Talk:Military history of Goguryeo

Lack of communication

Theres no communication between everybody. It is obvious that Jiejunkong does not understand english, seeing how he responds to people.

And, consensus doesn't mean everything, as you showed at Liancourt Rocks before.

The sad thing is that you scream for this title but when you get what you want, I see absolutely no improvement over the article and absolutely nothing about Goguryeo vs Baekje, etc in the article itself.

Isn't that what you want? To improve the article? Certainly not that but only the wishes of CPOV editors.

I snorted at least 5 times reading the discussion so far, quite ridiculous, all of you. Good friend100 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that the administrators cannot see the dumb logic Jiejunkong is screaming about. For example, I don't get how Jiejunkong can justify that Manchuria is a "bad word" because the "chinese people don't like it". Even as I'm typing this, I'm expecting another one of those lame comments with quotes from the rules. Good friend100 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He comments that "Silla and Goguryeo were the protagonist/antagonist pair" in the Goguryeo-Tang War? Who says that they were the final pair in the war? Him? Does he think he can make anything up?

Even if he and the other CPOV editors have been editing here for a while, you can't call their votes valid because their reasons are so immature ("oh the Chinese people are sad, we can't do this," cries Jiejunkong).

At te template of Manchuria, Lactose and Komdori hardly help out their own side (including Assault, Jiejunkong, naus, etc) because they know that the CPOV editors have a crappy reason to try to make everything their way.

So lame.

And if you think I'm harsh, Lactose (oh man, here comes the reports), or Komdori (whoever, which one of you, I don't care), listen to the CPOV editors, who call us "ultranationalists" and "gooks".

Again, the sad thing is that you don't make any attempt to improve the article and edit it according to the new title you like. Its obvious that the only thing you and the CPOV editors wanted was a name change because your guts hurt to see the word "Goguryeo" and "China" stuck together. Good friend100 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I really really agree with you,communication is essentially important.Your accusation I found at least resonble as the renaming request.The things is that though I thought Goguryeo is as chinese as korean,but in fact Goguryeo is not deemed as important by chinese as by korean.Considering there are huge number of ethics (it means they are partial or entire sinicized) in chinese history,(I cann't count,Xiongnu,Xianbei,Qidan,more recently Manchu etc)I mean Goguryeo is among these ethics though some special(there's no other nation than China to claim the inheritage of Xianbei Qidan etc),so we cann't take too much attention as Korea do in article of Goguryeo do,because there are too many ethics comparing too little english-speaking chinese(3M chinese-american to 1M korean-american,and the 3M chinese-american is not all favoring the concept of China,an important of part coming from Taiwan).I will contribute to this article as many as I can.In fact,there are really a huge number of Gao (surname) in China,while I thought some of them are from the Goguryeo heritage,what a pity most of them don't speak english and cann't access to wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, what's the point of putting up a good face now? (Wikimachine 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Tried a bit of good faith,even the most bad enemy sometimes will become your friend.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Americans, British & basically most other people with English as their first language don't use proverbs and adages - just keep that in mind. Also, good faith is pre-action only (before I know you, I must assume that you have good intentions). What I did is post-action (through my observations of your actions, I now determine whether you have good or bad intentions). (Wikimachine 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Dead wrong Wikimachine, you should really keep trying to assume good faith barring some evidence of true malice (not just having a different point of view than yours). Your personal points of view are quite painfully clear, but I am not going to stop trying to assume you are trying to improve the articles. Really, you've been around awhile; please spend some time reading up on some of the most basic wikipedia ideas. In the span of a few days you've, among others, illustrated gross misunderstandings of WP:AGF, WP:COI, and WP:CONSENSUS. --Cheers, Komdori 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Actually, Lactose said 60% to 80% is sufficient for consensus, but that's not what WP:CON says. And, according to AGF, This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I already admitted that I was wrong on COI. So, if you've been reading the discussion all this time, why didn't you answer any of the claims brought against your opinion? And why play these trump cards? (~ Lactose) I have moments of self-doubt, but I just read the guidelines, and I reaffirm that I'm right. (Wikimachine 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

You need to keep reading past the first sentence. Evidence to the contrary was clearly defined as malicious intent. Read the article on supermajority to see what consensus is talking about. --Cheers, Komdori 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 articles on supermajority. Plain supermajority is irrelevant b/c it's not WP rule. WP supermajority is rejected by the community. (Wikimachine 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

And its a fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that A consensus of idiots don't mean something is right, as Jimbo Wales said before. A majority is not enough for a change of title. The move was simply a wish that CPOV editors had to erase the word "China" cuase they just can't stand it. Look at the article for Goguryeo. Did anything change besides the section title for "Goguryeo-China Wars"? Nothing, absolutely nothing about this "Goguryeo-Korea Wars" that Jiejunkong keeps talking about. Its obvious that these editors have no wish to improve Wikipedia but simply make changes to it so they are happy. Good friend100 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down; the move was supported by a wide range of editors, some with overall Korean viewpoints, some with Chinese, some with neither. You seem to fail to see your argument can be turned round quite easily--that you wanted the name China to stay because you "can't stand" an insinuation that Goguryeo was anything but Korean. Try to be objective; the article is clearly more accurate now, avoids some issues that some editors had problems with, and leaves openings for additional content that otherwise might not have a good place. As for consensus--you're right, a supermajority is often too strict, we often can get away with less and still have a consensus, but since we had well beyond a supermajority of diverse editors with reasons per policy, the situation was clear. --Cheers, Komdori 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Good friend was always "calm". What angers me is your arrogant bullshit. Read some philosophy. "Construction of the other." You make Good friend look as if he is impatient or irritable, violent, etc. If you're going to talk here again, fix your attitude. Now. (Wikimachine 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC))CHeers

Thats the only thing I hear from you when you have nothing to say. "Calm down". At least half of the voters had an interest for China alone, and its shameful to see that you can't tell they are obviously biased. Ridiculous. Do you think those same editors are here improving the article? Nope, now they are at Template:History of Manchuria, trying to change the title since they got what they wanted here.

Stop telling me to calm down and other bullcrap. Your problem is that you are biased too. Tell me then, why aren't you supporting "Manchuria" if you are the great NPOV editor who reports wrongdoers and trys to make everything look NPOV with colorful words? "Oh, I don't have interest in the subject" you say.

The Chinese editors' interests are clear and I'm wondering why you always see the "Korean interests" but ignore the Chinese. So stop making lame comments like "supermajority" "diverse editors" (which it was not, unless you consider Jiejukong a legible editor), or "situation was clear". Good friend100 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

These editors are just plain POV. They ignore (in other words, pure hubris) whatever legitimate things you've got to say & slam the desk whenever they see a bullseye. It's quite ridiculous that 1 claimed to be a professor & another a Korean...... Oh yeah, defending the policy, but they didn't defend it in Liancourt Rocks - I made the same moves & same justification on Sea of Japan to test that they were POVs. All they're good for is causing trouble. Again, how in the world does an article about a series of wars that a country took against another country (except over different dynasties, regimes, etc.) suddenly evolve into a military history? Wow. So sinocentric. China determines what a country's military history's going to be about. These are very simple & plain concepts that these anti-x, x-haters, etc. can't accept. (Wikimachine 01:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

To User:Good friend100: From my understanding of the term "communication", both parties need to be on the same page or the communication will fail miserably. In order to communicate, you'd better get rid of those ultranationalistic readings teemed with modern political POVs, and read some basic history records. Don't use TV series, amateurish magazines, casual emails as reliable sources. If you are a college student or even younger, wait until you have gathered enough proofs to impress the world.--Jiejunkong 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I can add contents about Goguryeo vs Baekje wars, but one trouble is that, either I add the content or I don't, your bad faith assumption offers me a Sophie's choice.--Jiejunkong 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New section

Uh huh, Komdori, assume good faith to somebody who thinks censorship of free speech is good. Maybe you should hit up on Talk:Korean War and read what kind of claims Ksyrie makes. Your personal points of view are quite painfully clear and its disappointing that you support Ksyrie and his buddies here. Wow. Good friend100 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Endroit 11:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any support of anyone here, don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that we really should be assuming good faith unless it's clear that the other user is malicious, rather than holding a view that is different than our own. --Cheers, Komdori 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Then that's an act of defending, thus translating into supporting. You already voted. (Wikimachine 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Defending wikipedia policies, not specific editors. --Cheers, Komdori 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe not for you this time, but other CPOV editors have defended advantageous parts of the WP policies while excluding the rest to defend their positions. So have you, on Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

And I don't need to put words in your mouth in order to see that what you are supporting and such. And Ksyrie's intentions are obvious. He thinks that the article Korean War is biased because it has an "exxagerated number of Chinese deaths during the war". I mean come on, why do you care how many Chinese people died in a war 50 years ago? Its another case of CPOV editors trying to make everything so they like it just as they did to this article with sheer weight of numbers. "Human wave attacks" as we were discussing at Korean War. Hahaha, I can't believe I'm building a relationship between this article and Korean War. Good friend100 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it, either, many people here may have no interest in what is happening in unrelated articles. I wish I had time to read through that article, too. --Cheers, Komdori 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the talk page for Korean War. Good friend100 23:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to make clear one thing,I do say Thanks to GFW,there's many articles in chinese wikipediam hardly to be found in China,but it's not my standing to support the censorship,it is a humourous way,trying to deliberately say in the way of heavy irony,and someone cannt understand it,so I added the black humour statement to make me clear.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont you find my upcoming word?It's called black humor,if you understand--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove China-related category

Why does it remove ONLY the China-related category "Category:Military history of China" and see also "List of China-related topics & History of China" although does not remove the Korea related? I consider that is a partial POV. Let us know a reason If you want to continue deletion. --Watermint 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuebie and User:Guidales, please explain a legitimate reason before carrying out revert forcibly. Why is there only relation with Korea? Remember, Goguryeo is being controversy topic between China and Korea. --Watermint 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (addition) --Watermint 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Watermint, please have the courtesy of at least skimming through the relative information before you engage in a discussion on a particular topic. China's controversial claims on Goguryeo is largely restricted to Chinese scholars, and isn't accepted by majority of non-Chinese scholars and sources.

That being said, I believe this is a China-related category as this article relates to wars that China was involved in. However, by the same token, Japan should also be included because it was involved in wars with Goguryeo as well. I'll make the appropriate changes. Cydevil38 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Korea doesn't consider it as a dispute, merely a one-sided claim by China. Simply because China claims Goguryeo doesn't mean that its part of its history. Do we put History of Korea at Tang Dynasty simply because Goguryeo fought the Tang? Does the History of China template even include Goguryeo? Good friend100 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As we've discussed on the main article, a great portion of the land in Goguryeo is in modern day China, and Goguryeo is considered an important part of both Chinese and Korean history. World heritage sites, etc. are in both nations. It would certainly make things simpler if borders never changed, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Please don't "copy/paste" arguments from other pages--countries don't "decide" historical events, there are no "one-sided claims." —LactoseTI^T 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LactoseTI, please refer to reliable sources and refrain from making personal claims. Cydevil38 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

According to pretty much every NPOV book, paper, and article, Goguryeo is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, and Encyclopedia Britannica and others call it a Korean kingdom. China may claim and consider whatever, but their POV is not NPOV. So as Goodfriend said, adding China categories would be like putting "Military History of U.S." to Iraq and Mexico categories. Guidales 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If this article was about ancient Iraq, and ancient Iraq had territory that used to be where the modern day U.S. is now, then yes, the category should be included. --Cheers, Komdori 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're talking like the Chinese. Using weak arguments like "great portion of the land in Goguryeo is in modern day China" doesn't justify that Goguryeo's part of China as a whole

There are several reasons. Goguryeo does not take any significant place in its chart of historical dynasties, its not included in the HoC, its not significant in any China-related article. And please don't say that "per discussion" in your fun little edit wars. Discussing doesn't justify anything until we come to a consensus. Furthermore, don't say that its cited that Goguryeo is Chinese. I don't see one neutral source that boldly says that Goguryeo is Chinese. Adding the link to the History of China article implies that its a Chinese kingdom and thats obvious bias. Nobody but the Chinese and you think that. I've already listed the reasons why it shouldnt be included.

Simply because Goguryeo fought the Tang doesn't mean that its part of integral Chinese history. Do we include History of Korea in Tang Dynasty simple because Goguryeo fought the Tang? The parellelism between the two articles must be consistent, and your bias is breaking that consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good friend100 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

• Move. The word history in the title should be lowercased. It should be renamed as Military history of Goguryeo.--Neo-Jay (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lower case history is in keeping with Wikipedia naming guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Simple housekeeping really. Andrewa (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

This is just a layman's opinion, but this article seems to smack of Korean nationalism. "Finally, only Goguryeo was left to be brought to its knees, but Goguryeo did not give into demands for tributes and the following threats"? And the noble Korean people heroically defied the despotic Chinese oppressors?

Reading the Goguryeo-Wei Wars article, the conflict seems pretty important and particularly catastrophic for the Korean state. "In 244, Guanqiu Jian, a general of Han's successor state Cao Wei, defeated King Dongcheon and briefly occupied Goguryeo's capital, but did not hold the territory permanently." Oh, no big deal then. He didn't even "hold the territory permanently" whatever that means.

"In the end, the Tang army retreated with heavy losses. Taizong was defeated by not being able to take Ansi." So the Tang 'lost' the war... because they failed to take one fortress? Wasn't this the war that directly paved the way for Goguryeo's downfall? Both the linked articles seem to say so. The "First Goguryeo-Tang War" article also implies that the siege of Ansi failed because of the incompetence of 傅伏愛 (Fu Fu'ai), not because "commander Yang Manchun mobilized the remaining Goguryeo troops to defeat the Tang army."

From the "Fall of Goguryeo" section: "served as the primary key to the downfall of Gogureyo, as only when he came did the Tang's emperor was willing to send troops to Goguryeo, since the defector knew the most of the weaknesses and shortcuts that Tang forces did not know of, into Goguryeo's fortified territory." Because the Tang Emperor was so terrified of the fearsome, heroic Koreans, that he feared to enter their territory without... really?

"The Balhae would become a buffer in trade and was a powerful empire that Tang could not bother." Ok.

Now granted, I'm not an expert on Korean history. But none of this colorful language is cited, only one of the sources is from a Chinese perspective and none of the Korean sources are remotely contemporary. And really, if you're going to glorify one side of a conflict, why pick the side that ultimately lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.108.118.201 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a better point for discussion than trying to deny that Goguryeo was fighting Chinese dynasties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.168.185 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716080932/http://preview.britannica.co.kr/bol/topic.asp?article_id=b11s1728a to http://preview.britannica.co.kr/bol/topic.asp?article_id=b11s1728a

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)