal surname of Koguryo was Ko and most of the diplomats sent to Japan were Ko's. Now, most of the diplomats sent to Tang had the surname of Dae, which various Tang sources could be Malgal, could be Koguryo, but no one says they were any of the major royal surnames of Koguryo that were known at the time. Parhae is a complex nation and to say that they are just the sucessors to Koguryo is, in my opinion and based on the surviving information, just too simplistic to say. WangKon936 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I just noticed that this dispute had basically spilt over at the Balhae article as well. I'm not going to get involved in the disputes, but I suggest participating editors spend their efforts on how to represent both sides of the issue fairly and equally rather than arguing over which country "owns" Goguryeo and Balhae. Leave that to the experts. Our job as WP editors is to only reflect credible sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wangkon, do you have a source on that? I have never heard of that before. All my sources dont say anything about that.

Yep, "J.Reckel; The Ya-in (Jurchen) on Korea's Northern Border until the 12th century." Dr. Johannes Reckel is professor of Asian History at the University of Goettingen in Germany. His PhD thesis was entirely on Parhae and some of it was incorporated in the Ya-in article. So ALL your sources say otherwise? Then let me as you a question. How many of your sources are non-Korean? WangKon936 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

When will this edit lock be removed? I'm itching to edit the article and I wonder if there is any way to block editors from making only POV edits. Good friend100 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a current request for mediation still opened for this and two related articles. It would probably be best that the RfM run its course before the article is unprotected. It doesn't seem like edit disputes have been settled. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• [14]

  [15]

  [16]

all others are written by Korean authors or korean sites. Good friend100 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that your sources above are not very strong and appear to be just mirrors of other internet sources. WangKon936 06:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

The above poll is very large. I am sure we have reached consensus in numerous polls previously, yet, very little action seems to have taken place. If it is not guaranteed that the page will open to edits, or close this pointless argument entirely, I see no reason to invest time into making and polls and placing votes on them.

The consensus has also been under attack before about being too democratic. I am in support of this. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and moves and article substance should not be determined by mere votes. I suggest we group a final compilation of every evidence each side can scrape up, and start off from there. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as no action being taken -- I'm busy today, and that's why I haven't done it yet, but I am planning (now, tomorrow) to implement what I believe has been shown to be consensus, and unprotect the article. --Nlu (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, what do you think of this? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good as the starting point after unprotection, but as I'll explain below (obliquely, lest that it brings trolling), I'm postponing the unprotection. --Nlu (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I propose that the name be reverted from Goguryeo back to Koguryo. The McCune-Reischauer form of romanization is by far the most common form of romanization in English. I see no reason why the South Korean form of romanization is used considering the fact that both capitals and much of the land/population were located in what is now the DPRK and Southern Northeast China. Assault11 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want the policy at WP:MOS-KO modified, you should discuss there. Right now, using McCune-Reischauer would violate that policy. --Nlu (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean kingdom/state

Here are non-Korean sources that refer to Goguryeo as "Korean". I present this evidence in support of including "Korean" in the "ancient Korean kingdom" part in the introductory summary.

Korea – A religious history, James Huntley Grayson 22

Two Korean powers emerged, Paekche and Koguryo, which for more than 200 years engaged in constant warfare.

Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): 300-1300AD By Stephen R. Turnbull, Wayne Reynolds 6

At the time, Korea was divided into the three kingdoms of Koguryo, Silla and Paekche. The attack was led by an emperor of the Sui dynasty, who unsuccessfully attacked the northernmost Korean state of Koguryo.

Korea, the Divided Nation By Edward A. Olsen 14

Concurrently, but to the north of China’s main outpost on the peninsula, two other states with Korean roots emerged. Centered well north of and in the Yalu river basin, the states of Pusyo and Koguryo were created. Puyo’s identity blurred the distinctions between Manchurians and Koreans, whereas Koguryo was more clearly Korean despite its territorial slope, which extended beyond the peninsula.

First You Shave Your Head By Geraldine A. Larkin

The Kingdom of Koguryo is formed as the first independent Korean state. Koguryo is joined by the sister kingdom of Paekche.

The Cambridge history of Japan By John Whitney Hall 298

In the fourth century, the people of Korea took important steps toward political consolidation, forming three major kingdoms and a separate league of smaller states. At the beginning of the century, northern Korea was still dominated by the Chinese commanderies, but in 313, when the Western Chin was about to collapse, the rising northern Korean state of Koguryo conquered Tai-fang and Lo-lang.

Sisterhood Is Global: The International Women's Movement Anthology By Robin Morgan 402

The first Korean state, Koguryo, evolved in the north in the 1st century C.E. Two other Korean kingdoms, Paekche and Silla, emerged in the south in c.250 and c.350 respectively.

Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures: Issues on the Historical Archaeology of Ancient Japan By William Wayne Farris 112

The earliest Korean state to come into existence was Koguryo during the first century A.D.

Tang China and the Collapse of the Uighur Empire: A Documentary History By Michael Robert Drompp 21

Chinese sources inform us that between 649 and 68, Uighur troops participated in a total of five different Tang campaigns against the Eastern and Western Turks as well as the Korean state of Koguryo.

South Korea in Pictures By Amy Ruth, June Swanson, Alison Behnke 20

Around the first century B.C., several Korean groups united and formed the state of Koguryo in the northeastern part of the peninsula. Despite repeated attacks by the Chinese, Koguryo gained control of a portion of Manchuria(in modern China) and extended across the northern and central parts of the Korea peninsula.

Korea and Globalization: politics, economics and culture By Amadu Sesay, James Bryant Lewis 185

It is well known that Buddhist teachings penetrated to the northern Korean kingdom of Koguryo by AD 372 with the help of the Chin emperor Fu Chien, who was an ardent Buddhist and included in his mission to the neighboring Korean state a Buddhist monk called Shuen-tao(Sundo in Korean).

Global Connections: The World in the Early Medieval Age 600-900 Ce By Wilfred J. Bisson 135

Meanwhile, the Tang Dynasty, remembering the humiliating defeats dealt it by Koguryo adopted another strategy to conquer the Korean kingdoms.

The Archaeology of Korea By Sarah Milledge Nelson

We have seen that a number of basic Korean traits can be traced to various parts of the peninsula during the Three Kingdoms period. Koguryo wall murals depict clothing, hair styles, dwellings and even kitchens that were little changed into this century.

Religion and Biography in China and Tibet By Benjamin Penny

Defeated by the Tuoba Northern Wei, the rulers of Northern Yan either ended up in Tuoba hands or shifted to Koguryo, the northernmost “Korean” state, for the Feng had a close connection with Koguryo.

China: Understanding Its Past By Linda K. Mention, Eileen H. Tamura, Noren W. Lush, Francis K. C. Tsui, Warren Cohen

In the fourth century A.D., Koreans in the northernmost state of Koguryo established a school devoted to the teachings of Confucius.

A Political And Economic Dictionary Of East Asia By James. E. Hoare, Susan Pares

In a continuing movement eastwards, Korean Buddhist missionaries from the Paekche and Koguryo kingdoms brought the religion to Japan during the 6th and 7th centuries.

The Cambridge History of China By Denis Twitchett

Soon, however, events in Korea forced the issue. The tension between the three Korean kingdoms grew more intense, and Koguryo became increasingly belligerent towards China.

Medieval Chinese warfare, 300-900 By David Andrew Graff

In the north, Sui hegemony was resisted by the Korean kingdom of Koguryo.

She is said to have led a successful campaign against the three Korean kingdoms of the time, Silla, Koguryo and Paekche.

Emperor Yang of the Sui Dynasty: His Life, Times and Legacy By Victor Cunrui Xiong

The Korean state of Koguryo will be dealt with in a separate section.

Pacific Asia in the Global System: An Introduction

A little later, three small, native Korean kingdoms grew into the power vacuum: Koguryo in the north, Paekche in the southwest, and Silla in the southeast.

Chinese Imperial City Planning By Nancy Riva Shatzman Steinhardt

After the collapse of the Western Jin at the beginning of the fourth century the territory had been taken by the Korean Koguryo kingdom, eventually falling to the Tang in 669.

Chinese Grand Strategy and Maritime Power By Thomas M. Kane

By the fifth century, however, Japan had united with Wu’s successor states in order to protect their allies in southwestern Korea from a coalition which included both north China and the powerful Korean kingdom of Koguryo.

China By Justin Wintle

Koguryo, one of three Korean kingdoms (the others being Paekche and Silla) refuses to render ‘traditional’ tribute and launches a raid against northeastern China.

Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400 By Tansen Sen

Emperor Taizong was preparing a large scale military offensive against Koguryo when he met Xuanzang. Two months earlier, the emperor, facing stiff opposition from his leading ministers, had tried hard to justify his expedition against the Korean kingdom.

Cydevil38 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo / Koguryo / Kao-ku-li cited as being "Tungusic" and/or something other than "Korean"

• State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives By Gina Lee Barnes, p. 24, Published 2001 Routledge, ISBN 0700713239

  "Gardiner (1964:428) has characterized the late 3rd century as one in which Koguryo was transformed: 'from a Chinese border state, existing mainly by the plunder of the Chinese outposts in the north-east, to a kingdom centred in Korea proper, in which the formerly independent tribal communities of the ... Wo-chu [K. Okcho] and others had been merged.'"

  --Endroit 04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same source, Koguryo was the first Korean state to accept Buddhism. Cydevil38 04:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole sentence cited above... It says Goguryeo (Koguryo) became Korean in the late 3rd century.--Endroit 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Gardiner and Barnes would be rather offended if they saw you use bits and pieces of what they say to support a premise they would not agree with. Both Gardiner and Barnes believe that Koguryo falls very strongly within Korean histography, that is why you have to quote what they say from books that describe Korean (not Chinese) history. WangKon936 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So what did Gardiner (and Barnes) believe Goguryeo to be, prior to the 3rd century? Did Gardiner believe Goguryeo was "Korean" to begin with, since its very begining? Can you cite a source for that, with respect to Gardiner? Does Gardiner use the word "Korean" to describe the nature of Goguryeo prior to the 3rd century?

This is merely a geographic perspective.... While Goguryeo was confined to Manchuria (in the very early years), it was not yet "Korean".--Endroit 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of when Goguryeo became "Korean", the fact is that both Gardiner and Barnes refer to Goguryeo as a Korean state/kingdom. Cydevil38 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, Gardiner says Goguryeo was "a Chinese border state" in the begining, regardless of what they became later.--Endroit 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are simply sidestepping the main arguments and using small parts of the source to make up your argument. The author agrees that Goguryeo is considered Korean. Good friend100 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• A History of Korean Literature By Peter H. Lee, p. 17, Published 2003 Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521828589

  "The few fragmentary records in Weiji (Records of Wei, written by Chen Shou in 285-297), Hou Hanshu (History of Later Han, by Fan Ye in 398-445), and Zhoushu (History of Zhou, c. 629), as well as some extant linguistic fragments enable us to speculate that the Koguryo language was Tungusic, as were with the languages of Puyo, Okcho, and Yamaek; that the languages of the Three Han states were merely dialects of each other; and that the languages of Silla and Paekche, which absorbed the Three Han states, were much closer to each other than they were to the Koguryo language."

  --Endroit 04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same source, Goguryeo is put under the category of "Korean dynasties". Cydevil38 04:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Goguryeo (Koguryo) was a Korean dynasty with a Tungusic language and origins.--Endroit 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, you cannot say that Koguryo's language was Tungusic. There is no conclusive evidence that says that. Dr. Beckwidth's book would present some evidence to the Tugustic effect, but it is not conclusive. Remember, Paekje came from Koguryo and analysis of surviving Paekje words in the Nihon Shoki show that their language was probably closer to Silla's. Surviving evidence indicate that Koguryo and Silla's languages were different, however there is no conclusive evidence that states that their languages were mutually unintelligable. WangKon936 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter H. Lee declares that the Goguryeo (Koguryo) language was Tungusic, and I merely quoted him above.

There is no conclusive evidence that the Goguryeo language was closer to the Silla language either (as opposed to the Tungusic languages). In any case, the scholars are split on this issue.--Endroit 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my point. Given how we have so little information on the Goguryeo language, we cannot dogmatically assert that it's a Han based or Tungustic based language (I have my own opinion on the matter that I can talk about later in a different avenue). Given there is no concensus from academia regarding the nature of Goguryeo's language, let's just leave hypthosis on language out of this conversation. WangKon936 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• History and Climate Change: A Eurocentric Perspective By Neville G. Brown, p. 142, Published 2001 Routledge, ISBN 0415019591

  "Hence in 611, the first of three campaigns was launched against the Koguryo, a Manchurian-Korean regime."

  --Endroit 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One rare exception. Cydevil38 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The War of Words Between South Korea and China Over An Ancient Kingdom: Why Both Sides Are Misguided By Mark Byington, George Mason University's History News Network

  "In the late 1930s a Chinese historian named Jin Yufu developed a linear model of racial descent for groups of peoples who occupied the Manchuria region from the earliest times to the present. He saw all of these peoples throughout time as belonging to one of three descent lineages, one of which – the Fuyu (K. Puyo) lineage – were the builders of the states called Puyo, Koguryo, and Paekche. Jin believed that with the destruction of Koguryo in 668 there were no more states established in Manchuria by the Fuyu lineage, but the remainder of this lineage became the present Korean nationality."

  --Endroit 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is only about Jin Yufu's views on people that once occupied the Manchuria region. Cydevil38 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Byington quotes Jin Yufu, and calls it "Puyo lineage" ("Fuyu lineage"), and not "Korean linieage". The choice of words here is important.--Endroit 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Asia East by South: A Cultural Geography By Joseph Earle Spencer, p. 364, Published 1954 Wiley, OCLC 231324

  "The marches later became a zone of contest between the sinicized forest-mountain peoples of Kaokuli and the south Korean agricultural peoples of Silla and Paikche."

  --Endroit 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pathetic. Endroit, you must be absolutely desperate and obsessed in your anti-Korea crusade to cite a work that is more than 50 years old. Cydevil38 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Take the words exactly as quoted above.... There's no need to get emotional.--Endroit 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

the book was written a while ago and I'm sure the author did not have much information on the subject at that time. Good friend100 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Genesis of East Asia, 221 B.C.-A.D. 907 By Charles Holcombe, p. 172, Published 2001 University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 0824824652

  "Koguryo rose as an independent and, at its peak, notably powerful kingdom to take the place of the disintegrating Chinese imperial government in northern Korea and Manchuria."

  --Endroit 10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same source, Relations between the Korean kingdoms and China continued to be close. Koguryo, for example, is known to have dispatched no fewer than eighty-six missions to the Northern Wei dynasty, including forty-one during the single regin of the emperor Xiaowen (471-497) alone. Cydevil38 14:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure they were Korean as well. Again, the choice of words is important here. "Independent kingdom" is more NPOV than "Korean kingdom", that's all.--Endroit 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Cambridge History of Japan: Volume 1, Ancient Japan edited by Kozo Yamamura, John Whitney Hall, Marius B Jansen, Madoka Kanai, Denis Twitchett, p. 361, Published 1993 Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521223520

  "Koguryo was founded in A.D. 313 when a federation of non-Chinese tribes of Tungus lineage succeeded in subjugating Lo-Lang, China's north Korean commandery."

  --Endroit 10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same source, In the previous Yayoi period, they had been limited largely to the exchange of envoys and gifts, but in Yamato times they were extended to migrations from, and a wider range of contacts with strong and independent Korean kingdoms: Koguryo, Paekche, and Silla. Cydevil38 14:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom founded by "non-Chinese tribes of Tungus lineage".--Endroit 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. began as a British colony. The English language is Germanic. But what people call "United States" is not British or Germanic. Just because its beginning may be related to neighboring cultures does not make it non-Korean. According to your logic, the Japan article should say Japan was "Koreanic" and "something other than Japanese," and have Korean history template and Korean name "Ilbon". Your citations call Goguryeo Korean, so call it Korean and be done with it. FieldNorth 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to argue by exceptions. There are nearly 500 books in Google books that call Goguryeo Korean. [17] FieldNorth 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That Korea derives its heritage from Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla is undisputed. That Goguryeo is part of Korea's history is undisputed as well.

However, during its early stages, Goguryeo inhabited Manchuria, before moving into the Korean peninsula. And in the later stages, Goguryeo territory stradled Korea and Manchuria. So that means Goguryeo wasn't exclusively Korean.--Endroit 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before Endroit, you are using a line of reasoning that finds little, if any support, in the international academic community. There is so little support out there that you have resorted to taking select quotations from scholars to fit your premise. None of these scholars, I guarentee you, would support your premise in its totallity. Nowhere in fair Western academic thought does one tie nationality to where a kingdom first begain. The Western world got over all that after the first half of the 20th century and stopped it for obvious reasons. WangKon936 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And that is where you are wrong. Mark Byrington clearly states the flaw in the Chinese claim on Goguryeo because it "started in China". I don't understand why the pro Gaogouli side keeps using this reason to justify that Goguryeo was not fully Korean or was Chinese. Good friend100 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My line of reasoning is based strictly on the English definition of the word "Korea", which is defined by the Korean peninsula. In no way is any portion of Manchuria included as part of Korea, at least not in the English language.

See the following definitions from American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Online. Please use the English definition of the word "Korea", here in the English Wikipedia.--Endroit 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A peninsula and former country of eastern Asia. Hence, the meaning of Korea is not exclusively geographic. Cydevil38 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Former country" is singular, and that didn't happen until 668 during Unified Silla. So Goguryeo became Korean as a unified "former country" only in 668, according to this definition. In any case, Goguryeo became Korean, but only after unification.--Endroit 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

wow your logic is twisted. It is about the ethnicity, not really the geopolitical sense. How can an ethnicity suddenly become another simply because of a unification.

The Goguryeo became Korean part simply does not make sense. How can your ethnicity, and basically your DNA change for any reason?

Again, I don't understand why you keep using geography and current borders to justify that Goguryeo wasn't Korean. That also applies for the pathetic argument about the movement of Goguryeo's capital.

Also, if China became a "singular" country where its 100% Chinese, I guess that the Yuan dynasty was where it began to be "fully Chinese". Thats obviously not true because everyone before the Yuan dynasty were the same people with same ethnicity (although they were obviously separated into different kingdoms, and I'm not excluding other minorities). Well thats very obvious that Korea occupies the Korean peninsula. It does not matter whether or not Korea controls Manchuria today. You still don't get my point. I have repeatedly said that the Chinese claim on Goguryeo is flawed because they think Goguryeo is theirs because its what is now in modern day China. I already know that TODAY Korea includes only the Korean territory. Good friend100 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, just admit that you're wrong & stop trying. You can clealry see that. Don't retreat to a dictionary definition. You know that Wikipedia goes beyond the dictionary def. (Wikimachine 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Apparently, the Korean definition of the English word "Korea" (implied by Good friedn100 & Wikimachine) differs from the ones I cited above.--Endroit 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delay in unprotection

Due to recently revealed information in the news, in a totally unrelated and irrelevant news event, I am postponing the unprotection indefinitely (but probably only for a couple days) since I have reason to believe that this page, among others, would be vandalized, particularly given that the information was initially incorrectly reported by the news media. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's what I think you are referring to, then I think it's a good idea. It's really a time for people to mourn and self reflect. WangKon936 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the validity of straw poll

This article is on the way to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation,why we here make such a straw poll？The straw poll cann't do anythings,considering the block of Wikipedia in China,so it is obvious the the result of straw poll are biased.--Ksyrie 07:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at here. If Wikipedia is not accessible from China, then obviously it's not part of the community consensus since it's not part of the community. There's nothing about Wikipedia guidelines on consensus that requires consensus from people who are not part of the Wikipedia community. Otherwise, we would never have consensuses on articles such as Israel and Abortion. --Nlu (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not what I want to express,for no matter what controversial article,the different parts were all well involved.But for this one, I don't know how many potential editors were excluded from giving their opinion and making strall polls.--Ksyrie 09:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, your point is not constructive to our discussion. Wiki has no control of what the PRC government does or does not decide to do. I think it's rather sad actually that a major world power has to filter the net. What exactly do they have to fear? The fact that most of world academia does not understand or support the logic of their Northeast Asian project?

How can you link my word to chinese government？Northeast Asian project is financed by chinese government but in the world most of archaeology projects are financed by governments,why the chinese financed project are deemed as non-scholar ones while others could be seen as scientific and constructive？--Ksyrie 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, it's a mote point. If they can't view wikipedia, then they can't edit. They essentially become a non-person to this entire debate. Blame the PRC, don't blame wiki or any of the wiki contributors. WangKon936 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what you want to say,chinese material presenting activity is the chinese government manipulating methods?,I feel silly about your words,the chinese government really filtering the net,but it is in their home,and the setup of chinese firewall fobidding the majority of chinese potetial editors to give their own participation in engwiki,that's a drawback in this Goguryeo disputes,not a gain for chinese world!You want to twist the con for pro？--Ksyrie 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that most of the Korean Wikipedians here live in the U.S. (Wikimachine 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Again, Ksyrie, there's nothing that we gain consensus of people who are not part of the Wikipedia community. Besides, there's sufficient participation from the PRC here in the Wikipedia community; a plurality of Chinese Wikipedia administrators live in the PRC, for example. --Nlu (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

emm,it is english wiki,not chinese one,further more the sysops living in PRC in chinese wiki werent active due to the block of wiki.I am sure the the wikipedia are hardly influenced by chinese government,the reason is too simple,the pro CCP editors couldnt access to wiki.--Ksyrie 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there shouldn't be "pro-CCP" or "anti-CCP" editors on here; Wikipedia is about NPOV, not about having multiple POVs battling each other. --Nlu (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

listen,it's not I who stired up the chinese government issue,you can find the first mention fo PRC government is from User:WangKon936 Wiki has no control of what the PRC government does or does not decide to do,and he want to link me to Chinese government,so I refuted him by listing the reason why I am not linked to Chinese government.--Ksyrie 11:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wang simply said that Wiki has no control of Chinese government, not Chinese government is trying to control Wiki.... seems that you've been fighting an imaginary foe all this time. (Wikimachine 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

To me,the imaginary foe may come from someone accusing me to be the master of a sockpuppet or a sockpuppet.I didn't worry about it groudlessly--Ksyrie 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here I stand scratching my head, wondering why Ksyrie would go ballistic on me when I just merely stated the obvious. WangKon936 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,ok,I found the problem,my poor english,I misunderstood the phrase Wiki has no control of what the PRC government does or does not decide to do as wiki isn't controlled by PRC government to do what it does or does not decide to do,and from which I inferred that Wang meant I am a Sockpuppet.--Ksyrie 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation taken by Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant

We strongly recommend private mediation. To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature. Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation". If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page. You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality. This message is being posted elsewhere. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

About unprotection

Last week, I was planning to unprotect the article, and then did not do so due to an unrelated event last week. I think the feelings with regard to that event has subsided, but at the same time, it now appears that the disputes are flaring up again, even though I do think the disputes are not affecting the consensuses the straw polls showed previously. I'd like to hear some thoughts, though, on whether we're ready for unprotection. (Mediators, in particular, if you think unprotection is inappropriate at the moment, I'd like to hear from you.) --Nlu (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that basic consensus have been formed with the result of these straw polls. Further disputes will probably only be resolved through bold, revert, discuss cycle. I would recommend the administrators to enforce WP:1RR in the discussion. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

About the national navigational templates strawpoll

The original one that I brought had long gone past its closing period, but whether the votes that came after the closing period are considered or not, there did appear to be a consensus for having {{History of Korea}} and a proposed {{History of Manchuria}} as templates on the page. If/when the article is unprotected (see above) that will be considered the initial point of consensus, I think. --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

when will the article be unprotected? Also, do you have a final manchuria template that everybody can comment on? Good friend100 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am still inclined to put forth my version for the time being given that people can edit it but haven't done so for a while. Once it's on, I'm sure people will be modifying it.

As for the timing of the unprotection, I'm honestly going to sleep on it tonight and then consider doing it in the morning (UTC -7). --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I am tentatively going to do it Thursday (4/26) morning (UTC -7). This morning I just can't do it properly. --Nlu (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so how's the History Template issue going?

Just that I have mid-terms going on. Is there a concensus? - General Tiger

I felt that there is one -- for {{History of Korea}} and {{History of Manchuria}}, some disagreements notwithstanding. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Article is unprotected. Please try to be on your best behavior. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done some style adjustments. Feel free to comment on it. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks a bunch. Good friend100 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is making construtive edits. Nothing controversial is going on. This is very pleasing to see :) ! (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 05:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As disappointed as I am with the decision to incorporate the HoM template, I will go along with the decision for now. However, based the argument above regarding Dongbei vs. Manchuria, I will put "Dongbei" in brackets next to the HoM title on the template - all reasons have been explained above. If you have any problems with it, please talk first. Assault11 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Separating out "modern politics"

Would anyone object if I separate most of the information out from the "Modern politics" section into a separate page named "Goguryeo controversies", or something like that? Then I can merge some of the information from the Northeast Project page. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Although you should at least offer a link to the new page in the current article. WangKon936 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'll show you what I meant. Check my modification on the section.

If anyone objects the move, feel free to revert it. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine, since we don't need all that clutter in the Goguryeo article. Good friend100 00:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

the "most powerful"?

I wouldn't agree that Goguryeo was *always* the most powerful of the three kingdoms. At times, it faced devastating defeats to other kingdoms, notably Baekje, which went as far as killing Gogugwon of Goguryeo and taking Pyongyang. So I believe the words "at times the most powerful of the three" is more accurate. Cydevil38 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to overall strength and power. Good friend100 14:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. You should know that Baekje had most of the fertile agricultural plains, and by the end of the Three Kingdoms era, Baekje was the most populous of the three despite its limited territory. Cydevil38 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, that's debatable. Silla, in the late 6th century, had the Han River valley, another grain basket of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, the quote on Koguryo's population came at her fall, when she had gone through years of continuous and exhaustive wars. In my opinion, the population of Koguryo before the invasions of Tang may have been very well higher then 690,000. Lastly, Koguryo did something that no other Korean kingdom ever did. it actively sought to ally with Northern tribes such as the Blackwater Malgal tribe. Even if Koguryo's population may have been lower then the other Korean kingdoms, they had consistant access to Malgal warriors. The Samguk Sagi is rife with references to how Koguryo soliders, in concert with Malgal tribesman, laid siege to Baekje and Silla fortifications. WangKon936 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I don't think it's appropriate to say that Koguryo was "the most powerful" of the three kingdoms. I'd say at times they were, but obviously sometimes they were not. WangKon936 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then when were they not the most powerful? I don't think there were any times when another Korean kingdom was more powerful until near Goguryeo's fall and the rise of Silla's power. Again, I was refering to the overall strength of Goguryeo over the other two kingdoms. Good friend100 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

how pitiful

it seems they have to have the word china at least once in the beginning of the article. That map was really edited so that people see the word "China" along with everything else. Instead go research and prove Goguryeo is Chinese instead of putting a flimsy cover on top. Good friend100 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The map was not edited, it was replaced. The old map was not free and didn't have any perspective on it. Now, it's easier for a reader who doesn't know this place to see where exactly the kingdom was. This kingdom will almost universally come to a general reader's attention because of the controversy surrounding it, most notably, the claims that it is "Chinese history" or "Korean history." The facts that these claims are made are not controversial. The merit of the claims is disputed. Since the controversy is so prevalent, it deserves a mention early on, and it makes sense to have a compromise where both parties get their viewpoint mentioned. If not, perhaps you run the risk of having your viewpoint be the one excluded--hardly being neutral. Komdori 20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check the cited sources before you revert them.

• Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom, arose in the north on both sides of the Yalu River by the 1st cent.

• Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc.

• the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea was divided until 668.

• Between its initial unification in the 7th century - from three predecessor Korean states - until the 20th century, Korea existed as a single independent country.

Cydevil38 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the sources, I moved them to later in the same sentence--you, on the other hand, deleted the cited statement that China and Korea are both claiming it as part of their heritage. This is important--because otherwise this probably wouldn't be so heated an article. This is the key reason most people are interested in this place, so I think it's unwise to remove it from the intro. Rather than beat everyone to death with the fact that you belive it is Korean (which is a somewhat ambiguous statement) why not be clear, concise, an accurate--it was a kingdom lying in both present day countries which both present day countries claim as part of their own heritage. Or, do you have a problem with an unbiased description like this? Komdori 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They stuck "China" right on top of "Goguryeo" so first impression is, is that Goguryeo is Chinese. how wimpy. pathetic attempt if it supposed to "neutralize" everything. Good friend100 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I replaced it with an alternative. Information on the modern disputes is still in the intro. Cydevil38 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, those sources are pretty clear, not ambiguous, that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom. There are other plenty of sources that clearly define Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom/state. Cydevil38 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, simply stating that Goguryeo's historic legacy is contested by the two countries is not entirely free of bias, especially in the manner that you have presented it. That would be giving undue weight to Chinese claims to Goguryeo's historic legacy, which is denied in most third-party sources. Cydevil38 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who started this section, but would people please stop using such emotionally loaded language such as "pitiful"...? It seems like people here have a maturity problem or something? Can't we all act like a bunch of adults instead of "he said, she said" junior high school students?

Anyways. Komdori, I'd advise that you read the previous discussions in this page and try and understand the kind of consensus that many of us actively participated in over the past couple of months. It seems rather unfair that you are making modifications to the article without appreciating what has been done under consensus thus far. It's hardly fair for you to be an active participant at this point, when you were an inactive observer for so long. I'd advise that you reach some sort of visibility here before you make too many changes to the article, otherwise, you can only expect people who have been actively involved for much longer then you to misunderstand and be defensive. WangKon936 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As you mentioned, I of course have been reading the article thus far. What's more, I'm an involved party in the mediation, so far more so than the majority of other users who have not even created accounts. There is no need to require users to "pay dues" by increasing visibility here, but I understand your point--that's why I'm actively engaging in conversation related to the (very few) changes I've proposed as compromises for both sides. Komdori 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not "requiring" anyone to do anything. I am merely making a suggestion to make your experience on wikipedia a smoother one. WangKon936 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing maps and templates without full discussion and consensus first. The Three Kingdoms map is most relevant because it is historically contemporaneous, and Goguryeo is one of the Three Kingdoms, as most prominent sources describe it. FieldNorth 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am in support of Komdori's edits, including his map. Why obscure the location of Goguryeo? Why hide the undisputable fact that much of Goguryeo straddled today's Korea and China? Why are some editors trying to hide, or even sensor, any possibility that Goguryeo was related to China? I think it serves the readers better to clarify what aspects of Goguryeo were possibly Korean, and what aspects were possibly Chinese, and then let the readers think for themselves.--Endroit 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, if you reason this out logically, the standing belief is that Goguryeo is Korean & the opinion born in opposition to that dogma is that Goguryeo is Chinese. Therefore, any attempts to neutralize the article or quote "include 'China'" are not the status quo but challenge to the status quo. Then, you cannot blame the status quo for trying to push for a non-existent status quo in apposition to the "status quo" that really is the opposition advocating for a change to the status quo. However, you can blame the opposition (CPOV) for sweating real hard to include "China" in every bit of the article, change the map, etc... in order the challenge the status quo. In that sense, Good friend100 has every right to complain about this sweating business that I was also protesting about. At the same time, you are forming an aggressive stance by accusing Good friend100 of obscuring, hiding, sensor, etc. (Wikimachine 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

I object to the manner in which you are trying to suppress any mention of the Chinese connection to Goguryeo. You cannot sensor any information here by claiming "status quo". As proof of that, we're in mediation right now, trying to sort this out.--Endroit 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm... show anywhere in the thread where I tried to suppress any mention of Chinese connection to Goguryeo. Maybe you're overreacting. Status quo means "current state of things", "the thing that is set or established currently", etc. Let's not go into these weak accusations that can be easily refuted. (Wikimachine 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

It's clear some people are viewing this as a "war," which leads to people edit warring. I for one am surprised to be lumped in with some kind of "opposition CPOV"--not only am I Korean, but not long ago was being accused of having a JPOV in other articles by the same editors. Komdori 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, if anything, you're the one trying to distort the "truth" by "hiding" a widely held consensus that Goguryeo is Korean. You're the one who's sweating real hard to twist and distort the "truth" from very selective sources, many of which in fact even contradict your position. So don't be hypocritical by accusing others of "hiding" the "truth". Relevant sections of the talk page: Talk:Goguryeo#Korean kingdom/state Talk:Goguryeo#Goguryeo / Koguryo / Kao-ku-li cited as being "Tungusic" and/or something other than "Korean" Cydevil38 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Read the whole thing, particularly:

• Talk:Goguryeo#Goguryeo / Koguryo / Kao-ku-li cited as being "Tungusic" and/or something other than "Korean"

And you'll see what aspects of Goguryeo (Koguryo/Kao-ku-li) were Korean, Chinese, Manchurian, Tungusic, non-Korean, or independent (not necessarily mutually exclusive) as well. It's just a matter of keeping your eyes open. A blanket statement that "Goguryeo was Korean" is contradicted by some sources, to say the least. And it is a major reason we are having a mediation.--Endroit 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the mediation does not need any more discussion raising edits as it has enough now. I'm sure there was an agreement mentioning China using the name templates. Good friend100 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If people are revert-warring over which map to use, we need to cover it in mediation then. That's unless you come to an agreement here in this talk page. (I'll give you 3 days for you to come to consensus.) If, in 3 days, you don't come to a consensus, I'll ask for it to be covered in mediation anyways.

The same thing goes for the wording "was a Korean kingdom" vs. "was an ancient kingdom" as well, for which I believe you DID come to a consensus already.--Endroit 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that matter, and it will be covered in the mediation. Cydevil38 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Choosing Maps - Current day boundaries vs. Ancient Boundaries

I started this section so we can all discuss and come to a concensus regarding which map to use. Personally, I think it's best to use the map that describes the boundaries at the time of the kingdom's existance rather then an overlay of today's boundaries. I've checked other articles about ancient kingdoms in wiki and all that I've seen (Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Alexander the Great) do not show current national boundaries. Some wiki articles show today's boundaries, but never any labels on the location of current nations. Overlaying Koguryo with both current day boundaries and nation labels would be rather odd and inconsistant with the rest of wiki.

If you give most people a map of Europe with boundaries, but no names, they will have far less trouble labeling Italy, France, Germany, etc. than if you give them a zoomed in map of an "obscure" area in the far East. If the consensus is to have Baekje and Silla on there, fine, I can add them to the map with today's boundaries--since I doubt anyone who's being rational will suggest most English speakers unfamiliar with the area can know with certainty which country is where. That being said, if the consensus is to add the other countries, we should probably add all the surrounding kingdoms as well, not just the Korean ones. Komdori 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Having the territory overlay map in Goguryeo controversies (as it is now) is probably most appropriate. WangKon936 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We can alter it, but it's absolutely essential to help people know where this is. Most people are not like you and me, they don't know where this is, just a vague idea that all these countries are over there. Komdori 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting map at this point since I'm willing to change it and it is custom done for the infobox (I know because I did it). There was not a picture of the three kingdoms before, so that would be a new change as well. Either that or we can remove all pictures until more of a consensus is formed, but that doesn't serve anyone... Komdori 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is better to keep what was there before you made the changes. Get concenus first, then make the change based on concensus. It makes very little sense to make a change, then ask for concensus, particularly on something as important as a map to show the position and size of said kingdom. Furthermore, I think most people on English wikipedia know what the Korean peninsula looks like. It's not yours to assume that they wouldn't. What about the map on Alexander the Great? There are no borders or labels there. Many English speaking people are rather unfamiliar with what the entire middle eastern region looks like on a map. Should we change that also?

Make your point here first. Convince some of us as to your point, then make the changes, otherwise you'll invite more problems and headaches, stuff that more moderate people here are tired of dealing with. WangKon936 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing else before (just a non-free image that would need to be removed), should it go to being blank? Looking at the record of the page and the talk page here, there are more in support of it than against... Komdori 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As for most people knowing what the Korean peninsula looks like, if you believe that, you're sadly mistaken. In the East Asian Studies dept here, a colleague is doing some research for history education at the university level in the US and Europe. Startingly, usually not a single person can even point to Taiwan or Korea on a map out of a class of several dozen. If there are more than 100 people, usually one gets it right. Sorry, but outside of Asia, most people don't know what is going on over there. They do have a vague feeling of what countries are over there, and we should make use of any possible knowledge they have as much as we can. Komdori 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my US history teacher from 7th grade long time ago thought that S. Korea was somewhere near Taiwan. (Wikimachine 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Heheh sadly, the best we get is that they're both "over there" somewhere. Komdori 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, if locating the Korean peninsula is your only concern, then perhaps you can just add modern political boundaries on the Three Kingdoms map as dotted lines, and mark modern states with much smaller fonts with less prominent colors. Cydevil38 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about--I'd be happy to do that; if we want to use the 3 kingdoms map, though, I'll add the territories above it, unless someone has an objection to that? While I'm at it, any other changes anyone can suggest? Komdori 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot assume that nobody knows where Korea is simply using your class. I don't understand why you have to start another problem. We unblocked this article and now we are leading down the same path as a couple months before. Good friend100 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Try reading what's written. We're talking about hundred of classes in over a dozen nations, my goodfriend. Anyway, that's beside the point--the idea is that we should try to take advantage of the pathetically small amount of knowledge that most people have. That's the whole point with these articles, to make a source of information many can learn from rather than just an pieced-together article that serves some political purpose. Myself, I'd suggest this article gets protection. I hope it does--it might move the mediation case along. Komdori 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about hundred of classes in over a dozen nations, my goodfriend.

hehehe your good Good friend100 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears as if Komdori's intentions are educational rather then political. However, your map is apparently making people think that your intentions are political rather then educational. To those ends, I'd recommend that you make the boundaries and labels a little more subtle. It will still achieve your ends as well as make many people here feel more comfortable.

Lastly, I personally still don't see the need to put national boundaries and nation labels on the map. Why? Well you have to think about the audience. How many people who are ignorant about where East Asia is are going to click onto "Goguryeo" and learn about a kingdom that is very obscure to the average non-Asian English speaker? People who click Goguryeo and check out the article are going to have at least some understanding of where East Asia is geographically, thus an outlay of the Korean peninsula and Liadong is not going to look foreign to them. WangKon936 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WanKon about modern political boundaries, I think Kondori's intention is clearly anti-Korean for the sake of being anti-Korean, not any lofty concern for ignorant users, since this type of map is not done for other articles, and especially the way he placed the label Goguryeo right in "Chinese" territory.

Also, about the list of Goguryeo kings at Template:Goguryeo monarchs, biased editors are changing the top line without discussion or consensus here. Please stop it. FieldNorth 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In the future, try to assume good faith... and for the record, I didn't place the Goguryeo label at all--it was already on the base map (Korean three kingdoms) I used. Talk about a persecution complex...

Since you've undoubtedly seen that map since you reverted to it multiple times, perhaps even you missed the fact that it was so squarely in "Chinese territory" since there was no point of reference. It seems that even the hard core enthusiasts on this subject still could benefit from the modern boundaries. I'm incorporating them into a newer version based on the constructive suggestions, so look for a new version coming soon (hopefully with a bit of a compromise, we can get one that everyone will be happy with). Komdori 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of good faith is something that is in rather short supply in this particular topic, I'm sorry to say. It's not you, it's the difficult history of how disputes have been handled here. Just meet skepticism with patience on your end and you'll do fine. WangKon936 06:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Where is this "discussion" that established the so-called "consensus" on another rewording of Goguryeo's characterization in the intorductory section? Cydevil38 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, you are really begining to try my patience. Much more so then any pro-PRC/Northeast Asia Project adhearent. Over the past two months we have established that Koguryo should be called an "asian kingdom." You said so yourself here: Talk:Goguryeo / Archive5 / Idea of a Manchurian history template as compromise? that calling Koguryo an "ancient kingdom" was fine.

Did we also not come to concensus regarding the fact that Koguryo is one of the three kingdoms of Korea and can be considered as a regional kingdom in Manchurian history? I've made the point several times throughout the discussion over the past month or so and no one really objected or at least came up with an effective counter. WangKon936 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it that important to stress what Chinese think of Goguryeo in a concise summary of Gougryeo history? If Chinese views are to be presented, I believe Korean views should also be presented in fairness, but at the end of the introductory paragraph, not the front. Cydevil38 05:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "Pax Sinica" passage was not a "childish personal mouthpiece". It was sourced:

Because Chinese, like all peoples, view the groups to which they belong as inherently good, they simply did not imagine that Koreans would object to being part of a past and future Pax Sinica. Korean rejection of “China’s Koguryo,” furthermore, was likely met by the anger of those who feel their cherished in-group identities are being challenged.

The above and the source from which it's from is the expert opinion on why Goguryeo is important for both Koreans and Chinese for different reasons. The article should present views of both Koreans and Chinese in a fair manner with proper reasonings. Cydevil38 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, it's not fair to refer to Chinese policy with a latin term that is not widely used. You do that, you'll get inflammatory reaction in return. If I don't erase it, I guarantee someone else will, and they will add a bunch of nonsense in retaliation. WangKon936 06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe "by the Chinese" is an overly broad stroke. I'd suggest "by some People's Republic of China historians." --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. When Mary Byington and Gari Ledyard went to museums in Manchuria, the officals and curators there said that Koguryo was important to them because they viewed it as an important part of the regional history of Dongbei, independent of what the government in Bejing thought. WangKon936 05:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"They" are some historians from the People's Republic of China. As I recall, Byington also pointed out that most Chinese don't even know or care about Goguryeo. And I still believe that what Chinese or what some Chinese historians think about Goguryeo don't belong to the opening paragraph, and it is should be included, I think how Koreans view Goguryeo should also be included in fairness. Cydevil38 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can we compromise and say that "...viewed as an important regional kingdom in Manchuria by many Chinese" ? WangKon936 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just don't think what "Chinese think" is as important to mention it on the beginning of the introductory paragraph. Aside from that, the current version is fine. While I don't like it, I won't go so far as taking it out. I'm saying this just in case users like Endroit will use this case as a "consensus" to push for another CPOV edit based on previous compromises. Cydevil38 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese regional concept is extremely rare and generally rejected by mainstream, non-Chinese references. There's already more than enough coverage of this modern political issue in the separate article, summarized in its own section in this article, and even in the introduction. This fringe view should not be included in the very first sentence. FieldNorth 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've re-inserted this as a compromise: Goguryeo is considered an important ancestral state of the Korean nation by the Koreans. It is also considered an important part of regional history of Northeast China by the local Chinese.

I feel that presents both sides fairly, but as I've said previously, I won't dwell on it. As for the usage of "local Chinese", I feel that term is more appropriate than "People's Republic of China", or "People's Republic of China's historians", because I do think Wangkon's point that some historians have been making assertions on Goguryeo prior to its adoption by the central government does hold water. Also, I've had personal experiences with Northeast Chinese who do indeed regard it as an important part of their identity, though they take it very differently than what the Chinese government intends. So I think "local Chinese", or more specifically "some local Chinese" is the most proper term. Cydevil38 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, simply your own perspective cannot justify anything. The entire Chinese government agrees that Gaogouli is a Chinese kingdom. Chinapride 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets & trolls

Please watch out for sockpuppets here. User:FieldNorth has just been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Etimesoy. See:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Etimesoy

This is also the same person as User:CronusXT. This person has disrupted our discussion by trying to create a "lack of consensus" here, and by revert-warring. The reality is that we already have some consensus that both Korea AND Manchuria (or Northeast China) need to be mentioned appropriately somehow.

Also, I reverted all edits by User:Dongsoola, as that user seemed to be just trolling. Hopefully, the mediators can help us determine who's who here, and we can maintain some sanity here.--Endroit 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like for you to clarify what you mean by "some consensus that both Korea AND Manchuria..." b/c I kind of forgot what we were talking about here & I don't want anything loose slipping in. In introduction? (Wikimachine 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Only consensus I see on Manchuria is the option to include the Manchuria template. I don't recall a discussion about Manchuria in the introduction... or if there was one it hasn't reached a productive end or a definite conclusion. I agree with Cydevil in clarifying what is the mainstream Korean view & what is the view of several PRC historians in the intro. (Wikimachine 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

There is no such consensus. Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom that played a significant role in the regional history of Manchuria. I have provided extensive evidence to affirm to the general consensus among experts that Goguryeo is regarded a Korean kingdom, and this has yet received any substansive refutation. And I'm reverting Endroit's edits on User:Dongsoola's comments, as they are valid. Many historians see Maek tribe as the founders of Goguryeo, and also the major component of Korean ancestry. Cydevil38 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I count 2 major dissenters here, 3 if you include the sockpuppeteer as one.--Endroit 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Be more clear & use daily tongue, please. Definition of "dissenter": a person who dissents from some established policy. Definition of "dissent": a difference of opinion.

So, Cydevil and I are the "dissenters" & you are the status quo? Then let me ask you again.

• Clarify what you mean by "some consensus"
• Specify a discussion in this talk page where that consensus was reached.

It is my opinion that you, Endroit, are the sole dissenter among legitimate Wiki accounts. You constantly for your opinions, slipping in here and there; for example, failing to reason effectively against the majority's definition of Korea, you retreat to a simple dictionary definition. Well, if you want to write an encyclopedic NPOV article, don't refer to a one-sided, & generalized dictionary def. (Wikimachine 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Not even Endroit's dictionary argument can hold against scrutiny. He made some extrapolations on a simple dictionary definition that the "former country" the dictionary refers to is Unified Silla. However, the definition of "country" is not necessarily that of a political state. Cydevil38 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo and the Maek tribe

Current article about GoGuoryeo is missing the most important element, which is GoGooryo main tribe Maek. So whatever discussion is not really going in right direction. GoGooryo's ruling tribe is Maek and that's where the GoGooryo's identiy in ancient time exists. I am new in editing, I suggest someone to open discussion on Maek tribe.--Dongsoola 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I would like to also suggest to open a discussion on Japanese GoGooryo connection, especially Emishi and Maek tribe.--Dongsoola 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss the Yemaek tribe in this article, but I think we should only in passing. Talking about the individual constituents of Koguryo's population is getting a bit too granular for a wikipedia article. Keep in mind we are not writing an academic paper. WangKon936 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maek tribe is not just individual constituent, but probably most important characteristic of this ancient Kingdom.

Maek issue will never be settled in Korea and Japan, so I am bringing this up.

Chinese and Manchurian will never claim Koguryo as one of their kingdom if they know the real issue of Koguryo.

Maek issue is very very important to define racial characteristic of Korean, and understanding the how Japan came to its existence.

I strongly believe that Maek is Ainu descendant tribe. Maek is some kind of bear, and there is a lot of things that can relate Maek tribe with Emishi of Japan.

There are lots of evidences.

First, Emish were horse riders. u can find out about Emish in http://emishi-ezo.net/. They used horse riding tactics. Hokkato horse(Washu) is the same horse that is in GoGooryo Sooryupdo painting.

Emishi was called MoIn(毛人) by yamato in Japan, there is a theory in Korea that horse rider with last name Mo is the ancester of Korean last name Kim.

I believe that Emish's armour is the usuall Koguryo soldier armour. and that armour type is the root of Korean armour till Chosen dynasty.

Also I believe that Korean tradition of not cutting hair is descended from Ainu tradition of not cutting hair.

I belive Puyo is actually Ainu word of the holly window in East direction.

I am posting this, so that more people are aware of what I found out and bring advance in finding the true root of Korean. --Dongsoola 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I came to believe that Korean traditional boat is based on Ainu type wooden boat.

I am planning to edit this page with pictures and references in future, but I am giving out the facts for now.--Dongsoola 05:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on wording for the Intro

Looks like we are going to have to tediously tackle this thing paragraph by paragraph. I feel like a freak'in lawyer. Anyways, let's look at the current wording for this important sentence:

"It is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Goguryeo is also considered an important regional kingdom in Manchuria by the People's Republic of China. Goguryeo was the most powerful of the three kingdoms for much of its rule."

I recommend that we change this passage to:

"It is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Both North and South Korean consider Goguryeo as an important ancestral kingdom and helped forge Korean history, culture and ethnic identity. The People's Republic of China considers it an important regional kingdom in Manchuria that played a tributary role in the Chinese cultural sphere. Goguryeo was a powerful kingdom that was an active participant in the power struggle between the Three Kingdoms of Korea as well as the foreign affairs of associated Chinese kingdoms." WangKon936 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that to be factually inaccurate. Doesn't the People's Republic of China consider Goguryeo an ethnic minortiy kingdom in Manchuria that was a part of the greater Chinese nation? Cydevil38 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It would not be considered inaccurate because the PRC does believe Koguryo to be a regional power and a vassal state to Tang in addition to it being an ethic minority kingdom. They would also consider it a part of their greater history and nation, however, one must consider what wording or sets of words would incite the least amount of rhetoric. WangKon936 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still I think "tributary" or "vassal" state is too benign of how PRC views Goguryeo. Perhaps regional power of Chinese dynasties, or something in that line? Cydevil38 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Goguryo political interaction with Baekje and Silla considered internal affairs while that with other associated Chinese kingdoms considered foreign affairs? Ancient records seem to suggest the other way around.

Please expand and clarify and state who you are. Furthermore, I never said that inter-peninsular relations were "internal" affairs. The main difference is that Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla were vying for control of the peninsula. Goguryeo never had a policy of conquering Tang lands, only defending themselves from Tang incursions. WangKon936 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Goguryo did conquered lots of Tang land. Anyway I just want to tell you to be cautious about your statement above. There is subtle implication in your statement that between Baekje, Silla and Goguryo it's not foreign affairs, while with Tang it is. Goguryo probably considered itself independent and view ALL neighbouring kingdoms as foreign, even though its relationship with Tang is a little more vessel in nature. And regarding your question below, there has been some dispute about the History of Manchuria template. There just reached a compromise, please read the discussion on the that template. Wiki pokemon 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has "History of Manchuria" template been changed to "History of Northeast China"...? WangKon936 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why make another account? Having multiple accounts is allowed as long as you don't use them to abuse disputes/manipulate opinions. Yes, please provide a link to that "compromise" "There". I see that you are the one who created the History of Northeast China template. I reject cold. (Wikimachine 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

According to a study on Djarylgashinova's works, as far as I can remember, Goguryeo's politics centered around the peninsula focusing on the two other kingdoms which Goguryeo called as their "subjects". This view is based on records left by Goguryeo people themselves, such as the Gwanggaeto stele. Gwangaeto stele is basically a grandoise Goguryeo propaganda that it is(or should be) the master of the peninsula. Cydevil38 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Koguryo, based on evidence in the Samguk Sagi and Gwangaetto's stele, viewed relations with the kingdoms in Korea and relations with China differently. Koguryo considered all the kingdoms of Korea as their vassals. They never considered China their vassel, thus, in a sense, Koguryo would consider their relations with the other kingdoms of Korea as "internal" to a degree. Lastly, Baekje was founded by many refugees from both Koguryo and Puyo. Both these kingdoms, despite many years of conflict, would feel a sort of kin ship. Both Koguryo and Baekje worshipped Jumong as their progenitor. Lastly, Koguryo did not conquer Tang territory. Tang never controlled those parts of Manchuria at that particular time only until Koguryo fell. Besides, didn't Koguryo take Liaodong from Yan and not Tang? WangKon936 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is a lack of overwhelming disagreement on my suggested intro pp, I will go ahead and replace tomorrow afternoon. WangKon936 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Some users here have made a quite audacious assumption that China only means Han Chinese. I need to point out the truth that China's official 24 history records include "Official Records of Khitan Liao Dynasty", "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", "Official Records of Yuan Dynasty" and "Official Records of Qing Dynasty". After 1127, the North China is in most time conquered by people from nowadays North and Northeast China. After 1279, in most time the entire Han Chinese were also conquered. This Han Chinese assumption is incorrect because it is against the unchangeable history.--Jiejunkong 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Political connections between Goguryeo and "Central Plains dynasties"

This is a controversial claim made by the People's Republic of China and is covered in Goguryeo controversies. Cydevil38 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I made some edits on that section and changed the section name too. Good friend100 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the entire section is based on a work by Wei Chunchung, who was a participant of the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on "Central Plains Dynasties" is factually true, but I don't see it's point and I don't think it proves anything. Yamato Japan, Baekje and Silla were given similar titles and paid tribute in the Chinese vassal system in a similar manner. It doesn't mean anything other then Koguryo, like Silla, Baekje and Yamato Japan, acknowledged China as a powerful and cultured kingdom and maintaining relations with it would help bring them legitimacy, culture and technology. Furthermore, this section should not be in it's own seperate section but in a section summarizing Koguryo's overal relationship with the Chinese central plains dynasties in order to maintain NPOV. Lastly, the use of the term "Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" is not a standard term used in English academic circles. Yes, I know what it means, but I don't think most people would. It may need it's own wiki article or, a simpler term may need to be used. WangKon936 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that those who favor a specific and controversial POV are avoiding the discussions on this talk page and adding what they want via fiat. Not good. I suggest this gives us more latitude to change, edit or delete what they write unless they do a better job of defending their edits in this talk page. WangKon936 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is just plain untidy. Littered with dramatic descriptions and imaginative details and creative interpretations. Those who polluted this articles should clean it up. And stop the littering.Wiki pokemon 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki pokemon, you failed to address my question stated at a section above. Is this account one of multiple accounts that you have or do you own only one account? I checked your edit history & I don't think that you are a new user. (Wikimachine 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I like to let your curiosity keeps bugging you. :) Wiki pokemon 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, using multiple accounts is legit as long as you don't use it to manipulate opinion in discussions... that also means not using multiple accounts (also = sock puppets) to give the illusion that the majority thinks certain way is NPOV. If you own more than one account that is participating in this discussion, then it is certainly legit for me to report you for WP:SOCK. There is no room for you to play around with curiosity. (Wikimachine 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually I am curious about you too. How many sock puppets have you caught so far? I mean the real thing, not somebody you suspected and later turned out to be false accussation.Wiki Pokemon 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this entire section is based on a work by Wei Chuncheng, who's a part of the academic committee in the Northeast Project. While it is factually correct that Goguryeo at times paid tributes to engage in diplomatic relations and trade with China as any other Korean kingdoms, it is the Norhteast Project/PRC's interpretation that this tributary relationship somehow makes Goguryeo a "Chinese" kingdom. The section's source is biased and unreliable, and interpretation of facts is tainted by modern politics. I think the section can become much more NPOV when the section is based on a non-Chinese source and the tributary relationship is interpreted as a trade/diplomatic relationship rather than a political relationship, and also add context of how trade and diplomacy was done in Asia during those times.Cydevil38 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend we change this section to reflect Koguryo's overall relations with the Chinese dynasties as well as a section to discuss Koguryo's relations with the other intrapeninsula states (i.e. Baekje, Silla, Gaya, etc.). I don't really understand what purpose, educational or otherwise, a tedious list of tributary contributions by Koguryo to the Chinese dynasties would fulfill. I mean, if we are to keep things consistant, does that mean we include a similar section on the articles of other contemperary kingdoms that offered tribute to Chinese dynasties such as Silla, Baekje and Yamato Japan? Let's see what concensus on this looks like. Who is for or against? WangKon936 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A section on Goguryeo's diplomacy and politics sounds like a good idea. And Wei Chuncheng certainly shouldn't be a source. Cydevil38 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to achieve neutrality, please go to Talk:Goguryeo#Candidates_of_biased_non-NPOV_references to filter out all disqualified junk reference links. Thank you for trying to avoid selective blindness.--Jiejunkong 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What archaeological evidence is being invoked here?

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the end part reads:

"...although there is archaeological evidence that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon."

The emphasis above is mine. Please provide a source for this assertion. Mumun 無文 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As well as an acceptable source, the sentence needs brief text that indicate the evidence that is being invoked. For example, the passage could be handled this way: "...although there is archaeological evidence 'such as X, Y, and Z' that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon (SOURCE)." Mumun 無文 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Goguryeo-China war" is imprecise, where is Silla?

Silla and Tang Dynasty are on the same side. Silla is arguably more connected to modern Korea than Goguryeo. Jurchens were from Goguryeo, but had weaker connection with Silla.--Jiejunkong 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, Koguryo and the Chinese dynasties had several wars with each other since the 1st century A.D. Silla was pretty much not involved in these wars until about 660 A.D., when an alliance was formally agreed upon by Silla and the Tang Dynasty. The Jurchens were not around during Koguryo's time. The ancestors to the Jurchens, the Malgal (or Mohe) were around at the time. They were allied with Koguryo and lived in the northeast borders of Koguryo's domain, but they were not "from" Koguryo as you explain it. The Malgal (and hence the Jurchen) have a much stronger link with the kingdom that came after Koguryo, otherwise known as Parhae. WangKon936 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That section is about all the wars between Goguryeo and China, not just the Silla-Tang alliance against Goguryeo. Good friend100 13:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: First, according to the "Official Records of Liao Dynasty" and the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", Sumo Mohe of north Goguryeo founded Balhae, which was the successor of the north Goguryeo. Then Khitan Empire conquered Balhae in 10th century. But in early 12th century Heishui Mohe (i.e., Jurchens) destroyed Khitan Empire and many Sumo Mohe people became part of Jurchens. If you have ever read the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", the founder Wanyan Aguda had a famous statement: "Balhae and Jurchen are treated as the members of the same familiy". Jurchen is one of the major descendent of Goguryeo. And I don't see that you have any reason to delete such historical facts from my editing. I wonder if there is a Korean translation of the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty". If yes, please read it before you delete my editing. Such deletion actions are very non-professional and disturbing.

Second, Jurchens and Manchurians had lots of wars with Han Chinese in 12th, 13th, 17th centuries. But they are Chinese now. You cannot create a controversial "Jurchen-China wars" item for this obvious reason. Such behavior is ridiculous and makes you look bad (It doesn't make any sense. "Jurchen-Song Dynasty wars" is what you can do at most). "Goguryeo-China wars" is also controversial because of the non-trivial Goguryeo-Jurchen inheritance. It is obvious that the naming is improper, maybe with some malicious intentions.--Jiejunkong 01:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am putting "npov-section" flag on this "Goguryeo-China war" section because of the malicious naming. Here "China" is improperly quoted. Goguryeo, Silla, Baekje, Balhae, Jurchen Jin, Khitan are similar terms at the same level. Korea, China are similar terms at the same level. It is improper and likely malicious to create amaterish items like "Goguryeo-China war" or "Jurchen-Korea war". This is the reason why "npov-section" tag is applied here. Anybody who deletes the tag before a consensus can be reached is against the wikipedia rules.--Jiejunkong 01:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I need some clarification here. Why do you call our naming of the section "malicious"? I don't know what else to call those series of wars as they were against Koguryo and the Chinese Wei, Sui and Tang Dynasties. What do you mean by "terms at the same level"? You appear to have an agenda and a primary motivation, which is fine. What is it exactly so I can understand your grievances better. WangKon936 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply You are vehemently denying the connection between Goguryeo and Jurchen-Manchu, which is a very bad practice. Let me say something here: at year 1115 when Jurchen Jin Dynasty was founded by Wanyan Aguda, if a Jurchen person is not from the Heishui Mohe lineage line, then it is nearly sure that he/she is from Sumo Mohe lineage, which means that his/her ancestors were part of Goguryeo during 5th century and 7th century. With an analogy if I want to cut off your ancestor line or give you a false ancestor line, then it is malicious, isn't it? Unless you want to create and successfully maintain a "Jurchen-China wars" article, I warn you that your "Goguryeo-China wars" will be constantly under challenge for this reason.--Jiejunkong 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The title is relevant because it is about successive wars between Goguryeo and Chinese dynasties. Also, the Jurchens are not "major descendents" of Goguryeo, neither are the Khitans. Balhae, however, was a different case which had significant Mohe elements unlike Goguryeo. Cydevil38 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of history records you have read to issue such amaterish words. In the 2nd "Official Records of The Tang Dynasty", it was recorded that founder of Balhae, Dae Joyeong (大祚榮) was a former Goguryeo general who may have been from Sumo Mohe inheritance. According to the 1st "Official Records of the Tang Dynasty", Dae Joyeong was of a Goguryeo tribe and lived in Mohe, and the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms (Samguk Yusa) states that he was of Goguryeo inheritance. Either way, it is undeniable that Balhae is the direct descendent of Goguryeo. The connection between Balhae and Jurchen is proven by famous people like Wanyan Aguda, and I don't think you are in the position to deny the ancient records written about a thousand years ago by Jurchen people like Wanyan Xu. Please provide objective proofs in your statement next time, not some unverifiable claims.--Jiejunkong 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't read ancient history records. I read modern books on history that compound ancient history records as well as archaeological evidence. And what I am saying is that Mohe and Jurchens are not "major descendents" of Goguryeo. And the relation between Balhae and Goguryeo is not so direct - Goguryeo people were an ethnic minority in the Balhae kingdom, though they dominated the aristocracy. Demographic composition of Goguryeo and Balhae differed significantly, and its territorial centers differed significantly(Goguryeo: northern Korea and southern Manchuria, Balhae: northeastern Korea and eastern Manchuria). Oh, and even in the days of Balhae, Goguryeo elements and Mohe elements can still be dinstinguished from eachother archaeologically, which attests to the widely held consensus among historians that Balhae was a multi-ethnic kingdom. Cydevil38 04:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply You are telling the entire wikipedia that you are reading modern books twisted by modern politics instead of original witness records that were written a thousand years ago? Very interesting. I have to point out that, when Wanyan Xu wrote the "Official Records of Wanyan Aguda period" and "Official Records of Wanyan Wuqimai period", Jurchens were the worst enemy of Han Chinese, and Wanyan Xu had no intention to brainwash you with the modern political trashes, either from China or from Korea, or anywhere else in the modern world. :-)--Jiejunkong 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinions rely on experts who have extensive knowledge in historical documents as well as archaeological artifacts. If you want to do original research, go here: http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Cydevil38 02:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Throwing out a website is not helpful. You need to write down the detailed statements of those experts from the mentioned website to here, not just vaguely refer to some unverifiable “experts" to support you. In addition, even experts make mistakes and could be biased, you simply cannot use every word they said.--Jiejunkong 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've provided that site not to back my claims but to rather tell you where your original research belongs to. And what do experts think on Balhae? Lets take this for example:

Former Kogury terrain in Manchuria came under the control of the state of Parhae (or Bohai in Chinese), founded by a former Kogury general who first proclaimed a state of Chin, renamed Parhae in 713. It was made up of Kogury remnants and several Tungusic peoples (largely Malgal) living in central Manchuria (the present Heilongjiang Province in China). Parhae was on tense terms with the Tang to the west and with Silla to the south. In 733 Silla and the Tang allied against Parhae, which sought ties with the Tujue to the north and with Japan. Parhae managed to spread into northeastern Manchuria under King Mu (r. 719–37) and continued to expand into the mid-9th century. Its government was modeled after the Tang, with three chancelleries and six ministries. Its capital was placed at Sanggyng and patterned after Chang'an. To encourage the introduction of Chinese culture, Parhae sent students to Tang China; some took and passed the civil service examinations there. Parhae was conquered (926) by the Khitan, the Mongolian people who were soon to establish their own state, the Liao dynasty. Parhae was the last state of Korean origin to control Manchuria. Encyclopaedia of World History Cydevil38 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply It is a good habit to quote actual words directly from the author rather than to put a twisted interpretation of your own. Here is one of your interpretation which confused me. You claimed that you do blanking because my writeup has conflict with the "experts" opinion. I wondered what kind of expert you were talking about. Fortunately, I don't see any conflict between my understanding of the history and this quoted paragraph. First, I said two things in my writeup: (1) Balhae/Parhae is the major descendent of Goguryeo, and this quoted paragraph is consistent with the point; (2) Goguryeo-Balhae is a shared history of Sumo Mohe-Jurchen people and Korean people, and this quoted paragraph is again consistent with the point. This researcher wrote the paragraph based on canonical history records. Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1: "粟末靺鞨始附高麗，姓大氏。李績破高麗，粟末靺鞨保東牟山。後為渤海，稱王，傳十餘世。" (Sumo Mohe joined Goguryeo, its leader's surname is Da. When General Ji Li of Tang Dynasty destroyed Goguryeo, Sumo Mohe guarded Dong Mou Mountain, later became Balhae, and there was a king, lasted for more than 10 generations). Why are you giving something supporting my writeup to blank my writeup?--Jiejunkong 10:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you're making twisted interpretations of the given text. Does it say anything about the ethnic composition of Goguryeo? It only does so about Balhae, so how did you come to the conclusion that Goguryeo is a shared history of Jurchens and Koreans? With regards to ethnicities, it only says that Balhae comprised of Goguryeo remnants and Malgal peoples, but nothing about Goguryeo itself. Also, the given text refers to Balhae as having a "Korean origin", implying that Goguryeo was Korean, not to mention that the text came from the Korean history section. Granted, Balhae is a shared history of Koreans and Jurchens/Manchus, but Goguryeo is a different case. Cydevil38 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Your term "Korean origin" is a fascist term. More than a thousand years ago, the Goguryeo place had nothing to do with your fascist statement. At that time, Tungusic people in nowadays Manchuria and Korea Peninsula were divided into multiple tribes. They had no idea of the modern Korea (or China). At the time of year 600, there were tightly organized states like Goguryeo, Bakjie and Silla; and there were loosely coupled tribes like Mohe. To their west, there were Khitan, Xi and then Han Chinese people. Also it is verified by multiple canonical history records that part of Sumo Mohe scattered and merged into Goguryeo. Dae Jeoyong(大祚榮), the founder of Balhae, was the result of such convergence. He was a Goguryeo aristocrat and he was the chief of Sumo Mohe tribe (Can you deny this? You can't). How can you throw this "Korean origin" title on these ancient people? What do you mean by the so-called "Korean origin"? Silla origin? Goryeo origin? Well, Silla turned to be the worst enemy of Goguryeo, and Goryeo didn't exist until 300 years later. Again, you want to deny the Mohe-Balhae-Jurchen connection that were officially recorded by indifferent Han Chinese people living a thousand mile away (to the south of the Great Wall), and Jurchen people's own official records of their own ancestral line. And this denial is about a "Korean origin" that was non-existent at the Goguryeo-Balhae time. What you wrote is both technically and politically incorrect.--Jiejunkong 00:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then by your logic, Encyclopedia of World History, Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, CIA World Factbook all must be "fascist". "Korean origin" is not "my term". I've taken it directly from the given text which yourself said that it is "based on cacnoical history records". Cydevil38 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering what kind of research you are talking about. You twisted the professional researcher's results to suit your own need. The truth is, if you are doing research to find out your modern-time "Korean origin", it is fine to list Goguryeo in your statements to say that the ancient origin of your modern-time Korean blood is from Goguryeo. But this is by no means exclusive, as it is equally correct to say a Manchu Chinese person's ancient origin is also from Goguryeo （in particular Sumo Mohe-Goguryeo-Balhae-Jurchen line). In contrast, if at 6th century you use this non-existent "Korean origin" to argue that Goguryeo is Korean because of the back-to-future-style "Korean origin", then it is a fascist research.--Jiejunkong 02:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, I am disappointed and disturbed by the belligerant attitude you have displayed thus far. It is conduct unbecoming of a site that requires compromise and consensus. If you are seeking a fight regarding viewpoints on East Asian history, I suggest you go to www.asiafinest.com. I am in general agreement Cydevil's post above. I too believe that ancient documents need to be weighed in with modern scholarly textual analysis and archeology. Regarding Parhae, I get most of my sources from Dr. Johannes Reckel at the University of Goettingen. His PhD thesis was on Parhae and he used all the relevent Chinese, Jurchen, Korean (mostly from Koryo-Sa) and Japanese textual sources as well as archeology. I am in direct email correspondence to him and he sends me English language resources on Parhae. I also appreciate his viewpoint because it is very balanced. As a German, he's got no nationalistic axe to grind. Anyways, I think it would help us all if you can state your purpose a bit more clearly as I've requested in my earlier posting above. Thanks! WangKon936 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Hello. Anybody home? I think I am looking at some circular proofs here. Somebody, may be you, wrote some subjective articles and posted them online, then you inserted the "thing" in wikipedia to prove that your write-up is verifiable? I don't think the "thing" is more verifiable than the original official records written a thousand years ago. If you have never watched Rashomon ("In the forest"), I suggest you watch it for once to see my point here.--Jiejunkong 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on policies I believe that modern comments must give in, if they are inconsistent with original official records at the time of a historical event.--Jiejunkong 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

About www.asiafinest.com This site is not a professional website for history research. Please don't refer to such "things" in wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You might as well cite the Bible for Egyptian history. Cydevil38 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't know the meaning of canonical history records. The 24 canonical history records are all at least as good as Korea's "Samguk Sagi", which imitates Chinese's history record buildup methodology invented by Sima Qian. All professional historians, include Korean historians, rely on these history records to write their publications. Frankly speaking, I have the impression that you stay here only for the purpose of edit wargaming. This will never solve the problem. I want to alert the administration team that an amateur like you should quit this topic because you are incapable of contributing verifiable history facts.--Jiejunkong 10:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

All are invited to the History of Manchuria template discussion page[18]. There is a discussion on the appropriate use of "Northeast China" versus "Manchuria". The outcome of the discussion will probably affect this page as well. Wiki pokemon 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't selectively apply NPOV sources to push for one POV while denying its application for the other. If the name of the template is changed to "Northeast China", either the wording in this article should change to "Korean kingdom", or the template should simply be discarded from this article. Cydevil38 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not selective. I have not make any other edit about anything else except this. And so far I have not deny or even argue against anybody using NPOV sources to support their edits, because frankly I believe this is how Wikipedia should work. In addition this is not about POV. This is really simple, it is just about appropriateness and accuracy of a term. And you do agree that my sources are NPOV. Lastly I believe the consistency of the article will not be compromised, on the contrary it will improve dramatically by using "Northeast China".Wiki Pokemon 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stand by your principle of making edit based on NPOV sources. You yourself has been argueing fervently that this should be the way to do edit. And I have done exactly what you so highly advocated as the ultimate ethical standard of editing. Its hypocracy on your part to now suggest that it is wrong to do this just because it will lead to something which you did not want to see. Where have your ethical standard go? And who are you kidding, just because you don't like to use "Northeast China" the template would have to be discarded? Instead of complaining, you can do better by going to [19] and state your position explicitly and provide materials to support your position.Wiki Pokemon 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning to User:Good friend100

Before you delete disputation tags, you need to wait for consensus. And also I added my reasons in this talk page. My reasons are based on the history records I have read for years. These history records were recorded by Jurchen people like Wanyan Xu in 12th century. It has nothing to do with your temper or "the sickness" you mentioned. You need to calm down and discuss the issue before doing blanking. Thank you. --Jiejunkong 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you are in a position to forceibly warn anybody here. I think you need to calm down also. WangKon936 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't even know how to put a proper warning on somebody's talk page. Good friend100 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply I don't want to touch your talk pages. I have seen that some users doing writing on this page are using their talk pages to do rendezvous. I don't think it is wise for me to get involved.--Jiejunkong 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties"???

1. Based on researched conducted by people w/ conflict of interest 2. Entirely original research based on non-English primary sources (which effectively blocking everyone else from checking the facts) 3. Oh come one. You can't list Baidu Baike as a source like you can't list Wikipedia as a source (source Wikipedia on any research paper, you WILL get a fail-grade, at least in Columbia.) 66.108.252.91 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I think the titles of the two sections "Goguryeo-China wars" and "Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" are against NPOV. Keeping such titles will attract more editing wars rather than solving the problem. Second, I think those websites like Baidu Baike and Korean Encyclopedia written in modern times should be banned as verifiable sources due to obvious Rashomon reasons. Third, I have the text source of the official "Twenty-Four Histories" and I can provide the wikisource links in a few days. In Mohe-Jurchen time, Han Chinese treated the nowdays Northeast China as foreign lands, so the official records written by Han Chinese are objective due to indifference.--Jiejunkong 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To Cydevil38: dilemma in reference adding and blanking

First, without adding canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly (I think this is due to "WP:Unreferenced source"); Second, after I added canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly. Can we talk about how can we add verifiable history records into the article? My standing point is that, in the “Twenty-Four Histories” written at the moment of historical events (these history records were written in the next dynasty based on all collected books from the dynasty being described):

1. The Han Chinese people's records about Goguryeo and Balhae are credible and verifiable because of indifference （at that time the modern Northeast China was none of Han Chinese people's business);
2. And the Mohe-Jurchen people records about Goguryeo and Balhae are credible and verifiable because they didn't want to lie about their own ancestors and also had no intention "to help" the modern Chinese government.

I hope your deletions of my editings have good reasons, not due to your temper or lack of the ability to find out verifiable history records.--Jiejunkong 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidates of biased non-NPOV references

I am listing the current reference list below, and ask for the removal of those references with "XXX" prefixes.

• The "XXX" prefix means non-verifiable casual links from volatile and highly likely non-NPOV sites.
• An unmarked item with the original "^" sign is currently okay.
• "???" means that the author is a history researcher, but his/her attitude is questionable and highly likely biased.
• If a reference is with "XX" prefix, it is a non-historical reference presented by some amaterish writers (mostly newspaper and non-professional magazine columnists), so it lacks authority.
• If a reference is with "YYY" prefix, then it is NPOV and canonical/authoritative, but should be rewritten to make it look more professional.

XX ^ Austin Ramzy (2004). Rewriting History (HTML). TIME. Retrieved on 2007-05-07.

XX ^ Bruce Klingner (2004). China shock for South Korea (HTML). Asia Times. Retrieved on 2007-05-07.

??? ^ a b Koguryo (HTML). Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-12. ??? ^ Lee, Ki-baik (1984). A new history of Korea, tr. by Wagner & Shultz. Seoul: Ilchogak, 19. ISBN 89-337-0204-0.

XXX ^ History (HTML). Goguryeo. Proud History of Korea. Mygoguryeo.com (2004). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.

??? ^ 魏存成(Wei Chuncheng). “中原、南方政权对高句丽的管辖册封及高句丽改称高丽时间考(The Domination and Conferring Titles on Koguryo of the State Political Power of Central Plains and the Investigation on the Time of Changing the Name From Koguryo to Koryo).” 史学集刊(Collected Papers of History Studies), January 2004, No. 1, pp.73-79. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.articles/shixjk/shix2004/0401/040112.htm

XXX ^ Baidu Baike, a Chinese online and free Encyclopedia, http://baike.baidu.com/view/5801.htm, s.v. “高句丽.”

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《晋书•慕容隽载记》:高句丽王钊遣使谢恩，贡其方物。隽以钊为营州诸军事、征东大将军、营州刺史，封乐浪公，王如故。《三国史记•高句丽本纪》:十二月，王遣使诣燕，纳质修贡⋯⋯以王为征东大将军、营州刺史，封乐浪公，王如故。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《三国史记•高句丽本纪》:安帝封王高句丽王、乐安(浪)郡公。《南史•高句丽传》:晋安帝义熙九年，高丽王遣长史高翼奉表，献储白马，晋以琏为使持节、都督营州诸军事、征东将军、高丽王、乐浪公。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》:遣大鸿肪拜琏孙云使持节、都督辽海诸军事、征东将军、领护东夷中郎将、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》: 拜安为安东将军、领护东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》:出帝初，诏加延使持节、散骑常侍、车骑大将军、领护东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《北齐书•文宣帝纪》:以散骑常侍、车骑将军、领东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高丽王成 为使持节、侍中、骑大将军、领护东夷校尉，王、公如故。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《北齐书•废帝纪》: 以高丽王世子汤为使持节、领东夷校尉、辽东郡公、高丽王。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《隋书•高丽传》:汤病卒，子元嗣立。高祖使使拜元为上开府、仪同三司，袭爵辽东郡公，赐衣一袭。元奉表谢恩，并贺祥瑞，因请封王。高祖优册元为王。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《旧唐书•高丽传》: 遣前刑部尚书沈叔安往册建武为上柱国、辽东郡公、高丽王。

YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《旧唐书•高丽传》: 太宗闻建武死⋯⋯。十七年，封其嗣王藏为辽东郡王、高丽王。

XXX ^ http://www.mygoguryeo.net/culture.htm

XXX ^ http://www.mygoguryeo.net/culture01.htm

^ Brown, Ju; John Brown (2006). China, Japan, Korea Culture and Customs. BookSurge Publishing, 81. ISBN 1419648934.

^ Beckwith, Christopher I. (August 2003). "Ancient Koguryo, Old Koguryo, and the Relationship of Japanese to Korean" (PDF). 13th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. Retrieved on 2006-03-12.

^ Koguryo (HTML). Encarta. MSN (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.

^ Korea (HTML). Columbia Encyclopedia. Bartleby.com (2005). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.

^ Korea, South (HTML). CIA World Factbook. CIA (2007). Retrieved on 2007-04-27.

^ "Twenty-Four Histories"

^ "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", volume 2, Biography of Wanyan Aguda.

^ "First Official Records of Tang Dynasty", volume 199-2; "Second Official Records of Tang Dynasty", volume 219; "Official Records of Song Dynasty", volume 491; "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", volume 1.

XXX ^ Byington, Mark (2004-01-01). Koguryo part of China?. Koreanstudies mailing list. Retrieved on 2007-03-06.

Mediation placed 'on hold'

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo for more details.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

May we know the reason as to why this so-called mediation has been placed 'on hold'? Are we permitted to know? The link provided to the private Wiki does not open for all editors.Mumun 無文 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The mediation is private, so no, sorry. The reason for it being placed 'on hold' is only relevant to the parties, and that is why the confidentiality of the MedComWiki has been used. If you are involved in this dispute, and feel you should be a 'party' to the Mediation, please add yourself to the list of participants, agree to mediation, and contact Armed Blowfish to arrange an account on the private Wiki. Armed Blowfish (mail) and Daniel, 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh... and here I would have thought this was relevant to everyone with an interest in the article. -- Visviva 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Source materials cannot be used in Wikipedia without separate, authoritative scholarly backing. See WP:NOR, specifically:

“ Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. ”

and perhaps most relevant to the image in dispute:

“ Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. ”

Even if we were, quixotically, to regard centuries-old chronicles as reliable sources in their own right, it is not acceptable to stitch claims drawn from diverse such chronicles into a single, novel framework. -- Visviva 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply What you are complaining here is invalid. If you want to improve the materials, then say something to identify the places that can be improved, for example, which junk reference should be discarded, which statement is imprecise, which part of a depiction should be changed. I assume that you are talking about the depiction I drew. You are not complaining the "Dynasties of Korea" part, so it seems that this part is fine. So I guess it is the Mohe-Balhae-Jurchen line that makes you feel uncomfortable because it is against your belief. But this part is literally a depiction of Jurchen Jin's official statement about their origin in the opening paragraph of the Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. I followed the Wikipedia rules and listed verifiable source in the caption of the diagram. Upon your request, I can add original texts and English translations (Try to get somebody who can read traditional Chinese texts before you make complaints. Otherwise, it proves that you are no more than a malicious blanker). If you think it is not reliable, then you implied that Jurchen Jin people wanted to make fun of their own ancestral line to work against the mindset of some people born 900 years later, this is really something that I have never heard of.--Jiejunkong 00:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments Another comment is that you think Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty is questionable, but the fascist sites like www.mygoguryeo.net, mygoguryeo.com are ignored in your (un)reliable source discussions. This is very amusing. :-) --Jiejunkong 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of self-rv'ing based on this alone. My only question is whether on not what he is doing is an interpretation or if: "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source" It seems very clear that he's just summarizing dates/times, etc. Any thoughts? If you want to revert it while we discuss go for it, like I said I'm on the verge of doing it myself... --Cheers, Komdori 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I see you did. Anyway, one more note, one might suggest these are secondary sources in and of themselves as they are actually history compilations. As for stitching together, it is all from a single (mammoth) collection. Is it impossible to include a picture representing information taken from such a collection, where it would be acceptable to have a paragraph with citations throughout? --Cheers, Komdori 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, sorry if that was a bit hasty... On taking a close look at the image, I can see that it's not as severe a violation as it seemed at first glance. However, there are still quite a few things in it which are at best disputable-- for example, the dates, many of which would meet with fierce disagreement from many historians. And drawing the line from Goguryeo to Balhae through Sumo Mohe is rather suspect, regardless of what the exact ethnic affiliation of the Balhae ruling class may have been; Balhae arose within a few years of the fall of Goguryeo.

On the broader and more interesting points you raise, I don't think we can realistically consider the Twenty-Four Histories to be a single source. I suppose these histories can be viewed as secondary sources of a sort, but realistically in modern times they serve as the raw material of scholarship, and are therefore to all intents and purposes primary sources. An awful lot of scholarship has been done by modern historians on each and every one of these histories, in many cases pointing up important inconsistencies or doubtful passages. It is that scholarship, rather than the Histories themselves, on which we must draw.

The real risk here, I think, is of trying to paint too glib and simple a picture of the complexities involved in understanding this period of history. The current state of the article is not good; however, given the hole in which we find ourselves, our first step needs to be to stop digging. That's all from me for a while -- it's going on 4 AM here. Cheers, -- Visviva 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You weren't too hasty, I agree it's a well-founded concern. Well I guess the best thing to do is summarize all the data the picture is based on in paragraph form, with citations. If we still want a picture after that, we can use the image discussion page to nitpick until it is clear (enough) to everyone that it faithfully represents the sources used without interpretation. If we can't agree, we can just use the text. Of course, the picture would have to have a caption clearly stating that it's representing the "traditional Chinese history" view (per the Twenty-Four Histories article). We probably don't want to just assert this as fact because I'm sure someone will find something that disagrees with it. While I agree it would definitely be best to supplement/support the comments from the original texts with any modern scholarship we can find as well, we can probably keep comments from the originals as long as we can get them in a form we can all agree are not more than directly representing what's there (not an excuse to be lazy, but at least will let us get started). I hope the editor who made the picture might be willing because I don't have the time/energy to try to track it down hampered by a near-zero ability to understand ancient Chinese. --Cheers, Komdori 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Literal depiction is not original research

Goguryeo's relation with ancient states located in modern China and Korea

Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 is the canonical view of Jurchen Jin official historians. It is unimaginable that they want to give themselves a false ancestral line, in particular in their authoritative history records.

• Explanation of the two connections: one between "Wuji 7 tribes" and two "Mohe"s; another between "Mohe" and "Jurchen Jin".

Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1:"金之先，出靺鞨氏。靺鞨本號勿吉。勿吉，古肅慎地也。元魏時，勿吉有七部：曰粟末部、曰伯咄部、曰安車骨部、曰拂涅部、曰號室部、曰黑水部、曰白山部。隋稱靺鞨，而七部並同。唐初，有黑水靺鞨、栗末靺鞨，其五部無聞。"(Jurchen Jin's ancestor is Mohe, which is originally Wuji. Wuji located in ancient Sushen lands. At the time of Northern Wei, Wuji had seven tribes: Sumo, Boduo, Anchegu, Funie, Haoshi, Heishui, Baishan. At the time of Sui Dynasty, Wuji was renamed as Mohe, but the seven tribes stayed as usual. At the early time of Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived, the other five tribes were gone.)

• Explanation of the two connections: one between "Goguryeo" and "Sumo Mohe"; another between "Sumo Mohe" and "Balhae".

Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1:"粟末靺鞨始附高麗，姓大氏。李績破高麗，粟末靺鞨保東牟山。後為渤海，稱王，傳十餘世。"(Sumo Mohe joined Goguryeo, its leader's surname is Dae. When General Ji Li of the Tang Dynasty destroyed Goguryeo, Sumo Mohe guarded Dong Mou Mountain, later became Balhae, and there was a king, lasted for more than ten generations).

• The red "Conquered" lines can be easily seen from the related Wikipedia main articles of those dynasties.
• The age of every dynasty can also be found in the related Wikipedia main article of the dynasty.

Therefore, the diagram is solely based on a single verifable authoritative source Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 with literal translation. There is no interpretation in the depiction. The accusation from User:Visviva saying that this diagram is a concatenation of multiple sources is incorrect and invalid.

This Jurchen Jin's view is supported by multiple Han Chinese people's official records (at the moment, Han Chinese and Jurchens were the worst enemy of each other). User:Visviva incorrectly thought I assembled multiple sources. This is his incorrect random guess. There is no assembling here. The proofs are merely supportive. The Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 alone is a valid verifiable source.

1. First Canonical History Records of Tang Dynasty, Volume 199-2:"渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。"(Dae Jo-yeong of Balhae Mohe, was a descedent of Goguryeo). Here Dae Jo-yeong is the indisputable founder of Balhae.
2. Second Canonical History Records of Tang Dynasty, Volume 219:"渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高麗者，姓大氏。高麗滅，率衆保挹婁之東牟山，地直營州東二千里，南比新羅，以泥河爲境，東窮海，西契丹。築城郭以居，高麗逋殘稍歸之。"(Balhae's founder, whose surname is Dae, was originally Sumo Mohe joining Goguryeo. When Goguryeo was destroyed, he led his people to guard Dong Mou Mountain, located to the very east of YinZhou, with southern border touching Silla separated by River Ni, eastern border at sea, western border touching Khitan. They built cities to reside in, and Goguryeo remnants joined them.)
3. Canonical History Records of Song Dynasty, Volume 491:"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"(Dae Jo-yeong of Goguryeo escaped and guarded the land to the east Khitan. Emperor Ruizong of Tang assigned him to be the commanding officer of HuHanZhou and King of Balhae, thus his land was called Balhae.)---Jiejunkong 04:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things occur to me:

1. You do not explain the sources for the dates, geographical characterizations, etc., which are also present in this picture.

2. A centuries-old history is not acceptable by itself as an authoritative source for a Wikipedia article. Please provide references from modern scholarship.

Best, -- Visviva 04:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For the dates, I already stated "The red "Conquered" lines can be easily seen from the related Wikipedia main articles of those dynasties. The age of every dynasty can also be found in the related Wikipedia main article of the dynasty." For the geographical characteristics, there are graphs and descriptions in individual Wikipedia articles about those dynasties. You are welcome to point out which place of the diagram is incorrect by reading and writing. Please state technical details rather than some meta-physical claims. BTW, instead of complaining the "centuries-old history", you can opt to improve the ko.wikipedia articles of the 24 Twenty Four Histories. I had a look at the Chinese version and Japanese version, both are quite good. The Korean version is poorly maintained and I am not surprised that you don't know how important these "centuries-old history" books are. If history is ever an empirical science, these records at the nearest time are the empirical proofs. The modern interpretations are not.--Jiejunkong 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are increasingly making POV statements that "Chinese and Japanese versions are good but Korean versions are not". Your edits and sources are both POV and you are violating WP:NPOV. Good friend100 19:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Applying the same standard of reasoning as you do, hey you yourself are making a POV statement about the above POV statement. Oh no, now I am making POV statement about your POV statements about the above POV statement.:)Wiki Pokemon 02:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting back my words into the context, I was talking about Twenty-Four Histories articles in various wikipedia lang sites. If you are not blind, please do a comparison the quality of zh,ja,ko sites on the discussed Twenty-Four Histories articles before you make accusations.--Jiejunkong 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the relationship between Sumo Mohe and Goguryeo, please see the following source:

• p. 18 The Manchus By Pamela Kyle. Crossley, Published 1997 Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0631235914 :

"After the evaporation of the Puyo domination in Manchuria, the Mohe peoples become more prominent in the records. The most powerful of the northern Mohe groups were the Heishui (that is Heilongjiang, for the Amur river), and the most powerful of the southern Mohe groups was the Sumo (that is Songmo, for the Songari), whose territories reached as far south as Changbaishan. During the seventh century, the Sumo were subjected to constant military pressure from both the Koguryo state from Korea and the Tang empire. Around 700 a leader of the Sumo Mohes found a way to alleviate these pressures by cooperating with Tang forces in the suppression of a rebellion among the Kitans of northern Manchuria. As a reward, his lineage was recognized as local hegemons by the Tang, and permitted to establish a demi-state - a sort of principality within the empire. A few years later, it assumed the name of Parhae (in Chinese, Bohai)."

I believe many sources agree with this interpretation: The "Sumo Mohe" existed in parallel with Goguryeo (Koguryo), so the arrow from "Goguryeo" to "Sumo Mohe" should be stricken in the above diagram. Instead, an arrow can be drawn from "Goguryeo" to "Balhae" (Parhae).--Endroit 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply I also agreed and agree to this conclusion: "The Sumo Mohe existed in parallel with Goguryeo". That is the reason why the Sumo Mohe node has 2 input edges, one is from the earlier Northern Wei time Wuji node. On the other hand, at the time when Goguryeo was destroyed by Silla-Tang allies, a significant part of Sumo Mohe had merged into Goguryeo. These are the 2 sides of the same Sumo Mohe coin. It's a little bit difficult to depict both sides in one node. I thought about depicting the Sumo Mohe node as a node with 2 colors by color gradience. But I worried that this would make the situation even more complex and may cause disputations. For changing the depiction to a better form following NPOV records and comments, I am open for any changes based on constructive consensus (but not a simple proposal to get rid of the diagram).--Jiejunkong 10:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Many sections or subsections are completely unreferenced

Some sections or subsections without the "Unreferenced" mark is also under referenced. References from non-NPOV sites like my.goguryeo.com and Baidu Baike are unacceptable. They are not only highly biased, but also with heavy copyright violations, many articles there are pirated and plagiarized. In addition, volatile maillist sites are not reliable sources. Adding such references will cause more disputations.--Jiejunkong 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added sources. And the sources you use are POV, most of which are under the PRC government. I have used my.goguryeo.com as a source for non-NPOV purposes (that means stuff that does not have to do with Goguryeo controversies).

Sources have to be no original research and that means no original ideas. Good friend100 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A non-NPOV site like mygoguryeo.com is being disputed. Please don't add this kind of "thing" as the reliable source into wikipedia due to the disputation on its legitimacy. Thank you. Otherwise, some Chinese-speaking users can cite Baidu Baike as legitimate sources as well. This is not what I want to see. --Jiejunkong 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have interpreted your inability to read ancient history records as other people's original idea (Calling "Twenty-Four Histories" as sources under the PRC government is the largest joke I have seen so far. These are the credible ancient official history like Samguk Sagi, some even with better quality. They have nothing to do with the PRC government. It seems that you don't know where those professional history researchers get their empirical proofs.). You need to calm down and verify the legitimacy of ancient history records at first, before you launch tons of accusations.--Jiejunkong 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the NPOV policy by adding POV edits to articles like Baeku Mountain. And I'm not making "tons of accusations".

Saying "thats not what I want to see" shows your attitude towards the NPOV policy here and keeping the article neutral. You do not control the article. I have referred your actions to an admin.

I'm not simply just making up accusations. Making edits like [[20]] are POV. By reverting NPOV edits continuesly, you have violated WP:3RR. Good friend100 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your amaterish behavior of launching accusations in indirectly related wikipedia articles (you need to put right talk in right talk page) disqualifies your accusations. In addition, it is you who have violated WP:3RR and reverting NPOV edits continuously in the article mentioned here. You are not the subject (i.e., Emperor Kangxi) in the sentence disputed, so you'd better follow the quote from canonical history records rather than your controversial personal expressions.--Jiejunkong 09:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to see the non-NPOV references, mostly full of piracy and plagiarism, such as mygoguryeo.com and Baidu Baike. That is my personal opinion. I don't think this violates wikipedia rules. You are welcome to tell other wiki users.--Jiejunkong 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesn't count. Good friend100 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A non-NPOV opinion or unreliable source doesn't count. NPOV opinion with reliable source counts. If you don't agree, then you can leave.--Jiejunkong 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Appears"? [[21]], 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 [[22]] (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:

• Founding and Growth - "[Source : Korea.Net]"
• Koguryo Builds Up a Great Empire - "[Source : Korea.Net]"
• Koguryo's Wars with Sui and Tang - "[Source : Korea.Net]"
• Downfall and Succession of Koguryo - "[Source : Korea.Net]"
• The Forgotten Glory of Koguryo Reviving! - "[Source : Koguryo Association http://www.goguryeo.org/english]"

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)

Agree The site cannot be used in a wikipedia reference.--Jiejunkong 09:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't avoid my question and answer it. Why don't you delete text that are sourced from [23], 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.

[24] 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)

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)

Naming

Gaogouli is Chinese without a doubt. This article should be moved to Gaogouli according to wikipedia rules because Gaogouli is the most common name. Chinapride 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the above comment into this new section since it's not really related to what's going on above. A quick Google search seems to indicate Goguryeo is by far more common. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary, but don't move the page until then (and after discussion). A more interesting point might be whether or not Gaogouli rises to the level of an alternate name in English (rather than just a "Chinese name") and hence should be bolded. I don't have time to look at it, perhaps someone else has an opinion. --Cheers, Komdori 19:45, 22 May 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)

Comments on mediation

As there may be some confusion, based on recent posts on various pages:

The Mediation Committee cannot encourage or discourage requests for help in other places. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing a Request for Arbitration. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of a Request for Checkuser. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of Three revert rule violation reports, or going to other Administrator's noticeboards. Mediators are not security guards. Mediators cannot even express an opinion on whether or not you should protect the pages, as that seems to be a point of disagreement, although if it were not a point of disagreement it might be appropriate for us to do so. We certainly can't express an opinion about what version an article should be protected in.

There are some things you should know, however.

• It is not permitted to use the mediation as evidence against other participants of the mediation. The Mediation Committee reserves the right to censor such evidence. This is done to protect the confidentiality and safety of the mediation.
• Blocking or banning of participants could potentially result in the suspension or cancellation of the mediation.
• Remember that mediation is not a case building exercise for such reports.

What the mediators are here to do is help you all reach a consensus on article content which will make everyone happy.

If anyone involved in the mediation has questions concerning the role of the mediators, please ask them on the mediation page on the MedComWiki.

• For the Mediation Committee KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely quiet here

Seems quite normal here. Komdori and Macgruder and melonbarmonster are all occupied with Dokdo. Where's Jiejunkong, may I ask? Hasn't been showing up since all the editors started to argue on Dokdo. Good friend100 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be quiet because the mediation is currently on hold. Of course I'm watching (and I'm sure others are, too) this page mostly for people like Chinapride, just keep your eyes open, I hope the mediation can start again soon. --Cheers, Komdori 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope the meditation can be done with every participant's sincerity to reach a reasonable agreement.--Jiejunkong 01:26, 26 May 2007 (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)

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)

Prominent?

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 [25]. 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. [26] 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)

This article is a disaster

This place is a giant circle jerk for Korean ethnocentrists. Newsflash for the amateur Korean historians here: WWII is over and the fascists and their brand of ethnocentric nationalism lost. Many of the states in what is now called Manchuria were multiethnic and multicultural, including Goguryeo. It's not a Korean versus Chinese debate. The first record of Goguryeo history written by a Korean people wasn't written until the 12th century AD, and by then, Goguryeo had long been gone. One thing is for sure, the people of Goguryeo did not even know it was part of the later coined "Three Kingdoms of Korea." I don't see any hope for this article when the Korean nationalists here feel it is their national duty to criminalize the Chinese and raise the myth of Korean national solidarity into historic fact. "Goguryeo-China wars"? Give me a freaking break. Did someone forget Silla? or maybe they were still Japanese? And why is even Goryeo mentioned in the lead of this article? They are not related states, just like New York isn't related to York either. --JakeLM 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)