Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great

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

Disputed history[edit]

CHINESE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ACCEPT " KORGURYO KINGDOM" AS KOREAN TERRITORY. YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY. HISTORY IS TO LEARN FROM THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FOR THE FUTURE. WHAT CHINESE GOVERNMENT DOING WITH " NORTHEAST PROJECT" IS VERY VERY STUPID. TRUTH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL. IT CAN ONLY CREATE FRICTION BETWEEN KOREANS AND CHINESE. IN THE END CHINESE WILL LOSE. LIKE TIBET, TAIWAN, CHINA ( WEST COAST PROVINCE) UIGHUR PROVINCE, AND MANCHURIA ( KOREA). THE WORD CHINA OR CHINA LAND IS VERY SUPERFICIAL LAND ONLY WAY CHINESE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP CONTROL 1.2 BILLION PEOPLE BY HAVING " COMMUNIST REGIME". EVEN COMMUNIST REGIME DON'T TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINESE HISTORY. CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS KILLING THEMSELVES MAKING THEMSELVES LOOK VERY VERY STUPID. IN THE END KOREANS WILL WIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Population6 (talkcontribs) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese government maintains that Koguryŏ was a local Kingdom of a Chinese national minority, i.e. on Chinese territory. Please also refer to the discussion page on Koguryŏ. Babelfisch 07:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

so what? chinese can claim whatever they want...it won't change the history though Koguryo was never a chinese kingdom. chinese (mandarin) can only claim 'Han' dynasties as their historic kingdoms just because they forcefully dominate manchuria, tibet and east turkestan that doesn't mean they belonged to them 139.80.123.40 13:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

er...[edit]

some of this seems like someone began to rant about Korean history...especially that huge chunk without references.

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ainu?[edit]

There is no citation for Gwanggaeto attacking Ainu peoples. Is it implying there were Ainu settlements in Manchuria/Southern Siberia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekishiotaku (talkcontribs) 12:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The great?[edit]

The title, Gwanggaeto the great has to be changed into Emperor Gwanggaeto since the rulers of Goguryeo were called "Taewang" from the reign of Micheon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.93 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Emperor is right.[edit]

If we see the texts written on the wall of the tombs of Goguryeo, or the stele, we can know that Goguryean rulers used the title, Taewang. So Emperor Gwanggaeto is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World historia (talkcontribs) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC) World historia (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, You are Wrong. The academia, including Korean, consider Goguryeo as Kingdom, Not Empire.--121.167.254.156 (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please argue with historical evidences, not what academy under colonialism. If you cannot, accept the title, Taewang.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.93 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The citations listed that supposedly equate T'aewang with Emperor do not actually support this assertion. Why are people translating Taewang as emperor? Kojong used t'aewang also, before upgrading his title again to hwangjae (which is actually emperor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konamaiki (talkcontribs) 18:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent page move[edit]

I undid the recent page move from Gwanggaeto the Great to Emperor Gwanggaeto per WP:COMMONNAME. "Emperor Gwanggaeto" has only two hits with Google Books and only one with Google Scholar.

Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

--Kusunose 02:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Gwanggaeto the GreatEmperor Gwanggaeto – This is processual request. This page had been titled Gwanggaeto the Great more than three years and before that, Gwanggaeto the Great of Goguryeo. Recently the page was moved twice to Emperor Gwanggaeto. As I thought thw new title is agaist established guidelines (see my reasoning below) and controversial, I undid them per WP:STATUSQUO and now initiating discussion per WP:RM. The reason for the move, as I see from above sections (#The great? and #Emperor is right.), is that his title "Taewang" should be translated as "Emperor". --Kusunose 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose First, the new title seems not WP:COMMONly used by reliable sources (see #Recent page move). Even with the Google Web Search, "Emperor Gwanggaeto" gets about 1000 pages, while "Gwanggaeto the Great" returns millions of pages. Second, whether or not "Taewang" should be translated as "Emperor" in English, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Royalty, artile titles for Korean royals are not prefixed with one's title, "King" or "Emperor". --Kusunose 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The subject is generally given as "King Kwanggaet'o". See Kim's The History of Korea (2005), Hwang's A History of Korea (2010), or Seth's A Concise History of Korea (2010). Kauffner (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per following Google Book Search.
    • "King Gwanggaeto" -"King Gwanggaeto the great" -LLC -Wikipedia 136
    • "King Gwanggaeto the great" -LLC -Wikipedia 59
    • "Gwanggaeto the great" -"King Gwanggaeto the great" -LLC -Wikipedia 43
    • "Emperor Gwanggaeto" -LLC -Wikipedia 0
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You can only access Google. Since it is Korean history, you should search korean information in naver. If you find 광개토태왕 and 광개토대왕, 광개토태왕 is overwhelmingly more. 222.101.9.93 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia. Per WP:USEENGLISH, we should follow the established English usage, not Korean. And do not remove comments made by other editors. See WP:TALK. --Kusunose 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 태왕, taewang, does not translate as "Emperor" (황제). We have a (stub) article on Taewang, and the translation is relevant since renaming the article to "Emperor" contradicts the information on that page, which specifically (and correctly) states that it does not mean that. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    As the lawyers say, this is a distinction without a difference. Taewang was understood as a title equivalent to that of the Chinese emperor (wangtae). "The great" suggests a comparison with other rulers of the same dynasty. All the Goguryeo kings held the title taewang. In any case, the article title should correspond to the way the subject is referred to in the best available English-language sources. What he is called in Korean should not have anything to do with it. Kauffner (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Using "Emperor" or "King" before the monarch's name is uncommon in Wikipedia. Reigen (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move protected[edit]

Since people seem to be move-warring in the middle of an RM, I've move-protected the page for a while. If I see it resume upon expiration of the move protection, I'll block whoever it is. Use this time to sort out the RM, and note that my protection isn't an endorsement of the this title; I merely think that a page should stay in one place during an RM, and this is where the RM was started. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

References added in each section of the paragraphs. Certain paragraphs challenged were cited or removed in case there are no plausible references or any written data. --Mar del Este (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

There has been an edit war here that includes multiple anonymous editors inserting the same material. The edit seems to revolve around Korean v. Chinese versions of history. Is one side more accurate, or can the two versions be brought together somehow? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Comment Can you please phrase the RfC question more specifically? For example, by giving us two or three different versions to discuss? Seraphim System (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Your wording seems asserting that all Korean people are thinking the same, and all Chinese people are thinking the same. This is not factual. Moreover, this gives the impression that you are thinking that all these Eastern people are only creating trouble in your great Western encyclopedia. Let me disagree. Pldx1 (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, I wasn't implying that all Koreans and all Chinese think the same way, but that the arguments seems to revolve around whether to describe the events and people of Goguryeo as basically Korean or as part of Chinese history. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Rephrased, Part 1: Should the lead read "was the nineteenth monarch of the Han Chinese tributary state of Goguryeo which sent yearly tribute to the Emperor of China" or "was the nineteenth monarch of Goguryeo"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Part 2: Should the lead read " Gwanggaeto's imperial reign title meant that Goguryeo was on equal standing as an empire with the imperial dynasties in China" or "Gwanggaeto's imperial reign title of "Taewang" was an unsuccessful attempt by the Goguryeo king to gain equal standing and status with the supreme rule of the Han emperor of China, who was regarded as the Son of Heaven or 'ruler of the whole universe.' After many requests by the Korean king the Emperor of China rejected his attempt and subsequently regarded the Korean leader as a subordinate regional king of the Korean peninsula and well within the domain of the Empire of China. The Korean monarch's insistence on using the sacred and restricted coat of arms of the five-claw dragon, a symbol reserved exclusively for the Emperor of China, resulted in the Chinese emperor sending a military invasion that conquered and re-established Korea as one of the Empire of China's subordinate tributary states"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Let's say that Version A is the original. Version B is the one with all the stuff about tributary states.

1) Version A is backed by citations. I opened and examined the citations and they support Version A. I suggest everyone else check too. Version A is supported by citations therefore it is appropriate.

2) Version B is NOT backed by citations. Version B replaces and messes up Version A (which is supported by citations) and is unrelated to the citations of the passages it replaces. Therefore Version B is inappropriate. The fact is that Version A is supported by citations and Version B is not and that should be the end of discussion on which version is acceptable. However, there's more problems with Version B.

3) Why is there a link to "History of Science and Technology in China"? What does THAT have to do with any of this?

4) Version B's long passage about Cao Wei and Goguryeo is anachronistic and happened more than a century before Gwanggaeto was even born. Yet that passage was added to Gwanggaeto's reign which makes that entire passage misleading and completely false.

IMO it's very clear that Version B is problematic and not appropriate. YB92 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment You might want to consider that 'Han China' did not even exist at the time of Gwanggaeto.... Wandrative (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gwanggaeto the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

minor fix[edit]

but was defeated both times

change to:

but were defeated both times68.40.122.133 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)