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-)

Xuantu Commandery

The Goguryeo (高句麗 Gaogouli) appears to have originated in the Gaogouli (高句麗 Goguryeo) Prefecture of the Xuantu Commandery of Han Dynasty China. It was at a later century that the Goguryeo moved into the Korean peninsula and grew powerful. At least that's one of the theories we have today. Now tell me why or why not this information belongs in this article?--Endroit 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, there is a very good reason why this information is not in the Koguryo article. That's because the only people who prescribe to this view are scholars sponsored by the People's Republic of China, thus it's not mainstream and not accepted by the majority of international scholarship on Koguryo. Wiki should express theories that are accepted by the international standard and should explain non-standard theories in separate articles. There are no non-PRC scholars who think that Koguryo is Chinese because it came from Xuantu Commandery. The best scholar on Koguryo history in the Western world is probably Dr. Mark Byington at Harvard and he thinks this PRC idea is pretty weak. And I quote:

• • 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)...
  • The gist of my long-winded statement above is that the Chinese argument regarding Koguryo is weak and defensive...

You can read Mark's full article here: http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2004-January/004054.html - Please read it for yourself. WangKon936 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, here's the source: "The Koguryo branch was under the administration of Kaogouli (K. Koguryo) prefecture of the Xuantu commandery in Southeastern Manchuria (Gardiner 1979)" p.22, State Formation in Korea: historical and archaeological perspectives By Gina Lee Barnes, Published 2001 Routledge (UK), ISBN 0700713239 .

Gardiner and Barnes are not from the PRC, and the theory has been around in the Western world since 1979. Also, whether or not this theory is flimsy is not for you or me to decide.--Endroit 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Endroit. You know what? I have this book in my personal library at home. Gina Barnes is not a Koguryo specialist. She is an early Korean, early Japanese history generalist. Anyways, you need to reread this page again. No where does she or Gardniner say that Koguryo people were Chinese people. She and Gardiner say that Koguryo people were under the administration of the Xuautu commandery and their sub-division administration of Gaoguli. It goes further to say that the term Gaoguli may or may not have been the native word transcribed into Chinese characters, something I had mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Koguryo people of this period were also decribed as clients of the Han Dynasty, but not a part of the Han Dynasty, clearly an important distinction. Lastly, you need to reread my earlier comment when I quoted Dr. Mark Byington. My use of the word flimsy is not my opinion. It is Dr. Byington's and I make that sufficiently clear and even quote my sources. Please understand my comments before responding. Thanks. WangKon936 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pen/Insular polities are secondary states, which - by definition - arise in situations of contact with already extant and operating states. Thus, they have at their disposal ready-made models for polity administration and the means to create and maintain elite status through interaction with the 'higher court', as it may be called. Nevertheless, the Pen/Insular polities that arose in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were neither mere extensions of Wei Dynasty power through Lelang nor copycat borrowings of the dynastic system. They arose in a power vacuum when Mainland influence in the region was on the wane. Exposure to Mainland empire practices in the preceding centuries had led to a useful familiarity with highly organized political systems. But consider two facts: I) that the strongest states (Yamato, Koguryo and Shilla) developed in areas which had the least contact with the dynastic courts, and 2) that their internal organization was highly variable. This suggests that the hierarchcical systems of these states represent local solutions with their own creative (rather than externally imposed) choice of rulership components. - Gina L. Barnes, The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. There goes your "Xuantu Commandery theory", which in fact doesn't even exist. Don't you find it interesting that she refers to Koguryo as a peninsular state? And besides, you can't say the Republic of Korea is "Japanese" because it grew out of a Japanese colony. Also, the passage you quoted is from Eary Korean States, yet another reconfirmation that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom. Cydevil 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, I'm not talking about the 3rd and 4th centuries. I'm talking about the earlier history of Goguryeo, before Goguryeo moved into the Korean peninsula, at around the 1st century.--Endroit 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First, according to Barnes, Goguryeo was a peninsular polity, which is categorized as Mounded Tomb Cultures, which includes Goguryeo, Baekje, Shilla and Yamato. Also, Goguryeo was a secondary state that was formed in the absense of Chinese political control. Even your own quotation came from the chapter Early Korean States, and to add another quatation from the same book, Koguryo was the first Korean state to accept Buddhism; though known as early as 313, it was officially adopted in AD 372. And also, The earliest extant written material from the Korean peninsula consists of a stone monument erected near the Kungnaesong capital on the occasion of the death of the nineteenth king of Koguryo, Kwanggaeto, in AD 414. Gina Barnes clearly sees Koguryo as a Korean state, be it geographical, historical, or cultural definition. And in case you haven't noticed, the book we're citing from is called State formation in Korea: Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Cydevil 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So then, we agree that the glory of Goguryeo as a Korean (& peninsular) regional power occurred sometime between the 3rd & 7th centuries AD. And that's what most mainstream history books say. But did you choose to ignore Goguryeo's history before that? Barnes & Gardiner covers the early stages of Goguryeo's history, which are sometimes forgotten.

According to Barnes & Gardiner.... Until 12AD, Goguryeo (Gaogouli) was a Chinese frontier state belonging to the Chinese Han Dynasty empire. Even after independence from the Chinese empire in 12AD, Goguryeo's main activities remained north of the Yalu River, up until a few years after the collapse of the Han Dynasty in 220AD. Then after the ensueing power struggles between 220AD & 313AD, and the moving of their capital to Pyongyang in 427AD, Goguryeo was transformed from a Chinese frontier state, into a predominantly Korean kingdom.--Endroit 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So then, do we agree that Xuantu Commandery be mentioned in the article? And that they were in the Gaogouli (Goguryeo) Prefecture of Xuantu Commandery? Why or why not?--Endroit 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Personally, I don't see any harm in saying that Koguryo people once lived in Xuantu Commandery and had to report to that commandery's ruling structure for a number of years. They revolted against and separated from the commandery in 12 AD anyways. Besides, Xuantu was GoJoseon territory for much longer then it was Han Dynasty territory. Xuantu was established in 106 BC, after the fall of GoJoseon. Now Endroit, I think I have been very accommodating with you and have done the best to answer most, if now all your questions. I have asked you a number of questions myself and I'd like you to reciprocate. WangKon936 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Could people read my post above? This was exactly what I was asking. (Wikimachine 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Mine is an independent question, unrelated to Wikimachine's questions.--Endroit 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Let me say this. My question was posted earlier, & mine was completely independent from that of Endroit. (Wikimachine 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, your posts don't address the Xuantu Commandery, or do they?--Endroit 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My post addresses the root of this discussion. That spills over to ythe Xuantu Commandry. (Wikimachine 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Tell me exactly where you mention Xuantu Commandery, then.--Endroit 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, your contention (and self-debate) that "History of Korea & the Northeast Project are 2 different theories" is irrelevant to that fact that we are discussing the "History of Goguryeo" here. And the theory about Xuantu Commandery existed prior to the Northeast Project anyways.--Endroit 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Endroit. You seeem to have a confused understanding of what the function of a Chinese commandery was in northeast asia. Chinese Commanderies in northeast asia were set-up in non-Chinese areas to help control barbarian populations. Xuantu was set-up when the Han Dynasty conquered the Gojoseon kingdom in the late second century BC. It was an administrative area to help control a preexisting, non-Chinese population and eventually "pacify" an area. Commandaries, particularly in northeast asia, helped the Chinese keep the borderlands OUTSIDE the Great Wall secure. To say that Koguryo "came out" or "grew out" of Xuantu does not mean that Koguryo people are of Chinese ancestry. Actually, Chinese dynastic histories are clear in that they believe Koguryo "came out" or "originated" from Puyo and Yemek tribes, which the Chinese Dynastic histories make ABUNDANTLY clear are not Chinese. WangKon936 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Goguryeo (Gaogouli) was the southern branch of Buyeo (Fuyu), so we're in agreement there. However they originated (were reborn) with their new name Goguryeo (Gaogouli) at around the same time Gaogouli (Goguryeo) Prefecture existed in Xuantu Commandery. Also, the Han Dynasty's control over Manchuria and Goguryeo is analogous to the Roman Empire's control over England. The Chinese (Roman) ways were greatly adopted by Goguryeo (ancient England) during their times.--Endroit 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, you need to read the San-kuo Chih, the section on the "Account of the Eastern Barbarians." I think it would help you understand how the Chinese who lived during that time perdiod viewed non-Chinese people. The people who wrote that obviously saw Koguryo people as a blend of the Puyo and Yemek people. Another point is that Chinese will often name their commandary and/or sections of their commandary (you call it prefectures) the name that the native barbarians had. For example: Mississippi, Massachusetts, Oklahoma are not Anglo/English names, but Native American ones that were transliterated in Roman characters. This was also common practice among the Chinese when they set-up commandaries to pacify barbarians. For example, when Tang and Silla Armies conquered Baekje, the Tang called Silla territory "Kyerim Commandary." Kyerim is a play on a native Silla term meaning forest of the cock, although the Chinese ideograms are pronounced Chi-Lin. Another example is when the last King of Koguryo was given administrative control over Liaodong by Tang after the fall of Koguryo. The Tang called Liaodong at this time Joseon or Chaoxian Commandary. WangKon936 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Goguryeo (高句麗 Koguryo/Gaogouli) may have been non-Chinese to begin with, but clearly came under the control of the Chinese Han Dynasty, as a result of Chinese territorial expansion by Emperor Wu of Han (ruled 141 BC to 87 BC). And the Goguryeo were under the jurisdiction of Gaogouli (高句麗 Goguryeo) Prefecture of the Xuantu Commandery within the this Chinese empire. Regarding its origin, the Goguryeo was a tribe of Manchurian or Tungusic origin, and the southern branch of Buyeo (夫餘 Puyo/Fuyu), dwelling in Manchuria (today's Northeast China), north of the Yalu River, and outside of the Korean peninsula.--Endroit 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If imperialism can be a justification to include another's history, then should Phillipines be a part of U.S. history? Is Phillinpines an American state? Should India should be a part of British history? Is India a British state? And also, it seems you're somehow thinking that defining something as "Tungusic" somehow excludes Koreans. Let me brush a bit of Korean prehistory for you: The gradual inflitration of bronzes into the Korean Peninsula and their clear derivation from Manchurian and steppe precedents have suggested to many Korean archaeologists that they arrived with an influx of Tungusic-language speakers. The Korean and Japanese langauges today are both generally thought to be related to the Altaic language family rather than the Chinese language family, even though they incorporate many Chinese loanwords. The question is, when were the Altaic elements introduced into the Pen/Insular region? The hypothesis that the proto-Eastern Altaic languages spread into the Korean Peninsula during the early 1st millennium BC is compatible not only with the appearance of bronzes from the Northern Bronze Complex but also with the theoretical location of the Tungusic homeland being somewhere in south-central Siberia. Moreover, the Rong ethnic group, associated with the Upper Xiajiadian culture, is also thought to have consisted of Tungusic speakers. If this language group did become established on the Peninsula during the Korean Bronze Age, it would have been transmitted to the Japanese Islands during the spread of rice agriculture, replacing (with some incorporations) whatever previous languages were spoken there. Gina L. Barnes, The rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. For your information, this Korean bronze age also covers the area from which Goguryeo will spawn. Cydevil 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The crucial point here is that the activities of Goguryeo (Gaogouli) before the 1st century AD occurred NORTH of the Yalu River. Is it fair to say Goguryeo was already Korean in the 1st century AD to begin with, even though they were outside of the Korean peninsula? This is the question of "the chicken or the egg".... Which came first, Korea or Goguryeo? Were the Goguryeo born as Koreans? Or did they become Korean later? As an analogy, let me ask you this... Were the Angles English before they crossed the North Sea from Angeln into England? Or were they just Germanic (Manchurian or Tungusic)?--Endroit 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, I'm not interested in your original interpretations. The fact of the matter is, the very sources that yourself have cited regard Goguryeo as a "Korean" kingdom. Goguryeo and "Korea" is very closely interlocked to eachother - if "Korea" is a peninsular entity, so is Goguryeo. If Goguryeo is a peninsular entity, so is "Korea". As you're so insistent on the Manchurians, for your information, Goguryeo and proto-Manchus were regarded as seperate entities by contemporary peoples. Cydevil 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple, Goguryeo (Koguryo/Gaogouli) was greatly transformed in the 3rd century according to Barnes & Gardiner. Barnes & Gardiner clearly describe Goguryeo as a "Chinese border state" before this transformation took place. And the "Korean kingdom" description applies strictly AFTER this transformation. Why hide this information, Cydevil? Here's the source:

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

Also, like I said, Goguryeo in the early years is analogous to Angeln. Early Goguryeo (Angeln) were not yet Korean (English).--Endroit 07:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, Goguryeo is closely interlocked with the concept of "Korea". Korea, back then, was under Chinese occupation, as was Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla. If you wish to put such a statement in the article, you should also provide the proper context of Chinese imperialism of the times and its influence on Korean state formation. In fact, information on state formation is already included in Three kingdoms of Korea. Also, Wangkon has pointed out that distinction has been made that Goguryeo was a client state, not a part of Han Dynasty. He has made some good points in this regard, so why don't you answer to him. Also, I've provided sources from Barnes which is directly relevant to your quotation. Nevertheless, the Pen/Insular polities that arose in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were neither mere extensions of Wei Dynasty power through Lelang nor copycat borrowings of the dynastic system. Gina L. Barnes, The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. Cydevil 09:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. Just put both concepts into the article... the "concept of China" under the Han Dynasty prior to the 3rd century, followed by the "concept of Korea" within the Three kingdoms of Korea, in chronological order, like Barnes does. They're not mutually exclusive concepts. And there's no need to hide anything, is there?--Endroit 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are different concepts. By Barne's archaeological perspective, Goguryeo arose in late 3rd century. Don't distort a scholar's honest work for your zealous anti-Korea crusade. Three Kingdoms of Korea already addresses this archaeological state-formation perspective, so why don't you go on editing there. Cydevil 10:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're denying that Goguryeo existed prior to the 3rd century? Provide your source for "Goguryeo arose in the late 3rd century" complete with the page number. I don't see it in Barnes' book.--Endroit 10:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Goguryeo didn't exist prior to 3rd century. However, Barnes takes a strictly archaeological perpsective on this, and I was quoting her work to prove the point that Barnes is yet another scholar who shares the general consensus that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom. As for her chronology of Goguryeo state, I've already cited her works that included such, and you questioning on this obviously means that you are not reading my cited quotataions. The Pen/Insular polities are secondary states, which - by definition - arise in situations of contact with already extant and operating states. Thus, they have at their disposal ready-made models for polity administration and the means to create and maintain elite status through interaction with the 'higher court', as it may be called. Nevertheless, the Pen/Insular polities that arose in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were neither mere extensions of Wei Dynasty power through Lelang nor copycat borrowings of the dynastic system. They arose in a power vacuum when Mainland influence in the region was on the wane. Exposure to Mainland empire practices in the preceding centuries had led to a useful familiarity with highly organized political systems. But consider two facts: I) that the strongest states (Yamato, Koguryo and Shilla) developed in areas which had the least contact with the dynastic courts, and 2) that their internal organization was highly variable. This suggests that the hierarchcical systems of these states represent local solutions with their own creative (rather than externally imposed) choice of rulership components. - Gina L. Barnes, The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. page 241, under "Mounded Tomb Cultures, Secondary State Formation".

Her view of Koguryo as a Korean entity, even before it becomes established as a state, is further attested in the very book that you cited, which you simply glossed over: The peninsular groups under varying degrees of domination by the Chinese commanderies included the Koguryo in the northern mountains and the Samhan of the southern peninsula. page 19.

Anyways, I've already wasted enough of my time on you. Take this to the mediation, and good luck on your relentless anti-Korea crusade. You're gonna need it on this one. Cydevil 10:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read it, and it says "in the late 3rd and 4th centuries". Your source says nothing about the earlier centuries, does it Cydevil? And I'm not denying that Goguryeo was a Korean peninsular polity since the 3rd century, am I?

I've cited my sources as well, for Goguryeo under Chinese control during the Han Dynasty, PRIOR TO the 3rd century. Your cited description of Goguryeo since the 3rd century does nothing to discredit the information cited in my sources.

What are you trying to deny, Cydevil? Are you trying to censor me somehow?--Endroit 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Know that this will be my last reply to you, because I honestly don't have the slightest will to talk sense into a hell-bent anti-Korea crusader. Gina Barnes is an archaeologist who sees state-formation in Korea as having taken place in late 3rd ~ 4th centuries. There are also different opinions on this by other experts, but this is her view anyways. As far as Gina Barnes's view is concerned, there was no such thing as a "Goguryeo state" prior to late 3rd century. Prior to that, there is the Han Commanderies. Prior to that, there is Gojoseon. Wangkon already told you about this, but obviously you're not engaging in this discussion in good faith. You're just hell-bent on making Goguryeo into something "Chinese", taking whatever POV that is against Korea. Also, by the way, prior to statehood, you can see that Gina Barnes clearly regards Goguryeo as a peninsular group that engaged in similar interactions with Han Commanderies as other peninsular groups, such as Samhan. I agree with Wangkon that there is no problem with including the claim that Goguryeo was under Xuantu Commandery's dominion, but proper historical context that he mentioned should also be provided lest readers are misguided to think Goguryeo was "Chinese", which is precisely your POV intentions. Cydevil 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, so you've obviously misinterpreted Barnes, in violation of WP:ATT. On page 20 of State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives By Gina Lee Barnes, Published 2001 Routledge, ISBN 0700713239, Barnes said:

• 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.
  (My interpretation: Han Dynasty controlled "the peninsula" while the Goguryeo (Koguryo) state grew in Manchuria).

And on page 22, Barnes says:

• During the earliest stage between 75BC and AD12, the Koguryo are known only as a branch of the Fuyu peoples of the northern Manchurian Basin (K. Puyo) (cf. Ikeuchi 1932; Lee K.B. 1963). The Koguryo branch was under the administration of the Kaogouli (K. Koguryo) prefecture of the Xuantu commandery in southeastern Manchuria (Gardiner 1979). It is not known whether the prefecture took its name from the people, or whether the people came to be known by the place name of the prefecture. Although the Koguryo had a leader who was titled "Marquis" (C. hou) (Gardiner 1964: 101) they do not appear to have comprised a territorial polity in their homeland, the Hun river drainage. Gardiner sees them as mere "clients of the Han empire who were recruited to fight in the border conflicts against the steppe nomads. In AD12 the Koguryo rebelled against the Han and in 32/33 sent an embassy to the Han court under a chieftain" who styled himself "king for the first time" (Gardiner 1979: 67). Han W.K. attributes much more power to Koguryo in this first stage than does Gardiner: he sees Koguryo as the agents of the fall of an earlier "Chinese colony" in the area in 128BC and also states that Koguryo insurgency was responsible for the collapse of the original Xuantu commandery in 75BC (1970: 38-9).
• The second stage of Koguryo development (AD 12 - 207) covers the period after they established themselves independently of Han China in the Hun river drainage. They were reportedly unable to eke out a satisfactory living in the steep mountains and thus resorted to raids on surrounding tribes and lowland settlements (Sangouzhi, quoted in Gardiner 1964: 162). Some scholars postulate that by the mid-1st century AD the Koguryo may have advanced from periodic raiding to demanding regular tribute from their peninsular neighbors, thus dominating them politically and economically. Tribute is said to have been collected by "tribal nobles of [Koguryo] families [that] were stationed amongst the ... Okjo communities of northeastern Korea" (ibid.: 172). Koguryo attacked the Chinese commanderies of Xuantu and Liaodong in AD 105-6, 121, and 167-9, although it also sent tribute to the Chinese court in 109. Sohn et al. treat Koguryo as a coherent power from AD 12 when, they state, it attacked Han China; and the raiding activities of AD 47 they portray as Koguryo having again "attacked Han and advanced deep into mainland China to occupy Peking" (1970: 38-9).
• The third stage (AD 207-45) begins with the removal of the Koguryo capital from the Hun river valley to the Yalu river valley near Mt. Wandu (K. Hwando) after retaliatory attacks by the Liaodong commandery. Their stone-walled capital city in the Donggou region of China's Jilin province has tentatively been identified by Japanese archaeologists near the modern town of Jian (Sekino et al. 1929).
  ... and so on.

I submit the above as an NPOV source regarding the early history of Goguryeo.

When Barnes says Goguryeo (Koguryo) was a "peninsular state", she means it was a "peninsular state" of Manchurian origin.

Can anybody else find sources which actually say that Goguryeo (Koguryo) originated in the Korean peninsula?--Endroit 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that Endroit's interpretation is fallacious and misleading. She makes no clear distinction between the Pen/Insular region and Manchuria, and also, on page 19(his quotation actually came from page 20, not 19), she refers to Goguryeo as a peninsular group contemporary with Samhan. Samhan is an entity that existed during Proto-Three Kingdoms of Korea, thus she's referring to Goguryeo prior to 300CE as a peninsular group. I submit the following as evidence as to Gina Barnes's interpretation:

The peninsular groups under varying degrees of domination by the Chinese commanderies included the Koguryo in the northern mountains and the Samhan of the southern peninsula. page 19, same book as Endroit's. Cydevil 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the page number already, it's page 20, where Barnes 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." Sorry for any confusion.

Cydevil, so you're saying that there is no distinction between "Peninsular region" and "Manchuria"? And that's what Barnes is saying? So what, does Manchuria "belong" to Korea now? Yeah, right. Perhaps there is a nationalist agenda on your part, Cydevil? That's just original research on your part, because those are just your words, not Barnes'.

Perhaps we should put a disclaimer in the article, to clarify your Korean-POV feelings, and say that Koreans consider Ji'an and other areas in Manchuria previously belonging to Goguryeo, as rightfully belonging to Korea now.--Endroit 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your apparent lack of ability to distinguish between history and modern politics is a good indicator of your intellectual capacity. Gina Barnes includes "Manchuria" into the concept "Pen/Insular region" or "Peninsular" or "Korean", as she uses those terms to define Goguryeo after 300 CE, when it held much territory in Manchruia. Also, regarding the following quote: "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." She cites this from none other than the Korean scholar Rhee Song-nai, who specializes in ancient Korean history. Thus, should Endroit's claim on Goguryeo's "Manchurian origin" be included in the aritcle, it should be coherent with secondary sources that it is based upon. Cydevil 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't understand me, I'll repeat it. I'm talking about the earlier history of Goguryeo. Just tell it like they do in the source: "Goguryeo was a branch of the Buyeo people, who served the Chinese Han Dynasty until 12AD, under the Gaogouli Prefecture of the Xuantu Commandery." And: "The Hun River Drainage in Manchuria was their home until 207AD." The readers can determine if that means "Peninsular" or not... there's no need to explicitly mention it ("Peninsular") or deny it.--Endroit 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but under the condition that it's coherent with the historical/archaeological context and analysis provided by secondary sources that your claims are based upon. And of course, the way you've written it doesn't satify this condition. This is something that should be worked out later on when other editors, such as Wangkon, can focus on this issue. Cydevil 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be based on Gardiner as the secondary source, and also the Records of Three Kingdoms as a primary source. I understand that archaeological evidence is virtually nil for it, and so this part of Guguryeo history is often discredited. It may help to put that into perspective.--Endroit 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Endroit, Rhee, whom Barnes cited, is a professional archaeologist who has written much on the archaeological aspects of ancient Korea. Cydevil 04:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rhee may be one of them, but there's no reason to omit Gardiner and the Records of Three Kingdoms.--Endroit 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to address the entire challenge that CPOV editors brought w/ the Northeast Project assertions, which spills over into the History of Goguryeo. Remember. Those who are silent agree. Uncontested arguments, until they are contested, remain 100% applicable. (Wikimachine 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

It's neither CPOV nor KPOV. The theory of Xuantu Commandery existed prior to the Northeast Project to begin with.--Endroit 17:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not simply attacking Northeast Project. (Wikimachine 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, you did.--Endroit 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned this before. Lets start at Goguryeo's founding. It is obviously Jumong who founded Goguryeo and Jumong was originally from Buyeo. Buyeo is definitely a Korean state, part of Korean history. So that makes Jumong Korean and his country Goguryeo undoubtly Korean. Good friend100 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address this point of mine, made earlier:

Good friend100, if i were you, I would steer clear of the argument of "Jumong was from Buyeo; therefore, the kingdom he founded must be Korean and not Chinese." It has a couple logical problems:

1. It presupposes that Buyeo was 1) Korean and 2) not Chinese, which, unlike the situation with Goguryeo, is not strongly supported with archaeological and documentary evidence. It is also contrary to how Buyeo (granted, two centuries later) conducted its relations with the Murongs (who were ethnically Xianbei but culturally much more Han than Buyeo) of Former Yan, and how the Murongs acted toward it after capturing its capital, compared to how the Murongs acted after capturing Goguryeo's capital.
2. But let's say that your presupposition is right that Buyeo was Korean and not Chinese. For you to argue "Jumong was from a Korean kingdom, and therefore the kingdom he founded, Goguryeo, was a Korean state and not Chinese" would logically require you to argue "Wei Man was from a Chinese state, and therefore the kingdom he founded, Wiman Joseon, was a Chinese state and not Korean." I don't think you want to go down that road. (Of course, you can then take the (untenable) position that Yan was a Korean state, but that's up to you.)

--Nlu (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to argue this, Good friend100. This is just simply CPOV that questions the validity of a "truth" (from KPOV) that Buyeo was Korean to begin with. As I posted above, all we need to argue is whether or not even such contestation belongs here. (Wikimachine 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

• • I agree. Good friend100's arguement about Jumong coming from Puyo and that Puyo is definately a Korean kingdom is untenuable, has logical problems and doesn't help the cause. I'd refrain from using it. WangKon936 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Xuantu, as one of Four Commanderies of Han, is Han's territory, Han get it from "Wei man", a Chinese Yan general, "Wei man" build the kingdom from "Jizi" another Chinese. You can mention about Tangun but he is a half-man,half-god. So do not try to use these as an evidence, it will turn against you.--Yeahsoo 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Good friend100 00:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

History issue for defunct kindom

IMHO,Guguryeo history issue is a problem of so-called legitimate successor kindom problem.It's a huge and complex historic problem in addition with moral concern.If a kindom disppeared themself,and many new kindoms were setup upon it,obviously all the newborn nation are legitimate succesor.While in another case,when a defunct kindom was destroied by invaders,things goes interesting.Morally,the new kindom setup by invaders cann't be recognised as successor.Take an exmeple.The Roman Empire in the broad sense lasted from 27BC to the fall of Byzantine Empire in 1453.And all the kindoms setup upon it were those of invaders.Ostrogothic Kingdom or Frankish Empire or Ottoman Empire were the ones who occupied the territories of Roman Empire,as far as I know no one in the world claim the history of Roman Empire to be their own and proprietary history and ask other countries to refrain from it.Things go to Goguryeo.It is defunct.It was destroyed by invaders(Tang and Silla).So what could be the legitimate successor of Goguryeo?The modern Korea had never ruled any territoies accrossing the Yalu River,how can they claim the history of Goguryeo are their own?The Patrilineal line of the ruler of Korea or upper class were from the side of Silla,how can these men claims the whole kindom?The nobles of Guguryeo died out or renounced their status ,their subjects were somehow shared by different kindoms appeared later,their terrirtories were occupied by different Chinese and Korean Dynasties for almost 1200 years.How can the korean embezzle the history of whole nation?--Ksyrie 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, plus Goguryeo occupied Four Commanderies of Han, for Tang it is natural to regain his land, plus, it is Silla ask Tang to help him defend Goguryeo, if this is invasion, it is Goguryeo invade into Han first. so we should remove the invasion word in the Goguryeo article--Yeahsoo 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation at Europe's different, plus what result does this comment bring? Whereas both CPOV & KPOV claim that Goguryeo was "theirs" and "theirs only", Europeans countries collectively claim roots from the Roman Empire. (Wikimachine 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

You had said of the word collective,how can you state that there's no intersection between Goguryeo and Modern China?Did all the men of Goguryeo become nowadays Korean?--Ksyrie 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire section is just bait for a circular arguement that will drift away from scholarly, fact based debate. I will not be an accessory to it. WangKon936 21:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in your comment of scholarship,I am just a amateur historian.If you cann't convince this humble amateur,it seems you cann't convince other scholars.And why Europe is different?Or why the situation of Goguryeo is different,and should be discussed from common view and take it as particular?--Ksyrie 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there's a way to convince a white supremicist that Anglo-Americans and Black-Americans are equal. Other scholars already have a consensus that Koguryo was a Korean kingdom. It's the CPOV that's challenging this well-established international consensus, and CPOV is not convincing anyone, as Wangkon936 said. Anyways WangKon936, you're wasting your time here. Lets wait for the mediation. Cydevil 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the meaning of other,the peer view?Can you cite any sources that a consensus is made?From which kind of research institutes?All I found that Goguryeo is only for Korea are coming from Korean Sites or expatriated Korean scholars.Did you mean that the Korean consensus is the consensus for all?--Ksyrie 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the section above with the citations that Goguryeo is Korean from several NPOV and non-Korean sites? When there is not enough NPOV citations that Goguryeo is Chinese, you simply accuse that the sources given against you are POV and just from Korean sites. Good friend100 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think one additional thing that should be considered about the use of those sites, in addition to the things that I've pointed out previously (that their quotes should not be taken out of context and that their assertions that Goguryeo was Korean (true) doesn't preclude Goguryeo being Chinese as well), is the WP:BIAS against Chinese views being considered legitimate in non-Asian sources. As WP:BIAS noted, the controversy here should not be taken out of its proper context. No, we shouldn't simply adopt PRC propaganda, whether it came directly from the government or indirectly from scholars relaying governmental agenda. But we still need to deal with them in an NPOV manner.

I noticed one question of mine that has gone unanswered: for those of you who believe that Goguryeo's Chinese name should not be in the infobox (and I guess, implicitly, should not be in the lead section), do you believe that the Polish and Lithuanian names should be removed from Prussia? if so, why? If not, how do you justify the logical consistencies of your positions? --Nlu (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm not familiar with the history of Europe, so I refrained to answer in something I don't know much about. As far as inclusion of Chinese romanization is concerned, for your information, the Japanese romanization[1] is far more common in English secondary sources than the Chinese romanization[2]. If you must insist, I can agree with Korean romanization being put first, then Japanese, then Chinese. But this can be confusing for readers since the standard romanization of Goguryeo is the Korean one, as reflected in the UNESCO designation of Goguryeo tombs[3]. If your concern is for "practical needs" for readers interested in Chinese material on Goguryeo, they can always consult the Chinese version of this article to see how it's written in Chinese. May I remind you, this is for English readers, not Chinese. Cydevil 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, you're completely wrong & here's why. Those NPOV cites & trustworthy references say that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom within the context of Korean history. This is Korean history. Now, those sources might reserve your kind of reasoning in their article about Northeast Project. (Wikimachine 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

In other words, you're the one who's taking defintions out of context & you're the one who's biased here. Stop manipulating words and people's minds. (Wikimachine 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Ksyrie, your argument makes my jaw drop-at first, I could think of nothing to say to your outrageous comment. Is it simply that some people cannot leave the truth of Goguryeo and her glory alone? Somehow, someone always has managed to devise new attacks on Korea's just claim on the history of Goguryeo. I pity you. First, can you prove that no country claims the Roman Empire to be their history? Or what about the Ottoman Empire? Simply because both these empires' territories were distributed among invaders and/or other races does not eliminate the right for Italy or Turkey to claim their own glorious histories. Also, your use of the word "embezzle" was very harsh-definitions should not be abused that way to streghthen your argument. How can Korea take advantage of Goguryeo's historical ties to modern Korea? Oyo321 03:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comments,I had to say you didn't have ever tried to understand what I have stated.I didn't mean that the Korean are forbidden to claim the History of Goguryeo,What I want to say it's that Korea shouldn't be the only Modern country to claim the History of Goguryeo.That's my Point.For the reason why I mention is that I found the Korean don't want to associate the smallest relation with China,that's not truth.--Ksyrie 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that, those "NPOV cites & trustworthy references" also say that Prussia was a German state -- which it was, for sure. That doesn't mean that the history of Prussia is not also part of Polish and Lithuanian history. Similarly, no one (except the most unreasonable among the leaders of the Northeast Project) is disputing the Korean nature of the Goguryeo state. The question is whether it properly is a part of Chinese history as well. Cydevil, further, if you are unfamiliar with Prussian history, I'd suggest that you read Prussia. After all, no one is disputing the neutrality of that article. Then, you can make a judgment call as to whether the Polish and Lithuanian names are appropriate in that article, and whether, in light of your judgment call there, whether your position continues to be logically consistent. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, have you taken a look at the article on Chinese history? There's not a single mention of Goguryeo there. On the other hand, articles on Polish and Lithuanian does mention Prussia several times. Goguryeo simply isn't regarded as a part of Chinese history, even by the Chinese. Conventionally at least. Hence, why I use the word "extremists" to these Chinese editors here. If you're to make Goguryeo a part of Chinese history, you have to reformat the entire history of China at Wikipedia, in such a way that it would include every single non-Chinese entities that was ever within its border as something "Chinese". And in doing so, Wikipedia will only become a propaganda piece of the PRC government. Hence the reason why I insist this historical revisionism(i.e. reformatting of history) should be limited to that of the Northeast Project article, where proper context is provided. Cydevil 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not so familiar with the history of China,many tribes and old kindom were not regarded as China,but now they are regarded as China.Furthermore,Korea is not so in the right to embrace this whole nation in its history.Silla and Tang are all the invaders of Goguryeo,and Later Korean Dynasty had never ruled the majority of Goguryeo,plus,various chinese ethnical regimes had rules the nowadays chinese parts of Goguryeo territory,Just take a look at Liao Dynasty,and Jin Dynasty,Qing Dynasty,they all mentioned the majority of Manchuria are under their rule.And for the southern part of Manchuria,the Han chinese regime had ruled even long before the foundation of Goguryeo,See Yan (state),Han Dynasty,of course there is Tang Dynasty and Ming Dynasty.So how can you reach a conclusion that there's no mention of goguryeo as China?--Ksyrie 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

History of China is already 51 kilobytes long. It can't possibly mention every single relevant state in Chinese history. Yan is also not mentioned in that article, but it certainly was not a Korean state. This article will only become PRC propaganda if it actually promotes PRC's official view and no others; if it is NPOV, it can't be considered propaganda; indeed, if the historical evidence here is presented properly, it won't be PRC's, ROK's, or DPRK's propaganda; it should be about the facts.--Nlu (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And the thing is, in neutral secondary sources, Goguryeo is not regarded as a part of China's history, nor is it considered a "Chinese" state. There's your NPOV. Chinese claims on Goguryeo and its historical revisionism, i.e. CPOV, is put into proper context in Northeast Project. Cydevil 08:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we should summarize the modern politics section and keep it detailed in the northeast project article. Good friend100 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, your reason is circular. As I already pointed out, those alleged "neutral secondary sources" are not dispositive, because they similarly don't state that Prussia is part of Polish and Lithuanian history -- for very good reasons, because they are intended to be summary sources and therefore should only state Prussia's primary character -- i.e., a German state. Similarly here, Goguryeo's Korean characteristic (which is primary) does not disprove -- or, for that matter, necessarily argue against -- a secondary Chinese character. The issue of "Chinese claims on Goguryeo and its historical revisionism" is, as I have pointed out before, improper argument since you are painting the same brush on, for example, me, as the leaders of the Northeast Project, which is thoroughly unfair. If "Chinese" is properly defined and qualified, it's factual and not revisionism. Indeed, I find utterly incomprehensible that you're accusing the PRC government of revisionism (which it is guilty of a lot of times) while engaging in revisionism of your own. (And there, I'm talking about you personally, not the Korean people or either of the Korean governments -- you can't characterize the views of a people by one person or a few people, and I'm not doing so here.) By doing that, I mean that you are mischaracterizing the nature of the arguments for the secondary Chinese characteristic of the state. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Cydevil, I think that this relevant passage from WP:NPOV needs to be reiterated:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

For NPOV to apply, even if, arguably, the view of "Goguryeo has a secondary Chinese characteristic" is not correct, it doesn't matter -- the view is present. It needs to be acknowledged, and facts supporting and opposing it should be present, in the article. The article, for sure, already kind of does that -- but the repeated removal of the Chinese name for the article creates a "bias towards one particular point of view," and is therefore not NPOV, for example.

Further, also according to WP:NPOV, your view (concurred in by some others) that addressing the issue in the Northeast Project article is sufficient, is not correct. WP:NPOV explicitly stating that POV-forking does not make an article NPOV, and effectively, addressing the issue there and not in the Goguryeo article itself is POV-forking. --Nlu (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, under WP:UNDUE:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:Attribution

So the question is, of the four below views:

1. Goguryeo was Korean and Chinese;
2. Gogureyo was Korean and not Chinese;
3. Goguryeo was Chinese and not Korean;
4. Goguryeo was neither Chinese nor Korean;

which of Jimbo's three categories do they fit in? I'd actually acknowledge that the "Goguryeo was Korean and not Chinese" view is either a majority or a plurality view, where "Goguryeo was neither Korean nor Chinese" is an extremely limited minority view. The other two, however, are "viewpoint[s] held by a significant minority," and therefore need to be presented, albeit not in the same amount of information as given to the majority/plurality view. Right now, they are not properly presented, as the elimination of even the Chinese name creates an imbalance that is a "detectable bias" under WP:NPOV That's why, as I proposed (in vain) a week ago, restore the Chinese name and acknowledge the presence of, in addition to the reference to the Northeast Project, views that Goguryeo had a Chinese characteristic. That will not end the edit warring, but will remove a major part of the reason why the article is not considered NPOV, while adhering with WP:UNDUE as well. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "my view is correct! Have the article reflect my view!" -- because, as WP:NPOV is written, even if you are, arguendo, correct, it's still not NPOV. WP:NPOV does mean that, as I pointed out above, that the majority/plurality view can be acknowledged as the majority/plurality view as long as the minority views (no pun intended) are given their proper due weight (which can be a reduced one in an article) and there be no detectable bias against them. Right now, the article is written with a fairly strongly detectable bias, and that's what the article needs to be corrected for. --Nlu (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not suggesting that the Northeast Project claims in this article be taken out entirely. Leave a brief summary in this article under "Modern Politics" and provide a link to Northeast Project as the main article. The section is already getting too long, and minor details are resulting in edit wars, as clearly seen in Assault11's case.
      • As for category, if there is one on "Regional histories of China", I'd agree to its inclusion, as Manchuria, today, is clearly a part of China. However, I oppose "History of China".
      • As for the name, I oppose inclusion of Chinese. Its usage in English sources is negligeable, the "extreme minority" not worth mentioning at Wikipedia.
      • As for your insistence on this "secondary Chinese characteristic", I believe I've already said that under the context of cultural influence, I agree to its inclusion. It should be done under a section that goes something along the line of "cultural influence from external entities".
      • As for your accusation that I'm a revisionist, it is completely unfounded. I'm not the one trying to change history. Cydevil 15:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your continued insistence about the Chinese name's usage in English sources being negligible, while true, is not dispositive. First, that doesn't mean that they name is not relevant or proper in the article. The Polish and Lithuanian names for Prussia, while not used significantly in English sources, are still relevant to the Prussia article. Second, there's nothing in WP:NPOV that states that a view has to be expressed in English sources to be considered at least a substantial nonmajority view. Again, look at WP:NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A much better example is Ghenghis Khan. China is claiming Ghenghis Khan under the very same ideology as their claim on Goguryeo, and yet you don't see any Chinese romanization there, and there is a brief description of how Chinese regard Ghenghis Khan. I can agree with including other names of Goguryeo in the same format as that of Ghenghis Khan, where various names of Goguryeo can also be included, such as Koryo/Goryeo and Gauri(가우리), as well as Japanese(Koma or Kokuri) and Chinese names(Gaogouli or Gaoli). Russian romanization should also be included, as there are a lot of secondary sources in Russian. It should also be made clear that the standard English term is Koguryo/Goguryeo. Cydevil 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning Gaogouli in the first opening paragraph, even wuthout the name section. Good friend100 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All that Nlu said, I already replied above in my "Contention 3: Respect". The problem here now is that you guys are arguing about the right things NOW (not before), but you guys still fail to incorporate previous discussions into new ones as to not repeat this ongoing war.

Second of all, was there some sort of tacit consensus that my posts would be ignored? I'm all fine with that, with the type of editors that might appear on serious disputes as this one, but let me tell you now (as I stated above). Any uncontested arguments remain 100% applicable (because nobody gave reasons why they are wrong --> 0% risk that it is wrong). Even if you guys form a consensus or whatever, without having let me apply what I want to say to this debate, you guys aren't going anywhere. Got it? (Wikimachine 16:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Last paragraph is too long I will make a new start

The point is thatAll the secondary sources refer Goguryeo as Korean State,and Does the Chinese claim of Goguryeo come in to collision with the Korean claim?Did the two claim are Mutually exclusive events?

The 2 events are not mutually exclusive. CPOV can start a new article on Gaoguli if they want to. (Wikimachine 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

• • I suggest to reduce the dispute, the history of Korea template should mark a "*" sign next to Goguryeo and Balhae, and note that is in dispute, so does the Chinese and Korean related article if necessary, it should be fair.--Yeahsoo 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yo, let's have something fun, in Talk:Dongmyeongseong_of_Goguryeo I found this,

"Someone tried to be funny and wrote, "King Jumong went to Palestine and died." I don't know who wrote such bs, but let's make sure nothing like that ever happens again. This is wikipedia, a source of accurate information. NOT a site of parody or stupidity. --Kprideboi 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)" Naughty, naughty, some Heroes are too talented, that is the most impressive imagination I ever heard. What's next? Palestine land or Jesus is Korean? OMG.--Yeahsoo 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you're implying that these bs's are from Koreans? I could write a 10-page essay on how you're racist & nationalist. (Wikimachine 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

• • • • • I did not imply anything, ok? you can check my discussion, I mentioned several times not all Koreans are nationalist, and if you write 10 page it better be provided with evidence. I will call your lines above an insult, because I have never put any racial words or anything without sources. BTW, how is the research going? Let me help you, I live is US,I can not be the same person live in Hongkong/Macao, you better focus on Goguryeo, than waste time insulting others or imagine all others are sock puppets.--Yeahsoo 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop wrangling over the details,man are always biased.We cann't help making mistakes.I propose both sides stopping further arguments and start to make an outline which both sides can accept.--Ksyrie 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • I did see all secondary sources in your favor, but why not mention about secondary sources mentioned it is Chinese state? or have someone delete it right away? I feel like all talks above is wasted if someone would neglect certain things, and select certain thing in mind.--Yeahsoo 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry, but I think that what I remembered of other CPOV editors mixed with the image of you that I had in mind. As for the 2ndary sources for KPOV, I'm new to this discussion, so I haven't explored all of the details yet. (Wikimachine 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

I cannot find any neutral sources that say Goguryeo was Chinese. Good friend100 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, WP:NPOV demands that no POV forks be started for articles. --Nlu (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "POV forks", but when I talk about "CPOV" & "KPOV", I'm not necessarily saying that I advocate a "POV" of some sort, but I'm using the terms out of convenience. For example, when I talk about "KPOV" editors, I'm not saying that Good friend100 is KPOV, but he is on what people would generally consider as a "Korean side", in relations to the advocacies made for what people would easily call Chinese viewpoint. (Wikimachine 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Goguryeo and the Korean Peninsula have forever been invaded by nearly every Chinese dynasty that I can think of. Of course invasions (which is war) are a part of a nation's history. War between different nations will forever be part of a nation's history. Most likely the war will have changed the paths of either nation. Ksyrie, your argument is so obvious that its not even worth mentioning. Military confrontation may be shared as history, not entire national histories.

That's maybe the key divergency between some Chinese editors and Korean editors.That's Korean editors had already saw the all Goguryeo to be their own property.But in fact Silla and Tang were all invaders.Let's make a conjecture,if Goguryeo did exist unitl nowadays,did the people of Goguryeo see them as Korean or Chinese?They wont deem them neither chinese nor korean,they are just of goguryeo.--Ksyrie 17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You said that previous Chinese states claimed control and influence, before Goguryeo came to power, which is indeed true. But it doesn't make any sense that the Han or Tang dynasties still continue to grasp control over Manchuria, even after it was successfully conquered by Goguryeo. That's like saying that Japan still holds justified claim over the Philippines, since it was conquered by Imperial Japan in the Second World War. Oyo321 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is not analogous and you know it. Japan occupied the Philippines for about only three years. Moreover, Japanese culture made a minimal influence on Filipino culture. --Nlu (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, WP:NPOV explains what POV forks are. Please read it when you get a chance. (Based on your statements about what NPOV is in the threads above, I am not convinced that you have actually read WP:NPOV or understand what it means.) --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read NPOV. (Wikimachine 05:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

• Isolating CPOV view on Goguryeo and other related matters is not POV fork for following reasons:

• Northeast Project claims that Goguryeo was Chinese. When the response from the academia has been ignore such arguments as to make them illegitimate, to put that assertion in the Goguryeo article brings not 2 competing interpretations but concession to CPOV.

• For example, "The Vietnam War was finally won by the Communist party when the capital city..." could be considered POV from American viewpoint. And then if you were to add "however it can be considered that the Vietnam War was really won by the Americans because..." Then that's not NPOV. Within the framework of concession, American POV is what that becomes. Just because you add 2 or more competing arguments does not make the entire issue NPOV.

• Isolation of CPOV on Northeast Project is not a POV fork b/c the article was already there to begin with. The CPOV is specific only to the Northeast Project. Extend "Contention One: 2 Different Theories" from achive4.

• "Contention Two: Respect" cross-applied to WP:IAR overturns a risk of POV fork. Why, are you going to have an article on Allah & then mix that with article God in order to make it NPOV? Then it would become a war between the Muslims & Jews & Christians & Catholics. It's better to keep the articles separate to meet the demands of the individual ethnic & religious groups & to maintain tranquility within Wikipedia by having 2 separate articles w/ 2 separate views rather than to search for the absolute T truth because that absolute T Truth oppresses different cultures & peoples. (Wikimachine 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

What is a primary source?

It has been tossed around the assertions that ancient Chinese and Korean sources, such as the Book of Sui and Samguk Sagi, are primary sources. Under Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material:

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is a primary source. Parts of the Bible are primary sources. The White House's summary of a George Bush speech is a primary source. Publicly available databases, such as citation indexes and census surveys, are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

• Examples of primary sources include

  archaeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

• Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A theologian's account of what the Bible says is a secondary source. A sociologist thesis based on his research of primary sources is a secondary source. A journalist analysis of a traffic accident, is a secondary source. A New York Times analysis of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves.

• Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

Based on these definitions, neither the ancient Chinese nor Korean sources cited so far are primary sources. They were compilations -- historians' interpretations of raw documents, most now lost to us but not all, of events that the historians themselves did not witness. They are secondary sources, not primary. I would also dare say that these definitions are in accord with academic definitions of what primary and secondary sources are.

I felt it important to bring it up because I felt that the assertions that those ancient sources are primary sources were repeatedly thrown about in threads above without real understanding of what primary sources and what secondary sources are, and then the further (unsupported by WP:OR) assertions were also thrown about that using primary sources is original research. First, they were not primary sources. Second, there's nothing in WP:OR that says that using primary sources is necessarily OR. The use of primary sources needs to be carefully done, but the use of primary sources is not itself OR. --Nlu (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read primary source and secondary source. Obviously, as the primary source article noted, in historiography, a secondary source itself becomes a primary source, but this article is not a historiographical article (whereas, Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Science would, I believe, be a historiographical article, although that is still an arguable point). For a true historiographical article, see, for example, Records of the Grand Historian. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong on your interpretation. "historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings" already identifies those "compilations & historical interpretations" to be primary sources. However, just in case you are willing to contest that, WP:OR & the entire subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources rest on the ability of the academia to exchange informations & different viewpoints, peer review, and verify. There was no way for the Chinese historians back then to write a very accurate description of the situation around them because of the limited means of communication, evaluation, and verifiication. That is, a historian might presume that his/her king died of illness while s/he was assassinated w/ poison. And therefore, the history would be written as the historian believed --> secondary source??? No. Only modern literature on the issue (specifically, the death of the king) can examine several documents and scientific evidences to accurate present a conclusion. There's a reason why the academia entails only 2ndary & tertiary sources to be included in research papers. (Wikimachine 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Interprets and analyses primary sources. Secondary sources are one step removed from the event being described but provide the background necessary to understand the the primary sources. Some types of secondary sources are: textbooks, journal articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, and encyclopedias. (from define: secondary source, on Google) (Wikimachine 05:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

We are on Wikipedia; therefore, we use Wikipedia's definition of what primary sources and secondary sources are. Whether the historian is right or not, it doesn't make his/her interpretation to be a primary source. In an article, it would be appropriate to note a historian's bias or other reasons for inaccuracy, but that historian's compilation is still not a primary source. Also, please reread the quote that you quoted. "[H]istorical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings" refers to what is effectively raw data; if it's intended to cover all historical documents, it would have been, "historical documents, such as ..." (notice the added comma). A source such as the Book of Sui is not a primary source, based on Wikipedia's definition. A census report that the Wei Zheng and the officials worked under him to reach the conclusion that Sui's Ji Province had 1,000,000 households (which is one thing that the Book of Sui asserted) would be indeed a primary source, but that's not what we're using here. Had it been the consensus of the Wikipedia community that ancient sources are not considered secondary sources, the guideline would have stated so. I also note that, thankfully, you are no longer asserting that WP:OR disallows the use of primary sources, because nowhere in WP:OR is it said that primary sources cannot be used. --Nlu (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That we are on Wikipedia & therefore must use Wikipedia's definition is... flawed. Those are interpretations that Wikipedians reflected off of the academia's definitions of the primary, 2ndary, & tertiary sources. I'm not talking about a single historian's interpretation of the 2ndary source. Yes, a source such as Book of Si is a primary source. And, yes, I assert that WP:OR states that primary sources can be used to back up "descriptions" only. You can't use it to advocate a position in a controversial debate. Quote WP:Attribution: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." By the way, WP:OR was moved to Wikipedia:Attribution, so some of the things that I say might come from the old WP:OR. (Wikimachine 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Moreover, while it might have been the case that Sima Qian had no peer review, that was not the case for the historians of subsequent Chinese dynasties. No, they're not the type of peer review that we have in the modern era. However, they were subjected to peer review, and they worked in large teams. (An exception would be the History of Northern Dynasties and History of Southern Dynasties, which were basically private histories that were later considered to be sufficiently reliable to be adopted into the official histories. If anything, it is really a relatively modern source that some Korean editors rely on for their conclusions, Joseon Sanggosa, that was not subjected to peer review, due to the circumstances of the times. That doesn't mean that the Joseon Sanggosa's views should be disregarded in an article; it just meant that its biases needed to be noted. --Nlu (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, that's no justification. This is how your argument works. 1) We can use the archaeological Chinese & Korean texts. 2) Because they are 2ndary sources. 3) Because they are so under Wikipedia's defintions 4) WP:OR (the old one, & also another section in WP:Attribution) specifies that primary sources can be used. However, I turn all 3 links. 1) We can't use the archaeological Chinese & Korean texts 2) a) Because they're archaeological findings, to begin with b) they do not meet the specifications set by the academia for 2ndary sources 3) a) Wikipedia's definitions are reflected off of the academia's definition on 2 grounds: i) Wikipedia is an academic institution & thus strives to be part of the academia ii) if those definitions were indeed different, they would have been named differently c) We're going to take the risk that Wikipedia's wrong, not the entire academia. 4) I already proved to you that WP:OR specifies that primary sources can be used for descriptive purpose only. To shape those descriptions (I already gave an example above) into a historical assertion is WP:OR. (Wikimachine 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

It should be noted that F. W. Mote, for example, in his works, generally acknowledges and asserts that traditional Chinese historical accounts are generally accurate in their factual recitations, even if their interpretations, particularly in the motivations of non-Han individuals, could be suspect. (I just looked through Mote's Imperial China, 900-1800, and could not find the quote I was looking for, but I remember reading a fairly lengthy quote in that work to that effect, with regard to how the History of Liao and History of Jin were generally accurate in describing the events during those dynasties but misunderstood the "Steppe mindset" in interpreting rationales.) If you're going to start asserting that traditional Chinese histories are generally inaccurate, you better have some good really, really good evidence. --Nlu (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending that Chinese histories are generally inaccurate, I'm only defending the definition of a 2ndary source. That Chinese history might be inaccurate was an explanation of the academia's procedurals. (Wikimachine 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

One more observation; based on your user page, it does not appear that you've done extensive history studies on a college level. I have (and no, this is not an Essjay-type of assertion, although of course I realize that I can't prove it without divulging more personal information -- which I am considering doing given that some of my personal information is on a governmental Web site that is required to disseminate such information anyway already, and therefore, someone who really wants to know my identity can already figure it out anyway, I think), at an institution that is highly honored for its history program. I was an undergrad; I did not do a graduate program in history, but I think I can dare say that I have a good idea of what is considered a primary source and what is considered a secondary source in the field of history. If you haven't done so before, I suggest that you talk to a history professor about the debate that we're having here, generally, about Goguryeo. I don't expect the history professor to necessarily agree with me, but I do expect that the history professor will tell you some things that will hopefully open your eyes as to some of the problems with arguing from an agenda (which, obviously, some of the Northeast Project's leaders are) and the necessity to have civil discourse in this particular academic field. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No I haven't done any college level research, but most people agree that my school is as hard or harder than most colleges in the United States. Furthermore, personal identity serves no justification & actually might serve to discredit those who claim that they're knowledgeable about the academia when they actually contest the definitions that the academia has defined. And yes, my school's full of Ph.D. professors. I'll ask. (Wikimachine 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

So what is that you are emphasizing, that primary Korean and Chinese sources can be used? Sorry, your talking is way above my level. Good friend100 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, never good friend. My way of talking is never above yours, & it's all from debate & stuffs. Debaters are the ones who are stupid here. I'm saying that we can't use primary sources (Korean & Chinese) to make an assertion. (Wikimachine 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

And that's not supported by WP:OR. Plus, as I've pointed out above, Wikipedia does not define ancient historical sources as primary sources. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that above, you referred to "archaeological sources." There's nothing "archaeological" about the Book of Sui or the Samguk Sagi. They're sources that have remained extant since their compilation. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And to put it bluntly, you are on Wikipedia, and therefore you play by Wikipedia's rules. If you disagree with Wikipedia's definitions of what a primary source and what a secondary source is, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you, because effectively, you are effectively arguing from false premises as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You were arguing that the sources others were quoting were "primary sources" and therefore barred by WP:OR. That is an argument from a false premise because 1) under the definitions that WP:OR is (and the other Wikipedia policies are) using, those sources aren't primary sources and 2) WP:OR doesn't disallow the use of primary sources in the first place. Your argument is akin to redefining a monarchy as a state that has a chief executive, and then stating that the United States is a monarchy. Sorry, that type of argument doesn't fly. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the defenses.

1) Under the definition of Primary source, "In the study of historiography, when the study of history is itself subject to historical scrutiny, a secondary source becomes a primary source. For a biography of a historian, that historian's publications would be primary sources." 2) WP:OR entails that if a primary source says "the Chinese emperor referred to Goguryeo as a territory within his empire", you can't say "Goguryeo was within Chinese rule at some point" or try to make such implications. Let me copy-past for 3rd time: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims".

Here are the offenses & why you lose.

1) Academia: a) you failed to assert that the academia's definition doesn't agree with Wikipedia's b) you failed to assert that Wikipedia's definitions are not reflected off of the academia's definition on 2 grounds (mentioned above) c) you failed to assert that we should take the risk that academia's wrong, not the Wikipedia. 2) Wikipedia's procedural definitions are always subjected change. I can go into one of the talk pages & change a rule, under strong consensus. That's why there's such a thing as WP:IAR. This is a democratic institution. Then, we are going to apply 1c that we'd take the risk that Wikipedia's wrong & at the same time Wikipedia strives to be right in the eyes of the academia in basics such as primary, 2ndary, and tertiary sources. (Wikimachine 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

And frankly, I don't care if you are unhappy that you are being called on for your lack of actual experience in historical studies. While Wikipedia gives no special editing privileges to expert editors (and I wouldn't call myself an expert editor; I am not an academic in the field), part of the way that Wikipedia works is that, to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community, you have to be cognizant of your own limitations in your experience and knowledge. If you don't understand German, don't try to translate a passage from German into English. If you don't really know how to distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources, don't pretend that you know how to. If you don't know how traditional Chinese (and Korean) historical sources were compiled, don't pretend that you know. If you think that you are justifiably upset because you are called to account based on your lack of experiences, imagine what my frustrations must be when I am facing arguments that are not bad-faith arguments but are made so naively without understanding of how the field of history works. It's like having my clients argue with me (as I mentioned, I am not an academic; I'm a criminal defense attorney): "But I only slapped her; I didn't punch her her! How can that be battery?" Well, whatever that client thinks is battery is irrelevant; slapping is battery, whether you are happy or unhappy that it is battery. It may hurt, but it's the truth.

That isn't to say that you can't contribute, even as a young editor, because Wikipedia has many highly productive young editors, but again, you must recognize your own limitations. One of the comments I made tonight when an editor asked me to critique an article on Chinese art was that I have nearly no knowledge in the field and therefore wouldn't make a good critic. I don't always recognize my limitations, but i try to. When I was your age, I had a much different view of Chinese history than I do now. I went through, again, a fairly rigorous undergraduate history program, with good professors who taught me what are good academic practices and what are bad academic practices in the field of history. I realized that some of my views were valid, and how with these practices I could refine them in a better way. I realized that some of my views were unsupported, and I've learned to modify them. There is a reason why I encourage high schoolers to go to college; in addition to all of the other life experiences you will gain there, you will actually learn a thing or two, too, as far as the academic fields are concerned. Not everything under the world is learned in junior high and high school.

I just recently went through a highly frustrating experience of an user (you know which one) whose edits were simply based on (probably honest, but negligent) misreadings of a passage of the Samguk Sagi. It is not fun watching that user repeatedly and repeatedly, and refusing to discuss, putting back the same edits (reverting, among other things, grammatical and stylistic improvements, in the process as well), because he/she was unwilling to do a simple re-read of the passage. He/she didn't recognize his/her own limitations. I am still a relatively young person as far as the people of the world are concerned (or at least I would like to think so -- I am already joking to people that I am flattered that they didn't think that the photo on my credit card (taken during my sophomore year in college) no longer looks like me), and I have a lot, a lot more to learn still in this world. I suggest that you should also realize that you, too, have a lot to learn, and do not come to this discussion with the attitude of "I know everything! Everyone should follow what I say! If I think that this is a primary source, it is a primary source, no matter what Wikipedia's guidelines are!" It's an attractive attitude for a young man or woman, and to a certain extent, it is necessary for your own personal development at this stage, to develop your identity independent from that of your parents, your family, your friends. But when overly done, it is annoying, it is rude, it is reckless, particularly on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. When I took a college computer science course at a nearby college when I was in high school, I was shocked to find that I was no longer the programming wizard that I was compared to my peers -- that these "stupid college students" (as I so thought -- certainly I thought that I would eventually go to a more prestigious college than the one that they were at) actually had things that I needed to learn from. Moreover, because some class projects were collaborative, that I had to learn to work with them. It was an eye-opening experience. (As far as those college students were concerned, thankfully, I was the cute little brother who needed pampering, and I appreciated them for their pampering.) I had a lot to learn back then, and I still have a lot to learn now. I suspect that you do too. In addition to the youthful assertiveness, I suggest showing a little humility as well. It's a good, and particularly good Asian, virtue. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And, just one more comment about what you wrote above: Wikipedia is not a democracy. And, as you noted, you can get the definitions changed if you get consensus to change them. So if you want them changed, propose that they be changed. Don't change them in the context of this discussion until you have been able to get a consensus that they should be changed. --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And please read the definition of historiography. Whichever definition you choose to use, Goguryeo is not a historiographical article. Samguk Sagi is or should become one at some point. Book of Sui is or should become one at some point. In those articles, certainly those sources themselves would become primary sources. Outside the context of historiographical articles, those sources are not primary sources. --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to respond to your comments about my area of expertise. Here are the replies to the relevant arguments you've made. By the way, Wikipedia is a consensus-based democracy, as opposed to the Athenian democracy that is most referred by the term democracy.

1) Misreading of the Wikipedia text on 2ndary source doesn't lead to anywhere b/c a) the academia's definitions don't agree b) Wikipedia's definition still disagrees (improvise below)

The original Chinese and Korean historical texts are primary sources because they were written at the time of the events. If you know how Korean & Chinese history works, the historian or the scribes record literally everything that happens around the royal palace. And then, such compilation only means a compilation of primary sources (like an archive). Specifically, the definitions that I see online entail the role of analyzing on part of the historian. The type of history that contained primary, secondary, and tertiary sources came from the west. And under western definitions, history cannot be a time line of events, while in the east, history simply served as an archive of events that occurred in that country & served only as a tool for the government (yes, b/c national civil service contained most of the prestigious jobs). (Wikimachine 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

This response shows a major misunderstanding of how a source like the Book of Sui was compiled.

Yes, it used archives, but it is the archives themselves that are the primary source. The authors, led by Wei Zheng, were not copying wholesale the archives into the work; the work itself was an edited compilation, and also included many, many things that would not be in the archives. It's not a primary source, because it was not written at or near the time the events occurred. (The Book of Sui was actually one of the ones that was written closer to the events than most of the Twenty-Four Histories, but even it was completed in 636, some 18 years after the end of the Sui Dynasty.) The Samguk Sagi was written centuries after the events in question; it's not a primary source by any definition of the word.

And you're switching definitions again. Since we're talking about Wikipedia, we use Wikipedia's definition of what a democracy is, and according to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If Wikipedia defines itself as a non-democracy, you can't sua sponte define it as a democracy by altering the definition of "democracy" within the context of what Wikipedia uses. --Nlu (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't know why you should contest my own definition of "democracy" when it has absolutely no relevance in this discussion (in a theoretical world where everybody have different opinions, there's no need to challenge every one of the infinite number of different opinions unless they should concern you)... unlesss you just want to do it out of spite & also to prove my inaccurate understanding of the entire world. However, I'll go further. Your reasoning is flawed here: "Wikipedia is not a democracy". I already pre-empted your counter argument by specifying Athenian democracy to be the one that the word democracy most frequently refers to. Consensus-democracy is most befittingly Wikipedia.

And it doesn't even matter if it was not written near the time of the events that occurred. The historical texts & archives were never written at the time of the events. Ther was always a lag, as far as a century or two. Whether condensing, compiling severael, not completely copied but copied here and there, etc.... I don't care. Historians of the national civil service did not perform the same works as that of the western historians. That's why we can often consider western historical texts as 2ndary & even tertiary sources while we consider those compilations to be primary sources. (Wikimachine 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Again, if you want Wikipedia to change its definitions of what is a primary source and what is a secondary source, propose a change and see if the community agrees with you. Until the definitions are changed, as we are on Wikipedia, and WP:OR was written with these definitions in mind, changing the definitions in the discussion is a bait-and-switch. --Nlu (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to change it. (Wikimachine 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Because I already said that Wikipedia's definition of 2ndary source agrees with me. "Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source." (Wikimachine 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

And that's what the Book of Sui and Samguk Sagi are. Again, you don't seem to understand the process of how they were written. --Nlu (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles about them say that they're compilations of history by government historians. Hmmm.... somebody was talking about that a while ago.... hmmmm....national civil service? Ahhhhhh. (Wikimachine 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

It is more than proper to comment on their biases. It is more than proper to discuss reasons why they should be credited or not. It is not proper to call them primary sources. (Incidentally, as I noted, History of Northern Dynasties was a private history that was not commissioned by any government.) The Samguk Sagi, in particular, was commissioned by Goryeo -- which had little, if any, reason to give false information that would tend to discount Goguryeo's Korean characteristics. Further, the Book of Sui's lead editor was Wei Zheng, whose personal integrity appears unimpeachable. --Nlu (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about carve on tomb/Epitafium

I think Nlu's theory on primary source does have some sense here, but there comes my question. A Eupatorium or the title carved on the tomb is usually carved by the family or the government (if he is a celebrity). What do you say about it, primary source? Secondary source? We might get this info from a book that record the words on the tomb, then it is secondary source, and it is definitely not OR. But can you say a tomb hundreds years ago is WP:OR? I do not think so, otherwise, no body can do any historian research anymore, a fissile,WP:OR; a ruin WP:OR. What do you say?

BTW, I am pretty ashamed for myself and all Korean and Chinese here, while Japanese denied the comfort women, Korean and Chinese should join force to fight the real evil things, but we did was wasting time here biting each other, and the military nationalists are watching and laughing.--Yeahsoo 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your words abhorrent and disgusting. What Japanese are doing to history is far more benign and trivial when compared to what China is doing to history. Cydevil 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I should show your mercy, and god bless you and save you. It is not your fault, and I will not have bad words on you. To the rest have good wish in mind, we can have a positive attitude, and do something efficient and valuable. --Yeahsoo 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You can show us your positive attitude by stop distorting Korean history. Cydevil 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • That is very nice word, even if you never did that way. sometimes, even add Goguryeo a history of China category would be refered as "distorting Korean history". The onlything will peace your soul would be China give up his part on Goguryeo. :) That is why I have a faith that it will not be possible that all Korean are like this, and not all Korean are nationalists, and most Korean are reasonable. I will not blaim Korean or "distorting Korean history", but still I will do my best help wiki to show truth.--Yeahsoo 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as freedom of speech should be respected, you're free to engage in historical revisionism and propagate pseudohistory. And also, you have absolutely no moral authority to accuse Japanese of distorting history. That's hypocrisy at its worst. Cydevil 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate Korea is fighting on two sides. And it becomes even more complicated since China is ultimately Korea's ally in the dispute against Japan.

We cannot discuss around politically and whats happening at an international level. What one country does, does not mean every person in that country agrees. We can't start going into talks with the word "China did this..." or "Korea did that..." etc. Good friend100 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good friend, the reason why we can say "China did this..." is because the Chinese government is responsible for this. Cydevil 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so,it is so easy to blame every things to poor chinese government....--Ksyrie 11:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats correct, but we can't do this on Wikipedia. Good friend100 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything wrong with the Chinese government but the communists that run it. Good friend100 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New Development

An analysis on Chinese history textbooks revealed that Goguryeo has been excluded from Korean history and was rewritten as a provincial government of ethnic minorities of Chinese dynasties in a new version of Chinese history textbook[4]. This is in direct violation of the 2004 accord between Korea and China that this historical revisionism will not reach history textbooks. Cydevil 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. To the best of my knowledge, they did not recognize or claim Goguryeo as its own entity during 50s through 80s.Merumerume 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Good friend100 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Well, my words would be referd as "distorting Korean history" anyway, so I will be very cautious not to make you feel like that. According to you, the old version is more acurate to Korean, but Even the old book said Goguryeo starts in China east north area, is it some kind of evidence that Goguryeo is part of Chinese history? And the old version also mentioned about the Wei Man, a Chinese established ancient Korea, and before that, it is Gija Gojoseon,which is also established by Chinese. I hope you will not feel offended, I just listed some thing on old version that Korean prefer. I know you want to mentioned about the Tangun, but it is a half-man, half god, a legend, it is just added into Korean's textbook as real history in 2007. and add 1000 years history on bronze use. Even Korean historians do not agree with that[5]. BTW, this "new" textbook is in 1997, and old version is in 1983, don't you think a new book will be neccessary after 14 years. I understand Korean's concern, but this "news" is kind of old. What's the changes in Korean history textbook in 2007 version? Again, I showed polite in the words, I deserve polite from replies. --Yeahsoo 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Somethings strange to say,the chinese didn't mention Goguryeo as the chinese ones just they didn't realize Goguryeo as parts of its history.It is the academic breakthrough.While it seems that the korean are far more clever to realize that the old kindoms destroyed by its army should be included in its history.In this sense,china are really losers..--Ksyrie 11:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If China wants to teach its people history certain way, it's their perogative. Each country teaches history in its own POV. So, is Japan. So, stop worrying about what the other country is teaching their people and you go on about your business. All it matters is where the current borders are drawn and that the countries respect that. Failing that, may be we'll let our children settle the mess that we created with a territorial war or two. The new territory will be drawn by one with the strongest force, not the most correct text book. Just my view on this unending argument. So, just build up your military and let the arms race start. It'd be almost funny, if the implications weren't so lethal. -DK

And therein lies the problem; that misinformation of children can lead to future wars (or, if not wars, at least other undesirable consequences). I believe the reason Jimbo started Wikipedia is to try to make sure that people are informed. NPOV promotes that principle, and in this case, where there are multiple views, the multiple views need to be presented in an unbiased manner, whether they be Chinese or not. As I noted above, that doesn't mean "equal coverage" or "equal time," but it does mean that the article should not be written in a slanted manner. --Nlu (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more Nlu. Personally, I think a compromise is in order. The more I think about it, Koguryo is also important to China. There are many Koguryo relics in China in the Dong Bei province and it should be important to China so that they will be good caretakers. Both sides need to chill out and take stalk of what's important. China needs to understand that Koguryo is important to Korea and Koreans should understand that Koguryo, and the system of ethnic inclusion and territorial integrity that is represents, is important to China. I've heard stories of when diplomatic relations were opened up between the PRC and South Korea, South Korean tourists went to Jilin to see Koguryo ruins and they were obnoxious to their Chinese hosts, setting up banners indicating how this land was their land, etc. China is a land where ethnic conflict with their barbarian neighbors created costly wars and great suffering for the Chinese. Now these barbarians are part of the China of today and the Chinese have to make a history that makes sense of their difficult past and includes these formally non-Chinese groups into a functioning nationality.

The Chinese need to understand that Koguryo is important to not only Korean history, but also Korean identity. They should realize that their Northeast Asian project may have gone too far and might have had better international reception if they had seeked Korean input from the very begining. It's not easy being a good neighbor, but in a powder keg like Northeast Asia, where you have three powerful countries so close to each other, you have to try. War is an unlikely, but dark alternative. More likely are economic and cultural stagnation as neighbors distrust and disrespect each other. WangKon936 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. China's playing a very dangerous game by attempting to fuse civic nationalism with ethnic nationalism. In order to do so, the greater "Zhonghua" ethnicity(ethnic nationalism element) is being fused into the current boundaries of the PRC(civic nationalism element), and in the process, histories and cultural legacies of other people are getting twisted and distorted to have them assimilated into this greater 'Zhonghua" ethnicity. This is not a simple matter of misunderstanding, but a problem of seriously misguided, and dangerous, policy on part of the PRC. This kind of historical revisionism should be subjected to criticism, not compromise. Cydevil 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well think of it this way Cydevil. What if Koreans were able to convince China and the world that Koguryo was firmly and undeniably a part of Korean histography? Given how paranoid China can be about having any proof of foreign presence on their modern day soil, who knows what will happen to the priceless Koguryo artifacts in Dong Bei? Before there was all this attention on Koguryo in China, many precious Koguryo artifacts were bulldozed over for new development before they were properly studied. Koguryo tomb paintings were were stolen and not properly cared for. If anything comes out of this, it is my hope that the PRC will now spend resources to protect and perserve these priceless artifacts of cultural heritage. WangKon936 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt China, a totalitarian state, can be convinced, and the world already considers Goguryeo an undeniable part of Korean histography. And I don't oppose Goguryeo being considered a regional history of Manchuria. Cydevil 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can consider Goguryeo a part of regional history, that of Manchuria. But that's as far as it goes. It's not part of China's history.

I wonder the socalled dangerous attemptiong made by chinese,in a word,the italian and greek wont accuse france and spain to link the Roman empire to their history.As I have stated,Silla and Tang were in the same situation,Goguryeo were destroyed by the two nations.At your logic,the Italian should be furious about the contents of History of Spain where metioned the Roman Empire.No one question Goguryeo as an important factor in forming modern Korean,and The chinese links to goguryeo should also be respected.--Ksyrie 00:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, the example you give of France and/or Spain claiming Roman history is not a very good one. First of all, France and Spain speak a Roman/Latin based language. Second of all, Rome had ALL of French and Spanish territory. Last time I checked, China's official language is not an altaic based one (the type of language that Koguryo most likely spoke) and China did not have all of Koguryo's territory, particularly Northern Korea, where a majority of Koguryo's population lived and where it's capital was located. Lastly, Spain and France is not claiming ALL of Roman history. They will readily acknowledge that Roman heritage is best preserved in Italy, something that modern day Koreans will say about Koguryo. WangKon936 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Aegyptus (Roman province),Egypt under Romain Empire rule?and Roman Britain,which they speaked differnet language,and Romain Empire didn't conquer the entire Britain and Modern Egypt?They acknowledge Koguryeo as Korean didn't go collison with the Chinese claims of Goguryeo as its History,It's not Mutually exclusive event--Ksyrie 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's still flawed because the Roman Empire example is a two sided sword. You know the closest thing in the East to the Roman Empire is China. It's just that Rome fragmented under barbarian pressure but China did not. So you have in China a dominate central plains Han Chinese culture, whereas Europe has all these different nations and cultural spheres such as Latin culture (Italy, France and Spain), Germanic culture (Germany, Denmark and the Low Countries) and slavic culture (the Balkins, Romania and Hungary). But anyways, that's beside the point. Rome was clearly a multicultural and multiethnic super state with two primary cultures dominating it's influence, Greek and Latin Peninsular. That's why it's first fragmentation under barbarian pressure was in the Western (Latin) Roman Empire and Eastern (Greek). Where I'm I going with all this? Well, the best parallel of Rome and and Koguryo would be an area that was at times under Roman rule and sometimes not under Roman rule but was never under Roman rule for very long periods of time. Humm... I think that would be Germany. Rome conquered some areas of Germany, but for the most part kept that area pacified by keeping the different gothic tribes appeased and fighting one another. It was influenced by Rome, but never fully integrated into the Empire. That's pretty much how Southern Manchuria and Northern Korea was. A virtual stew of non-Chinese tribes such as Yemek, Okcho, Koguryo, Puyo, etc. Influenced by China, sent troops to fight in her wars at times, under control of China at times, but never really that long. Also think of it this way. Xuantu was established in 106 BC right? Koguryo established in the middle of the 1st century BC. Koguryo broke away from Xuantu in 12 AD. So it was under influence of Xuantu for what? 40 to 50 years? So because of that it's an exclusively Chinese kingdom? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Anyways, I don't know if I'm making much sense right now. I'm just tired. WangKon936 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well,you may understand my points,there are really some links between Goguryeo and China,culturally They used Chinese as written language,and Goguryeo was also a multiracial nation,there was definitely another important ethnic Mohe,which later became the modern Manchu.I just want to say ,there's no attemption to make Goguryeo as exclusive chinese kindom,We just want to persuade some korean writers Goguryeo is not only Korean but also Chinese.--Ksyrie 06:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can be persuaded that Jin Dynasty is not only Chinese, but also Korean. Cydevil 06:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 is of Korean?Just give some reasons.--Ksyrie 06:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As it seems, while Nlu tolerates using ancient historical records to support CPOV on Goguryeo article, he seems to oppose its usage when it's used for KPOV and simply regard it as "vandalism"[6] What the hell happened to "NPOV" there? Cydevil 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder the source saying the ancestor of Jurchen were of Silla?Jurchen lived in the northern part of Manchuria,not in the Korean Penisula.All the sources about Jurchen suggests they live along the bank of Amur River,Silla seems too far from this region--Ksyrie 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask, I wonder. It already cites its sources there. Nevertheless, their own "histories" cite their own ancestry from Silla. But, I could care less. The fact of the matter is that Goguryeo is regarded as a Korean kingdom. An international consensus(if you actually bothered to look into this). I honestly don't want to get into this imbroglio of historical distortions. You and I already have reached a consensus regarding Balhae. I ask that you honor it. This is as far as I can "compromise". If the disputes here can be "resolved", I can focus into other matters, such as comfort women as Yeahsoo suggested. Cydevil 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism because the edit removed (quite intentionally, as the IP's edit history showed) a {{sprotect}} tag that was supposed to be there. It has nothing to do with the substantive merits of the edit; removing the tag was vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)OK, I misread the history. The revertion was based on the removal of the image. If I removed non-vandalistic text, it was out of mistake, not because the edit was substantively bad. (Stylically, however, it was bad, as it introduced non-Roman block text, which I don't think complies with the Manual of Style.) --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a loaded argument assuming that anyone who believes that there is a connection between Goguryeo and China is a PRC propagandist. And, in any case, WP:NPOV does not say that it's not open to criticism; it just says that it needs to be properly covered. --Nlu (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I reiterate; the "CPOV" and "KPOV" distinction is divisive. There should only be a discussion on what is NPOV, not which "nationalistic POV" should prevail. --Nlu (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that you gladly accepted what I wrote when I used the actual text from the New Book of Tang to refute Assault11's assertions. --Nlu (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thought: don't you think you ought to re-examine your rhetoric in light of what Andrew Leonard thought of your arguments? No, Leonard did not follow this entire situation, but certainly he is not entirely off. Perhaps some self-examination is in order (not in the CCP style, obviously). --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I already knew what the New Book of Tang said based on several research papers I've read. The reason I shun WP:OR on ancient records is because archaic terms used in them can be twisted and distorted for whatever means. I prefer to rely on secondary research by professionals who have a good knowledge of relative reliability and distinctive biases of different ancient records. Anyways, you know that Assault11's behavior was clearly disruptive and extremely POV. He was removing KPOV arguments in Modern Politics. This is in clear violation of NPOV, as both sides of the arguments should be presented. As far as I'm concerned, there can be no compromise to Assault11, Yeahsoo and Ksyrie. Their POV is too extremist and biased. Much more so than Korea history. Cydevil 07:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Obviously, Assault11 was disruptive. You don't seem to realize, however, that your attitude and inflexible position can be just as disruptive. Wikipedia is a cooperative project. It's not a single person's, or a single group's, domain to be conquered. --Nlu (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And, if you have no plan to "compromise," I don't know why you agreed to mediation. Mediation is not necessarily "compromise," but often involves compromise, because, again, you don't own Wikipedia -- as it is even disputable whether Jimbo "owns" Wikipedia. Repeated declarations of unwillingness to compromise is not indicative of an attitude in the spirit of Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm clearly inflexible to disruptive, extremist edits. If mediation means that Assault11 et al's extremist claims can somehow "gain ground" then this mediation is meaningless. Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality Cydevil 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And I think I've already pointed out that "non-extremist" views do not necessarily see being Korean and being Chinese as exclusive. You don't seem to agree, but I don't think you've come up with any convincing reasons. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're still talking about this "secondary Chinese characteristic", I said that should be put under the context of "External cultural influence". Perhaps a new section can be created. Cydevil 07:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"External" is what I would consider POV. "Cultural influences" may be more appropriate; it can discuss Khitan, Mohe, and Japan as well. --Nlu (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we can just integrate all this into the "Culture" section. It's worth mentioning that Goguryeo was the first Korean state to adopt Buddhism, Confucianism and Chinese characters, which is very important to the context of Korean cultural continuity. Cydevil 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we can just have "Culture of East Asia" section. Guess what? China was the cultural heart of East Asia... ahh.... that really is Culture of China. Mix them up. Japanese, Korean, Chinese. East Asia = United States. Was it called the "Mixing Cauldron" or "Cultural Salad" or something like that? Problem with most English-speaking Wikipedians is that they think all cultures can mix -just like the United States. Since English-speaking countries dominated rest of the world & rest of the world came to the English speaking people, many cultures mix into English cultures --> it seems natural for English-speaking people that cultures should mix. (Wikimachine 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Idea of a Manchurian history template as compromise?

While I find Cydevil's uncompromising attitude distressing (as I find the attitude contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia), he did indicate that he might concede that Goguryeo was a part of Manchuria's history. That had me thinking about a potential {{History of Manchuria}} template... As I am thoroughly ungraphical and unartistic, I don't think I can design a good-looking one, but I'll throw together a thought of what I think it might/can include. I'll put what I think of as a template in my own userspace, in a few minutes (before I have to go to sleep). Thoughts would be appreciated -- but please be civil. Again, civility is a major pillar of Wikipedia, and it should be observed. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And here it is -- I don't know how to do overlapping periods, &c., like how it is done in {{History of China}}, but I'm sure if my idea is at all an acceptable one, someone will be able to do one. In any case, take a look at User:Nlu/History of Manchuria. Provide comments. --Nlu (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I may agree, but I think a good detailed article on History of Manchuria should precede the creation of this template. Cydevil 07:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a template should come first -- by the principle of WP:BEANS. Baby steps first. --Nlu (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, I can go with that. But have in mind that this is just me. Other people may very well disagree. Also, the template itself, I expect, will be controversial. Cydevil 09:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, make comments. There's a reason why I didn't put it in Template namespace; it's not ready for big time yet. --Nlu (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria may be a compromise template but its POV because "Manchuria" is a word often connected with China (ironically the PRC government wants to use "Northeast China" instead) so "History of Manchuria" template is something that will make readers think "these stuff are about China".

The Korean History template should remain there and the History of China template can be added as well once the block is taken off, however if Goguryeo was such an important thing to China I would have assumed that somebody would have added Goguryeo and Balhae to the China template.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Good friend100 (talk • contribs)

I would support Nlu's idea. A "History of Manchuria" template is a good compromise, intended for certain articles.

Regarding the PRC insisting on the name "Dongbei" (or Northeast China), that's only one aspect WITHIN the "History of Manchuria", already covered by the mentiion of the People's Republic of China on that template. It's referred to as "Manchuria" in English, more so than "Northeast China" or "Dongbei".--Endroit 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That you guys are trying to justify CPOV with a larger body of history is futile. Why, are you eventually going to say "History of Asia" after this? "Korean history is really a part of Chinese history"? Koreans are really Chinese? Eh? All of you guys are being very inconsiderate of the Korean view on this just because this isn't really your concern. This isn't your country & your people. So you don't care. (Wikimachine 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Also, I really wouldn't like anything other than Korean as the title of the article, nor any other language used to name people and things. Really, I'd hate for Gwanggeto the Great to be named something else or even given alternative Chinese pronunciation. That's just like "George Washington, or Joji Wosington in Korean pronunciation, was the first President of the United States, which also is pronounced 'Migook' in Korean" (in a theoretical scenario where Korean population becomes the majority). Or if Mexican population, which is growing exponentially in the US currently, got hold of 33% of the US population --> switch history now? What about some Indian names that were provided to several American historical figures? Since this land was originally controlled by the Native Americans, all events & names should now include alternatives in Native American (which by the way includes some 200+ languages). Or if scientific analysis of Chinese and Japanese genes found 99% correlation........ you know what that means! Rewrite of the history! Japanese people were really Chinese! It's already proven that 50% of the Japanese population has the exact same mitochondriatic DNA's as the Korean population. So, we better rewrite Japanese history under Korean interpretation. No. That's not what happened. Japanese history retains what it deems as Japanese, even at the cost of Korean interpretation on how Japan was profoundly influenced by Korea. The Japanese historians heavily emphasized their own independence & dependence on China in order to minimize importance of Korea in its development. None of that stuff is included in Japanese history. (Wikimachine 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

By the way this case becomes a typical deletionist vs inclusionist scenario. Of course, I'm a deletionist. Wikipedia's not a blob of random information. You already know that Korean ethnicity originates from Eastern Russia, right? Wow. Now, we're going to offer Russian alternatives to all Korean names in the entire 1,000 library of Wikipedia articles. NPOV please. NPOV says we need to include all view points or everybody gets dissatisfied.

I slam this discussion with WP:IAR. (Wikimachine 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

By the way, Manchuria is "Manju" in Korean. Just to let you know. (Wikimachine 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

An introduction of a "History of Manchuria" template would be considered a grave insult to us Northeast Chinese. Not only that, I can assure you that the vast majority of Northeast Chinese would vehemently oppose such a distinction. Historically, the term "Manchuria" did not exist up until the twentieth century. It also carries negative connotations since it can be viewed synonymously with the term "Man Zhou Guo." I sincerely hope that this proposal will NOT be seriously considered.Assault11 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with using "Manchuria" because its a term connected with China, like I mentioned before. Most people would think it would be about China (yes Goguryeo is part of Chinese history but its not a Chinese subkingdom or a tributary state.) and so it would be POV.Good friend100 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving this some serious thought and it's kinda hard not to say that Puyo, Koguryo and Balhae is not a part of Manchurian history. Puyo was entirely in Manchuria, most of Balhae was and a significant part of Koguryo was. What could be done is that in the Koguryo article, the tab for Korean history can be first, followed by the tab for Manchurian history. I for one don't see a problem with putting it in Manchurian history. Balhae influenced the Jurchens and the Khitan and Balhae in turn was heavily influenced by Koguryo. I'm not in any way advocating a PRC interpretation to all this, but the fact is that some of Koguryo did influence the future of Manchuria. My feelings of Manchurian history is this. First it was paleoasians, then it was Korean-like people. After Tang depopulated Manchuria of any Korean-like people, small Koguryo population and majority Mohe filled the vacuum. Although you have to say that Balhae's population was rather small, around 500k to 700k people. Koguryo's population was 3.5 to 4 million. Anyways, Khitan, a Mongol like people, destroy's Balhae and cause a ton of problems for the Chinese and Koreans. However, the Mohe become Jurchens who reestablish their power in Manchuria. The Jurchens become Manchu and the Manchu become Chinese. Very very very simple history of Manchuria so my apologies. My point is that Manchuria most certainly has it own history and it was ruled and occupied by lots of different types of people. However, the Chinese control it now and has since the fall of the Ming in the 17th century through the Manchu diffusion into the Chinese population.

So the opening paragraph of the Koguryo article can go like:

Goguryeo (traditional founding date 37 BCE – 668 CE) was an ancient Northeast Asian Kingdom that was one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea (along with Baekje and Silla) as well as an important regional power in Manchurian History. It was located in the northern Korean Peninsula and southern Manchuria. WangKon936 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree only if "Northeast Asian" is changed to "Korean". Its geographical location is provided afterwards. Cydevil 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you're being overly sensitive. Identifying it as one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea already identified it as Korean. However, I do think that "Northeast Asian" doesn't add much (and has the problem is that there is a huge chunk of territory, in modern Siberia, that's to its northeast). "... was an ancient kingdom" may be sufficient. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am. Three Kingdoms of Korea is a historical period. I'm suggesting using the "Korean" descriptive in terms of defining Goguryeo as an essential part of the Korean cultural continuity. Cydevil 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One comment: Manchuria cannot really be considered a "pro-Chinese" term, given that it was coined by Hung Taiji, whose people were not (then) Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And Wikimachine, you obviously don't know much about the history of the region known as Manchuria if you insist that it was Korean and not Chinese throughout its history. The Khitan and the Xianbei, in particular, would have been very offended. --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nlu. Manchuria is what it is, where its democrgaphics were in constant flux even to this day. Unless you adopt the PRC historical distortion, that it has been "always Chinese", the term Manchuria itself has no CPOV bias. Cydevil 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A response to Assault11; the proposal is not {{History of Manchukuo}}, which I agree would be offensive. "Manchuria" was coined by Hung Taiji, and while it was Qing-centric at the time, remember that today, "Man" remains one of the main ethnic groups of China. I hope you are not going to force them to change their ethnic identities. --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify something here. Manchuria is tranliterated as "Man Zhou" in Chinese, however keep in mind that during the transition from Late Jin Dynasty (Hou Jin) to the Qing Dynasty, "Man Zhou" did NOT refer to the region of Northeast China, the term - coined by Huang Taiji - instead, originally referred to the ethnicity of the Nu Zhen tribes. This means that "Manchuria" as a geographic term never existed in Chinese historiography (excluding the puppet regime of Man Zhou Guo), therefore would be an inappropriate term to refer to Northeast China. As well, I am fully aware that your proposal did not imply the creation of a "History of Manchukuo" template, however the use of the term "Man Zhou" as a geographic label is generally frowned upon by Northeast Chinese and many do consider it an insult.Assault11 05:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Assault11, I think that's not quite correct. The Draft History of Qing, for example, used the term quite a bit. (See [7] for an example.) Those were written by ethnic Hans in the early Republic of China, but referred to much earlier times -- the volume that I linked to, for example, was referring to offices during the times of Kangxi Emperor, and I think it would be a stretch to argue that there, the term "Manzhou" was referring to the ethnicity and not the region. --Nlu (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea of name compromise

Again, I am absolutely bewildered by the attitude that inclusion of Chinese names somehow imply Chinese ownership -- but I have an idea; since Goguryeo's territory also includes part of what is now the Russian Federation, include Russian in a trilingual template, perhaps? --Nlu (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, be it Japanese, Chinese or Russian, I think they should be included as the case in Ghenghis Khan, along with many other name variations. A section dedicated to variant names of Goguryeo will be useful. Cydevil 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against putting the Chinese name template. Its not up there because of the block. Good friend100 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not against this idea, depending on the different approaches this template could take. (Wikimachine 00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

I'm still against this. Usage of "Gaogouli" in English sources is negligeable, like the Korean rominzation of Liao Dynasty(Yonara). Even the Japanese romanization, Kokuri, is more common than Gaogouli in English secondary sources. While it's better to just leave out negligeable romanizations that can only confuse the readers, if it must be included on an "informative" basis, I think it should included in the manner it has been in Ghenghis Khan. A section dedicated to various names of Goguryeo(e.g. Goryeo), including different romanizations, can be very informative to readers. Cydevil 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The box would not suggest that "Gaogouli" is actually used in English sources -- no more than the Russian equivalent would be. Rather, it's to "assist the reading" of the Chinese. In any case, I'll have a box up in my name space in a few minutes. People are welcome to comment. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And -- dare I say this -- is "Riben Hai" used in English sources? Or, for that matter, "Nihonkai"? Or "Donghae"? Or "Yaponskoje more?" (See the consensus solution on Sea of Japan. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is for English readers, not Chinese readers. I just don't get it. Isn't putting different romanizations like in Ghenghis Khan good enough? Cydevil 05:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, I don't know what else to say -- again, no one, individually or as a national group, owns a Wikipedia article. A delicate consensus was reached on Sea of Japan. I am hopeful that one can be reached here as well. This attitude is not productive.

In any case, see User:Nlu/Goguryeoname. Please comment. --Nlu (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on going like this, I doubt a consensus can be reached on this article, and I doubt this can prevent any further edit warring even if I don't engage in it. At least Sea of Japan(East Sea) has common usage. On the other hand, usage of Koguryo(Gaogouli) or Goguryeo(Gaogouli) is negligeable. Treat it as in Ghenghis Khan. Ghenghis Khan article faces similar CPOV bias, and I think it has found a good solution to it. Cydevil 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't "insist" it; I don't own the article. Neither do you or any of the other edit warriors there are on this article. As an administrator, I do have an interest in seeing this edit war end. Wikipedia is not where wars, even ones not involving bullets or airplanes, should be fought. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever the case, I doubt your solution can work. Cydevil 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)